On 10/06/2021 21:05, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 18:54:01 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:
snip

Human slaughter is not cruel? So if I slice your head off and you die instantly, I wouldn't go to jail? Get real.

DickHeadxx's 'thing' is 'Animal welfare. If the animal is suffering
(even if only mental cruelty) or being exploited (often to an early
death) then that's ok, as long as there are given some level of basic
comforts (food, water, shelter) till the point you stick a bolt gun in
their face.

I assume you are referring to me, resorting to abuse is acceptance you
have no sane argument of substance.

So, at the Yulin dog / cat meat festival, he wouldn't be actively
campaigning trying to stop it or even not supporting it, he would be
asking people to sign a petition ensuring that only 5 dogs should be
stuffed into one small cage, rather than the 10 they do at the moment
and that if they are currently given water once a week, he would
'petition' to make it twice.

I don't attend these. I expect you wank over cats and dogs being killed.

This virtue signaling means little to the cats and dogs that are
*still* suffering for ages in cages out in the heat or cold before
being skinned or cooked alive.

I don't see how caring for animals while they are alive signals anything
other than my desire for improved animal welfare. You seem in denial of
this.

Nephew, also thinking he was actually helping when out in Thailand by
buying a wild bird that was due to be killed and eaten to set it free.
All that meant is that bird will likely earn the seller twice when
they catch, kill and cook it the next time round.

A bit like you keeping dogs. By keeping rescues you create a demand for
discarded dogs. Rather than mutilating their genitals they could be put
down, just with a larger injection of anaesthetic. Saving them from pain
from their operation, as well as cruelly fed plant food.

Oh, and DickHeadxx also suffers from specism, logical inconsistency
and hypocrisy. He wants to *stop people* eating foie gras and that's
ok because *he* understands that to be cruel. He doesn't accept why
many who understand *all* animals have rights can't agree with his
inconsistency, him not letting people eat one animal because he thinks
it's treated cruelly but not all the others that are treated equally
cruelly?

That's right, we're a higher species. One that understands constructs
like consent. If your mental ability is similar to farm animals I can
see why you're so concerned over speciesism.

I want to improve animals standards. You endorse the force feeding of
geese to make fois gras.

If you think animals are treated cruelly then campaign for improvements
in animal welfare. You won't, because in reality you don't care.

I bet he rattles off a strong letter of complaint to the
slaughterhouse that is outed for it's bad treatment of animals (over
and above the std bad treatment,

You can bet as much as you like. I doubt a letter of complaint would be
taken seriously.

like killing innocent creatures etc)
when he would have far better impact by not supporting the cruelty in
the first place by not buying the stuff. [1]

There is nothing wrong for animals to be humanely slaughtered.

But he doesn't *actually* care about animals, outside the nutrients
they provide him and so why he can't possibly ever agree that taking
an animals life against it's will is wrong, even when it's proven to
be unnecessary and with a long list of other reasons why it's bad for
him and all of us.

Once again you are wrong, however hard you wish it to be otherwise. I
very much care for improvements for animal welfare while the animal is
alive. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

Cheers, T i m

[1] Same logic with stolen property. Making it illegal or locking
stuff away doesn't work. If people stopped buying the stuff they would
quickly stop nicking it.

A bit like dogs being made available from rescue centres. You don't
understand why many who understand animal rights can't agree with your
inconsistency in keeping pets.