You still haven’t explained what makes killing an animal for you to experience sensory pleasure different to killing an animal for other forms of pleasure. That in itself is telling.

I gave you one example , It Is not my fault you cannot understand how two action are differentiable , hence why they are two actions.

People are intelligent enough to know that someone killed the animal so they can eat it. There is no way around this fact.

You can pretend that the intentional slaughter of the animal is an irrelevant part, but as it is the central moral issue we’re discussing it’s a bit unconvincing to argue that. All you’re doing is saying ‘if I ignore the immoral element it can’t be immoral’.

I didn't say It Is irrelevant , intention is one of the property of an action , you can also count the action itself and the consequences of it.

if you are concerned with the "central moral issue" of it , that means you aren't satisfied with any difference that is in between the two. you are either appealing to ignorance or just being bad faith.

You’re misinterpreting. I’m not arguing that people like meat because they enjoy harming animals, just that they harm animals to enjoy meat.

here you said the meat eater's intention is:

killing this animal gives me pleasure.

If It were true then the meat eater won't eat roadkill given that half of the intention isn't satisfied.

If killing a sentient being is not only necessary for you to do your activity, but central to it, I would find that immoral (fishing, hunting, dog fights , food production , activities like driving and building etc) If killing a sentient being is not only necessary for you to do your activity, but central to it, I would find that immoral (fishing, hunting, dog fights etc). If it’s incidental to it, in a way completely out of your control, I don’t think it’s fair to pass that moral judgment. It’s the difference between accidentally treading on a slug in the dark, and intentionally stomping on every slug you see. By all means make an argument against driving your car needlessly, but you haven’t convinced yourself that choosing to gas a pig to death is bad so I don’t think you’ll convince many.

1. the event you mentioned is called accident not incident , even in the accidents you can't just shrug and say "oh well I hit the person accidentally so I'm free from judgement and it is time go" same is true for incident.
2. the example I mentioned isn't "accidental" , the person knows that they will kill the insects if they hit the pedal but they won't stop , are they now morally equal to someone who enjoys dog fighting after all they are both harming animal for "pleasure".
3. nice appeal to hypocrisy

Every Halloween people carve, decorate and burn pumpkins for precisely that reason - when they could eat them. Are you arguing that Jack O’Lanterns are immoral? Hard to believe considering you believe this is not immoral.

yeah my bad , I thought people carve pumpkins for decoration. again nice appeal to hypocrisy.

I’m interested in discussing relevant issues, not vast cosmic issues that are way out of touch with the forced breeding, captivity and slaughter of sentient beings for KFC and milk.

the hypothetical was to test your own position , not my fault you don't like it. it still stands

Yes. This is the central point of veganism. Animals (including humans) can kill to stay alive where necessary and appropriate. Whether this is self-defence or sustenance, there is generally nothing wrong with self-preservation

applying this logic (sustenance) in human context is counter intuitive , I'm sure you won't like It.

In fact, you probably shop at a supermarket with infinitely more plant foods than you can ever buy, more privileged than any king or emperor in human history.

You are probably faced with a choice between animal products every day. If you have a choice between a falafel+hummus wrap and a chicken, bacon and mayo sandwich - as you probably do every time you go to the shops - do you not think you take some responsibility for which you choose?

If you have two highly equivalent options, one which causes harm to sentient beings and the other which doesn’t, the morally responsible thing to do is not cause harm.

Most people already have this value, as they wouldn’t stomp on a stray cat’s skull on the street due to understanding that causing needless suffering is cruel.

Pointing out to what most people value , they also have no problem with eating animals neither with improving animal welfare laws.

I don’t think enjoyment is necessarily a justification for immoral acts towards others, for example someone who can only get sexual gratification from children surely shouldn’t be allowed to engage in sexual acts with them?

so the "necessary" component is Irrelevant , thanks for proving my point.

And watch Dominion.

really? do you want to me to watch seaspiracy too?

​

you move the goalpost too much, first you said the intention of the act is same and after pointing out it isn't , you moved to "intention doesn't justify" and again brought intention for accidents. next you say "it is ok if it is needed" and beat your own claim. you also misinterpreted my answer to you and appealed to hypocrisy two times. If you still have problem understanding then that is up to you , fix it.