On 07/06/2021 11:06, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 07/06/2021 09:21, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 19:06, T i m wrote:

There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

That is *another* problem yes, but not to be conflated with the waste
of resources (land, feed, water) and the pollution involved in keeping
more livestock than people on the same small rock.

Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.

Irrelevant when people don't have the choice.

It's still a waste of resources whether people choose subsistence
farming or are forced into it.

Where they do, moving to a plant based solution is the only way
forward.

.....resulting in stunted growth and low intelligence.


--
Spike

On 07/06/2021 11:03, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 07/06/2021 09:04, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees, there was a glacier about a km thick, but 'global
warming' some tens of thousands of years before the Industrial Age, got
rid of it. Shouldn't we go back to those times instead, as interglacial
warm periods are quite short when compared to the glacials?

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

But not to our current use or restoration to a 'realistic' timescale
level of bio-diversity for the purposes of a sensible discussion.

Now comes T i m ' s qualifiers to shore up his argument...

"...current use... ...realistic time-scale... ...level of
bio-diversity... ...sensible discussion..."

....none of which were previously mentioned.

--
Spike

On 07/06/2021 09:07, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

You make them sound like Frankenfoods.

But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Waffle.

--
Spike

On 07/06/2021 10:20, Spike wrote:
On 07/06/2021 09:16, T i m wrote:

Not if you've been conditioned to add a thin, cold gruel to your mug of
tea, both of the ingredients of which came by ship.

WTF are you talking about now? Any chance you could stay on some sort
of logical / linear track or you will further expose yourself as a
lunatic troll!

There's me thinking you were supporting the recent post on the alleged
environmental damage cause by shipping. Was that a different T i m ?

And answer came there none...

--
Spike

On 07/06/2021 09:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 19:40, T i m wrote:

ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and flu.

Yup, and then we learned better and that's where we are now re meat,
eggs and dairy re human heath and it's negative impact on the
environment.

And we will learn better from this, too. In fact, it's already started -
we now know that vegan diets result in stunted growth and lowered
intelligence, and it seems they may be banned for children and pets. We
are slowly getting there, no thanks to you - you're rather similar in
manner to the cognitive-dissonant smoker of yesteryear.

--
Spike

On 07/06/2021 19:15, T i m wrote:

Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Pasta meals usually involve lots of (cheap) tomatoes - a known trigger
for arthritic pain.

--
Spike

On 07/06/2021 17:39, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:26:44 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Acceptable if they are also re-wilding and putting less destructive
demand on the land?


Are you joking ?. They are paid by the taxpayer to keep
Highland coos, a few sheep and possibly one or two pigs.

Yes, 'subsistence.

And not for pets because in that part of the world you
cannot grow crops and survive.

But you don't need to if you are getting grants for you to re-wild and
sensitively 'manage' the environment?

And they do have shops in Scotland now you know? ;-)

Cheers, T i m


You should visit some of these crofts and you might be amazed
how far you have to drive your diesel vehicle to get there, and
how far they have to drive to get to a 'shop'.
Please explain how so-called 'rewilding' pays the bills ?

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 07/06/2021 17:39, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:26:44 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Acceptable if they are also re-wilding and putting less destructive
demand on the land?


Are you joking ?. They are paid by the taxpayer to keep
Highland coos, a few sheep and possibly one or two pigs.

Yes, 'subsistence.

And not for pets because in that part of the world you
cannot grow crops and survive.

But you don't need to if you are getting grants for you to re-wild and
sensitively 'manage' the environment?

And they do have shops in Scotland now you know? ;-)

Cheers, T i m


You should visit some of these crofts and you might be amazed
how far you have to drive your diesel vehicle to get there, and
how far they have to drive to get to a 'shop'.
Please explain how so-called 'rewilding' pays the bills ?

Last week there was programme on North Uist where a lot of people had won
money on the PostCode Lottery. Asked what sort of holiday they might take,
having won a 5 figure sume, one couple thought they might like to go to
Inverness.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/06/2021 12:37, charles wrote:

Last week there was programme on North Uist where a lot of people had won
money on the PostCode Lottery. Asked what sort of holiday they might take,
having won a 5 figure sume, one couple thought they might like to go to
Inverness.


I'd probably be like that!

