A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes

[T i m]

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:

1) I only participate in way less than 50% of the threads and only bring the idea of livestock and their, GW gasses, their pollution, their resource usage, their habitat destruction or suffering where it is linked with the topic.

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

[Fredxx]

Because it courtesy to do so. I didn't see the OP, and so the only post I initially saw was yours.

Probably because they're generally in a killfile.

Once is fine, twice is perhaps ok, but the more you say the same twaddle mixed with a few lies your posts carry no weight.

Then why make the subject wander onto another area.

Your solution would be detrimental to people's health.

Why do you believe anyone thinks it's 'bad' to have a natural balanced diet? Well, apart from the vegan fanatic.

[Fredxx]

Anyone reading your posts would be fearful of turning into a manic fanatic and keep with their natural balanced diet.

You are the best example of what someone could become if their loved ones said they're going vegan.

[T i m]

<snip>

Discuss, promote, educate, advocate (for the benefit of all).

Nope, not what they should do, but what they might consider not doing any longer.

*I* have changed my lifestyle, by me.

Nope, most ethical vegans are so not for them but for others (especially animals).

No I don't, I am guilty of it. But hindsight is a lovely thing , as is indoctrination, conditioning and marketing.

Only from your evangelistic POV. For me it's to educate others for themselves.

But your statement was bollox so any logic fails at that point.

Only by someone with a twisted mind. The mere fact that you state so many lies and bollox proves that 100%.

See above. For the first decade I was told what to eat and given it to eat. Once indoctrinated and brought up in a culture that normalises a particular lifestyle, it can be difficult to see (and more do) the right thing.

Ironically I can, and I have only shaken of the indoctrination that allowed me to be logically inconsistent and now I'm mot. Being logically consistent isn't the sign of anything other than being logically consistent.

If you don't eat beef but eat other animals you are being logically inconsistent, especially if it's though choice.

It' is *exactly not* my position. Like I said, you are the one demonstrating logical inconsistency, not me.

Says the one in a cult that encourages a cognitive dissonance and logical inconsistency that allows you to stamp on a chicken but not a cat.

I advocate children aren't forced to become logically inconsistent, not be indoctrinated to consider abusing animals to be acceptable.

It's not 'my choice', it's a natural human choice, without any conditioning. If you were shown people stamping on chickens when young, of course you are going to grow up considering such action to be 'normal'. It's how domestic violence propagates though the generations.

I didn't fit into to a carnist world, you are right. I'm much happier now I have undone all the conditioning and am now aligning my actions with my morals.

Ah, now you see what it's like and you don't like it do you?

But the bottom line is that if you had an actual solid argument against veganism or supporting carnism other than just stating that you are happy to stamp on chickens <g> and can't see the issue with that, you would have come out with it now but you haven't?

All you (and all the other carnists state) is what we have done over history (like that determines what we should do now or in the future), what animals do in the wild (when we don't set our moral compass on what 'animals' do ... phrases like 'they acted like animals' to differentiate the actions humans do when you stop being the advanced species we are supposed to be) , we 'need to eat meat' when we clearly don't (proven by the many cultures who haven't eaten meat over many thousand years) when the only true justification is that they don't actually give a f*ck about animals and will do whatever it takes (including making them suffer and die), just to enjoy the taste of their flesh because they are conditioned to do that.

And all that is without also considering the antibiotic resistance, zoonotic pandemics, pollution, greenhouse gases, human health, resource use, habitat and wildlife species under threat of extinction.

But why would you care about any of that, you like the taste of (some species of) heated animal flesh and that's enough eh?

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

No it's not an appropriate excuse for your dismal behaviour. You also have to ask yourself why you post in a DIY group and abuse those who disagree with you.

It is patently true, you're too myopic to see it.

You regularly create a thread about your fanaticism, and attract posts from many sources to point out your lies and mistruths.

But when the thread drift becomes monotonous. Your posts are not novel inventions with every post, but the same old, same old stuck record.

Quite, and your posts are a good reason to keeping eating meat and meat products to stave off becoming like you.

Ethical vegans would be horrified with your posts and how they are perceived.

Then campaign to improve those aspects. There doesn't seem much concern, otherwise you might be have be none of the signatories for this petition:

A broken record needs only be judged once. You bring nothing of substance to the table, usually lies.

And the general feeling here is you're a narcissistic fanatic.

And you're a prime candidate for making this newsgroup 'poorer'.

Another broken record. Some of use campaign to reduce animal suffering and improve animal welfare. You're on record for not caring an=out animal welfare whilst an animal is alive.

That's because you're a fanatic, and cannot see further than the end of your nose.

Some do, but they don't want top be associated with a fanatic, and respect other's beliefs.

Many have learnt the damage to a child's brain development, and a reduction of IQ if fed with a sustained vegan diet.

I don't suppose you do. But I have proffered advice which you have dismissed out of ignorance.

It is, you just don't recognise it.

Yes, they are rants, especially when you have no desire to reduce animal suffering.

There is passion, and there is fanaticism. You are a fanatic and your posts are counterproductive.

Once again your narcissism shows.

My doctor hasn't. Are you envious I can drink milk and you can't?

If they are so truly bad, why not campaign for improvements. Your concern is nothing more than a lie.

And many health conditions can be exacerbated from a vegan diet. Mental health is an issue.

If we all did that our future generations would lack the intelligence of previous generations, it would be a retrograde step.

I have, and dismissed it on so many counts, your fanaticism being the greatest hurdle. I would hate to become like you.

