Jimmy Stewart ... wrote

https://ibb.co/7S8fNDC

Fot Brian it a photo of that horse trainer using the
horse he was training as a seat while making a mobile
phone call, presumably telling the owner of the horse
that it had just had a heart attack and had died, asking
him what he wanted done with the corpse or sumfin.

On 02/03/2021 12:17, T i m wrote:
We do live in a strange world where people 'say' they respect and
(should / do) protect animals then do the exact opposite in what they
eat or do with their bodies or excretions?

This includes a jockey sitting on a dead horse (that had died of a
heart attack whilst on the gallops (exploitation leading to a
premature death?)) to a TV reporter drinking some cows milk in front
of some dairy cows and saying 'cheers' to them (effectively goading
the mothers of calves they haven't really seen and that were often
killed or destined for a life of servitude as a 'milk machine').

It's a disconnection (cognitive dissonance) I see over and over and
often in people who are otherwise intelligent and empathetic where
they are either ignorant of what goes on behind the scenes to provide
them their animal based food or are fully aware and just think it's
all acceptable?

Does that mean you're not intelligent, where there must be great
disconnection (cognitive dissonance) with your views on animals yet you
keep pets, and subject them to suffering such as castration?

You won't reply because you can't justify your treatment of your own pets.

Much of it is simply speciesism, people who have been indoctrinated
(historically) or brainwashed and certainly marketed to to accept that
they *need* to cause the suffering to innocent and often sentient
animals to survive or even enjoy themselves (taste / texture) when
they only do so at the cost to other species (and potentially
ourselves with health, resource use and the environment etc).

Man is a higher species, therefore speciesism is something we have to
live with. Do you think it's appropriate to treat ants, with advanced
social structure, able to build their own homes as mammals? Do you
pander to ants when entering your house or dissuade their entry?

I think this explains speciesism fairly well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRk6OAseMLQ

Is that love? Is that how your wife treats you? Do you get to choose
when to go out, when to pee, when to ****, when to eat? Can you choose
the room temperature, what to wear outside?

Love is an expectation of something in return. The closest parallel is
paedophiles loving children:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tion-mail-nccl
"A paedophile does not love children; he abuses them."

Would you call yourself a "dog lover"?

On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 08:56:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rodent Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID:

On 02/03/2021 13:46, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:12:17 -0000 (UTC), jon wrote:

snip

.......Jews and Muslims draining blood from live animals for Kosha and
Halal crap.

Yup, all / any exploitation of animals by anyone.

You exploit animals by keeping them as pets for your personal
gratification, and then attempt to justify this despite subjecting them
to cruel and violent acts like castration.

Does this not play on your mind and a good example of cognitive dissonance?

On 02/03/2021 15:38, NY wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 14:57:02 +0000, Jimmy Stewart
wrote:

snip

I take it having sex with an animal is a no no then ? ......

You would think so eh, but that's exactly what we effectively do with
many live stock, especially those species no longer able to reproduce
on their own / naturally (because of how we have genetically mutilated
them).

I presume you're talking about artificial insemination. Isn't AI done to
avoid each farm having to keep (or have easy access to) a bull/ram, and
maybe to give genetic variation, rather than because species are unable
to breed naturally if they are allowed "access" to a bull/ram?

Going back a few hundred years, when most farms kept a male or each
species for breeding, I wonder if neighbouring farms shared/swapped
males to give greater genetic variation.

If keeping animals for food and other products became illegal, I wonder
what would happen to the animals that were still alive when the law was
introduced? Would they be killed so they didn't starve when their fields
were needed for additional crops? Would they be released into the wild
and allowed to breed at will, while still being kept out of crop fields.
I imagine if there was some advance notice of the law change, breeding
would stop and animals would gradually die out but not be replaced.

And what of pets (such as cats) that are obligate carnivores and need to
eat meat to survive.

On 02/03/2021 15:12, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 14:44:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

speciesism is avoiding meat in favour of innocent vegetables

Nope, not in the example given / stated it isn't so once again you
manage to get something 100% wrong.

In this case the 'species' were the generally highly selective range
of often sentient creatures typically objectified / comodified by
humans for food and general exploitation.

And OOI, what do the animals you eat eat?

https://ibb.co/ynvgJmy

I don't see anyone starting a OT thread saying we should enforce the
eating of meaty on vegans.

