OT: Purveyers of animal suffering 'fighting back'.

[T i m]

It was interesting to see an advert on TV earlier: 'Eat balanced',
showing the highly glamorised ideal of beef cows grazing on green
pasture with the commentary telling us they will be eating plants that
we can't eat that is just grown with rainwater ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/29/revealed-industrial-scale-beef-farming-comes-to-the-uk

and eating it (meat) is a good source of vitamins (and it displays B12
on the screen) but with no pictures showing the bulk of the animals
that never see grass (esp worldwide), are fed on soy from devastated
rain forests and bolt gunned in the head and their throats cut?

Hardly a 'balanced' view of the whole process is it and no mention
that 70% of the B12 that is made is fed to livestock so that we get
some from it when we eat their flesh (when it would be better for *us*
to eat it directly).

https://weeatbalanced.com/know-your-food/vitamin-b12/

"Where else can I get vitamin B12?

If you’re cutting out meat, fish, dairy and eggs you can get vitamin
B12 from:

Fortified foods (e.g. yeast extract, some breakfast cereals, some
plant alternatives to milk and milk products). Supplements."

Ah yes, 'supplements', like the ones we give to the livestock?

And if you can get it from elsewhere, why would you kill an animal to
get it, and no mention that many people (so meat eaters) are B12
deficient in any case?

https://ibb.co/t2mLZML

Look deeper into the 'campaign' and it cites / references a counter
attack against veganism, a group of people who simply don't want to
cause pain and suffering to animals? Who on earth would 'push' the
continuing pain, suffering and exploitation of innocent creatures who
don't want to die? Oh, that's right, those purveying the stuff who are
now panicking.

https://weeatbalanced.com/about-fab/

"Food Advisory Board members ensure they practice in line with their
associated professional codes of conduct, including: HCPC Standards of
Conduct Performance and Ethics, BDA (British Dietetic Association)
Code of Professional Conduct for BDA members, the Royal Society of
Biology, the Royal Society of Medicine, the Learned Society of Wales
and the Medical Defence Union."

I *think* this is the same BDA (along with the ADA) ... who state:

"British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can
support healthy living in people of all ages"

'Well-planned' = 'balanced' of course but with no mention of *having*
to exploit animals to do so.

https://preview.tinyurl.com/w6z6439

So we are back to the exact same thing as the big tobacco companies of
the early days, pushing their product as being 'good for you' and cool
adverts with cowboys and film stars smoking when anyone with some
common sense would know it to be bad for you.

I do get it though, if you have been brought up and so conditioned /
de-sensitised to the rights / feelings of innocent animals that we
exploit for no good reason (we don't *need* to eat animals to survive,
lions don't have choices or access to the supermarket and at least
lions have the teeth and digestive systems to do it) how you might
want to carry on doing it.

https://ibb.co/4N8j2M1

The meat and dairy industries have just poured £1.5M on this campaign
(and time will tell if any of it was our money, like the £500M the Gov
spent of our money pushing milk a while back).

I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

https://veganuary.com/

https://challenge22.com/
https://challenge22.com/faq

Cheers, T i m

[John Rumm]

I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

It's quite possible to mistreat animals that are not being raised for
food, and equally possible to care humanely for those that are.

So by all means campaign to stamp out animal cruelty, just don't expect
me to not enjoy my ethically sourced roast beef this weekend!
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[alan_m]

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.

What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

[Tim Lamb]

Post by alan_m

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering
with raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there
is no implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.
What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

All religions have their own blind spots.

I believe M&S recently agreed with their milk producers to avoid Soya in
dairy production.

I don't suppose Tim is interested in this sort of news:-
<https://akcagric.co.uk/blog/soya-uk-real-option>

[alan_m]

Post by Tim Lamb
I believe M&S recently agreed with their milk producers to avoid Soya in
dairy production.

Is this more to do with most of our imported soya being a GM crop?

[Fredxx]

Post by alan_m

Post by Tim Lamb
I believe M&S recently agreed with their milk producers to avoid Soya
in dairy production.

Is this more to do with most of our imported soya being a GM crop?

It's also down to the clearance of Amazonian rain forest for cattle feed
and for Soya milk and Tofu enjoyed by vegans. I think Tofurky was
mentioned recently.

If we wan to save the planet perhaps we should ban imports of Soy and
Soy products?

[Rod Speed]

Post by Fredxx

Post by alan_m

Post by Tim Lamb
I believe M&S recently agreed with their milk producers to avoid Soya in
dairy production.

Is this more to do with most of our imported soya being a GM crop?

It's also down to the clearance of Amazonian rain forest for cattle feed
and for Soya milk and Tofu enjoyed by vegans. I think Tofurky was
mentioned recently.
If we wan to save the planet perhaps we should ban imports of Soy and Soy
products?

Makes more sense to kill the vegans.

[Peeler]

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[T i m]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:09:51 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by alan_m

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering
with raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there
is no implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.
What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

All religions have their own blind spots.

And many old people are indoctrinated and conditioned.

Post by Tim Lamb
I believe M&S recently agreed with their milk producers to avoid Soya in
dairy production.

Yup, the world is changing. If they could only agree not to exploit
the cows by raping them every year (in a 'Rape rack'), taking their
calves away within a few days, killing the males calves or keeping
them in a small space (rose veal) for a few months before putting a
bolt gun to their heads or enslaving the females and using drugs to
force them to produce loads more milk than they would have ever done
naturally.

This isn't 'just milk', it's the exact same levels of suffering as
everyone else's milk, a food we take away from the creature it was
meant for so that we can consume it ourselves, even after we have
weaned!!!!!!!

https://ibb.co/P9xLCM2

Please explain why you think it's 'right / normal' for *us* to drink
*cows* milk (if you dare, the chances are you won't).

Post by Tim Lamb
I don't suppose Tim is interested in this sort of news:-
<https://akcagric.co.uk/blog/soya-uk-real-option>

The irony of course is I read far more of what you post about the
subject that you read of mine, so biased and blinkered are you.

I read most of the posts on the farmers forum you linked to the other
day and most of it was farmers themselves bickering as to what they
should be doing in the future.

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:09:51 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by alan_m

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering
with raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there
is no implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.
What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

All religions have their own blind spots.

And many old people are indoctrinated and conditioned.

Post by Tim Lamb
I believe M&S recently agreed with their milk producers to avoid Soya in
dairy production.

Yup, the world is changing.

Yep mental health is becoming a big issue. It goes to show the
importance of B12

Post by T i m
If they could only agree not to exploit
the cows by raping them every year (in a 'Rape rack'), taking their
calves away within a few days, killing the males calves or keeping
them in a small space (rose veal) for a few months before putting a
bolt gun to their heads or enslaving the females and using drugs to
force them to produce loads more milk than they would have ever done
naturally.

We've been through this before. You accept that only humans understand
consent. Isn't every calf naturally inseminated or otherwise a result
from a cow being raped?

Plus you demonstrate hypocrisy when you allow your pets to undergo
genital mutilation for your personal pleasure.

Post by T i m
This isn't 'just milk', it's the exact same levels of suffering as
everyone else's milk, a food we take away from the creature it was
meant for so that we can consume it ourselves, even after we have
weaned!!!!!!!

Yes we have the gene that allows us to digest lactose. So we have
evolved to drink milk after what you might call us being weaned. So
entirely natural. It makes coffee and tea pleasant to drink.

It saves the Amazon rain forest being destroyed from your fanaticism
towards Soya milk and it's products.

Post by T i m
https://ibb.co/P9xLCM2
Please explain why you think it's 'right / normal' for *us* to drink
*cows* milk (if you dare, the chances are you won't).

The right is that we're a higher animal, and cows are bred for their
milk production.

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
I don't suppose Tim is interested in this sort of news:-
<https://akcagric.co.uk/blog/soya-uk-real-option>

The irony of course is I read far more of what you post about the
subject that you read of mine, so biased and blinkered are you.

You also read articles that are biased and blinkered. The difference is
you're too myopic to see that.

Post by T i m
I read most of the posts on the farmers forum you linked to the other
day and most of it was farmers themselves bickering as to what they
should be doing in the future.

Many would call that a healthy discussion?

[Tim Lamb]

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:09:51 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb
I don't suppose Tim is interested in this sort of news:-
<https://akcagric.co.uk/blog/soya-uk-real-option>

The irony of course is I read far more of what you post about the
subject that you read of mine, so biased and blinkered are you.

I have no irons in this particular fire. You posted OT as requested so
none of my business how the discussion goes.

Post by T i m
I read most of the posts on the farmers forum you linked to the other
day and most of it was farmers themselves bickering as to what they
should be doing in the future.

It is their livelihood you are choosing to attack. Mostly they are
struggling to make head or tail of the impacts of Brexit.

On the ludicrous rape issue, I don't suppose you have ever witnessed a
bull mounting a cow:-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:09:51 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb
I don't suppose Tim is interested in this sort of news:-
<https://akcagric.co.uk/blog/soya-uk-real-option>

The irony of course is I read far more of what you post about the
subject that you read of mine, so biased and blinkered are you.

I have no irons in this particular fire. You posted OT as requested so
none of my business how the discussion goes.

Post by T i m
I read most of the posts on the farmers forum you linked to the other
day and most of it was farmers themselves bickering as to what they
should be doing in the future.

It is their livelihood you are choosing to attack.  Mostly they are
struggling to make head or tail of the impacts of Brexit.

The plan was supposed to be to replace EU subsidies with UK ones and
then have a Big Conversation as to which way to develop UK farming.

Has that not happened?

The only variable would then be export markets

Post by Tim Lamb
On the ludicrous rape issue, I don't suppose you have ever witnessed a
bull mounting a cow:-)

[Tim Lamb]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:09:51 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb
I don't suppose Tim is interested in this sort of news:-
<https://akcagric.co.uk/blog/soya-uk-real-option>

The irony of course is I read far more of what you post about the
subject that you read of mine, so biased and blinkered are you.

I have no irons in this particular fire. You posted OT as requested
so none of my business how the discussion goes.

Post by T i m
I read most of the posts on the farmers forum you linked to the other
day and most of it was farmers themselves bickering as to what they
should be doing in the future.

It is their livelihood you are choosing to attack.  Mostly they are
struggling to make head or tail of the impacts of Brexit.

The plan was supposed to be to replace EU subsidies with UK ones and
then have a Big Conversation as to which way to develop UK farming.

The Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs has just sent me a
glossy booklet explaining how they plan to halve direct payments by
2024.

There are vague hints about *agri-environment* schemes where payments
may be made for what is perceived as public good. Very short on detail
other than a glossy photo of cattle grazing under some of your windmills
and a field of oilseed rape surrounded by poppies and other wildflowers.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Has that not happened?
The only variable would then be export markets

I have no direct involvement but the deal has not been hugely criticised
so far.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tim Lamb
The Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs has just sent me a
glossy booklet explaining how they plan to halve direct payments by 2024.
There are vague hints about *agri-environment* schemes where payments
may be made for what is perceived as public good. Very short on detail
other than a glossy photo of cattle grazing under some of your windmills
and a field of oilseed rape surrounded by poppies and other wildflowers.

Oh god. Farming policy being written by woke 'creatives'

I'll put another art student on the fire.

[T i m]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 19:03:10 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:09:51 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb
I don't suppose Tim is interested in this sort of news:-
<https://akcagric.co.uk/blog/soya-uk-real-option>

The irony of course is I read far more of what you post about the
subject that you read of mine, so biased and blinkered are you.

I have no irons in this particular fire.

Thanks, that's a keyboard you owe me!

Post by Tim Lamb
You posted OT as requested so
none of my business how the discussion goes.

Well, that's some progress then. ;-)

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
I read most of the posts on the farmers forum you linked to the other
day and most of it was farmers themselves bickering as to what they
should be doing in the future.

It is their livelihood you are choosing to attack.

'Attack'? Am I going there and impacting them somehow and for some
invalid reason? All I'm doing is not supporting the cruelty they are
applying to sentient animals that didn't want to die by not paying
them to do it?

Post by Tim Lamb
Mostly they are
struggling to make head or tail of the impacts of Brexit.

And all the other issues (many moral / ethical / legal) that surround
the supply of animal flesh and parts.

Few of the arable farmers have any issues with people questioning
their morals and ethics?

Post by Tim Lamb
On the ludicrous rape issue, I don't suppose you have ever witnessed a
bull mounting a cow:-)

I have as it happens and not just on TV ... but I'm not sure how that
compares with wanking off a bull (and / or using an electro
stimulator) and then arse fisting a cow to move it's cervix in the
right place before inserting a long tube to squirt the bull semen into
it's vagina?

https://theirturn.net/2016/06/15/2016061420160613the-rape-rack/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/electroejaculation
https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/documents/electroejaculation-of-ruminants-position-statement

I can see why people do all that of course, it's a good way to make
money, like selling slaves was or sending kids up chimneys ...

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 19:03:10 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:09:51 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb
I don't suppose Tim is interested in this sort of news:-
<https://akcagric.co.uk/blog/soya-uk-real-option>

The irony of course is I read far more of what you post about the
subject that you read of mine, so biased and blinkered are you.

I have no irons in this particular fire.

Thanks, that's a keyboard you owe me!

Post by Tim Lamb
You posted OT as requested so
none of my business how the discussion goes.

