"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Radio Man
wrote:

snip
Foxes and many other animals are 'opportunistic hunters / scavengers
and will often kill / collect what they can and hide / bury some of it
to consume later.


Utter BS.

Complete fact, as you have since been told by someone who knows (a
farmer).

Anyone who has had their chicken coup raided by a fox will tell you
otherwise.

What, that many animals are opportunistic hunters and will often
take any 'surplus' kills and bury them for later? Nope, 100% fact.

In fact not many animals do that.

Can some animals, when they come across them in an unnatural
unsuitably protected enclosed space [1], (like chickens, 'cooped
up' in a cage) may go into a frenzy and kill them all? Of course.

Bull****. And we know that dogs do behave like that with sheep in a paddock.

Could the then be disturbed and not eat anything
there or take anything away, again, of course.

More mindless bull****.

Do some animals appear to kill but not take / eat their catch, of
course. This can be part of them honing their skills or providing
food for others of their kind or their own offspring, or even training
their offspring (as can be seen with killer whales 'playing' with a seal).

More mindless bull****.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

On 28/04/2021 08:46, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Radio Man
wrote:

snip
Foxes and many other animals are 'opportunistic hunters / scavengers
and will often kill / collect what they can and hide / bury some of it
to consume later.


Utter BS.

Complete fact, as you have since been told by someone who knows (a
farmer).

Anyone who has had their chicken coup raided by a fox will tell you
otherwise.

What, that many animals are opportunistic hunters and will often take
any 'surplus' kills and bury them for later? Nope, 100% fact.

Once again facts are hard for you to stomach. While some here are
correct that foxes do bury their kills, that would depend on many
things. But it is a well known fact that foxes kill more than they eat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing

Sorry for bursting your bubble.

In message , Fredxx
writes
On 28/04/2021 08:46, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Radio Man
wrote:
snip
Foxes and many other animals are 'opportunistic hunters / scavengers
and will often kill / collect what they can and hide / bury some of it
to consume later.


Utter BS.

Complete fact, as you have since been told by someone who knows (a
farmer).

Anyone who has had their chicken coup raided by a fox will tell you
otherwise.
What, that many animals are opportunistic hunters and will often
take
any 'surplus' kills and bury them for later? Nope, 100% fact.

Once again facts are hard for you to stomach. While some here are
correct that foxes do bury their kills, that would depend on many
things. But it is a well known fact that foxes kill more than they eat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing

Sorry for bursting your bubble.

I don't think there is disagreement here Fred. The Wiki article is North
American based but points to surplus kills in both intended and *frenzy*
attacks. Mink are said to do it here and I have seen dead Mallards laid
out in a row.

--
Tim Lamb

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:32:00 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

snip

Complete fact, as you have since been told by someone who knows (a
farmer).


snip

Sorry for bursting your bubble.

I don't think there is disagreement here Fred. The Wiki article is North
American based but points to surplus kills in both intended and *frenzy*
attacks. Mink are said to do it here and I have seen dead Mallards laid
out in a row.

It's as if they have never experienced the real world and it's obvious
they haven't actually lived 'in the country' (as you have / do) and so
base their understanding of everything on what happened to some bloke
in the pub. ;-(

Even a domestic dog will collect and bury a treats if they don't want
to eat them straight away, strange to us when no one is going to take
them away. They will also 'frenzy' kill rats but not eat any of them,
or eat all of them, given time / hunger. However, whilst they may gain
some adrenalin from 'the chase', they don't get 'pleasure' from the
actual kill (it's simply instinct), in the same way as most abattoir
workers don't, versus most trophy hunters who do. Most animals do have
the range of taste buds that we do (just as well when you see the
stuff they sometimes eat) so it's really only us who choose to kill
and eat animal flesh, just because we like the taste (and why we don't
eat many species, especially raw).

Or take the killer whale. It will both straight kill and eat a seal or
'play with it' (in just the same way a domestic cat might with a mouse
or bird), maybe not even killing or eating it itself afterwards,
especially when training it's young to hunt.

I saw some footage the other day when a wild pig walked accidentally
straight past a pride of sleeping lions (that had recently eaten) and
it was all they could be bothered to do to look up and watch it (it
scared the cr*p out of the pig though). ;-)

Raven work with wolves (who could easily predate on them) to indicate
a carcass so that the wolves rip it open allowing the raven to eat
easier (and store some food for later). The raven are also known to
play with the wolf cubs and even befriend them.

So, the trolls would translate all that as they 'always do' or 'always
don't', whichever seems to work out in opposition of what I've said.

I guess I should be flattered they are so focused on everything I say,
it does suggest they are also a bit sad. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 19:35:46 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:32:00 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

snip

Complete fact, as you have since been told by someone who knows (a
farmer).


snip

Sorry for bursting your bubble.

I don't think there is disagreement here Fred. The Wiki article is North
American based but points to surplus kills in both intended and *frenzy*
attacks. Mink are said to do it here and I have seen dead Mallards laid
out in a row.

It's as if they have never experienced the real world and it's obvious
they haven't actually lived 'in the country' (as you have / do) and so
base their understanding of everything on what happened to some bloke
in the pub. ;-(

Even a domestic dog will collect and bury a treats if they don't want
to eat them straight away, strange to us when no one is going to take
them away. They will also 'frenzy' kill rats but not eat any of them,
or eat all of them, given time / hunger. However, whilst they may gain
some adrenalin from 'the chase',

Its more complicated than that with domestic dogs doing over a flock of
sheep.

they don't get 'pleasure' from the actual kill

Bull****.

(it's simply instinct), in the same way as most abattoir
workers don't, versus most trophy hunters who do.

Utterly mangled all over again.

Most animals do have the range of taste buds that we do
(just as well when you see the stuff they sometimes eat)
so it's really only us who choose to kill and eat animal flesh,
just because we like the taste (and why we don't
eat many species, especially raw).

Utterly mangled all over again.

Or take the killer whale. It will both straight kill and eat a seal
or 'play with it' (in just the same way a domestic cat might
with a mouse or bird), maybe not even killing or eating it
itself afterwards, especially when training it's young to hunt.

I saw some footage the other day when a wild pig walked accidentally
straight past a pride of sleeping lions (that had recently eaten) and
it was all they could be bothered to do to look up and watch it (it
scared the cr*p out of the pig though). ;-)

Raven work with wolves (who could easily predate on them)
to indicate a carcass so that the wolves rip it open allowing
the raven to eat easier (and store some food for later). The raven
are also known to play with the wolf cubs and even befriend them.

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 04:53:36 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

On 27/04/2021 13:15, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:21:25 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 15:34, T i m wrote:


No, they would be allowed to live out their natural lives after being
sterilised.


Who pays for that ?. Ain't free or cheap.

Anyone who actually cares for animals. Same as with any 'rescue'
today.

You are clueless. There are millions of animals alive and part
of the food chain.


And how more tax are you, personally prepared to pay ?, in order
to feed them,

They would look after themselves (sheep in these areas I'm told we
can't otherwise use). People offering to let them live out their
natural lives in return for the cows cutting their grass (as they are
doing now).

No they don't 'look after themselves'. Are you going to let them all
roam free in national parks because in case you hadn't noticed, most
land in the UK is privately owned. You don't use a 3/4 tonne dairy
cow to cut your grass, unless you want it to look like the Somme
during wet weather. Where are they going to be kept during the winter ?.
Who is going to spend a fortune on fertiliser to grow grass for silage
or hay, who is going to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on
the heavy duty machinery needed to cut, dry, bale, double-chop and
move it into storage ?.



Please don't bother with 'let them roam freely' argument, because
you cannot allow dairy bulls to roam free. They are dangerous.

See above. 5 years on, all gone.

They live a lot longer than 5 years. High performance Dairy Bulls
are valuable animals. They are very dangerous animals too. By law
they have to be contained and well away from the public, or are
you suggesting that such animals should be abandoned in Epping forest
or Hyde park ?. Totally clueless idiocy.


There is no 'free' NHS for anaimals,

Of course there is. Vets are obliged to look after injured wild
animals and there are plenty of rescues that are funded by supporters
(so the animals don't have to pay).

No they aren't. Just because vets occasionally treat some injured
wild animals for free does not extend to treating millions of
abandoned farm animals for free. Grow up. Without any farm animals
there won't be any need for anything like the number of vets we
have now. QED If they cannot earn a living from farm animals many
will go abroad. Most of our Vetinary colleges would close. Who would
want to be a vet with no prospect of work ?. Without large animals
to train on, the only skills they would have is working with pets.
It won't take long for all the knowledge of large animals to be
lost, permanently.

You must be almost down the earths core now in the deep, deep hole you
are digging into *?.*

On 27/04/2021 13:18, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:22:42 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 15:36, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:07:48 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 14:03, T i m wrote:

Nope, just someone very used to ****ing on trolls in their ever
deepening holes. ;-)

You really don't get it do you ?.

Erm, 'yes' and even though you are thick, you might too one day.

The only hole is the one
that you are in, and have been for quite some time now.

Oh the irony. Is it so dark in there you can't see where *you* are?


In *where* ??.

You really are thick aren't you? Get your carer to explain where to
you, just from the text left in this post.

Please answer the question !

I am *out* there, in the real world where there are 7,800,000,000 people
who need food to survive. This is what animals are for, and always have
been. The business of feeding all those people is a significant part of
the worlds GDP and employment (and tax revenues to pay your 'free' NHS
and pension)

On 27/04/2021 16:40, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:36:13 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 15:14, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:04:24 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 10:35, T i m wrote:

We see a lorry with 10,000 fox fur pelts and we may not be upset at
all (vegans would of course because we understand the holocaust that
created such).


My grandfather was pretty upset when he came out one morning
to find that all his hens were dead, inside their henhouse
because a fox had managed to dig his way in overnight.

Foxes kill for amusement too you know.

sigh I though we had put that old chestnut to bed ages ago.

Foxes and many other animals are 'opportunistic hunters / scavengers
and will often kill / collect what they can and hide / bury some of it
to consume later.


Utter BS.

Complete fact, as you have since been told by someone who knows (a
farmer).

Foxes enjoy killing.

'Enjoy' like you enjoying meat, when you can (and do of course) eat
loads of other things ... or to 'survive' because unlike you, they
can't just pop up the shops whenever they like?

To them it is just a real-life
snuff movie. Period.

Every time you blurt this ****e out you demonstrate even further what
a stupid troll you are.

Foxes are also know to go into a chicken coop and kill and remove just
one chicken, it depends on the fox, situation how the rest of the
chickens behave.

No-one who keeps hens will ever confirm that utter BS. Why not venture
out of that dark hole you live in and go and ask someone who does.

Snip the usual fake videos

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:44:13 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 27/04/2021 13:15, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:21:25 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 15:34, T i m wrote:


No, they would be allowed to live out their natural lives after being
sterilised.


Who pays for that ?. Ain't free or cheap.

Anyone who actually cares for animals. Same as with any 'rescue'
today.

You are clueless.

Yeah, right ....

There are millions of animals alive and part
of the food chain.

'Food mesh' and what's your point? Oh, did you think we would just
stop killing them and let those ones in the process of being 'farmed'
go?


And how more tax are you, personally prepared to pay ?, in order
to feed them,

They would look after themselves (sheep in these areas I'm told we
can't otherwise use). People offering to let them live out their
natural lives in return for the cows cutting their grass (as they are
doing now).

No they don't 'look after themselves'.

Many can.

Are you going to let them all
roam free in national parks because in case you hadn't noticed, most
land in the UK is privately owned.

