A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply to) it?

Why don't you feel the need to comment of *any* of the other OT posts here?

What is it about the idea of asking people to consider the consequences of their actions 'that way' (reduction in greenhouse gasses from live stock) that you find so objectionable? Is it you don't use air flight but do eat meat or some such?

The subject was to do with 'Climate change' and 'a' solution being to do with the reduction in air travel. If we could also reduce the production of GWGG (even if you don't consider such an issue, many people (scientists) seem to) to the same or greater extent by doing 'something else', why wouldn't it be valid or why wouldn't people also consider it?

A reduction of our consumption of animal flesh would be such a solution PLUS a benefit in many many other ways, including the risk of more zoonotic pandemics, heart / bowel disease, obesity, diabetes, global pollution, environmental / habitat destruction and sustainability. That's ignoring (as many choose to do) all the unnecessary animal suffering, death and exploitation.

So, if you feel bad for being part of any of that and don't want to be reminded of it in a genuine discussion on the subject topic, feel free to skip over it. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Firstly, because you said you would, secondly because I would rather just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.

and you probably have the OP filtered?

Filtered as in "marked as read" rather than the more aggressive filtered into non existence that I reserve for some others. That way I can easily skip past the messages, but still see followups if I want.

Possibly, but because of the density of them their waste is also more likely to become a pollutant and washed into the rivers, estuaries and seas.

It also doesn't address the unnecessary unnatural breeding, keeping and killing of a sentient creature and the habitat destruction 'elsewhere' to grow those foodstuffs.

Cheers, T i m

I'm pretty sure I didn't because I wasn't aware I could. Are you sure you aren't getting confused with an new OT topics I post that are always marked correctly?

When you are netcopping (what you consider, this wasn't, it was addressing the thread subject of MM climate change that I wouldn't have thought you would have been interested in) thread drift, do you do it on all subjects for all posters OOI?

I would rather you didn't kill animals to eat when you don't need to but here we are?

Which of those preferences just impacts us personally or also impacts (innocent) 'others'? (I appreciate to answer that you would have to have a belief that we can do what we like to all animals or that we can't).

Cheers, T i m

So, if you are 'bothered' about how much better you are for deciding to not eat cows and sheep that long ago, how much advocacy and education have you done over the same period that could have educated me and others to do the same (and more) earlier?

If you did none, then you are simply experiencing with me the result of your inaction and not something I would personally be proud of or boast about.

"First they came for the pigs, and I did not speak out? Because I was not a vegan ..."

Cheers, T i m

I'm not sure which reader you use, but with Thunderbird you can kill sub-threads. That would also get rid of my corrections to T i m's posts that I am sure are also a nuisance.

It's a great shame Thunderbird filtering doesn't allow searches in the message body.

You still simply don't understand. Our existence adversely impacts something in the universe. Same goes for any living organism. Now get on with your life, or not.

This should be interesting ...

Ok?

Ok?

I am, whilst trying to minimise my impact on other living organisms, letting them get on with their lives as well.

(And there was me thinking you were going to say something interesting for a change). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

Whatever makes you think that there was some sort of obligation to evangelise?

Supposition piled upon supposition.

You haven't grasped even yet that your virtue-signalling about your current lifestyle 'choice' (a "*We* are going vegan, what are *you* going to do?" sort of choice) merely highlights the fact you had over six decades of doing what you wanted, and now, like the dog in a manger, now don't want others to have the chance to do the same. You even advocate conditioning children to accept your 'choice'.

Because that's exactly what you did with your 'You should have done what I did ..'.

Nope, just you not being able to back pedal fast enough.

Except that's not what it is. It's 'we should all go vegan' and I wish I'd done so sooner. It's only your twisted mind that forces you to take on such a POV.

Nope. Again, because of your twisted POV to choose to make bogus interpretations on what happened. I didn't do 'what I wanted', I did what I had been indoctrinated to consider acceptable when it never was.

Again, a twisted interpretation from a sick mind.

Nope, I advocate not advocating children are conditioned to do something bad to animals whilst telling them not to do bad things to animals.

Carnism is the cult and the exposing of the hypocrisy and logical inconsistency is hard for some people to deal with.

But hey, you carry on stamping on chickens ...

Cheers, T i m

Nope. You blather on about what others should do now you've been converted to the evangelical branch of the anti-meat-eating branch of veganism, while you totally ignore your six decades of a lifestyle that you would, dog-in-manger fashion, now try to deny others.

The 'if' and 'would be' in your statement is in fact what constitutes piling supposition upon supposition.

It can be seen in what you said.

Yep.

And now you've been indoctrinated into something else. You just can't see it, can you.

It's *exactly* your position in this matter. You just can't see it, can you.

Yep.

Which is of course advocating conditioning of children to accept your choice for them.

No wonder you fit in well, due to your lack of logic and your inconsistency.

You see, you make up lies to suit your anti-meat-eating agenda thinly disguised under a cloak of evangelical veganism.

Be nice if you did that here.

Well now you know, you could do both :-)

TBH the thread matters little it seems, since you will go "on message" with little provocation in any thread.

Personally I don't mind thread drift - it can take you to new and novel destinations.