Well, that's some progress then. ;-)

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
I read most of the posts on the farmers forum you linked to the other
day and most of it was farmers themselves bickering as to what they
should be doing in the future.

It is their livelihood you are choosing to attack.

'Attack'? Am I going there and impacting them somehow and for some
invalid reason? All I'm doing is not supporting the cruelty they are
applying to sentient animals

Then support campaigns to improve their welfare. BTW they might be
sentient, but so are ants, which have a greater social structure.

Post by T i m
that didn't want to die by not paying
them to do it?

That comes from being alive in the first place. Death is a certainty for
all animals.

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
Mostly they are
struggling to make head or tail of the impacts of Brexit.

And all the other issues (many moral / ethical / legal) that surround
the supply of animal flesh and parts.

You care about the trasansport of animal flesh? It's exactly sentient,
so why the concern?

Post by T i m
Few of the arable farmers have any issues with people questioning
their morals and ethics?

Post by Tim Lamb
On the ludicrous rape issue, I don't suppose you have ever witnessed a
bull mounting a cow:-)

I have as it happens and not just on TV ... but I'm not sure how that
compares with wanking off a bull (and / or using an electro
stimulator) and then arse fisting a cow to move it's cervix in the
right place before inserting a long tube to squirt the bull semen into
it's vagina?

Probably less likely to injure the cow.

Post by T i m
https://theirturn.net/2016/06/15/2016061420160613the-rape-rack/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/electroejaculation
https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/documents/electroejaculation-of-ruminants-position-statement
I can see why people do all that of course, it's a good way to make
money,

Even you like buying things, even when some of your cash goes to clear
parts of the Amazonian jungle.

Post by T i m
like selling slaves was or sending kids up chimneys ...

No, it really is nothing like that. Only someone with perverse morals
would make the comparison.

[Radio Man]

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:09:51 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by alan_m

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering
with raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there
is no implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.
What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

All religions have their own blind spots.

And many old people are indoctrinated and conditioned.

Post by Tim Lamb
I believe M&S recently agreed with their milk producers to avoid Soya in
dairy production.

Yup, the world is changing. If they could only agree not to exploit
the cows by raping them every year (in a 'Rape

You really should seek help you spend to much time thinking about this.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Radio Man

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:09:51 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by alan_m

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering
with raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there
is no implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.
What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

All religions have their own blind spots.

And many old people are indoctrinated and conditioned.

Post by Tim Lamb
I believe M&S recently agreed with their milk producers to avoid Soya in
dairy production.

Yup, the world is changing. If they could only agree not to exploit
the cows by raping them every year (in a 'Rape

You really should seek help

Its impossible to help fools like that.

Post by Radio Man
you spend to much time thinking about this.

He isnt capable of thought, just mindless knee jerking and hypocrisy.

If he really cared about the environment he would top himself.

[Peeler]

<FLUSH the senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[T i m]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 10:07:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Rod Speed
He isnt capable of thought, just mindless knee jerking and hypocrisy.
If he really cared about the environment he would top himself.

Added to the list, thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

Post by T i m
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 10:07:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<snip>

Post by Rod Speed
He isnt capable of thought, just mindless knee jerking and hypocrisy.
If he really cared about the environment he would top himself.

Added to the list, thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia

Which rightly states, "redress when a person is victimised on account of
colour, ethnicity, national origin, race, colour, ethnic origin,
religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual
orientation".

In which of these would you put a mindless fanatic, bent on forcing his
diet onto others.

[Rod Speed]

Post by T i m
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 10:07:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<snip>

Post by Rod Speed
He isnt capable of thought, just mindless knee jerking and hypocrisy.
If he really cared about the environment he would top himself.

Added to the list, thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia

That's not hate, just a statement of reality, stupid.

Nothing I said is illegal in this country, fuckwit.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 03:44:24 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

03:44??? So, for HOW long have you been up and trolling this night in
Australia again, senile swine?

[T i m]

Post by alan_m

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.
What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

Well, why don't we first start with the *biggest* problem, the habitat
removed because of foods grown to feed livestock?

800 million people starving in the world whilst we feed 80 Billion
animals. Please explain how much of that land currently growing feed
for animals couldn't grow food for us instead (well, much of it is
anyway but it's fed to animals instead).

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

Post by T i m

Post by alan_m

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.
What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

Well, why don't we first start with the *biggest* problem, the habitat
removed because of foods grown to feed livestock?

The habitat is being destroyed to supply your Soay milk and Tofurky.

Some say if we want to save the planet we should switch from Soy milk to
Cows. But then you DGAS about the planet.

https://inews.co.uk/news/british-vegans-drink-cows-milk-help-planet-charity-580800
"Vegans in the UK should switch from drinking soy milk to cow’s milk if
they want to help the planet, according to the Sustainable Food Trust
(SFT)."

Post by T i m
800 million people starving in the world whilst we feed 80 Billion
animals. Please explain how much of that land currently growing feed
for animals couldn't grow food for us instead (well, much of it is
anyway but it's fed to animals instead).

That just suggests there are 800m too many people on this planet.

[Rod Speed]

Post by T i m

Post by alan_m

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.
What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

Well, why don't we first start with the *biggest* problem, the habitat
removed because of foods grown to feed livestock?
800 million people starving in the world

That's a lie.

Post by T i m
whilst we feed 80 Billion animals.

But most of the animals eat what humans can't.

Post by T i m
Please explain how much of that land currently growing
feed for animals couldn't grow food for us instead

There isnt enough rainfall or good enough soil to grow
food for humans, but its fine for what animals eat like grass.

[Peeler]

<FLUSH trollshit unread>

[Radio Man]

Post by T i m

Post by alan_m

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.
What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

Well, why don't we first start with the *biggest* problem, the habitat
removed because of foods grown to feed livestock?
800 million people starving in the world whilst we feed 80 Billion
animals. Please explain how much of that land currently growing feed
for animals couldn't grow food for us instead (well, much of it is
anyway but it's fed to animals instead).
Cheers, T i m

You are suggesting we stop feeding the 80 billion animals and let them die.
That doesn’t sound very animal friendly.

[Fredxx]

Post by Radio Man

Post by T i m

Post by alan_m

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to
food production.
What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in
order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

Well, why don't we first start with the *biggest* problem, the habitat
removed because of foods grown to feed livestock?
800 million people starving in the world whilst we feed 80 Billion
animals. Please explain how much of that land currently growing feed
for animals couldn't grow food for us instead (well, much of it is
anyway but it's fed to animals instead).
Cheers, T i m

You are suggesting we stop feeding the 80 billion animals and let them die.
That doesn’t sound very animal friendly.

He also wants them to live longer before being slaughtered, taking more
food away from those he claims to be starving. He hasn't thought very
deeply about this.

Actually I'm starving and need to raid the fridge, so one less than the
overpopulation of 800m.

[Fredxx]

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.
It's quite possible to mistreat animals that are not being raised for
food, and equally possible to care humanely for those that are.

+1

Post by John Rumm
So by all means campaign to stamp out animal cruelty, just don't expect
me to not enjoy my ethically sourced roast beef this weekend!

You should be able to understand by now that animal cruelty is not high
on Tim's agenda.

What he wants is for us to stop enjoying meat as part of a naturally
balanced diet because he's not allowed to.

In much the same way those who are most anti-smoking are often ex-smokers.

[T i m]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:51:05 +0000, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food.

No error, factual statement mate. The 'levels' of suffering that are
considered acceptable are managed by bodies like the RSPCA and have
been 'improved' (proving that they existed in the first place) all the
time.

Post by John Rumm
This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

See above.

Post by John Rumm
It's quite possible to mistreat animals that are not being raised for
food,

Of course.

Post by John Rumm
and equally possible to care humanely for those that are.

Till you gas them to death ...

Post by John Rumm
So by all means campaign to stamp out animal cruelty,

I am, starting myself by not exploiting them in any way wherever
possible.

Post by John Rumm
just don't expect
me to not enjoy my ethically sourced roast beef this weekend!

No, I wouldn't expect your 'ethics' to extend to not taking the life
of an animal that didn't give up it's life freely (so you took what
was never yours to take), because you are too old / conditioned (said
respectfully).

You would be one of those who were happily keeping slaves because 'at
the time', doing so was not illegal or considered wrong ethically by
many of those who created the rules. It was *never* acceptable to
those who were exploited of course.

There is *NO* right way to do a wrong thing.

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:51:05 +0000, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food.

No error, factual statement mate.

It is not a fact. It is your misinformed opinnion.

Post by T i m
The 'levels' of suffering that are
considered acceptable are managed by bodies like the RSPCA and have
been 'improved' (proving that they existed in the first place) all the
time.

Quite, and we should rejoice at those improvements.

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

See above.

Quite

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
It's quite possible to mistreat animals that are not being raised for
food,

Of course.

Post by John Rumm
and equally possible to care humanely for those that are.

Till you gas them to death ...

Then suggest another method if you care enough.

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
So by all means campaign to stamp out animal cruelty,

I am, starting myself by not exploiting them in any way wherever
possible.

You have pets where you endorse the mutilation of their genitals. You
are one big hypocrite.

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
just don't expect
me to not enjoy my ethically sourced roast beef this weekend!

No, I wouldn't expect your 'ethics' to extend to not taking the life
of an animal that didn't give up it's life freely (so you took what
was never yours to take), because you are too old / conditioned (said
respectfully).

Taking an animals life does not have to cause them pain or suffering.

Post by T i m
You would be one of those who were happily keeping slaves because 'at
the time', doing so was not illegal or considered wrong ethically by
many of those who created the rules. It was *never* acceptable to
those who were exploited of course.

I doubt it, but I guess that might fit your distorted picture.

Post by T i m
There is *NO* right way to do a wrong thing.

Agreed, so shut up.

[John Rumm]

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:51:05 +0000, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food.

No error, factual statement mate. The 'levels' of suffering that are
considered acceptable are managed by bodies like the RSPCA and have
been 'improved' (proving that they existed in the first place) all the
time.

Post by John Rumm
This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

See above.

Post by John Rumm
It's quite possible to mistreat animals that are not being raised for
food,

Of course.

Post by John Rumm
and equally possible to care humanely for those that are.

Till you gas them to death ...

Well that is progress, you at least accept that until that point they
are not being mistreated.

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
So by all means campaign to stamp out animal cruelty,

I am, starting myself by not exploiting them in any way wherever
possible.

Post by John Rumm
just don't expect
me to not enjoy my ethically sourced roast beef this weekend!

No, I wouldn't expect your 'ethics' to extend to not taking the life
of an animal that didn't give up it's life freely (so you took what
was never yours to take), because you are too old / conditioned (said
respectfully).

How exactly would I identify the cow giving up its life freely?

You understand the concept of a food chain I presume? Some animals eat
vegetation, some other animals, some both. If Man were not present on
the planet, that would still be the case - so it's an entirely "natural"
process. Now in nature this of course all happens with much suffering at
the point of an animal becoming dinner - there are probably not many
painless ways to tear it limb from limb before tucking in.

As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

As for "exploitation" - what is that? Is riding a horse ok? Using one to
plough a field? How about keeping and training a bird of pray to hunt
small mammals for the pot? Some level of "exploitation" is a requirement
for the survival of any species. I am content to live with that.

Post by T i m
You would be one of those who were happily keeping slaves because 'at
the time', doing so was not illegal or considered wrong ethically by
many of those who created the rules. It was *never* acceptable to
those who were exploited of course.

You may be reassured that I draw the line at eating slaves.

Post by T i m
There is *NO* right way to do a wrong thing.

Chopsticks?
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[RJH]

On 7 Jan 2021 at 01:14:09 GMT, "John Rumm" <***@nowhere.null>
wrote:

snip

Post by John Rumm
As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

Yeahbut. As regards non-human animals, our intelligence metes out some pretty
brutal variations on the theme of life and death. It's just a disgrace. It's
also one of those 'how will history judge' in a few hundred (or maybe
thousand) year's time - the era of industrial/mechanical animal farming will
be looked on as plain barbaric. 'Farming' an animal to eat it - who were these
people?!

Post by John Rumm
As for "exploitation" - what is that? Is riding a horse ok? Using one to
plough a field? How about keeping and training a bird of pray to hunt
small mammals for the pot? Some level of "exploitation" is a requirement
for the survival of any species. I am content to live with that.

We certainly don't need to eat animals/related in the UK - that argument has
gone, surely? If you eat meat or cheese in the UK it's because you want to,
not because you need to.

As for more symbiotic relationships - pets etc.? I think generally OK, common
sense applied.

[Fred]

Post by RJH
snip

Post by John Rumm
As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

Yeahbut. As regards non-human animals, our intelligence metes out some
pretty brutal variations on the theme of life and death. It's just a
disgrace. It's also one of those 'how will history judge' in a few hundred
(or maybe thousand) year's time - the era of industrial/mechanical animal
farming will be looked on as plain barbaric. 'Farming' an animal to eat
it - who were these people?!

Bet it isnt.

Post by RJH

Post by John Rumm
As for "exploitation" - what is that? Is riding a horse ok? Using one to
plough a field? How about keeping and training a bird of pray to hunt
small mammals for the pot? Some level of "exploitation" is a requirement
for the survival of any species. I am content to live with that.

We certainly don't need to eat animals/related in the UK

Yes, but most of us prefer to eat animals than just plants.

Post by RJH
- that argument has gone, surely?

Yes.

