On Tue, 11 May 2021 08:31:28 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more of the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

On Tue, 11 May 2021 08:33:35 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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


--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 10 May 2021 22:09:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

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

From the Wikipedia article on Lactose:

"Infant mammals nurse on their mothers to drink milk, which is rich in
lactose."

Yes, and?

Last time I looked, humans are mammals.

Now, T r o l l : how about you admit that you are a complete ****wit?

What the **** are you on weirdo? Do you *actually* think I care either
way about children being lactose tolerant when the *entire discussion*
re lactose *Intolerance* is in adults!

How desperate are you to keep rolling out that same old strawman when
it is now and has always been completely irrelevant!!

I posted this before to make the point. Did you miss it?

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?

That the ability to digest milk sugar as an adult varies geographically and is
culturally driven,

Yes, I know, and so did I (by country). And ... ?

is something about which I *also* posted.

Yes and? Want a gold star or something? You want some reward for
knowing something that's completely irrelevant to the discussion?

It would be no different to me saying that children have an
intolerance to school but don't have the same issue when adults.

So in some parts
of the world, the %-age will be low (they don't and never have drunk cows milk
as adults), in other parts (like here) the %-age is high and we do. So 40%
worldwide is large, I'd say.

The officially stated average for lactose *intolerance* is ~60%
worldwide. Fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
"Most adults (around 65–70% of the world's population) are lactose
intolerant"

Your ******** is getting very boring.

As are your desperate attempts of distraction (because you are trapped
in a corner and have no justifiable way out) of the point that you
have no issue causing pain, suffering, exploitation and death to
sentient animals, just because:

We had to do such things to *survive* years ago. It's no longer 'years
ago' it's 2021 with loads of alternatives for the vast majority of the
worlds population.

Therefore, you don't care about causing pain, suffering, exploitation
and death to innocent sentient creatures, either because you just
don't care, you don't care because you don't think you aren't doing
anything wrong, and / or you carry on doing what you have always done,
even though we no longer need to drink the growth fluid of a different
species, even after you have weaned off of your own mothers milk, in
2021.

*You* are weird, sad and boring.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 11 May 2021 07:05:32 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

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.

Spot on, or how much of a troll you are and willing to try to argue
black is white, just to get someone to talk to you.

I keep hearing about what we *had to do* often thousands of years ago
as if it is some justification of what we *need* or *should* do today
when it's obvious to anyone with any compassion or understanding about
the bigger picture of the world we live in that we simply can't (and
shouldn't in any case) carry on like this.

It isn't a vegan stance, it's a science stance.

What might have worked, been sustainable 'years ago' isn't any longer
and the ludicrousness of having to feed and deal with the gasses,
waste pollution and environmental destruction (directly and
indirectly) of *more livestock* than humans on the planet every day
seems to escape the attention of those who prefer to hide away from
such facts and bury their head in the sand?

I'm just highlighting the news here, millions of others including all
the top scientists are doing the same the world over.

Even the likes of all the farming shows and Countryfile are regularly
stating that 'we need to move towards more of a plant based diet' and
this is even from those with a vested interest in the continuation of
the exploitation of animals for profit.

As for the trolls here, you really are wasting your breath mate. They
aren't interested in any 'discussion', just being trolls ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 11/05/2021 09:37, T i m wrote:

I keep hearing about what we *had to do* often thousands of years ago
as if it is some justification of what we *need* or *should* do today
when it's obvious to anyone with any compassion or understanding about
the bigger picture of the world we live in that we simply can't (and
shouldn't in any case) carry on like this.

It isn't a vegan stance, it's a science stance.

Claptrap. Pure, unadulterated claptrap.

It's neither a vegan stance nor a science stance. It's an emotional stance.

Get help.

--
Spike

On Tue, 11 May 2021 06:55:34 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

snip

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.

I wouldn't go as far as to say 'you were causing harm' as that sounds
like you were doing so knowingly and most people don't *realise* what
they are doing inadvertently when they buy / support such things.

Of course they wouldn't be alive without my intervention but that's another
discussion.

Quite, Chicken / egg. ;-)

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
:-)

https://ibb.co/DDtNBCx

No, and no one would suggest that's what we should do with a rescued
chicken but there are in between things. Like, nothing stopping you
'rescuing them' from certain death and keeping them more naturally on
your property, if you have such property to allocate to them. If you
don't (like getting a dog from the rescue), maybe you (one) shouldn't
try to help them?

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.


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,

Within some sort of constraints I'm guessing? I mean they couldn't
move out of the are completely to find somewhere *they* may find more
suitable?

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.

Again, it's not always easy to undo / fix the mistake we have made
over history.

'Not
causing harm' is where I'd like to be, alongside 'doing good stuff'. Quite a
way off but hey ;-)

The point is you have the understanding and interest to *try* Rob, a
massive difference between that and those who don't know (and / or
care to find out) and even further from those who do know and simply
don't care.

https://ibb.co/dbzqk7T

Cheers, T i m

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 11/05/2021 09:37, T i m wrote:

I keep hearing about what we *had to do* often thousands of years ago
as if it is some justification of what we *need* or *should* do today
when it's obvious to anyone with any compassion or understanding about
the bigger picture of the world we live in that we simply can't (and
shouldn't in any case) carry on like this.

It isn't a vegan stance, it's a science stance.

Claptrap. Pure, unadulterated claptrap.

It's neither a vegan stance nor a science stance. It's an emotional
stance.

Get help.

He is way beyond any possibility of help other than a bullet in the back of
the neck.

On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a search
engine, and the first hit came up with this:

https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...aign=copyright

"The consumption of dairy products has increased during the pandemic,
with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK dairy
market. "

HTH

--
Spike

On 10/05/2021 23:33, Rod Speed wrote:
"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.

Which people?

--
Max Demian

On 11/05/2021 10:37, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 07:05:32 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

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.

Spot on, or how much of a troll you are and willing to try to argue
black is white, just to get someone to talk to you.

But you're idea of natural is perverse, which is substituting foodstuff
that we have evolved to consume with unnatural substitutes, in many
instances has been made through industrial processes.

I keep hearing about what we *had to do* often thousands of years ago
as if it is some justification of what we *need* or *should* do today
when it's obvious to anyone with any compassion or understanding about
the bigger picture of the world we live in that we simply can't (and
shouldn't in any case) carry on like this.

If we have evolved over those years to consume meat and drink milk, it
follows it is natural to continue to consume the same.

It isn't a vegan stance, it's a science stance.

It has no basis in science, only in your fanatical mind.

What might have worked, been sustainable 'years ago' isn't any longer
and the ludicrousness of having to feed and deal with the gasses,
waste pollution and environmental destruction (directly and
indirectly) of *more livestock* than humans on the planet every day
seems to escape the attention of those who prefer to hide away from
such facts and bury their head in the sand?

Some of your posts have highlighted the additional population the land
could support if crops were only grown for direct human consumption.
That according to Malthus would lead to an even greater world population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

And lead to a faster destruction of the planet.

I'm just highlighting the news here, millions of others including all
the top scientists are doing the same the world over.

The top scientists advocate a natural balanced diet, and that can only
include meat and meat products.

Even the likes of all the farming shows and Countryfile are regularly
stating that 'we need to move towards more of a plant based diet' and
this is even from those with a vested interest in the continuation of
the exploitation of animals for profit.

I'm not aware of such claims. Certainly animal husbandry is labour
intensive and I'm sure landowners would prefer high value crops
involving minimal labour.

As for the trolls here, you really are wasting your breath mate. They
aren't interested in any 'discussion', just being trolls ;-(

We are interested in discussion, but with a fanatic closed to
alternatives it is difficult where they resort to abuse when they
repeatedly lose the argument.

On 11/05/2021 12:01, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/05/2021 23:33, Rod Speed wrote:
"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.

Which people?

IIRC the Maasai.

"Traditionally, the Maasai diet consisted of raw meat, raw milk, honey
and raw blood from cattle€”note that the Maasai cattle are of the Zebu
variety.

In the summer of 1935 Dr. Weston A. Price visited the Maasai and
reported that according to Dr. Anderson from the local government
hospital in Kenya most tribes were disease-free. Many had not a single
tooth attacked by dental caries nor a single malformed dental arch. In
particular the Maasai had a very low 0.4% of bone caries. He attributed
that to their diet consisting of (in order of volume) raw milk, raw
blood, raw meat and some vegetables and fruits, although in many
villages they do not eat any fruit or vegetables at all. He noted that
when available every growing child and every pregnant or lactating woman
would receive a daily ration of raw blood. "


Also Mongolian nomads are almost exclusively non vegetable eaters...

"The nomads of Mongolia sustain their lives directly from the products
of domesticated animals such as cattle, horses, camels, yaks, sheep, and
goats, as well as game.[1] Meat is either cooked, used as an ingredient
for soups and dumplings (buuz, khuushuur, bansh [ko], manti), or dried
for winter (borts).[1] The Mongolian diet includes a large proportion of
animal fat which is necessary for the Mongols to withstand the cold
winters and their hard work. Winter temperatures are as low as ˆ’40 °C
(ˆ’40 °F) and outdoor work requires sufficient energy reserves. Milk and
cream are used to make a variety of beverages, as well as cheese and
similar products.[2]"

Inuit exist largely on raw seal meat and fish...

Hunted meats:
Sea mammals such as walrus, seal, and whale. Whale meat generally comes
from the narwhal, beluga whale and the bowhead whale. The latter is able
to feed an entire community for nearly a year from its meat, blubber,
and skin. Inuit hunters most often hunt juvenile whales which, compared
to adults, are safer to hunt and have tastier skin. Ringed seal and
bearded seal are the most important aspect of an Inuit diet and is often
the largest part of an Inuit hunter's diet.[3]

Land mammals such as caribou, polar bear, and muskox

Birds and their eggs

Sal****er and freshwater fish including sculpin, Arctic cod, Arctic
char, capelin and lake trout.

While *t is not possible* to cultivate native plants for food in the
Arctic, Inuit have traditionally gathered those that are naturally
available including:

Berries including crowberry and cloudberry
Herbaceous plants such as grasses and fireweed
Tubers and stems including mousefood, roots of various tundra plants
which are cached by voles in burrows.
Roots such as tuberous spring beauty and sweet vetch
Seaweed

Humans have evolved to eat almost anything they can get their teeth
into, especially after it's cooked.

'Veganism is more moral/natural' is a Western middle class affectation
probably originating in Germany, where they revere Nature, living such
artificial lives.

It all goes back to the Romantic movement which was a knee jerk reaction
by ArtStudents„¢ against industrialisation with a nostalgic longing for
the rural idyll that ensured people lived short lives starved of food.

In reality a diet high is starch is absolutely bad for you. Meat and fat
is very very good for you.


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 11/05/2021 11:02, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 06:55:34 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

snip

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.

I wouldn't go as far as to say 'you were causing harm' as that sounds
like you were doing so knowingly and most people don't *realise* what
they are doing inadvertently when they buy / support such things.

Of course they wouldn't be alive without my intervention but that's another
discussion.

Quite, Chicken / egg. ;-)

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
:-)

https://ibb.co/DDtNBCx

No, and no one would suggest that's what we should do with a rescued
chicken but there are in between things. Like, nothing stopping you
'rescuing them' from certain death and keeping them more naturally on
your property, if you have such property to allocate to them. If you
don't (like getting a dog from the rescue), maybe you (one) shouldn't
try to help them?

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

Contrary to your belief I don't have an issue with reduced production.
My concern is over animal welfare, a subject you don't care about which
is disgraceful for a vegan. It makes everyone question your ethos of
being a vegan, especially when you keep pets.

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,

Within some sort of constraints I'm guessing? I mean they couldn't
move out of the are completely to find somewhere *they* may find more
suitable?

Most animals are comfortable within a boundary and in the RW don't
venture outside of their territory. Keeping chickens in a field is
nothing like keeping a pet in your home.

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.

Again, it's not always easy to undo / fix the mistake we have made
over history.

Hardly a mistake.

'Not
causing harm' is where I'd like to be, alongside 'doing good stuff'. Quite a
way off but hey ;-)

The point is you have the understanding and interest to *try* Rob, a
massive difference between that and those who don't know (and / or
care to find out) and even further from those who do know and simply
don't care.

I to care, through supporting campaigns to improve animal welfare.
Whereas you seem to enjoy the prospect of harm and suffering if it
promotes your fanatical cause.

https://ibb.co/dbzqk7T

That should start with improvements in animal welfare. Something you
don't support.

On 11/05/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a search
engine, and the first hit came up with this:

https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...aign=copyright

"The consumption of dairy products has increased during the pandemic,
with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK dairy
market. "

I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from? Probably another fanatical
vegan.

On Friday, 7 May 2021 at 18:59:20 UTC+1, T i m wrote:


And in other countries / cultures (that think drinking a mothers milk
after you have weaned to be weird) have much greater levels of lactose
intolerance.

https://milk.procon.org/lactose-intolerance-by-country/

I think you should read from your own link.
Lactose intolerance in infants is caused by a mutation in the LCT gene, which results in a life-long intolerance. This condition is inherited, rare, and most common in Finland.

Only about 5% of Northern and Central Europeans have lactose intolerance.
As this is the peolpe on here(mostly) so we won't see the 60% intolerance that other countries might have.

even then you have to know the reasons why you have the pains you experience.
Most of my (mental) pains are down to students !



Only those who have gained that 'tolerance (to something we shouldn't
have been consuming in the first place) by long term exposure to it.
Hardly an indicator that we were *meant* to consume it eh freak?

That applies to alcohol too otherwise I wouldn;t fall over afetr 10 pints would I.
and teh older I get the less I can drink, so that must mean that we were NEVER suposed
to drink alcohol, and yep bloody Jesus turned water in to wine why ?

As you get older eyes go too, does that mean your not meant to read ?


This is because if you drink cows milk as a child, and
then stop, the body loses the ability to produce lactase, the enzyme that can
break down lactose, the sugar in milk. Drinking milk as adults is part of our
culture, so talking about intolerance is ********.

Aw bless, the stupid goblin tries to conflate science and biology with
culture. Awww ...

But it's true it's part of evolution. It;s why ther is bactria in the clean rooms at NASA
It's why we eveloved to walk on two legs.
It;s why some peole have dark skin and others have lighter skin.
whether it's right or wrong, good or bad is irrelivant to the evolution.


Lactase is found in other mammals than humans. We are all born with the
ability to produce it - wouldn't be able to digest human milk otherwise.

Yes, *before we wean' you cow nipple sucking weirdo!

and we educate others so the inteligence of our offspring will hopefully be
better than out ancestors. The longer we can live the more we can learn.


Occasionally you see animals sucking offspring of other species; usually the
latter are orphans.

'Occasional ... so even less than the 40% then? It's the exception
that proves the rule to you does it (I suppose it would if you are
desperately trying to justify your position).

Sounds more like you are.



No, we may have taken the surplus milk from a cow at some point in our
past TO SURVIVE but outside of that,

It must have been more than just survive .

the idea is still *disgusting* to
a very large percentage of the world population ..

But what if the choice was to drink it or die of thirst.
I have a theory that it could be from times of draught drinking liquid
that young animals can drink without harm rather than drinking dirty infested water or your own ****.
What would you choose.
Even in london we know of the damage of drinking contaminated water had in the 16th century
that's why people drank gin and beer because it was safer short term than the water.


.. and I'm not even
talking about the many million who agree (but aren't vegan) and have
moved onto alternative milks that are no only more 'natural' (they
aren't the growth fluid for a different species)

Squeezing out the oils from plants is hardly natural or intuative and even I've only drunk it because
it looks like milk and tastes like it otherwose I wouldnt toucvh the stuff
any more than I'd drink yaks ****, which is far more natrual although not on London.

but cause fewer
health issues, are more sustainable, far less cruel, create less
pollution, create fewer greenhouse gasses, use far less water and are
more sustainable.

