****wit David Harrison - an idiot - lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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

It doesn't. It only causes them to exist, and coming into existence -
"getting to experience life", in your wretched lingo - is not a benefit.