Post by RJH
If you eat meat or cheese in the UK it's because you want to, not because
you need to.

And most of us want to.

Post by RJH
As for more symbiotic relationships - pets etc.? I think generally OK,
common sense applied.

Why is it OK to keep birds in cages,
keep cats inside their entire lives,
never let dogs off a lead outside.
keep fish in small tanks etc ?

[Peeler]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 19:06:34 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[Robin]

Post by RJH
snip

Post by John Rumm
As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

Yeahbut. As regards non-human animals, our intelligence metes out some pretty
brutal variations on the theme of life and death. It's just a disgrace. It's
also one of those 'how will history judge' in a few hundred (or maybe
thousand) year's time - the era of industrial/mechanical animal farming will
be looked on as plain barbaric. 'Farming' an animal to eat it - who were these
people?!

Possibly. But you are at least there recognising that whether farming
animals is cruel is not a "fact" that can be tested in a workshop or lab
but a judgment that depends on societal norms and may - or may not -
change over time.

[T i m]

Post by Robin

Post by RJH
snip

Post by John Rumm
As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

Yeahbut. As regards non-human animals, our intelligence metes out some pretty
brutal variations on the theme of life and death. It's just a disgrace. It's
also one of those 'how will history judge' in a few hundred (or maybe
thousand) year's time - the era of industrial/mechanical animal farming will
be looked on as plain barbaric. 'Farming' an animal to eat it - who were these
people?!

Possibly.

Definitely. Why are the sales of vegan alternatives booming or they
spending fortunes looking into clean / lab-grown meat?

If people don't care if their 'sausage' is made up of ground up
eyeballs and arseholes, why would they care if their 'meat' was made
in a factory?

Post by Robin
But you are at least there recognising that whether farming
animals is cruel is not

There is no question that it's cruel. If you deny any sentient
creature the right to exist naturally, you are affecting *it's* life
choices (and rarely for the better).

Post by Robin
a "fact" that can be tested in a workshop or lab

See, this is the problem with those who have no compassion or empathy,
they have to have those things set for them in law.

Have you never had a pet, or helped an animal?

Post by Robin
but a judgment that depends on societal norms

That bit is true at least ... and 'some of us' are pushing those
norms, especially where people have the choice.

Post by Robin
and may - or may not -
change over time.

Already happening mate and has been for years. Think if all the animal
related things that are now banned, all the processes that are now
being put in place to *improve* (in theory, often don't by any genuine
amount), and all the movement away from the use of animals in / for
all sorts of things.

Most companies that move away from using animals or animal related
materials and processes are 'proud' to have done so? Why would they be
proud if what they did previously was acceptable?

The answer of course is that it's the right thing to do.

Question. If you had videos running showing the slaughterhouse footage
of each animal at the end of each of the 'meat' isles in a
supermarket, do you think they would sell as much meat?

If not, why not?

Cheers, T i m

[NY]

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
But you are at least there recognising that whether farming
animals is cruel is not

There is no question that it's cruel. If you deny any sentient
creature the right to exist naturally, you are affecting *it's* life
choices (and rarely for the better).

So is it "better" (though still not acceptable to you) if animals live in
the wild and humans trap and kill them to eat, as opposed to keeping them in
farms so they can kill them to eat?

The decision to farm animals was made a good many centuries (maybe
millennia) ago, so why should we be more concerned about it now that we ever
were in the past? Is it partly because until recently we didn't have
non-animal substitutes for transport, leather (shoes, belts etc).

Is it wrong for other carnivores to kill to eat? Are we different because we
are the only ones (as far as we know!) that can question whether it is
morally right?

Should humans have evolved a lifestyle where we don't use animals (only
human labour) for transporting goods (food, fuel) from point of produce to
point of sale? And what if the humans which are used for transport, raising
water from wells etc, is conscripted (slaves) rather than willing? That
raises its own ethical issues, and maybe many people rationalise a scale of
what is tolerable, with a human life being "worth" more than an animal's.

To hijack another issue of the moment, maybe we should be saying that *all*
lives matter (and not just a specific group).

[T i m]

Post by NY

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
But you are at least there recognising that whether farming
animals is cruel is not

There is no question that it's cruel. If you deny any sentient
creature the right to exist naturally, you are affecting *it's* life
choices (and rarely for the better).

So is it "better" (though still not acceptable to you) if animals live in
the wild and humans trap and kill them to eat, as opposed to keeping them in
farms so they can kill them to eat?

'Better' like giving your slave ally chains rather than the heavy iron
ones?

Going along with what I believe to be the spirit of your question,
from my POV, a wild animal living a natural life is not being
exploited as much as an animal artificially bred and effectively held
captive with no chance of escaping an early death (that bit being
*guaranteed* to happen). *IF* someone has to kill animals to
*survive*, obviously the catching and killing should be as humane as
possible (not as practical / affordable).

Post by NY
The decision to farm animals was made a good many centuries (maybe
millennia) ago, so why should we be more concerned about it now that we ever
were in the past?

Because we (humans) are evolving, growing in number and that requires
more food, so more animal deaths (at holocaust levels) and less other
foods for us.

Post by NY
Is it partly because until recently we didn't have
non-animal substitutes for transport, leather (shoes, belts etc).

Yup, that's all part of the 'bigger picture' on all of it.

Loads of things would be considered sustainable or acceptable if done
at low levels and where necessary but that may not carry forward into
mass levels.

Post by NY
Is it wrong for other carnivores to kill to eat?

If it's natural and 'in nature' then of course not.

Post by NY
Are we different because we
are the only ones (as far as we know!) that can question whether it is
morally right?

Basically yes, it's 'not right' when we have the choice and
opportunity not to.

Post by NY
Should humans have evolved a lifestyle where we don't use animals (only
human labour) for transporting goods (food, fuel) from point of produce to
point of sale?

Basically yes.

Post by NY
And what if the humans which are used for transport, raising
water from wells etc, is conscripted (slaves) rather than willing?

No, we are (and have been for ages) evolving to take all that sort of
labour away from living creatures and onto machines. People used to
pump water, then we used donkeys / whatever, then we used waterwheels
or wind power.

Post by NY
That
raises its own ethical issues, and maybe many people rationalise a scale of
what is tolerable, with a human life being "worth" more than an animal's.

Of course, and how some think it's 'perfectly natural' for us to
behave like animals when our very difference is that we have evolved
to out-perform them (not naturally of course, technologically).

Considering a pig to be 'just' food because it isn't as intelligent as
us is no different than thinking someone who was mentally disabled to
be food.

Post by NY
To hijack another issue of the moment, maybe we should be saying that *all*
lives matter (and not just a specific group).

Of course and for many, that is and has been the case for a very long
time of course.

Like, most people wouldn't kill and eat a dog, but they might (pay
someone else to) kill and eat a pig but without being able to provide
any logical justification for such a differentiation (on the grounds
of human survival).

In this respect the Chinese don't suffer the same level of logical
inconsistency as we do (in the West), given that they will eat most
things. That said, even they are moving away from eating dogs (and
cats) because of strong public / social pressure.

Once we start to see how our speciesism is illogical, we will start to
consider our actions and look to alternative foods that don't require
the taking of something that was never ours to take (when there is no
*need*).

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

Post by T i m

Post by NY

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
But you are at least there recognising that whether farming
animals is cruel is not

There is no question that it's cruel. If you deny any sentient
creature the right to exist naturally, you are affecting *it's* life
choices (and rarely for the better).

So is it "better" (though still not acceptable to you) if animals live in
the wild and humans trap and kill them to eat, as opposed to keeping them in
farms so they can kill them to eat?

'Better' like giving your slave ally chains rather than the heavy iron
ones?

Is that a yes or no?

Post by T i m
Going along with what I believe to be the spirit of your question,
from my POV, a wild animal living a natural life is not being
exploited as much as an animal artificially bred and effectively held
captive with no chance of escaping an early death (that bit being
*guaranteed* to happen). *IF* someone has to kill animals to
*survive*, obviously the catching and killing should be as humane as
possible (not as practical / affordable).

Since we are a higher animal and need to eat meat and meat products as
part of a healthy diet, we arrange for others to do the trapping and
slaughtering for us.

You are free to campaign to improve animal welfare standards, but it's
not something you would consider.

Post by T i m

Post by NY
The decision to farm animals was made a good many centuries (maybe
millennia) ago, so why should we be more concerned about it now that we ever
were in the past?

Because we (humans) are evolving, growing in number and that requires
more food, so more animal deaths (at holocaust levels) and less other
foods for us.

If we carried on drinking natural milk, we wouldn't need to cut down
Amazonian Rainforests to supply tour milk and Tofurkies.

Post by T i m

Post by NY
Is it partly because until recently we didn't have
non-animal substitutes for transport, leather (shoes, belts etc).

Yup, that's all part of the 'bigger picture' on all of it.
Loads of things would be considered sustainable or acceptable if done
at low levels and where necessary but that may not carry forward into
mass levels.

Then campaign for Chinese style birth control. The population will only
expand to match food production, where it's meat or alternatives.

Post by T i m

Post by NY
Is it wrong for other carnivores to kill to eat?

If it's natural and 'in nature' then of course not.

Thank you, it is natural for man to eat meat swo you finally endorse
meat eaters. We've coma a long way.

Post by T i m

Post by NY
Are we different because we
are the only ones (as far as we know!) that can question whether it is
morally right?

Basically yes, it's 'not right' when we have the choice and
opportunity not to.

Quite, you have the choice to not eat meat. I have no desire to force
you to eat a pork sausage

Post by T i m

Post by NY
Should humans have evolved a lifestyle where we don't use animals (only
human labour) for transporting goods (food, fuel) from point of produce to
point of sale?

Basically yes.

Post by NY
And what if the humans which are used for transport, raising
water from wells etc, is conscripted (slaves) rather than willing?

No, we are (and have been for ages) evolving to take all that sort of
labour away from living creatures and onto machines. People used to
pump water, then we used donkeys / whatever, then we used waterwheels
or wind power.

Post by NY
That
raises its own ethical issues, and maybe many people rationalise a scale of
what is tolerable, with a human life being "worth" more than an animal's.

Of course, and how some think it's 'perfectly natural' for us to
behave like animals when our very difference is that we have evolved
to out-perform them (not naturally of course, technologically).
Considering a pig to be 'just' food because it isn't as intelligent as
us is no different than thinking someone who was mentally disabled to
be food.

It is another species and one with the lowest intelligences. Would you
extend your views to ants?

Post by T i m

Post by NY
To hijack another issue of the moment, maybe we should be saying that *all*
lives matter (and not just a specific group).

Of course and for many, that is and has been the case for a very long
time of course.
Like, most people wouldn't kill and eat a dog, but they might (pay
someone else to) kill and eat a pig but without being able to provide
any logical justification for such a differentiation (on the grounds
of human survival).
In this respect the Chinese don't suffer the same level of logical
inconsistency as we do (in the West), given that they will eat most
things. That said, even they are moving away from eating dogs (and
cats) because of strong public / social pressure.
Once we start to see how our speciesism is illogical,

It is logical. There is a hierarchy. When was the last time you saw a
lion being eaten by another (lower) animal?

[Rod Speed]

Post by NY

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
But you are at least there recognising that whether farming
animals is cruel is not

There is no question that it's cruel. If you deny any sentient
creature the right to exist naturally, you are affecting *it's* life
choices (and rarely for the better).

So is it "better" (though still not acceptable to you) if animals live in
the wild and humans trap and kill them to eat, as opposed to keeping them
in farms so they can kill them to eat?
The decision to farm animals was made a good many centuries (maybe
millennia) ago, so why should we be more concerned about it now that we
ever were in the past? Is it partly because until recently we didn't have
non-animal substitutes for transport, leather (shoes, belts etc).
Is it wrong for other carnivores to kill to eat? Are we different because
we are the only ones (as far as we know!) that can question whether it is
morally right?
Should humans have evolved a lifestyle where we don't use animals (only
human labour) for transporting goods (food, fuel) from point of produce to
point of sale? And what if the humans which are used for transport,
raising water from wells etc, is conscripted (slaves) rather than willing?
That raises its own ethical issues, and maybe many people rationalise a
scale of what is tolerable, with a human life being "worth" more than an
animal's.
To hijack another issue of the moment, maybe we should be saying that
*all* lives matter (and not just a specific group).

Some are actually that stupid and refuse to accidentally
step on an ant, let alone kill a mosquito. But still rip the
leaves off plants and stuff them into their mouths.

If all lives do matter, they should kill themselves.

[Peeler]

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[Fredxx]

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by RJH
snip

Post by John Rumm
As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

Yeahbut. As regards non-human animals, our intelligence metes out some pretty
brutal variations on the theme of life and death. It's just a disgrace. It's
also one of those 'how will history judge' in a few hundred (or maybe
thousand) year's time - the era of industrial/mechanical animal farming will
be looked on as plain barbaric. 'Farming' an animal to eat it - who were these
people?!

Possibly.

Definitely. Why are the sales of vegan alternatives booming or they
spending fortunes looking into clean / lab-grown meat?
If people don't care if their 'sausage' is made up of ground up
eyeballs and arseholes, why would they care if their 'meat' was made
in a factory?

Post by Robin
But you are at least there recognising that whether farming
animals is cruel is not

There is no question that it's cruel.

There is every question of whether it is cruel.

Post by T i m
If you deny any sentient
creature the right to exist naturally, you are affecting *it's* life
choices (and rarely for the better).

