On 16/05/2021 20:03, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2021 18:50:59 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2021 12:21:50 +0100, nightjar wrote:

On 15/05/2021 22:23, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/05/2021 18:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment
Secretary said that the Government would take a significant step
forwards on animal welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient
beings through a new Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to
Parliament tomorrow (13 May), putting animal welfare at the very heart
of government policy decision making."

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that
mean everyone must become vegetarian?

Only if there's a law against eating sentient beings. I don't think
there's even a law against eating humans, thought there might be one
against improper use of a human body. (I'm not sure how that works;
don't some hippy types fry up their children's afterbirths and eat them?)


There is not a law against eating human flesh, but getting hold of some
legally might be a problem.

The point is, you'd get done if you killed a person for the purposes of eating. Eating animals that are now declared sentient, you have to kill them first. If this law was used correctly, it would require us to only eat animals that died of natural causes.

Bingo. (Except we really shouldn't as they should be consumed by other
living things that require them. Did you know that the nutrients from
bodies of spawning salmon feed the trees that line the rivers? If
humans harvested all the bodies, the trees would die (or not grow as
strongly). The point is that these things have been going on for
millions of years before we came along and only relatively recently,
****e over it all.

Quite, so a greater understanding is required. Yet you advocate an
increasing population that can only do more damage to the environment.

It's obvious that if (when) we had to leave the earth and live on
another planet or ship that couldn't support 'live stock', the likes
of Fredxx would either not go (no animal flesh) and perish here

Then you're thicker than I thought. If there was no choice, of course I
would leave and accept any source of nourishment if push came to shove.
A silly hypothetical concept as no technology exists to leave the Earth
in any numbers. Nor are there any other habitable planets in the solar
system

(no loss etc)

No loss to you maybe after showing all the fallacies in your claims.

or go and live a long and healthy live on plant based food
grown in vertical farms and hydroponics in the biospheres.

After all, we know humans can't possibly survive without eating meat

Only you would state a silly claim given we know humans can survive on
poor diets:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...-for-ten-years
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...er-eats-232644

However if you want to stunt children's growth then given them a vegan
diet. It's fortunate that vegans are less likely of all diet groups to
have children, so less children are so affected.



...

Oh, sorry, I was thinking of lions ..., no, obviously humans *can*
live happily on a vegan diet and millions do and have done for
thousands of years ...

Cheers, T i m

On 16/05/2021 17:36, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/05/2021 13:35, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/05/2021 12:33, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2021 12:21:50 +0100, nightjar
wrote:

snip

There is not a law against eating human flesh, but getting hold of some
legally might be a problem.

And at least they could give *consent* to being killed / eaten.

Once you accept speciesism exists amongst (some of) us, *any* living
creature could be considered as 'just meat' and often are by those who
are at least exhibiting lower levels of logical inconsistency.

If animals could understand the concept of consent you may have a
point. They don't.

So all non-human animals reproduce by rape?

In the case of ducks, they absolutely do.


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 16/05/2021 16:52, T i m wrote:

If you *have* to end your pets life because it's old and / or in pain
and no more can be done you often worry and debate and question and
then give it a small injection and it quietly and gently goes to
sleep.

If they were to live the natural life that you so often advocate, then
of course there would be no euthanasia, they would just have to die in
pain and suffering.

Your concept of not harming 'sentient, intelligent beings' is a bit
elastic, to say the least.

--
Spike

On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 07:54:58 UTC+1, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Who knows but try explaining that to a person starving somewhere when there
are plentiful animals around and you have a gun.

What if they don't have a gun ?
What if they do have a gun but need money and a human has to be killed to get that money to by food.


I also look at nature and do not see quite highly intelligent big cats
having debates at becoming vegetarian to save the sentient antelope.

you also don't see them driving cars or having political debates or sex or race equality discusions.
Might is right for them, the law of the jungle.
Their brains are smaller too, perhaps at some point they may well evolve but into what.
Presently it seems that only primates have managed this step on this planet.
Which is why we are so good at destroying it as we conquere animals aren't yet inteligent enough to do this.


All life is to some extent sentient after all. The biggest reason for not
using animals as food

For some yes, for others though its the idea of not poorly or cruely treating animals with feeling which are similar to our own.
I try to do this with students but sometimes it's difficult.

we got rid of slavery for the most part too but why ?
We got what we wanted from it.

by breeding them is the greenhouse effect it can
cause from all that farting.

Most it's actually from belching in animals humans it's farting after having a vindaloo and rough cider.


Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary
said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal
welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new
Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13
May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy
decision making."

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean
everyone must become vegetarian?

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 13:10:55 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/05/2021 19:03, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2021 18:03:45 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13 May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy decision making."

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).
That will be a first if you support animal welfare while an animal is
alive.

Be difficult to support welfare for animal or human when they are dead.
We cancled the right to have friends and familly at a funural during the pamdemic.


If it improves farm animal welfare and demand humane slaughter, to
include the stunning or bolting of animals before slaughter then that
will indeed be a step forward.

Yes, but what worries me is whether religious beliefs will override it.

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.
If we want children's brains to develop normally then they require a
As babies they don't need meat.
natural balanced diet to include meat products.

But one day there might be a way around this meat is just chemicals and their reactions.
And then it;s just how much meat do we need.
During WWII when less meat was availble it seemed that peolpe didn't really suffer too much because of this.



https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...r-intelligence
And the indoctrination that leads to such exploitation starts at an
early age:

https://ibb.co/wcMQjvn
Quite, we evolved the lactase persistent gene years ago.

Some have 'evloved' to not be able to eat nuts although there are three distinct things
we ignorantly refer to as nuts.

Beware of some girls in thialand (lady boys) they contain nuts. ;-)

On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 17:36:38 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/05/2021 13:35, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/05/2021 12:33, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2021 12:21:50 +0100, nightjar
wrote:

snip

There is not a law against eating human flesh, but getting hold of some
legally might be a problem.

And at least they could give *consent* to being killed / eaten.

Once you accept speciesism exists amongst (some of) us, *any* living
creature could be considered as 'just meat' and often are by those who
are at least exhibiting lower levels of logical inconsistency.

If animals could understand the concept of consent you may have a point.
They don't.
So all non-human animals reproduce by rape?

--
Max Demian

Only because humans have the concept of rape, as they do murder and most crime(s)

On 17/05/2021 11:15, whisky-dave wrote:

During WWII when less meat was available it seemed that people didn't really suffer too much because of this.

The system of British Restaurants was set up to provide people with a
nourishing meal at affordable prices, and 'off the ration' so used no
food coupons. A main meal, the famous meat and two veg, was 9d.

Roast beef, greens, potatoes...9d
Liver sausage salad...9d
Woolton salad...7d
Bun and butter...1.5d
Roll, butter and cheese...2d

Ice cream 2d
Lemon Sponge...2d
Rice pudding...2d

Lemonade...2d
Tea...1d
Coffee...2d

So, for a shilling, you could have a roast dinner, dessert, and tea.

