I do understand what you're saying. I just disagreed providing arguments that are valid for society as a whole while you only provided your personal preference. That's not an argument. I am willing to revisit it when this is no longer the case and society or law no longer consider this acceptable.
I personally consider sacrificing animals that are bred for this purpose as acceptable. I also consider hunting wild animals as acceptable as long as it's sustainable and the individuals can be easily replaced by "equivalent" ones maintaining a natural-like balance. I might have objections to the way animals are raised or killed but this is a different topic. So where exactly is your argument?
If I considered the name "max" insulting to me and immoral would you change yours? Or would you say "society accepts it and it's legal so I'll keep it"?
That's all. I made no judgement on killing animals.
The reasoning that breeding something for slaughter makes it more OK to kill it opens a path to arguing that breeding humans for slavery is different from enslaving "wild" humans. That's actually line a lot of slaveholders used. They argued that their slaves are too dumb to live on their own and have to be kept in slavery in order to survive.
Perfectly correct. So are human rights and all our laws. Does the fact they are arbitrary discredit them? Does it make my argument wrong?
> They are the same ethically in my view
You're getting close. In someone else's view not eating meat is dumb. Does that make his argument correct?
> opens a path to arguing that breeding humans
No it doesn't. It opens the path to exaggerating. Cutting a tree in your yard opens the path to arguing that you should be allowed to cut the Amazon rain forest?
> That's actually line a lot of slaveholders used
And it was wrong. By today's standards. Judging people with the power of hindsight is a grave mistake. Whatever you do today will be incompatible with values of generations to come and you will be judged. Should people start judging you now according to some possible rules of tomorrow? Let things come when they may.
What I said is not intrinsically correct and it will never be. It's correct only in the context of today's society and laws. When they change the value of my argument changes. Society considers breeding pigs for slaughter acceptable today. Hunting whales not so much. Move to Japan and you might get a different answer.
And regardless, it does not change the fact that there is a difference between uncontrolled killing of wild animals and controlled killing of farmed animals. Regardless of how you feel about this, there is a difference. Which was the crux of the argument.