Like a cow giving consent to a bull raping her? What happens when you
get ants in your house, they are as sentient and social animals in the
same way your dogs are to you?

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
a "fact" that can be tested in a workshop or lab

See, this is the problem with those who have no compassion or empathy,
they have to have those things set for them in law.

Quite. I don't have any empathy with an arsehole who is jealous we're
allowed to eat meat, however I do wish to see improvements in animal
welfare.

You have no empathy with animals, just a craving for us to stop eating
meat and meat products.

Post by T i m
Have you never had a pet, or helped an animal?

Yes I have, and I dislike the idea I have the right to mutilate it's
genitals for my convenience.

[T i m]

Post by RJH
snip

Post by John Rumm
As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

Yeahbut. As regards non-human animals, our intelligence metes out some pretty
brutal variations on the theme of life and death. It's just a disgrace. It's
also one of those 'how will history judge' in a few hundred (or maybe
thousand) year's time - the era of industrial/mechanical animal farming will
be looked on as plain barbaric.

Absolutely. And of course things are and have been changing (improving
animal welfare) for years and so stopping the exploitation of animals
completely will be the natural conclusion to that.

Post by RJH
'Farming' an animal to eat it - who were these
people?!

We consider gassing on sentient creatures to be horrific when they are
people but consider it perfectly acceptable when they are (some)
animals. I question how many pet owners would consider gassing of
their beloved dog acceptable for example. If it's not 'humane' ('with
compassion') for a dog, why is it for another animal that is even more
intelligent?

Post by RJH

Post by John Rumm
As for "exploitation" - what is that? Is riding a horse ok? Using one to
plough a field? How about keeping and training a bird of pray to hunt
small mammals for the pot? Some level of "exploitation" is a requirement
for the survival of any species. I am content to live with that.

We certainly don't need to eat animals/related in the UK - that argument has
gone, surely?

Only by those of us who are willing to consider others over / with
ourselves possibly?

Post by RJH
If you eat meat or cheese in the UK it's because you want to,
not because you need to.

Exactly ... and many people / cultures don't ever eat one / either.
It's all to do with how you are brought up and the marketing and
culture you are exposed to that allows a normalisation of what others
often consider unacceptable or abhorrent.

Post by RJH
As for more symbiotic relationships - pets etc.? I think generally OK, common
sense applied.

The same applies for most pets of course, maybe with the last to go
the domestic dog, given they have *chosen* to befriend man *because*
in turn for protecting their livestock and family, they were given
food and shelter. That was done as part of a mutually beneficial
relationship, not because one was going to kill and eat the other,
especially when there are alternatives (or you live in China etc). ;-(

'Man's best friend' is a dog' (not any other creature for mostly
practical reasons).

However, We have *never* bought a dog from a breeder and have only
taken on 'rescue' dogs to allow them to live out their lives as
happily and comfortably as possible. This often includes spaying /
castration (done in surgical conditions and with full anaesthetic and
pain killers etc) because we don't want the problem of stray dogs to
be compounded. We do not keep them knowing that even when old and
terminally ill we would accept them being gassed to death,
electrocuted and stunned before having their throats cut.

Cheers, T i m

[NY]

Post by T i m

Post by RJH
snip

Post by John Rumm
As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

Yeahbut. As regards non-human animals, our intelligence metes out some pretty
brutal variations on the theme of life and death. It's just a disgrace. It's
also one of those 'how will history judge' in a few hundred (or maybe
thousand) year's time - the era of industrial/mechanical animal farming will
be looked on as plain barbaric.

Absolutely. And of course things are and have been changing (improving
animal welfare) for years and so stopping the exploitation of animals
completely will be the natural conclusion to that.

Maybe it will be the natural conclusion to it - or maybe it won't. When
animals are kept in very bad conditions (battery hens, veal crates etc)
there will be a lot of uproar and demands for improvements. Once things
improve to a level that people regard as "good enough" (a threshold which
will vary from one person to another!) then there will not be demands for
further changes, so things will stay static.

[T i m]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 10:38:17 -0000, "NY" <***@privacy.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

Post by NY

Post by T i m
Absolutely. And of course things are and have been changing (improving
animal welfare) for years and so stopping the exploitation of animals
completely will be the natural conclusion to that.

Maybe it will be the natural conclusion to it - or maybe it won't.

No, it will, it will *have* to be.

Post by NY
When
animals are kept in very bad conditions (battery hens, veal crates etc)
there will be a lot of uproar and demands for improvements.

That's been happening for years but only get's public attention when
something happens to highlight it. This is how all sorts of injustices
have been 'revealed' and changed throughout history.

Post by NY
Once things
improve to a level that people regard as "good enough" (a threshold which
will vary from one person to another!) then there will not be demands for
further changes, so things will stay static.

Yup, that will be a vegan world.

You can't justify the gassing of a pig whilst caring for a dog, it
doesn't make sense, especially when there is no *need* to rear, keep
and kill the pig to survive.

https://ibb.co/9w1dV53

Cheers, T i m

[Spike]

Post by T i m
You can't justify the gassing of a pig whilst caring for a dog, it
doesn't make sense, especially when there is no *need* to rear, keep
and kill the pig to survive.

There's no need to keep a dog to survive either, so that argument fell
rather flat.

How's your own dog getting on, considering the unnatural state in which
it lives?

[NY]

Post by T i m

Post by NY
Once things
improve to a level that people regard as "good enough" (a threshold which
will vary from one person to another!) then there will not be demands for
further changes, so things will stay static.

Yup, that will be a vegan world.

The point that I was making is that for non-vegans, the "that's good enough"
level is still a lot greater than zero. And if it's already at this level
(as judged by the majority) there won't be a popular will by the majority of
the population to change things any further. Maybe over time veganism will
gather more and more supporters and a point will be reached where there *is*
a majority in favour of reducing the (ab)use of animals to absolute zero.
Just as slavery was once acceptable but is now universally condemned.
Standards and habits change.

I just hope I'm not alive when the eating of meat becomes banned - because I
enjoy my food too much, and a life where the only things that may legally be
eaten are plant-based is not one that I would see as being worth living - as
opposed to merely existing. But I suspect that personal preference over what
people eat carries no sway with vegans - it's "you will eat these things and
you will like it or lump it". Very dictatorial.

Maybe by the time veganism becomes mandatory, science will have progressed
to the point that plant-based or artificial meat substitutes have become
indistinguishable from meat, milk, leather, and the "but it's not meat"
argument will cease to exist. I'd become vegan if indistinguishable
substitutes were available, just as I'd buy an electric car if it was an
indistinguishable substitute as regards range and refuelling time to a
petrol/diesel car. It may well happen, but it's not there yet by a long way.

For me, the knowledge that I'm saving the planet or saving animals is not a
good enough payback on its own: there's a "what's in it for me, what will be
the downsides?" issue.

[T i m]

Post by NY

Post by T i m

Post by NY
Once things
improve to a level that people regard as "good enough" (a threshold which
will vary from one person to another!) then there will not be demands for
further changes, so things will stay static.

Yup, that will be a vegan world.

The point that I was making is that for non-vegans, the "that's good enough"
level is still a lot greater than zero.

Till something happens that causes them to think / see differently?

Post by NY
And if it's already at this level
(as judged by the majority) there won't be a popular will by the majority of
the population to change things any further.

And hence why education and advocacy is important, for the animals,
humans and the heath of the world.

Post by NY
Maybe over time veganism will
gather more and more supporters

It's not a maybe mate, it's already happening.

Post by NY
and a point will be reached where there *is*
a majority in favour of reducing the (ab)use of animals to absolute zero.

Agreed.

Post by NY
Just as slavery was once acceptable but is now universally condemned.

Yup, and fox hunting, badger baiting, keeping veal in a crate etc etc.

Post by NY
Standards and habits change.

Of course, as we evolve / progress.

Post by NY
I just hope I'm not alive when the eating of meat becomes banned - because I
enjoy my food too much,

I'm not sure why you conflate those two things in the same sentence?
Do you assume we (the 4 of us and the millions of other vegans) don't
'like / enjoy' food? We have enjoyed 99,99% of the vegan meals I have
cooked over the last year (not 100% because like anything new you try,
there will be some stuff you don't like ...), we are rarely hungry,
still eat 'junk food' / vegan crisps / chocolate but have been loosing
weight whilst still being fit enough for regular 7+ mile walks.

Post by NY
and a life where the only things that may legally be
eaten are plant-based is not one that I would see as being worth living

How much vegan food have you tried though?

Are you willing to pull the trigger on a bolt gun and watch the cow
drop to it's knees or press the button the moves the pigs into the gas
and listen to them screaming for 30+ seconds till they pass out? They
are the thoughts that should be in your mind when you are deciding
what you 'like' to eat.

Post by NY
- as
opposed to merely existing.

See above. We are far from 'merely existing' on our current food
choices, far from it. And if your life revolves around eating animal
flesh then you are already one of the 'outliers'.

Post by NY
But I suspect that personal preference over what
people eat carries no sway with vegans

Just as you have already agreed it doesn't matter how well you keep
your slaves, doing so at all is already wrong.

Post by NY
- it's "you will eat these things and
you will like it or lump it". Very dictatorial.

No, it's 'why do you think you have the right to cause that animal
pain and suffering'. Very supportive / natural.

The only reason you think / say what you do is because it's not the
future yet. You have been brought up, conditioned and marketed to to
consider the breeding and keeping and killing of animals to eat is
still acceptable for the vast majority when it isn't.

Post by NY
Maybe by the time veganism becomes mandatory,

It won't be 'mandatory, it will be 'the norm', and anyone wanting to
eat meat can eat the lab grown stuff and the rest will carry on with
their plant based foods?

Post by NY
science will have progressed
to the point that plant-based or artificial meat substitutes have become
indistinguishable from meat, milk, leather, and the "but it's not meat"
argument will cease to exist.

Exactly.

Post by NY
I'd become vegan if indistinguishable
substitutes were available,

Indistinguishable from what? What you *happen* to have been brought up
eating? What if you had been brought up in a vegan family and never
had meat / milk / eggs. Would you then think that you would kill an
animal just to see what it tasted like (and if so, which)?

Post by NY
Just as I'd buy an electric car if it was an
indistinguishable substitute as regards range and refuelling time to a
petrol/diesel car.

Or you adjust your outlook to what's sustainable and isn't going to
cause the premature deaths of people you drive past?

Post by NY
It may well happen,

It is already happening and why they are extending the ULE zone in
London and elsewhere in the world.

All the things people choose / continue to do generally have a cost
and that cost is often born out by the innocent.

Post by NY
but it's not there yet by a long way.

Agreed, change on that scale, especially when you are trying to get
people to understand / accept they don't have the *right* to do stuff,
takes time.

Post by NY
For me, the knowledge that I'm saving the planet or saving animals is not a
good enough payback on its own: there's a "what's in it for me, what will be
the downsides?" issue.

Of course. What's in veganism for us is that we aren't killing ~200
animals a year each that didn't need to die.

Luckily, there are still quite a few people who are altruistic, who
aren't completely selfish, use ideals, ethics and morals to set their
compass, not just what they can get away with within the law.

The logic of killing animals to eat is the same as those who litter
saying 'it keeps someone in a job'. What they don't comprehend is the
cost to society and the globe, not just financial but the health
(mental or otherwise) and well being.

We are told to cut out processed meats, to cut back on all other
meats, to eat more fruit and veg, to be kind (not cruel) to animals,
to respect / assist (not destroy) nature, to consider how we use the
resources available and consider pollution such creates. We should
also be considering all the millions of lives lost, both human and
other animals because of cancer, antibiotic resistance and the
zoonotic diseases that are so prevalent around man and his
manipulation of animals for food.

What part of that 'bigger picture' don't people get?

The answer, it's more comfortable for them to hide away from the
truth, the facts and just busy themselves away with their selfish and
insular existence ... It's all about 'me'.

"I don't want to give up causing animals unnecessary pain and
suffering" is what "I couldn't give up meat" actually means.

Cheers, T i m

[NY]

Post by T i m

Post by NY
I just hope I'm not alive when the eating of meat becomes banned - because I
enjoy my food too much,

I'm not sure why you conflate those two things in the same sentence?
Do you assume we (the 4 of us and the millions of other vegans) don't
'like / enjoy' food? We have enjoyed 99,99% of the vegan meals I have
cooked over the last year (not 100% because like anything new you try,
there will be some stuff you don't like ...), we are rarely hungry,
still eat 'junk food' / vegan crisps / chocolate but have been loosing
weight whilst still being fit enough for regular 7+ mile walks.

I'm sure you *do* enjoy your more restricted (meat-free) diet, otherwise
presumably you wouldn't do it. Or maybe you put ethical concerns before
personal preference, whereas for me it's the opposite way round.

As a matter of interest (I'm curious) have you been vegan all your life (eg
were you raised by vegans) or did you change later in life after you'd
already eaten meat and meat products? If the latter, did you miss meat until
you got used to not having it - is it a craving that eventually goes away?

I actively hate vegetables (*), especially cooked ones and especially
leaf/stalk/seed-pod ones (beans, peas, broccoli, sprouts, cabbage,
cauliflower) that have been boiled or steamed, as opposed to root veg like
carrots and parsnips, and mushrooms, that I love (**). I wonder how I'd cope
if those (plus nuts and cereals) were all I could eat for ever more. Would I
learn to love them and not to see an endless pile of foul-tasting greenery
on my plate that spoils an otherwise nice meal. Maybe I would ;-) I hope so!
That's what I was meaning about "would eating/life still be enjoyable" (for
me)...

