(March 13, 2013 at 4:55 pm)John V Wrote: All I saw was assertion of opinion.Sorry you missed it then. I might suggest you re-read that post I linked to and let me know if you have any logical arguments against what I offered. Otherwise, I'm going to say "Q.E.D." (I rest my case).
Quote:It's part of nature. You suggested that things which are part of the natural order are moral.Nope. I never said that. You may wish to re-read my post. This is, by the way, called a strawman argument.
Quote:Very good. I will let a vegan make a case on the morality of eating animals then. We can hear arguments from both sides and come to some conclusion. Until then...
Eating animals is.
Quote:We're talking about whether it's moral to kill sentient creatures. This isn't a case of not knowing everything. You can't answer one of the most basic questions of morality.The question of whether or not hunting animals for food is moral or not is not a "most basic question of morality."
Nice try. Points for effort.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
