My nuances:
- One spin on the boundaries of veganism easy to clear customs. Write as if we universalisions their precepts, it would be the end of humanity eaten by wild animals made me laugh because of course the vegans do not want to kill animals ... except in self-defense!
- Regarding vegetarianism that hurts or kills plants is omit the frugivorousness honoring consuming fruit (cf. Bananagirl and Annesofruits).
- The vision of superhuman is not closely related to the eternal return, nor comparable to on-Stoic. For Nietzsche, the superhuman will be as different from us as we are physiologically and psychologically the monkey, again it is not an end, since the superhuman wish the on-superhuman, but a sense. The first was done unconsciously, the others will consciously. Currently, we can only be a bridge to the superhuman. The eternal return is a belief as unprovable (like heaven), which can participate in the emergence of superhuman, but it is not sufficient and other parameters, values, beliefs, and backgrounds are needed to try on generations (see Céline Denat and Patrick Wotling). We also want to have other what we think does not depend on us, as the first fish who went on land and contributed among others to change the gills lungs.
- The difference between animals and humans is neither nature nor of degree; the question is closed; it is a difference of functions, we are one body and have tools that allow us or not to perform certain things (medicine: the function creates the organ). The difference in level between the wolf and the dog sheds light little, while their difference functions much said about them. We then see clearly that if there are ten different functions regarding the evolution of the dog, there are thousand of that of the human beyond good and evil. Knowing that their number and especially their weight makes the difference.
Amor Fati.