On Wed, 12 May 2021 05:09:49 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 22:14:22 BST, "Tim Streater"
wrote:
snip

Look, if you're that bothered by your planetary footprint, you could always
cease to exist. That way, you could avoid the production of around half a ton
of CO2 each year.

Might be on your options list. Not mine.

But very nicely defines the attitude with some of these trolls (as
that's all they can be with comments like that), you either carry on
(and let them carry on) doing what we have done in the past, born out
of a completely different need an time ... or kill yourself, like
there are no other 'forward looking', globally beneficial and
proactive things that can be done to make (everyone's) lives better.

So, part of *their* problem is anyone else telling them what to do, so
I'm guessing they were equally 'up in arms' when they had to give up
badger baiting, fox hunting and cock / dog fighting, or maybe they
didn't because they didn't do those so weren't inconvenienced
themselves? Yet we have the likes of Fedxx demanding *everyone* sign a
petition to stop the practice of force feeding ducks and geese for
foie gras and they are now considering banning it's *sale* in the UK
under the new Animal Welfare Act. So it's ok for him to deny everyone
the choice of eating foie gras but throws his toys out of the pram
with the suggestion of not drinking the milk meant for a calf after
killing the calf? There is no forced ejaculation of the bull, forced
insemination of the cow, forced removal of the calf and forced to
therefore produce 10x the quantity of milk she would naturally before
being forced to die 1/3 of the way though her natural life going on
there then? Logical inconsistency and cognitive bias at their best.

But I get it, there are people in this world that kick up a fuss when
they are forced to do things (or not do things) that they have always
done and so (simply because of that), and don't see why they should
stop now. They should be allowed to not wear a safety belt if they
don't want, drink and drive if they want, speed if they want or smoke
anywhere they like, because all they think about is themselves.

The new AWA also sets out the crazy idea that animals have feelings
and sentience (that's going blow the likes of FredXX and Spikes (BS)
arguments out of the water) and therefore they need to be considered
when we enslave them to exploit (milk / eggs / meat).

They are also proposing that ALL cats must be microchipped [1] so I
predict a bigger plague of cats on the streets as people further back
out of their responsibilities around *their* pets. Link a their DNA
with the chip and then we can get cat owner to clear up after their
pet like dog owners already have to.

Times they are a changing ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] Assuming the chips survive being run owner, it should make it
easier for our daughter to return the remains of cats to their owners
and save all these 'Lost cat' posters nailed to trees all over the
place. I wonder if she should get supplied a fancy shovel to do it
with? ;-)