--
Spike

On 17/05/2021 12:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 13:10:55 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/05/2021 19:03, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2021 18:03:45 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13 May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy decision making."

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).
That will be a first if you support animal welfare while an animal is
alive.

Be difficult to support welfare for animal or human when they are dead.
We cancled the right to have friends and familly at a funural during the pamdemic.

Quite, it shows an inconsistent policy.

If it improves farm animal welfare and demand humane slaughter, to
include the stunning or bolting of animals before slaughter then that
will indeed be a step forward.

Yes, but what worries me is whether religious beliefs will override it.

T i m doesn't attack these forms of slaughter, and passes where I state
he endorses religious practises employed in cruel animal slaughter so
can only be true.

Religious belief change like the wind. They are there for the rest of
society to pander to in fear of being called a racist of you don't.

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.
If we want children's brains to develop normally then they require a
As babies they don't need meat.
natural balanced diet to include meat products.

But one day there might be a way around this meat is just chemicals and their reactions.
And then it;s just how much meat do we need.
During WWII when less meat was availble it seemed that peolpe didn't really suffer too much because of this.

There may well be a method of creating the range of organic compounds to
replace meat. But fanatical vegans don't think this is worthy of support
either.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...r-intelligence
And the indoctrination that leads to such exploitation starts at an
early age:

https://ibb.co/wcMQjvn
Quite, we evolved the lactase persistent gene years ago.

Some have 'evloved' to not be able to eat nuts although there are three distinct things
we ignorantly refer to as nuts.

I don't know much about nut allergies. There was an article some time
ago that correlated how we are slow to introduce nuts to children, for
fear of choking, and this might add to this allergy.

It seems it's best to introduce smooth peanut butter to children as soon
as possible, to prevent the severe reaction in later life.

Beware of some girls in thialand (lady boys) they contain nuts. ;-)

Thank you for the warning :-)

On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 13:08:14 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 17/05/2021 11:15, whisky-dave wrote:

During WWII when less meat was available it seemed that people didn't really suffer too much because of this.

The system of British Restaurants was set up to provide people with a
nourishing meal at affordable prices, and 'off the ration' so used no
food coupons. A main meal, the famous meat and two veg, was 9d.

Roast beef, greens, potatoes...9d
Liver sausage salad...9d
Woolton salad...7d
Bun and butter...1.5d
Roll, butter and cheese...2d

Ice cream 2d
Lemon Sponge...2d
Rice pudding...2d

Lemonade...2d
Tea...1d
Coffee...2d

So, for a shilling, you could have a roast dinner, dessert, and tea.

--
Spike

Ah those were the days ;-)
But wasn't the average wage abot 10 bob a day or less.

I think the above was more of a treat once a week at best if you were lucky.

Don't think they had much of an obesity preoblem back then

On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2021 12:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 13:10:55 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/05/2021 19:03, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2021 18:03:45 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13 May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy decision making."

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).
That will be a first if you support animal welfare while an animal is
alive.

Be difficult to support welfare for animal or human when they are dead.
We cancled the right to have friends and familly at a funural during the pamdemic.
Quite, it shows an inconsistent policy.

The needs of the many ....

If it improves farm animal welfare and demand humane slaughter, to
include the stunning or bolting of animals before slaughter then that
will indeed be a step forward.

Yes, but what worries me is whether religious beliefs will override it.
T i m doesn't attack these forms of slaughter, and passes where I state
he endorses religious practises employed in cruel animal slaughter so
can only be true.

It isn;t up to him to enforce laws in other countries or cultures or even vote in them,
even if he only gives a NOTA .
But I believe in the UK we are allowed to dictate what goes on via our democrazy
(now don't laugh it sort of works).
The prime directive ;-)



Religious belief change like the wind. They are there for the rest of
society to pander to in fear of being called a racist of you don't.

yes I know, get that in univs with their so called polices and crap.

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.
If we want children's brains to develop normally then they require a
As babies they don't need meat.
natural balanced diet to include meat products.

But one day there might be a way around this meat is just chemicals and their reactions.
And then it;s just how much meat do we need.
During WWII when less meat was availble it seemed that peolpe didn't really suffer too much because of this.
There may well be a method of creating the range of organic compounds to
replace meat. But fanatical vegans don't think this is worthy of support
either.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...r-intelligence
And the indoctrination that leads to such exploitation starts at an
early age:

https://ibb.co/wcMQjvn
Quite, we evolved the lactase persistent gene years ago.

Some have 'evloved' to not be able to eat nuts although there are three distinct things
we ignorantly refer to as nuts.
I don't know much about nut allergies. There was an article some time
ago that correlated how we are slow to introduce nuts to children, for
fear of choking, and this might add to this allergy.

As is them living in too clean an envioment.
There's lots of allergies thay can't all be from not being around certain things.
Even pollen


My work collegue has the nut and lactase allergy.
His parents are chinese and they ran a chippy in southend for years.
he was born there (southend) 40 odd years ago.




It seems it's best to introduce smooth peanut butter to children as soon
as possible, to prevent the severe reaction in later life.

Maybe the same can be said of marmite , and the French/Spanish
introduce wine to kids early on and they
don't seem to have the alcohol pproblems we do in the UK.

Beware of some girls in thialand (lady boys) they contain nuts. ;-)
Thank you for the warning :-)

On 15/05/2021 19:03, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2021 18:03:45 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13 May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy decision making."

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).

Why?

I doubt there are many for who this must be some kind of news! (even
thick people can normally spot the difference between a pig and a brick.

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.

Nonsense.

You may well think you chicken qualifies for entry to Mensa, but that
does not stop you enjoying an egg with your bacon.

(Never seen a cow egg - so will skip those!)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 15:52:34 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/05/2021 19:03, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2021 18:03:45 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13 May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy decision making."

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).
Why?

Well in theory the more kind a country is to animals the better respect it has for humans too.
But some will still prefer to spend thounds on decorating their flat rather than helping the homeless
or anyone else other than himself.



I doubt there are many for who this must be some kind of news! (even
thick people can normally spot the difference between a pig and a brick.

Not sure how meaningful that is.

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.
Nonsense.

It's more to do with cruelty and profits.


You may well think you chicken qualifies for entry to Mensa, but that
does not stop you enjoying an egg with your bacon.

It doesn't have to,


(Never seen a cow egg - so will skip those!)

I think they are called embros as they don't have shells, funny enough human women seem to
produce eggs.

Trouble is they turn into students !



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 17 May 2021 15:52:31 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).

Why?

Because it seems it's the only way we can get some people to stop
causing animals to suffer and die unnecessarily?

I doubt there are many for who this must be some kind of news! (even
thick people can normally spot the difference between a pig and a brick.

