On 26/04/2021 02:01, Fredxx wrote:

It's a simple question. How many cows, sheep, pigs, geese would exist in
say the UK if everyone was a fanatic vegan?

And what would be left to order from your local take-away?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:54:26 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



1) Most things are said to taste like chicken (which is pretty bland).

Only by fools with stuff like steak, roast lamb, roast pork, roast beef etc
etc etc.

Amazing what you clinically insane sociopathic senile asshole will quarrel
about, senile cretin!

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

T i m wrote:

4) Or you don't heat (or store) meat properly and it gives you food
poisoning.

5) You don't wash your hands or food surfaces properly after handling
raw meat and it gives you food poisoning.

These things are hardly unique to meat products. Botulism is lethal
and happens with vegetables - so maybe we shouldn't eat vegetables
either?


6) Few would eat meat if they had to kill it themselves. This is
because it's 'out of sight, out of mind' (often in a window less
building in the middle of nowhere) and years of conditioning and not
aligning their actions with their morals. They provide safe passage
for a hedgehog but then eat a rabbit (unless you are Tyson Fury).

You don't clear the sewers out, you don't man the refuse lorry - there
are hundreds and thousands of things we don't do ourselves and depend
on others to do. It doesn't necessarily mean those things we don't do
are inherently bad.

--
Chris Green
·

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 02:01:13 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip

It's a simple question.

It's not. It's stupid trolling from stupid people.

How many cows, sheep, pigs, geese would exist in
say the UK if everyone was a fanatic vegan?

How many do you think? How many were here before man started 'farming'
them?

And is no such thing as a 'fanatic vegan' but some can be more
passionate re their desire to stop the suffering and exploitation of
animals than others.

You are either happy to cause suffering and death to animals or you
aren't.

There are straight (dietary) vegans and ethical vegans.

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:22:53 +0100, williamwright
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 13:48, T i m wrote:

You *really* are a stupid troll aren't you?


It didn't take long before you resorted to personal abuse.

Oh the irony.

Doing that is
always a sign that you know you've lost the argument.

Bwhahaha, yeah, right.

Did you read that in your 'How to play the victim when you are really
the aggressor' handbook?

https://ibb.co/xG75RCs

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 01:45:22 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip

Add high levels of protein, zinc, iron, vitamin B12 and omega-3 fatty
acids and you have the holy grail of nutrition right there.

(things you can get without causing pain and suffering to an animal).

Of course, through improvements in animal welfare.

Ah, back to only raping your wife once a month rather than once a
week, or giving you slave fresh water rather than making them drink
out of a pond. Well done you, I'm sure they would both consider you
are real caring guy for doing that.

But you won't support
or endorse these campaigns.

Over and above stopping the entire unnecessary commodification of
animals, no. But who says (apart from you of course as you make most
stuff up) that I don't?

This is the crux of your issue.

https://ibb.co/9Z1c6tZ

We know you are confused / torn. You want to stop everyone eating Foie
gras but are happy for them to eat chickens that have been fed such
high protein foods that their legs break unable to carry their own
weight. The penny will drop with you eventually.

Piglets have their tails (and teeth) cut off with no anaesthetic, what
do you think of that. What are you doing about that. What can you do
about that (easily)?

Etc etc.

snip

Cheers, T i m

"williamwright" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2021 13:48, T i m wrote:

You *really* are a stupid troll aren't you?

It didn't take long before you resorted to personal abuse.

Snap.

Doing that is always a sign that you know you've lost the argument.

Bull**** it is.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:21:26 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

T i m wrote:

4) Or you don't heat (or store) meat properly and it gives you food
poisoning.

5) You don't wash your hands or food surfaces properly after handling
raw meat and it gives you food poisoning.

These things are hardly unique to meat products. Botulism is lethal
and happens with vegetables

Of course, but how 'often' is such a thing a risk compared with say
poor handling and hygiene around handling uncooked chicken?

- so maybe we shouldn't eat vegetables
either?

I can't remember all the health / nutrition / environmental bodies
recommending that?


6) Few would eat meat if they had to kill it themselves. This is
because it's 'out of sight, out of mind' (often in a window less
building in the middle of nowhere) and years of conditioning and not
aligning their actions with their morals. They provide safe passage
for a hedgehog but then eat a rabbit (unless you are Tyson Fury).

You don't clear the sewers out, you don't man the refuse lorry - there
are hundreds and thousands of things we don't do ourselves and depend
on others to do.

How many of those other jobs take lives though?

It doesn't necessarily mean those things we don't do
are inherently bad.

No, but if you don't believe the unnecessary consumption /
exploitation of animals is our right (and I don't of course), a better
comparison of similar job roles to abattoir worker would be POW camp
executioner or a driver in 'Death Race 2000'. ;-)

And can you please explain ... if the routine killing of animals was
'perfectly ok', why do many abattoir workers (and vets associated with
that field) suffer with a form of PTSD? Why do livestock farmers
(even) give up their jobs and give their livestock to a rescue rather
than having them slaughtered?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683

We aren't just talking about what many might consider 'unsavoury'
jobs, (sewer cleaner etc), we are talking about jobs that are
considered to be partaking of immoral acts by an ever growing number
of people as humanity evolves and improves (often too late and too
long of burying their head in the sand, as with plastic pollution
etc).

