UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,204
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 18:09:49 UTC+1, Robin 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).

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€¦"


but there were exceptions such as bull fighting and other 'sports'
and even foie gras and other cultural practices, it's been banned in some coutries but not others as force feeding which damages
the liver. But this is still OK in france and if americans (amongst others) want to do it to themselves
fine by me but I don't think we should do this to sentient. I think most of us could survive without
foie gras. Or perhaps you thi k will all die a painful death if we don't eat foie gras.
I admit I'm cuious as to it;s taste though I've heard it's salty, bit so are my chips.







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

  #82   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,204
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 19:57:15 UTC+1, Fredxx 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?

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).

€śThats 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.€ť

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.
€śYou 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.€ť

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.


What is normal brain development though.
Would you say Donald Trump had normal brain development ?
I also don't think it's a good idea to feed babies and young kids fast food.
As yet we don;t really know what short or long term effects differnt diets have on children
but we do know that many differant cultures have survived for 1000s of years
that are both vegitarian based and meat based, fish based , but as yet no results on fast food based.
Although I do find it scary what's happened in america with large fat wobbly people
claiming that God will protect them against covid and there they are shouting USA USA
brandishing a gun that the terminnator would use for self defense because God won't protect them.
Not sure if that is classed as normal brain development or what is normal behaviour.



  #83   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:03:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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.


My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?

You don't understand that
someone can decide to breed animals for food.


Of course I do. It's not illegal?

Insist that they are well
fed,


Should be a foregone conclusion?

cared for,


Should be a foregone conclusion?

and protected from harm,


Till the 'breeder' decides to subject the ultimate level of harm,
*death*.

and not mistreated during life,


Should be a foregone conclusion?

before they are humanely killed


No such thing mate, not when it's unnecessary and on an innocent /
sentient creature that doesn't want to die (and quite the opposite,
would do everything it could to live).

https://ibb.co/Cm2pDgt

You are using the 'are you still beating your wife' logic.

and consumed


Unnecessarily for the vast majority and only because of indoctrination
(accepting the practice), conditioning (family feeding you animal
flesh) and constant marketing (Look at this happy cow, eating grass in
a field, (video cuts to a lump of animal flesh from one of the 90+% of
animals that have never seen a field)).

(or their eggs/milk/wool
used).


Whilst exploiting the animal to the point where it would be killed
only a short way through it's natural life because it's no longer
'viable' as an industrial production machine you mean?

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.


You have it ... and as I am in no doubt, history will prove.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is precisely what does happen.


Again, not my 'bubble' John (or anyone who is still evolving), it's
already happening with even the big animal exploiters realising that
the end is in sight and already diversifying (to more plant based
output) to stay in business.

We
learn and understand where animal products come from,


Many don't and certainly not the *complete* picture and even then,
many suppress the truth because it's would put them off their dinner.
Not the same response when people learn how their fruit and veg gets
onto their plate of course.

and then many
(most) consciously make a decision that in spite of the less agreeable
aspects,


The obvious long term imprisonment, exploitation, mental and physical
suffering before a questionable death you mean?

there is a nett benefit,


'Net benefit' for *THEM*, being the few moments of tastes or profit
from such exploitation you mean?

while some decide that vegi is the way
for them.


According to all the science, that's already the case mate. ;-)

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


They do, and they they do.


Not under all the facts and for the vast majority.

It's only the conditioning / normalising of animal exploitation that
allows anyone (who isn't in a survival situation) to be doing so in
2021.

snip

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.


Well, if you can show me the animal that will walk into the gas
chamber on it's own, then no, it's not.

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


Mother nature will do far worse in many cases.


Oh pleeease, don't roll out that old strawman. What we do to animals
is *NOTHING* to do with what animals choose / have to do in nature.

They still die but live a
life of torture and suffering along the way, before a lingering death.


Of course, nature is harsh. But it *IS* natural, holding an animal in
a frame while you bolt gun it in the head and giving it no chance to
escape or try to protect itself is *FAR* for *natural*.

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.


Grow up. Look, I get it, it is said that those most likely to kick
back the hardest are those who might lose their livelihoods over it
(or their families etc). Veganism isn't a religion, it's a
realisation, acceptance and knowledge of the *FACT* that an inelegant
species is supposed to look after, not exploit other species around
them, especially where it will lead to their own destruction. I wonder
what the next (likely zoonotic) pandemic will be ...

snip

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?


Really? Are you trying to suggest that making a 10mm nut is the same
as breeding and killing an animal (that we don't need to kill)?

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.


Yes, I know. Your 'morality' allows you to think that it's 'ok' to
exploit a bird for *it's* eggs when it's obvious that egg was never
(ever) produced for you.

You could say the same about our use of any other resource of course
but most don't directly require the death of a sentient creature that
doesn't want to die.

snip

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.


Of course, and slowly being phased out for alternatives that don't
rely on the exploitation of animals in many cases.

Michelin for example are 'proud' to state that all their car tyres are
vegan. Why would they be proud if doing so wasn't 'a good thing'?

However it can't be denied they are also a delicious,


Only to those who actually like the taste and many non-vegans don't.
There are probably loads of things people have never tried they might
also like so are they missing out?

highly
nutritious source of food as well,


It's also recommended you don't eat that much of it, (unlike fruit and
veg) so I'm not sure how true that is.

as I am sure you recall from being a
meat eater for longer than I have.


Funnily enough, no. As I have mentioned previously, I have never been
a 'big meat eater', I've rarely had a steak (throughout my life) or
chop and I don't think I have *ever* had anything that still had it's
head on. I've *never* had rabbit, or pigeon because 1) I didn't need
to and 2) because I had them as pets.

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


Something that wouldn't be needed when we weren't feeding vast
proportions of the foodstuff we could eat to livestock.

Did you see Countryfile on Sunday OOI. New payments to farmers to do
even better re re-wilding and protecting the environment. Fewer
monocultures and use of chemicals. They mentioned the 200 chicken
farms that are along the river Why (I think) and the potential link to
high phosphate levels polluting the river (common in chicken waste).

Fewer livestock, more plants, fewer chemicals, better more diverse use
of land, focus on the survival of the human race and all the wildlife,
not further destroying the rock we all have to share.

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?


There is no reason why we couldn't / shouldn't from a biology /
reproduction POV, just as we might digestion / respiration?

(I know, there are some creepy men out there that would argue
that is a good idea as well!)


See above.

What about disease and death?


Why not (at the appropriate depth and in the right format).

It makes more sense than telling them about father xmyth or the tooth
fairy.

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.


And did you see all of it and what were the animals? And it was
'reassuring' you say ...

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...


It's the same word I've been using all along (keep up FFS)? It just so
happens it's hit the media lately with the new AWA so maybe you
recognise the word now. ;-)

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.


And will be doing less as we evolve further and have to to survive.

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.


In your lifetime it has been made so but there is *nothing* normal
about how we treat most livestock.

(when they don't need to).

according to a limited view of "need"


Nope, in an absolute use of the word (for a vast proportion of the
cases).

I don't even 'need' to have an egg based flu vaccine as they make them
that aren't cultured in eggs.

I don't need to wear leather belts and shoes as they make them out of
other materials.

I don't need tyres made with animal based stearic acid as they make
them out of plant based alternatives. I don't need chocolate from cows
milk as they make it without.

I guess it all boils down to just how much you care (or don't) about
other living things around you and more specifically if you *believe*
you have the right to take a another life, simply to give you pleasure
(taste typically). You are a sensible person and so you *know* you
don't *need* to eat animals to obtain *all* the nutrition you requires
(as confirmed by the very people who deal with that for a living, like
the thousands of members of the British and American dietetic
associations) so it's down the fact that you *choose* that path.

I and millions like me have chosen a different path, a choice
determined by fact, morals and ethics, one that *IS* both better for
us (directly in our health), the animals (livestock and wild) and us
via the reduction in damage to *our* environment via better resource
usage and reduced pollution (from as many livestock as there are
people on the planet). The only choice that is sustainable.

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

Cheers, T i m


  #84   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,204
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 22:14:11 UTC+1, 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.

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


But do they ?

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.


