[sweetheart]

I think the majority of the first part of what you've said is mostly captured in "you act like you think you can teach others but they can't teach you", so I'll respond to that first:

I am open to being taught, I just expect something better than silliness like "I can care for animals and also eat them for pleasure" when it comes to what I find convincing. Please, by all means, teach me something. I am genuinely open to it. If you read through the many conversations I've had on this topic in the past, you'll also find thorough explanations as to precisely why I find these carnist arguments so tired and ineffective. Just because I am once again, for the umpteenth time, saying that people who claim to care for animal welfare while actively harming animals are hypocrites doesn't mean I'm close-minded, it just means that this delusion is ubiquitous.

> many of your critiques tend toward simplistic snark

This is probably more true than I would like to admit, but in my defense I am arguing for what I know to be the ending of the subjugation of trillions of sentient creatures, so forgive me for being _extremely_ upset when I need to convince people of what is an obvious truth: one cannot claim to value animal welfare while participating in the unnecessary abuse of those animals.

> even when other vegetarians and vegans are telling you that you're hurting the cause

Being a vegan or vegetarian does not make someone more likely to know what is good for the cause. Knowing what makes an effective social movement is a completely different area of knowledge, so the fact that other folks who eat fewer or no animals disagree with my strategy doesn't say much.

[lotharbot]

> "I am genuinely open to it."

I genuinely don't believe you.

> "I am arguing for what I know to be.... obvious truth" ... "delusion" ... "hypocrites" ... "silliness" ...

and this is why. Again, look up "cage-stage Calvinism". Nobody ever has a good conversation with a cage-stager because they're so busy talking about "obvious truth" and "delusion" and not really listening, just sort of generically pattern-matching and then declaring their doctrine.

[sweetheart]

I read a couple articles on it when you first mentioned it. I see what you're saying, I just don't think it applies in this case. I think you're either trying to say that outrage over great evil is either always unwarranted, or that perceiving something as being a great evil is always wrong, or that the concerns about the treatment of animals in modern society doesn't count as a great evil. But I disagree with all of those things. There are some pretty significant differences between an outraged zealot and an outraged rights activist that come into play here.

> not really listening

I have listened for multiple decades. I listen to others talk about it at _great_ length. You can continue to simply believe that I am deaf to reason, or acting unreasonable in some way, but that's simply incorrect. You make it seem as if I am digging my heels in despite evidence that anything I say is wrong/unsound/false, but that's simply not the case.

[lotharbot]

> "you're either trying to say"

None of the above, but this is more of the same issue. You're interacting with my words, but you're so quick to jump to a defense that you haven't really heard me.

I'm going to check out now. Peace.