So is water, but teh water we humans can now drink has changed.
If we started drinking theb water we did in the past we could have all sorts of bugs inside us that would kill us
this is also part of why we live longer and are mostly stonger than we were 6000 years ago
whenn it seems we started drinking milk.

Some put lemon juice in tea, I don't like it or herbal teas.


But you carry on sucking on that cows teat baby! ;-)

Few do that, if any.
Even fewer go to china to get their soy and then extract the oil from it.
Not sure how many vegans eat honey

Lots of people take extra vitiam supliments without knowing where they come from.
Lots of peole are quite happy to let animals die in labs so they can have safe make-up and food.



Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 11 May 2021 20:20:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

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

Fredxx wrote:
I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from?
Probably another fanatical vegan.

And if there's anything as tiresome as a fanatical
vegan, it's a fanatical anti-vegan. Especially when
both sides start off on their tedious, poorly
thought out, and shallow, point-scoring "debates".


#Paul

On 11/05/2021 18:34, Tim Streater wrote:
On 11 May 2021 at 10:19:32 BST, T r o l l wrote:

On 10 May 2021 22:09:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

Restoring what T r o l l snipped:

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

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

From the Wikipedia article on Lactose:

"Infant mammals nurse on their mothers to drink milk, which is rich in
lactose."

Yes, and?

And this is direct evidence that you have trouble with facts: on the one hand
you "probably" agree that you don't think human milk contains lactose, and
when I quote an article stating that it does, in fact, contain lactose (as all
mammalian milk does), all you can say is "Yes, and?".

I wouldn't have believed it possible if I hadn't seen it in black and white.
Is it because you have the attention span of a gnat?

No, I think he has dementia. No short term memory. Comes from lack of
meat in the diet


--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

On 11 May 2021 at 13:09:39 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:

On 11/05/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a search
engine, and the first hit came up with this:


https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...aign=copyright

"The consumption of dairy products has increased during the pandemic,
with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK dairy
market. "

I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from? Probably another fanatical
vegan.

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

I'd guess others did similar.
--
Cheers, Rob

On 11 May 2021 at 11:02:38 BST, "T i m" wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2021 06:55:34 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

snip

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.

I wouldn't go as far as to say 'you were causing harm' as that sounds
like you were doing so knowingly and most people don't *realise* what
they are doing inadvertently when they buy / support such things.

Well, I wasn't exactly cheering them up if they were expecting to eat the eggs
after a few weeks. Especially if they weren't too fond of whatever else was on
offer. 'Tis an interesting thought though.



Of course they wouldn't be alive without my intervention but that's another
discussion.

Quite, Chicken / egg. ;-)

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
:-)

https://ibb.co/DDtNBCx

No, and no one would suggest that's what we should do with a rescued
chicken but there are in between things. Like, nothing stopping you
'rescuing them' from certain death and keeping them more naturally on
your property, if you have such property to allocate to them. If you
don't (like getting a dog from the rescue), maybe you (one) shouldn't
try to help them?

Well, you don't get quite the reciprocity from a chicken (as a dog, say). And
if I wasn't after 'something back' to save the non-humans potentially living
with me from misery it wouldn't end well ;-)


The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.


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,

Within some sort of constraints I'm guessing? I mean they couldn't
move out of the are completely to find somewhere *they* may find more
suitable?

They could wander out of the garden - and I think they did, but they always
came back.



--
Cheers, Rob

On 11/05/2021 18:23, #Paul wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from?
Probably another fanatical vegan.

And if there's anything as tiresome as a fanatical
vegan, it's a fanatical anti-vegan. Especially when
both sides start off on their tedious, poorly
thought out, and shallow, point-scoring "debates".

I wonder who that is? I would support a vegan, even an ethical one and
certainly never abuse one.

I do draw the line at fanatics who abuse those who argue and provide
simple facts to dispel some of he myths they pronounce as true.

By the way I often eat vegan products.

If you don't like listening to the arguments here, then use filters to
remove the threads from your reader. If you remove subthreads starting
with "T i m" you'll never see me mention the words 'vegan' 'pets' or
'B12' either.

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
On 10/05/2021 23:33, Rod Speed wrote:
"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.

Which people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet

They dont in fact eat much raw meat at all.

On Wed, 12 May 2021 05:27:35 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
dennis@home to senile know-it-all Rodent Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID:

On 11 May 2021 17:34:52 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 10:19:32 BST, T r o l l wrote:

On 10 May 2021 22:09:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

Restoring what T r o l l snipped:

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

Pull yourself together before you burst a blood vessel.

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

From the Wikipedia article on Lactose:

"Infant mammals nurse on their mothers to drink milk, which is rich in
lactose."

Yes, and?

And this is direct evidence that you have trouble with facts: on the one hand
you "probably" agree that you don't think human milk contains lactose, and
when I quote an article stating that it does, in fact, contain lactose (as all
mammalian milk does), all you can say is "Yes, and?".

Because you were 1) stating something I already knew and 2) therefore
it was already understood but discarded BECAUSE IT WAS IRELLEVENT.