They most likely do, but is that what is actually happening, not everywhere.
I'd say most don't have a clue and find it easier to ignore, just like not wearing masks
until not wearing them might just adversly affect them.
Had a student last week who said "I don't need to wear a mask I've already had covid".



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.


But what if we find that someone is mistreating, and we lock them up for years instead of a mere fine. ?
Do you think they will behave differntly.
I've even seen this with students in the lab.


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 |
\================================================= ================/

  #85   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,204
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 09:46:43 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 08:28:37 +0100, Robin wrote:




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?


I heard that it was done to save valuable amunition which was in short supple
in some places at the time and also much quicker and less messy.

But have never heard any statement from those that actually did it.



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


Same with most things.




  #86   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Tue, 18 May 2021 03:41:41 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

As yet we don;t really know what short or long term effects differnt diets have on children
but we do know that many differant cultures have survived for 1000s of years
that are both vegitarian based and meat based, fish based , but as yet no results on fast food based.


Yet? We are currently experiencing a pretty world wide obesity
epidemic so I think we already have a fairly good clue. ;-(

We just had 'fast food' for lunch (well, it took me 15 mins to
prepare). ;-)

Half a bag of 'Plant Pioneers, meat free chicken-style pieces' between
us (about 7 chunks each, no room for more in the large wrap) in a wrap
with some salad, with some extra tomato, cucumber and diced onion.

https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/...chicken-pieces

The Mrs said it was 'very tasty' (and it was, along with plenty of
different textures).

I had a tangerine for pudding and that will do us over our dog walk
and till tea.

Cheers, T i m
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,204
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 10:03:52 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
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).


My vegitarian and vegan friends don;t really have a problem with that
they'd prefer that animals weren't used in such away but accept that
people do eat meat. it is possible to live on a diet without meat,
just as it's possible to have a diet without alcohol. Some cultures do,
and have been form 1000s of years and for some it's healtheir.
It's quite easy to research this.
But when ****ed out and about a kebab is almost essentail to the diet.





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.


It does depend on the individuals education too and those around them.

The really thick like D. Drump believe McDs and the like are clean healthy options
and he won't eat much else and he is a very stable genius and who else has a beauty queen as a wife
that proves it ;-)


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


Who wants to live forever .

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.


Not usually. If it were the case they'd had died out over time.

most of the rest snipped due to childishness on both sides without any real evidence presented.

  #88   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,204
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 12:56:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 03:41:41 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip
As yet we don;t really know what short or long term effects differnt diets have on children
but we do know that many differant cultures have survived for 1000s of years
that are both vegitarian based and meat based, fish based , but as yet no results on fast food based.

Yet? We are currently experiencing a pretty world wide obesity
epidemic so I think we already have a fairly good clue. ;-(


Well no we don't yet know whether it's because of over eating or what is eaten yet.
We can make guesses, saw a snippet of something last night a resturant in teh USA where
those over 350lbs can eat for free if they finish their meal, 3 people have died from heart attacks at the table.
But they do supply a vegan alternative it;s a packet of cigarettes, that may have been a joke though.

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUs...as_Nevada.html

I'm guessing you haven't yet visited,

We just had 'fast food' for lunch (well, it took me 15 mins to
prepare). ;-)


That's almost a lifetime, I got my sarnies from the co-op no cooking needed.

I had the gro onion bargie chutney sandwhich,(could do with some proper tom kethup)
tub of pinnaple, pasrty with apple thing, a wagon wheel and a kit cat.

Half a bag of 'Plant Pioneers, meat free chicken-style pieces' between
us (about 7 chunks each, no room for more in the large wrap) in a wrap
with some salad, with some extra tomato, cucumber and diced onion.

https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/...chicken-pieces


Seen them but not tried them yet due to not being on special offer.
I like the quorn 3 sausage rolls in a packet
and the quorn smokey ham or chicken slices but not the fake peporoni they do.
or any of the fake fish.



The Mrs said it was 'very tasty' (and it was, along with plenty of
different textures).


To much like hard work, I believe in energy conservation especailly my own.


I had a tangerine for pudding and that will do us over our dog walk
and till tea.


Luckily my cat doesn't want to go for a walk and prefers to sit on my lap.
She also believes in energy conservation.



Cheers, T i m

  #89   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25,191
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 11:45, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:03:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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


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.


My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?


Yes specifically your problem it seems, obviously shared with a subset
of evangelical vegans, but far from the majority IME.

We have several vegetarian family members, and one vegan. The vegan made
their decision for their own reasons and we respect that. If feeding
them, we make the effort to provide food they will enjoy. We have sat in
a restaurants together (remember when that was a thing?) and enjoyed
whatever meals we ordered together. Yet at no point did they feel the
need to take out a megaphone and start lecturing anyone and everyone in
earshot that by eating that lasagna, they are participating the RAPE of
a cow or any other nonsense.

Pleasant conversation, and enjoyment of a shared meal being far more
likely to engender people to their way of thinking, than the megaphone
program of harassment you seem to be following.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,591
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 11:45, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:03:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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.


My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?


There is a need if we are to have a natural balanced diet.

You don't understand that
someone can decide to breed animals for food.


Of course I do. It's not illegal?

Insist that they are well
fed,


Should be a foregone conclusion?

cared for,


Should be a foregone conclusion?

and protected from harm,


Till the 'breeder' decides to subject the ultimate level of harm,
*death*.


The animal is not aware of the concept of life and death. There is no
harm where the animal was bread for its meat.

and not mistreated during life,


Should be a foregone conclusion?

before they are humanely killed


No such thing mate,


There is, and that's where you're going to have to accept others don't
share your belief.

not when it's unnecessary and on an innocent /
sentient creature that doesn't want to die (and quite the opposite,
would do everything it could to live).


In the food chain there is no innocence. It is a made up construct.

https://ibb.co/Cm2pDgt

You are using the 'are you still beating your wife' logic.


That doesn't follow.

and consumed


Unnecessarily for the vast majority


We've moved a long way. You now accept that a it is necessary for at
least a minority.

and only because of indoctrination
(accepting the practice), conditioning (family feeding you animal
flesh) and constant marketing (Look at this happy cow, eating grass in
a field, (video cuts to a lump of animal flesh from one of the 90+% of
animals that have never seen a field)).


It has also got to do with a natural balanced diet, essential for a
child's brain development.

(or their eggs/milk/wool
used).


Whilst exploiting the animal to the point where it would be killed
only a short way through it's natural life because it's no longer
'viable' as an industrial production machine you mean?


In the wild most animals barely make it out of infancy.

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.


You have it ... and as I am in no doubt, history will prove.


Not for 100+ years

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is precisely what does happen.


Again, not my 'bubble' John (or anyone who is still evolving), it's
already happening with even the big animal exploiters realising that
the end is in sight and already diversifying (to more plant based
output) to stay in business.


By cutting down Amazonian rainforest to satisfy your need for soy milk.

We
learn and understand where animal products come from,


Many don't and certainly not the *complete* picture and even then,
many suppress the truth because it's would put them off their dinner.
Not the same response when people learn how their fruit and veg gets
onto their plate of course.

and then many
(most) consciously make a decision that in spite of the less agreeable
aspects,


The obvious long term imprisonment, exploitation, mental and physical
suffering before a questionable death you mean?


Then you will understand the irony from keeping pets against the
principles of ethical veganism.

there is a nett benefit,


'Net benefit' for *THEM*, being the few moments of tastes or profit
from such exploitation you mean?


Just like plant based foods.

while some decide that vegi is the way
for them.


According to all the science, that's already the case mate. ;-)


No it isn't, science says we need to eat meat of fish products in a
balanced healthy diet.

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


They do, and they they do.


Not under all the facts and for the vast majority.


Once again you concede that a minority do need to eat meat.

It's only the conditioning / normalising of animal exploitation that
allows anyone (who isn't in a survival situation) to be doing so in
2021.


Conditioning as part of evolving, such as attaining the gene to digest milk.

snip

The embarrassing bit?

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.


Well, if you can show me the animal that will walk into the gas
chamber on it's own, then no, it's not.


They don't need much coaxing.

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


Mother nature will do far worse in many cases.


Oh pleeease, don't roll out that old strawman. What we do to animals
is *NOTHING* to do with what animals choose / have to do in nature.


Slaughtering animals for food is natural. You just wish it wasn't.

