1. They're related in this issue.

2. Hollywood and pop culture are actually a perfect reflection of dominant social mores (not, culture has no connection to reality).

3. It's a universal human tendency. There are always exceptions, but these exceptions don't infirm the rule.

Pretty much... that and just how many uses and differences it causes.

You very much could consider it the making of a thing worthy of new classification since the great differences between us and mamals is far greater when it comes to just the level we use technology and effect the external envirment and  the way we think about things.

It's as significant a difference as just about anything, the only difference is it's external based.

The level of intellegence we have is a COMPLETE gamechanger more so then any other evolutionary difference, and there aren't really many other unique evolutionary differences as it is due to convergent evolution.

WRONG!  It's like you don't even understand your own point!  You are claiming that no one can judge the value because our judgment is impaired by the fact that we are human ourselves and biased; therefore if there are exceptions to this rule, there are humans, potentially including Kasz and myself and even yourself, that CAN fairly judge, it destroys your claim. 

If you'd read that section, you'd see the objection is that it's "clearly not animal intelligence".  That in no way contradicts the idea that it is a lower form of intelligence, perhaps as low as "bacterial intelligence" or perhaps in between.  Some people don't like using the word "intelligence" to refer to such low levels of intelligence, but that's a matter of semantics. 

"Also, it's a fact that animals located on the same level are of the same importance (that's why they're on the same level after all), and since plants are all located on the same level (the foundation), then you can easily compare all plants with humans."

This ... I don't even have the words to describe the magnitude of that fallacy.  Why do you think having equal importance lets all of them gang up? 

Another thing:  since your "all plants vs. human species" depends on putting humans on a level all by themselves, does that not in itself prove Kasz's point about how special they are? 

Look, my bringing in domesticated plants/animals/etc. was purely to disprove your claim that no species depend on us, which is clearly false.  You are now claiming that because corn is not a predator of humans it does not depend on us for its current "market penetration" of the world's biosphere, which is frankly silly.  Retreating to a pure analysis of the hierarchical food chain ignores the fact that our intelligence has changed the game of by what means a species may depend on another.  In that way you are actually supporting the idea that humans are uniquely special.  (I should point out that symbiotic relationships between species aren't new, which your claim also ignores.  That is another way a species can depend on another without being its predator, and in fact can be lower on the food chain.) 

"humans really are quite unecessary to Earth's ecosyste"  How does "more necessary to the ecosystem" equate to "more special"? 

You seem to be the one that's not understanding anything. The fact that are exceptions does not change the fact that the majority of humans think like that. Actually, only through education can you usually be able to acknowledge cultural relativism, and in the past not even the most intelligent of people would acknowledge it (it's a much more recent pehnomon).

1. If you would've read your own article, you would've known that it's debatable whetherplants have actual "intelligence", or whether it is simply adaptation.

2. You can compare different levels of the food chain with eachother.

3. In a sense it might (at some point there has always been 1 species at the top of the food chain, so humans are just 1 in a long line), but my main objection was regarding his claims that humans are more "valuable" than other lifeforms.

4. Animals of different species cooperating with eachother is something quite common. It has nothing to do with the food chain however, as in the food chain when I say "depends on eachother" it means "one eats the other in order to survive" - that's what the food chain is about. Corn is a plant, it does not eat humans. Plants don'tusualyl depend on other lifeforms to survive, because they don't need organic material to survive (that's why they're considered strictly producers). Plus, humans and corn do not cooperate, because humans grow corn to eat it, and I'm sure corn (if it had intelligence) would dislike this fact (same for other products of human agriculture and animal raising). Cooperation is like that bird who cleans crocodiles mouths, and the crocodiles don't eat them.

5. It eauqals to more "valuable".

Look, it's very simple:  either there are people that can get past the assumption of superiority, or there aren't.  WHICH IS YOUR CLAIM?  Do they exist or don't they?  I know you've implied an answer, but I want you to pin it down and accept the ramifications to your other claim so please answer explicitly.

[edit:  I had had the idea that you'd claimed that no one could evaluate and judge cultures objectively, without automatically considering their own culture superior.  But upon review you may have only said that cultures have always viewed themselves (here you would be anthropomorphizing the dominant viewpoint of people in the culture) as superior.  So, instead of the above question, first please indicate if you had claimed the latter or the former; and, if the former, then please answer the preceding question; but, if only the latter, then please disregard the question because it is irrelevant.  Thank you.] 

1.  It depends on how you define intelligence. 

2.  Not all plants are at the same part of the food chain. 

3.  No, no other apex predator is comparable to humans because of our intelligence.  We are the most valuable species because of that special trait, which only we have.  You have admitted how special we are by entertaining the idea that humanity is so special it should be counted as a kingdom separate from other animals. 

