[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.