On 09/05/2021 16:24, ARW wrote:
On 06/05/2021 21:17, Robin wrote:
On 06/05/2021 21:02, ARW wrote:
On 06/05/2021 20:49, Robin wrote:
On 06/05/2021 19:46, williamwright wrote:
On 06/05/2021 19:03, GB wrote:
We have vegan guests, and I'm fed up with apologising for the
poorly glazed bread.

Why on earth do you let these lunatics in your house, never mind
humour their dietary obsessions?



Vegan guests mean more Zebra left for GB? And he can argue that he's
doing his bit to save the planet by not inviting, say, you and Adam.



Swordfish steak tonight for tea.


lovely jubbly

but after the zebra et al I can't help but wonder if you've been
working at a zoo lately


I am working in an old folks home tomorrow....

No more exotics then.
Just same old, same old?

On 08/05/2021 19:26, GB wrote:
On 08/05/2021 19:17, ARW wrote:
On 08/05/2021 13:45, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/05/2021 10:49, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2021 02:13:59 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip bs unread

Facts you dare not read.

You come across as being intensely ignorant in the RW with your head
firmly planted in the sand.

Next weekends dinner sorted.

Ostrich steaks.


If you are going to eat animal, ostrich steaks are one of the most
nutritious. White meat. Very lean. Really, quite good for you, if not
for the ostrich. I hope I'm not putting you off?



Why would it put me off?

I have worked in an abattoir, a meat processing factory and a Halal
chicken slaughterhouse. I have also shot and eaten game.


If push came to shove and a law was introduced that you had to kill and
prepare the animal you ate then I would still be a meat eater.


I really have no problems with it.

And I claim first dibs on the mountain oysters.



--
Adam

On 09/05/2021 16:44, Richard wrote:
On 09/05/2021 16:24, ARW wrote:


I am working in an old folks home tomorrow....

No more exotics then.
Just same old, same old?

:-)

With HP sauce.


--
Adam

On 09/05/2021 10:24, Spike wrote:
On 09/05/2021 08:33, T i m wrote:

If we are born with lactose tolerance then lactose tolerance in
infants is not and never has been 'the discussion re 'lactose
intolerance' in adults which is what we mean where we are talking of
such. So it's not and never has been part of the discussion about how
*adults* not only shouldn't (and typically don't) drink growth fluid
of our own species but certainly shouldn't drink the growth fluid of a
different species!

Where is this law about 'other species' written down?

It's not, but firmly imprinted on his mind through indoctrination from
his 'loved ones'.

On 09/05/2021 13:33, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 9 May 2021 11:46:29 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 08/05/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
On 07/05/2021 17:23, T i m wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can).

More than 60+% of the population can't
Claptrap. Unadulterated claptrap.

If humans hadn't been able to process lactose, humans would not have
succeeded as a species.


It was the ability to devise ways to turn cows milk into a form
that could be stored for consumption during the winter months
(plus other plant-based stuff) that allowed the humans who
migrated north to survive the winter.

True, but no more 'natural' than saying they ate each other whilst
there to survive or stealing someone else's food to do the same.

Only a fanatical vegan would associate drinking milk with cannibalism.

(eg, For us to consume milk we need to deny it to the very creature it
was made for).

That is why we have farms, where cows outlive their expected life, where
in the wild they would be expected to have two calves before dying.

Ditto using animal hides
and fleeces to keep warm and dry.

See above. Maybe what might have made more sense is staying where were
could survive more easily?

Is also makes sense to use renewable resources. Didn't you admit to
owning leather shoes?

A useful side effect of this
was better development, leading ultimately to the industrial
revolution.

And the near destruction of the planet.

And yet you want us feed more humans. Most of the western world's
population has been shrinking. The expansion of the rest of the world is
largely dependent on food production.

Meanwhile in Africa and pacific countries, all they needed to
do was catch fish, collect breadfruit and taro to survive. No
impetus to devise a way to survive a food shortage because they
never had one. QED

And most native peoples had more respect for 'the land' and only took
what they needed (to survive).

That's why advanced civilisations have governments to make laws to
protect the environment.

They mostly couldn't be arsed, and when it
is so hot an humid, doing as little as possible is so much
easier.

And makes much more sense than trying to live is less naturally
hospitable places.

Many animals migrate exactly for this reason (including us who because
there is generally an easy supply of food wherever we go for the sun
(without having to hunt it ourselves), we can do similar. ;-)

No need if we have farms, no need to hunt it ourselves.

On Sun, 9 May 2021 13:59:10 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/05/2021 13:33, T i m wrote:


And most native peoples had more respect for 'the land' and only took
what they needed (to survive).


They took what they needed because there was no shortage of fish and
the climate meant root crops, bananas etc grow almost all year round.

Apart from in those places where there weren't.

And without electricity there is no chance of keeping for more than a
few hours.

Strange, we keep most of our fruit and veg out of the fridge?

And when the occasional Reverend Baker turns up, why not have a
wonderful BBQ with him on the menu ?.

Quite.

It was the clever, industrious north americans and europeans who had the
brains (from meat and protein eating)

A skill that they gained from eating veg in the first place of course.

and the requirement to invent
and develop refridgeration and the means to make ice in huge quantities.

Drying and salting were pretty common?

This brought cheap meat and fish to the global poor, who benefitted
greatly.

Well, till they were all gone?

Cheers, T i m

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 08/05/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
On 07/05/2021 17:23, T i m wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can).

More than 60+% of the population can't
Claptrap. Unadulterated claptrap.

If humans hadn't been able to process lactose, humans would not have
succeeded as a species.


It was the ability to devise ways to turn cows milk into a form
that could be stored for consumption during the winter months
(plus other plant-based stuff) that allowed the humans who
migrated north to survive the winter. Ditto using animal hides
and fleeces to keep warm and dry. A useful side effect of this
was better development, leading ultimately to the industrial
revolution.

Meanwhile in Africa and pacific countries, all they needed to
do was catch fish, collect breadfruit and taro to survive. No
impetus to devise a way to survive a food shortage because they
never had one.

They always did with droughts and still do.

QED They mostly couldn't be arsed, and when it is so hot an humid, doing
as little as possible is so much easier.

On 09/05/2021 16:44, Richard wrote:
On 09/05/2021 16:24, ARW wrote:
On 06/05/2021 21:17, Robin wrote:
On 06/05/2021 21:02, ARW wrote:
On 06/05/2021 20:49, Robin wrote:
On 06/05/2021 19:46, williamwright wrote:
On 06/05/2021 19:03, GB wrote:
We have vegan guests, and I'm fed up with apologising for the
poorly glazed bread.

Why on earth do you let these lunatics in your house, never mind
humour their dietary obsessions?



Vegan guests mean more Zebra left for GB? And he can argue that
he's doing his bit to save the planet by not inviting, say, you and
Adam.



Swordfish steak tonight for tea.


lovely jubbly

but after the zebra et al I can't help but wonder if you've been
working at a zoo lately


I am working in an old folks home tomorrow....

No more exotics then.
Just same old, same old?


You've tasted 90 year matured long pig?

Anyhow, I've always thought it's a waste to burn bodies. If the anatomy
dept. doesn't want mine then I'd be happy for it to go for Soylent Green.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 09/05/2021 20:45, Joey wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 08/05/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
On 07/05/2021 17:23, T i m wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of
something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can).

More than 60+% of the population can't
Claptrap. Unadulterated claptrap.

If humans hadn't been able to process lactose, humans would not have
succeeded as a species.


It was the ability to devise ways to turn cows milk into a form
that could be stored for consumption during the winter months
(plus other plant-based stuff) that allowed the humans who
migrated north to survive the winter. Ditto using animal hides
and fleeces to keep warm and dry. A useful side effect of this
was better development, leading ultimately to the industrial
revolution.

Meanwhile in Africa and pacific countries, all they needed to
do was catch fish, collect breadfruit and taro to survive. No
impetus to devise a way to survive a food shortage because they
never had one.

They always did with droughts and still do.

Nature's way of population control, which has been overturned by us.
That, in turn, has led to the current unsustainable situation.

Richard wrote
Joey wrote
Andrew wrote
Spike wrote
T i m wrote
newshound wrote
T i m wrote

However, what we are doing then is comparing
the taste of something we are used to, something
we shouldn't have been consuming in the first place
('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able
to consume it (at least, a lot can).

More than 60+% of the population can't

Claptrap. Unadulterated claptrap.

If humans hadn't been able to process lactose,
humans would not have succeeded as a species.

It was the ability to devise ways to turn cows milk into a form
that could be stored for consumption during the winter months
(plus other plant-based stuff) that allowed the humans who
migrated north to survive the winter. Ditto using animal hides
and fleeces to keep warm and dry. A useful side effect of this
was better development, leading ultimately to the industrial
revolution.

Meanwhile in Africa and pacific countries, all they needed
to do was catch fish, collect breadfruit and taro to survive.
No impetus to devise a way to survive a food shortage
because they never had one.

They always did with droughts and still do.

Nature's way of population control,

Nope, nothing to do with nature, its just how it is.

which has been overturned by us.

Yes., cant imagine why for the life of me.

That, in turn, has led to the current unsustainable situation.

Its very far from clear that it actually is unsustainable now
that the world population is self limiting for other reasons.

On 09/05/2021 18:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/05/2021 10:24, Spike wrote:
On 09/05/2021 08:33, T i m wrote:

If we are born with lactose tolerance then lactose tolerance in
infants is not and never has been 'the discussion re 'lactose
intolerance' in adults which is what we mean where we are talking of
such. So it's not and never has been part of the discussion about how
*adults* not only shouldn't (and typically don't) drink growth fluid
of our own species but certainly shouldn't drink the growth fluid of a
different species!

Where is this law about 'other species' written down?

It's not, but firmly imprinted on his mind through indoctrination from
his 'loved ones'.

Doubtless someone made it up to suit their own purposes.

--
Spike

On 09/05/2021 19:34, T i m wrote:
Andrew wrote:

It was the clever, industrious north americans and europeans who had the
brains (from meat and protein eating)

A skill that they gained from eating veg in the first place of course.

Technically, it was a skill that they gained from replacing veg in the
first place of course.

--
Spike

On 10/05/2021 09:32, Spike wrote:
On 09/05/2021 19:34, T i m wrote:
Andrew wrote:

It was the clever, industrious north americans and europeans who had the
brains (from meat and protein eating)

A skill that they gained from eating veg in the first place of course.

Technically, it was a skill that they gained from replacing veg in the
first place of course.

Its absolute tosh to claim that humans were originally vegans - they
probably always ate harvested seafood. And meat eating predates Homo sap.




--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On Mon, 10 May 2021 17:10:04 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

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

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On 10/05/2021 06:11, Richard wrote:


Nature's way of population control, which has been overturned by us.
That, in turn, has led to the current unsustainable situation.

+10000000

On 09/05/2021 14:11, T i m wrote:

Because (and possibly though ignorance) they aren't treating them like
pets they are (typically) abusing and exploiting them like slaves. ;-(

NO THEY AREN'T !!. They are treated like members of the family.
Get Real.


On top of that, given that male chickens play no part useful in the
egg industry, they are all generally killed at about 1 day old by
being fed live into a macerator.


snip typically irrelevent and possibly fake videos - AGAIN

name me one hobby farmer who does this ?

On 09/05/2021 14:11, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 9 May 2021 11:34:29 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 19:03, GB wrote:
I bake most of the bread we eat, and it's nearly all vegan. But, for one
thing!

I need/like to glaze some of the loaves, and I haven't found a decent
substitute for egg to do that. I've tried the liquid from tinned
chickpeas, but it's really naff compared to nice shiny egg.

So, can you suggest a decent vegan substitute, please?

We have vegan guests, and I'm fed up with apologising for the poorly
glazed bread.



what's wrong with eggs from local suppliers, the hobby farm types
who treat their hens like pets ?.

Because (and possibly though ignorance) they aren't treating them like
pets they are (typically) abusing and exploiting them like slaves. ;-(

Is that an admission you abuse and exploit your dogs like slaves?

Most people don't keep a dog

It is true most ethical vegans don't.

and have it work for them generating
electricity on a treadmill or getting it to dig over the garden by
burying bones here and there?

Quite, pets are abused and exploited for your personal pleasure.

A chicken is no different to no other bird in that they have a desire
to lay eggs, build a clutch (of varying number depending on the
species), sit on those eggs (incubation), have them hatch and then
tend / feed / protect their chicks until they are mature enough to
'fly the nest'. They might also only have restricted breeding seasons.

We have exploited the chicken (and some other birds) by taking their
eggs away from them and so forcing them to keep laying them in an
effort to form a clutch and in so doing cause them mental stress and
putting extra strain on their reproductive systems. By taking the eggs
away you also remove the ability for her to use the egg itself as a
way of recouping some of the lost calcium (seen at it's worst in
battery farms by all the birds with broken limbs).

Then campaign to improve welfare standards, from your admission we know
you don't want to.

Taking on an ex battery hen is obviously a good thing in the sense of
their living conditions (they are also under mental strain when forced
into a shed containing 10,000 other chickens because they can't cope
with that large a social group (they would normally be in flocks of
less than 100 as they can only recognise 100 other birds to know they
are friends / family and not aggressors from another flock) but may
not be much better off in other ways.

How did you measure this stress? It's a fact that pigs are less stressed
when reared in sheds in benign conditions.

Also, they are typically forced to roost on the ground (and so
vulnerable to foxes as foxes do get into their cages etc) when they
would normally roost in the trees to be away from such predators.
Having a fox wandering round at eye level and trying to get into your
house is way more stressful than looking at that fox from 20 feet
above it.

Not many chicken owners leave their chickens vulnerable to foxes,
however much you'd like this to be so.

Also, if you take on (and especially if you 'buy' from the farmer) an
ex battery chicken you aren't doing the chickens (in general) any
favour if that outlet is more profitable (or even less loss) for the
farmer.

Quite, a bit like your animal rescue centre, they "aren't doing the digs
(in general) any favour if that outlet is more profitable (or even less
loss) for the dog breeders."

It's the same as people who buy animals from food markets in China and
set them free, the person trapping them in the wild is still getting
reward for their exploitation.

On top of that, given that male chickens play no part useful in the
egg industry, they are all generally killed at about 1 day old by
being fed live into a macerator.

It's a pretty quick and painless way to go.

https://ibb.co/JmYzpVz

Are you confusing animal life with human life? They are different. Do
you cry every time you step on an ant?

https://ibb.co/YyrMXZc

He's probably not aware of the environment he's in.

Rarely is it the obvious, it's often also all the stuff that goes on
behind the scenes that people who don't want to support all this
cruelty and exploitation want to make people aware of.

If you disapprove of these scenes then campaign for their improvement.
It's a shame you don't care about animal welfare while the animal is alive.

Given humans are supposed to be so intelligent and therefore
remorseful, you would think we would have devise other ways of
surviving without having to cause suffering, exploitation and death of
millions of sentient, intelligent, social and trusting [1] animals by
now ... and for the vast majority we have of course.

Intelligence and remorsefulness are not synonyms. We have evolved to eat
meat and drink milk as part of a natural balanced diet.

https://ibb.co/rdQvftm ;-)

No we really don't. Man has advanced and because we can cook and consume
high value foods such as meat and meat products. The alternative is
being cattle spending 1/2 the day eating grass and consuming all that
energy to digest it's food. We have come a long way.

Cheers, T i m

[1] And that makes even more disgusting.

The animals you mention are not capable of simple human constructs such
as 'consent'. Were your dogs asked if they would agree to their genitals
being mutilated?

In general we only
'domesticated' animals that were generally gentle, curious,
intelligent (I think pigs are the 4th most intelligent animal, over
dogs and cats) and trusting. We keep, feed and provide shelter ...
then cut their throats ...

Even a crow is said to be more intelligent than a pig. Can a pig
understand consent?

On Mon, 10 May 2021 12:31:44 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/05/2021 14:11, T i m wrote:

Because (and possibly though ignorance) they aren't treating them like
pets they are (typically) abusing and exploiting them like slaves. ;-(

NO THEY AREN'T !!.

