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.

On Mar 14, 11:12*pm, 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.

You're just jealous, Gooberdoodle.

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?

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.

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.

On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > 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

There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

On Mar 17, 8:00*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > *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
>
> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

"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.

On Mar 17, 9:48*pm, "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.

I don't really have any way of knowing. You're presumably basing your
remarks on the usenet vegans you have met. I don't have any way of
knowing whether this says anything about the vegans I know. I also
don't know why I would care.

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, 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?

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 07:50:07 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, Goo 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.

How do you want people to feel that your anti-consideration is superior to
having consideration for lives of positive value for livestock Goob? Rupert
might be able to help you with that, but he doesn't know what it means to have a
life of positive value instead of a life of negative value. The doesn't believe
the distinction between the two different types of situation means anything.
Maybe if you can help him comprehend what the distinction is and how it is
significant, he can help you figure out how refusing to consider lives of
positive value is superior to taking them into consideration.

On 3/19/2012 12:17 PM, ****wit bullshitted pointlessly:

>>>> 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.
>
> How do you want people to feel that your anti-consideration

No such thing as "anti-consideration", ****wit, you 13-year-long loser.

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, 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.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, bestiality practitioner - blabbered:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, 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.

Below are all true.


>
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo 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.
>
>Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>
>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

****wit David Harrison - "Goo" - blabbered:

>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Below are all true.
>
> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans

No, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
have irrational and wrong notions about animals.


>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:53:41 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo 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.
>>>
>>>Below are all true.
>>
>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>
>No

You say so specifically you stupid Goober.

>, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>have irrational and wrong notions about animals.

You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

>>>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo 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.
>>
>>Below are all true.
>
> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,

No, he's not. You have taken the quotes completely out of context, so of
course you are misconstruing them, plus you're an idiot, which complicates
things further.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:

><dh@.> wrote in message news
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo 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.
>>>
>>>Below are all true.
>>
>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>
>No, he's not.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo