Pants-of-dog wrote:I already debated this with Eran, Phred, and Solarcross when he was going by taxizen.
And where we left off was them failing to explain why animals do not own their food but humans do.
Thats because they didn't use my argument, which prempts this critique in the syllogism. I've addressed this remark of yours in the thread, addressed to you, feel free to interact with my answer there.
Glad we agree.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never said Christians were a denomination.
You were the one who brought up denominations.
You did by not differentiating them as the wiki article does in several places, no such distinctions were made for the non-religious in that same article, thus your rejoinder that "the non-religious in australia have subgroups (denominations) too," lacks support from your own source.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Harm and negative impact are synonymous for the purposes of the argument.
No, I never agreed to such terms.
Thus, your argument is based on a unproven assumption and point of contention.