This is not thread drift, but a strong thread undercurrent. We keep getting sucked into the same septic back water.

I have blocked all the output of many of them, and so don't see them. I feel no sense of loss not being able to read the erudite and thought provoking contributions from peeler or speed. However as a smart poster with obvious skills and abilities, who has demonstrated they are capable of posting interesting relevant content, and participating in discussion; I hold you to a higher standard than some of the others. Any group is only as good as the interactions between posters. Much like any networks usefulness grows exponentially with respect to the number of connections. If one causes people to disengage and break those connections, then the whole group is poorer for it.

Now it is my impression that many of "animal" posts seem to be actively encouraging people to disengage and break connections. Perhaps this is just a cunning reverse psychology attack on the whole vegan concept by undermining it?

You seem to be suggesting that my choice of diet makes my opinion on say electrical installation, plumbing or woodwork less palatable. I am not sure why that might be, but you do have a kill file, so go ahead an use it if it you want.

Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic rants. Then we would both be happy.

'After you.' (let me know when you are vegan).

Cheers, T i m

On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote: <snip>

As would I

I could ... but only when everyone 'else' applies / abides to the netettiquite etc. That's only fair isn't it?

Not quite true and think you will find that:

Quite.

Because it impacts all of us.

A 'septic backwater' created by man and that we are already suffering from ourselves (health, antibiotic resistance, pollution, resource waste).

So you aren't going to be able to judge what I say with any real overall comparison.

Even they can offer *some* good things now and again ... and you aren't obliged to read *anything* from *anyone* of course, even if it appears in front of you.

Why thank you kind sir. ;-)

And any group is likely to reflect the general feelings, attitudes and issues of it's members unless moderated very tightly (which most people here don't seem to want).

Agreed.

Only by those who seem the most keen to continue to exploit, cause suffering and death to innocent animals it seems?

Not from here it isn't and those who 'get it' seem willing to say so. Many others may now be considering their own actions and questioning if they align with their morals whilst others, like the spoilt children they are will throw their toys out of the pram and go the other way. And I'm happy about that as they are likely to have shorter life spans because of it. ;-)

Not sure where you got that from but all I was saying there are things that we both may not like and we both have two choices?

You wouldn't because it isn't. ;-)

It would be the first time if I did but no, you are fine thanks.

Where I'm trying to question people unnecessarily cause animals to suffer and die you mean by 'rants' then?

To someone who doesn't condone the unnecessary suffering and death of animals wouldn't see it as a rant but someone being passionate about that?

No, I would be happy if more people stopped ignoring the conflict that is within them and better aligned their actions with their morals.

I *hope* you wouldn't intentionally or unnecessarily hurt a dog, a cat or most other animals so that is logically consistent, your actions match your morals. That fact that you do only means your conditioning is strong and might take some introspection by you to break the cycle and start to see things for what they really are, not what you have been conditioned to accept them to be for some animals to some levels.

eg. I like the taste and texture of meat, I must have done or I'm guessing I wouldn't have eaten the meats I did ... and I may have also liked the taste and texture of loads of other things (animals / plants) that I never tried because I didn't want to because or I couldn't or wouldn't (like cat, dog, rabbit, Guinea pig etc) or the impact of consuming like heroin or cocaine, but didn't, simply because there was no need for me to and I didn't want to (even if they were legal).

So I have also always been logically inconsistent and for as long as I can remember (from realising what 'meat' was), haven't felt comfortable consuming it but because doing so had been 'normalised', and I liked it and was partly addicted to it (dopamine), I carried on doing it, all be it that I cut back on the few meats I did eat, initially replacing minced animal carcass with Quorn type mince etc (and not really being bothered by any difference and appreciating the lack of bone, gristle or any other 'surprises' etc)) and then meats in general.

The doctor steered me away from 'dairy' 7 years ago and I feel better for and don't miss that.

Doing more general food research during a veganuary it was brought to the fore some of the atrocities that go on behind the scenes in 'meat / dairy / egg' production and that finally undid my cognitive dissonance and allowed me to become logically consistent at last. I can now no more think of hurting a pig or chicken than I could a dog or parrot ... and so I don't.

Now, what may have made that more relevant *today* is that I believe we have reached a turning point with all this and are already producing 'lab meat' for those who really can't be without 'meat' but who agree they really don't also what to cause animals to suffer and die, simply because they like the taste of their (cooked) flesh.

Add to that all the commercially available vegan ready meals (for the people who might also have bought animal flesh based ready meals) but if you prefer to eat more natural and nutritionally superior foods to the meats that are linked with human illnesses like cancer, heart disease and obesity, you can, and much easier (certainly in the sense of ingredient availability) today than any time in the past.

Further, many (poor) health conditions can be reduced or reversed by not eating meat and focusing on alternatives. All the good medical / scientific advice ... 'reduce your meat consumption and eat more fruit and vegetables'.

If we all did that, we would have less pollution, less wasted resource, better human health, less antibiotic resistance, less chance of zoonotic pandemics and better sustainability.

Given how much all of those could affect all of us, why wouldn't you consider a simple lifestyle change?

Cheers, T i m