Is there an island you can go and leave us in peace? I'm sure we can
create a crowdsource fund for a one-way ticket.

On 02/03/2021 17:05, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 16:03:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 02/03/2021 15:30, NY wrote:
Knowing that a vegetarian or vegan diet is healthier and kinder to
animals is very worthy,

Or would be if it were remotely true. Farm animals have better lives
than wild animals mainly

In your highly uneducated opinion.

And that is your uneducated opinion.

The *massive* difference in the majority of cases is that *all*
livestock has a very very *short* life as you typically have them
killed when they are just children, because that's when their flesh is
the most tender (or way before they may live in the wild).

Quite, tasty, and provides the least harm to the environment too.

So at best you could say they don't live a real 'natural' life (with
all that brings) when their 'life' is often a tiny fraction of what
time it might be in the wild and when that life is completely
unnatural in many cases.

In much the same we don't enjoy a natural life? I don't see the point.
All like is subject to external influence and environment. Pig actually
flourish in an artificial environment from reduced stress.

FACT. NONE of the male chicks (in the egg industry) survive past 1
day old.

That is a fact, they are killed quickly as they're not much use in
laying eggs. Would you invest in research so hens only lay female eggs?
Perhaps they should be dosed with DDT?

Yet in previous posts you are happy to have vaccinations made from egg
protein.

FACT. Most of the male cows born in the wild last past a few days or a
few months, unlike those unfortunate enough to have been born into the
dairy industry.

Many die very young too, often killing the mother too in the birth, or
attempt.

How often do wild salmon swim round in circles for 3 years, or pigs
lose their tails or teeth or hens the tips of their beaks in the wild?

So fresh salmon is ok? That's a move forward for you.

But why would you want to be honest and accept the truth when it
obviously doesn't suit your selfish agenda?

The only selfish person here is the one who wants to inflict their way
of life onto others. You're free to continue with your vegan diet, but
be aware there are consequences such as b12 deficiency. One is
fanaticism and mental disorders.

Cheers, T i m

On 02/03/2021 20:31, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 17:01:41 -0000, "NY" wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
Maybe if I had been raised a vegetarian or vegan I'd not hate vegetables
as
much;

Or if you listened to the advice you will have been given all your
life by all nutrition experts and health professionals re how you
should 'eat up your veg because it's good for you'? 'Meat and two veg'
etc?

Listening to the advice and heeding it is one thing; finding it anything
other than deeply unpleasant is another.

When I asked someone if they actually liked the taste of Brussels
sprouts they told me how I could cook them with other stuff to make
them taste nice / hide the taste. Given you couldn't (shouldn't) eat
/ digest meat without cooking it, the principals / issues aren't that
different.

Meat is one of those items that doesn't have to be cooked with other
things. It already has a lovely flavour. The flavour has been programmed
into our genes and signifies it is necessary as part of a healkhy diet.

I do eat veg - probably not far
short of the recommended five portions a day.

You know it makes sense. You are an omnivore with a bias on fruit /
veg / nuts after all.

Quite, and as part of a natural balanced diet we would eat meat and meat
products.

I just don't enjoy it - it
spoils an otherwise nice meal.

So you would *just* eat meat, given the chance? Do you have any
dependants or children OOI? Anyone who might care if you got bowel
cancer, suffered heart disease or T2 diabetes?

If he had, I am sure they wouldn't be subjected to fanaticism and other
mental health issues from a B12 deficiency.

obviously I wouldn't know what meat tastes like to compare with.

Quite ... but I wasn't 'raised a vegetarian or vegan' and I did 'like'
the taste of meat but I like the idea that I'm no longer killing and
exploiting animals even more.

Ah, I wasn't sure what your history was.

Ok.

OK so we both like(d) meat,

Yup.

but for
you the ethics of not harming animals was more important than liking meat,

I was brought up to love, protect care for all animals and had a
Guinea-pig as a child (not my idea) and tropical fish, and we always
had dogs (mostly whippets). I also rescued a Rock dove when I was
about 15, built it a safe roost at home, nursed it to heath and it
lived (free) with us for a couple of years (before flying away when we
went on a family holiday).

whereas for me it's the opposite way round.