I don't doubt that you are fitter and healthier for being at least
vegetarian and (in your case) vegan.


(*) To the point that I have to force myself to eat them because they are
good for me and because it is a socially convention to eat veg with a meal.
I tend to eat them first so I can then enjoy the rest of my meal, untainted.

(*) Though I still prefer carrots and mushrooms as a raw snack rather than
as an accompaniment to a meal.

[Rod Speed]

Post by NY

Post by T i m

Post by NY
I just hope I'm not alive when the eating of meat becomes banned - because I
enjoy my food too much,

I'm not sure why you conflate those two things in the same sentence?
Do you assume we (the 4 of us and the millions of other vegans) don't
'like / enjoy' food? We have enjoyed 99,99% of the vegan meals I have
cooked over the last year (not 100% because like anything new you try,
there will be some stuff you don't like ...), we are rarely hungry,
still eat 'junk food' / vegan crisps / chocolate but have been loosing
weight whilst still being fit enough for regular 7+ mile walks.

I'm sure you *do* enjoy your more restricted (meat-free) diet, otherwise
presumably you wouldn't do it. Or maybe you put ethical concerns before
personal preference, whereas for me it's the opposite way round.
As a matter of interest (I'm curious) have you been vegan all your life
(eg were you raised by vegans) or did you change later in life after you'd
already eaten meat and meat products?

He has said that he used to eat meat. So
we cant blame his rabidry on his parents.,

Post by NY
If the latter, did you miss meat until you got used to not having it - is
it a craving that eventually goes away?
I actively hate vegetables (*), especially cooked ones and especially
leaf/stalk/seed-pod ones (beans, peas, broccoli, sprouts, cabbage,
cauliflower) that have been boiled or steamed, as opposed to root veg like
carrots and parsnips, and mushrooms, that I love (**).

Weird. I actively avoid the frozen veg that includes
carrots tho I will eat them if served them when out.

I choose not to have parsnips with roasts and stews.

And much prefer lettuce on meat sandwiches
than no lettuce. Adds a nice crunch.

Post by NY
I wonder how I'd cope if those (plus nuts and cereals) were all I could
eat for ever more.

I'd top myself.

Post by NY
Would I learn to love them and not to see an endless pile of foul-tasting
greenery on my plate that spoils an otherwise nice meal. Maybe I would ;-)
I hope so!

I doubt you would. You appear to still have what
sees little kids refuse to eat their veg, likely your
system gets the taste much stronger than most.

That's the reason for the effect with kids.

Post by NY
That's what I was meaning about "would eating/life still be enjoyable"
(for me)...
I don't doubt that you are fitter and healthier for being at least
vegetarian and (in your case) vegan.

I doubt it with the stronger.

Post by NY
(*) To the point that I have to force myself to eat them because they are
good for me and because it is a socially convention to eat veg with a
meal. I tend to eat them first so I can then enjoy the rest of my meal,
untainted.
(*) Though I still prefer carrots and mushrooms as a raw snack rather than
as an accompaniment to a meal.

I prefer apples myself.

[Peeler]

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[Rod Speed]

Post by T i m

Post by RJH
snip

Post by John Rumm
As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

Yeahbut. As regards non-human animals, our intelligence metes out some pretty
brutal variations on the theme of life and death. It's just a disgrace. It's
also one of those 'how will history judge' in a few hundred (or maybe
thousand) year's time - the era of industrial/mechanical animal farming will
be looked on as plain barbaric.

Absolutely. And of course things are and have been changing (improving
animal welfare) for years and so stopping the exploitation of animals
completely will be the natural conclusion to that.

Fantasy. Taint gunna happen.

Post by T i m

Post by RJH
'Farming' an animal to eat it - who were these people?!

We consider gassing on sentient creatures
to be horrific when they are people

Not when they are vegans.

And we consider eating the sexual organs of humans
to be unacceptable, but not those of plants, stupid.

Post by T i m
but consider it perfectly acceptable when they are (some)
animals. I question how many pet owners would consider
gassing of their beloved dog acceptable for example.

Depends on how well it works compared with a lethal
injection when that is the only two viable alternatives.

Post by T i m
If it's not 'humane' ('with compassion') for a dog, why
is it for another animal that is even more intelligent?

Mindlessly silly.

Post by T i m

Post by RJH

Post by John Rumm
As for "exploitation" - what is that? Is riding a horse ok? Using one to
plough a field? How about keeping and training a bird of pray to hunt
small mammals for the pot? Some level of "exploitation" is a requirement
for the survival of any species. I am content to live with that.

We certainly don't need to eat animals/related in the UK - that argument has
gone, surely?

Only by those of us who are willing to consider others over / with
ourselves possibly?

Post by RJH
If you eat meat or cheese in the UK it's because you want to,
not because you need to.

Exactly ... and many people / cultures don't ever eat one / either.
It's all to do with how you are brought up and the marketing and
culture you are exposed to that allows a normalisation of what others
often consider unacceptable or abhorrent.

Post by RJH
As for more symbiotic relationships - pets etc.? I think generally OK, common
sense applied.

The same applies for most pets of course, maybe with the last to go
the domestic dog, given they have *chosen* to befriend man *because*
in turn for protecting their livestock and family, they were given
food and shelter. That was done as part of a mutually beneficial
relationship, not because one was going to kill and eat the other,
especially when there are alternatives (or you live in China etc). ;-(
'Man's best friend' is a dog' (not any other creature for mostly
practical reasons).
However, We have *never* bought a dog from a breeder

More fool you. You get a much more reliable
source of the type of dog you want that way.

Post by T i m
and have only taken on 'rescue' dogs

Most of which have been rejected by
their previous owners for a reason.

Post by T i m
to allow them to live out their lives as
happily and comfortably as possible.

That's a lie when you refuse to allow them to eat meat.

Post by T i m
This often includes spaying / castration

Which we don't allow involuntarily with humans.

Post by T i m
(done in surgical conditions and with full anaesthetic
and pain killers etc) because we don't want the problem
of stray dogs to be compounded.

But didn't have the sense to do that to yourself.

Post by T i m
We do not keep them knowing that even when old and
terminally ill we would accept them being gassed to death,
electrocuted and stunned before having their throats cut.

That's what should happen to you vegans.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 03:35:07 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH trollshit unread>

[T i m]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 01:14:09 +0000, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:51:05 +0000, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food.

No error, factual statement mate. The 'levels' of suffering that are
considered acceptable are managed by bodies like the RSPCA and have
been 'improved' (proving that they existed in the first place) all the
time.

Post by John Rumm
This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

See above.

Post by John Rumm
It's quite possible to mistreat animals that are not being raised for
food,

Of course.

Post by John Rumm
and equally possible to care humanely for those that are.

Till you gas them to death ...

Well that is progress,

Progress ... towards causing an animal to suffer because you like how
it's flesh tastes?

Post by John Rumm
you at least accept that until that point they
are not being mistreated.

Please don't put words into my mouth John, you are supposed to be
better than that.

No, 1, most of these animals wouldn't exist if they weren't
artificially inseminated (nothing 'natural' about that).

2) Most of these animals are kept in 'non natural' environments,
aren't allowed to roam, find food and shelter, and live their lives as
they would in the wild. They are packed into sheds / pens / cages in
vast numbers and that's why the cut off the tails and teeth of pigs
and de-beak birds, or they are likely to damage 'the product' before
it's slaughtered at an early age.

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
So by all means campaign to stamp out animal cruelty,

I am, starting myself by not exploiting them in any way wherever
possible.

Post by John Rumm
just don't expect
me to not enjoy my ethically sourced roast beef this weekend!

No, I wouldn't expect your 'ethics' to extend to not taking the life
of an animal that didn't give up it's life freely (so you took what
was never yours to take), because you are too old / conditioned (said
respectfully).

How exactly would I identify the cow giving up its life freely?

It obviously wouldn't. You are *obviously* taking it's life against
it's will. Poke it with a sharp stick on an open field and see if it
stays there or runs away.

Post by John Rumm
You understand the concept of a food chain I presume?

No such thing (you really ought to do more research before trying to
prove black is white). ;-(

It's a 'food mesh' with all sorts of interdependencies in all sorts of
directions.

Post by John Rumm
Some animals eat
vegetation, some other animals, some both.

Correct and few have the choice where they find that food.

Post by John Rumm
If Man were not present on
the planet, that would still be the case - so it's an entirely "natural"
process.

Of course.

Post by John Rumm
Now in nature this of course all happens with much suffering at
the point of an animal becoming dinner - there are probably not many
painless ways to tear it limb from limb before tucking in.

Correct?

Post by John Rumm
As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

No, animals only need to be 'food' when there are no other options, or
until you can breed an animal that *want's* to die well before it's
time.

Animals (in the wild) often also have the chance to escape, I saw a
pack of lions on TV the other day who had recently eaten and a wild
pig happened to wander past and apart from sitting up in surprise, the
lions didn't even move. Deer often escape big cats, fish escape birds,
lizards escape racer snakes etc. [1]

Pigs can't escape a painful death is a gas chamber (but try
desperately to).

Post by John Rumm
As for "exploitation" - what is that?

Look it up mate.

Post by John Rumm
Is riding a horse ok?

Nope, unless you think they evolved for us to ride?

Post by John Rumm
Using one to
plough a field?

Nope, unless you think they evolved to pull a plough?

Post by John Rumm
How about keeping and training a bird of pray to hunt
small mammals for the pot?

Nope.

Post by John Rumm
Some level of "exploitation" is a requirement
for the survival of any species.

Except an advanced species that has the choice not to.

Post by John Rumm
I am content to live with that.

You are content to live using the morals and ethics of a wild animal
or Neanderthal?

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m
You would be one of those who were happily keeping slaves because 'at
the time', doing so was not illegal or considered wrong ethically by
many of those who created the rules. It was *never* acceptable to
those who were exploited of course.

You may be reassured that I draw the line at eating slaves.

Why not though? They would be yours, you can and they are made of
meat?

And of course you have 'a line', it's the logical inconsistency you
are living with.

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m
There is *NO* right way to do a wrong thing.

Chopsticks?

https://ibb.co/4N8j2M1

Cheers, T i m

[1] A cow jumps off a ship transporting it to slaughter, swims for 5
hours to be collected back up and slaughtered.

Cow breaks free of a handler, swims to another island. Farmer goes to
that island to reclaim it and it swims on to another island. The
locals have a fundraiser and buy the cow off the farmer and give it to
a animal rescue. Then go home and eat cow.

[Spike]

Post by T i m
Most of these animals are kept in 'non natural' environments,
aren't allowed to roam, find food and shelter, and live their lives as
they would in the wild.

The average fox, which isn't a domesticated animal, has been found to be
in fairly poor health and riddled with parasites both external and
internal. Capable of living for 20 years, their average life-span is a
mere five years. That is due to their natural life.

I suspect you might say that that your dog leads a much better life than
that of a fox, but the price it paid, entirely for your own pleasure and
without being consulted in any way, was to have its genitalia mutilated,
to be dragged round on a lead instead of being able to run free with a
pack of its friends, and it is forced to eat - it has no choice in this
matter either - a diet that is totally unnatural for it. Yet you don't
see - or want to see - that that is a form of animal cruelty. Further,
you mention spaying /castration (done in the nicest possible way, of
course) of rescue dogs because 'we don't want the problem of stray
dogs', as if that feeble reason excuses your behaviour. This is the
problem with those who have no compassion or empathy.

So, when it comes to the state of inflicting animal cruelty for one's
own pleasure and satisfaction, you are up there with the best of them.
So forgive me if I find your evangelising grossly hypocritical. You
speak with fork'd tongue.

[John Rumm]

Post by T i m
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 01:14:09 +0000, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:51:05 +0000, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food.

No error, factual statement mate. The 'levels' of suffering that are
considered acceptable are managed by bodies like the RSPCA and have
been 'improved' (proving that they existed in the first place) all the
time.

Post by John Rumm
This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

See above.

Post by John Rumm
It's quite possible to mistreat animals that are not being raised for
food,

Of course.

Post by John Rumm
and equally possible to care humanely for those that are.

Till you gas them to death ...

Well that is progress,

Progress ... towards causing an animal to suffer because you like how
it's flesh tastes?

What makes you think its suffering?

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
you at least accept that until that point they
are not being mistreated.

Please don't put words into my mouth John, you are supposed to be
better than that.
No, 1, most of these animals wouldn't exist if they weren't
artificially inseminated (nothing 'natural' about that).

We have been breading animals in one way or another for millennia - so
again; define natural.

Post by T i m
2) Most of these animals are kept in 'non natural' environments,
aren't allowed to roam, find food and shelter, and live their lives as

You do talk allot of nonsense... You are presupposing that a "life in
the wild" is somehow easier or better, and yet very few people on earth
could even survive a "life in the wild". Even then it would be a bloody
miserable life. Early societies realised that millennia ago and started
to organise and innovate ways of not having to live a life in the wild.

I bet you you choose to live in permanent shelter, and take advantage of
shops that sell food, energy delivered direct to your property etc.

So why do you wish to cause animals more suffering by denying them those
same facilities that enhance your quality of life so much? That's cruelty.