Even if we were to consider the sheer number of animals that die
necessary (eg. by people have been living as ethical vegans for many
(thousand) years) we are also likely to suffer from 'Psychic
numbing'.

We see a dead fox by the side of the road and most people would be
upset (especially if it was not externally 'damaged'. We might be made
to feel sick if it's guts were hanging out (yet we buy and eat 'guts'
from the butcher?)).

We see a heap of 10 dead foxes by a hunt HQ and we might be *slightly*
more upset. We aren't 10x more upset.

We see a lorry with 10,000 fox fur pelts and we may not be upset at
all (vegans would of course because we understand the holocaust that
created such).

The same things applied to the Nazi death camps (assuming the guards
could cope themselves and why they invented the gas chambers of
course) and is happening with Corona virus:

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-de...bf8fe07d9.html

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:27:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"williamwright" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2021 13:48, T i m wrote:

You *really* are a stupid troll aren't you?

It didn't take long before you resorted to personal abuse.

Snap.

Doing that is always a sign that you know you've lost the argument.

Bull**** it is.

LOL!

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:27:54 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:21:26 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

T i m wrote:

4) Or you don't heat (or store) meat properly and it gives you food
poisoning.

5) You don't wash your hands or food surfaces properly after handling
raw meat and it gives you food poisoning.

These things are hardly unique to meat products. Botulism is lethal
and happens with vegetables

Of course, but how 'often' is such a thing a risk compared with say
poor handling and hygiene around handling uncooked chicken?

I've no idea, have you?

6) Few would eat meat if they had to kill it themselves. This is
because it's 'out of sight, out of mind' (often in a window less
building in the middle of nowhere) and years of conditioning and not
aligning their actions with their morals. They provide safe passage
for a hedgehog but then eat a rabbit (unless you are Tyson Fury).

You don't clear the sewers out, you don't man the refuse lorry - there
are hundreds and thousands of things we don't do ourselves and depend
on others to do.

How many of those other jobs take lives though?

Quite a few, building is a very dangerous occupation, should we
therefore build our own houses?

Hygiene services kill quite a lot of animals too, should we stop those?


Plus that's a total red herring, it's nothing to do with your original
point!

--
Chris Green
·

On 26/04/2021 09:25, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 02:01:13 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip

It's a simple question.

It's not. It's stupid trolling from stupid people.

How many fighting bulls are there in the UK. One excuse to continue
bull-fighting in Spain is that the breed would become extinct if
bull-fighting stopped.

Only a blinkered fanatic would think it a stupid question from a troll.

How many cows, sheep, pigs, geese would exist in
say the UK if everyone was a fanatic vegan?

How many do you think? How many were here before man started 'farming'
them?

Given the UK was inhabited by forests before man, the landscape has
changed dramatically. I could see sheep on some highlands but I can't
see the retention of cattle without some serious subsidy.

And is no such thing as a 'fanatic vegan' but some can be more
passionate re their desire to stop the suffering and exploitation of
animals than others.

In the same way you call Brexiters fanatics you accept one can be
passionate to become a fanatic. You are a fanatic.

The difference between a fanatic vegan like yourself, and most vegans,
is they care about suffering while an animal is a live.

You have admitted you don't care, and that you're simply determined to
stop us eating meat out of envy because we're allowed to and you're not.

You are either happy to cause suffering and death to animals or you
aren't.

Quite the opposite. I was to improve animal welfare while an animal is
alive, and you don't.

There are straight (dietary) vegans and ethical vegans.

There is also a third class of fanatical vegans, driven by envy.

On 26/04/2021 10:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"williamwright" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2021 13:48, T i m wrote:

You *really* are a stupid troll aren't you?

It didn't take long before you resorted to personal abuse.

Snap.

Doing that is always a sign that you know you've lost the argument.

Bull**** it is.

Then you and T i m have more in common than I thought.

Generally when you have no further case to put forward and resort to
abuse it is a sure sign to everyone around you the argument is lost.

Anything else is denial.

On 26/04/2021 10:35, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:21:26 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

T i m wrote:

4) Or you don't heat (or store) meat properly and it gives you food
poisoning.

5) You don't wash your hands or food surfaces properly after handling
raw meat and it gives you food poisoning.

These things are hardly unique to meat products. Botulism is lethal
and happens with vegetables

Of course, but how 'often' is such a thing a risk compared with say
poor handling and hygiene around handling uncooked chicken?

- so maybe we shouldn't eat vegetables
either?

I can't remember all the health / nutrition / environmental bodies
recommending that?

we keep being told to wash fruit and veg before consumption.

6) Few would eat meat if they had to kill it themselves. This is
because it's 'out of sight, out of mind' (often in a window less
building in the middle of nowhere) and years of conditioning and not
aligning their actions with their morals. They provide safe passage
for a hedgehog but then eat a rabbit (unless you are Tyson Fury).

You don't clear the sewers out, you don't man the refuse lorry - there
are hundreds and thousands of things we don't do ourselves and depend
on others to do.

How many of those other jobs take lives though?

The only one I can think of is an executioner.

It doesn't necessarily mean those things we don't do
are inherently bad.