You have lost the plot mate. Are you really so desperate to prove some
strawman point (because you realise it's the only (non point) you
have) that you have keep repeating the same BS? (I know the answer of
course, you are a left brainer, sense you are on a sticky wicket and
so are desperate to prove *anything*. It must be so frustrating for
you that you can't.

I wouldn't have believed it possible if I hadn't seen it in black and white.

You won't believe any fact, even if it is in black and white, if it
doesn't fit your prior understanding (even if they are bogus
assumptions and misunderstandings on your part). It's call cognitive
bias and a classic symptom of a sad left brainer troll. ;-(

Is it because you have the attention span of a gnat?

Is you problem because you can't deal with anything other than your
own presumptions?

Ok, I'll repeat for the hard of thinking, the 'importance' of infants
having lactose tolerance and that tolerance being more likely to be
maintained in adulthood by them continuing to consume milk after they
have weaned ... has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER with *adults* drinking milk
(cow or human) after they are weaned.

It's not that those people can.

It's not that those people are.

It's that those people are weird. There is no NEED for an adult human
to drink adult human breast milk, after they have weaned', full stop.
To make matters worse, they do it at the ultimate cost to the animal
it was actually produced for and to us re the resources (800 gallons
of water to produce 1 gallon of milk, compared with 200g for the plant
based alternatives), the GH gases, the pollution and the habitat
destruction.

It's even weirder therefore that they choose to drink cows breast milk
after they have weaned.

That is the point. Anything else is just strawman bollox.

Did you know they marketed milk hard because it was either make us
drink it (give it free to children to get them hooked on the fats like
some creepy drug dealer) or tip it down the drain?

Cheers, T i m

On 11 May 2021 17:24:52 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

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.

You mean in the same way that there's nothing natural about ants keeping
aphids?

Do ants do what we do yo cows then? Take their newborns and shoot them
in the head then cut their throats? They genetically select them over
the years to make them produce 10x more milk than they would
*naturally*, then shoot them in the head and cut their throats a third
of the way though their natural lives? They give them antibiotics
because the exploitation of their teats gives them mastitis?

Are we *just* like ants?

And whilst it appears you only have the rationality of an ant and
certainly have a lower EQ than one, you seem to think we should all be
like you in your desire to justify your exploitation of cows for the
growth fluid that was never meant for us, but their own calves (and
*only* their calves)?

But I get it. We have done this sort of things for many thousand years
and you have obviously been doing it all your life and being as old
and 'set in your ways' as you are, 'of course' the chances are you are
going to have difficulty changing what you have been indoctrinated and
conditioned to consider 'perfectly normal', even when there is no
*need* and so it then becomes far from normal.

What we eat and drink is very much part of our identity and we have
*******ised the *need* to survive with the *choice* to indulge
ourselves and that often includes doing to at the cost (emotional and
physical) of innocent sentient creatures. It has become normalised to
you when in 2021, it's *far* from a normal action for a supposedly
intellectually superior and compassionate (what is supposed to set us
*above* most of the other animals) being.

But it doesn't matter if you like, agree or unwilling to accept any of
this, it *is* the way it's going and will continue to do so at an ever
increasing pace.

So, if you had to continue to drink cows milk, which of the following
would you be happy to do for it ...?

1) Jack off a bull to collect the semen?

2) Shove your arm up a cows arse to manipulate her cervix before
injecting the bull stolen semen?

3) Shoot her newborn calf in the head before cutting his throat?

4) Force her to produce 10x the level of milk she would to support her
own calf / calves for her whole life.

5) Shoot her in the head when she is no longer able to produce the
sufficiently high level of exploitation, then cut her throat ... then
shoot the unborn calf in the head and cut it's throat that falls out
of her as she's cut open.

https://ibb.co/J7QCP2n


Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 11 May 2021 18:33:19 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

snip

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

And the real irony is that it's 'nice' for everyone including all the
sea creatures that don't have to suffer the waste runoff polluting
their environment or the methane that is 100x more potent a greenhouse
gas compared with CO2 (all be it it that it only lasts 10 years it's
still 10 years more than necessary (to those levels)).

I'd guess others did similar.

I did starting 5 years ago (doctors orders) and yes, it's nice to be
able to 'stock up' on milk and have it ready to use whenever we want,
straight out of the cupboard (if you haven't put one in the fridge
ready).

I have been cooking all sort of things (cakes etc) using vegan milk
and butter and really don't find it an issue ... which it isn't of
course, especially if you care about why you are doing it.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 11 May 2021 18:43:18 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 11:02:38 BST, "T i m" wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2021 06:55:34 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

snip

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.

I wouldn't go as far as to say 'you were causing harm' as that sounds
like you were doing so knowingly and most people don't *realise* what
they are doing inadvertently when they buy / support such things.

Well, I wasn't exactly cheering them up if they were expecting to eat the eggs
after a few weeks.

Some do, some done, some even get broody and sit on unfertilised eggs.
They are all individuals. ;-)

Especially if they weren't too fond of whatever else was on
offer.

I think they use them to replenish stuff, rather than a food choice as
such?

'Tis an interesting thought though.

They are interesting animals. ;-)

snip

No, and no one would suggest that's what we should do with a rescued
chicken but there are in between things. Like, nothing stopping you
'rescuing them' from certain death and keeping them more naturally on
your property, if you have such property to allocate to them. If you
don't (like getting a dog from the rescue), maybe you (one) shouldn't
try to help them?

