On 02/04/2021 13:38, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 08:44:52 +0000, Spike
wrote:

Spuke / burk / any other nyms you post under?

But I'll play ...

On 01/04/2021 15:05, T i m wrote:

The Mrs gave some kid an actual clip_round_the_ear (without really
thinking)

Child abuse, eh?

Well, if that were our kid and was doing the same we would have
considered it to be more 'see how you like it' and would have thanked
anyone for putting him / her straight.

Personally, I would consider exposing a child to the routine slaughter
on innocent / defenseless creatures to be way more abusive and
potentially mind affecting (for the rest of their lives), than any
'clip round the ear'.

The idea is that children should learn according to their age as they
mature. It's why there are laws about inflicting indecent images to
children.

What you are advocating is child abuse.

As a side-effect it may well improve animal welfare. Something you care
little about. We might end up with some pretty touch children.

because he was poking one of the chickens with a stick. It
was probably Spike, he saw one being slaughtered when a kid and it
didn't put him off so ... ;-(

FTAOD it was all the chickens, one or two at a time.

Lovely. All helping with the early conditioning.

Note that you're now so unhinged that you not only condemn people for
not following The Gospel According to T i m, but also for actually
following it.

WTF are you talking about?

I have no 'gospel' and you can be assured that any efforts to reduce
the unnecessary cruelty to animals didn't initially emanate from me.

You've been given numerous chances to deny you follow a mythical deity
like father christmas.

Are all this time are you going to admit to being an atheist?

So, are you as confused / hypocritical as Fredxx, or don't you GAS
about the ducks and geese and foie gois production at all either?

Either? You're the one who says you don't want the conditions during the
animal's life to be improved. Do make up your mind.

See, he recognises that ducks / geese abused that way is very wrong,
and probably (hopefully) would feel the same way about fox hunting,
bare / badger bating and bull / dog fighting (because of the cruelty
involved) but is completely happy with piglets having their tails and
teeth cut off, chicks having the beaks burned off, goats / sheep
having their horn stubs burned off, cows having their newborns taken
away or sows not being allowed to move to tend for or get away from
their piglets.

Now, assuming you don't consider *all* the above (inc the illegal /
banned things) 'perfectly ok', there must be somewhere down that list
where you would draw the line?

Whereas from your numerous posts on the subject, you choose to nothing
about animal welfare. You have no line.

*Personally*, the line is still a long way away and doesn't include
just making an animal 'a bit less uncomfortable' before bolt gunning
or gassing it, cutting it's throat and bleeding it to death.

Quite, but you condone the process of slaughter where these processes
are carried out where the animal is aware of it's environment. Some of
us don't.

That doesn't seem a very kind / humane / benevolent / compassionate
thing for a (so called) advanced species to do to any other species
does it? War of the worlds?

That is because we are a higher animal, and it natural for higher
animals to consume lower ones in the food chain.

So much for your silly Meat Eaters Licence.

Hardly silly, given how common the use of such tools are for making
people aware of the consequences of their actions.

No more silly to have a pet license when household members should carry
out the castration of the pet they're about to own.

Making offenders confront their victims etc. A meat eater licence is
the exact same thing and *would* have a direct impact on the number of
animals abused and killed. This isn't stopping anyone doing anything,
it's reminding them that they shouldn't have ever started doing what
they did in the first place.

That is the point, up to the point of slaughter I want to look an animal
in the eye and confident it has been treated well. After slaughter the
animal won't care.

The likes of Fredxx has stated how distressing he finds the picture of
a duck with a broken beak (which is the *right* response of course) so
just think how upset he might be if he had the balls to watch the
videos of the things going on in everyday slaughterhouses around the
UK today. RSPCA / Red Tractor *approved* processes that don't actually
stop the suffering and death ... the things he pays to have done for
him but won't watch. He won't watch it because he knows it will upset
him and he doesn't want to be reminded of that when he is selfishly
(therefore) enjoying the flesh of an animal he has (effectively)
killed.

I never said I found the duck with a broken beak distressing. Have you
been hearing those voices again or dreaming about me? All I have said is
I dislike the practice and support the banning of import of fois gras. I
even said the photo was unnecessary and inappropriate but designed for
an emotional response.

Of course you don't care about the force feeding of geese as you don't
want the conditions during the animal's life to be improved.

None of that would bother you of course, you lost any compassion you
may have had when a child (not your fault, you too were a victim of
abuse). ;-(

Where did that come from?