4.  You are artificially restricting the discussion.  The whole point of your bringing up the food chain was AFAIK to say that we would die without plants because we feed on them (or on animals that do), but plants do not feed on us and therefore they would live.  That is arguable in itself, but where you really fail is to claim that I can't use corn as an example of plants that would die out or be devastated if we were gone as a counterpoint to what you said.  Unless I completely missed something, you are really being ridiculous to deny that my point is relevant to your point. 

1.If the very definition is a stumbling block, it's pretty hard to argue that plant "intelligence" is a fact.

2. The overwhelming majority are. The one's that aren't (like carnivorous plants) are a negligible number, that don't really change anything.

3. Kasz is the one who entertains that ideea (he even admitted it), not myself. What I was saying was that throughout history there have  been several single species located at the top of the food chain (so in that regard humans aren't special). Even if humans are "special" (with all the connotations this word has), it doesn't make them more valuable in the echosystem than other lifeforms.

4. You are extending the field with irrelevancies. The food chain reffers strictly to animals and their sources of food. Domesticated animals did not come to be by natural means. They are not adapted to live in nature, but left uncared they'd either adapt, or they'd die (that's the way nature works). Not to mention that the relationship between man and domesticated plants/animals is not one of interdependence and the number of domesticated creatures is just a small portion of Earth's ecosystem, while the entire ecosystem depends on plants to survive.

Oh boy, look at what I've done. :)

I had written a big ass reply but the pc froze and it got lost. Yay.

Anyway, my point of humans being like other animals was in reference to the argument about the "goodness" of our nature (are we born good and get corrupted, evil and get saved, etc) and what are "us", as in our beings and what determines that.

Yeah, we're comparatively very intelligent and have a huge impact in the world. Yeah, we're special in that sense (I think if you use special too generally then you have to remember not a single entity, but many, can be "special", whatever that means), even if it's a known fact dolphins and mice are the most intelligent lifeforms on Earth.

And of course we're not just like every other animals, no animal is. But we're all shaped from the same logic, in the same framework, and thus we're not fundamentally different in general terms. When you get more specific though, when you start talking about mammals for example, the specialness of our intelligence too becomes debatable since, for all we know, it's just basically the same thing knocked up a few notches, specially when you look at what makes, biologically, that intelligence, instead of it's manifestation (not that we fully understand it anyway). It's just a "linear" improvement. Maybe impressive, but not necessarily special.

Related to that, we have to realize that even if our technology is,  say, a billion times "bigger" than that of chimps, that (obviously) doesn't mean we're that much more intelligent than they are. There are some abilities to which the concept of a critical level is important, and thus arguing our specialness as individuals, as lifeforms, trough the power of our technology is not that good of an idea. For one, that has a lot to do with communication. Keep all our intelligence otherwise and tell me how advanced our technology would be.

Back to my original point, I was trying to argue that much of our needs and wills have motivations that are either similar to that of other animals or can be traced back to similar things, and our decision making, while more elaborate and maybe less direct, is still essentially comparable in what it ultimately seeks, consciously or otherwise.

Kaz argued about the necessity of the psycho-social sciences (in contrast to the supposed lack of such a necessity for other animals). I hope I'm not misunderstood here, but to which extent are they really needed?

You have to remember we were talking about our "natures". One could argue lots, maybe most, of our psychological problems stem from the fact we're so far removed from the environment and way of life that shaped us and in many cases bombarded by impositions and values (say, abstinence) which are completely alien to our physiologies (for lack of a better word). Just as we're not, essentially, the only animals on earth to need nail clippers, it's likely most of these problems we have don't really come from our "selves", but from our current way of life, our current environment. And, guess what. Lots of other animals would have similar problems similar conditions be applied.

So, in that sense, our need for this kind of help argues for a uniformity with many other animals rather than a specialness.

In closing, when it comes to value, we have to keep in mind value is never absolute. If I say that gold is more valuable than a piece of meat (similar masses), people wouldn't argue. And they shouldn't, it's obvious I'm comparing their monetary value on our current market. But if I'm starving in a deserted place, that judgment of values is inverted, and is no less right. 

Now, I understand the urge to classify the value of living beings according to their (apparent) "consciousness" (not as much their intelligence), and I'd not think twice between the lives of an apple tree and a man. But it is partial to judge that characteristic, or the dubious honor of being able to wreck Earth like no other species, as the right one to decide value.

In fact, for example, if you take our entire species  (and I know I was talking mostly about individuals before, but that was in relation to my original post, and this is another discussion), and judge value from the point of view of the entire biosphere, then it's not hard to see we could even have a negative value, being between, if not the less valuable species in the world.

But I'd still chop that tree down.