Well, you don't get quite the reciprocity from a chicken (as a dog, say).

Again, you can get close with some. Daughter went to a rescue in Kent
and was holding a chicken and stroking it and it was obviously happy /
comfortable as it went to sleep. ;-)

And
if I wasn't after 'something back' to save the non-humans potentially living
with me from misery it wouldn't end well ;-)

Hehe.


snip

They were 'free' to roam wherever they wanted,

Within some sort of constraints I'm guessing? I mean they couldn't
move out of the are completely to find somewhere *they* may find more
suitable?

They could wander out of the garden - and I think they did, but they always
came back.

Ok, that's obviously much better than where they started their lives,
even from the lower numbers.

I think they suggest chickens (like many other birds of course) have
several vocalisations, warnings, greetings etc and they can recognise
the others 'voices'.

Turkeys can 'learn' a very large area of ground, now where they are
and how to get home (we know many birds migrate thousands of miles and
get back to the same nest but many may not attribute 'just a Turkey'
with any skills outside of it's taste at xmyth.

They can also run quite fast, wild ones can fly and they swim pretty
well.

Pigs are the *4th* most intelligent animal ... but look how we treat
them, *just* turning them into a commodity. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 11/05/2021 21:30, T i m wrote:
On 11 May 2021 17:24:52 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

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.

You mean in the same way that there's nothing natural about ants keeping
aphids?

Do ants do what we do yo cows then? Take their newborns and shoot them
in the head then cut their throats? They genetically select them over
the years to make them produce 10x more milk than they would
*naturally*, then shoot them in the head and cut their throats a third
of the way though their natural lives? They give them antibiotics
because the exploitation of their teats gives them mastitis?

Are we *just* like ants?

And whilst it appears you only have the rationality of an ant and
certainly have a lower EQ than one, you seem to think we should all be
like you in your desire to justify your exploitation of cows for the
growth fluid that was never meant for us, but their own calves (and
*only* their calves)?

Once again you resort to abuse in a failed argument. When will you learn.

But I get it. We have done this sort of things for many thousand years
and you have obviously been doing it all your life and being as old
and 'set in your ways' as you are, 'of course' the chances are you are
going to have difficulty changing what you have been indoctrinated and
conditioned to consider 'perfectly normal', even when there is no
*need* and so it then becomes far from normal.

That's right, we have evolved to drink milk into adulthood.

What we eat and drink is very much part of our identity and we have
*******ised the *need* to survive with the *choice* to indulge
ourselves and that often includes doing to at the cost (emotional and
physical) of innocent sentient creatures. It has become normalised to
you when in 2021, it's *far* from a normal action for a supposedly
intellectually superior and compassionate (what is supposed to set us
*above* most of the other animals) being.

But it doesn't matter if you like, agree or unwilling to accept any of
this, it *is* the way it's going and will continue to do so at an ever
increasing pace.

If it doesn't matter don't abuse those with differing views.

So, if you had to continue to drink cows milk, which of the following
would you be happy to do for it ...?

1) Jack off a bull to collect the semen?

2) Shove your arm up a cows arse to manipulate her cervix before
injecting the bull stolen semen?

3) Shoot her newborn calf in the head before cutting his throat?

Since you would advocate that the calf has it's throat cut while still
alive it says more about your motives, fuelled bu envy, than you can
ever understand.

4) Force her to produce 10x the level of milk she would to support her
own calf / calves for her whole life.

And the cow will live a lot longer than she would otherwise.

5) Shoot her in the head when she is no longer able to produce the
sufficiently high level of exploitation, then cut her throat ... then
shoot the unborn calf in the head and cut it's throat that falls out
of her as she's cut open.

Quite, you've admitted you're sick enough to cut throats without being
shot in the head.

https://ibb.co/J7QCP2n

Yes, it's very nice thank you. I have it on my cereals and my hot
drinks. You should remember that it tastes very nice.

On 11/05/2021 19:33, RJH wrote:
On 11 May 2021 at 13:09:39 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:

On 11/05/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a search
engine, and the first hit came up with this:


https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...aign=copyright

"The consumption of dairy products has increased during the pandemic,
with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK dairy
market. "

I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from? Probably another fanatical
vegan.

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

I have a couple of cartons of UHT milk for those occasions. Talking of
CO2, have you considered the miles and CO2 from transporting soya and
other milk substitutes?

I thought the main issue with cattle was methane, but it's rarely
mentioned there are food additives that can stop the production of
methane, if it was thought important.

I'd guess others did similar.

I find milk I keep in the fridge will last a week or more.

YMMV

On 11 May 2021 at 22:14:22 BST, "Tim Streater"
wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 19:33:19 BST, RJH wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 13:09:39 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:

On 11/05/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a search
engine, and the first hit came up with this:



https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...aign=copyright

"The consumption of dairy products has increased during the pandemic,
with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK dairy
market. "

I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from? Probably another fanatical
vegan.

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

I'd guess others did similar.

Whatever for?

Animal welfare, environmental sustainability, convenience, price (especially
if you make your own - 1p/pint), it doesn't taste bad at all.


Look, if you're that bothered by your planetary footprint, you could always
cease to exist. That way, you could avoid the production of around half a ton
of CO2 each year.