But are you saying that your liking for meat is so great you would
pull the trigger on the heads of a calf with a bolt gun then cut it's
throat, or send a pig into a gas chamber and watch it squeal and
desperately try to escape ... before watching them have their throats
cut and their guts spilled out?

There really is no need, from being a social animal, a higher species,
gets someone else to do the deed for us. I don't see you fifhgint in the
armed forces, or are you happy for someone else to do the deed of
killing for you?

We all have different
priorities.

I bet we (you and I) don't (you can't include the trolls, psychopaths
or those with a history / vested interest in the whole process).

The only trolls and psychopaths are the ones that start topic like these.

I bet inside you know your choices aren't right and you would rather
animals didn't have to suffer and die, just to satisfy your taste
buds?

So why wouldn't you put some effort into looking into alternatives?

Q. Do you do your own shopping?

Q. Do you do your own cooking?

Q. If you do the / some cooking, do you have to cook for anyone else?

Q. What are the chances of anyone else in your household being willing
/ interested in reducing the suffering of animals?

Q. Would those same people consider themselves animal lovers?

See, I understand that for many the issue isn't a simple / single one
and so to stand up for their own principals could make things more
difficult / complicated.

We though are open minded people so when daughter decided she had
lived in conflict re her treatment of animals long enough (after
trying to go organic / Red Tractor / RSPCA Assured and realising it
was all marketing bollox) and went vegan in Veganuary 2020, we said we
would support her, for her, for us (and our own long-term conflict)
and the animals.

Does she support you keeping pets? It must cause her great conflict.

It wasn't any issue to do so for any of us because we were all happy
to go along with it and none of us have regretted it for a ms.

As I have said before, our only regret is that we didn't do so sooner.
Part of that was the lack of impetus, easier to carry on doing what
we were doing (which for the last 5 years was not consuming dairy
(doctors orders) and not eating much meat in any case) and the support
for vegan choices across the board, something that is *now* changing
very fast (and not just food).

Just because you aren't actually pulling the trigger or wielding the
knife, you are paying someone to do that for you (and so also putting
the mental burden on them as well), so the blood is on your hands.

So, what sort of food do you like? It can't just be chunks of burnt
animal flesh?

Most of use like a range of foods. Shame you feel the need to imitate
meat and meat products with substandard lookalikes.

On 02/03/2021 14:57, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 14:13:39 +0000, Jimmy Stewart
wrote:

snip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRk6OAseMLQ


but what can you do .....

What can I do? Well I can do whatever I can to not cause any animal
suffering and exploitation wherever possible and practical (and I am).

And if you were interested (and I know you aren't), you could *easily*
do the same.

totly

And given you can be so selfish / biased against pretty well all of
your own species, there is little to no chance you would be any
different with any others. ;-(

Until it impacts you of course ... and I would have thought that given
your comment: "some of us are even luckier and are on borrowed
time..", you might have gained some actual humility. Alas no. ;-(

That's quite a conclusion.

The only person showing bias and abuses those who don't share the same
views as yourself is yourself. I would say Jim has far more empathy with
fellow man than you can ever possibly understand.

On 02/03/2021 21:19, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 17:38:12 +0000, "Jimmy Stewart ..."
wrote:


https://ibb.co/7S8fNDC

Yup, that's one of the pictures, but I really don't see why it made
the news or have become a big issue?

Many horses die each year in the 'sport' of horse racing / jumping as
do greyhounds in greyhound racing, but as long as you aren't seen with
their corpses that's ok it seems?

https://houndsfirst.co.uk/greyhound-racing-the-facts/

Similar with hunters and pictures with their 'kills'. They must be
really powerful hunters as they hide up the tree or in a hide waiting
for some innocent and defenseless animal (at that distance) to walk
past before shooting it with a rifle.

Kill thousands of innocent animals a day but behind the closed walls
and windowless slaughterhouses and few seem to care.

They don't care because they are fed a load of lies by those with a
vested interest in continuing the suffering, exploitation and death.

Then support campaigns to reduce suffering.

If the whole process was so 'normal' and 'wholesome', why do we never
see it on any farming program or meat advert?

So is sex considered 'normal' and 'wholesome', yet mysteriously absent
from normal programming and adverts.

Do they think that a cow would be 'happy' to give up it's life after
living on 'Happy Farm'?

