On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:50:05 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 02/06/2021 21:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

snip

Whatever makes you think that there was some sort of obligation to
evangelise?

Because that's exactly what you did with your 'You should have done
what I did ..'.

Nope. You blather on

Discuss

But you don't discuss.

It's difficult to discuss anything with someone who has a closed mind
and there is nothing more close than someone who has been
indoctrinated over most of their lives to accept something they agree
is against their morals. Confront any average meat eater with
slaughterhouse footage and they cringe and are disgusted. Why do they
react like that if what they are seeing is 'natural' and 'normal'?

You lay down The Gospel According to T i m.

Ah, you think I'm the first / only person out there trying to protect
the rights of animals! No wonder you are confused. ;-(

promote

How's that going? I don't see any new recruits to your religion from
your 'promotion'.

1) It's not a religion (there are no deities or requirement to belive
anything as it's all real and very tangible).

2) I was never looking for recruits to anything, just hoping people
start to discuss and consider and they have.

educate

Seeing as how your 'education' seems to consist of lies,

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

distortions,

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

and fairy stories,

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

how effective do you think it has been?

Difficult to tell. Without a doubt a good few people (and you trolls)
are now talking about it so who knows. I have also 'outed' the fact
that you / burk (same thing eh) are veggies that makes much of your
output on the subject even more confused.

advocate

The only thing you seem to 'advocate' is a wildly unbalanced diet.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

It
doesn't seem to be doing you much good.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

(for the benefit of all).

For the benefit of you - namely, your post-facto justification for being
the last in you family group to convert.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Two members went veggi (15+) years ago (they both studied animal
psychology at uni) one is now teaching in the field herself and the
other a Policeman. Sister and BIL are cutting back on meat, eggs and
dairy after medical scares / issues and on doctors orders. We (the Mrs
and I) went vegan with daughter and step-niece and Mum (92) is happy
to have whatever we cook her (which from us is vegan of course) but is
more 'conditioned' than the rest of us. So she sends money to a donkey
sanctuary whilst eating 'other' animals.

about what others should do now

Nope, not what they should do, but what they might consider not doing
any longer.

'Should do' according to your Gospel.

'Should do' according to anyone who has the removal of the unnecessary
suffering, exploitation and death of animals in their sights yes.
Given that animal suffering is not a 'belief' but a very tangible fact
(as a visit to a slaughterhouse will quickly confirm).

you've been
converted

*I* have changed my lifestyle, by me.

With a little 'encouragement' from your 'friends'.

Sort of. It was actually more providing a facility to allow me (us) to
choose that (veganism) or not. There was *no pressure* at all. There
was no obligation at all. There was no expectation at all. There was
support (upon request) because soon after deciding to continue with
the experiment we were hit with Covid and daughter offered to do all
our shopping. We then had it easy as she had done more research at
that point (from being a veggie for a while before realising it was
bollox, RSPCA Approved and Red Tractor no better than 'Trade checkers'
etc) and niece had already had experience of home cooked veg based
high protein / nutrient foods when cooking for her Mum when she was
first diagnosed with cancer and had little appetite).

to the evangelical branch of the anti-meat-eating branch of
veganism,

Nope, most ethical vegans are so not for them but for others
(especially animals).

You're not an ethical vegan.

Of course I am and you have no way of suggesting otherwise.

You feed meat to a dog.

Last nights meal was probably 25% 'std kibble' (of which only a small
percentage is meat) and the rest a special vegan kibble, plus mashed
pulses and some veg oil.

How I can be an ethical vegan and keep and feed a dog on meat:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

So, when we are reasonably sure we are fulfilling all our (rescue()
dogs nutritional requirements he will also be only eating vegan food.
Not only is this likely give him a much more considered, balanced and
varied diet, it's also likely to remove some of the chemical and
medical risk that feeding him commercially made dog food could bring.
Many dogs have been put on meat free diets to cure them of mead diet
related issues.

We are highly confident that as long as we do sufficient research and
keep an eye on his general condition and activity, we are guaranteed
he will get a better diet than he might in the wild as a domesticated
animal. He certainly has more exercise and enrichment than most other
'pets' and certainly 98% of livestock.


while you totally ignore your six decades of a lifestyle

No I don't, I am guilty of it. But hindsight is a lovely thing , as is
indoctrination, conditioning and marketing.

If you'd played your cards right, you could have converted to your
anti-meat-eating crusade (thinly disguised by a cloak of veganism)

What is the difference? If you take opportunities to reduce the
suffering and death of innocent creatures I guess that is a level of
'activism' as would have been the case for pretty well every instance
where there has been improvements made for people, animals and the
environment since the beginning of time. Anyone who is aware of any
such injustice and who chooses to keep quiet about it is no less
culpable than the people actually doing it.

on
your death bed, and so carried on having all the fun you previously
enjoyed with the added bonus of not having to bother with it all the
veganist claptrap.

