Re: disagree too.

No, they're not, but we have an overriding vested interest in extending the Social Contract to them. I would also argue that we have an overriding vested interest in not extending it to all animals.

As long as it is an interest, it is contingent (and often whimsical). It can easily be overridden. So easily as to question why it would be a contract at all. Normally, contracts have clear entry and exit clauses that prevent a side from unilaterally imposing either. If it is only an interest that can be overridden, you're defrauding. You are asking for obligations while fulfilling yours only when you feel like it.

The principle is the same though. You took my point way to literally.

No, it's not the same. You're invoking a self-defense argument, and applying it to species against which there is no reasonable self-defense argument. If you don't mean it, don't say it.

Antis can change and become moral. Pigs cannot, at least not at the individual level.

Why are you contradicting yourself?

Exactly what a moral absolutist (albeit a hypocritical one) would say.

Well it is. It's "I have rights, but my inferiors don't".

And ultimately it's even proud of it: "We old boys decided to give each other rights, rest of you kiss our asses for our mercy"