I offer evidence for how things are treated in other parts of the law because I'm analogizing to other things that are considered ethical in our society (and have been for centuries). I can't be charged with guessing that you consider these other things unethical too.
You're playing an absolutely ridiculous game of "hide the ball" here. In your head you clearly have some specific assumptions about what is "ethical" but you're not forthcoming with those assumptions. Instead, you claim I'm being dishonest for not divining the hidden rules you've laid out in your own head.
I'm going to guess you're some sort of libertarian or possibly anarchist, playing the usual game of implicitly arguing from a non-mainstream value framework without acknowledging that to be the case, then getting upset at people for not acknowledging your unstated unconventional beliefs.
You are contradicting my point without offering an argument, which amounts to you simply repeating your view over and over in varied forms (as you just did yet again), a basic logical fallacy.
You're playing an absolutely ridiculous game of "hide the ball" here. In your head you clearly have some specific assumptions about what is "ethical" but you're not forthcoming with those assumptions. Instead, you claim I'm being dishonest for not divining the hidden rules you've laid out in your own head.
I'm going to guess you're some sort of libertarian or possibly anarchist, playing the usual game of implicitly arguing from a non-mainstream value framework without acknowledging that to be the case, then getting upset at people for not acknowledging your unstated unconventional beliefs.