system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that human needs are always more important than animal rights. CMV

Note that I used the word "needs" very broadly in this context. When I say needs. I meant anything that would give a human or humanity even the slightest amount of benefit or comfort. 

Now I hold mostly libertarian values, which means that I support the notion that anyone should do anything they want when it does not hurt or disturb another person. This, again can be interpreted in a manner of ways, but in the context of animal rights, it is pretty straight forward. Because no human being is being harmed, then the action although appalling, should not be illegal. Many of you may argue the "animal abuse leads to human abuse" argument, but its really a slippery slope fallacy, and even you were right most of the time, its still irrelevant because we have laws against harming another human being. We should arrest people who harm humans, not individual animals. Just because some action may lead to a crime, doesn't mean it warrants an arrest due to an generalized assumption. 

I do not however support killing animals to the point of extinction. I care about the collective existence of animals as a whole as it pertains to ecological stability and public ownership. I do not support the hunting of endangered species because I value their continued existence as a whole, not because I care about their rights. I believe that humans who kill endangered species are destroying public property and disrupting the ecological balance in some cases, and thus their actions are harming other people. This is why I believe that factory farming and sustainable whaling are perfectly fine, while poaching engendered animals is not. 

I mentioned factory farming in the last paragraph. Factory farming has, without a doubt, made meat a cheaper to the average consumer. I acknowledge that livestock is being tortured for meat, but because it benefits, or at least does not harm humanity, I still believe the practice is perfectly legitimate. Some of you may argue that factory farm meat may have certain health problems, and that is a reasonable argument, but it doesn't really address my main point. If you think factory farming shouldn't continue because it produces poisonous meat, then you may have a point, but if you oppose factory farming for the treatment of animals, then I would not consider your argument with any seriousness.  

Some of you may argue that treating animals with respect is a part of human empathy, and I agree with you. I would never torture an animal, and I find the act rather appalling, but I believe the state should not intervene and arrest a person which has done no harm to another person. If someone enjoys harming animals, then all we should do its criticize, but in the end, human needs should always trump animal rights.
gpt
Why? 

You wrote that entire explanation and never stated why you actually think this difference should exist. All you did was describe the difference. You started off saying that human needs should trump animal needs. Then you listed a few areas where you think that should happen, but nowhere did you explain *why* you think human suffering counts more than animal suffering. Nowhere did you give an actual argument. You just told us what you believe as if believing it and stating it was justification enough.