Reply to Re: PETA KILLS ANIMALS?!?!
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
This is such a nice example of why I avoid Internet debates.
It's clear after reading your new reply to Skull you take a very different interpretation of what he said. I apply the principle of charity to interpret his argument as:
1) A system of morality should only be applied to an entity if that entity also respects that system of morality.
2) Non-human animals do not respect human morality.
Therefore human morality should not be applied to non-human animals.
There is absolutely nothing implying psychoticism. My mention of moral philosophers was not an appeal to authority. It was a reference to the fact that there are people who BELIEVE in the argument and are not and do not become psychotic.
You obviously do not follow the principle of charity to both interpret Skull's argument in the worst possible way and to misinterpret my argument as a standard fallacy. From this and your recent reply to Skull, it appears you are just interested in winning debates.
It's clear after reading your new reply to Skull you take a very different interpretation of what he said. I apply the principle of charity to interpret his argument as:
1) A system of morality should only be applied to an entity if that entity also respects that system of morality.
2) Non-human animals do not respect human morality.
Therefore human morality should not be applied to non-human animals.
There is absolutely nothing implying psychoticism. My mention of moral philosophers was not an appeal to authority. It was a reference to the fact that there are people who BELIEVE in the argument and are not and do not become psychotic.
You obviously do not follow the principle of charity to both interpret Skull's argument in the worst possible way and to misinterpret my argument as a standard fallacy. From this and your recent reply to Skull, it appears you are just interested in winning debates.
