On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> 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 > 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, on top of the fact that you can't provide any reason to even consider
the "possibility" that it might be in some way superior to having consideration.

> which is even more evidence
>> to me that you're still an eliminationist never having gotten over it or
>> probably even coming close...well...maybe you almost kinda sorta tried to
>> get
>> over it a tiny bit, but that made you feel dirty...
>> Anyway, **** all that. This is a time when you could possibly help your
>> brother a bit, because afaik even at this stage in his life poor Rupert
>> STILL
>> can't comprehend how grass raised beef can sometimes/often involve fewer
>> wildlife deaths than growing and harvesting soy beans does. Do you think
>> you
>> could explain it to him in a way that he could learn to comprehend at
>> least one
>> example? Or 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.