So what? Why should I care?
That’s hardly what Banned meant. He was sarcastically illustrating how you committed yet another non sequitur.
I recall you stating earlier that, since “we” have abandoned Christian morality, we must adopt “evolutionary morality” instead. Notice that word “must” there.
Please demonstrate the necessary validity of P2. That is, please demonstrate why the killing and eating of humans for pleasure is wrong necessarily because humans feel pain.
Autolycos:
What is the basis of ethics ,in your view.
I’ll answer that after you explain how killing animals for food necessarily involves torturing them for fun.
OK But Ill take that as a contract.
I don’t think that killing animals for food is the same as torturing them for fun. I have always stated that if a hunter is a profficient shot or bowman he can instantly kill his prey and I have no issue with that.
Foxhunting,dogfighting,harecoursing etc etc are just torture for fun.
Factory farming is similarly repulsive.
However the humane slaughter of animals that are hunted or humanely raised I have little issue with.
Am I supposed to feel intimidated by this?
How are foxhunting, dogfighting, harecoursing, etc. (please provide an exhaustive list) just torture for fun?
I don’t see how factory farming is torture for fun at all. It’s certainly killing animals for food, though.
There’s a difference between causing an animal to suffer and enjoying its suffering. So I don’t see how you’ve demonstrated at all how killing animals for food is the same as torturing them for fun. It doesn’t ever seem to be the same thing, regardless of any suffering involved in the former.
Intimidated no but you said you would tell me your ethical basis after I answered your question and I have done that. I don’t play the endless game where you demand answers and refuse to give them yourself.
you offered a contract and I accepted. Now you are reneging. If I wanted people who don’t respect agreements then I can go and debate with socialists.
Until you fulfill your end of the agreement then Ill just consider all debate closed.
I’m certainly not reneging - in my last post, I was following up with you on your answer. That has no bearing on my forthcoming answer to your question. For you to expect an immediate tit-for-tat is ridiculous IMO, especially since, as far as I’m concerned, I didn’t offer you any contract.
There are some people who like to troll by never answering questions but always demanding and criticising of others.I guessed you might be one of those and your actions seem to confirm this.I am quite prepared to be wrong but a troll would certainly now try and persuade me to carry on easwering your questions without doing so himself because that’s what he takes satisfaction in doing.
We can happily continue to discussions at once ..but of course the troll never agrees to that because…he’s a troll.
Questioning and criticizing others does not make one a troll. But I try to be a man of my word, and I said that I would answer your question.
I’m going to assume that what you mean by “ethics” is the same as what I mean by “morality”. So I’d say that the basis of what you call “ethics” is aggression.
There. Still think I’m a troll?
And it would equally true to say that people who torture animals are virtuous if you define torture to be virtuous. I don’t see where you’re going with this.
And you said:
My point is that the statement ‘People who torture animals… are… often violent’ is an analytic statement, it is true by definition. So I didn’t see what need there was to try and further prove that it is inevitable.
Ok, I’ll give you this one. It doesn’t seem that I can really hold my position: that everyone shouldn’t eat animals; since I havn’t demonstrated why we shouldn’t.
Moral nihilism wins again. 
How about babies?
Are you being sarcastic?
No.
Autolycos: Thank you for arguing. I think you are probably not a troll as a result. I shall answer your questions:
How are foxhunting, dogfighting, harecoursing, etc. (please provide an exhaustive list) just torture for fun?
Because they involve activities that are extremely distressing to animals for no morre reason than enjoyment. The number of different ways that people abuse animals for fun is too large for me to name them all.
I don’t see how factory farming is torture for fun at all. It’s certainly killing animals for food, though.
Since no one actually needs meat to survive they only purpose of eating meat is because it tastes good. If your need for taste involves animals being put through extreme duress for your eating pleasure then that is the same as torture for fun.
There’s a difference between causing an animal to suffer and enjoying its suffering.
Not for the animal.
So I don’t see how you’ve demonstrated at all how killing animals for food is the same as torturing them for fun. It doesn’t ever seem to be the same thing, regardless of any suffering involved in the former.
See above
As for your answer that ethics is about agression could you clarify this. Do you mean that an ethical act is one that does not contain agression? Could you please define aggression.
Thanks, I think.
The word “abuse” implies that they have pre-existing rights. Can you please point those out?
Also, do you distinguish between physical and psychological torture?
Strictly speaking, no one actually needs plants to survive, either. We need protein, fat, carbohydrates, and water as macro-nutrients, and a bunch of other things as micronutrients. Where they come from is rather immaterial, isn’t it?
And guess what? From what I understand, neither you nor I would even be here if our ancestors hadn’t put animals through extreme duress for their eating pleasure over hundreds of thousands of years. Our ancestors engaged in persistence hunting*,* the idea of which is to hunt an animal by wearing it down until it can’t defend itself anymore.
That’s irrelevant - you’re changing the context. I was necessarily arguing from the vantage point of human beings. In fact, I think you know that already.
Right, I still don’t see how you’ve demonstrated any such thing.
Again, assuming that by “ethical” you mean the same thing that I mean by “moral”, then yes - an ethical act is one that does not contain aggression, or is not aggression.
I’d define “aggression” as “initiation of coercion”. I’d further define “coercion” as “the use or threat of physical force”.
OK so you claim to be against coercion and aggression but surely killing an Animal is just that -aggression.
Surely it isn’t, for aggression is a human concept.
Are you going to respond to the rest of my post?