The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/10/2012 6:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George > wrote:
>
>>
>>>> One. Big ****ing deal. Meanwhile, if you eat a serving of soybeans
>>>> from a field that killed a couple of thousand animals, you bear moral
>>>> responsibility for all of them - we have established that everyone who
>>>> consumes the product bears responsibility for the entire population of
>>>> CDs, not some goofy pro rata share.
>>
>>> You didn't establish any such thing.
>>
>> It is established.
>>
>
> Is it established by means of some argument, or by the fact that you
> assert it?
It's established. You know it is.
>>>> There is simply no getting around the fact that you ****wits are
>>>> assigning some vague, touchy-feely emotional value to livestock animals.
>>>> You don't want to eat them, and you can't really say why. You try,
>>>> but you fail. You come up with heavy volumes of turgid, leaden
>>>> gobbledygook to try to give it a patina of "scholarship", but in the end
>>>> it's nothing but your childish feelings.
>>
>>>> It really is a head-in-the-sand belief system. You don't want to eat
>>>> meat because with each bite, you'd be thinking about the poor little
>>>> roly-poly piggy or the sad-eyed moo-cow that was killed, or the grieving
>>>> hen mommy who lost her eggs. But because your cooked vegetable mush
>>>> left the animals it caused to die in the fields, unseen, you - being
>>>> children - can easily ignore them. Out of sight, out of mind.
>>
>>>> I don't think you idiots have any idea of the extent to which normal
>>>> people view you as emotional children.
>>
>>> You also think that I don't believe you're an idiot.
>>
>> You don't.
>
> And that I have a "head-in-the-sand" belief system.
You do.
|