On 03/04/2021 10:28, T i m wrote:
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.

There is no irony. You can't comprehend that the average human being
doesn't like wanton cruelty to animals. You had admitted that you don't
care about animal welfare during the life of animals.

Such is the cognitive dissonance of the general population.

There is no cognitive dissonance shared by the population when it comes
to animal cruelty. Most caring humans want to minimise pain and
suffering during the animals life and slaughter.

You on the other hand endorse ritual slaughter, a disgusting practice.

All your posts show envy to meat eaters, where out loved ones allow us
to eat meat as part of a natural, balanced healthy diet.

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. ;-(

I don't think a fanatical vegan with an admission they don't care about
animal welfare whilst the animal is alive is not a balanced person
giving a balanced view.

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).

Some of us have and we would rather spend our time to improve slaughter
practices. You, by way of example, endorse ritual slaughter, and then
whinge about the gassing, bolting or stunning of animals. Such practices
could easily be improved.

2) Certainly wouldn't want their young kids to see such because of how
traumatizing they will most likely experience it to be.

In much the same way we don't show our children films that incorporate
violence. You are sick if you want to show age restricted films to children.

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).

Quite, we should be told that meat is part of a natural balanced diet,
one that provides us with vitamins like B12.

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.

No, someone who admits they don't care about animal welfare is twisted.
No interpretation is required when your views are written down in black
and white.

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).

Is that a way of saying that others care about animal welfare while you
don't?

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.

I am no coward. I discuss every point you make. It is you who snip
chunks of text that gives you cognitive dissonance, and now you admit
you want to subject children to age restricted violence.

The thread was about Fredxx and his hypocrisy and trolling BS on his
birthday.

The post was about you and your 'weirdo'[1] family. And your dreams.

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.

You misunderstand I want to minimise animal cruelty. I know this is not
important for you.

Force feeding geese is unnecessary. If you don't think it causes the
goose pain or discomfort then please do let me know and I'll then remove
my name from the petition (if I can).

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

You come across as the troubled fanatic. The parts that trouble you most
simply get snipped from your replies.

[1] as described by T i m himself in his initial post.