Is it easier for pig to "find food and shelter" on its own, or to
shelter in a pen that a man built for it, and eat from a trough that a
man delivers food too on a regular basis?

Is it more humane to meet its end being savaged to death by a wild
animal, or to be stunned with an electric shock and know nothing further
about the end of its days?

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
How exactly would I identify the cow giving up its life freely?

It obviously wouldn't. You are *obviously* taking it's life against
it's will. Poke it with a sharp stick on an open field and see if it
stays there or runs away.

Post by John Rumm
You understand the concept of a food chain I presume?

No such thing (you really ought to do more research before trying to
prove black is white). ;-(
It's a 'food mesh' with all sorts of interdependencies in all sorts of
directions.

I think you will find the basic message is the same: Things still eat
other things in the "mesh".

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
Some animals eat
vegetation, some other animals, some both.

Correct and few have the choice where they find that food.

Post by John Rumm
If Man were not present on
the planet, that would still be the case - so it's an entirely "natural"
process.

Of course.

Post by John Rumm
Now in nature this of course all happens with much suffering at
the point of an animal becoming dinner - there are probably not many
painless ways to tear it limb from limb before tucking in.

Correct?

Post by John Rumm
As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food
chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is
still food.

No, animals only need to be 'food' when there are no other options,

For pretty much all man's time on earth, there has been no other option
for us either.

Now one could argue that there is a choice (for wealthy men in developed
societies at least), but that is the thing about choice - you don't have
to chose one way or the other.

Post by T i m
Animals (in the wild) often also have the chance to escape, I saw a
pack of lions on TV the other day who had recently eaten and a wild
pig happened to wander past and apart from sitting up in surprise, the
lions didn't even move. Deer often escape big cats, fish escape birds,
lizards escape racer snakes etc. [1]
Pigs can't escape a painful death is a gas chamber (but try
desperately to).

I would not know - when I watched a pigs being slaughtered, they were
stunned with an electric shock before being hoisted up and having their
throats slit. They did not seem to be stressed or even aware that
anything was going on. (they were only brought into a holding pen three
or four at a time)

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
As for "exploitation" - what is that?

Look it up mate.

Post by John Rumm
Is riding a horse ok?

Nope, unless you think they evolved for us to ride?

They almost certainly have...

Much as we are evolving more thumb dexterity to better interact with
smart phones!

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
Using one to
plough a field?

Nope, unless you think they evolved to pull a plough?

You seem to be in effect saying that the human species should have been
"put down" before it really got started then. Since exploiting animal
muscle power, and relying on them for food and clothing were the only
ways that early hunter gatherers were going to meet the minimum level of
Energy Return on Energy Investment (ERoEI) to even survive as a species.

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
How about keeping and training a bird of pray to hunt
small mammals for the pot?

Nope.

Post by John Rumm
Some level of "exploitation" is a requirement
for the survival of any species.

Except an advanced species that has the choice not to.

Yup true. In which case I will exercise my free will and make the choice
to go and have a toasted bagel with some cream cheese, ham, and tomato
for dinner.

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
I am content to live with that.

You are content to live using the morals and ethics of a wild animal
or Neanderthal?

Yup, why not - after all I still use USENET...

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m
You would be one of those who were happily keeping slaves because 'at
the time', doing so was not illegal or considered wrong ethically by
many of those who created the rules. It was *never* acceptable to
those who were exploited of course.

You may be reassured that I draw the line at eating slaves.

Why not though? They would be yours, you can and they are made of
meat?

Yup but they are also represent human life, and I *do* value that more
dearly than animal life.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[NY]

Much as we are evolving more thumb dexterity to better interact with smart
phones!

I've got a lot of evolution still do do, in that case ;-) I find my thumb to
be the worst digit to use because a) it has the largest surface in contact
with a tiny icon or even tinier key on a virtual keyboard, and b) if you
hold the phone in the hand whose thumb you are using, there is a more
limited range of the screen that it can reach than with a longer finger.

I always use my index finger of either hand (it doesn't matter which),
holding the phone in the opposite hand. My wife always uses her middle
finger, maybe because it is the longest and so is the first to touch the
screen. Neither of us can do it one-handed (sorry, that sounds rather "ooo
matronnnnnnnnn!") ;-)

[Rod Speed]

Post by NY

Post by John Rumm
Much as we are evolving more thumb dexterity to better interact with
smart phones!

I've got a lot of evolution still do do, in that case ;-) I find my thumb
to be the worst digit to use because a) it has the largest surface in
contact with a tiny icon or even tinier key on a virtual keyboard,

You need to try voice entry with keyboards. It’s an icon
of a mic on both iOS and android virtual keyboards.

Post by NY
and b) if you hold the phone in the hand whose thumb you are using, there
is a more limited range of the screen that it can reach than with a longer
finger.

The thumb works better with fingerprint sensors.

Post by NY
I always use my index finger of either hand (it doesn't matter which),

I have both thumbs registered for the fingerprint sensor.

Post by NY
holding the phone in the opposite hand. My wife always uses her middle
finger, maybe because it is the longest and so is the first to touch the
screen. Neither of us can do it one-handed (sorry, that sounds rather "ooo
matronnnnnnnnn!") ;-)

I'd have you publicly flogged if your hadn't
enjoyed that so much the last time.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 04:12:34 +1100, Rod Speedcantankerous trolling geezer
Rodent Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[Rod Speed]

Post by T i m
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 01:14:09 +0000, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:51:05 +0000, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm
I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with
raising animals for food.

No error, factual statement mate. The 'levels' of suffering that are
considered acceptable are managed by bodies like the RSPCA and have
been 'improved' (proving that they existed in the first place) all the
time.

Post by John Rumm
This is a logical fallacy, since there is no
implied relationship.

See above.

Post by John Rumm
It's quite possible to mistreat animals that are not being raised for
food,

Of course.

Post by John Rumm
and equally possible to care humanely for those that are.

Till you gas them to death ...

Well that is progress,

Progress ... towards causing an animal to
suffer because you like how it's flesh tastes?

Causing an animal to have a life at all with no
suffering instead of no life at all because I like
how its flesh tastes or like to each cheese etc.

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
you at least accept that until that point they
are not being mistreated.

Please don't put words into my mouth John,
you are supposed to be better than that.
No, 1, most of these animals wouldn't exist
if they weren't artificially inseminated

That's a lie.

Post by T i m
(nothing 'natural' about that).

Only a fool cares. Nothing natural about houses,
cars, planes, clothes, computers etc etc etc either.

Post by T i m
2) Most of these animals are kept in 'non natural' environments,

Another bare faced lie with sheep, most cattle, the
vast bulk of fish, and its just as true of pets anyway.

Post by T i m
aren't allowed to roam, find food and shelter,

See above.

And you are free to be selective about which you eat too.

Post by T i m
and live their lives as they would in the wild.

Which for most of them is much worse than how they do live.
Same with pets, and you are free to be selective with both.

Post by T i m
They are packed into sheds / pens / cages in vast numbers

Plenty arent and you are free to be selective
about which you eat and have as pets.

Post by T i m
and that's why the cut off the tails and teeth of pigs
and de-beak birds, or they are likely to damage 'the
product' before it's slaughtered at an early age.

You are free to not eat those and
eat the ones they don't do that to.

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
So by all means campaign to stamp out animal cruelty,

I am, starting myself by not exploiting them in any way wherever
possible.

Post by John Rumm
just don't expect
me to not enjoy my ethically sourced roast beef this weekend!

No, I wouldn't expect your 'ethics' to extend to not taking the life
of an animal that didn't give up it's life freely (so you took what
was never yours to take), because you are too old / conditioned (said
respectfully).

How exactly would I identify the cow giving up its life freely?

It obviously wouldn't. You are *obviously* taking
it's life against it's will. Poke it with a sharp stick on
an open field and see if it stays there or runs away.

Most don't let you get near enough to poke them with anything.

Most cats don't either.

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
You understand the concept of a food chain I presume?

No such thing (you really ought to do more
research before trying to prove black is white). ;-(

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Post by T i m
It's a 'food mesh' with all sorts of interdependencies
in all sorts of directions.

Waffle.

Post by T i m

Post by John Rumm
Some animals eat vegetation,
some other animals, some both.

And that's what's natural, stupid.

Post by T i m
Correct and few have the choice where they find that food.

But do when we breed them to eat with some of them.

None of the rest of your rabid shit worth bothering with,
all flushed where it belongs.

[Spike]

Post by T i m
"British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can
support healthy living in people of all ages"

A vegan diet isn't healthy.

Post by T i m
'Well-planned' = 'balanced' of course
Fortified foods (e.g. yeast extract, some breakfast cereals, some
plant alternatives to milk and milk products). Supplements."
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

Virtue signalling. Some people do it a lot - haven't you noticed?

[Rod Speed]

Post by T i m
It was interesting to see an advert on TV earlier: 'Eat balanced',
showing the highly glamorised ideal of beef cows grazing on
green pasture with the commentary telling us they will be
eating plants that we can't eat that is just grown with rainwater ...

Plenty of ours do just that. In fact the majority do.

Post by T i m
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/29/revealed-industrial-scale-beef-farming-comes-to-the-uk
and eating it (meat) is a good source of vitamins (and it
displays B12 on the screen) but with no pictures showing
the bulk of the animals that never see grass (esp worldwide),

That a lie.

Post by T i m
are fed on soy from devastated rain forests

Fuck all of them are.

Post by T i m
and bolt gunned in the head and their throats cut?

And the plants you gorge on have their sexual
organs ripped off for you to stuff in your face.

Post by T i m
http://youtu.be/d_Ryzpz4eYk
Hardly a 'balanced' view of the whole process is it

Neither is your shit.

All the rest of your even sillier rabid
shit and lies flushed where it belongs.

[Peeler]

<FLUSH trollshit unread>

[Robin]

On 06/01/2021 10:37, T i m wrote:
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

[T i m]

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

If you think you have a way that is likely to convert anyone here to
being less cruel to and not exploiting animals I'd be happy to hear
it?

Why would anyone knowingly cause animal suffering and exploitation
when there is no need?

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

Are you being truly stupid? Please explain what you are trying to
achieve if it's not trying to stop us eating meat and meat products?

Post by T i m
If you think you have a way that is likely to convert anyone here to
being less cruel to and not exploiting animals I'd be happy to hear
it?

One is simply the strict requirement of animals being stunned or bolted
before being bled out. But you seem to be against such improvements in
animal welfare.

Post by T i m
Why would anyone knowingly cause animal suffering and exploitation
when there is no need?

Quite, there was never a need to mutilate your pets genitals.

[Rod Speed]

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here

Your endless bible bashing about it.

Post by T i m
or that it's (just) 'my' pov?

No one ever said that you are the only rabid lying vegan.

[Peeler]

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[Robin]

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you. English doesn't work that way.

If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

[Tim Lamb]

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view
unique to you. English doesn't work that way.
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can
only think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of
pleasuring yourself.

+1
I think there must be some *reward/gratification* motive to persist in
repeating a personal lifestyle decision. I have previously linked this
motivation to that felt by those of a religious conviction.
Somehow advertising a belief and attempting to gain adherents in the
face of opposition builds self esteem. Rather ludicrous in a non
physical environment such as a newsgroup:-)

Best ignored I think. Much of the On Topic posting is relevant and
useful.

[Robin]

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by Robin

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

 What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view
unique to you.  English doesn't work that way.
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can
only think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of
pleasuring yourself.

+1
I think there must be some *reward/gratification* motive to persist in
repeating a personal lifestyle decision. I have previously linked this
motivation to that felt by those of a religious conviction.
Somehow advertising a belief and attempting to gain adherents in the
face of opposition builds self esteem. Rather ludicrous in a non
physical environment such as a newsgroup:-)

Well put.

Post by Tim Lamb
Best ignored I think. Much of the On Topic posting is relevant and useful.

I usually do so but occasionally make the mistake of thinking rational
debate may be possible.

[Spike]

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can
only think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of
pleasuring yourself.

+1
I think there must be some *reward/gratification* motive to persist in
repeating a personal lifestyle decision. I have previously linked this
motivation to that felt by those of a religious conviction.
Somehow advertising a belief and attempting to gain adherents in the
face of opposition builds self esteem. Rather ludicrous in a non
physical environment such as a newsgroup:-)

WHS

[T i m]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:46:21 +0000, Tim Lamb
<***@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Tim Lamb
I think there must be some *reward/gratification* motive to persist in
repeating a personal lifestyle decision.

Like when you rescue an animal that is in pain or help a slave etc?

Post by Tim Lamb
I have previously linked this
motivation to that felt by those of a religious conviction.

Of course you have, easy to do when you are (were) part of the whole
purveyor of the pain and suffering.

Post by Tim Lamb
Somehow advertising a belief and attempting to gain adherents in the
face of opposition builds self esteem.

Or in the case of veganism, to prevent animals from being exploited
and killed for no justifiable reason. This isn't survival, this is
choice, the choice not to take the life of an animal when you don't
need to. Nothing whatsoever to do with the person trying to get others
to do the same, other than knowing you may have prevented many more
animals from having to suffer. It's perfectly natural for people to
want to do good things.

Post by Tim Lamb
Rather ludicrous in a non
physical environment such as a newsgroup:-)

Along with any discussion on factual information then?

Post by Tim Lamb
Best ignored I think.