Nope ... and it further demonstrates what a stupid troll you are that
anyone would even think such.

You don't use a 3/4 tonne dairy
cow to cut your grass,

Strange that people do all over the world.

unless you want it to look like the Somme
during wet weather.

Oh, no chance of bringing them in at that point then?

Where are they going to be kept during the winter ?.

Same as normal, outside in many cases (for those that ever see the
outside etc).

Who is going to spend a fortune on fertiliser to grow grass for silage
or hay, who is going to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on
the heavy duty machinery needed to cut, dry, bale, double-chop and
move it into storage ?.

Ask any farmer who has given his livestock to a rescue rather that
slaughtering them.

Please don't bother with 'let them roam freely' argument, because
you cannot allow dairy bulls to roam free. They are dangerous.

See above. 5 years on, all gone.

They live a lot longer than 5 years.

'Dairy bulls' ... yeah, there are millions of them aren't there. Most
are shot in the head at birth or within the first year.

High performance Dairy Bulls
are valuable animals.

Yes, because of the exploitation of them. Forced to produced sperm
using an electro stimulator inserted into their anus ... all very
'natural'.

They are very dangerous animals too.

No more than any other 'big' animal. More people are killed by
(herbivore) hippos than anything else.

By law
they have to be contained and well away from the public,

It's funny that large bulls are often shown by small girls, because of
how placid they are. It's the smaller stuff or cows with calves you
might have to watch. Or any of them as you are trying to get a bolt
gun on their head in the confines of a 'knocking box'.

or are
you suggesting that such animals should be abandoned in Epping forest
or Hyde park ?.

Nope.

Totally clueless idiocy.

Yup, but then you suggested it so what would you expect.


There is no 'free' NHS for anaimals,

Of course there is. Vets are obliged to look after injured wild
animals and there are plenty of rescues that are funded by supporters
(so the animals don't have to pay).

No they aren't.

Maybe not where your bridge is located.

"Treating injured wildlife

Like all veterinary practices, if a wild animal’s life is in danger
and they are injured or sick we will always provide emergency care,
regardless of their species."

https://www.pdsa.org.uk/taking-care-...jured-wildlife

Boom!

Just because vets occasionally treat some injured
wild animals for free does not extend to treating millions of
abandoned farm animals for free.

Never said it does? There won't be 'millions of farm animals' after
even 1 year!

Grow up.

Oh the irony.

Without any farm animals
there won't be any need for anything like the number of vets we
have now.

QED If they cannot earn a living from farm animals many
will go abroad.

Oh, you think this is going to be a UK only thing? There are more
vegans (proportionally if not numerically) in the likes of Auz than
the UK.

Most of our Vetinary colleges would close.

Why, what will happen to all the pets and wild animals?

Fewer livestock, more room for the displaced wildlife to return to
their natural habitats and we will still be hurting them with our cars
etc.

Who would
want to be a vet with no prospect of work ?.

Sorry, did you have a point there? Who would want to be a slave
traders doctor, or wheelwright, or foxhound keeper or badger baiter?

Without large animals
to train on, the only skills they would have is working with pets.

What, there won't be any cows *anywhere*?

It won't take long for all the knowledge of large animals to be
lost, permanently.

You do talk a load of (desperate) bollox don't you. What do you think
we were doing *before* we started farming more livestock than there
were people on the planet? Were all these vets being bred in a big
shed somewhere?

You must be almost down the earths core now in the deep, deep hole you
are digging into *?.*

Aw bless ... mirroring much. And what do they say:

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

Thanks! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:50:48 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

You really are thick aren't you? Get your carer to explain where to
you, just from the text left in this post.

Please answer the question !

Go fcuk yourself!

I am *out* there, in the real world where there are 7,800,000,000 people
who need food to survive.

Yup, and where millions are already hungry in spite of the massive and
unsustainable destruction of massive areas of the planet in the
attempt to grow food for more animals than people in the bogus hope it
will make matters better (when it clearly doesn't).