If the con doesn't know any better and dies a quick and painless death
then yes.

On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 22:24:30 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip

And what of pets (such as cats) that are obligate carnivores and need to
eat meat to survive.

What about them?

An animal, not native of this country but that predates on the native
wildlife? That's a bit like 'supporting' invasive species like cane
toads in Aus or grey squirrels or signal crayfish over here.

https://academic.oup.com/jel/article/32/3/391/5640440

You love all animals but kill some to feed to the ones that you do
like?

Luckily, dogs are omnivores and after thousands of years of living
with us and on our scraps have evolved the ability to process starch
(unlike the native wolf that the dog evolved from).

One good thing going for cats and that's that they can't be exploited
for much (other than their meat and fur and some rodent control
possibly) because they aren't good for much else (unlike dogs etc).

What is the point of a 'companion animal' that is in someone else's
garden or house? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 02/03/2021 23:05, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 22:24:30 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip

And what of pets (such as cats) that are obligate carnivores and need to
eat meat to survive.

What about them?

An animal, not native of this country but that predates on the native
wildlife? That's a bit like 'supporting' invasive species like cane
toads in Aus or grey squirrels or signal crayfish over here.

https://academic.oup.com/jel/article/32/3/391/5640440

You love all animals but kill some to feed to the ones that you do
like?

I love my family too, and want them to enjoy a natural and balanced
diet. That's why supplying meat and meat products is good for your cats
is also good for me and my family.

Luckily, dogs are omnivores and after thousands of years of living
with us and on our scraps have evolved the ability to process starch
(unlike the native wolf that the dog evolved from).

No, most animals are omnivores, however dogs have a gut which is
optimised for meat. Only a fanatical vegan would deprive dogs of meat,
claiming it is good for them, whereas it really isn't.

One good thing going for cats and that's that they can't be exploited
for much (other than their meat and fur and some rodent control
possibly) because they aren't good for much else (unlike dogs etc).

That's true, that can generally pee when they like, **** when and where
they like, although many owners will still stipulate their feeding times.
What is the point of a 'companion animal' that is in someone else's
garden or house? ;-)

What's the point in having a pet? It's a sore subject for fanatical
vegans and difficult to justify by most.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 08:56:14 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:45:44 -0000 (UTC), jon wrote:

snip

Much of it is simply speciesism, people who have been indoctrinated
(historically) or brainwashed and certainly marketed to to accept
that they *need* to cause the suffering to innocent and often
sentient animals to survive or even enjoy themselves (taste /
texture) when they only do so at the cost to other species (and
potentially ourselves with health, resource use and the environment
etc).

I think this explains speciesism fairly well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRk6OAseMLQ


but what can you do .....

Like the child abuse of removing foreskins off little boys without
their permission....just ban it.

Quite ... and we are, all be it slowly, with many things that were once
considered perfectly acceptable re our treatment / use of animals over
the years.

Bet it doesn't happen because the jewish lobby is so ferocious when ever
that is proposed and is surprisingly influential for some reason.

There was a final solution.

"jon" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 08:56:14 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:45:44 -0000 (UTC), jon wrote:

snip

Much of it is simply speciesism, people who have been indoctrinated
(historically) or brainwashed and certainly marketed to to accept
that they *need* to cause the suffering to innocent and often
sentient animals to survive or even enjoy themselves (taste /
texture) when they only do so at the cost to other species (and
potentially ourselves with health, resource use and the environment
etc).

I think this explains speciesism fairly well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRk6OAseMLQ


but what can you do .....

Like the child abuse of removing foreskins off little boys without
their permission....just ban it.

Quite ... and we are, all be it slowly, with many things that were once
considered perfectly acceptable re our treatment / use of animals over
the years.

Bet it doesn't happen because the jewish lobby is so ferocious when
ever that is proposed and is surprisingly influential for some reason.

There was a final solution.

Turns out that it wasnt actually final or a solution.

On 03/03/2021 05:52, jon wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 08:56:14 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:45:44 -0000 (UTC), jon wrote:

snip

Much of it is simply speciesism, people who have been indoctrinated
(historically) or brainwashed and certainly marketed to to accept
that they *need* to cause the suffering to innocent and often
sentient animals to survive or even enjoy themselves (taste /
texture) when they only do so at the cost to other species (and
potentially ourselves with health, resource use and the environment
etc).

