The video is mostly a straw man. Because he doesn't address the main reason why it's okay to kill animals for food. In all of his searching for differences he fails. to understand the basic fundamental difference between humans and other animals. To find out what that difference is we have to ask ourselves ,"What is it about humans that makes it immoral to kill us?" Because in the video his argument boils down to the illogical conclusion that "it seems wrong" therefore we shouldn't do it. Well why does it seem wrong? Because most westernized humans believe in the concept of human rights. The problem is that in much of philosophy there is no reasoning given for human rights. Even John Locke describes it as a God given right. But to truly understand the differenc between humans and animals we have to ask why we have decided that humans should have rights. And when it comes down to it, it isn't intelligence necessarily, although this plays a necessary part, it is the ability to experience suffering. In other words a sort of emotional intelligence. An awareness of your existence, a valuing of your existence and the capability to experience loss if your existence is taken away.

And quite simply put this has not been proven to exist in animals. We have verified that animals experience pain, and some take this to mean that they must then be experience suffering. But the neurological pain response and the ability to emotionally process this are two very different things.

To illustrate this point take the film Little Shop of Horrors. Where Bill Murray plays a masochistic dental patient who experiences extreme pleasure from the neurlogical response of pain. Or people who enjoy the pain of tattoos. These are examples demonstrate that the emotional response to pain can be extremly varied. And that just because an animal demontrates an physical pain response stimulus does not mean that it is "suffering" by any sense of the word.

By assuming that the animals is suffering because it experiences pain is as anthropomorphical as assuming that because a cow has vocal chords it has the capability of learning language.

I'd also like to address his intelectually disable comment. Because quite frankly if a human being is incapable of experiencing suffering there is no moral wrong in killing the person. It's simply our cultural and perhaps biological assumption to assume that killing someone or harming them will experience suffering that causes it to seem wrong.

This doesn't mean however that we should kill intelectually disabled people. Because the attachment that family members have to these people is real even if they do not experience suffering. Therefore it would cause emotional suffering to a person who is capable of experiences emotional suffering to do that.

I hope that addresses some of the more glaring errors in this argument. Even though it wasn't even necessary because he basis the entire premise of his argument on something seeming to be wrong.