This is what animals are for, and always have
been.

What, they were put here millions of years before we were to build up
a stock for us to eat?

The business of feeding all those people is a significant part of
the worlds GDP and employment (and tax revenues to pay your 'free' NHS
and pension)

What, and you think feeding them on plants is going to be any
different?

Give the very rough guide of 'meat and two veg' suggests we are
already eating veg as 2/3rds of our food intake as veg and what are
you feeding the meat on, troll dust?

The *would* is moving towards a more plant based diet weather you like
it or not so you might as well give out flapping yer gums at me and
get some good animal carcase eating in while you still can.

We are *told* (not by me) to eat '5 or more veg a day' and we are told
(not by me) to cut down our meat intake (especially red / processed)
and we are told (not by me) that we should (all) focus on a plant
based diet, not by me,but all those who have a grasp on the real world
(so not you etc).

Now, what tiny subset of all the animal species you *could* eat, do
you actually eat ...

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:54:14 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Foxes are also know to go into a chicken coop and kill and remove just
one chicken, it depends on the fox, situation how the rest of the
chickens behave.

No-one who keeps hens will ever confirm that utter BS.

Aww bless. If that makes you feel happier you carry on thinking that.

Why not venture
out of that dark hole you live in and go and ask someone who does.

What, just one person, the one you put forward I'm guessing?

"Predatory drive is the instinctive inclination of a carnivore to
find, pursue and capture prey. If, in responding to this drive, a fox
gains entry to a coop (chicken wire was designed to keep chickens in,
not to keep foxes out) this may result in a panic reaction with
confined, excitable birds flapping and squawking, reinforcing the prey
drive until the stimuli are removed i.e. all the birds are dead,
resulting in what we term overkill

This is supported by reports where a fox has broken into a coop and
taken only a single bird because the others have remained calm and
quiet on shelves above, suggesting it is the noise and movement of
live prey in the immediate vicinity that causes this overkill."

https://www.activenaturalist.org.uk/...kens-hen-house


Snip the usual fake videos

Unviewed by you because you are just a cowardly troll in denial.

But hey, you keep digging, you seem to enjoy it!

Cheers, T i m

On 27/04/2021 08:52, T i m wrote:

He is trying to make the point that some chocolate doesn't contain milk
products and Vegan ice cream is made from peas.

It does make you wonder what rock these people live under eh. ;-)

Cheers, T i m


Seriously, what is the vegan attitude to eating or exploiting insects?

Bill

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 19:45:15 +0100, williamwright
wrote:

On 27/04/2021 08:52, T i m wrote:

He is trying to make the point that some chocolate doesn't contain milk
products and Vegan ice cream is made from peas.

It does make you wonder what rock these people live under eh. ;-)


Seriously, what is the vegan attitude to eating or exploiting insects?

Well, I can't speak on behalf of all vegans on this (and there are
different types, like dietary and ethical) but we are getting right
down the lower end of the 'it's a life' scale and it's suggested that
flies (maybe only some, could be all) don't have any pain receptors so
at least that would be one aspect we wouldn't have to consider.

Cheers, T i m

https://ibb.co/mvNK3T9

On 27 Apr 2021 at 09:53:52 BST, "T i m" wrote:



Couple of days usually. I'd still pine for some
things - usually real crap, like sausages.

I'm guessing you have / tried all the vegan alternatives Rob (I
appreciate they are processed but still better than meat)? [1] We like
all we have tried (some more than others) but if you are looking for
something familiar (shape / texture / taste) to fill some
psychological role (and we often do, like on a fried breakfast) then
we have found they are fine. Further, I *really* don't miss the random
bits of bone, gristle or other 'surprises' you can often find in
processed meat. ;-)

I have/do try alternatives - very little if any meat in the house. Most of the
veg/vegan processed meals (burgers, pies etc.) are not healthy in any sense
that I can see. So insofar as I buy/eat that sort of junk - maybe once a week
- it'll be vegetable. Bought some vegan cheese earlier - I may be some time
:-)


I guess if you have eaten the same thing, 'meat and two veg' every
day, 'fish on Fridays ...' for most of your life then even the change
from that would be too much for some. ;-)

That was how I was brought up - and I still do that occasionally - but the
'meat' will be something veg-processed like a frozen pie. Mostly it's soups,
curries, and pasta sauces.