But I bet you can't. You have to have your little say because of
guilt. You were part of the process (and still are indirectly I
believe re 'finishing' beef cattle on your land) so *of course* you
will desperately try to come up with any FUD you can to defend your
indefensible position.

Post by Tim Lamb
Much of the On Topic posting is relevant and
useful.

And you have said many times how you don't want to read / consider
anything to do with reducing the cruelty and suffering of animals yet
you continue to do so?

https://ibb.co/JFv5yTQ

Cheers, T i m

[Tim Lamb]

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:46:21 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb
Best ignored I think.

But I bet you can't. You have to have your little say because of
guilt. You were part of the process (and still are indirectly I
believe re 'finishing' beef cattle on your land) so *of course* you
will desperately try to come up with any FUD you can to defend your
indefensible position.

How much are you willing to bet?

I have responded here under an OT header where there was discussion on
your purpose in continuing promoting your personal lifestyle choice. I
don't recall ever criticising that choice, just some of the propaganda
and reasoning that led up to it.

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
Much of the On Topic posting is relevant and
useful.

And you have said many times how you don't want to read / consider
anything to do with reducing the cruelty and suffering of animals yet
you continue to do so?

I don't think I have said that. Just that it is not relevant to this
group. I am not critical of Vegans, why do you consider you have the
right to criticise me in an unrelated location?

To further rattle your cage, my tenant has 5 new born Hereford suckler
calves which will be gracing someone's table in 18 months to 2 years
time. Your preference is that they should never have been born and the
meadows feeding their mothers should be put to some other use.

[T i m]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:18:11 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:46:21 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb
Best ignored I think.

But I bet you can't. You have to have your little say because of
guilt. You were part of the process (and still are indirectly I
believe re 'finishing' beef cattle on your land) so *of course* you
will desperately try to come up with any FUD you can to defend your
indefensible position.

How much are you willing to bet?

I guess time will tell.

Post by Tim Lamb
I have responded here under an OT header where there was discussion on
your purpose in continuing promoting your personal lifestyle choice.

But that isn't what I'm doing.
I

Post by Tim Lamb
don't recall ever criticising that choice,

I should think not, it's difficult to criticize someone who isn't
causing something to suffer (especially by someone who is).

Post by Tim Lamb
just some of the propaganda
and reasoning that led up to it.

No such thing. You only see it as that because of your vested
interests and conditioning. Unless you are labouring under the false
assumption that there is no suffering (human and animal) in the meat /
egg / dairy industries?

Or do you except there is suffering but it's 'ok' (because it's not
you or your family, it's not 'illegal' and you like the taste)?

You think it's perfectly acceptable to cause animal suffering and a
very early death for you to eat, even though you have no necessity to
eat them?

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
Much of the On Topic posting is relevant and
useful.

And you have said many times how you don't want to read / consider
anything to do with reducing the cruelty and suffering of animals yet
you continue to do so?

I don't think I have said that.

I CBA to go back and find every thread I've posted re animal cruelty
that you have complained about having to read.

Post by Tim Lamb
Just that it is not relevant to this
group.

But Brexit and loads of other stuff (that you happily join in with)
is?

Post by Tim Lamb
I am not critical of Vegans,

Of course you are, because of all of the emotional language and BS you
come out with to try to justify your position. Veganism isn't a
'religion, it's not 'a belief', it's all about the cold hard FACT that
animals suffer in our use of them as food.

Post by Tim Lamb
why do you consider you have the
right to criticise me in an unrelated location?

I have the right to criticise anything that I see to be causing
unnecessary cruelty to others in any location. This includes here,
especially if I have the decency to mark it clearly OT and with a
heading that clearly explains the subject / content. I really don't
think you realised just how biased / blinkered you are, but it's
perfectly understandable *that* you are. ;-(

Post by Tim Lamb
To further rattle your cage, my tenant has 5 new born Hereford suckler
calves which will be gracing someone's table in 18 months to 2 years
time.
Your preference is that they should never have been born

Correct. You (they) wouldn't miss what you don't have.

Post by Tim Lamb
and the
meadows feeding their mothers should be put to some other use.

Yup, as they are doing with re-wilding all over the place. Or growing
crops that we can eat directly.

You talk as if you enjoy being some sort of goD, creating life and
therefore having the right to take it for no real reason, other than
you *like* how their flesh and secretions taste?

Tim, I get how / why this is all so very confusing / 'out there' for
you, as I imagine it would be for anyone who have been brought into
this industry at an early age and so *accepted* (conditioned /
indoctrinated) that it was all perfectly ok.

And there was a time when man may have *needed* to to survive, we now
don't need to and potentially further, shouldn't be, to survive.

Cheers, T i m

[Bev]

Post by T i m
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:18:11 +0000, Tim Lamb
Of course you are, because of all of the emotional language and BS you
come out with to try to justify your position.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in the above?

Post by T i m

why do you consider you have the right to criticise me in an unrelated
location?

I really don't
think you realised just how biased / blinkered you are, but it's
perfectly understandable *that* you are. ;-(
Tim, I get how / why this is all so very confusing / 'out there' for
you, as I imagine it would be for anyone who have been brought into this
industry at an early age and so *accepted* (conditioned / indoctrinated)
that it was all perfectly ok.

I am most impressed by the level of patronising you have reached here.

But, as always T i m, you are as correct as you usually are.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Bev

Post by T i m
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:18:11 +0000, Tim Lamb
Of course you are, because of all of the emotional language and BS you
come out with to try to justify your position.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in the above?

Nope, he is too stupid/rabid for that.

Post by Bev

Post by T i m

why do you consider you have the right
to criticise me in an unrelated location?

I really don't
think you realised just how biased / blinkered you are, but it's
perfectly understandable *that* you are. ;-(
Tim, I get how / why this is all so very confusing / 'out there' for
you, as I imagine it would be for anyone who have been brought into this
industry at an early age and so *accepted* (conditioned / indoctrinated)
that it was all perfectly ok.

I am most impressed by the level of patronising you have reached here.
But, as always T i m, you are as correct as you usually are.

[Peeler]

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[Tim Lamb]

Post by T i m
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:18:11 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:46:21 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb
Best ignored I think.

But I bet you can't. You have to have your little say because of
guilt. You were part of the process (and still are indirectly I
believe re 'finishing' beef cattle on your land) so *of course* you
will desperately try to come up with any FUD you can to defend your
indefensible position.

How much are you willing to bet?

I guess time will tell.

So, not willing to put money where your mouth is?

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
I have responded here under an OT header where there was discussion on
your purpose in continuing promoting your personal lifestyle choice.

But that isn't what I'm doing.
I

Post by Tim Lamb
don't recall ever criticising that choice,

I should think not, it's difficult to criticize someone who isn't
causing something to suffer (especially by someone who is).

Post by Tim Lamb
just some of the propaganda
and reasoning that led up to it.

No such thing. You only see it as that because of your vested
interests and conditioning. Unless you are labouring under the false
assumption that there is no suffering (human and animal) in the meat /
egg / dairy industries?
Or do you except there is suffering but it's 'ok' (because it's not
you or your family, it's not 'illegal' and you like the taste)?
You think it's perfectly acceptable to cause animal suffering and a
very early death for you to eat, even though you have no necessity to
eat them?

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
Much of the On Topic posting is relevant and
useful.

And you have said many times how you don't want to read / consider
anything to do with reducing the cruelty and suffering of animals yet
you continue to do so?

I don't think I have said that.

I CBA to go back and find every thread I've posted re animal cruelty
that you have complained about having to read.

Are you admitting wasting space?

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
Just that it is not relevant to this
group.

But Brexit and loads of other stuff (that you happily join in with)
is?

And what colour is that particular pot?

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
I am not critical of Vegans,

Of course you are, because of all of the emotional language and BS you
come out with to try to justify your position. Veganism isn't a
'religion, it's not 'a belief', it's all about the cold hard FACT that
animals suffer in our use of them as food.

Call it what you like but you can't point to me criticising your choice.

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
why do you consider you have the
right to criticise me in an unrelated location?

I have the right to criticise anything that I see to be causing
unnecessary cruelty to others in any location. This includes here,
especially if I have the decency to mark it clearly OT and with a
heading that clearly explains the subject / content. I really don't
think you realised just how biased / blinkered you are, but it's
perfectly understandable *that* you are. ;-(

I think you need to go somewhere else and do it. I gave you a link so
you could take your views up directly with active farmers.

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
To further rattle your cage, my tenant has 5 new born Hereford suckler
calves which will be gracing someone's table in 18 months to 2 years
time.
Your preference is that they should never have been born

Correct. You (they) wouldn't miss what you don't have.

Post by Tim Lamb
and the
meadows feeding their mothers should be put to some other use.

Yup, as they are doing with re-wilding all over the place. Or growing
crops that we can eat directly.

I don't think you could grow Soy here. Bit of malting Barley on the
rising ground perhaps.

Post by T i m
You talk as if you enjoy being some sort of goD, creating life and
therefore having the right to take it for no real reason, other than
you *like* how their flesh and secretions taste?

And this annoys you for some reason?

Post by T i m
Tim, I get how / why this is all so very confusing / 'out there' for
you, as I imagine it would be for anyone who have been brought into
this industry at an early age and so *accepted* (conditioned /
indoctrinated) that it was all perfectly ok.

How old were you when epiphany happened?

Post by T i m
And there was a time when man may have *needed* to to survive, we now
don't need to and potentially further, shouldn't be, to survive.

Perhaps but kindly go somewhere else to tell them.

[T i m]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 14:37:07 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:18:11 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:46:21 +0000, Tim Lamb

Post by Tim Lamb
Best ignored I think.

But I bet you can't. You have to have your little say because of
guilt. You were part of the process (and still are indirectly I
believe re 'finishing' beef cattle on your land) so *of course* you
will desperately try to come up with any FUD you can to defend your
indefensible position.

How much are you willing to bet?

I guess time will tell.

So, not willing to put money where your mouth is?

Oh, absolutely, 10 quid says you can't resist joining in a animal
cruelty thread over the next year? Or would it need to be more to stop
you? (I don't want to stop you for me of course, I just want to stop
you for you as you obviously can't deal with it, in spite of the OT:,
the informative header and the factual and honest content with
consequences that affect all of us).
<snip>

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
And you have said many times how you don't want to read / consider
anything to do with reducing the cruelty and suffering of animals yet
you continue to do so?

I don't think I have said that.

I CBA to go back and find every thread I've posted re animal cruelty
that you have complained about having to read.

Are you admitting wasting space?

What?

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
Just that it is not relevant to this
group.

But Brexit and loads of other stuff (that you happily join in with)
is?

And what colour is that particular pot?

I don't know, you are the one complaining, not me.

See, I mention the idea that animals *are* being made to suffer when
exploited and eaten and you come back and accuse those not causing the
suffering and exploitation of being in some sort of religious cult /
fad?

What you never do is man up to the fact that animals are made to
suffer and exploited but that you don't care, or admit that they are
suffering and dying for no good reason, but it's 'ok by you'?

Do that then you don't need to try to counter the facts highlighted by
millions of other people who see what I see and don't like it, we will
all know where you stand?

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
I am not critical of Vegans,

Of course you are, because of all of the emotional language and BS you
come out with to try to justify your position. Veganism isn't a
'religion, it's not 'a belief', it's all about the cold hard FACT that
animals suffer in our use of them as food.

Call it what you like but you can't point to me criticising your choice.

What' other than every time you do you mean? Or maybe you think that
my choice not to cause animals to suffer is only because of some sort
of religious action or that I only do so to gain some sort of moral
high ground? Do you ever actually read what you type?

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
why do you consider you have the
right to criticise me in an unrelated location?

I have the right to criticise anything that I see to be causing
unnecessary cruelty to others in any location. This includes here,
especially if I have the decency to mark it clearly OT and with a
heading that clearly explains the subject / content. I really don't
think you realised just how biased / blinkered you are, but it's
perfectly understandable *that* you are. ;-(

I think you need to go somewhere else and do it.

And you know where you can put your advice. ;-)

Post by Tim Lamb
I gave you a link so
you could take your views up directly with active farmers.

And I went there, tried to sign in so that I could post but it
wouldn't let me because I'm not a farmer. If you want to create an
account for me (with their permission, I don't want to give anyone the
opportunity to label me as a fanatic / activist / infiltrator (given
how much the media like to do that anyway)) I'd be happy to take it up
with them directly.

However, a 'better' way to impact the supply of something is to reduce
the demand. This you can do without having to get a load of farmers
hot under the collar because they can't see why they shouldn't
continue being purveyors of all the pain, suffering and death.

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m

Post by Tim Lamb
To further rattle your cage, my tenant has 5 new born Hereford suckler
calves which will be gracing someone's table in 18 months to 2 years
time.
Your preference is that they should never have been born

Correct. You (they) wouldn't miss what you don't have.

Post by Tim Lamb
and the
meadows feeding their mothers should be put to some other use.

Yup, as they are doing with re-wilding all over the place. Or growing
crops that we can eat directly.

I don't think you could grow Soy here.

Maybe not yet, but it's not just soy we can eat is it?

Post by Tim Lamb
Bit of malting Barley on the
rising ground perhaps.

There you go, viable and valuable (as in a useable crop) with none of
the issues, drugs, pain, suffering of pandemics associated with
livestock. That that's *exactly* what they are already doing of
course, as these livestock / dairy farmers go out of business because
of the lack of demand (and why they had to spend £1.5M trying to push
a product that people have been previously consuming for years and so
already know about?).