No, but if you don't believe the unnecessary consumption /
exploitation of animals is our right (and I don't of course), a better
comparison of similar job roles to abattoir worker would be POW camp
executioner or a driver in 'Death Race 2000'. ;-)

You are welcome to your beliefs. If you want us to follow your lead then
don't show yourself as a fanatic that nobody in their right mind would
want to imitate.
And can you please explain ... if the routine killing of animals was
'perfectly ok', why do many abattoir workers (and vets associated with
that field) suffer with a form of PTSD? Why do livestock farmers
(even) give up their jobs and give their livestock to a rescue rather
than having them slaughtered?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683

I couldn't work at heights. Some jobs aren't made for us.

We aren't just talking about what many might consider 'unsavoury'
jobs, (sewer cleaner etc), we are talking about jobs that are
considered to be partaking of immoral acts by an ever growing number
of people as humanity evolves and improves (often too late and too
long of burying their head in the sand, as with plastic pollution
etc).

Are you now criticising sex workers?

Even if we were to consider the sheer number of animals that die
necessary (eg. by people have been living as ethical vegans for many
(thousand) years) we are also likely to suffer from 'Psychic
numbing'.

We all become numb at some point following an event. Like the death of a
loved one. It is something you live with and accept. Of course some
can't move on and need help. They sometimes start a crusade and seen as
a pariah to those around them.
We see a dead fox by the side of the road and most people would be
upset (especially if it was not externally 'damaged'. We might be made
to feel sick if it's guts were hanging out (yet we buy and eat 'guts'
from the butcher?)).

We see a heap of 10 dead foxes by a hunt HQ and we might be *slightly*
more upset. We aren't 10x more upset.

We see a lorry with 10,000 fox fur pelts and we may not be upset at
all (vegans would of course because we understand the holocaust that
created such).

The same things applied to the Nazi death camps (assuming the guards
could cope themselves and why they invented the gas chambers of
course) and is happening with Corona virus:

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-de...bf8fe07d9.html

Bringing up that old chestnut is the very definition of a failed argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

On 26/04/2021 09:45, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 01:45:22 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip

Add high levels of protein, zinc, iron, vitamin B12 and omega-3 fatty
acids and you have the holy grail of nutrition right there.

(things you can get without causing pain and suffering to an animal).

Of course, through improvements in animal welfare.

Ah, back to only raping your wife once a month rather than once a
week, or giving you slave fresh water rather than making them drink
out of a pond. Well done you, I'm sure they would both consider you
are real caring guy for doing that.

You really have lost it. Get help and visit your doctor, ask for
counselling.

But you won't support
or endorse these campaigns.

Over and above stopping the entire unnecessary commodification of
animals, no. But who says (apart from you of course as you make most
stuff up) that I don't?

This is the crux of your issue.

https://ibb.co/9Z1c6tZ

Quite, you have no empathy towards meat eaters, just pure envy so that
we might becomes vegans. Except you're the worst advert of veganism.

We know you are confused / torn. You want to stop everyone eating Foie
gras but are happy for them to eat chickens that have been fed such
high protein foods that their legs break unable to carry their own
weight. The penny will drop with you eventually.

We? You are a narcissist if you believe you know how I think. I am not
confused or torn. Any fanatical vegan giving meat to their dog will be
confused/torn.

Ethical veganism is where keeping pets and feeding them meat is a
contradistinction their to beliefs. But then you're a fanatical vegan
driven by envy we're allowed to eat meat and you're not, yet happy to
keep a pet and feed it meat.

Piglets have their tails (and teeth) cut off with no anaesthetic, what
do you think of that. What are you doing about that. What can you do
about that (easily)?

How many pain killers were given When your dogs came around from their
anaesthetic after their genitals were mutilated?

If you want pigs to have a local anaesthetic prior to their tails being
docked then campaign for this. If you don't care then don't.

Etc etc.

Quite:

snip

The bits you weren't able to provide a counter argument.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:00:59 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:21:26 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

T i m wrote:

4) Or you don't heat (or store) meat properly and it gives you food
poisoning.

5) You don't wash your hands or food surfaces properly after handling
raw meat and it gives you food poisoning.

These things are hardly unique to meat products. Botulism is lethal
and happens with vegetables

Of course, but how 'often' is such a thing a risk compared with say
poor handling and hygiene around handling uncooked chicken?

I've no idea, have you?

No, but you stated the counter argument and I've never seen any chef
on TV or anyone making any points re hygiene re handling veg but have
re meat (particularly) chicken and many times?

6) Few would eat meat if they had to kill it themselves. This is
because it's 'out of sight, out of mind' (often in a window less
building in the middle of nowhere) and years of conditioning and not
aligning their actions with their morals. They provide safe passage
for a hedgehog but then eat a rabbit (unless you are Tyson Fury).

You don't clear the sewers out, you don't man the refuse lorry - there
are hundreds and thousands of things we don't do ourselves and depend
on others to do.

How many of those other jobs take lives though?

Quite a few, building is a very dangerous occupation, should we
therefore build our own houses?

No, cummon Chris, you aren't that ignorant and now showing
desperation. ;-(

We are not talking about accidents here but the *intentional* killing
of thousands of animals every day when very few are *needed* to be
killed. I appreciate it's very difficult to answer, without confirming
you don't believe animals have a right to life or the fallacy that we
need (especially in countries with high levels of obesity and loads of
alternatives) to eat them to survive.