They still die but live a
life of torture and suffering along the way, before a lingering death.


Of course, nature is harsh. But it *IS* natural, holding an animal in
a frame while you bolt gun it in the head and giving it no chance to
escape or try to protect itself is *FAR* for *natural*.


Slaughtering animals for food is also natural.

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.


Grow up. Look, I get it, it is said that those most likely to kick
back the hardest are those who might lose their livelihoods over it
(or their families etc). Veganism isn't a religion,


It is similar. There are various sects, going for the passive to ethical
and fanatic. Do you feel obliged to visit peoples doorsteps to further
your fanatical cause?

it's a
realisation, acceptance and knowledge of the *FACT* that an inelegant
species is supposed to look after, not exploit other species around
them, especially where it will lead to their own destruction. I wonder
what the next (likely zoonotic) pandemic will be ...

snip

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?


Really? Are you trying to suggest that making a 10mm nut is the same
as breeding and killing an animal


It is a near industrial process. That is what advanced civilised
societies do.

(that we don't need to kill)?


If we are to have a natural balanced diet it is a necessity.

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.


Yes, I know. Your 'morality' allows you to think that it's 'ok' to
exploit a bird for *it's* eggs when it's obvious that egg was never
(ever) produced for you.


No different to a seed producing your plant based food.

You could say the same about our use of any other resource of course
but most don't directly require the death of a sentient creature that


It does if we are to have a natural balanced diet.

doesn't want to die.


Animals don't understand the concept.

snip

More embarrassing stuff snipped.

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.


Of course, and slowly being phased out for alternatives that don't
rely on the exploitation of animals in many cases.


Quite the opposite. Supermarkets have a wider range of meat and meat
products than ever before.

Michelin for example are 'proud' to state that all their car tyres are
vegan. Why would they be proud if doing so wasn't 'a good thing'?


Stearic acid enhances flexibility, strength and grip of a tyre. If you
want to pay more for a tyre that claims to use a plant based source then
feel free.

However it can't be denied they are also a delicious,


Only to those who actually like the taste and many non-vegans don't.


There's the rub, your sentence indicates you are not one of the 'many'.
Envy eats away at the soul.

There are probably loads of things people have never tried they might
also like so are they missing out?


I agree.

highly
nutritious source of food as well,


It's also recommended you don't eat that much of it, (unlike fruit and
veg) so I'm not sure how true that is.

as I am sure you recall from being a
meat eater for longer than I have.


Funnily enough, no. As I have mentioned previously, I have never been
a 'big meat eater', I've rarely had a steak (throughout my life) or
chop and I don't think I have *ever* had anything that still had it's
head on. I've *never* had rabbit, or pigeon because 1) I didn't need
to and 2) because I had them as pets.

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


Something that wouldn't be needed when we weren't feeding vast
proportions of the foodstuff we could eat to livestock.


You've missed the point, presumably deliberately. A significant
proportion of the world is uncultivable, but where goats and sheep can
still graze.

Did you see Countryfile on Sunday OOI. New payments to farmers to do
even better re re-wilding and protecting the environment. Fewer
monocultures and use of chemicals. They mentioned the 200 chicken
farms that are along the river Why (I think) and the potential link to
high phosphate levels polluting the river (common in chicken waste).


Good.

Fewer livestock, more plants, fewer chemicals, better more diverse use
of land, focus on the survival of the human race and all the wildlife,
not further destroying the rock we all have to share.

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?


There is no reason why we couldn't / shouldn't from a biology /
reproduction POV, just as we might digestion / respiration?


So you have paedo tenancies too.

(I know, there are some creepy men out there that would argue
that is a good idea as well!)


See above.


Yes, see above

What about disease and death?


Why not (at the appropriate depth and in the right format).

It makes more sense than telling them about father xmyth or the tooth
fairy.

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.


And did you see all of it and what were the animals? And it was
'reassuring' you say ...

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...


It's the same word I've been using all along (keep up FFS)? It just so
happens it's hit the media lately with the new AWA so maybe you
recognise the word now. ;-)

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.


And will be doing less as we evolve further and have to to survive.


I can't see any meaningful measurable human evolution in the next few
generations.

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.


In your lifetime it has been made so but there is *nothing* normal
about how we treat most livestock.

(when they don't need to).

according to a limited view of "need"


Nope, in an absolute use of the word (for a vast proportion of the
cases).

I don't even 'need' to have an egg based flu vaccine as they make them
that aren't cultured in eggs.

I don't need to wear leather belts and shoes as they make them out of
other materials.


But you do wear leather shoes.

I don't need tyres made with animal based stearic acid as they make
them out of plant based alternatives. I don't need chocolate from cows
milk as they make it without.

I guess it all boils down to just how much you care (or don't) about
other living things around you and more specifically if you *believe*
you have the right to take a another life, simply to give you pleasure
(taste typically). You are a sensible person and so you *know* you
don't *need* to eat animals to obtain *all* the nutrition you requires
(as confirmed by the very people who deal with that for a living, like
the thousands of members of the British and American dietetic
associations) so it's down the fact that you *choose* that path.

I and millions like me have chosen a different path, a choice
determined by fact, morals and ethics, one that *IS* both better for
us (directly in our health), the animals (livestock and wild) and us
via the reduction in damage to *our* environment via better resource
usage and reduced pollution (from as many livestock as there are
people on the planet). The only choice that is sustainable.


Good for you.


  #91   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,591
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 11:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 19:57:15 UTC+1, Fredxx 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?

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).

€śThats 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.€ť

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.
€śYou 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.€ť

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.


What is normal brain development though.


Given children with a vegan diet have an IQ 10 points or more less than
a vegetarians says sufficient.

Would you say Donald Trump had normal brain development ?


Good question. It takes a certain type of brain to become president.
Normal, given his childhood and being shipped off to a boarding school
at a young age must have taken it's toll.

I also don't think it's a good idea to feed babies and young kids fast food.


Agreed.

As yet we don;t really know what short or long term effects differnt diets have on children


That's not entirely true. A link I gave a while ago compared children
with different diets.

It would be prudent to carry out more studies. But you won't get any
funding from vegan groups because they know the answer.

but we do know that many differant cultures have survived for 1000s of years
that are both vegitarian based and meat based, fish based , but as yet no results on fast food based.


Yes, but it's perhaps not a coincidence that meat based western world
have progressed fastest.

Although I do find it scary what's happened in america with large fat wobbly people


That is down to the low cost of food and its availability. I would add
VAT to foodstuffs, especially high energy density food in much the same
way the sugar tax works.

claiming that God will protect them against covid and there they are shouting USA USA
brandishing a gun that the terminnator would use for self defense because God won't protect them.
Not sure if that is classed as normal brain development or what is normal behaviour.


I no longer understand Americans and what they stand for. Gun laws are a
good example. Thank god we don't have a constitution.
  #92   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,591
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 14:28, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/05/2021 11:45, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:03:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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


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.


My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?


Yes specifically your problem it seems, obviously shared with a subset
of evangelical vegans, but far from the majority IME.

We have several vegetarian family members, and one vegan. The vegan made
their decision for their own reasons and we respect that. If feeding
them, we make the effort to provide food they will enjoy. We have sat in
a restaurants together (remember when that was a thing?) and enjoyed
whatever meals we ordered together.Â* Yet at no point did they feel the
need to take out a megaphone and start lecturing anyone and everyone in
earshot that by eating that lasagna, they are participating the RAPE of
a cow or any other nonsense.

Pleasant conversation, and enjoyment of a shared meal being far more
likely to engender people to their way of thinking, than the megaphone
program of harassment you seem to be following.


+1

I am aware I should reduce my meat intake, but every evangelical post of
Tim's convinces me otherwise.

  #93   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 11:56, T i m wrote:

We just had 'fast food' for lunch (well, it took me 15 mins to
prepare). ;-)


Half a bag of 'Plant Pioneers, meat free chicken-style pieces'


Ah! The envy of the meat-eaters shines through...

between
us (about 7 chunks each, no room for more in the large wrap) in a wrap
with some salad, with some extra tomato, cucumber and diced onion.


We had a sandwich of vegetable-free fried pigs flesh topped with
vegetable-free fried hen's ovulations, followed by plums and grapes
washed down with Earl Grey tea with lemon.

The Mrs said it was 'very tasty'


Same here.

Next time, miss out the tomato - it's a possible trigger for arthritis.

--
Spike
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 13:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2021 14:28, John Rumm wrote:


Pleasant conversation, and enjoyment of a shared meal being far more
likely to engender people to their way of thinking, than the megaphone
program of harassment you seem to be following.


+1


WHS

I am aware I should reduce my meat intake, but every evangelical post of
Tim's convinces me otherwise.


Yes, T i m seems to be an advertisement for the dangers of going vegan.

--
Spike
  #95   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 08:46, T i m wrote:

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?


The real issue was a condition called 'trigger fatigue', where the
continuing pulling of a 6-lb trigger caused the finger to go into spasm.

It was much the same in Korea, when the Chinese made their fifth assault
of the night on your position.

--
Spike


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Tue, 18 May 2021 14:28:24 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

and that is the thrust of your problem.


My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?


Yes specifically your problem it seems, obviously shared with a subset
of evangelical vegans, but far from the majority IME.


What, you think most vegans who in most cases (eg, even if not
'ethical') wouldn't prefer everyone to also not be causing animals to
suffer and die unnecessarily? I can get how people who have chosen not
to eat meat because they don't like the taste or texture or have been
advised off it for medical reasons but most vegans aren't doing it for
themselves (primarily) but for the animals.

We have several vegetarian family members, and one vegan. The vegan made
their decision for their own reasons and we respect that.


How jolly decent of you. You are happy for them to *not* be causing
animals to suffer and die and you (who are), are you happy to respect
them!!

If feeding
them, we make the effort to provide food they will enjoy.


As you should as a good host irrespective of the reason surely?

We have sat in
a restaurants together (remember when that was a thing?)


(g sort of, I've never been a big fan (possibly because food isn't a
big part of my identity). I will use the odd cafe now and again if
they aren't too busy and give fast service).

and enjoyed
whatever meals we ordered together.


Erm, yes, why wouldn't it? Or are you saying you might have been put
off by the lack of pain and suffering *their mean* required?

Yet at no point did they feel the
need to take out a megaphone and start lecturing anyone and everyone in
earshot that by eating that lasagna, they are participating the RAPE of
a cow or any other nonsense.


Probably a sensible move. I wouldn't think of doing that either ...
however, in a *discussion group* ... that seems to contain loads of
talk about health and the environment ...

Pleasant conversation, and enjoyment of a shared meal being far more
likely to engender people to their way of thinking,


It can do for sure. Other times you have to lock people in prison
because they don't seem to heed the message..

than the megaphone
program of harassment you seem to be following.


Aww bless. ;-)

As I said, I know you have a vested (family) interest in what many
would very much consider the unnecessarily exploitation of animals and
I appreciate I believe you have said you personally are cutting back
on how much meat you eat (as are most who are bright enough to heed
all the warnings) but as I mentioned previously, not only is this a
discussion group but the issues under discussion are already affecting
all of us ('humanity') in ways most simply don't have a clue about.

And of course people are resistant to change, be it having to wear a
seat belt, not drinking and driving or not smoking in enclosed public
places and to try to *make* people do those things (especially those
who haven't had to for the longest), they sometimes need the threat of
fines or similar. They are likely to be equally 'annoyed' when they
are told they have to pay 'extra' to drive their car into big cities,
or may have to buy an electric car if they want to drive somewhere at
all, in the same way they are bound to complain if you force them to
buy an electric boiler or stop doing something because it's destroying
the environment or causing unnecessary pain, suffering and death to
innocent and sentient creatures, just because they have been
conditioned to 'like' how their cooked flesh tastes. Do you think
people who don't (and never have) eaten meat don't enjoy what they do
eat?

Just because not eating meat isn't the norm now, I'm pretty sure it
will (have to) be in the future, as we evolve into a new era of
actually taking responsibility of how we have assumed we could keep
doing the old things for ever when it's pretty obvious we can't.

Cheers, T i m

  #97   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,204
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 14:29:06 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2021 11:45, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:03:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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.


My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?

There is a need if we are to have a natural balanced diet.
You don't understand that
someone can decide to breed animals for food.


Of course I do. It's not illegal?

Insist that they are well
fed,


Should be a foregone conclusion?

cared for,


Should be a foregone conclusion?

and protected from harm,


Till the 'breeder' decides to subject the ultimate level of harm,
*death*.

The animal is not aware of the concept of life and death.


Of course they are. The way animals care for their young, the way they
act when another is killed. There's plenty of evidence out there but
you won't find that evidence on a packet of burgers.
Animals make friendships with other animals even if they are not of the same species.
Even some humans can do that.
Not many animals are inteligent enough to hate or kill each other because they believe in
difernt magical beings.


There is no
harm where the animal was bread for its meat.


That is not how harm is defined.
We used to use children as young adulty and sent them out to work up chinmenes
and down mine shafts. In a lot of cultures children are breed to work the filed and support
the adults in old age, we send ours off to care homes because we don't have the time or skills
to look after our own parents when they get old and useless, that's true inteligence.


and not mistreated during life,


Should be a foregone conclusion?

before they are humanely killed


No such thing mate,

There is, and that's where you're going to have to accept others don't
share your belief.


There's plenty of beliefs , most can be proved to be rubbish.

So prove humans can't live without eating meat, there is no proof as some
have done so, it might not suite everyone that has never treid but most of
us have never tried eating insects but they can be eaten.
The most prominent being Hinduism and Buddhism.



not when it's unnecessary and on an innocent /
sentient creature that doesn't want to die (and quite the opposite,
would do everything it could to live).

In the food chain there is no innocence. It is a made up construct.


Same with wars and famine and all natural disasters



https://ibb.co/Cm2pDgt

You are using the 'are you still beating your wife' logic.

That doesn't follow.
and consumed


Unnecessarily for the vast majority

We've moved a long way. You now accept that a it is necessary for at
least a minority.


So is war and voilence in general.

and only because of indoctrination
(accepting the practice), conditioning (family feeding you animal
flesh) and constant marketing (Look at this happy cow, eating grass in
a field, (video cuts to a lump of animal flesh from one of the 90+% of
animals that have never seen a field)).

It has also got to do with a natural balanced diet, essential for a
child's brain development.


I'm not sure that has ever been proved.
As cultures do exist and have existed for 1000s years that don;t eat meant.
Maybe kids now might have a bit of a problem but I';m guessing they'll
have similar problems if they can;t get on-line to watch nexflix etc..


(or their eggs/milk/wool
used).


Whilst exploiting the animal to the point where it would be killed
only a short way through it's natural life because it's no longer
'viable' as an industrial production machine you mean?

In the wild most animals barely make it out of infancy.


Depends on the animal.

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.


You have it ... and as I am in no doubt, history will prove.

Not for 100+ years
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is precisely what does happen.


Again, not my 'bubble' John (or anyone who is still evolving), it's
already happening with even the big animal exploiters realising that
the end is in sight and already diversifying (to more plant based
output) to stay in business.

By cutting down Amazonian rainforest to satisfy your need for soy milk.


More is cut down for buildings and palm oil and all that is for profit anyway.
This is why a gradual change is best , like any change in society.

if everyone that has a car was given a car tomorrow and tried to charge it the sys


According to all the science, that's already the case mate. ;-)

No it isn't, science says we need to eat meat of fish products in a
balanced healthy diet.


No it doesn't that's fasle we need certyain vitamins but they don;t NEED to come from animals,\
there are other sources.
if you do have a working brain then just type it into google.
or ask a nutrinalist I know one and he told me we don;t need to eat meat,
but that doesn;t mean he doesn't he did a 5 bird roast at xmas a few years ago.

No! There is no nutritional need for humans to eat any animal products; all of our dietary needs, even as infants and children, are best supplied by an animal-free diet. ...
There is no physical reason for humans to eat animal products other than they taste nice.


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

They do, and they they do.


Not under all the facts and for the vast majority.

Once again you concede that a minority do need to eat meat.


Which minorities are thsoe the people that hang pout in chicken shops ?


It's only the conditioning / normalising of animal exploitation that
allows anyone (who isn't in a survival situation) to be doing so in
2021.