And here we go again, all the pathetic and childish bull****. It's as
if the stress of having to keep up any level of rational discussion is
impossible for you and you melt down.

that
you would, dog-in-manger fashion, now try to deny others.

Only from your evangelistic POV. For me it's to educate others for
themselves.

It's not working.

IYO.

Most of what you say has been shown to be wrong.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

If you did none, then you are simply experiencing with me the result
of your inaction and not something I would personally be proud of or
boast about.

Supposition piled upon supposition.

Nope, just you not being able to back pedal fast enough.

The 'if' and 'would be' in your statement is in fact what constitutes
piling supposition upon supposition.

But your statement was bollox so any logic fails at that point.

You've said many times that you don't have a logical brain,

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

so what
would you know about it?

More than enough. What I have said is that I have the mental ability
to be flexible, not continue to be trapped in a situation that I have
felt causes conflict between my actions and my morals. Now I have been
able to snap out of that (conditioning) and so are living more
logically.

You haven't grasped even yet that your virtue-signalling about your
current lifestyle 'choice' (a "*We* are going vegan, what are *you*
going to do?" sort of choice)

Except that's not what it is. It's 'we should all go vegan' and I wish
I'd done so sooner. It's only your twisted mind that forces you to
take on such a POV.

It can be seen in what you said.

Only by someone with a twisted mind. The mere fact that you state so
many lies and bollox proves that 100%.

LOL. That's rich, coming from a fact-distorter.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

merely highlights the fact you had over
six decades of doing what you wanted,

Nope.

Yep.

See above. For the first decade I was told what to eat and given it to
eat. Once indoctrinated and brought up in a culture that normalises a
particular lifestyle, it can be difficult to see (and more do) the
right thing.

So your answer to indoctrination is indoctrination? Wow...

Are you really that stupid? (You don't need to answer that of course).

Where did I state anything even like that?

The opposite of indoctrination (into anything) isn't other
indoctrination but *NO* indoctrination. It's education, giving people
ALL the facts and allowing them to choose for themselves.

Allowing a child to consider the drinking of the growth fluid created
for the young of a different species isn't being honest to that child
because there is no evidence WHAT SO EVER to suggest that process is
in any way natural, desirable or even acceptable.

Human mothers produce milk for their human babies.
After about 1 year they can be weaned off of human milk and onto
solids. A few months after that the child would entirely on solids,
they would stop consuming milk and the mother would stop producing it.

*THAT* is what is natural for a human mother and a human baby, just as
it is similar for many other mammal species and their young of course.

Again, because of your twisted POV to choose to make bogus
interpretations on what happened. I didn't do 'what I wanted', I did
what I had been indoctrinated to consider acceptable when it never
was.

And now you've been indoctrinated into something else. You just can't
see it, can you.

Ironically I can, and I have only shaken of the indoctrination that
allowed me to be logically inconsistent and now I'm mot. Being
logically consistent isn't the sign of anything other than being
logically consistent.

So you admit that you've been indoctrinated.

Of course, or why on earth would I have still been doing it (all be it
at restricted levels) till I was 60?

How does that add
credibility to your anti-meat-eating crusade (thinly disguised by a
cloak of veganism)?

Ok, someone who isn't a world champion 100m runner suddenly one day
run a world record beating 100m time. How does the fact that they
weren't a record breaker the day before, impact the fact that they are
a record breaker at that point?

Preempting the fact that such an analogy is likely to cause your troll
brain to implode, the answer is 'it isn't'.

If it turned out I was killing my wives and burying them under the
patio and was then found out, I would be held responsible for those
historic events because those were illegal when I did them. I have
chosen to stop doing what I was indoctrinated to do and it's only my
own guilt I now have to carry and the regret for not doing it sooner.
If only you had spoken up in support for your semi-vegetarianism (or
whatever conflict you still exist under) I might have been able to
save more animals sooner.

If you don't eat beef but eat other animals you are being logically
inconsistent, especially if it's though choice.

You have so much to learn, it's hard to know where to start.

Well, rather than coming out with bogus accusations and pointless
trolling you could try to explain.

and now, like the dog in a manger,
now don't want others to have the chance to do the same.

Again, a twisted interpretation from a sick mind.

It's *exactly* your position in this matter.

My mind is fed with a balanced diet, and yours isn't.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Just think about
that, if you can.

I can but you are still wrong.


It' is *exactly not* my position. Like I said, you are the one
demonstrating logical inconsistency, not me.

You just can't see it, can you.

Says the one in a cult that encourages a cognitive dissonance and
logical inconsistency that allows you to stamp on a chicken but not a
cat.

So you're now down to 'cognitive dissonance'. Stand by for 'left-brainer'.

It's much more likely for someone to continue to fight the cognitive
dissonance when they are a left brainer yes. They do so because they
are likely to be less open to alternative / new / different ideas.

