XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt
food.vegan.science
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:51:49 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:02:27 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:11 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote in message news:vh1fm716rir9udr8r7cj788eg93h8fjhbm@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Rupert" wrote
>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the
loathsome
>>>>>>>>> >> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>> >> ugly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
>>>>>>>conscious
>>>>>>>awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
>>>>>>>two
>>>>>>>reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial,
the
>>>>>>>second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
>>>>>>>death
>>>>>>>and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it,
and
>>>>>>>certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to
have
>>>>>>>for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is
primarily
>>>>>>>about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
>>>>>>>lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
>>>>>>>part,
>>>>>>>there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but
it's
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,
>>>>>
>>>>>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>>>>>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans
spew.
>>>>
>>>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most
self-serving
>>>>of all,
>>>
>>>It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.
>>
>> Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving
because
>>only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
>>livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
>>laying hens.
>
>Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.
Everything is self serving to someone. Having consideration can and does
benefit livestock while your anti-consideration necessarily can only benefit
you, and that's only if it even does that much. It just makes you appear
selfish
and very very stupid from my pov, and doesn't appear capable of benefitting
anything other than the elimination objective. NOTHING else, other than the
elimination objective.
. . .
>>>>>>do you think that for some reason his brain is physically unable to
>>>>>> accept much less appreciate those particular situations?
>>>>>
>>>>>As I recall he has admitted that it is plausible.
>>>>
>>>> There have been times when he has thought it could be "better" that
some
>>>>beings exist than that they never exist, but apparently at other times he
>>>>doesn't believe the distinction means anything.
>>
>> He flip-flops like you, so I was hoping you could help him. All these
years
>>of his life, and he still can't get it figured out. He can't even comprehend
>>what the distinction means, which we were doing in grade school.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