Bill

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:50:24 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 19:15, T i m wrote:

Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Pasta meals usually involve lots of (cheap) tomatoes - a known trigger
for arthritic pain.

The Aldi pasta sauce contains tomatoes but I didn't add any extra in
this instance.

So, you constantly harass me because you are concerned about my wife's
*choice* to eat such things (because she likes to, even with her
arthritis) but you can't tell me why you have chosen to not eat cows
or sheep?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:48:55 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 11:03, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 07/06/2021 09:04, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees, there was a glacier about a km thick, but 'global
warming' some tens of thousands of years before the Industrial Age, got
rid of it. Shouldn't we go back to those times instead, as interglacial
warm periods are quite short when compared to the glacials?

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

But not to our current use or restoration to a 'realistic' timescale
level of bio-diversity for the purposes of a sensible discussion.

Now comes T i m ' s qualifiers to shore up his argument...

"...current use... ...realistic time-scale... ...level of
bio-diversity... ...sensible discussion..."

...none of which were previously mentioned.

Do I *really* have to mention *every little and obvious thing*, *every
time* I cover the subject in general, just to placate the ignorant /
left brainers?

Oh, no need to answer that because it's obvious (well, to non troll /
left brainers).

It's the same when mentioning anything when you *try* to use your
distraction techniques to attempt to justify something ... like 'we
have drunk cows milk for thousands of years' like that in any way
justifies our continuing to drink it NOW.

There are *loads* of things we used to do that we no longer do (thank
goodness) and so all of them were likely to be justified by the likes
of you at the time when the likes of me had already opposed them.

So yes, a lot of the world was once covered in ice bit that has no
bearing whatsoever in a conversation of how most of the UK (in
particular) was once covered in trees (so that sets the starting
timeline) and now there are far fewer.

We might want / need to go back to the time where there were loads of
trees but the chances are we wouldn't want to go back to the time when
we were covered in ice.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:49:10 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 09:07, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

You make them sound like Frankenfoods.

NO, you want them to sound like that to =try to offset your desire to
cause pain and suffering to (a bizarre subset) of animals.

But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Waffle.

Complicated isn't it, all this general talk, when you are a left
brainer.

So, Spuke, WHY don't you eat cows and sheep?

Cheers, T i m

On 08/06/2021 14:09, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

Now comes T i m ' s qualifiers to shore up his argument...

"...current use... ...realistic time-scale... ...level of
bio-diversity... ...sensible discussion..."

...none of which were previously mentioned.

Do I *really* have to mention *every little and obvious thing*, *every
time* I cover the subject in general, just to placate the ignorant /
left brainers?

Oh, no need to answer that because it's obvious (well, to non troll /
left brainers).

It's unacceptable to shift the grounds of a discussion you started.

It's the same when mentioning anything when you *try* to use your
distraction techniques to attempt to justify something ... like 'we
have drunk cows milk for thousands of years' like that in any way
justifies our continuing to drink it NOW.

Waffle.

There are *loads* of things we used to do that we no longer do (thank
goodness) and so all of them were likely to be justified by the likes
of you at the time when the likes of me had already opposed them.

Waffle.

So yes, a lot of the world was once covered in ice bit that has no
bearing whatsoever in a conversation of how most of the UK (in
particular) was once covered in trees (so that sets the starting
timeline)

There was *no* starting timeline in your unbounded argument. It's only
now that you've realised your error and are back-pedalling furiously.

and now there are far fewer.

Unimportant on a geologic scale.

We might want / need to go back to the time where there were loads of
trees but the chances are we wouldn't want to go back to the time when
we were covered in ice.

So you say, but it's the planet's natural condition. The warm bits are
the anomaly.

--
Spike

On 08/06/2021 14:11, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 07/06/2021 09:07, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

You make them sound like Frankenfoods.

NO, you want them to sound like that to =try to offset your desire to
cause pain and suffering to (a bizarre subset) of animals.

But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Waffle.

Complicated isn't it, all this general talk, when you are a left
brainer.

So, Spuke, WHY don't you eat cows and sheep?

groan Freedom of choice - something that veganists would like to ban.


--
Spike

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:11:23 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

And they do have shops in Scotland now you know? ;-)


You should visit some of these crofts and you might be amazed
how far you have to drive your diesel vehicle to get there,

I have, and it was on a petrol motorcycle (doing 50 mpg). ;-)

and
how far they have to drive to get to a 'shop'.