Might be on your options list. Not mine.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 11 May 2021 at 22:42:46 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:

On 11/05/2021 19:33, RJH wrote:
On 11 May 2021 at 13:09:39 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:

On 11/05/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a search
engine, and the first hit came up with this:



https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...aign=copyright

"The consumption of dairy products has increased during the pandemic,
with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK dairy
market. "

I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from? Probably another fanatical
vegan.

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

I have a couple of cartons of UHT milk for those occasions. Talking of
CO2, have you considered the miles and CO2 from transporting soya and
other milk substitutes?

Not sure why, but I can't stand the taste of UHT cow's milk. One of the few
things I'm fussy about.


I thought the main issue with cattle was methane, but it's rarely
mentioned there are food additives that can stop the production of
methane, if it was thought important.

Yes, lots of reasons, including methane.


I'd guess others did similar.

I find milk I keep in the fridge will last a week or more.

It did/does. You can get the filtered cow's milk - I think that lasts a while.
But lockdown prompted big, monthly, shops and a rethink.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 12/05/2021 06:09, RJH wrote:
On 11 May 2021 at 22:14:22 BST, "Tim Streater"
wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 19:33:19 BST, RJH wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 13:09:39 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:

On 11/05/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a search
engine, and the first hit came up with this:



https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...aign=copyright

"The consumption of dairy products has increased during the pandemic,
with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK dairy
market. "

I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from? Probably another fanatical
vegan.

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

I'd guess others did similar.

Whatever for?

Animal welfare, environmental sustainability, convenience, price (especially
if you make your own - 1p/pint), it doesn't taste bad at all.


Intrigued. Make your own what at 1p/pint?

On 12 May 2021 at 06:25:36 BST, "Richard"
wrote:

On 12/05/2021 06:09, RJH wrote:
On 11 May 2021 at 22:14:22 BST, "Tim Streater"
wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 19:33:19 BST, RJH wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 13:09:39 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:

On 11/05/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a search
engine, and the first hit came up with this:




https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...aign=copyright

"The consumption of dairy products has increased during the pandemic,
with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK dairy
market. "

I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from? Probably another fanatical
vegan.

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved
a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

I'd guess others did similar.

Whatever for?

Animal welfare, environmental sustainability, convenience, price (especially
if you make your own - 1p/pint), it doesn't taste bad at all.


Intrigued. Make your own what at 1p/pint?

Oat milk
--
Cheers, Rob

On Wed, 12 May 2021 05:09:49 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 22:14:22 BST, "Tim Streater"
wrote:
snip

Look, if you're that bothered by your planetary footprint, you could always
cease to exist. That way, you could avoid the production of around half a ton
of CO2 each year.

Might be on your options list. Not mine.

But very nicely defines the attitude with some of these trolls (as
that's all they can be with comments like that), you either carry on
(and let them carry on) doing what we have done in the past, born out
of a completely different need an time ... or kill yourself, like
there are no other 'forward looking', globally beneficial and
proactive things that can be done to make (everyone's) lives better.

So, part of *their* problem is anyone else telling them what to do, so
I'm guessing they were equally 'up in arms' when they had to give up
badger baiting, fox hunting and cock / dog fighting, or maybe they
didn't because they didn't do those so weren't inconvenienced
themselves? Yet we have the likes of Fedxx demanding *everyone* sign a
petition to stop the practice of force feeding ducks and geese for
foie gras and they are now considering banning it's *sale* in the UK
under the new Animal Welfare Act. So it's ok for him to deny everyone
the choice of eating foie gras but throws his toys out of the pram
with the suggestion of not drinking the milk meant for a calf after
killing the calf? There is no forced ejaculation of the bull, forced
insemination of the cow, forced removal of the calf and forced to
therefore produce 10x the quantity of milk she would naturally before
being forced to die 1/3 of the way though her natural life going on
there then? Logical inconsistency and cognitive bias at their best.

But I get it, there are people in this world that kick up a fuss when
they are forced to do things (or not do things) that they have always
done and so (simply because of that), and don't see why they should
stop now. They should be allowed to not wear a safety belt if they
don't want, drink and drive if they want, speed if they want or smoke
anywhere they like, because all they think about is themselves.

The new AWA also sets out the crazy idea that animals have feelings
and sentience (that's going blow the likes of FredXX and Spikes (BS)
arguments out of the water) and therefore they need to be considered
when we enslave them to exploit (milk / eggs / meat).

They are also proposing that ALL cats must be microchipped [1] so I
predict a bigger plague of cats on the streets as people further back
out of their responsibilities around *their* pets. Link a their DNA
with the chip and then we can get cat owner to clear up after their
pet like dog owners already have to.

Times they are a changing ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] Assuming the chips survive being run owner, it should make it
easier for our daughter to return the remains of cats to their owners
and save all these 'Lost cat' posters nailed to trees all over the
place. I wonder if she should get supplied a fancy shovel to do it
with? ;-)

On Wed, 12 May 2021 06:25:36 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

snip

Animal welfare, environmental sustainability, convenience, price (especially
if you make your own - 1p/pint), it doesn't taste bad at all.


Intrigued. Make your own what at 1p/pint?

A classic example of a lack of lateral thinking by a left brainer
there. Or maybe he realised men still had nipples and Rob was
expressing his own milk.