Of course they are. Like I said, *ignorance*.

They are treated like members of the family.

A member of the family they exploit every day you mean? Your daughter
makes *herself* a toy and you take it away, forcing her to make
another, and another and another ... unless you are saying 'hobby'
(something you have introduced into the conversation as a strawman
from the main point) farmers don't use the eggs?

Get Real.

The irony is that I am the real one here. I'm the one who is living a
happy and healthy life without causing animals any unnecessary pain or
suffering (unless you are suggesting humans can't survive without
eating bird eggs)?


On top of that, given that male chickens play no part useful in the
egg industry, they are all generally killed at about 1 day old by
being fed live into a macerator.


snip typically irrelevent and possibly fake videos - AGAIN

Ah, so, still so petrified by the truth you can't even click on a link
to a *picture* you pathetic pussy!

name me one hobby farmer who does this ?

Does what (given you are too petrified to even look at a picture)?

If you are talking about macerating the male chicks then I doubt many
could afford the equipment to and given they won't be giving any
chance the chickens to sit on the eggs, (even if there is a cock
there) no bird would ever hatch from the egg in the first place.

So where do these chickens these 'hobby farmers' come from where they
only have female chickens?

If they allow nature to work *naturally*, what do they do with all the
males that are born?

Cheers, T i m

On 10/05/2021 12:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/05/2021 14:11, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 9 May 2021 11:34:29 +0100, Andrew wrote

what's wrong with eggs from local suppliers, the hobby farm types
who treat their hens like pets ?.

Because (and possibly though ignorance) they aren't treating them like
pets they are (typically) abusing and exploiting them like slaves. ;-(

Is that an admission you abuse and exploit your dogs like slaves?

Careful...or we'll be back to T i m ' s support for child abuse, after
his massive charm offensive to deflect people's attention away from his
admission.

--
Spike

On 10/05/2021 13:39, T i m wrote:

The irony is that I am the real one here. I'm the one who is living a
happy and healthy life

Really? Then why do you sound so embittered for so long?

--
Spike

On 07/05/2021 18:37, T i m wrote:

Bwhahahahaa ... stupid Goblin, like you would have a clue about any of
this, you are*way* too old and stupid!

Huamn milk has a different make-up to cows milk, but both
contain lactose.
Doh, strange that a lot more than 60% of the population aren't
intolerant to the milk from their same*SPECIES* you weird freak!

And worse, we are talking about your sucking on a cows teat when you
are a big boy and supposed to be on solids!!!

Feck, even a calf doesn't keep drinking it's mothers milk as it grows
up, something you could try doing (growing up).

Once they resort to abuse you know they've lost the argument.

Bill

On 10/05/2021 14:39, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2021 12:31:44 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/05/2021 14:11, T i m wrote:

Because (and possibly though ignorance) they aren't treating them like
pets they are (typically) abusing and exploiting them like slaves. ;-(

NO THEY AREN'T !!.

Of course they are. Like I said, *ignorance*.

They are treated like members of the family.

A member of the family they exploit every day you mean? Your daughter
makes *herself* a toy and you take it away, forcing her to make
another, and another and another ... unless you are saying 'hobby'
(something you have introduced into the conversation as a strawman
from the main point) farmers don't use the eggs?

Get Real.

The irony is that I am the real one here. I'm the one who is living a
happy and healthy life without causing animals any unnecessary pain or
suffering (unless you are suggesting humans can't survive without
eating bird eggs)?

The real irony is that for the sixty-odd years prior to your epiphany,
you gorged yourself on animals and associated products. It is that diet
which has enabled you to reach the pinnacle of your life and become an
evangelist.

On Mon, 10 May 2021 16:26:06 +0100, williamwright
wrote:

On 07/05/2021 18:37, T i m wrote:

Bwhahahahaa ... stupid Goblin, like you would have a clue about any of
this, you are*way* too old and stupid!

Huamn milk has a different make-up to cows milk, but both
contain lactose.
Doh, strange that a lot more than 60% of the population aren't
intolerant to the milk from their same*SPECIES* you weird freak!

And worse, we are talking about your sucking on a cows teat when you
are a big boy and supposed to be on solids!!!

Feck, even a calf doesn't keep drinking it's mothers milk as it grows
up, something you could try doing (growing up).

Once they resort to abuse you know they've lost the argument.

Aww bless ... if only that was true ...

What it really means is the other person has no argument and so likely
resorted to lies and BS.

Cheers, T i m

On 10 May 2021 16:10:58 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 07 May 2021 at 18:37:19 BST, T i m wrote:

On 7 May 2021 16:25:36 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 07 May 2021 at 17:19:04 BST, newshound
wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can). So how do you justify that statement?

He can't, beacuse what humans and other mammals have done is evolve to consume
milk - full stop.

Bwhahahahaa ... stupid Goblin, like you would have a clue about any of
this, ...

Considerably more than you, obviously.

Oh, you are funny Goblin, please keep it up!

Human milk has a different make-up to cows milk, but both
contain lactose.

Doh, strange that a lot more than 60% of the population aren't
intolerant to the milk from their same *SPECIES* you weird freak!

Do I conclude from this strange outburst that you think that human milk
*doesn't* contain lactose?

Probably yes, given you have pretty well everything else wrong. And
isn't that old strawman getting tired now?

Or that you're unaware of why a large proportion of
adults have no trouble drinking cows milk.