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
You talk as if you enjoy being some sort of goD, creating life and
therefore having the right to take it for no real reason, other than
you *like* how their flesh and secretions taste?

And this annoys you for some reason?

Yes, as any 'injustice' would upset any compassionate person?

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
Tim, I get how / why this is all so very confusing / 'out there' for
you, as I imagine it would be for anyone who have been brought into
this industry at an early age and so *accepted* (conditioned /
indoctrinated) that it was all perfectly ok.

How old were you when epiphany happened?

And more of the patronising language?

Veganism was something we took on initially for January last year (so
I was 63) in support of our daughter who had reached a point where the
truth was too much to ignore any longer. It also happens that veganism
has never been easier because of the wealth of commercial support, in
turn brought about by the ever growing numbers of people caring about
animals out there.

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by T i m
And there was a time when man may have *needed* to to survive, we now
don't need to and potentially further, shouldn't be, to survive.

Perhaps but kindly go somewhere else to tell them.

WTF should I and how feeble are you with your 'tell'? As I have said
before, I'll stop posting about the issues I see about unnecessary
animal cruelty and suffering when you stop being part of it and when I
see you reacting against all the other OT (and OT posts not marked as
such) here?

Or is it you don't mind what anyone says here, as long as it's not
trying to reduce the cruelty and exploitation of animals? Maybe you
really don't see it for what it is and so don't get what all the fuss
is about (seems likely given the emotive words you have used to try to
disparage me)?

Here, this should be right up your street//////field: ;-)

https://ibb.co/k5cXq9p

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I just heard that Elon Musk is the world richest man.

https://www.livekindly.co/the-tesla-model-3-100-vegan/

"The Tesla Model 3 is now officially vegan."

"More car companies are embracing leather-free options. Volvo’s
Polestar 2 — set to be available from 2020 — features a completely
vegan interior. And earlier this year, Nissan unveiled a prospective
new design, which is kitted out in vegan leather."

"Porsche has also joined the vegan leather club. In August, the German
automobile manufacturer announced its upcoming Taycan model will be
available in vegan leather and tanned Club Leather. The former
generates 80 percent less carbon dioxide when produced than its
animal-based counterpart, notes Porsche.

The flooring of Porsche’s new vehicle will also be eco-friendly. It
will feature Econyl recycled fiber, which is made from recycled
fishing nets."

[T i m]

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you. English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you. English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Few are as fanatic as you, a sure sign of envy.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Fredxx

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you. English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Few are as fanatic as you,

Yes.

Post by Fredxx
a sure sign of envy.

Nope, most obviously with the worst of the religious fanatics.

[Fredxx]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you.  English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Few are as fanatic as you,

Yes.

Post by Fredxx
a sure sign of envy.

Nope, most obviously with the worst of the religious fanatics.

Have you not noticed that animal welfare never feature in his posts,
just his obsession of stopping everyone else eating meat.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you. English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Few are as fanatic as you,

Yes.

Post by Fredxx
a sure sign of envy.

Nope, most obviously with the worst of the religious fanatics.

Have you not noticed that animal welfare never feature in his posts, just
his obsession of stopping everyone else eating meat.

That has nothing to do with envy.

[Fredxx]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you.  English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Few are as fanatic as you,

Yes.

Post by Fredxx
a sure sign of envy.

Nope, most obviously with the worst of the religious fanatics.

Have you not noticed that animal welfare never feature in his posts,
just his obsession of stopping everyone else eating meat.

That has nothing to do with envy.

I see spite and resentment, two features of envy. YMMV

[Rod Speed]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you. English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Few are as fanatic as you,

Yes.

Post by Fredxx
a sure sign of envy.

Nope, most obviously with the worst of the religious fanatics.

Have you not noticed that animal welfare never feature in his posts,
just his obsession of stopping everyone else eating meat.

That has nothing to do with envy.

I see spite and resentment,

Then you need new glasses, bad.

Post by Fredxx
two features of envy.

Nope.

[Fredxx]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you.  English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Few are as fanatic as you,

Yes.

Post by Fredxx
a sure sign of envy.

Nope, most obviously with the worst of the religious fanatics.

Have you not noticed that animal welfare never feature in his posts,
just his obsession of stopping everyone else eating meat.

That has nothing to do with envy.

I see spite and resentment,

Then you need new glasses, bad.

Post by Fredxx
two features of envy.

Nope.

Then your definition is wide of that accepted

https://www.lexico.com/definition/envy

I'm not the on needing glasses

[Rod Speed]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of
view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you. English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Few are as fanatic as you,

Yes.

Post by Fredxx
a sure sign of envy.

Nope, most obviously with the worst of the religious fanatics.

Have you not noticed that animal welfare never feature in his posts,
just his obsession of stopping everyone else eating meat.

That has nothing to do with envy.

I see spite and resentment,

Then you need new glasses, bad.

Post by Fredxx
two features of envy.

Nope.

Then your definition is wide of that accepted

Nope, yours is.

Post by Fredxx
https://www.lexico.com/definition/envy

Says nothing about spite or resentment.

Post by Fredxx
I'm not the on needing glasses

Fraid so, no envy involved at all,
or spite or resentment either, just
religious fanaticism and hypocrisy.

[Peeler]

<FLUSH trollshit unread>

[Fredxx]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other
than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point
of view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique
to you.  English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Few are as fanatic as you,

Yes.

Post by Fredxx
a sure sign of envy.

Nope, most obviously with the worst of the religious fanatics.

Have you not noticed that animal welfare never feature in his
posts, just his obsession of stopping everyone else eating meat.

That has nothing to do with envy.

I see spite and resentment,

Then you need new glasses, bad.

Post by Fredxx
two features of envy.

Nope.

Then your definition is wide of that accepted

Nope, yours is.

Post by Fredxx
https://www.lexico.com/definition/envy

Says nothing about spite or resentment.

If you can't see the word, "resentful" in that page you are truly blind.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Fredxx

Post by T i m

Post by Robin

Post by T i m

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by T i m
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other
than not
exploiting animals?

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of
view is to
insult them?

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or
that it's (just) 'my' pov?

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of
view unique
to you. English doesn't work that way.

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's
POV, least of all mine.

Post by Robin
If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I
can only
think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring
yourself.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by
something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Few are as fanatic as you,

Yes.

Post by Fredxx
a sure sign of envy.

Nope, most obviously with the worst of the religious fanatics.

Have you not noticed that animal welfare never feature in his posts,
just his obsession of stopping everyone else eating meat.

That has nothing to do with envy.

I see spite and resentment,

Then you need new glasses, bad.

Post by Fredxx
two features of envy.

Nope.

Then your definition is wide of that accepted

Nope, yours is.

Post by Fredxx
https://www.lexico.com/definition/envy

Says nothing about spite or resentment.

If you can't see the word, "resentful" in that page

Not the same thing at all in this situation.

[Peeler]

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[Peeler]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 01:28:22 +0000, Fredxx, the notorious, troll-feeding,

Post by Fredxx
I see spite and resentment, two features of envy. YMMV

I see two mentally deficient senile smartasses having a typical senile
"discussion"!

[Peeler]

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[Torx]

Post by T i m
It was interesting to see an advert on TV earlier: 'Eat balanced',
showing the highly glamorised ideal of beef cows grazing on green
pasture with the commentary telling us they will be eating plants that
we can't eat that is just grown with rainwater ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/29/revealed-industrial-scale-beef-farming-comes-to-the-uk
and eating it (meat) is a good source of vitamins (and it displays B12
on the screen) but with no pictures showing the bulk of the animals
that never see grass (esp worldwide), are fed on soy from devastated
rain forests and bolt gunned in the head and their throats cut?
http://youtu.be/d_Ryzpz4eYk
Hardly a 'balanced' view of the whole process is it and no mention
that 70% of the B12 that is made is fed to livestock so that we get
some from it when we eat their flesh (when it would be better for *us*
to eat it directly).
https://weeatbalanced.com/know-your-food/vitamin-b12/
"Where else can I get vitamin B12?
If you’re cutting out meat, fish, dairy and eggs you can get vitamin
Fortified foods (e.g. yeast extract, some breakfast cereals, some
plant alternatives to milk and milk products). Supplements."
Ah yes, 'supplements', like the ones we give to the livestock?
And if you can get it from elsewhere, why would you kill an animal to
get it, and no mention that many people (so meat eaters) are B12
deficient in any case?
https://ibb.co/t2mLZML
Look deeper into the 'campaign' and it cites / references a counter
attack against veganism, a group of people who simply don't want to
cause pain and suffering to animals? Who on earth would 'push' the
continuing pain, suffering and exploitation of innocent creatures who
don't want to die? Oh, that's right, those purveying the stuff who are
now panicking.
https://weeatbalanced.com/about-fab/
"Food Advisory Board members ensure they practice in line with their
associated professional codes of conduct, including: HCPC Standards of
Conduct Performance and Ethics, BDA (British Dietetic Association)
Code of Professional Conduct for BDA members, the Royal Society of
Biology, the Royal Society of Medicine, the Learned Society of Wales
and the Medical Defence Union."
"British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can
support healthy living in people of all ages"
'Well-planned' = 'balanced' of course but with no mention of *having*
to exploit animals to do so.
https://preview.tinyurl.com/w6z6439
So we are back to the exact same thing as the big tobacco companies of
the early days, pushing their product as being 'good for you' and cool
adverts with cowboys and film stars smoking when anyone with some
common sense would know it to be bad for you.
I do get it though, if you have been brought up and so conditioned /
de-sensitised to the rights / feelings of innocent animals that we
exploit for no good reason (we don't *need* to eat animals to survive,
lions don't have choices or access to the supermarket and at least
lions have the teeth and digestive systems to do it) how you might
want to carry on doing it.
https://ibb.co/4N8j2M1
The meat and dairy industries have just poured £1.5M on this campaign
(and time will tell if any of it was our money, like the £500M the Gov
spent of our money pushing milk a while back).
I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not
exploiting animals?
https://veganuary.com/
https://challenge22.com/
https://challenge22.com/faq
Cheers, T i m

I the world was to become vegetarian what would become of all the
billions of "food" animals around the world? Except for a few in zoos
they'd be slaughtered. Maybe some (not all) vegans actually want to see
the mass slaughter of animals?

[T i m]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 18:13:12 +0000, Torx <***@torx.org> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Torx
I the world was to become vegetarian what would become of all the
billions of "food" animals around the world?

They wouldn't exist, like they wouldn't if we didn't 'breed' them
artificially (in many cases) and artificially sustain them if massive
quantities in unnatural circumstances?

Post by Torx
Except for a few in zoos
they'd be slaughtered.

Yup, no change there then?

Post by Torx
Maybe some (not all) vegans actually want to see
the mass slaughter of animals?

It happens by the trillion every year mate, how can not doing it any
more be worse than that?

We are currently suffering yet another animal related pandemic with
avian flu. Millions of ducks, chickens and turkeys having to be
'culled', because they become infected by wild birds. Millions of
ducks, chickens and turkeys that simply wouldn't be there in the first
place, if we didn't breed them to eat?

That goes on from the millions of mink that were also 'culled' because
of Covid and the chance of cross infecting humans, and swine flu, BSE,
SARS and all the others before it.

Maybe vegan ism will come in automatically thanks to Darwinism?

But I get it, most older people have lived a lifestyle for many years
and have become indoctrinated, conditioned, desensitised (contrive
dissonance) to the exploitation of animals and therefore have to go
back on everything their parents taught them was 'good' and acceptable
(by their actions), if they were to stop exploiting animals now.

They love, protect and care for their dog but wouldn't accept as
'humane' to have it gassed when it needed to be euthanised because of
illness, but think it's perfectly acceptable for a healthy and very
young pig to die that way, simply because they like how their flesh
tastes?

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

Post by Robin
<snip>

Post by Torx
I the world was to become vegetarian what would become of all the
billions of "food" animals around the world?

They wouldn't exist, like they wouldn't if we didn't 'breed' them
artificially (in many cases) and artificially sustain them if massive
quantities in unnatural circumstances?

Post by Torx
Except for a few in zoos
they'd be slaughtered.

Yup, no change there then?

Post by Torx
Maybe some (not all) vegans actually want to see
the mass slaughter of animals?

It happens by the trillion every year mate, how can not doing it any
more be worse than that?
We are currently suffering yet another animal related pandemic with
avian flu.

Yup, lets kill all those bats since they are known to be the worst
vector for transmission to humans.

Post by Robin
Maybe vegan ism will come in automatically thanks to Darwinism?

I think the lack of B12 in a natural balanced diet which includes meat
and meat products will cull fanatical vegans.

Post by Robin
But I get it, most older people have lived a lifestyle for many years
and have become indoctrinated, conditioned, desensitised (contrive
dissonance) to the exploitation of animals and therefore have to go
back on everything their parents taught them was 'good' and acceptable
(by their actions), if they were to stop exploiting animals now.

Do you feel contrived dissonance when you're reminded how your pets
genitals have been mutilated for your pleasure?

Post by Robin
They love, protect and care for their dog but wouldn't accept as
'humane' to have it gassed when it needed to be euthanised because of
illness, but think it's perfectly acceptable for a healthy and very
young pig to die that way, simply because they like how their flesh
tastes?

Then promote alternative methods. Not all require gas?