No wonder they can't bring a balanced argument to the table ... ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 12 May 2021 05:12:55 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:
snip

Not sure why, but I can't stand the taste of UHT cow's milk. One of the few
things I'm fussy about.

You are not alone there. ;-)

snip

But lockdown prompted big, monthly, shops and a rethink.

As mentioned we were already enjoying the health benefits of not
consuming dairy (as instructed by my doctor) for 5 years or so now but
we still generally bought it on our weekly (on foot) shop.

Since lockdown we didn't want daughter having to shop for us that
frequently so have tended to buy our oat, soya (that comes from Europe
and can be grown here) and unsweetened soy in bulk. So if she's in
Aldi and we don't have a lot on the list she might buy a tray of each
and they just get stored in the utility room till needed. As we get
close to finishing one we put a new one ready in the fridge and so far
we have only had one (in all the time we have been consuming better
milks) that was 'off' (well actually it went off (thicker) in the
fridge but I don't think we had it in there / opened for that long).

Plus non-milks don't need to be homogenised so any potential risks
associated with that are eliminated and they contain 90% less
cholesterol etc.

I did buy a new blender after you mentioned you make your own oat milk
and keep some oats in stock ready to make some more (our old blender
hadn't been used for years and leaked) but as yet we haven't actually
run out. But from our first experiment it worked pretty well and so
I'm confident it would work even better in the new blender. The only
difference may be if the oats aren't fortified with B12 like the
commercial oat milk is?

Daughter has been getting us Kavanagh's:
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p.../4088600056135

Cheers, T i m

On 11/05/2021 20:40, T i m wrote:

And the real irony is that it's 'nice' for everyone including all the
sea creatures that don't have to suffer the waste runoff polluting
their environment or the methane that is 100x more potent a greenhouse
gas compared with CO2 (all be it it that it only lasts 10 years it's
still 10 years more than necessary (to those levels)).

You seem to have forgotten - always assuming you could have remembered
it in the first place - that the last time you raised this particular
non-problem, you were informed of a cheap and simple method of
eliminating methane from cow farts.

And, if you are concerned about the issue, why do you own a pet dog,
that has an annual CO2 footprint measured in tons?

Is this a case of your two-faced "Don't do as I do, do as I say"?

--
Spike

In message , Tim Streater
writes
On 11 May 2021 at 19:33:19 BST, RJH wrote:

On 11 May 2021 at 13:09:39 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:

On 11/05/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
On 11/05/2021 10:02, T i m wrote:

The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to
continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will
have to suffer.

I put "Dairy consumption is down 40% in the UK and USA" into a search
engine, and the first hit came up with this:



https://www.dairyreporter.com/Articl...ic-leads-to-mo
re-consumption-of-dairy-products?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSi
te&utm_campaign=copyright

"The consumption of dairy products has increased during the pandemic,
with experts cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK dairy
market. "

I wonder where T i m got his falsehood from? Probably another fanatical
vegan.

I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and
it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved a few
hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)

I'd guess others did similar.

Whatever for?

Look, if you're that bothered by your planetary footprint, you could always
cease to exist. That way, you could avoid the production of around half a ton
of CO2 each year.
I'm curious about this 60,000 litres of water business. I suppose it
could be linked to the rainfall on an acre or so of grass?


--
Tim Lamb

On 12/05/2021 07:38, T i m wrote:

The new AWA also sets out the crazy idea that animals have feelings
and sentience (that's going blow the likes of FredXX and Spikes (BS)
arguments out of the water) and therefore they need to be considered
when we enslave them to exploit (milk / eggs / meat).

They are also proposing that ALL cats must be microchipped [1] so I
predict a bigger plague of cats on the streets as people further back
out of their responsibilities around *their* pets. Link a their DNA
with the chip and then we can get cat owner to clear up after their
pet like dog owners already have to.

This new proposed legislation might well end up forcing pet owners treat
their pets to the same standard as farm animals.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...-pets-24065021

Read the shocking words a woman who fed her puppies an all VEGAN diet
told animal inspectors as they discovered the malnourished dogs. One
did not recover despite medical help and had to be put to sleep.

--
Spike

On 12/05/2021 08:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
Tim Streater writes

Look, if you're that bothered by your planetary footprint, you could always
cease to exist. That way, you could avoid the production of around half a ton
of CO2 each year.

I'm curious about this 60,000 litres of water business. I suppose it
could be linked to the rainfall on an acre or so of grass?

It probably stems from a wild over-exaggeration of the sort T i m has
provided us with for quite some time now.

--
Spike

On 12 May 2021 at 09:31:02 BST, "Spike" wrote:

On 12/05/2021 08:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
Tim Streater writes

Look, if you're that bothered by your planetary footprint, you could always
cease to exist. That way, you could avoid the production of around half a
ton
of CO2 each year.

I'm curious about this 60,000 litres of water business. I suppose it
could be linked to the rainfall on an acre or so of grass?

It probably stems from a wild over-exaggeration of the sort T i m has
provided us with for quite some time now.

Possibly - could you share your source? I'd add that I made the claim, not
Tim. Happy to be corrected.

The estimates I generated from a variety of sources gave cow's milk 600 - 1000
litres of water per litre of milk. There is a bundle of variables that inform
where on the scale it is. I chose 628l in anticipation :-) (ref. Poore and
Nemecek)

Oat milk about a tenth of cow's milk. But that's partly due to irrigation.

--
Cheers, Rob