What they don't seem able to do is spot when they are supporting the
suffering, exploitation and death of sentient creatures and hence the
need for the education and outreach. They *think* that cows need
milking *anyway*, that chickens lay eggs *anyway* so we can just take
them if we want and pigs exist just to give us bacon.

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.

Nonsense.

Perfect sense.

You may well think you chicken qualifies for entry to Mensa,

Grow up.

but that
does not stop you enjoying an egg with your bacon.

The thought that an animal *will* have to suffer (because they do) for
my pleasure is enough to stop millions of us from 'enjoying' such
things.

(Never seen a cow egg - so will skip those!)

Yes, it might be best for you as we will have to start testing your
supposed ethics skills again. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I just saw something on the TV about the seal culling in the 70's
(?) and they were doing it because it 'impacted on the fish stocks'
meaning there wasn't so much for us (FFS)! The likes of Greenpeace
raised the awareness, people protested and the process was stopped.

The sheer arrogance of killing innocent creatures to deny them their
only foodstuff, when we have supermarkets full of other foods we can
eat.

It's nearly as sick as this form of early indoctrination and
de-sensitisation to how badly we exploit other creatures:

https://ibb.co/wcMQjvn

On 17/05/2021 17:29, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 15:52:31 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).

Why?

Because it seems it's the only way we can get some people to stop
causing animals to suffer

I'm not sure how this bill will work this way. Do let us know.

and die unnecessarily?

Those event are rare. Slaughter is necessary to create meat as part of a
balanced diet.

I doubt there are many for who this must be some kind of news! (even
thick people can normally spot the difference between a pig and a brick.

What they don't seem able to do is spot when they are supporting the
suffering, exploitation

You admit you don't care about animal welfare while an animal is alive

and death

A necessary evil in feeding the nation.

of sentient creatures and hence the
need for the education and outreach.

Quite, vegans should be educated forcing a vegan diet onto children will
stunt their brain development.

They *think* that cows need
milking *anyway*, that chickens lay eggs *anyway* so we can just take
them if we want and pigs exist just to give us bacon.

No, we think they are milked to provide milk, a substance we have
evolved to digest into adulthood and we farm pigs for their pork and bacon.

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.

Nonsense.

Perfect sense.

It doesn't and it's myopic to think otherwise.

You may well think you chicken qualifies for entry to Mensa,

Grow up.

We have, and we have evolved to digest milk, and farm animals for our
food supply.

but that
does not stop you enjoying an egg with your bacon.

The thought that an animal *will* have to suffer (because they do) for
my pleasure is enough to stop millions of us from 'enjoying' such
things.

That's the point, the animal doesn't have to suffer. Humane slaughter is
possible, it just needs more support to accomplish. You won't give
yours, will you?

(Never seen a cow egg - so will skip those!)

Yes, it might be best for you as we will have to start testing your
supposed ethics skills again. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I just saw something on the TV about the seal culling in the 70's
(?) and they were doing it because it 'impacted on the fish stocks'
meaning there wasn't so much for us (FFS)! The likes of Greenpeace
raised the awareness, people protested and the process was stopped.

The sheer arrogance of killing innocent creatures to deny them their
only foodstuff, when we have supermarkets full of other foods we can
eat.

It was successful because baby seals are nice cuddly creatures.

It's nearly as sick as this form of early indoctrination and
de-sensitisation to how badly we exploit other creatures:

It's not as sick as forcing a vegan diet onto children to stunt their
brain development.

https://ibb.co/wcMQjvn

That's right, we have evolved to keep farm animals and evolved a gene to
digest milk.

On 15/05/2021 19:03, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2021 18:03:45 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13 May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy decision making."

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.

And the indoctrination that leads to such exploitation starts at an
early age:

https://ibb.co/wcMQjvn


Your enthusiasm for recognising in law that [some] animals are sentient
is surprising. That was already in law that applied here until very
recently. Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union :

"In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries,
transport, internal market, research and technological development and
space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are
sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals€¦"



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

On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:09:45 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

Your enthusiasm for recognising in law that [some] animals are sentient
is surprising.

I guessed it might be to some.

That was already in law that applied here until very
recently.

And you think that was what it was all about?

Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union :

"In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries,
transport, internal market, research and technological development and
space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are
sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals…"

?

Robin, there is more to news (or any coverage / exposure) than the
direct / specific information that may appear to being presented.

eg, An article on some change / strengthening of a rule re the
treatment of animals is yet another opportunity to get the *plight* of
animals and how we treat / exploit them into peoples minds.

You might only focus on the detail but it's the 'bigger picture' we
need people to consider.

If you had watched Countryfile this Sunday it showed how 'Farmers are
going to have to change (and adapt)' as people further recognise what
we / they are currently doing is polluting our rivers and waterways,
is not sustainable and devastating habitat and the environment. They
overviewed a farm and how it was trying to evolve (ironically by
returning to 'older' farming methods) and it made me smile when they
stated 'the first thing they did is get rid of the dairy'.

I was also pleased when 'tim...' (I think) posted this link recently
(trying to use it to make a case but actually supporting mine as it's
basically what I have been saying all along ...):

https://www.theguardian.com/business...t-debut-public

I support most of it but the last bit nails one of the comments the
trolls keep on rolling out (like it matters).

“That’s a seamless transition for the consumer and that’s what the
third generation of producers are doing. Manufacturing technology has
played a large part. Now we have a convergence that fulfill the
promise of great taste and texture for consumers.”

Ultimately, Malek believes, we may begin to detach from the need for
plant-based protein to resemble meat products. But now it’s still
early days and consumers still want something that they already know.

“You can’t make them jump across two axes, simultaneously, switching
ingredients and switching flavor. Eventually we’ll get to a place
where products don’t need to resemble chicken or beef or lamb. They
will simply be delicious and plant-based.”

Which exactly what we (here) are already doing where tonight I did 'a
burger' with salad, hash browns and 5 beans and we both enjoyed it and
'missed' nothing (especially the bits of bone, eyeballs and arsesoles
and the guilt of causing suffering and death of an innocent sentient
creature for 'no reason').

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 15 May 2021 19:01:49 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Clive Arthur" wrote in message
...
On 15/05/2021 18:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment
Secretary said that the Government would take a significant step forwards
on animal welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings
through a new Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament
tomorrow (13 May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government
policy decision making."

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean
everyone must become vegetarian?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HLy27bK-wU

You buggers really rule the world humour wise.

Agreed, not sure why.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:29:15 +0100, Snit wrote:

On May 15, 2021 at 10:03:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary
said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal
welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new
Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13
May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy decision
making."

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean
everyone must become vegetarian?

If they are sentient, not really. If they are sapient, then yes. That is
assuming the legal terms mean what the dictionary definition says and not what
the more commonly used definition is.

Ah, a legal term, as in what the word meant 50 billion years ago. To most people "sentient" means they have feelings, not just they can react to stimuli. A plant can do that.