Hygiene services kill quite a lot of animals too, should we stop those?

Please try to stay sensible. We are talking about the biggest problem,
the mass killing and exploitation of sentient creatures and we can
work down from there. ;-)


Plus that's a total red herring, it's nothing to do with your original
point!

Whenever anyone mentions 'meat' we generally have two camps. Those
that like the taste, don't care about the fact that animals have to
die for them to get it ... and those that don't want animals to die
and so don't eat meat (for that reason alone, there are plenty of
other 'good reasons' for all of us).

The facts re farmed animal cruelty (as that is what it is, compared
with them living 'naturally') and death are fact and so anyone trying
to counter them isn't using any logic and certainly not using any
compassion or benevolence.

What they then do is to drag out any strawmen to try to justify their
self centred lifestyle choices (and hence the topic drift).

Now, I 'get' that you (like me till relatively recently) were probably
brought up in a world where the farming of living creatures to kill
and exploit was 'normalised', so it's hardly surprising we (often)
don't see, or want to see / consider that these intelligent and
sentient creatures have feelings, families / social groups, feel pain
(mental and physical) and look forward to and remember all sorts of
things, just like us.

However, some of us, when it's brought to our conscious, when we
actually start to look and consider our actions, question that our
morals (where we wouldn't intentionally hurt a dog or cat or kill an
animal for no good reason (putting an injured animal out of it's
misery may well be 'a good reason')) don't align with our morals,
therefore we are then in conflict.

'Most people' are in this exact same position but suppress their
desire to balance that conflict (by not killing and exploiting animals
for no justifiable reason), because they have been 1) conditioned to
consider it acceptable or even essential and 2) have therefore
programmed their taste buds to crave fats and the process of eating
'meat'.

Did you read this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683

And did you watch the video at the end?

It's quite interesting because it demonstrates the whole ignorance /
indoctrination / dissonance and even taste reward pleasure process we
all suffer when it comes to eating meat (except in this case I don't
believe it's actually the meat, more the coating / flavouring and oils
we enjoy) [1].

Cheers, T i m

[1] I have *never* been comfortable with eating meat on the bone and
certainly have never eaten something that still has it's head on or
looked like it did originally. The effect is the same as that for the
presenter of the video above at the end of the film. 'Realisation'.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 12:46:21 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 09:45, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 01:45:22 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip

Add high levels of protein, zinc, iron, vitamin B12 and omega-3 fatty
acids and you have the holy grail of nutrition right there.

(things you can get without causing pain and suffering to an animal).

Of course, through improvements in animal welfare.

Ah, back to only raping your wife once a month rather than once a
week, or giving you slave fresh water rather than making them drink
out of a pond. Well done you, I'm sure they would both consider you
are real caring guy for doing that.

You really have lost it. Get help and visit your doctor, ask for
counselling.

For what, I'm not the one labouring under some BS idea of what
improving welfare actually means.

But you won't support
or endorse these campaigns.

Over and above stopping the entire unnecessary commodification of
animals, no. But who says (apart from you of course as you make most
stuff up) that I don't?

This is the crux of your issue.

https://ibb.co/9Z1c6tZ

Quite, you have no empathy towards meat eaters,

Because they aren't the victims.

just pure envy so that
we might becomes vegans.

No, I hope you eat as much red meat as you can (please).

Except you're the worst advert of veganism.

And you are a better one, treating your slaves to lighter chains to
'improve their welfare?

We know you are confused / torn. You want to stop everyone eating Foie
gras but are happy for them to eat chickens that have been fed such
high protein foods that their legs break unable to carry their own
weight. The penny will drop with you eventually.

We?

Sorry 'you', I'm not the one trying to farce everone to stop eating
Foie gras.

You are a narcissist if you believe you know how I think.

Nope. I only need to be an ordinary person to read you like a (sick /
sad) book.

I am not
confused or torn.

Of course you are or you wouldn't be trying to stop people eating
Foie gras whilst happily eating chicken.

Any fanatical vegan giving meat to their dog will be
confused/torn.

It is an issue for sure.

Ethical veganism is where keeping pets and feeding them meat is a
contradistinction their to beliefs.

Agreed.

But then you're a fanatical vegan
driven by envy we're allowed to eat meat and you're not,

Complete and utter lies and BS, a complete and utter fabrication
because you are desperate. Every time you repeat your made up story
displays your increasing desperation.

yet happy to
keep a pet

We don't have a pet.

and feed it meat.

Not 'happy' to do that (obviously) but until the owner can be sure of
it getting a balanced diet, it will continue to be fed some.

Piglets have their tails (and teeth) cut off with no anaesthetic, what
do you think of that. What are you doing about that. What can you do
about that (easily)?

How many pain killers were given When your dogs came around from their
anaesthetic after their genitals were mutilated?

A weeks worth typically but see how you avoid the point that's
happening thousands of times a day, every day.

So:

"Piglets have their tails (and teeth) cut off with no anaesthetic,
what do you think of that. What are you doing about that. What can you
do about that (easily)?"

Lambs / goats have their horn stubs burned off. What are you doing
about that? How many petitions have you signed. What was the outcome?