I think this explains speciesism fairly well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRk6OAseMLQ


but what can you do .....

Like the child abuse of removing foreskins off little boys without
their permission....just ban it.

Quite ... and we are, all be it slowly, with many things that were once
considered perfectly acceptable re our treatment / use of animals over
the years.

Bet it doesn't happen because the jewish lobby is so ferocious when ever
that is proposed and is surprisingly influential for some reason.

There was a final solution.


Now there's a plan.
We can start with the extermination of vegans.

In message , T i m
writes
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 16:31:06 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

snip

Waste of time giving Tim facts:-(

snip

Didn't we have a wager on something Tim?

Indeed. My side of it hinged on you limiting yourself to factual
reporting. The OT bit has been pretty good so far.
Sadly there are other interesting OT posts so I can't just crop them.

I might remind you that human artificial fertilisation is available for
similar reasons.


--
Tim Lamb

On 03/03/2021 00:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 02/03/2021 23:05, T i m wrote:

Luckily, dogs are omnivores and after thousands of years of living
with us and on our scraps have evolved the ability to process starch
(unlike the native wolf that the dog evolved from).

No, most animals are omnivores, however dogs have a gut which is
optimised for meat. Only a fanatical vegan would deprive dogs of meat,
claiming it is good for them, whereas it really isn't.

One good thing going for cats and that's that they can't be exploited
for much (other than their meat and fur and some rodent control
possibly) because they aren't good for much else (unlike dogs etc).

That's true, that can generally pee when they like, **** when and where
they like, although many owners will still stipulate their feeding times.
What is the point of a 'companion animal' that is in someone else's
garden or house? ;-)

What's the point in having a pet? It's a sore subject for fanatical
vegans and difficult to justify by most.

"I'm so sorry for people with no pets; they have to make such a fuss of
their children."

--
Max Demian

On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 10:32:13 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 16:31:06 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

snip

Waste of time giving Tim facts:-(

snip

Didn't we have a wager on something Tim?

Indeed.

Ah good ...

My side of it hinged on you limiting yourself to factual
reporting.

Ah and I guess you are also the arbitrator of such, the irony of your
being judge, jury and executioner again isn't lost on me.

The OT bit has been pretty good so far.

The OT bit has always been 'OK' from me all along. It's just you
decided that that wasn't sufficient for you, you also needed the type
of content referenced in the header (which I've done for you ever
since (and was doing anyway)).

Sadly there are other interesting OT posts so I can't just crop them.

But you neither have to read nor reply to any of mine? Surely the OT:,
the header and that it's posted by me must be enough to stop you
reading AND replying?

I might remind you that human artificial fertilisation is available for
similar reasons.


'Similar reasons' ... to maximise profit you mean? And do they put an
electro stimulator in the arse of the male to force him to ejaculate?
Do they *force* couples to have young by this method? Do they often
take the newborn away and kill it, just because it's the wrong gender?
Just how 'similar' is it *really*?

If you think it's fair or reasonable for you to suggest I wasn't
posting facts then you are also obliged to demonstrate (with all the
necessary proof) to support why you know it isn't so.

And as for poor animal practices only happening in other countries, I
assume you are aware the horse photos were from this country and that
much of the animal flesh we consume in the UK comes from 'other
countries' and therefore we are *still* responsible for such practices
here.

I really can't understand why anyone would be in denial that there is
a lot of unnecessary animal suffering and exploitation, here and
abroad, unless you are simply of the belief we have full dominion
over all other species we share this planet with and maybe only
limited by what the current rules say we can get away with?

If not 'all species' then you are exhibiting speciesism?

When someone like Ed presents a load of factual information with links
to massive reports that state that Plant Based foods are the best
solution for most aspects, do you simply not believe any of them? All
just vegan 'paranoia' or 'propaganda'? If you intend on using such
emotive words without any level of justification then you are only
trying to spread FUD to discredit the message (which isn't solely mine
of course but *millions* of people all around the world and has been
for many many years).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRk6OAseMLQ

Assuming you ever bother to watch any of them that is. Nothing like
ignoring the argument from anyone with a conflicting POV, especially
one that puts much of your life / livelihood / lifestyle under the
spotlight?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Tim, I'm not blaming you for what the world you happen to be born
into normalised you (then or now) to accept. It's just that 'now' we
have a massive range of alternatives that don't involve any animal
suffering and exploitation and for many that's sufficient reason to
change.