Conditioning as part of evolving, such as attaining the gene to digest milk.


But that doesn;t mean we have to, you won't die if yuo don;t drink milk.
Short term we can evolve


Mother nature will do far worse in many cases.


Not usually and not for fun or profit.
There's only one bird that attacks another and disables that bird then part buries it but
makes sure it stays alive so it can come back and eat it fresh later.



Oh pleeease, don't roll out that old strawman. What we do to animals
is *NOTHING* to do with what animals choose / have to do in nature.

Slaughtering animals for food is natural. You just wish it wasn't.


Not for everyone, we might do it because it's easier for us.
So will use prostitutes for sex, spome use willing partners and some will rape.
Sex is also natural for most.


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


Really? Are you trying to suggest that making a 10mm nut is the same
as breeding and killing an animal

It is a near industrial process. That is what advanced civilised
societies do.


Advanced societies also make weapons and kill other advanced societies
The more inteligent the society the greater potential they have to kill.
It is also totally natural to want to kill those you don;t like or those
that might harm you physically or mentally.



(that we don't need to kill)?

If we are to have a natural balanced diet it is a necessity.


Meat doens; have to be a part of it though.
I've found it's always the dumbest and most violent that eat the most red meat.
D. Trump is a fine example.

  #98   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,591
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 16:31, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 14:28:24 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

and that is the thrust of your problem.

My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?


Yes specifically your problem it seems, obviously shared with a subset
of evangelical vegans, but far from the majority IME.


What, you think most vegans who in most cases (eg, even if not
'ethical') wouldn't prefer everyone to also not be causing animals to
suffer and die unnecessarily? I can get how people who have chosen not
to eat meat because they don't like the taste or texture or have been
advised off it for medical reasons but most vegans aren't doing it for
themselves (primarily) but for the animals.


You speak for yourself, and provide an admission of envy. When you don't
do something for yourself, it can only result in resentment.


snip

Yet at no point did they feel the
need to take out a megaphone and start lecturing anyone and everyone in
earshot that by eating that lasagna, they are participating the RAPE of
a cow or any other nonsense.


Probably a sensible move. I wouldn't think of doing that either ...
however, in a *discussion group* ... that seems to contain loads of
talk about health and the environment ...


The problem is a fanatic is blind to his own megaphone performance.

Pleasant conversation, and enjoyment of a shared meal being far more
likely to engender people to their way of thinking,


It can do for sure. Other times you have to lock people in prison
because they don't seem to heed the message..


Quite, you would do animals a favour and undo the damage caused by being
the worst possible ambassador to veganism.

than the megaphone
program of harassment you seem to be following.


Aww bless. ;-)


But you'll ignore that and carry on your fanatical campaign regardless.
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Tue, 18 May 2021 08:39:02 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

Not many animals are inteligent enough to hate or kill each other because they believe in
difernt magical beings.


snip

Quite, but our (daughters) dog is defiantly fearful of one dog (twice
his size) because it has previously attacked him (out of the blue and
not badly luckily).

I didn't realise we were following this dog along a pavement (a few
hundred m behind and a year since the attack) and I wondered why our
dog kept trying to cross the road. It was only when I checked further
up the road did it all make sense as it appeared we were catching them
up.

Ah, he's just told me it's 5:30 so his dinner time. ;-)

(We have just started the last batch of the 'quality' kibble and when
daughter comes back from her holiday we will blend what's left with
the vegan kibble 'complete food' she has ready.

Then it will be the vegan kibble and a mix of veg, pulses, sweet
potato (being cautious not to add to much of the sweeter veg). As it
happens he seems to love all the veg, typically leaving (meat based)
kibble and eating all the veg (then going back to it later when he's
hungry again).

Dogs are omnivores so as long as they get all the key nutrition, there
is no reason they can't live and thrive on a well planned vegan diet.

Cheers, T i m


  #100   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25,191
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 16:31, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 14:28:24 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

and that is the thrust of your problem.

My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?


Yes specifically your problem it seems, obviously shared with a subset
of evangelical vegans, but far from the majority IME.


What, you think most vegans who in most cases (eg, even if not
'ethical') wouldn't prefer everyone to also not be causing animals to


I was not making any assessment about what they think or believe, just
how and when they approach discussing the topic with others. (should
swaying the opinion of others even be something they want to do, or care
about)

We have several vegetarian family members, and one vegan. The vegan made
their decision for their own reasons and we respect that.


How jolly decent of you.


Yet you can't do the same for us?

You are happy for them to *not* be causing
animals to suffer and die and you (who are),


I don't accept that them eating meat is necessarily causing suffering -
so long as the animals are well treated and cared for. So it's a moot
point.

are you happy to respect
them!!


I am content to let them make their own choices, no matter my personal
feelings on the subject or how strange I might find some of those choices.

If feeding
them, we make the effort to provide food they will enjoy.


As you should as a good host irrespective of the reason surely?

We have sat in
a restaurants together (remember when that was a thing?)


(g sort of, I've never been a big fan (possibly because food isn't a
big part of my identity). I will use the odd cafe now and again if
they aren't too busy and give fast service).


Going out for a meal is not something I feel a need to do every week,
but its nice from time to time - or to mark occasions and celebrations.

and enjoyed
whatever meals we ordered together.


Erm, yes, why wouldn't it? Or are you saying you might have been put
off by the lack of pain and suffering *their mean* required?


Some might feel the need to belittle their choices, eccentricities,
apparent self flagellation, or virtue signalling.

Yet at no point did they feel the
need to take out a megaphone and start lecturing anyone and everyone in
earshot that by eating that lasagna, they are participating the RAPE of
a cow or any other nonsense.


Probably a sensible move. I wouldn't think of doing that either ...


So why do you do the functional equivalent here?

however, in a *discussion group* ...


A discussion group at least loosely connected with DIY / making / fixing
etc (at times many other things in moderation).

Now imagine a poster vocally piping up in a multitude of threads
berating people for not taking up Morris dancing. Claiming that the only
reason we don't is because we don't understand Morris dancing, or we are
just too thick or unethical to appreciate its true superiority as the
one, the only, and true way of life. Do you spose that could get tedious?

that seems to contain loads of
talk about health and the environment ...

Pleasant conversation, and enjoyment of a shared meal being far more
likely to engender people to their way of thinking,


It can do for sure. Other times you have to lock people in prison
because they don't seem to heed the message..

than the megaphone
program of harassment you seem to be following.


Aww bless. ;-)

As I said, I know you have a vested (family) interest in what many
would very much consider the unnecessarily exploitation of animals and


Not really - I have relatives that were arable and dairy farmers, but
they are now retired, and previous generations that were butchers, and
restaurant owners. So no vested interest, but perhaps slightly more
visibility of the industries than some.

I appreciate I believe you have said you personally are cutting back
on how much meat you eat


I think I said I ought to - not quite the same thing.

(as are most who are bright enough to heed
all the warnings) but as I mentioned previously, not only is this a
discussion group but the issues under discussion are already affecting
all of us ('humanity') in ways most simply don't have a clue about.


True of a vast range of subjects - also nothing to do with DIY.

Just because not eating meat isn't the norm now, I'm pretty sure it
will (have to) be in the future,


I very much doubt that, and see no need for it to be the case. Yes there
are very good arguments for a reduction in individual consumption, but
none that I can see that warrant elimination - even if there are limits
on further growth.

as we evolve into a new era of
actually taking responsibility of how we have assumed we could keep
doing the old things for ever when it's pretty obvious we can't.


Perhaps we will come up with a machine/process that can turn water and
grass clippings into beef (other than a cow) and everyone will be happy...


--
Cheers,

John.

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


  #101   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Tue, 18 May 2021 20:43:12 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 18/05/2021 16:31, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 14:28:24 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

and that is the thrust of your problem.

My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?

Yes specifically your problem it seems, obviously shared with a subset
of evangelical vegans, but far from the majority IME.


What, you think most vegans who in most cases (eg, even if not
'ethical') wouldn't prefer everyone to also not be causing animals to


I was not making any assessment about what they think or believe,


I know, I was asking you, based on what you said next.

just
how and when they approach discussing the topic with others. (should
swaying the opinion of others even be something they want to do, or care
about)

We have several vegetarian family members, and one vegan. The vegan made
their decision for their own reasons and we respect that.