It's funny isn't it, how you can rate 40% of the population as large,
especially given how long it's taken for us to get there. How many
thousand years of adults drinking the growth fluid milk meant for
babies of a different species and only 40% of the world population can
cope with the stuff. And none of that stands out as being 'strange' to
you does it?

ps. Infant *milk allergies* are rarely any form of lactose intolerance
and only one in 50 have it. *Massive* difference to adult lactose
intolerance levels of over 1 in 2.

The geographical spread of those adults who are tolerant/intolerant to lactose
has already been explained.

Oh, 'explained' like I, (the one who *doesn't* exploit animals of the
two of us), doesn't already know? This is the thing with left
brainers, they stumble though their black and white life without any
knowledge what so ever of what anyone else might already know.

And it's just as well infants are tolerant of
lactose, wouldn't you say?

Of course I would but still a completely (and so irrelevant) to the
point that we were never calves *ever* and so should *never* (as in
*ever*) been drinking the growth fluid of our own species, let alone a
completely different one (it's not even an ape, it's a fecking
herbivore bovine FFS) after we have weaned!!!!!

We aren't talking about if it's 'natural' to slice potatoes up into
wafers and fry them in oil, we are talking about denying the young of
another species it's natural mothers growth fluid by killing it and
taking it for ourselves?

You have no ability to even start to realise how fcuked up that is
because you are 1) a left brainer (so can never change you view on
anything) 2) are indoctrinated and 3), think you still need to do
stiff like drink the growth fluid of another species to *survive*?

No, you keep sucking on that cow teat baby Goblin ...

Cheers, T i m

On 10 May 2021 at 14:39:33 BST, "T i m" wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2021 12:31:44 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/05/2021 14:11, T i m wrote:

Because (and possibly though ignorance) they aren't treating them like
pets they are (typically) abusing and exploiting them like slaves. ;-(

NO THEY AREN'T !!.

Of course they are. Like I said, *ignorance*.

They are treated like members of the family.

A member of the family they exploit every day you mean? Your daughter
makes *herself* a toy and you take it away, forcing her to make
another, and another and another ... unless you are saying 'hobby'
(something you have introduced into the conversation as a strawman
from the main point) farmers don't use the eggs?

I'm not sure it's a cruel/kind binary. A rescue hen kept in decent conditions
until they die. It's not ideal but I do see a mutual benefit. I don't believe
I'm anthropomorphising here - I obviously don't *know* how the hen might be
feeling about it all. And the eggs are just waste I'd have thought, from the
hen's POV? I'd concede my view is largely informed by looking after some hens
for a few weeks - I don't really know what I'm talking about.

I'd offer anyone my waste products but I don't think I'd get many takers :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On Mon, 10 May 2021 17:42:50 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:
snip

They are treated like members of the family.

A member of the family they exploit every day you mean? Your daughter
makes *herself* a toy and you take it away, forcing her to make
another, and another and another ... unless you are saying 'hobby'
(something you have introduced into the conversation as a strawman
from the main point) farmers don't use the eggs?

I'm not sure it's a cruel/kind binary.

Well, no, not once we have got to the position of 'rescuing' a
creature from what can only be seen as a form of animal slavery
possibly.

A rescue hen kept in decent conditions
until they die. It's not ideal but I do see a mutual benefit.

That can be the $100 question. eg, *Is* it really better to 'keep' an
animal like that, rather than killing it (given we have already
brought it into the world to exploit) etc, certainly in comparison
with it not being part of any industrial process in the first place.

This choice would very much depend on just how 'natural' it's life was
in any 'rescue' environment.

I don't believe
I'm anthropomorphising here - I obviously don't *know* how the hen might be
feeling about it all.

Understood. I don't anthropomorphise either, I don't need to to *know*
that most and certainly all the highly sentient animals have feelings
etc.

And the eggs are just waste I'd have thought, from the
hen's POV?

Only because it's not in a 'natural' environment ...

In the wild, a flock of hens (like the red jungle fowl and likely a
very close relative of what we call a chicken) would live in a small
flock with a mix of cocks and hens. If there were no cocks (or hens)
the flock would eventually die out.

With a cock the hens will have their eggs fertilised (I'll leave you
to ask your parents to explain the 'how' on that g), and so a hen
will build and sit on a small clutch of eggs, not having any more
during this time and until the eggs hatch and become more cocks and
hens. Like most birds, the chances are there will also be breeding
seasons (often trigger by increasing daylight hours) where they know
they will have the best chance to be able to feed and train their
offspring to look after themselves.

I'm guessing with the lack of predators, once the flock has reached a
certain size (they can 'recognise' about 100 of their kind apparently,
their social group) a sub group may break off and start a new flock
(probably led by a dominant cock) etc.

So, if you keep just hens then they will keep laying eggs (because as
you say, once they have one in the system it has to go somewhere) and
yes, at that point it would be a waste product but is rarely 'wasted'
by them as they will eat them themselves, especially the shell to
recoup the lost calcium.

So taking the eggs away (and broody hens will sit on a clutch
unfertilised eggs (21 days or so) and so stop laying more) means the
hen well *keep* making eggs and that isn't natural.

I'd concede my view is largely informed by looking after some hens
for a few weeks - I don't really know what I'm talking about.

I would imagine you have done more and so got closer to these
intelligent and inquisitive social creatures than most and so see them
more than their body parts in 'a bucket' and covered in the bit that
most people *actually* crave, the dopamine and 'herbs and spices'.

I'd offer anyone my waste products but I don't think I'd get many takers :-)

Well, until we biodigest more human waste you could be right. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 10 May 2021 09:24:39 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

It's not a distraction, it's part of the discussion.

