On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:12:23 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 02/04/2021 12:38, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

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.

So, you condone child abuse?

I condone what may now be describes as such today by snowflakes as it
was applied by sensible people *then*.

Experiment. Put a remote speaker in what looks like a dog carrier,
give it to a kid (say a 10 year old boy) and sit him in a shopping
centre. Play the sounds of a dog yelping / whimpering and whenever the
noises play, have the boy kick and shout at the carrier and see how
long that goes on before someone remonstrates / stops the kid.

The irony of this experiment (apart from demonstrating that even a 10
year old child is likely to be 'dealt with' when they appear to be
being cruel to animals) is the same people doing the remonstrating
will go back into eating their beef burger or ham sandwich. Such is
the cognitive dissonance of the general population.

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'.

Don't try that excuse in court. It won't go well.

Like you could ever have a balanced view on that. ;-(

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.

Only following your Meat Eaters Licence rules, seventy years before you
thought of them.

Except the rules were really aimed at those typically buying 'meat'
*today* (where there as so many animals being slaughtered and so many
plant based alternatives available) everywhere. Not children being
routinely exposed to animal slaughter and the mental scarring /
normalisation of such abuse.

The irony is that most people, including meat eaters:
1) Wouldn't / couldn't watch went on in an abattoir (std practice
stuff).
2) Certainly wouldn't want their young kids to see such because of how
traumatizing they will most likely experience it to be.

The only way you might be able to soften that blow is to start with
all the normalisation and conditioning / lies first, telling them it's
'nature' and 'we need to eat meat', when most animals in nature aren't
gassed in a cage and we don't *need* to eat meat (as any one of the
millions of vegetarians and vegan's round the world will attest).

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'm talking about you being a two-faced ****wit.

Ah, but only based on your twisted interpretation of things. Talk
English and I might understand you.

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.

So?

So you are shooting the messenger (and using bollox for ammunition).

50 lines of attempted deflection away from an account of child abuse
snipped

Aww, poor nymshifting Spuke. Just like that other coward Fredxx, can't
actually discuss (only spuke out your selfish animal cruelty biased
bs) the core topic so roll out all sort of strawmen to try to cover
your desperation.

The thread was about Fredxx and his hypocrisy and trolling BS on his
birthday. He wants to force people to stop eating foie gras whilst
eating what he wants himself and whilst attacking me for not eating or
exploiting any animal? He doesn't need to sign any petitions to stop
me being cruel to any animals.

Not that you would be likely to be able to understand / follow that,
what with your troubled background etc. ;-(

Cheers, T i m