How jolly decent of you.


Yet you can't do the same for us?


Of course not, there are victims?

You are happy for them to *not* be causing
animals to suffer and die and you (who are),


I don't accept that them eating meat is necessarily causing suffering -


I know you don't and so a big part of *your* problem.

so long as the animals are well treated and cared for.


And you would be the arbiter of that as well I'm guessing? So, hitting
a pig for no reason with a stick would be bad, causing it to suffer
for even 30 seconds in a gas chamber is 'ok'?

So it's a moot
point.


Far from it. ;-(

are you happy to respect
them!!


I am content to let them make their own choices, no matter my personal
feelings on the subject or how strange I might find some of those choices.


That might be magnanimous of you if you were judging someone doing
something similar to you, like say slave trading ('they look after
their slaves you know, feed them well and give them water and
shelter') or running human trafficking ring, where you *do* get them
in the country as promised?

What you are really complaining about is those annoying people who
keep talking about 'Fair Trade' and suggesting you might like to
consider people getting a fair wage for their efforts putting you off
your coffee that was picked by people who were being exploited against
their will. What a nuisance. ;-(

If feeding
them, we make the effort to provide food they will enjoy.


As you should as a good host irrespective of the reason surely?

We have sat in
a restaurants together (remember when that was a thing?)


(g sort of, I've never been a big fan (possibly because food isn't a
big part of my identity). I will use the odd cafe now and again if
they aren't too busy and give fast service).


Going out for a meal is not something I feel a need to do every week,
but its nice from time to time - or to mark occasions and celebrations.


I guess, if you do those things etc. ;-)

and enjoyed
whatever meals we ordered together.


Erm, yes, why wouldn't it? Or are you saying you might have been put
off by the lack of pain and suffering *their mean* required?


Some might feel the need to belittle their choices, eccentricities,
apparent self flagellation, or virtue signalling.


Or speaking out for the voiceless in the hope people might listen? Not
because of any personal gains, but for the victims. ICGAF what you
eat, just that I would prefer it didn't need to lead to an unnatural
life being fed unnatural food after being born though artificial
insemination and then being killed whilst still very young.

If you are thinking of *just* your organic 'beef', then I guess that
IF it spent all the time it wanted eating grass, had water and shelter
and then just had one bad day, then compared with some 'meat
production' it wouldn't be 'so bad', but the fact that an animal had
it's life taken for no scientifically justifiable reason is enough for
some. And many (most) couldn't and wouldn't do it themselves,
demonstrating how hypocritical they are being to everyone and
themselves.

Yet at no point did they feel the
need to take out a megaphone and start lecturing anyone and everyone in
earshot that by eating that lasagna, they are participating the RAPE of
a cow or any other nonsense.


Probably a sensible move. I wouldn't think of doing that either ...


So why do you do the functional equivalent here?

however, in a *discussion group* ...


A discussion group at least loosely connected with DIY / making / fixing
etc (at times many other things in moderation).


There you go, you didn't need to ask. ;-)

See, given you aren't so stupid that you *wouldn't* accept that the
methane, the waste, the resources used, the habitat lost or the
overall pain and suffering seen in much meat production and general
animal exploitation isn't a real problem TO ALL OF US, why it would be
any less valid as an OT (especially) topic to discuss here as any
other on similar (and especially) worse lines?

Now imagine a poster vocally piping up in a multitude of threads
berating people for not taking up Morris dancing.


Sorry, I'm not sure who is the victim there? Do people get their
throats cut when dancing or watching?

Claiming that the only
reason we don't is because we don't understand Morris dancing, or we are
just too thick or unethical to appreciate its true superiority as the
one, the only, and true way of life.


Sorry, you analogy is bogus so I really can't take it seriously.

Think of another one where there are innocent victims, where there is
pollution created where we all have to suffer, where habitat is
destroyed etc. The gas boiler or peat bogs don't even get close.

Do you spose that could get tedious?


Having to explain why people might need to consider their choices when
it could help in so many aspects, no, if that's what it takes (and you
have a kill file so could kill file *anyone* who raises the subject)?

that seems to contain loads of
talk about health and the environment ...

Pleasant conversation, and enjoyment of a shared meal being far more
likely to engender people to their way of thinking,


It can do for sure. Other times you have to lock people in prison
because they don't seem to heed the message..

than the megaphone
program of harassment you seem to be following.


Aww bless. ;-)

As I said, I know you have a vested (family) interest in what many
would very much consider the unnecessarily exploitation of animals and


Not really - I have relatives that were arable and dairy farmers, but
they are now retired, and previous generations that were butchers, and
restaurant owners. So no vested interest, but perhaps slightly more
visibility of the industries than some.


Ok. I thought you mentioned organic farming (of meat) as if it was
current?

I appreciate I believe you have said you personally are cutting back
on how much meat you eat


I think I said I ought to - not quite the same thing.


Ah. ;-(

(as are most who are bright enough to heed
all the warnings) but as I mentioned previously, not only is this a
discussion group but the issues under discussion are already affecting
all of us ('humanity') in ways most simply don't have a clue about.


True of a vast range of subjects - also nothing to do with DIY.


All of my threads on any OT topic are marked as such so ...

Just because not eating meat isn't the norm now, I'm pretty sure it
will (have to) be in the future,


I very much doubt that, and see no need for it to be the case.


Of course you don't. Did you read the link Tim... posted recently? Do
you not consider all the scientific reports stating that our reliance
on meat is unsustainable?

I think it was meant to be a rebuttal of the idea that *not*
exploiting and killing animals was in everyone's interest but actually
confirms much of what I have been saying all along:

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

Yes there
are very good arguments for a reduction in individual consumption,


Good, then we are getting somewhere with you. Now, consider the impact
on the world if 9 billion individuals cut down their meat intake ...

but
none that I can see that warrant elimination -


So all this moving to a 'plant based diet' is just fantasy to you
then?

even if there are limits
on further growth.


A revamp of how farms are subsidised will take care of much of it,
along with stronger fines for all the pollution they create.

as we evolve into a new era of
actually taking responsibility of how we have assumed we could keep
doing the old things for ever when it's pretty obvious we can't.


Perhaps we will come up with a machine/process that can turn water and
grass clippings into beef (other than a cow) and everyone will be happy...


What is your fascination for the flesh of just a few species that you
neither need to consume to survive and many have never eaten all their
lives?

Are you going to work you way though the entire animal species list in
case there is something out there that is even more desirable to you
than beef (and if not why not)?

If you are happy to kill a cow then there must be nothing wrong with
killing anything you think you might like the taste of (Ok, you might
draw the line at making a species extinct but many meat eaters haven't
stopped there in the past)?

Cheers, T i m

  #102   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25,191
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 15:22, Spike wrote:
On 18/05/2021 08:46, T i m wrote:

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?


The real issue was a condition called 'trigger fatigue', where the
continuing pulling of a 6-lb trigger caused the finger to go into spasm.


Not to mention genocide really eats into your ammo supplies!




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/
  #103   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 19:57:15 UTC+1, Fredxx 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?

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).

€śThats 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.€ť

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.
€śYou 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.€ť

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.


What is normal brain development though.
Would you say Donald Trump had normal brain development ?


He was born that way, thats why he was shipped off to military school.

I also don't think it's a good idea to feed babies and young kids fast
food.


Thats mad.

As yet we don;t really know what short or long
term effects differnt diets have on children


We do actually.

but we do know that many differant cultures have survived for 1000s of
years


Even the few that eat nothing but blood and cows milk. Weird.

that are both vegitarian based and meat based, fish
based , but as yet no results on fast food based.


But given that most fast food is nothing very different
except in format, no reason why it should be very different.

Although I do find it scary what's happened in america
with large fat wobbly people claiming that God will
protect them against covid and there they are shouting
USA USA brandishing a gun that the terminnator would
use for self defense because God won't protect them.


Didnt work very well for the jews either until recently.

Not sure if that is classed as normal brain
development or what is normal behaviour.



  #104   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

Fredxx wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Fredxx wrote
T i m wrote
Robin wrote


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).

€śThats 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.€ť

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.
€śYou 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.€ť

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.


What is normal brain development though.


