"...your original claim that 'nefesh shaya' is what differentiates us from animals..."
I made no such claim. The term is not an attribute, it is a descriptor.
First, it seems to me that you did make such a claim when you replied to an AC near the start of this thread:
In spite of that, a lot of Christians - I hesitate to claim the majority - hate to be reminded that they are animals.
I decline your category offer.
We are nefesh chaya, the implications of which I won't get into here, as you won't be interested and evolution will inevitably sort you out anyway.
Then you went on to try to be snarky and insulting and holier-than-thou by saying that the AC was an animal, but that you personally were something better. Anyway, unless there's invisible extra text in there that I need magic diamond glasses to read, you're saying that you reject the AC's categorization of humans as animals and claim that humans are nefesh chaya instead. This makes no sense since humans and other animlas are both either nefesh chaya or posess nefesh chaya depending on exactly how you translate and interpret nefesh chaya: "living soul" or "animal" (from the Latin: Anima, meaning "breath" or "soul") or perhaps "organism". A "living soul" could be a descriptor saying what something is, but could also be an attribute that something posesses depending on point of view and exact translation. Either way, it's not something that differentiates humans and other animals.
As I later explicitly used English for in an elaborating argument, categorizing both humans and animals as "living souls" (or "living beings") is not synonymous with stating that humans are a subcategory of animals.
In the context we're using, humans are clearly a subcategory of "living souls". The set of "living souls" is the set of all animals. You believe that humans possess special properties that make them stand out from the set. So what. Many members of the set have special qualities that make them stand out from the set, they're still in the set. I mean, for crying out loud, as I pointed out earlier, the word "animal" comes from a latin word which literally means virtually the same thing as "living soul"/nefesh chaya.
Here is an early Google hit which brief review indicates I'm in agreement with.
Ok. So, to be clear, you're definitely either 100% pro-choice when it comes to abortion (including late term abortion) or you're a vegan, right? Because if you're in agreement with that article, you have to be one of those things since it's very clear that, until the moment of birth, a human is no different than any other animal. So, you should only object to abortions at any point before birth if you also completely object to killing animals for any reason, in which case you should be a Vegan to remain philosophically consistant.
Aside from that, what about all the animals that can reason, even if not better than the average human? There are animals that can reason better than a minority of humans (not to mention infant humans whose reasoning capacity is dwarfed by that of nearly all other mammals). Then there's speech, which is also posessed by a number of animals, either through sign languauge or outright ability to form audible words. Then there are those who posess some form of speech and also some reasoning capacity. So, is that the way it is? Humans, parrots and gorillas on a pedestal, raised up above the scum that are the rest of the kingdom animalia? Sure, the chimpanzees can't get into the club because they bite (and human children never, ever, ever do that), but what are you gonna do, you know?
P.S. I'm interested by your signature, which is an excerpt from the gospel of Mary Magdelene. It seems an odd contrast here with your rigid and orthodox view of humanities place among (or not among) the other animals.