Ah yes, and for all those *choosing* to move there or even stay there,
it's part of the cost of living there.

eg. We *choose* to holiday in the country but we accept that it's not
as convenient as living a walk from everything.

Please explain how so-called 'rewilding' pays the bills ?

Grants. Keep up ...

https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants

You either leave it to nature (costs nothing) or pay someone who is
stuck there [1] to look after it for us all.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Many who were born in the back of beyond don't want to live in
isolation in shift and mud all their lives and move to the towns.

p.s. I saw on Countryfile where they were offering old farmers money
to **** off to allow new people in (who would have a more 'forward
thinking' attitude towards the environment).

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:27:20 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

So, Spuke, WHY don't you eat cows and sheep?

groan Freedom of choice -

snip bs

Yes, I know you have the 'freedom of choice' but that isn't an answer
to *why / only* sheep and cows that you don't eat?

There must be *some* sort of rational reason, even if it's only part
of your general logical inconsistency and speciesism?

I mean, if when you were a child, happily stamping on chickens and
then were traumatised by your Dad being killed by a cow (when trying
to kill 'it' say) and your Mum killed by a sheep (when trying to do
the same), I would have thought you would *want* to kill cows and
sheep and the best / easiest / legal way to do that is to buy and eat
their flesh? (Ok, someone else actually kills them for you but you are
still causing their deaths eh).

Or maybe the trauma of recalling all that is why you can't answer such
a simple and straightforward question?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:26:24 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 08/06/2021 14:09, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

Now comes T i m ' s qualifiers to shore up his argument...

"...current use... ...realistic time-scale... ...level of
bio-diversity... ...sensible discussion..."

...none of which were previously mentioned.

Do I *really* have to mention *every little and obvious thing*, *every
time* I cover the subject in general, just to placate the ignorant /
left brainers?

Oh, no need to answer that because it's obvious (well, to non troll /
left brainers).

It's unacceptable to shift the grounds of a discussion you started.

Wasn't shifting any grounds. You simply couldn't predict what would be
considered by most a reasonable bounds for the discussion.

It's the same when mentioning anything when you *try* to use your
distraction techniques to attempt to justify something ... like 'we
have drunk cows milk for thousands of years' like that in any way
justifies our continuing to drink it NOW.

Waffle.

Relevant point to a right brainer.

There are *loads* of things we used to do that we no longer do (thank
goodness) and so all of them were likely to be justified by the likes
of you at the time when the likes of me had already opposed them.

Waffle.

Relevant point to a right brainer.

So yes, a lot of the world was once covered in ice bit that has no
bearing whatsoever in a conversation of how most of the UK (in
particular) was once covered in trees (so that sets the starting
timeline)

There was *no* starting timeline in your unbounded argument. It's only
now that you've realised your error and are back-pedalling furiously.

and now there are far fewer.

Unimportant on a geologic scale.

Relevant to the timescale likely to be in discussion. If it wasn't we
would be throwing dinosaurs into the discussion and you haven't (yet).

We might want / need to go back to the time where there were loads of
trees but the chances are we wouldn't want to go back to the time when
we were covered in ice.

So you say, but it's the planet's natural condition. The warm bits are
the anomaly.

Again, not when compared to our habitation of the world as we know and
deal with it it isn't.

Cheers, T i m

On 08/06/2021 14:59, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:50:24 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 19:15, T i m wrote:

Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Pasta meals usually involve lots of (cheap) tomatoes - a known trigger
for arthritic pain.

The Aldi pasta sauce contains tomatoes but I didn't add any extra in
this instance.

So, you constantly harass me because you are concerned about my wife's
*choice* to eat such things (because she likes to, even with her
arthritis) but you can't tell me why you have chosen to not eat cows
or sheep?

Many of us post to correct your lies and fallacious claims.

No harassment intended. If you stopped posting lies you wouldn't feel
harassed.

On 08/06/2021 15:10, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

snip

So, Spuke, WHY don't you eat cows and sheep?

groan Freedom of choice -

snip bs

Yes, I know you have the 'freedom of choice' but that isn't an answer
to *why / only* sheep and cows that you don't eat?

There must be *some* sort of rational reason, even if it's only part
of your general logical inconsistency and speciesism?

