XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt
food.vegan.science
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:29:09 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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:vh1fm716rir9udr8r7cj788eg93h
fjhbm@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.
>
>Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.
It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs, while
your anticonsideraion can benefit NOTHING other than the elimination objective.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