Given children with a vegan diet have an IQ 10 points or more less than a
vegetarians


That might be because only the most stupid are vegans :-(

says sufficient.


Nope.

Would you say Donald Trump had normal brain development ?


Good question. It takes a certain type of brain to become president.


Yes, but its less clear that some like say
Ike didnt have normal brain development.

Normal, given his childhood and being shipped off to a boarding school at
a young age


It was at 13, thats not a young age for boarding school.

must have taken it's toll.


More likely he was shipped off to that military school because
he was already ****ed in the head. His siblings werent.

I also don't think it's a good idea to feed babies and young kids fast
food.


Agreed.


It doesnt appear to have done a mates kid any harm. He
refuses to eat what his chinese mother cooks for him. Now 7

As yet we don;t really know what short or long term effects differnt
diets have on children


That's not entirely true. A link I gave a while ago compared children with
different diets.


Yep.

It would be prudent to carry out more studies. But you won't get any
funding from vegan groups because they know the answer.


but we do know that many differant cultures have survived for 1000s of
years that are both vegitarian based and meat based, fish based , but as
yet no results on fast food based.


Yes, but it's perhaps not a coincidence that meat based western world have
progressed fastest.


Thats pretty iffy given that the eskimos and australian
abos who used to eat almost nothing but meat didnt.

Although I do find it scary what's happened in america with large fat
wobbly people


That is down to the low cost of food and its availability.


And how calorie loaded so much of it is.

You dont see that in Japan for example.

I would add VAT to foodstuffs, especially high energy density food in much
the same way the sugar tax works.


No evidence that a sugar tax works.

claiming that God will protect them against covid and there they are
shouting USA USA brandishing a gun that the terminnator would use for
self defense because God won't protect them. Not sure if that is classed
as normal brain development or what is normal behaviour.


I no longer understand Americans


Many never did. Japs in spades.

and what they stand for. Gun laws are a good example. Thank god we don't
have a constitution.


Almost everyone else does and it didnt stop us
banning some guns. The problem is their 2nd
amendment. Tho its understandable why they had
that given what it took to get your jackboot off
their throats.

We also had a militia and it wasnt at all uncommon to
see school cadets taking 303s home on public transport.
The used Vickers machine guns on the range too. Bit
too heavy to take home on the train or tram tho.

  #105   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default Lonely Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!

On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:37:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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


--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
his particular prowess at it every day."
MID:


  #106   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!

On Wed, 19 May 2021 12:54:01 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a female name that stays
around around while you talk it to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from you boring them
to death."
MID:
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 15:39, whisky-dave wrote:

There is no nutritional need for humans to eat any animal products; all of our dietary needs, even as infants and children, are best supplied by an animal-free diet. ...


The tiny facts that the virtue-signalling T i m and his
fellow-travellers conveniently ignore is that humans developed over a
period of 100,000 years the ability to digest and benefit from eating
meat, and that at current levels of knowledge brain chemistry is not
well understood.

In the first case it will take 100,000 years to de-evolve back to being
fruit eaters, but one suspects that the intervening 75,000 years of a
global ice-age might render the whole issue somewhat moot.

With the second issue, someone posted a link in this thread to an
excellent article which in part looked at the brain chemistry issue. In
essence, to maintain brain-chemistry balance, a vegan might need to take
40 different supplements a day.

There is no physical reason for humans to eat animal products other than they taste nice.


I suspect that is wishful thinking.

--
Spike
  #108   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 10:41, whisky-dave wrote:

Would you say Donald Trump had normal brain development ?


Would you say that Adolf Hitler had normal brain development?

He was a vegetarian, after all, and the Nazis had highly-developed
animal welfare programmes backed by law, holding possibly the first ever
international conference on the issue.

--
Spike
  #109   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 19/05/2021 09:18, Spike wrote:
On 18/05/2021 15:39, whisky-dave wrote:


There is no physical reason for humans to eat animal products other than they taste nice.


I suspect that is wishful thinking.


It's just plain WRONG. There are many parts of the world where there
simply are no non-animal products to eat at ALL.

vegetables and cereals only grow under certain conditions.


--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson
  #110   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,591
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 18/05/2021 16:39, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 14:29:06 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2021 11:45, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:03:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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.

My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?

There is a need if we are to have a natural balanced diet.
You don't understand that
someone can decide to breed animals for food.

Of course I do. It's not illegal?

Insist that they are well
fed,

Should be a foregone conclusion?

cared for,

Should be a foregone conclusion?

and protected from harm,

Till the 'breeder' decides to subject the ultimate level of harm,
*death*.

The animal is not aware of the concept of life and death.


Of course they are. The way animals care for their young, the way they
act when another is killed. There's plenty of evidence out there but
you won't find that evidence on a packet of burgers.
Animals make friendships with other animals even if they are not of the same species.
Even some humans can do that.
Not many animals are inteligent enough to hate or kill each other because they believe in
difernt magical beings.


There is no
harm where the animal was bread for its meat.


That is not how harm is defined.
We used to use children as young adulty and sent them out to work up chinmenes
and down mine shafts. In a lot of cultures children are breed to work the filed and support
the adults in old age, we send ours off to care homes because we don't have the time or skills
to look after our own parents when they get old and useless, that's true inteligence.


and not mistreated during life,

Should be a foregone conclusion?

before they are humanely killed

No such thing mate,

There is, and that's where you're going to have to accept others don't
share your belief.


There's plenty of beliefs , most can be proved to be rubbish.

So prove humans can't live without eating meat, there is no proof as some
have done so, it might not suite everyone that has never treid but most of
us have never tried eating insects but they can be eaten.
The most prominent being Hinduism and Buddhism.


People can live without meat, however vegan children are more likely to
have depresses IQs is a good example why meat or fish products should
form part of a balanced diet.

not when it's unnecessary and on an innocent /
sentient creature that doesn't want to die (and quite the opposite,
would do everything it could to live).

In the food chain there is no innocence. It is a made up construct.


Same with wars and famine and all natural disasters


Quite.

https://ibb.co/Cm2pDgt

You are using the 'are you still beating your wife' logic.

That doesn't follow.
and consumed

Unnecessarily for the vast majority

We've moved a long way. You now accept that a it is necessary for at
least a minority.


So is war and voilence in general.

and only because of indoctrination
(accepting the practice), conditioning (family feeding you animal
flesh) and constant marketing (Look at this happy cow, eating grass in
a field, (video cuts to a lump of animal flesh from one of the 90+% of
animals that have never seen a field)).

It has also got to do with a natural balanced diet, essential for a
child's brain development.


I'm not sure that has ever been proved.


Proof is always in the eye of the reader. This article should at least
raise some alarm bells:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...r-intelligence

As cultures do exist and have existed for 1000s years that don;t eat meant.
Maybe kids now might have a bit of a problem but I';m guessing they'll
have similar problems if they can;t get on-line to watch nexflix etc..

(or their eggs/milk/wool
used).

Whilst exploiting the animal to the point where it would be killed
only a short way through it's natural life because it's no longer
'viable' as an industrial production machine you mean?

In the wild most animals barely make it out of infancy.


Depends on the animal.

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.

You have it ... and as I am in no doubt, history will prove.

Not for 100+ years
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is precisely what does happen.

Again, not my 'bubble' John (or anyone who is still evolving), it's
already happening with even the big animal exploiters realising that
the end is in sight and already diversifying (to more plant based
output) to stay in business.

By cutting down Amazonian rainforest to satisfy your need for soy milk.


More is cut down for buildings and palm oil and all that is for profit anyway.
This is why a gradual change is best , like any change in society.

if everyone that has a car was given a car tomorrow and tried to charge it the sys


According to all the science, that's already the case mate. ;-)

No it isn't, science says we need to eat meat of fish products in a
balanced healthy diet.


No it doesn't that's fasle we need certyain vitamins but they don;t NEED to come from animals,\
there are other sources.
if you do have a working brain then just type it into google.
or ask a nutrinalist I know one and he told me we don;t need to eat meat,
but that doesn;t mean he doesn't he did a 5 bird roast at xmas a few years ago.


There is very little science behind nutrition. Studies to endorse or
criticise fads are few and far between. The link above gives an
indication of the unknown negative qualities of eating a vegan diet. If
you have children would you take the chance? More studies are needed
urgently to understand the effect of diet on a child's growth.