I mean, if when you were a child, happily stamping on chickens and
then were traumatised by your Dad being killed by a cow (when trying
to kill 'it' say) and your Mum killed by a sheep (when trying to do
the same), I would have thought you would *want* to kill cows and
sheep and the best / easiest / legal way to do that is to buy and eat
their flesh? (Ok, someone else actually kills them for you but you are
still causing their deaths eh).

Or maybe the trauma of recalling all that is why you can't answer such
a simple and straightforward question?

Get help for your problem, or at least start eating meat.

--
Spike

On 08/06/2021 13:59, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 07/06/2021 19:15, T i m wrote:

Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Pasta meals usually involve lots of (cheap) tomatoes - a known trigger
for arthritic pain.

The Aldi pasta sauce contains tomatoes but I didn't add any extra in
this instance.

So, you constantly harass me because you are concerned about my wife's
*choice* to eat such things (because she likes to, even with her arthritis)

I never mentioned your wife.

But now you have dragged her into the discussion, I take it you lecture
her constantly about her cognitive dissonance concerning tomatoes and
joint pain. No?


--
Spike

On 08/06/2021 15:51, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:11:23 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

And they do have shops in Scotland now you know? ;-)


You should visit some of these crofts and you might be amazed
how far you have to drive your diesel vehicle to get there,

I have, and it was on a petrol motorcycle (doing 50 mpg). ;-)

and
how far they have to drive to get to a 'shop'.

Ah yes, and for all those *choosing* to move there or even stay there,
it's part of the cost of living there.

eg. We *choose* to holiday in the country but we accept that it's not
as convenient as living a walk from everything.

Please explain how so-called 'rewilding' pays the bills ?

Grants. Keep up ...

You mean TAXES

https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants

You either leave it to nature (costs nothing) or pay someone who is
stuck there [1] to look after it for us all.

If ypu are going to use (mostly) English taxes to pay those
grants, then they might as well use animals to take care of the
management (which they do, very effectively) and a useful byproduct
is food for the people who live there to make sure the animals
don't escape.

What's more, now we have escaped the EU we could ditch all those
idiotic regulations that forced the closure of many abbatoirs and
resulted in animals being transported longer distances.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Many who were born in the back of beyond don't want to live in
isolation in shift and mud all their lives and move to the towns.

p.s. I saw on Countryfile where they were offering old farmers money
to **** off to allow new people in (who would have a more 'forward
thinking' attitude towards the environment).


Or not, or the same. What makes you think that existing farmers
don't care about the environment ?. From what I can see it is the
regular invasion of (younger) townies, damaging dry-stone walls,
and leaving crap (literally), single-use plastic and bbqs everywhere
who care the least about the environment.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 08:06:40 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

Or maybe the trauma of recalling all that is why you can't answer such
a simple and straightforward question?

Get help for your problem, or at least start eating meat.

The person needing help is the one incapable of answering a simple
question re why they made a specific choice.

I believe it's because you are lying or have something to hide as even
someone as thick as you must know whey they have *chosen* (implying a
decision) to not eat sheep or cows but eat everything else.

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 08:12:06 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 08/06/2021 13:59, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 07/06/2021 19:15, T i m wrote:

Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Pasta meals usually involve lots of (cheap) tomatoes - a known trigger
for arthritic pain.

The Aldi pasta sauce contains tomatoes but I didn't add any extra in
this instance.

So, you constantly harass me because you are concerned about my wife's
*choice* to eat such things (because she likes to, even with her arthritis)

I never mentioned your wife.

Liar. As soon as I mentioned my wife had arthritis previously you
mention the link to tomatoes (or some other troll, they all smell the
same to me).

But now you have dragged her into the discussion, I take it you lecture
her constantly about her cognitive dissonance concerning tomatoes and
joint pain. No?

Nope, she has made a choice but unlike your *choice* to (allegedly)
not eat sheep or cows, she can vocalise a reason why.

I'm sure whatever power is prohibiting you from answering such a
simple question would forgive you if it was the truth?

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 09:24:50 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Please explain how so-called 'rewilding' pays the bills ?

Grants. Keep up ...

You mean TAXES

Strange, that link says it's grants that *pay* the people to do it?

https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants

You either leave it to nature (costs nothing) or pay someone who is
stuck there [1] to look after it for us all.