You even
advocate conditioning children to accept your 'choice'.

Nope,

Yep.

I advocate children aren't forced to become logically inconsistent,
not be indoctrinated to consider abusing animals to be acceptable.

But you'd indoctrinate them while doing so.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong. The opposite of indoctrination is
not more but just the facts / truth.

That is morally wrong.

Yes, it is and why I would advocate against doing it with animal
rights and children.

I advocate not advocating children are conditioned to do
something bad to animals whilst telling them not to do bad things to
animals.

Which is of course advocating conditioning of children to accept your
choice for them.

It's not 'my choice', it's a natural human choice, without any
conditioning. If you were shown people stamping on chickens when
young, of course you are going to grow up considering such action to
be 'normal'. It's how domestic violence propagates though the
generations.

You keep mentioning 'stamping on chickens', is there something in your
past you're not telling us?

No, it's yours, it's an analogy re your tolerance to seeing the
routine slaughter of animals as a child, your normalisation of it and
conditioning to it. It's (probably) a lie like many of the lies you
tell about me but as you continue to tell them, I assumed it was ok
for me to do the same?

Carnism is the cult and the exposing of the hypocrisy and logical
inconsistency

No wonder you fit in well, due to your lack of logic and your inconsistency.

I didn't fit into to a carnist world, you are right. I'm much happier
now I have undone all the conditioning and am now aligning my actions
with my morals.

"What Is Veganism?"

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

snip

You see, you make up lies to suit your anti-meat-eating agenda thinly
disguised under a cloak of evangelical veganism.

Ah, now you see what it's like and you don't like it do you?

I'm well used to your perversions of the facts.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

But the bottom line is that if you had an actual solid argument
against veganism or supporting carnism other than just stating that
you are happy to stamp on chickens g and can't see the issue with
that, you would have come out with it now but you haven't?

I'm not here to support anything other than to counter your distortions
of the facts.

It's good to have a hobby and thank you for continuing to keep the
discussions 'active'. The animals will thank you for it (well, the
ones out of a list you must have that you don't stamp on of course).

All you (and all the other carnists state) is what we have done over
history (like that determines what we should do now or in the future),
what animals do in the wild (when we don't set our moral compass on
what 'animals' do ... phrases like 'they acted like animals' to
differentiate the actions humans do when you stop being the advanced
species we are supposed to be) , we 'need to eat meat' when we clearly
don't (proven by the many cultures who haven't eaten meat over many
thousand years) when the only true justification is that they don't
actually give a **** about animals and will do whatever it takes
(including making them suffer and die), just to enjoy the taste of
their flesh because they are conditioned to do that.

You seem to be going off the rails again.

Aww, too difficult for you to follow is it?

For example, you just said "we
clearly don't need to eat meat', when the science - not something that
you mention much - says that we have evolved to have meat as part of a
balanced diet, and that those who are brought up as vegetarians have a
10-point lower IQ. That's a very telling difference.

No, all that says is that you have selected something you think is
'important' and keep repeating it when I don't consider it to be true
or relevant.

If eating the brains from live monkeys could be shown to make us 5%
more intelligent are you suggesting we should all start doing that?

Do you think that would reflect us 'evolving' into more sentient, more
compassionate beings that is what is considered to set us 'above' the
'other animals'?

And all that is without also considering the antibiotic resistance,
zoonotic pandemics, pollution, greenhouse gases, human health,
resource use, habitat and wildlife species under threat of extinction.

I did read once quite some time ago, that of all the species that have
ever lived on the planet, only 2% are currently extant. Some 98% have
died out, without man's helping hand. Species coming and going is part
of the natural life that you advocate for others but not for yourself.
So what's new?

The fact that prior to us appearing it was perfectly 'natural'. As
soon as we are involved species that may not have died out now do so
are down to us. If we are 'different' from all the others and that
difference is supposed to be considered 'better', being better would
mean we didn't make things worse.

But why would you care about any of that, you like the taste of (some
species of) heated animal flesh and that's enough eh?

You like the taste of vegetables that gave been highly processed to look
like, smell like, cook like, and taste like the very meats that you
despise others for eating.

And? I also like unprocessed vegetables, fruits, nuts, berries ...

That's hypocrisy.

Nope, it's 100% pathetic strawman.

You have no idea what I eat and it is completely irrelevant to the
cause of protecting innocent creatures from unnecessary suffering,
exploitation and death what I eat, as long as it doesn't contain
animals or their excretions or exploitation.

But I get it, you don't eat cow or sheep and as yes seem unable to
explain why you only don't eat those particular species. The answer to
that is more interesting than the one of why someone might not want to
kill any species to eat at all?

So, given how fixated you are on what I *don't* eat, how about you
tell us what logic / facts go behind what you decide *to* eat, animal
wise?

Is it all about you or are there any considerations for others
involved at all?

Cheers, T i m