I'll have an egg a day in some form. That i think would be the most difficult
habit to give up. I'd like to think that I could reconcile eating eggs with
non-human animal decency, having looked after some hens for a while. But a
vegan friend it pretty hostile to the suggestion - to the point that he thinks
it's so obviously abhorrent that he hasn't explained/we haven't discussed in
any depth.

I suspect I'm lucky in the sense that I'm not that in to food. I'm only half
joking when I tell people (if asked) that my favourite food is toast :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

"T i m" wrote in message
...
we only have to think of the animal suffering and we would rather just go
without. The problem is the assumption that we had the right to any of
this stuff in the first place and we didn't

This is the problem I have with veganism: the fact that you (and other
vegans) would rather go without than compromise animal suffering. For me,
the needs/desires of humans comes first. If those can be satisfied without
compromising animals, so much the better.

Humans have eaten meat and animal products (milk, eggs), and used animal
products (wool, leather) for millennia. Now that almost-alternatives are
available for some of these, vegans are deciding to shun the animal
products. Fine - that is their choice. I respect it, even if I don't agree
with it. As long as (like religion) they keep their beliefs to themselves
and don't try to foist them on everyone else. In the case of religion and
veganism, the more someone tries to make me feel guilty or inferior, with
emotional/emotive arguments, the more strongly I will resist.

What is the best alternative for leather - for shoes, belts etc? Plastic,
probably, but plastic has a bad press these days. You can't do right for
doing wrong :-( And what about horse saddles - always assuming that vegans
permit the riding of horses for pleasure, now that they are no longer needed
for farming/haulage.

There is a danger that vegans come across as killjoys - you can't do this
and you can't do that because it subjugates or harms animals. If anything in
life is enjoyable, there will be a vegan argument somewhere for not doing
it. Would most people want to live in a vegan world, given all the changes
that it would force on them?

On Sat, 1 May 2021 13:42:04 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
we only have to think of the animal suffering and we would rather just go
without. The problem is the assumption that we had the right to any of
this stuff in the first place and we didn't

This is the problem I have with veganism: the fact that you (and other
vegans) would rather go without than compromise animal suffering.

Why would that be a problem for you?

For me,
the needs/desires of humans comes first.

And where the *needs* can be satisfied without causing animals to
suffer and die of course. Now, if you *desire* to cause suffering and
death to innocent creatures ...

If those can be satisfied without
compromising animals, so much the better.

They can and are as confirmed by millions of vegans (and billions of
herbivores). ;-)

Humans have eaten meat and animal products (milk, eggs), and used animal
products (wool, leather) for millennia.

Because much of it was *survival*. I would imagine you wouldn't
typically eat a dog, or another human if you didn't need to, but if
you were the only one who survived the plane crash ... ?

Now that almost-alternatives are
available for some of these, vegans are deciding to shun the animal
products.

And non meat foods have been available (and chosen in preference) by
many of course. See, in 2021 we shouldn't look at any animal as
'food', they are sentient, independent and intelligent creatures that
we neither own nor have the right to do with as we please (and have
laws that protect many).

Fine - that is their choice.

Good to know. ;-)

I respect it, even if I don't agree
with it.

Not sure you have much of a choice eh. ;-)

As long as (like religion) they keep their beliefs to themselves
and don't try to foist them on everyone else.

Well, that logic falls down straight away as you are foisting your
beliefs onto other creatures.