If ypu are going to use (mostly) English taxes to pay those
grants,

Obscure statement 1.

then they might as well use animals to take care of the
management (which they do, very effectively) and a useful byproduct
is food for the people who live there to make sure the animals
don't escape.

Or not. A much kinder way than exploiting animals is to just let it
rewild like it would have been before we turned up. Yes, ideally those
people would just **** off and stop being a burden on others trying to
have their subsistence life when the world won't support that number
of people that way.

What's more, now we have escaped the EU we could ditch all those
idiotic regulations that forced the closure of many abbatoirs and
resulted in animals being transported longer distances.

Or, we could stop the idiotic approach of considering sentient beings
as food when we don't need to?

Cheers, T i m

[1] Many who were born in the back of beyond don't want to live in
isolation in shift and mud all their lives and move to the towns.

p.s. I saw on Countryfile where they were offering old farmers money
to **** off to allow new people in (who would have a more 'forward
thinking' attitude towards the environment).


Or not, or the same. What makes you think that existing farmers
don't care about the environment ?.

I didn't, the Countryfile report on what the government were doing
did. Existing long term farmers are similar to existing long term
carnists in that they are lest likely to be sufficiently forward
thinking to be willing to change. They are 'more likely' to be 'stuck
in their ways'.

From what I can see it is the
regular invasion of (younger) townies, damaging dry-stone walls,
and leaving crap (literally), single-use plastic and bbqs everywhere
who care the least about the environment.

Ah, you are now trying to conflate inconsiderate 'visitors' to the
country with people choosing to live there.

It would be like saying 'bloody countryfolk driving their tractors /
Series Landrovers on the public highways, causing all sorts delays to
townies in proper cars and dropping their mud everywhere ... (that the
taxpayer has to pay to clean up).'

Cheers, T i m

On 09/06/2021 09:52, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

Or maybe the trauma of recalling all that is why you can't answer such
a simple and straightforward question?

Get help for your problem, or at least start eating meat.

The person needing help is the one incapable of answering a simple
question re why they made a specific choice.

I believe it's because you are lying or have something to hide as even
someone as thick as you must know whey they have *chosen* (implying a
decision) to not eat sheep or cows but eat everything else.

I told you in a previous post about how choices can be influenced,
destroying the argument you were making about the issue. I knew you
wouldn't understand it, but it had to be said, even though you are now
going around the cycle yet again. Your description of your family
sitting around the table (not necessarily literally) and saying to you
"Well, *we've* gone vegan, what are *you* going to do?" suggests that in
reality you had little freedom in the matter.

But more importantly, I take your attitude to freedom of choice, perhaps
arising from that incident, as a driver for your evangelical
anti-meat-eating veganism, as you want to impose *your* choices on other
people. just as you tried to with your dog, until you found out this
could lead to trouble. So I can see why you need to defeat the idea of
freedom of choice. But it isn't going to work.

--
Spike

On 09/06/2021 09:57, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 08/06/2021 13:59, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 07/06/2021 19:15, T i m wrote:

Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Pasta meals usually involve lots of (cheap) tomatoes - a known trigger
for arthritic pain.

The Aldi pasta sauce contains tomatoes but I didn't add any extra in
this instance.

So, you constantly harass me because you are concerned about my wife's
*choice* to eat such things (because she likes to, even with her arthritis)

I never mentioned your wife.

Liar. As soon as I mentioned my wife had arthritis previously you
mention the link to tomatoes (or some other troll, they all smell the
same to me).

T i m : "As soon as I mentioned my wife..."

Spike: "I never mentioned your wife"

T i m : "Liar"

Hmmm. I think we can see who is telling porkies here...

But now you have dragged her into the discussion, I take it you lecture
her constantly about her cognitive dissonance concerning tomatoes and
joint pain. No?

Nope,

That's a pity, as you put yourself forward as an expert on the subject
of CD, but obviously daren't mention the topic at home. Are you
hen-pecked? Perhaps you ought to stamp on that.

--
Spike

On 09/06/2021 11:26, Spike wrote:
On 09/06/2021 09:57, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 08/06/2021 13:59, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 07/06/2021 19:15, T i m wrote:

Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Pasta meals usually involve lots of (cheap) tomatoes - a known trigger
for arthritic pain.

