>They seem to think that Twilio exclusively works with/for these spam robocall farms - your prohibition analogy is a good one.

What's giving you this impression? I have no problem thinking a business should be shut down if they are massively profiting off unethical behavior, regardless of what else they are doing. Who cares if they are doing good too? Seems to me like their good deeds are actually bad deeds if ultimately they are allowed to continue operating based on the argument you are presenting.

>What? I don't get what you mean. I apply human morals to animals? Is rape, torture, and murder to ANY being actually moral?

Applying morals about killing things to a human is applying human morals to humans. That's my point. Other guy is on some nonsense about applying morals to non humans, as if you are telling a lion not to hunt.

>And I wouldn't say your example of vandalism works. It doesn't affect animals the same way my statement does. Nor does vandalism happen on the same scale.

It's an example of applying human morals to humans even though the thing being acted on isn't a human. It's not supposed to have anything to do with animals.

They are reffering to the actions of humans, so no I don't think you are applying human morals to animals.

Imagine if I said it's immoral to vandalize public property. That's applying moral standards to humans. Not projecting them onto inanimate public property.