Well, ok, I generally consider myself to be a negative utilitarian and a preference utilitarian (that is, harm is defined as frustration of preferences, not just bad feelings). But on top of that I also understand that human society is necessarily governed by social contract, which to an extent creates extra rights and duties within the human community, the national community, and the family.

I don't see them as things I see them as individuals with their own personalities, social bonds and capacity to enjoy life, even if they can't always express it in a way that we understand.

I never said I don't see animals that way. Indeed, as far as I know we're scientifically compelled to.

Following your view that humans have extra duties (i.e. rights) that don't apply to animals, who would you feel more connected to a child rapist paedophile or a puppy? And why?

Again, it depends. The pedophile has violated the social contract and basic moral norms, and any sane society would ostracize him/her. As for this puppy, it would deserve protections as a result of its being a sentient being. If it was my puppy, I would have greater moral obligations to it as a result of our relationship. If it was just a feral puppy, probably not.