The Aldi pasta sauce contains tomatoes but I didn't add any extra in
this instance.

So, you constantly harass me because you are concerned about my wife's
*choice* to eat such things (because she likes to, even with her arthritis)

I never mentioned your wife.

Liar. As soon as I mentioned my wife had arthritis previously you
mention the link to tomatoes (or some other troll, they all smell the
same to me).

T i m : "As soon as I mentioned my wife..."

Spike: "I never mentioned your wife"

T i m : "Liar"

Hmmm. I think we can see who is telling porkies here...

But now you have dragged her into the discussion, I take it you lecture
her constantly about her cognitive dissonance concerning tomatoes and
joint pain. No?

Nope,

That's a pity, as you put yourself forward as an expert on the subject
of CD, but obviously daren't mention the topic at home. Are you
hen-pecked? Perhaps you ought to stamp on that.

T i m is ****ed that his wife won't let him eat meat. He misses those
kebabs he used to munch on but won't dare to say this.

On 09/06/2021 09:24, Andrew wrote:
On 08/06/2021 15:51, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:11:23 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

And they do have shops in Scotland now you know? ;-)


You should visit some of these crofts and you might be amazed
how far you have to drive your diesel vehicle to get there,

I have, and it was on a petrol motorcycle (doing 50 mpg). ;-)

and
how far they have to drive to get to a 'shop'.

Ah yes, and for all those *choosing* to move there or even stay there,
it's part of the cost of living there.

eg. We *choose* to holiday in the country but we accept that it's not
as convenient as living a walk from everything.

Please explain how so-called 'rewilding' pays the bills ?

Grants. Keep up ...

You mean TAXES

Perhaps fanatical vegans should pay this tax?

https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants

You either leave it to nature (costs nothing) or pay someone who is
stuck there [1] to look after it for us all.

If ypu are going to use (mostly) English taxes to pay those
grants, then they might as well use animals to take care of the
management (which they do, very effectively) and a useful byproduct
is food for the people who live there to make sure the animals
don't escape.

What's more, now we have escaped the EU we could ditch all those
idiotic regulations that forced the closure of many abbatoirs and
resulted in animals being transported longer distances.

It is shameful there are only a handful of abattoirs left in the UK. And
the consequence of moving animals for long durations where it is
difficult to make them comfortable.

Given how cheap CCTV and recording equipment is these days there is no
need to have a vet on each site. There are also exemption for religious
slaughter where vets are not required, and these loopholes should be closed.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Many who were born in the back of beyond don't want to live in
isolation in shift and mud all their lives and move to the towns.

p.s. I saw on Countryfile where they were offering old farmers money
to **** off to allow new people in (who would have a more 'forward
thinking' attitude towards the environment).


Or not, or the same. What makes you think that existing farmers
don't care about the environment ?. From what I can see it is the
regular invasion of (younger) townies, damaging dry-stone walls,
and leaving crap (literally), single-use plastic and bbqs everywhere
who care the least about the environment.

I don't get this argument either, a young businessman is far more likely
to look at the accounts bottom line than show a concern over the
countryside.

On 09/06/2021 11:10, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 09:24:50 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Please explain how so-called 'rewilding' pays the bills ?

Grants. Keep up ...

You mean TAXES

Strange, that link says it's grants that *pay* the people to do it?

https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants

You either leave it to nature (costs nothing) or pay someone who is
stuck there [1] to look after it for us all.

If ypu are going to use (mostly) English taxes to pay those
grants,

Obscure statement 1.

The alternative is some fictitious money tree. Would you regard yourself
to be a socialist perchance?

then they might as well use animals to take care of the
management (which they do, very effectively) and a useful byproduct
is food for the people who live there to make sure the animals
don't escape.

Or not. A much kinder way than exploiting animals is to just let it
rewild like it would have been before we turned up. Yes, ideally those
people would just **** off and stop being a burden on others trying to
have their subsistence life when the world won't support that number
of people that way.

What's more, now we have escaped the EU we could ditch all those
idiotic regulations that forced the closure of many abbatoirs and
resulted in animals being transported longer distances.

Or, we could stop the idiotic approach of considering sentient beings
as food when we don't need to?

