Childhood indoctrination

[Something completely different]

Whatever standards you use, they are yours. Calling yourself superior has never justified harming others, at least not in civilised society. I'm asking you why the fact that they're animals changes this, and you keep telling me it's because they're animals.

For the last time, humans and animals are different! Harming a human as a human isnt the same as harming an animal! Therefor you civilised sciety nonsence evaporates into dust.

I keep telling you that they are a different species! A infirior species! I outlined arguments detailing this, and you simply go back to arguing as if animals were not infirior and that you had already proven that , when in fact you have NOT!
I have given you the example of civilisation and you pretend as if animals were somehow already an equal part of that civilisation! Almoust everything you post is a pathetic whining bunch of falasies and selfimportent rubbish!

Other than that, you form of arguing is utterly dishonest. By simply saying that ones standerds are simply that persons standerds and no one elses in a attempt to discredit someone you are simply being lazy and looking for a way to get your opponent out without having any actual arguments.

So why keep debating with someone like you, who is not interested in having an argument, but soley interested in being right?

Actualy, you enter a debate already assuming that you are right and that you need not even pove this in any way, and simply dismiss everyone by stating that their standerds are their personal very own standerds.
You will not make yourself very popular here if you continue this bullshit!

And you continue to apply naturalistic fallacy in your reference to carnivores being bigots...

What a slimey dishonest cunt you are!!!

You stated I was a biggot for calling other species infirior, I pointed out that this way every species eating another species was biggoted. And after that you accuse me of using a fallacy! when in fact it is your very own fallacy!!!!!

Do you do that kind of stuff often! Using a nonsence argument and when being shown how nonsence it is accusing the one who refuted it of using the very nonsence argument!

Damn! I havent encountered such disgusting dishonesty in a very long time!!!!

"Love" has nothing to do with it, and I don't think any of us have mentioned it. Seems like another straw man to me. Application of justice however, that is important, particularly given that we already have certain basic animal cruelty laws that apply a type of justice in favour of animals. Your wording of using them to be "productive" is just a restatement of it being convenient to use them, and society only sticking to its ethics when it's convenient to do so.

society does stick to ethics because it is convinient.