On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 14:29:06 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2021 11:45, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:03:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 17/05/2021 23:40, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 22:14:07 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).

Why?

Because it seems it's the only way we can get some people to stop
causing animals to suffer and die unnecessarily?

It still makes no sense.

Ok ...

I would expect the vast majority who eat animals already realise that
they are sentient beings.

Do they? How many here for example consider them 'just meat' and only
pay a lip service to the welfare? They can't give up 'meat', not they
want to stop killing animals?

Which is why the vast majority of people who
eat animals want to see that they cared for and treated humanely while
alive,

I don't believe they do,

and that is the thrust of your problem.

My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?
There is a need if we are to have a natural balanced diet.
You don't understand that
someone can decide to breed animals for food.

Of course I do. It's not illegal?

Insist that they are well
fed,

Should be a foregone conclusion?

cared for,

Should be a foregone conclusion?

and protected from harm,

Till the 'breeder' decides to subject the ultimate level of harm,
*death*.
The animal is not aware of the concept of life and death.

Of course they are. The way animals care for their young, the way they
act when another is killed. There's plenty of evidence out there but
you won't find that evidence on a packet of burgers.
Animals make friendships with other animals even if they are not of the same species.
Even some humans can do that.
Not many animals are inteligent enough to hate or kill each other because they believe in
difernt magical beings.


There is no
harm where the animal was bread for its meat.

That is not how harm is defined.
We used to use children as young adulty and sent them out to work up chinmenes
and down mine shafts. In a lot of cultures children are breed to work the filed and support
the adults in old age, we send ours off to care homes because we don't have the time or skills
to look after our own parents when they get old and useless, that's true inteligence.


and not mistreated during life,

Should be a foregone conclusion?

before they are humanely killed

No such thing mate,
There is, and that's where you're going to have to accept others don't
share your belief.

There's plenty of beliefs , most can be proved to be rubbish.

So prove humans can't live without eating meat, there is no proof as some
have done so, it might not suite everyone that has never treid but most of
us have never tried eating insects but they can be eaten.
The most prominent being Hinduism and Buddhism.



not when it's unnecessary and on an innocent /
sentient creature that doesn't want to die (and quite the opposite,
would do everything it could to live).
In the food chain there is no innocence. It is a made up construct.

Same with wars and famine and all natural disasters



https://ibb.co/Cm2pDgt

You are using the 'are you still beating your wife' logic.
That doesn't follow.
and consumed

Unnecessarily for the vast majority
We've moved a long way. You now accept that a it is necessary for at
least a minority.

So is war and voilence in general.

and only because of indoctrination
(accepting the practice), conditioning (family feeding you animal
flesh) and constant marketing (Look at this happy cow, eating grass in
a field, (video cuts to a lump of animal flesh from one of the 90+% of
animals that have never seen a field)).
It has also got to do with a natural balanced diet, essential for a
child's brain development.

I'm not sure that has ever been proved.
As cultures do exist and have existed for 1000s years that don;t eat meant.
Maybe kids now might have a bit of a problem but I';m guessing they'll
have similar problems if they can;t get on-line to watch nexflix etc..


(or their eggs/milk/wool
used).

Whilst exploiting the animal to the point where it would be killed
only a short way through it's natural life because it's no longer
'viable' as an industrial production machine you mean?
In the wild most animals barely make it out of infancy.

Depends on the animal.

You appear to believe that this is some kind weird act of mental
compartmentalisation that no one in their right mind would
understandingly enter into.

You have it ... and as I am in no doubt, history will prove.
Not for 100+ years
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is precisely what does happen.

Again, not my 'bubble' John (or anyone who is still evolving), it's
already happening with even the big animal exploiters realising that
the end is in sight and already diversifying (to more plant based
output) to stay in business.
By cutting down Amazonian rainforest to satisfy your need for soy milk.

More is cut down for buildings and palm oil and all that is for profit anyway.
This is why a gradual change is best , like any change in society.

if everyone that has a car was given a car tomorrow and tried to charge it the sys


According to all the science, that's already the case mate. ;-)
No it isn't, science says we need to eat meat of fish products in a
balanced healthy diet.

No it doesn't that's fasle we need certyain vitamins but they don;t NEED to come from animals,\
there are other sources.
if you do have a working brain then just type it into google.
or ask a nutrinalist I know one and he told me we don;t need to eat meat,
but that doesn;t mean he doesn't he did a 5 bird roast at xmas a few years ago.

No! There is no nutritional need for humans to eat any animal products; all of our dietary needs, even as infants and children, are best supplied by an animal-free diet. ...
There is no physical reason for humans to eat animal products other than they taste nice.


because if they did, they wouldn't eat meat.

They do, and they they do.

Not under all the facts and for the vast majority.
Once again you concede that a minority do need to eat meat.

Which minorities are thsoe the people that hang pout in chicken shops ?


It's only the conditioning / normalising of animal exploitation that
allows anyone (who isn't in a survival situation) to be doing so in
2021.
Conditioning as part of evolving, such as attaining the gene to digest milk.

But that doesn;t mean we have to, you won't die if yuo don;t drink milk.
Short term we can evolve


Mother nature will do far worse in many cases.

Not usually and not for fun or profit.
There's only one bird that attacks another and disables that bird then part buries it but
makes sure it stays alive so it can come back and eat it fresh later.



Oh pleeease, don't roll out that old strawman. What we do to animals
is *NOTHING* to do with what animals choose / have to do in nature.
Slaughtering animals for food is natural. You just wish it wasn't.

Not for everyone, we might do it because it's easier for us.
So will use prostitutes for sex, spome use willing partners and some will rape.
Sex is also natural for most.


Why farmed meat specifically, rather than any other manufactured product?

Really? Are you trying to suggest that making a 10mm nut is the same
as breeding and killing an animal
It is a near industrial process. That is what advanced civilised
societies do.

Advanced societies also make weapons and kill other advanced societies
The more inteligent the society the greater potential they have to kill.
It is also totally natural to want to kill those you don;t like or those
that might harm you physically or mentally.



(that we don't need to kill)?
If we are to have a natural balanced diet it is a necessity.

Meat doens; have to be a part of it though.
I've found it's always the dumbest and most violent that eat the most red meat.
D. Trump is a fine example.