New UK law:

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

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

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

On 15/05/2021 18:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
New UK law:

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

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


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

--
Cheers
Clive

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

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

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


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

You buggers really rule the world humour wise.

On Sun, 16 May 2021 04:01:49 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


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

You buggers really rule the world humour wise.

Sociopaths like you and the Scottish ****** will NEVER be allowed to rule
the world, even though you eternal losers keep trying hard! BG

--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

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



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

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

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


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

You buggers really rule the world humour wise.

Agreed, not sure why.

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

On 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

Cheers, T i m

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.

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

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.

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

New UK law:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Spike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Spike

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

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

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

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

New UK law:

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

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

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

Quite, it shows an inconsistent policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the warning :-)

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

New UK law:

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

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

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

The needs of the many ....

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




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

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

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

On 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.

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.

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


--
€œPeople 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.€�

Paul Krugman

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

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

On 23/05/2021 21:21, T i m wrote:

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?

Presumably you are referring to the 'natural' life that you want to
force on animals, where their life expectancy in that brutal regime is
even shorter than for the cosseted farm animals. And it's the same for
people, there is no 'natural life' idyll. It's harsh, with a greatly
shortened life expectancy. You yourself don't live anywhere near a
'natural' life; indeed you have a highly-automated home, own a dog, and
claim to own 10 vehicles. What makes you think that is 'natural'? So why
don't you practise what you preach?

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.

Have you ever thought why Europe, birthplace of the Industrial
Revolution that has brought you so much improvement in your life, became
the powerhouse of the world? Could it be that the climate there wasn't
conducive to living on vegetables all year round? That the addition of
meat to the diet improved brain power? Why is it that religious cults
put new recruits on a 'cleansing diet' that just happens to be devoid of
meat and makes them mentally more pliable and receptive to the cults
ideas? Have you seen your own posted messages since your veganuary
moment? Do you see any parallels at all?

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!

So you are now advocating that animals be fed on an insufficient diet?
How on earth is that helping them? What strange part of your religion
advocates treating animals badly just because you think that is 'right'?

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.

You don't eat a natural diet. You want your food to look like, smell
like, cook like, and taste like they very thing you are preaching
against. Why is that? Why do you throw away the opportunity to do these
things differently?

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?

--
Spike

In article , T i m
writes
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

All viruses are antibiotic resistant. It's people like you who demand
doctors give them antibiotics which are then useless.
--
bert

On Sun, 23 May 2021 22:21:04 +0100, T i m wrote:

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.

Irrelevant what you call it. Would you rather me torture you in horrific ways for a month, then let you go, or kill you "humanely"? Hint - one of them deprives you of the rest of your life. This is why we are stupid to kill animals "humanely" - it's the killing that's the bad part, not the way it's done.

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.

Agreed in its entirety.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
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.

Wrong.

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

New UK law:

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

Nonsense.

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

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


--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

New UK law:

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

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

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



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

Not sure how meaningful that is.

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

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

It's more to do with cruelty and profits.


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

It doesn't have to,


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

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

Trouble is they turn into students !



--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

snip

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense.

Perfect sense.

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

Grow up.

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

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

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

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

Cheers, T i m

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

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

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

https://ibb.co/wcMQjvn

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

snip

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

Why?

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

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

and die unnecessarily?

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

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

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

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

and death

A necessary evil in feeding the nation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense.

Perfect sense.

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

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

Grow up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, T i m

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

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

It was successful because baby seals are nice cuddly creatures.

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

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

https://ibb.co/wcMQjvn

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

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

snip

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

Why?

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

It still makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense.

Perfect sense.

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

Grow up.

thrrrrrp

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

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

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

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

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

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



--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

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

snip

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

Why?

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

It still makes no sense.

Ok ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite, animals we have exploited into that situation.

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

Grow up. ;-)

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

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

Nonsense.

Perfect sense.

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

Grow up.

thrrrrrp

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

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

And it's your choice.

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

As is enjoying an omelette for the majority.

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

No
need for either group to proselytise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, T i m

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

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

New UK law:

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

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

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

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

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

https://ibb.co/wcMQjvn


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

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



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

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

snip

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

I guessed it might be to some.

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

And you think that was what it was all about?

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

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

?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, T i m

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

snip

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

I guessed it might be to some.

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

And you think that was what it was all about?

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

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

?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to eat your diet.

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

On 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).

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

Ultimately, Malek believes, we may begin to detach from the need for
plant-based protein to resemble meat products. But now its still
early days and consumers still want something that they already know.
There are reasons for the attachment, namely the simple fact that meat
and/or meat products consumption is required as part of a natural
balanced diet.
€œYou cant make them jump across two axes, simultaneously, switching
ingredients and switching flavor. Eventually well get to a place
where products dont need to resemble chicken or beef or lamb. They
will simply be delicious and plant-based.€�

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

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

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.

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

snip

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

I guessed it might be to some.

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

And you think that was what it was all about?

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

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



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

snip absence of hard information about what the Bill will do


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

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

snip

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

I guessed it might be to some.

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

And you think that was what it was all about?

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

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



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

snip absence of hard information about what the Bill will do


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

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

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

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

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

snip

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

I guessed it might be to some.

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

And you think that was what it was all about?

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

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

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

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


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

snip absence of hard information about what the Bill will do

Yup, see above (because it was irrelevant).

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

Cheers, T i m

On 17/05/2021 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

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

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

New UK law:

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

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

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

--
Spike

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

New UK law:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?

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