However, since the law is talking about preventing abuse of pets, they must be talking about the modern meaning. If they declare all animals to have the status of not being abused, that should also include not being killed for food.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On 17/05/2021 19:27, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:09:45 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

Your enthusiasm for recognising in law that [some] animals are sentient
is surprising.

I guessed it might be to some.

That was already in law that applied here until very
recently.

And you think that was what it was all about?

Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union :

"In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries,
transport, internal market, research and technological development and
space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are
sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals€¦"

?

Robin, there is more to news (or any coverage / exposure) than the
direct / specific information that may appear to being presented.

eg, An article on some change / strengthening of a rule re the
treatment of animals is yet another opportunity to get the *plight* of
animals and how we treat / exploit them into peoples minds.

You might only focus on the detail but it's the 'bigger picture' we
need people to consider.

If you had watched Countryfile this Sunday it showed how 'Farmers are
going to have to change (and adapt)' as people further recognise what
we / they are currently doing is polluting our rivers and waterways,
is not sustainable and devastating habitat and the environment. They
overviewed a farm and how it was trying to evolve (ironically by
returning to 'older' farming methods) and it made me smile when they
stated 'the first thing they did is get rid of the dairy'.

I was also pleased when 'tim...' (I think) posted this link recently
(trying to use it to make a case but actually supporting mine as it's
basically what I have been saying all along ...):

https://www.theguardian.com/business...t-debut-public

I support most of it but the last bit nails one of the comments the
trolls keep on rolling out (like it matters).

€œThats a seamless transition for the consumer and thats what the
third generation of producers are doing. Manufacturing technology has
played a large part. Now we have a convergence that fulfill the
promise of great taste and texture for consumers.€�

Ultimately, Malek believes, we may begin to detach from the need for
plant-based protein to resemble meat products. But now its still
early days and consumers still want something that they already know.

There are reasons for the attachment, namely the simple fact that meat
and/or meat products consumption is required as part of a natural
balanced diet.

€œYou cant make them jump across two axes, simultaneously, switching
ingredients and switching flavor. Eventually well get to a place
where products dont need to resemble chicken or beef or lamb. They
will simply be delicious and plant-based.€�

Which exactly what we (here) are already doing where tonight I did 'a
burger' with salad, hash browns and 5 beans and we both enjoyed it and
'missed' nothing (especially the bits of bone, eyeballs and arsesoles
and the guilt of causing suffering and death of an innocent sentient
creature for 'no reason').

You're welcome to eat your diet.

But not the sort of diet you would impose on a child if you wanted
normal brain development.

On 17/05/2021 19:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:29:15 +0100, Snit wrote:

On May 15, 2021 at 10:03:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment
Secretary
said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on
animal
welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new
Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13
May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy
decision
making."

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean
everyone must become vegetarian?

If they are sentient, not really. If they are sapient, then yes. That is
assuming the legal terms mean what the dictionary definition says and
not what
the more commonly used definition is.

Ah, a legal term, as in what the word meant 50 billion years ago.* To
most people "sentient" means they have feelings, not just they can react
to stimuli.* A plant can do that.

However, since the law is talking about preventing abuse of pets, they
must be talking about the modern meaning.* If they declare all animals
to have the status of not being abused, that should also include not
being killed for food.

That doesn't follow. It will be interesting to see f humane slaughter is
required.

On May 17, 2021 at 11:33:29 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:29:15 +0100, Snit wrote:

On May 15, 2021 at 10:03:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary
said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal
welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new
Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13
May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy decision
making."

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean
everyone must become vegetarian?

If they are sentient, not really. If they are sapient, then yes. That is
assuming the legal terms mean what the dictionary definition says and not
what
the more commonly used definition is.

Ah, a legal term, as in what the word meant 50 billion years ago. To most
people "sentient" means they have feelings, not just they can react to
stimuli. A plant can do that.

However, since the law is talking about preventing abuse of pets, they must
be talking about the modern meaning. If they declare all animals to have the
status of not being abused, that should also include not being killed for
food.

I am OK with raising animals for food, but think there should be stronger laws
to protect them. The conditions of our food industry for the animals -- and
the humans for that matter -- are horrible.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2021-05-17 12:16 p.m., Snit wrote:
On May 17, 2021 at 11:33:29 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:29:15 +0100, Snit wrote:

On May 15, 2021 at 10:03:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary
said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal
welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new
Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13
May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy decision
making."

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean
everyone must become vegetarian?

If they are sentient, not really. If they are sapient, then yes. That is
assuming the legal terms mean what the dictionary definition says and not
what
the more commonly used definition is.

Ah, a legal term, as in what the word meant 50 billion years ago. To most
people "sentient" means they have feelings, not just they can react to
stimuli. A plant can do that.

However, since the law is talking about preventing abuse of pets, they must
be talking about the modern meaning. If they declare all animals to have the
status of not being abused, that should also include not being killed for
food.

I am OK with raising animals for food, but think there should be stronger laws
to protect them. The conditions of our food industry for the animals -- and
the humans for that matter -- are horrible.


if its on my land i can shoot it

On May 17, 2021 at 12:25:45 PM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-05-17 12:16 p.m., Snit wrote:
On May 17, 2021 at 11:33:29 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:29:15 +0100, Snit wrote:

On May 15, 2021 at 10:03:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary
said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal
welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new
Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13
May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy
decision
making."

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean
everyone must become vegetarian?

If they are sentient, not really. If they are sapient, then yes. That is
assuming the legal terms mean what the dictionary definition says and not
what
the more commonly used definition is.

Ah, a legal term, as in what the word meant 50 billion years ago. To most
people "sentient" means they have feelings, not just they can react to
stimuli. A plant can do that.

However, since the law is talking about preventing abuse of pets, they must
be talking about the modern meaning. If they declare all animals to have
the
status of not being abused, that should also include not being killed for
food.

I am OK with raising animals for food, but think there should be stronger
laws
to protect them. The conditions of our food industry for the animals -- and
the humans for that matter -- are horrible.


if its on my land i can shoot it

I shot animals yesterday.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Mon, 17 May 2021 19:16:20 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile HUGE asshole, blathered again:


I am OK with raising animals for food, but think there should be stronger laws
to protect them. The conditions of our food industry for the animals -- and
the humans for that matter -- are horrible.

Already around to suck off the Scottish ****** some more, you greedy senile
cocksucker? LOL

On Mon, 17 May 2021 20:02:12 +0100, Fredxx, the notorious, troll-feeding,
senile smartass, blathered again:


That doesn't follow. It will be interesting to see f humane slaughter is
required.

What DOES follow is that you are sick troll-feeding senile asshole of the
very worst sort!

On 17/05/2021 19:27, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:09:45 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

Your enthusiasm for recognising in law that [some] animals are sentient
is surprising.

I guessed it might be to some.

That was already in law that applied here until very
recently.

And you think that was what it was all about?