No! There is no nutritional need for humans to eat any animal products; all of our dietary needs, even as infants and children, are best supplied by an animal-free diet. ...
There is no physical reason for humans to eat animal products other than they taste nice.


Not so, if you don't have children, then I can see why you might choose
such a diet.

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

They do, and they they do.

Not under all the facts and for the vast majority.

Once again you concede that a minority do need to eat meat.


Which minorities are thsoe the people that hang pout in chicken shops ?


I assume that question is not for me.

It's only the conditioning / normalising of animal exploitation that
allows anyone (who isn't in a survival situation) to be doing so in
2021.

Conditioning as part of evolving, such as attaining the gene to digest milk.


But that doesn;t mean we have to, you won't die if yuo don;t drink milk.
Short term we can evolve


We evolve over millennia, not just a generation or two.

Mother nature will do far worse in many cases.


Not usually and not for fun or profit.
There's only one bird that attacks another and disables that bird then part buries it but
makes sure it stays alive so it can come back and eat it fresh later.


It is the job of governments to provide a framework for trade. You can't
simply blame fun and profit.

Oh pleeease, don't roll out that old strawman. What we do to animals
is *NOTHING* to do with what animals choose / have to do in nature.

Slaughtering animals for food is natural. You just wish it wasn't.


Not for everyone, we might do it because it's easier for us.


It is a personal choice, not to be foisted on all and sundry through
bully tactics.

So will use prostitutes for sex, spome use willing partners and some will rape.
Sex is also natural for most.


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

Really? Are you trying to suggest that making a 10mm nut is the same
as breeding and killing an animal

It is a near industrial process. That is what advanced civilised
societies do.


Advanced societies also make weapons and kill other advanced societies
The more inteligent the society the greater potential they have to kill.
It is also totally natural to want to kill those you don;t like or those
that might harm you physically or mentally.


Yet the most aggressive nation is possibly the USA and they're 27th in
the IQ league.
https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php

YMMV

(that we don't need to kill)?

If we are to have a natural balanced diet it is a necessity.


Meat doens; have to be a part of it though.


If you have children then meat or fish products in a diet is highly
recommended.

I've found it's always the dumbest and most violent that eat the most red meat.
D. Trump is a fine example.


He can't be that thick to become president. There is a saying, never
underestimate your enemy.

I thought he was more a fan of fast food?


  #111   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:50:36 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip

Proof is always in the eye of the reader. This article should at least
raise some alarm bells:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...r-intelligence


Still peddling the lies and ****e I see troll. That cognitive bias can
be a powerful thing amongst the weak minded. Have you had your B12
levels checked yet?

https://www.whitneyerd.com/2020/03/v...in-health.html

snip

Cheers, T i m
  #112   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,591
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 19/05/2021 17:38, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:50:36 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip

Proof is always in the eye of the reader. This article should at least
raise some alarm bells:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...r-intelligence


Still peddling the lies and ****e I see troll. That cognitive bias can
be a powerful thing amongst the weak minded. Have you had your B12
levels checked yet?

https://www.whitneyerd.com/2020/03/v...in-health.html

snip


Hmm,
"I studied nutrigenomics with one of the leading researchers in the
field of aging, worked on a clinical trial of fasting with cancer
patients".

And,

"It turns out that the quick-fix, simplistic, 'eat this, not that'
messages proclaimed by many in the health and fitness field are not only
often ineffective but also detrimental to your long-term health".

Even she advocates, "Predominantly Plant-Based". Something I might agree
with.

It all looks like cognitive bias to me. So you must lap it up.

I'd sooner a more respected site like the BBC thank you.
  #113   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

Fredxx wrote

Advanced societies also make weapons and kill other advanced societies
The more inteligent the society the greater potential they have to kill.
It is also totally natural to want to kill those you don't like or those
that might harm you physically or mentally.


Yet the most aggressive nation is possibly the USA and they're 27th in the
IQ league.
https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php


Some pretty bogus numbers there
and **** all in it in say the top 25

And doesnt explain the radical change over time in
aggressiveness with some like Japan and Germany.

And its much more likely that IQ is due to genetics than diet.

YMMV


It may indeed.

I've found it's always the dumbest and most violent that eat the most red
meat.


Bull**** you have.

D. Trump is a fine example.


He can't be that thick to become president.


Becoming a president has nothing to do with intelligence.
Only the most stupid would want the job.

There is a saying, never underestimate your enemy.


I thought he was more a fan of fast food?


Yep. But burgers are meat.

  #114   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 17/05/2021 18:27, T i m wrote:

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


The fact that you need to say so suggests otherwise.

Tonight we had oven-cooked wild salmon with rice and peas, followed by a
fresh-fruit salad, all washed down with Earl Grey tea infused with lemon.

We missed nothing, as all the necessary brain foods were contained in
the meal.

(especially the bits of bone, eyeballs and arsesoles
and the guilt of causing suffering and death of an innocent sentient
creature for 'no reason').


There were no 'bones, eyeballs and 'arsesoles' (sic)', or guilt, involved.

--
Spike
  #115   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!

On Thu, 20 May 2021 12:53:34 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:


  #116   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,120
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Sun, 16 May 2021 13:10:52 +0100, 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.

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.


********, killing is 1 billion times worse than torture.

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
natural balanced diet to include meat products.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...r-intelligence


Bull****. You need vitamins X Y and Z and that's it.
  #117   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,120
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Mon, 17 May 2021 14:08:43 +0100, 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:
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.


Since peanuts aren't technically a nut, you can eat those with a nut allergy.
  #118   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On 23/05/2021 19:57, Commander Kinsey wrote:
********, killing is 1 billion times worse than torture.


I guess thats why when I torture you, you will plead for death


--
€śPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€ť

Paul Krugman
  #119   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default Troll-feeding Senile Asshole Alert!

On Sun, 23 May 2021 20:24:21 +0100, The Natural Idiot, the notorious,
troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered again:


I guess thats why when I torture you, you will plead for death


Alas, you sick senile idiot ONLY feed him, time and again! BG
  #120   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default OT: Eating sentient beings?

On Sun, 23 May 2021 19:57:45 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

snip

********, killing is 1 billion times worse than torture.


When it's done to humans it's generally called murder.

snip

Bull****. You need vitamins X Y and Z and that's it.


And that's the thing, a lot of these carnists consider the flesh of a
tiny subset of all the animal species as some sort of unique elixir of
life when many million people around the globe have been living long,
happy and healthy lives for thousands of years without any?

So, given all matter is made up of a fixed range of components, meat
is no different and as you say, if you were insist that you *had* to
eat meat (when it's clear that you don't) to get these, they could be
put together in the same quantities in the form of a plant based
tablet or lump of syntho animal flesh, if you really had to.

We have to ensure livestock have their right levels of B12 by feeding
them and implanting them with synthesised stuff *anyway*, why don't we
take it ourselves *anyway* (and most people do of course, vegan or
otherwise as many foodstuff are already fortified to try to deal with
the 40% of the (mostly meat eating) population and who are B12
deficient) cut out all the pain, suffering, animal death,
exploitation, environmental destruction that is *also* harming
millions of other animals (wildlife) AND US!

https://ibb.co/995p2sR

It's *not* part of a 'natural diet' when the animal has been created
unnaturally, kept unnaturally, fed unnaturally (high protein foods
making them gain meat mass in very short periods so their bones
collapse as they haven't grown as fast) and kill unnaturally (with no
hope of escape or defending itself) and comes full of chemicals that
would never occur in nature and that are making viruses that are
lethal to mankind antibiotic resistant.

Cheers, T i m

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT: Eating sentient beings? Commander Kinsey[_3_] Home Repair 73 May 25th 21 09:41 PM
Sentient pearwood, anybody? (OT?) Peter Huebner Woodworking 4 March 10th 08 05:42 PM
wasps eating teak furniture Martin Crook UK diy 15 August 11th 04 02:23 PM
Eating fox? (Aldi). Jerry Built UK diy 132 May 24th 04 04:39 PM
OT - was eating fox (Aldi) Tim Nicholson UK diy 2 May 10th 04 10:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"