Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Jinkies]

Meh, sure, I'll go back and edit the text wall, it won't change the quotes or the context. Just won't be as easy on the eyes. I did mention they were snipped (and why), it would be hard to be "disingenuous" after that point.

Note: bolded for emphasis.

I guess I'll break down how cherry picking and quote mining works since you don't seem to get it. Here's a quote of mine you posted originally to back up the assertion that I was attempting to convince people that eating meat is immoral:

Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris agree that there's no ethical justification for eating flesh.

It really looks like you were right, doesn't it? That's a definite argument from authority, plus it's quite obviously pushing my "meat is evil" agenda!

Now here's what I actually posted in context:

Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris agree that there's no ethical justification for eating flesh. But they still eat it. You just don't hear them spouting nonsensical garbage and idiotic arguments about why it's okay. If you don't accept terrible arguments from a theist, why the hell are you throwing terrible arguments at veg*ans?

Whoa, that appears to be a bit different. Instead of being icon-driven propaganda, it now looks like I'm saying not to use terrible arguments!

That's one example of why I called what you did disingenuous. Because it was. It's bullshit when the theists do it to "prove" Darwin was a Christian. It's also bullshit when you do it to misrepresent my position.

Good arguments for what?

ANYTHING. Seriously, if you are ever arguing for a position, use good arguments. There is never an excuse for having shitty arguments.

Edited to add your edit:

We aren't making any moral value judgements, not taking any stances on positive or negative ethical values correct? I don't see the need for any arguments. I eat meat. That's good enough right?

This is what I'm saying. You are not presenting shitty arguments here. If you aren't spewing idiocy, I have no issue with what you're saying.