And did you think anyone would miss that you asked that only after
snipping the context:

"...the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal
welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new
Animal Sentience Bill..."?



Robin, there is more to news (or any coverage / exposure) than the
direct / specific information that may appear to being presented.

snip absence of hard information about what the Bill will do


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

On Mon, 17 May 2021 19:33:29 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

snip

To most people "sentient" means they have feelings, not just they can react to stimuli. A plant can do that.

Sort of.

Being able to detect pain is only good if you can then do something
about it, as when you sick a knife in a cow and it runs away. It runs
away because it feels pain and if domesticated is unlikely to attack
(unlike doing the same thing to a lion or gorilla).

Therefore, whilst a plant might react to some external stimuli like
heat, it can't move away and it being in pain would be a very cruel
evolution.

However, since the law is talking about preventing abuse of pets, they must be talking about the modern meaning. If they declare all animals to have the status of not being abused, that should also include not being killed for food.

Bingo.

The issue is getting 'some people' to consider what constitutes abuse.
In the old days that might really come down to if they were actually
hitting their partner or dog, whereas today, even 'coercive behaviour'
is considered abuse, mental cruelty etc.

Ignoring the obviously barbaric process of extracting semen from a
bull, artificially inseminating a cow, taking away her calf away at
birth and killing it and then taking the milk meant for the calf, and
drinking it yourself is bad enough ... but the 'mental cruelty' of
separating mother from calf is sufficient to constitute abuse.

Exactly the same as constantly taking eggs away from a bird (hen)
therefore not allowing it to complete it's goal of forming a clutch
and incubating them, or even consuming them herself if that's what
*she* wants, another example of stress / mental cruelty. We don't need
to add the stress of keeping her in unnatural quantities (10,000
rather 100 in nature) and so having to cut the end of her primary
manipulation device (her beak) off because the stress causes her to
attack her fellow captives.

Breeding a salmon and keeping it in a net in the sea and for three
years (often coved in sea lice) when it would normally be swimming
thousands of miles to from spawning grounds, another example of stress
and so cruelty.

Removing the teeth, tails, horns, testicles with no anaesthetic and in
most cases simply to make them less dangerous to control. When you are
forcing them to do things they don't want.

Feeding live chicks though a macerator, simply because they were born
male.

Starving animals of food and water when in transport to the
slaughterhouse (as if the transport wasn't stressful and cruel (very
hot / cold temperatures), simply because it would be a 'waste of
money' feeding them and to have the extra inconvenience of the mess
when they are being stunned and cut open.

The trolls *only* seem to consider the actual death in their BS
arguments but that (and how it's conducted) is only part of the issue.

All those issues would go away if we stopped commodifying sentient
beings as 'just meat'.

Cheers, T i m

On 17/05/2021 17:29, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 15:52:31 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).

Why?

Because it seems it's the only way we can get some people to stop
causing animals to suffer and die unnecessarily?

It still makes no sense.

I would expect the vast majority who eat animals already realise that
they are sentient beings. Which is why the vast majority of people who
eat animals want to see that they cared for and treated humanely while
alive, and then killed in as quick and painless way as possible.

Having a bit of legislation define them as sentient makes no difference
to those of us who do care about their welfare, and also probably little
difference those those who mistreat them either - since both realise
they are sentient.

I doubt there are many for who this must be some kind of news! (even
thick people can normally spot the difference between a pig and a brick.

What they don't seem able to do is spot when they are supporting the
suffering, exploitation and death of sentient creatures and hence the
need for the education and outreach. They *think* that cows need
milking *anyway*, that chickens lay eggs *anyway* so we can just take
them if we want and pigs exist just to give us bacon.

Farmed pigs generally *do* exist just to provide food and a multitude of
other useful materials. They are not bred just because farmers like to
have lots of pets and enjoy wading through pig ****.

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.

Nonsense.

Perfect sense.

You may well think you chicken qualifies for entry to Mensa,

Grow up.

thrrrrrp

but that
does not stop you enjoying an egg with your bacon.

The thought that an animal *will* have to suffer (because they do) for
my pleasure is enough to stop millions of us from 'enjoying' such
things.

And it's your choice. As is enjoying an omelette for the majority. No
need for either group to proselytise.

(Never seen a cow egg - so will skip those!)

Yes, it might be best for you as we will have to start testing your
supposed ethics skills again. ;-)

You ain't the sole arbiter of ethics - live with it.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 17 May 2021 22:03:57 +0100, D i m, the absolutely brain dead
notorious troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered, yet again:


Cheers, T i m

Are you finished sucking the unwashed ****** off again, D i m, you idiotic
veganic troll-feeding senile asshole? BG

On 17/05/2021 21:39, Robin wrote:
On 17/05/2021 19:27, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:09:45 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

Your enthusiasm for recognising in law that [some] animals are sentient
is surprising.

I guessed it might be to some.

That was already in law that applied here until very
recently.

And you think that was what it was all about?

And did you think anyone would miss that you asked that only after
snipping the context:

"...the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal
welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new
Animal Sentience Bill..."?



Robin, there is more to news (or any coverage / exposure) than the
direct / specific information that may appear to being presented.

snip absence of hard information about what the Bill will do


Details of the "Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill" can be found he

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...2004_en_1.html

It is devoid of any helpful information, which suggests it's a PR
exercise. Of course I can be entirely wrong.

On Mon, 17 May 2021 22:14:07 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 17/05/2021 17:29, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 15:52:31 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).

Why?

Because it seems it's the only way we can get some people to stop
causing animals to suffer and die unnecessarily?

It still makes no sense.

Ok ...

I would expect the vast majority who eat animals already realise that
they are sentient beings.

Do they? How many here for example consider them 'just meat' and only
pay a lip service to the welfare? They can't give up 'meat', not they
want to stop killing animals?

Which is why the vast majority of people who
eat animals want to see that they cared for and treated humanely while
alive,

I don't believe they do, because if they did, they wouldn't eat meat.

and then killed in as quick and painless way as possible.

Define how quick 'as possible' should be? How much pain do *you*
consider 'ok' to inflict on an innocent creature that doesn't actually
need to die (and certainly doesn't want to) for us to survive?

Having a bit of legislation define them as sentient makes no difference
to those of us who do care about their welfare,

See above, and my reply elsewhere re yet another opportunity to open
up discussion on the whole commodification of animals for their flesh
(eggs / milk).

and also probably little
difference those those who mistreat them either - since both realise
they are sentient.

Quite. Everone who eats meat mistreats animals that do not want to
die. It's the ultimate mistreatment, *death*.

I doubt there are many for who this must be some kind of news! (even
thick people can normally spot the difference between a pig and a brick.

What they don't seem able to do is spot when they are supporting the
suffering, exploitation and death of sentient creatures and hence the
need for the education and outreach. They *think* that cows need
milking *anyway*, that chickens lay eggs *anyway* so we can just take
them if we want and pigs exist just to give us bacon.