If you want pigs to have a local anaesthetic prior to their tails being
docked then campaign for this.

Why do they need to be cut off in the first place is *actually* the
point?

If you don't care then don't.

No, I know a better way to avoid all that ...

Etc etc.

Quite:

snip

The bits you weren't able to provide a counter argument.

No, the bits that are such crazy / circular BS that they don't deserve
any consideration whatsoever.

I don't need to provide any counter argument because I'm not the one
advocating causing animals to suffer and die.

Ok, I don't want to have animals killed or made to suffer in my name
so do what I can to avoid that.

You (obviously) don't care if animals suffer and die in your name but
seem to be very sensitive to that statement of fact, and therefore,
desperately try to justify it with all sorts of distraction techniques
(talking about mutilating animals, even though they then go on to live
long and happy lives, not killed when very young like all the animals
you (don't) care about?

Once you have dug yourself into that rabbit hole, you then lash out
with all sort of accusations that you have no was of justifying (like
my B12 levels, even though I've stated we were both recently tested
and the levels were 'normal') and you can't do the same. Instead you
use the *assumption* that because you eat meat, you *will* be getting
sufficient B12 when it's known that 40% of the population (inc meat
eaters) are B12 deficient?

So 99% of what you come out with is unquestionably lies and BS and you
do that because you have NOTHING better.

Just admit (again) that you are above all animals, therefore it's ok
to kill and exploit them and we can be done with it (and why I don't
understand why you are so desperate to argue with me when you know you
have the lower physical (and moral of course, not that you have any
morals) ground. eg, You kill animals, I don't.

Cheers, T i m

On 26/04/2021 02:01, Fredxx wrote:

It's a simple question. How many cows, sheep, pigs, geese would exist in
say the UK if everyone was a fanatic vegan?

Very few. A whole group of species and sub-species, like Herdwick
sheep and Gloucester cows would die out unless enough wealthy
bankers use their bonuses to become hobby farmers and pay to
keep them alive.

D i m cannot bring himself to provide his solution to the
inevitable law of unintended consequences

On 26/04/2021 08:21, alan_m wrote:
On 26/04/2021 02:01, Fredxx wrote:

It's a simple question. How many cows, sheep, pigs, geese would exist
in say the UK if everyone was a fanatic vegan?

And what would be left to order from your local take-away?


Deep-fried tinned banana flowers :-)

Plus a mars bar as a side order in Glasgow.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 12:37:05 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip

- so maybe we shouldn't eat vegetables
either?

I can't remember all the health / nutrition / environmental bodies
recommending that?

we keep being told to wash fruit and veg before consumption.

Are we? Always? No, we are advised to rinse veg to wash off any soil
or other detritus but no making sure we 'wash our hands properly with
soap and water' after touching them.

6) Few would eat meat if they had to kill it themselves. This is
because it's 'out of sight, out of mind' (often in a window less
building in the middle of nowhere) and years of conditioning and not
aligning their actions with their morals. They provide safe passage
for a hedgehog but then eat a rabbit (unless you are Tyson Fury).

You don't clear the sewers out, you don't man the refuse lorry - there
are hundreds and thousands of things we don't do ourselves and depend
on others to do.

How many of those other jobs take lives though?

The only one I can think of is an executioner.

Yes, we have already covered that, they are called 'slaughtermen'.

It doesn't necessarily mean those things we don't do
are inherently bad.

No, but if you don't believe the unnecessary consumption /
exploitation of animals is our right (and I don't of course), a better
comparison of similar job roles to abattoir worker would be POW camp
executioner or a driver in 'Death Race 2000'. ;-)

You are welcome to your beliefs.

No beliefs involved (other than yours, thinking you are a god and have
full right over all animals).

If you want us to follow your lead

No, I don't want *you* to. I want you to eat all the red meat you can.

then
don't show yourself as a fanatic that nobody in their right mind would
want to imitate.

People 'in their right mind' see it for the passion and concern it is
(even if they don't agree with it personally). Only trolls see it as
anything else.

And can you please explain ... if the routine killing of animals was
'perfectly ok', why do many abattoir workers (and vets associated with
that field) suffer with a form of PTSD? Why do livestock farmers
(even) give up their jobs and give their livestock to a rescue rather
than having them slaughtered?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683

I couldn't work at heights.

What has that got to do with a job where killing *is* the job?

Some jobs aren't made for us.

I would suggest few jobs are made for us (especially you), and in your
case, that includes the hypocrisy of eating animals but not being able
to kill what you eat.


We aren't just talking about what many might consider 'unsavoury'
jobs, (sewer cleaner etc), we are talking about jobs that are
considered to be partaking of immoral acts by an ever growing number
of people as humanity evolves and improves (often too late and too
long of burying their head in the sand, as with plastic pollution
etc).

Are you now criticising sex workers?

Am I? That directly involves death as part of the main job does it?

Even if we were to consider the sheer number of animals that die
necessary (eg. by people have been living as ethical vegans for many
(thousand) years) we are also likely to suffer from 'Psychic
numbing'.

We all become numb at some point following an event.

And? What has that got to do with the specific function of 'Psychic
numbing'

Like the death of a
loved one.

No, if your entire village was killed it might be.

It is something you live with and accept.

As a strawman.

Of course some
can't move on and need help.