So, if you buy beef and the benefit you get from that causes more
pollution, uses more land, devastates more environment and causes more
burden on the health system than the alternatives then you aren't
keeping yourself to yourself are you?

In the case of religion and
veganism,

Why are you trying to conflate those? They are *nothing* to do or like
each other.

Religion is a belief system. No facts, no tangible pros or cons (other
than religious wars or actions that impact the innocent).

Veganism is a lifestyle choice where people don't rate animals over
humans, we rate animals equal to humans in their right to life.

the more someone tries to make me feel guilty or inferior, with
emotional/emotive arguments, the more strongly I will resist.

Then that says more about you then you may have wanted to reveal. See,
'normally' with normal / open-minded people, highlighting the facts
behind what they do, revealing the true cost ... would get them
thinking, making them think to themselves about what they currently do
and how they might change that for the better.

I'm guessing you wouldn't intentionally hurt an animal so when you
don't, your actions are aligned with your morals. You are logically
consistent. When you get someone else to kill and animal, just for you
to enjoy the taste of, you are no longer aligning your actions with
your morals, you are no longer logically consistent.

So, you 'push back' because no one likes to have to face such a
dilemma.

We knew it was 'wrong' all along but allowed our cognitive dissonance
to modify our morals (with the help of years of conditioning and
marketing, left over from a different age), the we thought about it,
guided in our case by our daughter trying Veganuary and have been
happier ever since. Happier because we are no longer at odds with our
morals.

What is the best alternative for leather - for shoes, belts etc? Plastic,
probably, but plastic has a bad press these days.

There are loads of alternatives becoming more common / popular these
days like hemp and bamboo.

You can't do right for
doing wrong :-(

Of course you can, once you try and educate yourself re the options.

The ice cream van on our dog walk didn't stock any vegan options, till
we educated him to what was out there. So he started stocking them and
earned not only us as customers but other vegans who didn't have the
courage to ask and educate.

And what about horse saddles - always assuming that vegans
permit the riding of horses for pleasure, now that they are no longer needed
for farming/haulage.

Of course they don't: Look, it's very, very easy ....

"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, making an animal that was never 'designed' to carry us (or
anything) is exploitation. Why do we have to (used to?)'break horses
in' to be able to get a saddle on them?

Now, is horse riding the first thing we want to stop, no, of course
not, it's the billions of animals that are artificially bred,
unnaturally kept and unnecessarily slaughtered that we need to
consider *first* and we can work down to all the other later. ;-)

There is a danger that vegans come across as killjoys - you can't do this
and you can't do that because it subjugates or harms animals.

Yes, of course, just like the people who got slave trading, dog / cock
fighting stopped you mean? You speak from the POV of their being no
victims but both they and us are victims in this case.

If anything in
life is enjoyable, there will be a vegan argument somewhere for not doing
it.

Please don't be a dick. What part of 'people who want to stop causing
suffering and exploitation of animals' do you think means them wanting
to stop people doing anything else, as long as it doesn't cause
suffering to animals of course.

I guess them putting a levy on driving your polluting car into London
(because people are dying of the pollution) are 'spoilsports' are
they? They are just doing it because they want to spoil the car
drivers day?

Would most people want to live in a vegan world, given all the changes
that it would force on them?

Most intelligent people realise *now* that we will all have to be
living in a vegan world at some point, assuming we actually want to
survive ourselves.

What many people are coming to realise is that we have been ****ting
in our own water for long enough, and now, not only is it poisoning
the animals that drink there but us when we eat the animals. Part of
us not ****ting in our own water is not keeping billions of livestock
that add more creatures ****ting in our water than the humans doing
it!