Farmed pigs generally *do* exist just to provide food and a multitude of
other useful materials.

Quite, animals we have exploited into that situation.

They are not bred just because farmers like to
have lots of pets and enjoy wading through pig ****.

Grow up. ;-)

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.

Nonsense.

Perfect sense.

You may well think you chicken qualifies for entry to Mensa,

Grow up.

thrrrrrp

but that
does not stop you enjoying an egg with your bacon.

The thought that an animal *will* have to suffer (because they do) for
my pleasure is enough to stop millions of us from 'enjoying' such
things.

And it's your choice.

It's nothing to do with me, it's about the choice *you* aren't giving
to them. To live their lives (especially the wild animals whose
habitat you destroy to grow food and graze your meat that shouldn't
even be here).

As is enjoying an omelette for the majority.

As it still is for me (except now I don't use chickenS eggs, because I
have aligned my actions to my morals).

No
need for either group to proselytise.

Of course there is, because one group is destroying the planet and
causing unnecessary death and suffering to the other? You (meat / egg
/ milk) eaters aren't the victims here, you are the aggressors. ;-(

(Never seen a cow egg - so will skip those!)

Yes, it might be best for you as we will have to start testing your
supposed ethics skills again. ;-)

You ain't the sole arbiter of ethics - live with it.

I have never (ever) suggested I was, it's the spirit of millions of
like minded (and ever growing) number of others around the world you
are trying to argue against (and the billions of sentient beings whose
lives you (meat / egg / milk) eaters take from them, just to satisfy
your taste desire?

If it's all so normal to eat meat, why won't most people be involved
in the process? Why would most go vegan rather than pull the trigger?

If it's so normal, why aren't all children educated re the full
details from when they are first given meat? If eating meat is so
'normal', why don't the kids visit an abattoir like they visit an
orchard or arable farm? Why when they visit a dairy do they not see
the calf being taken away from it's mum and have them explain *why*
both mum and calf are calling for each other?

I know the answer of course, the action of killing anything
(especially sentient) isn't natural at all, it's something people do
to each other in rage, self defence, (inc of their country or after
being brainwashed) or when their morals allow them to consider it
acceptable. When they do that they are all judged to see if it was
'avoidable' etc (even within a war).

Most people (in the civilised world) bring their children up to
respect and care for animals, then they feed them the dismembered
carcases like it's all perfectly normal... (when they don't need to).

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 17 May 2021 21:39:18 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 17/05/2021 19:27, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:09:45 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

Your enthusiasm for recognising in law that [some] animals are sentient
is surprising.

I guessed it might be to some.

That was already in law that applied here until very
recently.

And you think that was what it was all about?

And did you think anyone would miss that you asked that only after
snipping the context:

The only people 'missing' that would be others missing the point. ;-(

"...the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal
welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new
Animal Sentience Bill..."?

What? I snipped it because it had no bearing to the spirit of my point
(as I thought I'd explained)?


Robin, there is more to news (or any coverage / exposure) than the
direct / specific information that may appear to being presented.

snip absence of hard information about what the Bill will do

Yup, see above (because it was irrelevant).

I know what the bill is likely to (and not) do, but one thing it can
do is provide a launch pad for further discussion, just as we are
doing here. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 17/05/2021 23:40, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 22:14:07 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 17/05/2021 17:29, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 15:52:31 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).

Why?

Because it seems it's the only way we can get some people to stop
causing animals to suffer and die unnecessarily?

It still makes no sense.

Ok ...

I would expect the vast majority who eat animals already realise that
they are sentient beings.

Do they? How many here for example consider them 'just meat' and only
pay a lip service to the welfare?

Most meat eaters do want good welfare for animals. In some cases, such
as rearing pig, it is well known that good welfare promotes a reduced
stress environment which leads to greater weight gains.

They can't give up 'meat', not they
want to stop killing animals?

If we want a balanced diet for ourselves and our children it is a
necessary evil to slaughter animals.

Which is why the vast majority of people who
eat animals want to see that they cared for and treated humanely while
alive,

I don't believe they do, because if they did, they wouldn't eat meat.

That's because you don't want to believe it, probably because you don't
want improvements to animal welfare as it furthers your endeavours to
convert everyone to veganism, even if it is an unhealthy diet.

and then killed in as quick and painless way as possible.

Define how quick 'as possible' should be? How much pain do *you*
consider 'ok' to inflict on an innocent creature that doesn't actually
need to die (and certainly doesn't want to) for us to survive?

There are various forms of painless death. This is one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation

Having a bit of legislation define them as sentient makes no difference
to those of us who do care about their welfare,

See above, and my reply elsewhere re yet another opportunity to open
up discussion on the whole commodification of animals for their flesh
(eggs / milk).

We do see, and your beliefs as unfounded however much you wish them to
be true.

and also probably little
difference those those who mistreat them either - since both realise
they are sentient.

Quite. Everone who eats meat mistreats animals that do not want to
die. It's the ultimate mistreatment, *death*.

We'll have to agree to differ. I don't believe that. What matters is
their welfare up to and including slaughter.

I doubt there are many for who this must be some kind of news! (even
thick people can normally spot the difference between a pig and a brick.

What they don't seem able to do is spot when they are supporting the
suffering, exploitation and death of sentient creatures and hence the
need for the education and outreach. They *think* that cows need
milking *anyway*, that chickens lay eggs *anyway* so we can just take
them if we want and pigs exist just to give us bacon.

Farmed pigs generally *do* exist just to provide food and a multitude of
other useful materials.

Quite, animals we have exploited into that situation.

We exploit everything, even the air you breathe.

They are not bred just because farmers like to
have lots of pets and enjoy wading through pig ****.

Grow up. ;-)

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.

Nonsense.

Perfect sense.

You may well think you chicken qualifies for entry to Mensa,

Grow up.

thrrrrrp

but that
does not stop you enjoying an egg with your bacon.

The thought that an animal *will* have to suffer (because they do) for
my pleasure is enough to stop millions of us from 'enjoying' such
things.

And it's your choice.

It's nothing to do with me, it's about the choice *you* aren't giving
to them. To live their lives (especially the wild animals whose
habitat you destroy to grow food and graze your meat that shouldn't
even be here).

Given the short lives these animals would have in the wild your claims
make no sense.

As is enjoying an omelette for the majority.

As it still is for me (except now I don't use chickenS eggs, because I
have aligned my actions to my morals).

You have no morals when you resort to abuse. Taking an egg from a
chicken for which you provide shelter and food, keep predators away is
indicative of a symbiotic relationship.

No
need for either group to proselytise.

Of course there is, because one group is destroying the planet and
causing unnecessary death and suffering to the other? You (meat / egg
/ milk) eaters aren't the victims here, you are the aggressors. ;-(

We are not the ones aggressively abusing fellow humans for eating a
natural balanced diet.