Irrelevant.

They sometimes start a crusade and seen as
a pariah to those around them.

WTF are you wittering on about now troll?

We see a dead fox by the side of the road and most people would be
upset (especially if it was not externally 'damaged'. We might be made
to feel sick if it's guts were hanging out (yet we buy and eat 'guts'
from the butcher?)).

We see a heap of 10 dead foxes by a hunt HQ and we might be *slightly*
more upset. We aren't 10x more upset.

We see a lorry with 10,000 fox fur pelts and we may not be upset at
all (vegans would of course because we understand the holocaust that
created such).

The same things applied to the Nazi death camps (assuming the guards
could cope themselves and why they invented the gas chambers of
course) and is happening with Corona virus:

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-de...bf8fe07d9.html

Bringing up that old chestnut is the very definition of a failed argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

And dragging out that old chestnut is the sure sign of the lack of
anything relevant to the point, troll.

(I do love the assumption that you have figured something out by
yourself, yet got it 100% wrong, is the confirmation of anything!).

You are *just* a sniper using bollox for ammunition.

I suggest you look up 'Physic numbing' *then* come back to me (if you
must. You shouldn't have to as the point should get into your thick,
troll, skull).

Cheers, T i m

On 26/04/2021 12:23, Fredxx wrote:

Given the UK was inhabited by forests before man, the landscape has
changed dramatically. I could see sheep on some highlands but I can't
see the retention of cattle without some serious subsidy.


Sheep need to be shorn every year (which costs more than the
wool is worth).

In D I M s ideal world they would all be turned loose and
left to fend for themselves. Without annual shearing and
treatment with pesticides, flies will lay eggs in the wool
and the maggots then eat the animal alive. Unpleasant death.

On 26/04/2021 00:07, T i m wrote:

7) You protect a cat or dog with your life but take the life of a lamb
just to eat it's flesh.

There isn't enough meat on a cat to make it worthwhile. Like
grey squirrels you need quite a few for decent pie.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 12:23:32 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 09:25, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 02:01:13 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip

It's a simple question.

It's not. It's stupid trolling from stupid people.

How many fighting bulls are there in the UK.

How many native rhinos or elephants are in the UK. You really are
thick aren't you?

One excuse to continue
bull-fighting in Spain is that the breed would become extinct if
bull-fighting stopped.

So that's an excuse because you don't like it, but all the cruelty and
death you impose on animals is ok?

Only a blinkered fanatic would think it a stupid question from a troll.

Nope, just someone very used to ****ing on trolls in their ever
deepening holes. ;-)

How many cows, sheep, pigs, geese would exist in
say the UK if everyone was a fanatic vegan?

How many do you think? How many were here before man started 'farming'
them?

Given the UK was inhabited by forests before man, the landscape has
changed dramatically.

'Given' what?

I could see sheep on some highlands but I can't
see the retention of cattle without some serious subsidy.

Ok, and ... Oh, you think it was an actual question! Oh bless. ;-)

And is no such thing as a 'fanatic vegan' but some can be more
passionate re their desire to stop the suffering and exploitation of
animals than others.

In the same way you call Brexiters fanatics you accept one can be
passionate to become a fanatic.

Now, you are either very thick (I'd go with that one) or have a really
bad memory (probably B12 deficiency, get a blood test like I did).

I have never said Brexiteer fanatics. I have often said 'Fanatical
Brexiteers;' so to differentiate between the ordinary people who voted
to Leave. The former were the ones who stated they *knew* we would be
better off outside the EU but had no way of stating how or why (that
had any supporting information).

You are a fanatic.

Nope, I'm passionate about not causing animals suffering and death.
You seem to be fanatical about *causing* animal suffering and death.

The difference between a fanatic vegan like yourself, and most vegans,
is they care about suffering while an animal is a live.

And what proof have you got that I don't? That I don't rate you only
raping your wife monthly rather than weekly as being are *real*
improvement in her welfare?

You have admitted you don't care, and that you're simply determined to
stop us eating meat out of envy because we're allowed to and you're not.

I have warned you about constantly posting such obvious BS.

You are either happy to cause suffering and death to animals or you
aren't.

Quite the opposite. I was to improve animal welfare while an animal is
alive, and you don't.

Proof? OSTFU

There are straight (dietary) vegans and ethical vegans.

There is also a third class of fanatical vegans, driven by envy.

Bwhahaha. See how you resort to bull**** when you run out of any
coherent arguments (which you did at the beginning of course).

Most vegans weren't born such, I wasn't. I became one when I (and no
one else) realised it better aligned my actions with my morals.

Now, if the best you have to counter that is to make **** up (in
public remember) then that continues to reinforce the fact that you
are *just* a pathetic troll.

Cheers, T i m

On 26/04/2021 10:35, T i m wrote:

We see a lorry with 10,000 fox fur pelts and we may not be upset at
all (vegans would of course because we understand the holocaust that
created such).


My grandfather was pretty upset when he came out one morning
to find that all his hens were dead, inside their henhouse
because a fox had managed to dig his way in overnight.

Foxes kill for amusement too you know.

