You're suddenly changing the question.

I don't think I am. We summarily execute beloved pets all the time, simply as a matter of convenience for their owners. In my mind, a person can in fact take actions that make their lives worth less than the lives of these animals, therefore they are dehumanized.

You're absolutely changing the question. The original post was about not listening to anything someone has to say because they're a "monster."

Worth of life is an arbitrary discriminator, but even if we use it your example doesn't really carry much weight.

Let me make it as simple as possible: even the worst criminals are human. The best dogs are not.

I also think the concept of putting down animals merely out of convenience is a broad, largely inaccurate brush. It's usually done in an attempt to reduce suffering. In some places we do this with humans well - not out of malice, but out of empathy.

Animals can be and are routinely put down just because their owners happen to feel like it. They have no legal protection from the whims of their owners, as long as their lives and deaths are not considered unusually cruel. The worst criminals are human in the biological sense, undeniably. Is that all it takes for them to deserving of irrevocable human moral and legal status?

If it's true that you'd feel worse about the arbitrary execution of a beloved pet than that of a criminal, doesn't that contradict any intrinsic value the criminal has?

> Animals can be and are routinely put down just because their owners happen to feel like it.

I really have no idea why you're leaning into this non sequitur so hard. Yes. Many cruel things happen to humans and non humans. What that has to do with treating criminals as inherently sub-human I cannot surmise.

> If it's true that you'd feel worse about the arbitrary execution of a beloved pet than that of a criminal,

I don't understand the straw man argument here. If you're going to put words in my mouth at least make them close to what I'm saying.