"Derid I do not need say to you what is the moral justification for some people this X is right and some people think that Y is right.. repeating for 10th time now.. Moral justification is: inflicting unecessary pain on animals."


No, you have not quantified what should be constitued as necessary, nor have you quantified why that statement taken as a whole in fact constitutes a moral justification - it doesnt.

That is the point. Just because you SAY something constitutes a moral justification, does not mean that it does. You have to logically explain WHY "inflicting unnecesarry pain" on animals in fact constitutes a moral issue. You ALSO, to have a real argument, need to fully quantify in very specific and yet universal terms what criteria must be used to classify pain as "necessary" which you and the whole PETA community has thus far failed to do.

And what I have just said thus far is just in response to the beginning of your post. Of course the rest of your post is just a rehash of the same unfounded arguments, so there is no point in discussing their failings further until and unless you can justify your basic premise re: morality of inflicting "pain" on animals.

Because your further arguments presuppose that animals are human, but they are not.

Also, as a footnote - in the past I have been all through this debate, inside and out. I have also debated the topic with PhD holding professors... except in my case it was not a passsive case of me listening and accepting a very one sided point of view, I actually have reasoned the issue out comprehensively and engaged in actual debate.

Needless to say, it was not a debate that I lost. To subsume human will and need to the perceived greater benefit of non human actors, the end result as a society and even a race can be nothing less than the eventual degradation and dissolution of the human race itself. If this is in fact your end goal, as many PETA types do in fact hope for - then subsuming human will and need to non humans indeed makes sense.

Since you are in school, I highly recommend taking some philosophy courses. You should read up on Descartes ( who CrazyGuy ignorantly bashes ), Kant and Hume for starters. Learn what constitutes actual moral philosophy before you buy into some crazy crackpot who gives you nothing more than faux moralism and a means to feel self-righteous.

I also guarantee that as a lawyer, understanding the reasoning and building your critical thinking skills will pay huge dividends in your career.

As you have just admitted, you just recently "learned things you never thought before". Well, before you accept this guy whole-hog, if he has the temerity to bash Descartes - shouldnt you at least do some due diligence ( a term I am sure you have heard by now as you chase your JD) and actually learn a thing or two about Descartes?

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)