On 26/04/2021 14:03, T i m wrote:

Nope, just someone very used to ****ing on trolls in their ever
deepening holes. ;-)

You really don't get it do you ?. The only hole is the one
that you are in, and have been for quite some time now.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 12:26:11 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 10:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"williamwright" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2021 13:48, T i m wrote:

You *really* are a stupid troll aren't you?

It didn't take long before you resorted to personal abuse.

Snap.

Doing that is always a sign that you know you've lost the argument.

Bull**** it is.

Then you and T i m have more in common than I thought.

Yes, neither of us make up stuff about people because we don't need to
to get our point across.

Generally when you have no further case to put forward and resort to
abuse it is a sure sign to everyone around you the argument is lost.

What do you call it when someone *constantly* tells lies about people
they have no way of knowing and certainly no way of proving, I'd call
that abuse (in the least).

Personally, I'd call them the lowest of the low, just a disgusting and
desperate troll, resorting to anything they can because they know they
are wrong.

Anything else is denial.

Exactly, so stop trying, it's pathetic.

Cheers, T i m

On 26/04/2021 13:56, Andrew wrote:
There isn't enough meat on a cat to make it worthwhile. Like
grey squirrels you need quite a few for decent pie.

Ours is 1 year old and currently 7.5 kilo.

I reckon you could make a decent meal out of him.

On 26/04/2021 13:48, Andrew wrote:
On 26/04/2021 08:21, alan_m wrote:
On 26/04/2021 02:01, Fredxx wrote:

It's a simple question. How many cows, sheep, pigs, geese would exist
in say the UK if everyone was a fanatic vegan?

And what would be left to order from your local take-away?


Deep-fried tinned banana flowers :-)

Plus a mars bar as a side order in Glasgow.

Mars bars are covered in milk chocolate and would be banned by Vegans.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 26/04/2021 14:19, R D S wrote:
On 26/04/2021 13:56, Andrew wrote:
There isn't enough meat on a cat to make it worthwhile. Like
grey squirrels you need quite a few for decent pie.

Ours is 1 year old and currently 7.5 kilo.

I reckon you could make a decent meal out of him.

Maine Coon ?

On 26/04/2021 14:19, R D S wrote:
On 26/04/2021 13:56, Andrew wrote:
There isn't enough meat on a cat to make it worthwhile. Like
grey squirrels you need quite a few for decent pie.

Ours is 1 year old and currently 7.5 kilo.

I reckon you could make a decent meal out of him.

Big bloody squirrel that!

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:04:24 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 10:35, T i m wrote:

We see a lorry with 10,000 fox fur pelts and we may not be upset at
all (vegans would of course because we understand the holocaust that
created such).


My grandfather was pretty upset when he came out one morning
to find that all his hens were dead, inside their henhouse
because a fox had managed to dig his way in overnight.

Foxes kill for amusement too you know.

sigh I though we had put that old chestnut to bed ages ago.

Foxes and many other animals are 'opportunistic hunters / scavengers
and will often kill / collect what they can and hide / bury some of it
to consume later.

If the hens were in the wild they would be roosting up in a tree where
the foxes couldn't get to them in the first place (and how they have
survived millions of years before we (or foxes) came along).

You are welcome!

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:19:28 +0100, R D S wrote:

On 26/04/2021 13:56, Andrew wrote:
There isn't enough meat on a cat to make it worthwhile. Like
grey squirrels you need quite a few for decent pie.

Ours is 1 year old and currently 7.5 kilo.

I reckon you could make a decent meal out of him.

And they would in some less 'logically inconsistent cultures of
course. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:21:30 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

snip

Mars bars are covered in milk chocolate and would be banned by Vegans.

Why would they. We have just enjoyed a couple of chocolate covered
sponge finger things and both of us have several bars of white and
dark chocolate in the fridge.

We also have plain and almond Magnums in the freezer and a regular ice
cream van got some in for us (who sits at the far side of our regular
dog walks) simply because we suggested he might. He was happy to and
when we went for a plain water lolly one day and apologised for not
taking one of 'our' Magnums, he said he wasn't bothered as many others
have been buying them in any case?

What people (who don't care about animals) may not realise is just how
much support there is for vegans out there now and not just straight
food.

Loads of sweets actually state they are 'Vegan' on them because then
they can then be eaten by *everyone* ... and all Michelin tyres use a
plant (not animal) based stearic acid in their production.

And why would you want to eat non-vegan sweets ... ;-(

https://ibb.co/GTJZT8W

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:52:39 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 12:23, Fredxx wrote:

Given the UK was inhabited by forests before man, the landscape has
changed dramatically. I could see sheep on some highlands but I can't
see the retention of cattle without some serious subsidy.


Sheep need to be shorn every year (which costs more than the
wool is worth).

In many cases yes ... and would never have evolved that way of course
as they would never have survived.

In D I M s ideal world they would all be turned loose and
left to fend for themselves.

When did I suggest that then ... or are you simply doing the std troll
think and making up what you like?

No, they would be allowed to live out their natural lives after being
sterilised.

Without annual shearing and
treatment with pesticides,

Just what we should be doing, treating animals with pesticides ...

flies will lay eggs in the wool
and the maggots then eat the animal alive. Unpleasant death.

Quite, or a 'natural death' for an unnatural animal?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:07:48 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 14:03, T i m wrote:

Nope, just someone very used to ****ing on trolls in their ever
deepening holes. ;-)

You really don't get it do you ?.