See, it's not about you or I, it's about us, where us equals every
human and every wild animal on this planet that both we and the planet
need to survive. Start doubling the world population (with livestock)
and we have doubled the problem. That particular problem could be
fixed very quickly, not be world leaders or protests or anything so
complicated, just by choosing to do the right thing yourself and stop
being part of the problem.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Or daughter won't eat anything tomorrow (the 2nd of the month and
every month) in sympathy with the millions of other animals that will
be starving tomorrow, as they are being prepared for slaughter and
feeding (or giving them water) them is therefore considered both 'a
waste' (of food = money) and because of the inconvenience of the extra
mess they then have to deal with in the slaughterhouses. All the ****
all over your dinner .... ;-(



She wears an AFOTS slogan T shirt and that often causes people to
engage in conversation and of course most are horrified when they hear
what happens and most were completely unaware of it happening. So
'activism' (should be) is just a form of education to allow people to
then make more educates choices.

On 01/05/2021 13:42, NY wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
we only have to think of the animal suffering and we would rather just go
without. The problem is the assumption that we had the right to any of
this stuff in the first place and we didn't

This is the problem I have with veganism: the fact that you (and other
vegans) would rather go without than compromise animal suffering. For
me, the needs/desires of humans comes first. If those can be satisfied
without compromising animals, so much the better.

The problem I have is that he starts off by assuming something as
nebulous and ill defined as 'right' actually exists.

The he compounds it by implying its a universal quality, not just a
human thing.

It's pure Marxist ********.
Star off by assuming an absolute moral position that is entirely
unsupported by dialectical materialism, which is allegedly what Marxism
espouses, and go on to 'prove' a load of socialist spaff...

Neither humans nor animals have any rights at all. Let's start from there.


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Sat, 1 May 2021 19:10:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 01/05/2021 13:42, NY wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
we only have to think of the animal suffering and we would rather just go
without. The problem is the assumption that we had the right to any of
this stuff in the first place and we didn't

This is the problem I have with veganism: the fact that you (and other
vegans) would rather go without than compromise animal suffering. For
me, the needs/desires of humans comes first. If those can be satisfied
without compromising animals, so much the better.

The problem I have is that he starts off by assuming something as
nebulous and ill defined as 'right' actually exists.

Of course it does or we would still be killing each other and hunting
everything and in most advanced / civilised places round the world and
we obviously aren't.

The he compounds it by implying its a universal quality, not just a
human thing.

BS.

It's pure Marxist ********.

It's pure your denial.

Star off by assuming an absolute moral position that is entirely
unsupported by dialectical materialism, which is allegedly what Marxism
espouses, and go on to 'prove' a load of socialist spaff...

You do talk some bollox in an effort to justify your selfish carnist
position.

Neither humans nor animals have any rights at all.

Neanderthal humans possibly, some of us have evolved since then.

Let's start from there.

You can start back there if you want.

Cheers, T i m

On 1 May 2021 20:12:18 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 01 May 2021 at 19:10:55 BST, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 01/05/2021 13:42, NY wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
we only have to think of the animal suffering and we would rather just go
without. The problem is the assumption that we had the right to any of
this stuff in the first place and we didn't

This is the problem I have with veganism: the fact that you (and other
vegans) would rather go without than compromise animal suffering. For
me, the needs/desires of humans comes first. If those can be satisfied
without compromising animals, so much the better.

The problem I have is that he starts off by assuming something as
nebulous and ill defined as 'right' actually exists.

The he compounds it by implying its a universal quality, not just a
human thing.

It's pure Marxist ********.
Star off by assuming an absolute moral position that is entirely
unsupported by dialectical materialism, which is allegedly what Marxism
espouses, and go on to 'prove' a load of socialist spaff...

Neither humans nor animals have any rights at all. Let's start from there.

Yes, it's funny eh?

You have a very strange sense of humour.

Long article in the Times Magazine today about the Chinese
behaviour regarding the Uighur minority.

Yup, being 'looked into' by all sorts of people.

Not something that luvvies bother
much about, though.

I don't know about you but people *are* very much looking at the
Uighur issue, along with loads of other human on human stuff.

But funnily enough (or not etc), the Uighur are within China as
voiceless as most the livestock around the world ...

Cheers, T i m