On 02/03/2021 17:05, T i m wrote:

The *massive* difference in the majority of cases is that *all*
livestock has a very very *short* life as you typically have them
killed when they are just children, because that's when their flesh is
the most tender (or way before they may live in the wild).

Research on foxes has shown that while they could live for 20 years, in
the wild their life-span is more like five years. During that time they
are plagued with fleas and lice, and carry a variety of intestinal pests
such as ringworm, etc, that take nutrients from their already limited
diet. A variety of other diseases, some unpleasant, blight their lives.

But none of this matters! They are living naturally! Living in a zoo
with regular balanced meals of good food, somewhere nice for shelter,
and with regular medical attention, must be sheer hell for them.

One can't help but notice that *you* don't live in the wild. Care to
explain why?

--
Spike

On 02/03/2021 17:15, T i m wrote:

Really? Are you really asking this? (The irony though is if we weren't
feeding crops to the livestock but were consuming it ourselves there
would be a *surplus* crops).

Ah, the simple-minded view of things.

In fact there might not be a surplus of crops but rather a shortage.

What your naive approach fails to take into account is the massive
amount of land that would have to given over to growing the plants that
would be needed to supply 7 billion people with B12 supplementation
*every* *day*, a huge logistical exercise involving the crops
themselves, their gathering, transportation, processing, packaging,
storage, and distribution. For *7* *billion* *people*. *Every* *single*
*day*. While animals can graze on otherwise-useless grass, in places
where crops can't be grown, to provide *concentrated* B12.


--
Spike

On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:50:24 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

snip troll ****

"I'm so sorry for people with no pets; they have to make such a fuss of
their children."

Or not.

There are plenty of people out there who aren't demonstrative and so
the chances are they wouldn't be likely to 'make a fuss' of their
children or any animals that they happened to share their houses with
(not sure you would call them 'pet's in those instances).

I've seen that myself ... people who wouldn't welcome your dogs in
their house or that have a dog themselves but don't acknowledge it
when they come home (the dog desperate to say 'hello' but is
completely ignored).

And of course we shouldn't 'keep' any pets but it becomes a grey area
when an animal latches onto you (and not because of imprinting from
birth, that should be avoided) but it's therefore possible to share
your life / home with another animal (human or other species) as long
as it's provided / allowed all it's natural behaviours (or as many as
possible), plus any enrichment etc. What you don't typically do with a
pet is kill and eat it (although people do of course but then I
question the idea of it ever being 'a companion animal').

So a 'rescued' animal, (say in response to human interference /
poaching) that has the freedom / protection of a wildlife park till
it's able to support / defend itself that *chooses* to maintain
contact with it's human rescuers etc.

Ideally there would be no need for any animal 'rescues' because there
wouldn't be poaching of parent animals and there wouldn't be live
stock 'farmers' who can no longer deal with their moral conflict,
giving up their animals to a rescue, rather than selling them as the
objects, the commodity that they would typically be.

I would hope that having a tactile pet in the family would mean people
would make the link between the sentience of other creatures and their
right / desire to live and the (non) consumption of the flesh of the
same ... but the normalisation, indoctrination, marketing and peer
pressure is so strong that I don't believe it is often the case, or at
lest till the person grows up and makes their own choices.

Cheers, T i m

On 03/03/2021 12:31, Spike wrote:
On 02/03/2021 17:15, T i m wrote:

Really? Are you really asking this? (The irony though is if we weren't
feeding crops to the livestock but were consuming it ourselves there
would be a *surplus* crops).

Ah, the simple-minded view of things.

In fact there might not be a surplus of crops but rather a shortage.

What your naive approach fails to take into account is the massive
amount of land that would have to given over to growing the plants that
would be needed to supply 7 billion people with B12 supplementation
*every* *day*, a huge logistical exercise involving the crops
themselves, their gathering, transportation, processing, packaging,
storage, and distribution. For *7* *billion* *people*. *Every* *single*
*day*. While animals can graze on otherwise-useless grass, in places
where crops can't be grown, to provide *concentrated* B12.


not to mention all those lubly oily fish.

