UPDATE 11/7/2015
Some people take offense that I shouldn't compare people with disabilities to animals.
The time I used them was to compare them (And now I will just consider the type of people who lacks certain abilities) only for the sake of the argument that it depends on 'how much we can do', and I thought it would be fair to compare a person who lacks an arm (for example) to someone who has that and can do more.. Only for the sake of that kind of argument of 'more'. So I thought it was fair. I did NOT intend to harm. I just thought one thing connected to an argument type, I am not saying some humans are like non-human animals (Or that depends, and yet, all humans are similar anyway).
Also, I may have lack of stuff that I can't control too. But I'm still standing up, and so can anyone else.
Also, all animals are equal to living anyway. Soooo.
UPDATE DONE

NOTE: It's completely fine to personally prefer humans over other animals, just like how it's fine to personally prefer other animals over humans.

But it pisses me off how humanaboos go act like humans are "more important", "special", and so forth.
It's just as bad as when a wolfaboo morally treats wolves as "superior".
After all, IF people are allowed to give the opinion that human animals are superior, then people are ALSO allowed to do the same with other animals then.
Or if it's considered "animalaboo, or whatever" to argue that a non-human animal is "superior", then the same concern (the term humanaboo) should be about treating humans as superior to other animals.

Anyway, treating humans as "superior" in terms of morality, and rights is one of the 3 main reasons why I have a general dislike on our own race. It disgusts me.

blog.burningman.com/wp-content—

Now I like to show some stupid idiotic myths.

"Not all animals are equal because humans can do more!!!"
In terms of what we do, it's kinda true that all animals (including animals) on this planet can't do everything (Though we do not fully know what each creature can do) humans can do. However, does that mean they are not morally equal, with respect, etc? NO.
Hell, even non-human animals can do things humans can't do. There really is no 'actual more' either.
Yet, what about all the humans that has disabilities? Are we going o say that people with disabilities are not equal? Because according to logic, if I had to agree based off what we do, then I would need to agree that humans with disabilities are not equal then.
faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/p—

"Animals don't have rights."
Humans are animals. If other animals do not have rights, then neither does homo sapiens.
Also, who gave out the illusion that it must depend on what humans do? Just because humans can build all this cool technologically, that doesn't mean other animals can no longer have rights. What we do, does not connect with nature fundamentals of other creatures.
blog.burningman.com/wp-content—
www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news6—

"But humans understand rights, therefor, humans can only have rights!"
The term "Human rights" it's self, is just an idea made up by humans.
But if a human said that we have super powers, does that mean we have them? No.
Human rights are 'real', because it's based off 'natural rights'.
A natural right is a basic nature fundamental thing. And you want to know also shares this fundamental thing?
Non-human animals.
All animals have rights. Natural Rights.
Humans have natural rights, and so does non-human animals.
Just like humans, other animals try to survive too.
eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers— - Don't know if I agree to all though.
Another interesting article: animalrights.about.com/od/anim—

"Animals don't have Free Will!"
Not even humans have free will. I mean what is 'Free Will'? Despite the fact that there IS evidence of free will in non-human animals, but humans don't have this special 'free' choice. I believe they are controlled by some part of their nature brain in a physical sense.
www.scientificamerican.com/art—
At the same time, I do believe it might exist, but the same can be said for other animals because of the evidence.

In the end kinda, it doesn't matter what we do, what matters is the fact that all animals consent to living, taking some action/behavior, and other.
If an animal is trying to live/survive, it's a natural right. It may not 100% be the same as what humans do (Humans saying words, etc.). But how does that somehow "change" it? Face it, the idea that it "does" is based off the egoist mind of some humans.
You do not need to 'say or reason' to show rights. You just have to show that you are trying to live.

Also, remember if we do depend on what 'humans do', then what about the humans that has disabilities?

All animals have rights, all has a soul, and all can possibly be unique with intelligence, which by the way exist in at least a lot of other animals.
Other animals feel pain too. I also wonder why people are against actual rape, but is fine with killing? Kinda odd.

Yet, to the arguments that "animal rights are made up"? The only thing that is completely made up is the idea that other animals don't have rights.

---------

There is other myths and possible facts. I do think I didn't write this very well much.
Here is some other links though!
speciesismthemovie.com/
www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news6—
lesswrong.com/lw/i63/arguments—
www.livescience.com/41601-spec—
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesi—

_______________________________________

Other arguments - Free Will and Possibly Consenting

io9.com/5714341/even-animals-a—

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/a—