Man is destroying the planet through over-population. If it's that
important why don't you support the groups and countries that are
depopulating. Russia is a good example.

(Never seen a cow egg - so will skip those!)

Yes, it might be best for you as we will have to start testing your
supposed ethics skills again. ;-)

You ain't the sole arbiter of ethics - live with it.

I have never (ever) suggested I was, it's the spirit of millions of
like minded (and ever growing) number of others around the world you
are trying to argue against (and the billions of sentient beings whose
lives you (meat / egg / milk) eaters take from them, just to satisfy
your taste desire?

Not just a taste, it's also texture and nutrients, some known, and some
unknown that we gain from eating meat and fish products we can't get
from plants alone.

If it's all so normal to eat meat, why won't most people be involved
in the process? Why would most go vegan rather than pull the trigger?

Because we live in a society where we specialise in certain jobs. It
promotes efficiency.

If it's so normal, why aren't all children educated re the full
details from when they are first given meat? If eating meat is so
'normal', why don't the kids visit an abattoir like they visit an
orchard or arable farm? Why when they visit a dairy do they not see
the calf being taken away from it's mum and have them explain *why*
both mum and calf are calling for each other?

In much the same way we withhold some details of how children come to
be, sex and other things so they can enjoy their childhood and some
semblance of innocence. Only someone sick in their mind would think
differently.

I know the answer of course, the action of killing anything
(especially sentient) isn't natural at all,

You're simply wrong, it is natural and man and fellow animals have been
doing it for aeons. Some for millions of years.

it's something people do
to each other in rage, self defence, (inc of their country or after
being brainwashed) or when their morals allow them to consider it
acceptable. When they do that they are all judged to see if it was
'avoidable' etc (even within a war).

You're now talking of survival instincts, where we protect those we
love. And go to war when necessary. I would agree that some are
unnecessary and for political / personal gains.

Most people (in the civilised world) bring their children up to
respect and care for animals, then they feed them the dismembered
carcases like it's all perfectly normal... (when they don't need to).

If our children are to have normal brain development then we should
specifically feed them meat and fish products. The alternative is an IQ
10-20 points lower.

On 5/17/2021 12:25 PM, % wrote:
On 2021-05-17 12:16 p.m., Snit wrote:
On May 17, 2021 at 11:33:29 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:29:15 +0100, Snit
wrote:

Â* On May 15, 2021 at 10:03:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
Â* :

Â* New UK law:

Â* "During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment
Secretary
Â* said that the Government would take a significant step forwards
on animal
Â* welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings
through a new
Â* Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament
tomorrow (13
Â* May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government
policy decision
Â* making."

Â* If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't
that mean
Â* everyone must become vegetarian?

Â* If they are sentient, not really. If they are sapient, then yes.
That is
Â* assuming the legal terms mean what the dictionary definition says
and not
what
Â* the more commonly used definition is.

Ah, a legal term, as in what the word meant 50 billion years ago.Â* To
most
people "sentient" means they have feelings, not just they can react to
stimuli.Â* A plant can do that.

However, since the law is talking about preventing abuse of pets,
they must
be talking about the modern meaning.Â* If they declare all animals to
have the
status of not being abused, that should also include not being killed
for
food.

I am OK with raising animals for food, but think there should be
stronger laws
to protect them. The conditions of our food industry for the animals
-- and
the humans for that matter -- are horrible.


if its on my land i can shoot it

You certainly don't live in my city.

On 15/05/2021 18:03, T i m wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" wrote:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment Secretary said that the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a new Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow (13 May), putting animal welfare at the very heart of government policy decision making."

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to come).

It probably has more to do with the initial manoeuvrings regarding an
early General Election than anything to do with 'animal welfare'.

--
Spike

On 17/05/2021 23:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2021 21:39, Robin wrote:
On 17/05/2021 19:27, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:09:45 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

Your enthusiasm for recognising in law that [some] animals are sentient
is surprising.

I guessed it might be to some.

That was already in law that applied here until very
recently.

And you think that was what it was all about?

And did you think anyone would miss that you asked that only after
snipping the context:

"...the Government would take a significant step forwards on animal
welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient beings through a
new Animal Sentience Bill..."?



Robin, there is more to news (or any coverage / exposure) than the
direct / specific information that may appear to being presented.

snip absence of hard information about what the Bill will do


Details of the "Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill" can be found he

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...2004_en_1.html


It is devoid of any helpful information, which suggests it's a PR
exercise. Of course I can be entirely wrong.


As usual with Bills it's worth looking at the explanatory notes for the
bigger picture. In this case it's meeting commitments (including a
manifesto commitment) following Brexit. The vegans in my family were
totally unsurprised by and uninterested in the Bill.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-02/004/5802004en03.htm

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

On Tue, 18 May 2021 08:28:37 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

As usual with Bills it's worth looking at the explanatory notes for the
bigger picture. In this case it's meeting commitments (including a
manifesto commitment) following Brexit. The vegans in my family were
totally unsurprised by and uninterested in the Bill.

And I hadn't even looked at it.

What I took from the announcement in the media was:

1) The government are actively dealing with (and possibly legislating
around) 'animal welfare' and the chances are that is designed to make
animal welfare better not worse (although you often get some
unexpected negative by-catch).

2) It brings the issue to the media.

3) It (therefore) reminds people ... raises awareness of such issues.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-02/004/5802004en03.htm

Thanks, so the points that I can now take from that a

"to enhance scrutiny of major policy decisions taken by UK Ministers
which impact on the welfare of sentient animals."

and

"The Bill applies to all animals (other than humans) if they are
vertebrates. It therefore applies to wild animals, as well as
domesticated animals."

The funny bit is the "sentience means that animals are "capable of
feeling pleasure and pain"" as that further nails all of the stupid
Troll BS to the ground (like it was ever in question).

We routinely gas pigs to stun them (the 4th most intelligent animal on
the planet), a process that often takes several minutes (followed by a
prick test to actually see if it has worked). Any *real* animal lover
/ respecter present during that process would be distraught and would
probably stop it if they could.

Ironically it was the very reason the Nazi gas chambers were
implemented as it was less stressful *FOR THE GUARDS* than them having
to shoot every prisoner (of war, innocent 'captive' civilians ...)
manually. Parallels anyone?

For the vast majority of people currently enjoying a strip of pig
flesh ... 'out of sight, out of mind'.

https://ibb.co/9w1dV53

We are more and more told we should be more responsible for our
actions because that's the way any society can work effectively.

Don't drink and drive (accidents are expensive to society), don't text
and drive (accidents are expensive to society), don't smoke (the
illness takes up hospital space), don't litter (dangerous and
expensive to society), eat less meat and more veg (illness expensive
to society), move towards a plant based diet because current levels of
meat production are unsustainable, directly and indirectly causing
vast levels of destruction of natural habitat and pollution in the
environment, (impacting the welfare of sentient wild animals and so
illegal, along with damaging the very / only world we all have to live
in ourselves).