If we are born with lactose tolerance then lactose tolerance in
infants is not and never has been 'the discussion re 'lactose
intolerance' in adults which is what we mean where we are talking of
such. So it's not and never has been part of the discussion about how
*adults* not only shouldn't (and typically don't) drink growth fluid
of our own species but certainly shouldn't drink the growth fluid of a
different species!

Oh certainly it's part of the discussion. Because what you've attempted to do
throughtout this is to paint lactose tolerance as strange and unusual and
unnatural.

OMG. Are you one of those still suckling on your (a) mothers breast as
an adult? ;-(

Which is typical dishonest behaviour for you

Oh the irony! Let's see how desperate you get in your effort to
distract from the spirit of the conversation and my point again ...

(not a politician are
you?). See this post of your he

Yup, because of the circumstances / cultures / religions of 'some
people', those people have *developed a tolerance to something they
were never designed in nature to consume, certainly after they had
weaned themselves*.

No, ****-for-brains, they haven't developed a tolerance. The point is thay
*haven't* developed an *intolerance*.

Semantics (re the actual point of course).

Meaning that you can't tell the difference. Figures.

Nope, I fully understand the difference but it's only semantics as
it's not relevant *to the point*.

Yeah, you understand the difference all right and have attempted to suppress
it throughout.

Fact. They have maintained a tolerance by doing something unnatural,
even if continuing to consume the milk of their own species after
weaning. If you can gain any sucker from thinking you got one up on
the spirit of my point re maintaining / losing tolerance to something
that we don't have tolerance to naturally (because we wouldn't
normally continue consuming it after weaning) then be my guest!

Now it's been shoved down your throat you're having to
wriggle.

Aww bless. I wondered how desperate you would get in an effort to
prove your black was white but you just rolled out that same tired
strawman again. Is that really all you have got?

So, are you still suckling on human breast milk? Is it easy to find
and how expensive is it? Do you drink it at body temperature or from
the fridge?

I'll recap the points I was making before you tried one of your
desperate strawmen / distractions.

Once human babies are weaned they no longer need, and generally don't
then have access to, mothers milk (eg, what you are currently doing is
weird, even if it's human milk).

Therefore, drinking the milk, meant for the offspring of another
species, in 2021 and for the vast percentage of the world population
is also weird. It's also cruel and exploitative of the species we are
taking the milk from (engineering it to overproduce x10), not only
denying the milk to the very baby it was destined for, but often
killing that baby animal to get it.

Keep sucking those teats ... !

Cheers, T i m

On 10/05/2021 18:15, Richard wrote:
On 10/05/2021 14:39, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2021 12:31:44 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/05/2021 14:11, T i m wrote:

Because (and possibly though ignorance) they aren't treating them like
pets they are (typically) abusing and exploiting them like slaves. ;-(

NO THEY AREN'T !!.

Of course they are. Like I said, *ignorance*.

They are treated like members of the family.

A member of the family they exploit every day you mean? Your daughter
makes *herself* a toy and you take it away, forcing her to make
another, and another and another ... unless you are saying 'hobby'
(something you have introduced into the conversation as a strawman
from the main point) farmers don't use the eggs?

Get Real.

The irony is that I am the real one here. I'm the one who is living a
happy and healthy life without causing animals any unnecessary pain or
suffering (unless you are suggesting humans can't survive without
eating bird eggs)?

The real irony is that for the sixty-odd years prior to your epiphany,
you gorged yourself on animals and associated products. It is that diet
which has enabled you to reach the pinnacle of your life and become an
evangelist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3WD...oodedBeardsman

--
Adam

On 10/05/2021 18:18, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2021 16:26:06 +0100, williamwright
wrote:

On 07/05/2021 18:37, T i m wrote:

Bwhahahahaa ... stupid Goblin, like you would have a clue about any of
this, you are*way* too old and stupid!

Huamn milk has a different make-up to cows milk, but both
contain lactose.
Doh, strange that a lot more than 60% of the population aren't
intolerant to the milk from their same*SPECIES* you weird freak!

And worse, we are talking about your sucking on a cows teat when you
are a big boy and supposed to be on solids!!!

Feck, even a calf doesn't keep drinking it's mothers milk as it grows
up, something you could try doing (growing up).

Once they resort to abuse you know they've lost the argument.

Aww bless ... if only that was true ...

It generally is. Only fanatics would think otherwise.

What it really means is the other person has no argument and so likely
resorted to lies and BS.

Nope, it means you would like their argument to contain lies and provide
a counter argument.

On 10/05/2021 18:36, T i m wrote:
On 10 May 2021 16:10:58 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 07 May 2021 at 18:37:19 BST, T i m wrote:

On 7 May 2021 16:25:36 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 07 May 2021 at 17:19:04 BST, newshound
wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can). So how do you justify that statement?

He can't, beacuse what humans and other mammals have done is evolve to consume
milk - full stop.

Bwhahahahaa ... stupid Goblin, like you would have a clue about any of
this, ...

Considerably more than you, obviously.

Oh, you are funny Goblin, please keep it up!

Human milk has a different make-up to cows milk, but both
contain lactose.

Doh, strange that a lot more than 60% of the population aren't
intolerant to the milk from their same *SPECIES* you weird freak!

Do I conclude from this strange outburst that you think that human milk
*doesn't* contain lactose?

Probably yes, given you have pretty well everything else wrong. And
isn't that old strawman getting tired now?