Erm, 'yes' and even though you are thick, you might too one day.

The only hole is the one
that you are in, and have been for quite some time now.

Oh the irony. Is it so dark in there you can't see where *you* are?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:47:32 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/04/2021 02:01, Fredxx wrote:

It's a simple question. How many cows, sheep, pigs, geese would exist in
say the UK if everyone was a fanatic vegan?

Very few. A whole group of species and sub-species, like Herdwick
sheep and Gloucester cows would die out unless enough wealthy
bankers use their bonuses to become hobby farmers and pay to
keep them alive.

Correct answer.

D i m cannot bring himself to provide his solution to the
inevitable law of unintended consequences

Why would I want or need to?

Did they evolve naturally? If they did then left in their natural
environment they would survive or not like any other creature?

But don't worry, the penny might drop with you at some point.

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:

Hygiene services kill quite a lot of animals too, should we stop those?

Please try to stay sensible. We are talking about the biggest problem,
the mass killing and exploitation of sentient creatures and we can
work down from there. ;-)

How sentient?

.... and vermin includes things like mice and rats as well as what
*you* may regard as lesser creatures.

Why should some be more important than others?

--
Chris Green
·

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:41:54 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

T i m wrote:

Hygiene services kill quite a lot of animals too, should we stop those?

Please try to stay sensible. We are talking about the biggest problem,
the mass killing and exploitation of sentient creatures and we can
work down from there. ;-)

How sentient?

Good question (at last). ;-)

... and vermin includes things like mice and rats as well as what
*you* may regard as lesser creatures.

Ok, let's see if this helps (and rather than focusing on just me when
it's part of a general attitude towards animals by millions of people
around the world ...)

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

Why should some be more important than others?

Ideally they shouldn't.

Logic would suggest that when it comes to dealing with the suffering,
exploitation and death man exerts on living creatures, most often
simply for their taste pleasure (you don't *need* to eat meat (eggs,
drink milk etc), you *choose* to), you start with the things that are
the biggest problem to us, the environment and all the wild creatures
in the world (who are seeing their habitat shrinking whilst we try to
feed more livestock than humans) and work down from there..

It just happens (ironically and why it's a pretty big problem morally)
that pigs are one of the most persecuted animal (sheer numbers) and
are also scientifically proven to be more intelligent than dogs, so
logically would experience the same range of emotions and have the
same needs and wants (and experience the similar levels of dreams) as
a dog (all things any caring dog owner would fully understand).

So ideally we would work down from the most persecuted most sentient
animal (for the biggest moral return) to the least. Pigs - cows -
sheep - goats .... fish - shrimp etc.

Now, all those things well generally kill, often at an early age, just
to eat, when we don't *need to*. Then we have the rescue animals and
pets.

Q re pets. Is the pet able to live a long and healthy life whilst not
making the issue (killing animals for food) worse and can they have as
good or better (where better generally equals 'most natural') life as
they would have if we weren't here or hadn't created them.

Excluding animals rescued from injuries caused by man (hit by cars or
caught up in fishing equipment / line) if it can't survive in it's own
habitat then the chances are it should be here anyway (sheep that
don't shed their fleeces, Turkeys that can no longer reproduce
naturally, dogs that can hardly breathe so couldn't hunt etc), then we
would not replace them. This is why 'rescue' dogs and cats are
generally neutered, we give them a good life but don't want to risk
the chance of them being able to make the problem of stray / unwanted
/ numbers of dogs worse.

We may need to look at anything that has been introduced to the
environment that is overwhelming the native wildlife, like domestic
cats, American crayfish or grey squirrels. (Live capture and send them
back where they came from). ;-)

And there is no instant magic answer here, as long as we are going in
the right direction re our interference with nature and the cost it is
going to be to us in the future (if not already).

'Necessity is the mother of invention' and if we are an advanced
species then it has to be within our comprehension and grasp to be
able to move in greater numbers towards a 'plant based' diet and
minimise the exploitation of animals as fast and broadly as possible,
whilst there are still any (wild animals / natural habitat /
resources) left.

Cheers, T i m

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2021 10:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"williamwright" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2021 13:48, T i m wrote:

You *really* are a stupid troll aren't you?

It didn't take long before you resorted to personal abuse.

Snap.

Doing that is always a sign that you know you've lost the argument.

Bull**** it is.

Then you and T i m have more in common than I thought.

Generally when you have no further case to put forward and resort to abuse
it is a sure sign to everyone around you the argument is lost.

More mindless bull****. I abuse ****wits like you right from the start,
****wit.

And I abused that other ****wit when he started abusing me.

T i m wrote:
Did they evolve naturally? If they did then left in their natural
environment they would survive or not like any other creature?

Although farmed animals did indeed start by evolving naturally,
selective breeding for things like milk production (cows) and
wool growth (sheep) means that they now essentially rely on human
management - the cows *have* to be milked, the sheep *have* to
be shorn. Their "natural environment" is now on a farm, managed
by humans.

I make no comment as to whether this is good for them or not; but
it is certainly the way it is. If we stopped drinking their milk
and wearing their wool (&etc), the animals would gradually die out
as farmers made the economic choices they need to - c.f., the
fate of many breeds of draft horse.

#Paul