So, as usual, it's ignorance and selfishness that mean otherwise good
people do harm to other beings and themselves.

That's why some people need a law to define what should be obvious.

https://ibb.co/zQF3SZw

https://ibb.co/0CMRm0B ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 17/05/2021 23:40, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 22:14:07 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to
come).

Why?

Because it seems it's the only way we can get some people to stop
causing animals to suffer and die unnecessarily?

It still makes no sense.

Ok ...

I would expect the vast majority who eat animals already realise that
they are sentient beings.

Do they? How many here for example consider them 'just meat' and only
pay a lip service to the welfare? They can't give up 'meat', not they
want to stop killing animals?

Which is why the vast majority of people who
eat animals want to see that they cared for and treated humanely while
alive,

I don't believe they do,

and that is the thrust of your problem. You don't understand that
someone can decide to breed animals for food. Insist that they are well
fed, cared for, and protected from harm, and not mistreated during life,
before they are humanely killed and consumed (or their eggs/milk/wool
used).

You appear to believe that this is some kind weird act of mental
compartmentalisation that no one in their right mind would
understandingly enter into.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is precisely what does happen. We
learn and understand where animal products come from, and then many
(most) consciously make a decision that in spite of the less agreeable
aspects, there is a nett benefit, while some decide that vegi is the way
for them.

because if they did, they wouldn't eat meat.

They do, and they they do.


and then killed in as quick and painless way as possible.

Define how quick 'as possible' should be? How much pain do *you*
consider 'ok' to inflict on an innocent creature that doesn't actually
need to die (and certainly doesn't want to) for us to survive?

Having a bit of legislation define them as sentient makes no difference
to those of us who do care about their welfare,

See above, and my reply elsewhere re yet another opportunity to open
up discussion on the whole commodification of animals for their flesh
(eggs / milk).

and also probably little
difference those those who mistreat them either - since both realise
they are sentient.

Quite. Everone who eats meat mistreats animals

In your humble opinion of course.

that do not want to
die. It's the ultimate mistreatment, *death*.

Mother nature will do far worse in many cases. They still die but live a
life of torture and suffering along the way, before a lingering death.

I doubt there are many for who this must be some kind of news! (even
thick people can normally spot the difference between a pig and a brick.

What they don't seem able to do is spot when they are supporting the
suffering, exploitation and death of sentient creatures and hence the

That's going to be your new buzzword isn't it - slotted in among all the
other evangelical American "shock jock" rhetoric. You really have got
this religion bad.

need for the education and outreach. They *think* that cows need
milking *anyway*, that chickens lay eggs *anyway* so we can just take
them if we want and pigs exist just to give us bacon.

Farmed pigs generally *do* exist just to provide food and a multitude of
other useful materials.

Quite, animals we have exploited into that situation.

They are not bred just because farmers like to
have lots of pets and enjoy wading through pig ****.

Grow up. ;-)

If animals are to be recognised as sentient beings, shouldn't that mean everyone must become vegetarian?

No, because that means we aren't recognising the sentience and so
rights of egg laying chickens or cows.

Nonsense.

Perfect sense.

You may well think you chicken qualifies for entry to Mensa,

Grow up.

thrrrrrp

but that
does not stop you enjoying an egg with your bacon.

The thought that an animal *will* have to suffer (because they do) for
my pleasure is enough to stop millions of us from 'enjoying' such
things.

And it's your choice.

It's nothing to do with me, it's about the choice *you* aren't giving
to them. To live their lives (especially the wild animals whose
habitat you destroy to grow food and graze your meat that shouldn't
even be here).

Why farmed meat specifically, rather than any other manufactured product?

As is enjoying an omelette for the majority.

As it still is for me (except now I don't use chickenS eggs, because I
have aligned my actions to my morals).

I use chicken eggs for the same reason.

No

need for either group to proselytise.

Of course there is, because one group is destroying the planet and
causing unnecessary death and suffering to the other? You (meat / egg
/ milk) eaters aren't the victims here, you are the aggressors. ;-(

(Never seen a cow egg - so will skip those!)

Yes, it might be best for you as we will have to start testing your
supposed ethics skills again. ;-)

You ain't the sole arbiter of ethics - live with it.

I have never (ever) suggested I was, it's the spirit of millions of
like minded (and ever growing) number of others around the world you
are trying to argue against (and the billions of sentient beings whose
lives you (meat / egg / milk) eaters take from them, just to satisfy
your taste desire?

More than taste, the range of animal based products is vast, and the
uses many. However it can't be denied they are also a delicious, highly
nutritious source of food as well, as I am sure you recall from being a
meat eater for longer than I have.

(Also in some cases a very practical way of extracting food value from
otherwise uncultivable land).

If it's all so normal to eat meat, why won't most people be involved
in the process? Why would most go vegan rather than pull the trigger?

If it's so normal, why aren't all children educated re the full
details from when they are first given meat?

Sex is normal, do we educate them in the full details of that from
infancy? (I know, there are some creepy men out there that would argue
that is a good idea as well!)

What about disease and death?

If eating meat is so
'normal', why don't the kids visit an abattoir like they visit an
orchard or arable farm?

They do. I did - school trip aged about 15.... It was educational, and
actually quite reassuring.

Why when they visit a dairy do they not see
the calf being taken away from it's mum and have them explain *why*
both mum and calf are calling for each other?

I know the answer of course, the action of killing anything
(especially sentient)

new fave word huh...

isn't natural at all, it's something people do
to each other in rage, self defence, (inc of their country or after
being brainwashed) or when their morals allow them to consider it
acceptable. When they do that they are all judged to see if it was
'avoidable' etc (even within a war).

and something we routinely do for food.

Most people (in the civilised world) bring their children up to
respect and care for animals, then they feed them the dismembered
carcases like it's all perfectly normal...

Which if course it is.

(when they don't need to).

according to a limited view of "need"



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 15/05/2021 18:03, T i m wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" wrote:

New UK law:

"During a visit to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Environment
Secretary said that the Government would take a significant step
forwards on animal welfare by formally recognising animals as sentient
beings through a new Animal Sentience Bill that will be introduced to
Parliament tomorrow (13 May), putting animal welfare at the very heart
of government policy decision making."

Hopefully good news (and there will be plenty of more of that to come).

It probably has more to do with the initial manoeuvrings regarding
an early General Election than anything to do with 'animal welfare'.

No point in an early general election given how badly Labour has
done with not a shred of evidence that they are getting any better.

In fact its very likely that Sharmer will get politically assassinated and
so Labour's political prospects get even worse than they are already.

Boris keeps going from strength to strength and keeps delivering what
the voters who voted for him thought he could deliver, correctly.

On Tue, 18 May 2021 19:06:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


No point in an early general election given how badly Labour has

UK politics? Absolutely NONE of yours, you subnormal senile Arsetralian
troll!

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/