You're not coming over as being very bright.

Or that you're unaware of why a large proportion of
adults have no trouble drinking cows milk.

It's funny isn't it, how you can rate 40% of the population as large,
especially given how long it's taken for us to get there. How many
thousand years of adults drinking the growth fluid milk meant for
babies of a different species and only 40% of the world population can
cope with the stuff. And none of that stands out as being 'strange' to
you does it?

Given that 100% of Irish people are predicted to be lactase persistent
and most of the western world, you must be think of basket case countries.

Some of us have noted that lactase persistence seems to correlate will
with the developed world.

ps. Infant *milk allergies* are rarely any form of lactose intolerance
and only one in 50 have it. *Massive* difference to adult lactose
intolerance levels of over 1 in 2.

The geographical spread of those adults who are tolerant/intolerant to lactose
has already been explained.

Oh, 'explained' like I, (the one who *doesn't* exploit animals of the
two of us), doesn't already know? This is the thing with left
brainers, they stumble though their black and white life without any
knowledge what so ever of what anyone else might already know.

Oh dear, another lost argument, as soon as you intimate you only have a
functional right side of your brain then we know you've come to the end
of any semblance of an argument.

And it's just as well infants are tolerant of
lactose, wouldn't you say?

Of course I would but still a completely (and so irrelevant) to the
point that we were never calves *ever* and so should *never* (as in
*ever*) been drinking the growth fluid of our own species, let alone a
completely different one (it's not even an ape, it's a fecking
herbivore bovine FFS) after we have weaned!!!!!

That belief is only shared by fanatics. Some of us accept that evolution
is a positive pressure, and we have evolved to consume milk.

We aren't talking about if it's 'natural' to slice potatoes up into
wafers and fry them in oil, we are talking about denying the young of
another species it's natural mothers growth fluid by killing it and
taking it for ourselves?

It is less natural to slice potatoes and fry in oil than to drink milk.

You have no ability to even start to realise how fcuked up that is
because you are 1) a left brainer (so can never change you view on
anything) 2) are indoctrinated and 3), think you still need to do
stiff like drink the growth fluid of another species to *survive*?

You have no idea how fcucked up you are. Envy is eating away at your
mind; where we are allowed by our loved ones to eat meat and drink milk.

No, you keep sucking on that cow teat baby Goblin ...

Nope, we generally consume it with our cereals, in our hot drinks and
cold if we're thirsty. Maybe a cup but not your fantasy of sucking a
cow's tit. Don't you have a Mrs for that?

On 10/05/2021 20:30, T i m wrote:
On 10 May 2021 09:24:39 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

It's not a distraction, it's part of the discussion.

If we are born with lactose tolerance then lactose tolerance in
infants is not and never has been 'the discussion re 'lactose
intolerance' in adults which is what we mean where we are talking of
such. So it's not and never has been part of the discussion about how
*adults* not only shouldn't (and typically don't) drink growth fluid
of our own species but certainly shouldn't drink the growth fluid of a
different species!

Oh certainly it's part of the discussion. Because what you've attempted to do
throughtout this is to paint lactose tolerance as strange and unusual and
unnatural.

OMG. Are you one of those still suckling on your (a) mothers breast as
an adult? ;-(

That's a very strange assertion, the sort made by a fanatical pervert.

Which is typical dishonest behaviour for you

Oh the irony! Let's see how desperate you get in your effort to
distract from the spirit of the conversation and my point again ...

(not a politician are
you?). See this post of your he

Yup, because of the circumstances / cultures / religions of 'some
people', those people have *developed a tolerance to something they
were never designed in nature to consume, certainly after they had
weaned themselves*.

No, ****-for-brains, they haven't developed a tolerance. The point is thay
*haven't* developed an *intolerance*.

Semantics (re the actual point of course).

Meaning that you can't tell the difference. Figures.

Nope, I fully understand the difference but it's only semantics as
it's not relevant *to the point*.

Yeah, you understand the difference all right and have attempted to suppress
it throughout.

Fact. They have maintained a tolerance by doing something unnatural,
even if continuing to consume the milk of their own species after
weaning. If you can gain any sucker from thinking you got one up on
the spirit of my point re maintaining / losing tolerance to something
that we don't have tolerance to naturally (because we wouldn't
normally continue consuming it after weaning) then be my guest!

There is nothing unnatural in drinking cows milk, a commodity with
energy, minerals and vitamins, including B12. Milk is part of a natural
balanced diet.

Now it's been shoved down your throat you're having to
wriggle.

Aww bless. I wondered how desperate you would get in an effort to
prove your black was white but you just rolled out that same tired
strawman again. Is that really all you have got?

So, are you still suckling on human breast milk? Is it easy to find
and how expensive is it? Do you drink it at body temperature or from
the fridge?

That's a very strange assertion, the sort made by a fanatical pervert.

I'll recap the points I was making before you tried one of your
desperate strawmen / distractions.

Once human babies are weaned they no longer need, and generally don't
then have access to, mothers milk (eg, what you are currently doing is
weird, even if it's human milk).

Therefore, drinking the milk, meant for the offspring of another
species, in 2021 and for the vast percentage of the world population
is also weird. It's also cruel and exploitative of the species we are
taking the milk from (engineering it to overproduce x10), not only
denying the milk to the very baby it was destined for, but often
killing that baby animal to get it.

We have evolved the ability to digest milk whilst adults. So consuming
milk is a natural act as part of a balanced diet.

It's ironic that dairy cows will often live longer than they would in
the wild.