Hardly idiotic; where it shown that eating meat and meat products is
part of a healthy natural balanced diet.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Many who were born in the back of beyond don't want to live in
isolation in shift and mud all their lives and move to the towns.

p.s. I saw on Countryfile where they were offering old farmers money
to **** off to allow new people in (who would have a more 'forward
thinking' attitude towards the environment).


Or not, or the same. What makes you think that existing farmers
don't care about the environment ?.

I didn't, the Countryfile report on what the government were doing
did. Existing long term farmers are similar to existing long term
carnists in that they are lest likely to be sufficiently forward
thinking to be willing to change. They are 'more likely' to be 'stuck
in their ways'.

Change is not always good. We have evolved to be omnivores, and require
meat as part of a natural balanced diet. We are not carnists or
carnivores like dogs or cats.

It's unlikely any young farmer will be in doubt that feeding his
children a vegan diet to his children will irreparably damage them and
put them at the bottom of the class.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 08:12:06 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

But now you have dragged her into the discussion, I take it you lecture
her constantly about her cognitive dissonance concerning tomatoes and
joint pain. No?

Sorry, I missed this point the first time round because I wasn't
expecting anyone to be so stupid but you really are!

My Mrs is fully aware of the discussion of the consumption of tomatoes
and arthritis but *she* chooses for herself if she wants to carry on
eating them or not. No dissonance, she's fully aware of the facts,
her free choice.

What you are getting confused about is the cognitive dissonance that
allows people to both 'love' and 'kill' *innocent / sentient others*.

But how are you getting on down that hole, digging away with all the
sheep and cows you don't eat and all the other animals keeping a safe
distance from you (especially the chickens obviously)?

Cheers, T i m

On 09/06/2021 13:46, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 08:12:06 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

But now you have dragged her into the discussion, I take it you lecture
her constantly about her cognitive dissonance concerning tomatoes and
joint pain. No?

Sorry, I missed this point the first time round because I wasn't
expecting anyone to be so stupid but you really are!

My Mrs is fully aware of the discussion of the consumption of tomatoes
and arthritis but *she* chooses for herself if she wants to carry on
eating them or not. No dissonance, she's fully aware of the facts,
her free choice.

What you are getting confused about is the cognitive dissonance that
allows people to both 'love' and 'kill' *innocent / sentient others*.

I would like the idea of killing a pet for food. Is that what you're
trying to say?

But how are you getting on down that hole, digging away with all the
sheep and cows you don't eat and all the other animals keeping a safe
distance from you (especially the chickens obviously)?

Is that not the sort of choice your wife makes? Does she dig holes too?

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:24:19 +0000, Spike
wrote:
snip

I believe it's because you are lying or have something to hide as even
someone as thick as you must know whey they have *chosen* (implying a
decision) to not eat sheep or cows but eat everything else.

I told you in a previous post about how choices can be influenced,

snip subsequent bs unread

So what *ACTUALLY* influenced you to make the choice not to eat sheep
and cows?

I mean, NOTHING you have said in your desperate attempts to not answer
the simple and straightforward question was either new so informative
to me, all it did is reinforce the point that you are a complete and
utter nutjob.

Adult: 'Why didn't you eat your sprouts?'
5 year old: 'They didn't taste very nice'.
Adult: 'Thank you for that straightforward answer to a simple
question'.

Cheers, T i m

On 09/06/2021 12:46, T i m wrote:

My Mrs is fully aware of the discussion of the consumption of tomatoes
and arthritis but *she* chooses for herself if she wants to carry on
eating them or not. No dissonance, she's fully aware of the facts,
her free choice.

That's the very definition of Cognitive Dissonance.

Good luck in getting that across.

--
Spike

On 09/06/2021 13:07, T i m could have written, but didn't:

Adult: 'Why didn't you eat your sprouts?'
5 year old: 'Freedom of choice'.
Adult: 'Thank you for that straightforward answer to a simple
question'.


--
Spike

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 13:29:21 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 09/06/2021 13:07, T i m could have written, but didn't:

Adult: 'Why didn't you eat your sprouts?'
5 year old: 'Freedom of choice'.
Adult: 'Thank you for that straightforward answer to a simple
question'.

No, I didn't because that's *no answer* is it, it's just an
acknowledgement of the status quo.

What is it with you and your desperate need to avoid answering the
question?

I get you have the 'freedom of choice' to not answer the question but
it isn't an answer to the actual question, something that specifically
pertinent to this particular topic / thread.

