Thread: Can we agree...
View Single Post
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Fredxx[_4_] Fredxx[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
Posts: 1,591
Default Can we agree...

On 27/04/2021 16:10, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:19:07 +0100, John Rumm

On 27/04/2021 10:55, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 01:56:16 -0700 (PDT), Tricky Dicky


Regrettably Tim seems to have become the new Harry on this newsgroup.

How so? Harry used to go on about things that advantaged him, what

There was a time where that was true - in the early days at least -
super insulated homes, Feed in Tariffs etc. Some of that was at least
vaguely related to house maintenance and improvement - even if there was
an element of "look what I have managed to screw out of the system".

Yes, that's what I was remembering ...

Over time however the bulk of his commentary moved to posting links to
his own personal pet agenda to cast all Muslims and all those of middle
eastern origin as child molesters or terrorists. That was not a
discussion or chat or banter or even an argument, just a never ending

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that, thanks. Unfortunately, that makes
any reference to him and I being similar even worse, as he was
attacking innocent people and I'm trying to protect innocent

You attack meat eaters and abuse them the same way Harry would abuse
those who didn't support his beliefs. If you don't like being the new
Harry then desist in abusing those who don't share your beliefs.

(direct) advantage is it to me if I ask people to consider aligning
their actions with their morals (unless your morals dictate that you
think it's ok to do anything you like to any animal)?

Everything I've stated is supported by both millions of other people
and all the science so what's your issue, other than your own
ignorance or selfishness of course?

The issue I expect for many is that you have made your point many many
times now,

Most of the 'repetition' is in the vague hope that those who later
exposed themselves to be trolls were putting up genuine points.

Repetition is to be expected from a fanatic.

in threads ostensibly about other things.

But the drift often started by other people.

Typically they don't.

Many people have
given you their considered responses, and now feel its time to move on.

Of course, any obviously they have every right to not read and
certainly not reply if it's something they have heard before.

However, there are people who may come and go and who may not have a
specific interest in say veganism but might be interested to learn
things that make someone become a vegan. We are actually talking about
things that cover a whole range of RW things that look to be likely to
affect all of us and in many, possibly not so obvious areas (like car
tyres or wood treatments).

I think we are now familiar if he principles behind veganism.
I appreciate that not seeing others experiencing a "road to Damascus"

Isn't that a tautology John? ;-)

similar to your own might be disappointing,

It might if I expected that of anyone here, but I don't.

but that does not
mean that we failed to give consideration to your point or did not hear
your message.

Already accepted, just that not everyone seems to 'get it' *yet*, like
NT's questions about the existence of vegan chocolate!

Just that in some cases have formed a different opinions.

But have potentially formed them in ignorance (see above).

That is denial that others have made a choice. It's only "ignorance" in
your eyes because you dislike their choice.

And the use of the term 'ignorance' isn't a slur on them as I was in a
similar position over a year ago, or more in my case that I was aware
but hadn't bothered looking closely (but / so was still 'ignorant' of
all the facts and options), cognitive dissonance etc.

The frustration doesn't come from the trolls (I quite like watching
them dig those holes so deep weg) or Ex(?) 'farmers' like Mr Lamb
(who I have previously broken bread with on more than one occasion and
who is also 'a nice guy') but maybe people like you, people I respect
and who in 'every other' area we have ever discussed, have shown me a
sensible, intelligent, knowledgeable logical and considerate person.

You have made your position clear (that you consider it 'ok' to
consume and use ('use' sounds less confrontational / provocative than
'exploit', even of not quite so accurate) animals for your own needs
and desires) ... and that you may be 'cutting down' or at least
putting more consideration into what meat you eat (and not even
because of anything I have said etc), but it's the former that still
leaves me confused (partly because of the latter).

Like, I can see how it might be difficult to explain / persuade
someone older (your parents) as it is my own Mum. She gives money to
the donkey sanctuary and helps rehabilitate dogs but serves us up
chicken when I have told her we are we aren't eating any meat. 'You
have been eating meat for 60 years' was her only explanation. Funnily
she doesn't try the same track with dairy because she knows I was
advise off that by the doctor so it's only my personal choice she has
an issue with and is confused about.

Daughter, her B/f and the step niece are all vegan, niece and hubby
are vegan and my sister and hubby and cutting out nearly all red meat
(mainly because of health scares so on medical advice).

Some of our friends also happen to be vegi / vegan, individually, just
him / her and not the kids or the whole family. It's also interesting
to see how many on TV are also vegan (or at least vegi). [1]

So, I would be interested to learn how much of your current position
is a function of others, if any (family / friends) or what it is that
would allow you to be logically inconsistent (as you don't seem to be
the sort of person who would hurt a cat or dog), especially for 'no
(good, by it's standards) reason'?

You have my email address if you prefer to answer that offline.

Lots of words, does this mean veganism will now be a closed subject for
this group? Life will be far more pleasant for all.

Cheers, T i m

[1[ You may have seen mention elsewhere recently where Bill Bailey was
on a TV cooking show and was offered duck and mentioned how that *now*
made him feel uneasy because he has two pet ducks. I think Jeremy Vine
was on something similar and reacted similarly, didn't want to eat it
when it still looked like the animal it once was. Aren't these just
more examples of cognitive dissonance?

But also temporary concerns. Once back in the saddle and all that. By
way of example you admit to cognitive dissonance in respect of keeping
and feeding pets.