I had a massive lurch as I was driving home yesterday. Monster raptor -
maye a buzzard but looked like a ****ing great owl, landed over the car
to grab at something dead... Not letting all that good protein go to waste.

I've just looked it up. tawny owl is about 3 ft wingspan. Buzzard 4-5 ft

Musta bin an owl

If T i m had an ounce of honesty in his bigotry and actually lived where
his food is grown, he would know that what humans do to animals is
benign compared to what happens to them in the wild


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 03/03/2021 11:50, Max Demian wrote:
"I'm so sorry for people with no pets; they have to make such a fuss of
their children."

I was watching an old 'Touch of Frost' last night

"The more you get to know about people, the more you appreciate dogs"


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:13:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

If T i m had an ounce of honesty in his bigotry and actually lived where
his food is grown,

WTF does that mean? That because you live in the sticks you think I
(of all people) don't know what goes on there?

he would know that what humans do to animals is
benign compared to what happens to them in the wild

Ah, yet another guilt trip BS chestnut.

So you are basing your moral compass on that of animals who do what
they do to survive?

When was the last time you *had* to hunt (with your bare hands and
teeth), kill and eat an animal raw, like all the other 'animals' do?

For a so called / self appointed philosopher you are a bit of a ****.

And does this benign act mean giving your prey a fair chance to escape
as it might have in the wild ... or do you use it's trust and
domesticity to trap it and put a bolt gun to it's head, or gas or
electrocute it? Do all male chickens in the wild end up blended?

What we do to innocent sentient creatures is far from benign, it's
cowardly and disgusting, disgusting that a so-called 'advanced'
species still treats other species we should be protecting, not
exploiting so ... especially when it's in our best interest to do so
for our health and the health of the planet.

If only you primitive backward bull****ters had the balls and decency
to tell the truth and admit you actually don't GAF about any one or
thing other than yourself and save your time trying to convince others
you are doing anything vaguely 'natural', *especially* in 2021.

You like the taste / texture of a selective and arbitrary sub-set of
all the animal species and you CGAF how much pain and suffering
(mental and physical) they have to endure before they are killed for
your consumption / exploitation - enjoyment.

Cheers, T i m

On 03/03/2021 12:02, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 10:32:13 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 16:31:06 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

snip

Waste of time giving Tim facts:-(

snip

Didn't we have a wager on something Tim?

Indeed.

Ah good ...

My side of it hinged on you limiting yourself to factual
reporting.

Ah and I guess you are also the arbitrator of such, the irony of your
being judge, jury and executioner again isn't lost on me.

It would help if you supplied evidence of your nonseill founded beliefs
poorly disguised as erroneous facts.
The OT bit has been pretty good so far.

The OT bit has always been 'OK' from me all along. It's just you
decided that that wasn't sufficient for you, you also needed the type
of content referenced in the header (which I've done for you ever
since (and was doing anyway)).

Sadly there are other interesting OT posts so I can't just crop them.

But you neither have to read nor reply to any of mine? Surely the OT:,
the header and that it's posted by me must be enough to stop you
reading AND replying?

It's a bit like replying to a Trump fanatic. You can spot facts, but
they get ignores as they don't conform to their distorted beliefs.

Similarly Trump supporters aren't very bright to understand the opposing
argument, or even accept there can be one..

I might remind you that human artificial fertilisation is available for
similar reasons.


'Similar reasons' ... to maximise profit you mean? And do they put an
electro stimulator in the arse of the male to force him to ejaculate?
Do they *force* couples to have young by this method? Do they often
take the newborn away and kill it, just because it's the wrong gender?
Just how 'similar' is it *really*?

If you think it's fair or reasonable for you to suggest I wasn't
posting facts then you are also obliged to demonstrate (with all the
necessary proof) to support why you know it isn't so.

And as for poor animal practices only happening in other countries, I
assume you are aware the horse photos were from this country and that
much of the animal flesh we consume in the UK comes from 'other
countries' and therefore we are *still* responsible for such practices
here.

I really can't understand why anyone would be in denial that there is
a lot of unnecessary animal suffering and exploitation, here and
abroad, unless you are simply of the belief we have full dominion
over all other species we share this planet with and maybe only
limited by what the current rules say we can get away with?