So, given you actually like having someone to talk at for a change (so
last chance) *why* don't you eat sheep and cows?

Even someone a thick as you should be able to come up with something,
even if it's just more lies and BS?

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 13:25:07 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 09/06/2021 12:46, T i m wrote:

My Mrs is fully aware of the discussion of the consumption of tomatoes
and arthritis but *she* chooses for herself if she wants to carry on
eating them or not. No dissonance, she's fully aware of the facts,
her free choice.

That's the very definition of Cognitive Dissonance.

Nope, that would be a denial of the potential link between the
consumption of tomatoes and arthritis. That isn't the case here.

Good luck in getting that across.

Don't need to, it's her 'freedom of choice', just like it is for those
who continue to smoke after being made aware of the risks or eating
meat once they are aware of the price paid by others.

It's the intentional (soften subconscious) disconnection from the
facts that is the dissonance, not the *conscious* and full
consideration of same.

People who continue to smoke when fully aware of the risks are just
making their own choice (for them at least).

You are welcome.

Cheers, T i m

On 09/06/2021 14:08, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 09/06/2021 13:07, T i m could have written, but didn't:

Adult: 'Why didn't you eat your sprouts?'
5 year old: 'Freedom of choice'.
Adult: 'Thank you for that straightforward answer to a simple
question'.

No, I didn't because that's *no answer* is it, it's just an
acknowledgement of the status quo.

What is it with you and your desperate need to avoid answering the
question?

I get you have the 'freedom of choice' to not answer the question but
it isn't an answer to the actual question, something that specifically
pertinent to this particular topic / thread.

So, given you actually like having someone to talk at for a change (so
last chance) *why* don't you eat sheep and cows?

Even someone a thick as you should be able to come up with something,
even if it's just more lies and BS?

You're really struggling with the concept of freedom, aren't you. I
suppose that stems from your dystopian vision of a meat-free world and
your anti-meat-eating veganist crusade, and removing freedom is your way
to attain these aims.

--
Spike

On 09/06/2021 15:07, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 09/06/2021 12:46, T i m wrote:

My Mrs is fully aware of the discussion of the consumption of tomatoes
and arthritis but *she* chooses for herself if she wants to carry on
eating them or not. No dissonance, she's fully aware of the facts,
her free choice.

That's the very definition of Cognitive Dissonance.

Nope, that would be a denial of the potential link between the
consumption of tomatoes and arthritis. That isn't the case here.

Good luck in getting that across.

Don't need to, it's her 'freedom of choice', just like it is for those
who continue to smoke after being made aware of the risks or eating
meat once they are aware of the price paid by others.

It's the intentional (soften subconscious) disconnection from the
facts that is the dissonance, not the *conscious* and full
consideration of same.

Just what do you think the 'Cognitive' part of 'Cognitive Dissonance' means?

People who continue to smoke when fully aware of the risks are just
making their own choice (for them at least).

You're tolling, aren't you? Even a stunted-intelligence vegan can't be
that dim.

--
Spike

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:57:58 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

Don't need to, it's her 'freedom of choice', just like it is for those
who continue to smoke after being made aware of the risks or eating
meat once they are aware of the price paid by others.

It's the intentional (soften subconscious) disconnection from the
facts that is the dissonance, not the *conscious* and full
consideration of same.

Just what do you think the 'Cognitive' part of 'Cognitive Dissonance' means?

More to me than to you obviously.

People who continue to smoke when fully aware of the risks are just
making their own choice (for them at least).

You're tolling, aren't you?

Oh the irony.

Even a stunted-intelligence vegan can't be
that dim.

You are right, they probably wouldn't be as dim as someone who doesn't
know why they don't eat sheep and cows but eat everything else.

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:56:55 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

Even someone a thick as you should be able to come up with something,
even if it's just more lies and BS?

You're really struggling with the concept of freedom, aren't you.

Nope.

snip distraction / denial BS

Right, given you are now saying you are *unwilling* (probably because
you are unable) to answer *my* simple question of *why* you don't eat
sheep and cows (something *you* were very proud to try to use to
denigrate my vegan efforts at the time), you can now go back in my
'Ignore the stupid troll' list and just carry on wittering on to
yourself. Nutjob.

Cheers, T i m