It is also cruel and exploitative to keep pets.

Keep sucking those teats ... !

Only in your dreams.

"williamwright" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2021 18:37, T i m wrote:

Bwhahahahaa ... stupid Goblin, like you would have a clue about any of
this, you are*way* too old and stupid!

Huamn milk has a different make-up to cows milk, but both
contain lactose.
Doh, strange that a lot more than 60% of the population aren't
intolerant to the milk from their same*SPECIES* you weird freak!

And worse, we are talking about your sucking on a cows teat when you
are a big boy and supposed to be on solids!!!

Feck, even a calf doesn't keep drinking it's mothers milk as it grows
up, something you could try doing (growing up).

Once they resort to abuse you know they've lost the argument.

Yes, we noticed when you did that.

On Tue, 11 May 2021 07:19:04 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID:

Like this?

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
Rod Speed spewed just the
puerile **** and lies it always ends up with when
its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it always is.

On 10/05/2021 18:36, T i m wrote:

It's funny isn't it, how you can rate 40% of the population as large,
especially given how long it's taken for us to get there. How many
thousand years of adults drinking the growth fluid milk meant for
babies of a different species and only 40% of the world population can
cope with the stuff. And none of that stands out as being 'strange' to
you does it?

There are other ways to survive the long, winter months when meat and
vegetables are scarce. You can tap the veins of cattle and drink their
blood (as some people have done). Rich in dietary iron.

--
Max Demian

Fredxx wrote

Like this?

Nope, no lost argument there, just your flagrantly
dishonest lying troll**** flushed where it belongs.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
Fredxx spewed just the
puerile **** and lies it always ends up with when
its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it always is.

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 10/05/2021 18:36, T i m wrote:

It's funny isn't it, how you can rate 40% of the population as large,
especially given how long it's taken for us to get there. How many
thousand years of adults drinking the growth fluid milk meant for
babies of a different species and only 40% of the world population can
cope with the stuff. And none of that stands out as being 'strange' to
you does it?

There are other ways to survive the long, winter months when meat and
vegetables are scarce. You can tap the veins of cattle and drink their
blood (as some people have done). Rich in dietary iron.

That is done all year round, not just in the long winter months.

And they dont eat any of those cattle. Weird diet
and even weirder that they do well on that diet.

On 10 May 2021 at 20:05:42 BST, "T i m" wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2021 17:42:50 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

snip


So, if you keep just hens then they will keep laying eggs (because as
you say, once they have one in the system it has to go somewhere) and
yes, at that point it would be a waste product but is rarely 'wasted'
by them as they will eat them themselves, especially the shell to
recoup the lost calcium.

So taking the eggs away (and broody hens will sit on a clutch
unfertilised eggs (21 days or so) and so stop laying more) means the
hen well *keep* making eggs and that isn't natural.

Gotcha - I didn't know they'd eat the eggs. I see now that I was causing harm
by denying the hen its eggs to eat.

Of course they wouldn't be alive without my intervention but that's another
discussion. I do find that difficult. I could have just left them to die
(foxes). I think my sister's rage would have been my main concern I'm afraid
:-)


I'd concede my view is largely informed by looking after some hens
for a few weeks - I don't really know what I'm talking about.

I would imagine you have done more and so got closer to these
intelligent and inquisitive social creatures than most and so see them
more than their body parts in 'a bucket' and covered in the bit that
most people *actually* crave, the dopamine and 'herbs and spices'.

They were 'free' to roam wherever they wanted, but it was up to me to entice
them back to the coop at night with food.

I realise the hens we see today are not first generation natural - by a long
shot - but I'm certainly not at the point where I'm after nature-pure. 'Not
causing harm' is where I'd like to be, alongside 'doing good stuff'. Quite a
way off but hey ;-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On 10 May 2021 at 21:05:12 BST, "ARW" wrote:

On 10/05/2021 18:15, Richard wrote:
On 10/05/2021 14:39, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2021 12:31:44 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/05/2021 14:11, T i m wrote:

Because (and possibly though ignorance) they aren't treating them like
pets they are (typically) abusing and exploiting them like slaves. ;-(

NO THEY AREN'T !!.

Of course they are. Like I said, *ignorance*.

They are treated like members of the family.

A member of the family they exploit every day you mean? Your daughter
makes *herself* a toy and you take it away, forcing her to make
another, and another and another ... unless you are saying 'hobby'
(something you have introduced into the conversation as a strawman
from the main point) farmers don't use the eggs?

Get Real.

The irony is that I am the real one here. I'm the one who is living a
happy and healthy life without causing animals any unnecessary pain or
suffering (unless you are suggesting humans can't survive without
eating bird eggs)?

The real irony is that for the sixty-odd years prior to your epiphany,
you gorged yourself on animals and associated products. It is that diet
which has enabled you to reach the pinnacle of your life and become an
evangelist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3WD...oodedBeardsman

I think that's (guy eating what I think was a roadkill fox) a different issue.
In the scheme of things, I don't have problem with it.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 10 May 2021 at 22:16:08 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:


There is nothing unnatural in drinking cows milk, a commodity with
energy, minerals and vitamins, including B12. Milk is part of a natural
balanced diet.

How are you defining 'natural'?

On the production side, I don't see anything natural in what we do to cows,
however well they're kept.

On the consumption side, even if there is a requisite and physiological need
for cow's milk (there isn't) there are plenty of relatively benign
alternatives.

But I think this does boil down to what you think 'natural' means.

--
Cheers, Rob