Then campaign to improve animal welfare. Something you are dead against
as it would do nothing to dissipate your envy of others enjoying the
taste of real meat and meat products.

If not 'all species' then you are exhibiting speciesism?

When someone like Ed presents a load of factual information with links
to massive reports that state that Plant Based foods are the best
solution for most aspects, do you simply not believe any of them? All
just vegan 'paranoia' or 'propaganda'? If you intend on using such
emotive words without any level of justification then you are only
trying to spread FUD to discredit the message (which isn't solely mine
of course but *millions* of people all around the world and has been
for many many years).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRk6OAseMLQ

Is that love? Is that how your wife treats you? Do you get to choose
when to go out, when to pee, when to ****, when to eat? Can you choose
the room temperature, what to wear outside?

Love is an expectation of something in return. The closest parallel is
paedophiles loving children:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tion-mail-nccl
"A paedophile does not love children; he abuses them."

Would you really call yourself a "dog lover"?


Assuming you ever bother to watch any of them that is. Nothing like
ignoring the argument from anyone with a conflicting POV, especially
one that puts much of your life / livelihood / lifestyle under the
spotlight?

Quite, you exploit animals by keeping them as pets for your personal
gratification, and then attempt to justify this despite subjecting them
to cruel and violent acts like castration.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Tim, I'm not blaming you for what the world you happen to be born
into normalised you (then or now) to accept. It's just that 'now' we
have a massive range of alternatives that don't involve any animal
suffering and exploitation and for many that's sufficient reason to
change.

There is massive range of alternatives to synthetic meat too, like real
meat. If you don't like animal suffering then owning pets must cause you
great cognitive dissonance.

On 03/03/2021 12:39, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:50:24 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

snip troll ****

The facts are so painful you feel obliged to label them as troll ****.
Yet I'm not the troll who started this thread.

"I'm so sorry for people with no pets; they have to make such a fuss of
their children."

Or not.

There are plenty of people out there who aren't demonstrative and so
the chances are they wouldn't be likely to 'make a fuss' of their
children or any animals that they happened to share their houses with
(not sure you would call them 'pet's in those instances).

I've seen that myself ... people who wouldn't welcome your dogs in
their house or that have a dog themselves but don't acknowledge it
when they come home (the dog desperate to say 'hello' but is
completely ignored).

Perhaps they don't like pets to be obliged to **** and pee at their
owners command and expectations.

Perhaps they think you are cruelly exploiting animals by keeping then as
adornments? Especially when you cruelly refrain from giving them meat
and meat products, something they would eat naturally.

And of course we shouldn't 'keep' any pets but it becomes a grey area
when an animal latches onto you (and not because of imprinting from
birth, that should be avoided) but it's therefore possible to share
your life / home with another animal (human or other species) as long
as it's provided / allowed all it's natural behaviours (or as many as
possible), plus any enrichment etc. What you don't typically do with a
pet is kill and eat it (although people do of course but then I
question the idea of it ever being 'a companion animal').

Keepiog pets is hardly natural for the pet. Have you considered joining
any pressure groups trying to close down zoos, for keeping animals/pets
in unnatural conditions?

So a 'rescued' animal, (say in response to human interference /
poaching) that has the freedom / protection of a wildlife park till
it's able to support / defend itself that *chooses* to maintain
contact with it's human rescuers etc.

There should have been no need to rescue an animal. It is a
contradiction for a fanatical vegan to keep pets for their personal
pleasure and then complain farm animals are kept for my pleasure, and of
course a natural source of B12.

Ideally there would be no need for any animal 'rescues' because there
wouldn't be poaching of parent animals and there wouldn't be live
stock 'farmers' who can no longer deal with their moral conflict,
giving up their animals to a rescue, rather than selling them as the
objects, the commodity that they would typically be.

In an ideal fanatical vegan world we wouldn't have zoos and pets.

I would hope that having a tactile pet in the family would mean people
would make the link between the sentience of other creatures and their
right / desire to live and the (non) consumption of the flesh of the
same ... but the normalisation, indoctrination, marketing and peer
pressure is so strong that I don't believe it is often the case, or at
lest till the person grows up and makes their own choices.


I would hope that eating meat will ensure my B12 levels are kept at
normal levels without having to resort to artificial and unnatural sources.