[Tim Lamb]

Sadly, with so little current *on topic* input from Tim, I have adopted the full sanction.

That leaves the follow ups to his deliberate thread diversions...

To think, not so long ago, he used to rail about troll infestations!

>

[bert]

5 decades as a veggie for me. There was always a dilemma. Whilst we would have liked more choice and more outlets we knew that eventually if it became to popular the zealots would pile in and then the big food manufacturers would follow with all the crap you now see on the supermarket shelves labelled "vegan " etc.

[Steve Walker]

I invoked that some time ago. I could cope with him stating his point of view in one OT thread, but not proselytising in every thread possible, when no more than 2 or 3 posts would have covered it all.

[bert]

+1

[Spike]

Yes, it would appear that T i m hasn't worked that out, and mistakes the numbers of vegan-labelled foods and vegan food aisles for growing popularity rather than as a business opportunity to sell cheap, processed vegetables at a high mark-up. Sadly, that screws it up for those who were already in to vegetarianism and those proper vegans rather than the veganists as represented by T i m.

It didn't happen to the same extent for gluten-free foods, as people don't convert to being coeliac.

[Spike]

But you don't discuss. You lay down The Gospel According to T i m.

How's that going? I don't see any new recruits to your religion from your 'promotion'.

Seeing as how your 'education' seems to consist of lies, distortions, and fairy stories, how effective do you think it has been?

The only thing you seem to 'advocate' is a wildly unbalanced diet. It doesn't seem to be doing you much good.

For the benefit of you - namely, your post-facto justification for being the last in you family group to convert.

'Should do' according to your Gospel.

With a little 'encouragement' from your 'friends'.

You're not an ethical vegan. You feed meat to a dog.

If you'd played your cards right, you could have converted to your anti-meat-eating crusade (thinly disguised by a cloak of veganism) on your death bed, and so carried on having all the fun you previously enjoyed with the added bonus of not having to bother with it all the veganist claptrap.

It's not working. Most of what you say has been shown to be wrong.

You've said many times that you don't have a logical brain, so what would you know about it?

LOL. That's rich, coming from a fact-distorter.

So your answer to indoctrination is indoctrination? Wow...

So you admit that you've been indoctrinated. How does that add credibility to your anti-meat-eating crusade (thinly disguised by a cloak of veganism)?

You have so much to learn, it's hard to know where to start.

My mind is fed with a balanced diet, and yours isn't. Just think about that, if you can.

So you're now down to 'cognitive dissonance'. Stand by for 'left-brainer'.

But you'd indoctrinate them while doing so. That is morally wrong.

You keep mentioning 'stamping on chickens', is there something in your past you're not telling us?

"What Is Veganism?"

"It is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people no to eat animals."

"Veganism is, essentially, an oppressive system. It shares the same basic structure and relies on the same mentality as other oppressive systems, such as patriarchy and racism."

I'm well used to your perversions of the facts.

I'm not here to support anything other than to counter your distortions of the facts.

You seem to be going off the rails again.For example, you just said "we clearly don't need to eat meat', when the science - not something that you mention much - says that we have evolved to have meat as part of a balanced diet, and that those who are brought up as vegetarians have a

10-point lower IQ. That's a very telling difference.

I did read once quite some time ago, that of all the species that have ever lived on the planet, only 2% are currently extant. Some 98% have died out, without man's helping hand. Species coming and going is part of the natural life that you advocate for others but not for yourself. So what's new>?

You like the taste of vegetables that gave been highly processed to look like, smell like, cook like, and taste like the very meats that you despise others for eating. That's hypocrisy.

[T i m]

If that's what you need to do to protect yourself then so be it.

I call bullshit on that statement. The goal is and has never ever been 'thread diversions' and any topic drift is no more prevalent or irrelevant than *all the other* thread drifts that you strangely choose to ignore completely?

'Rail'? The use of the bogus and emotive language to single out my postings says more about you and your 'angles' that you may have intended to reveal. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[Spike]

A T-bird filter based on Match all Subject > Contains > OT Author > is > T i m Action > Mark Message As Read

...will, if you select Unread Messages in the View pane, mean that these won't be seen.

It's not as if he has anything new to say on the topic, after all.

[Tim Streater]

+1

[T i m]

It's difficult to discuss anything with someone who has a closed mind and there is nothing more close than someone who has been indoctrinated over most of their lives to accept something they agree is against their morals. Confront any average meat eater with slaughterhouse footage and they cringe and are disgusted. Why do they react like that if what they are seeing is 'natural' and 'normal'?

Ah, you think I'm the first / only person out there trying to protect the rights of animals! No wonder you are confused. ;-(

1) It's not a religion (there are no deities or requirement to belive anything as it's all real and very tangible). 2) I was never looking for recruits to anything, just hoping people start to discuss and consider and they have.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Difficult to tell. Without a doubt a good few people (and you trolls) are now talking about it so who knows. I have also 'outed' the fact that you / burk (same thing eh) are veggies that makes much of your output on the subject even more confused.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Two members went veggi (15+) years ago (they both studied animal psychology at uni) one is now teaching in the field herself and the other a Policeman. Sister and BIL are cutting back on meat, eggs and dairy after medical scares / issues and on doctors orders. We (the Mrs and I) went vegan with daughter and step-niece and Mum (92) is happy to have whatever we cook her (which from us is vegan of course) but is more 'conditioned' than the rest of us. So she sends money to a donkey sanctuary whilst eating 'other' animals.

'Should do' according to anyone who has the removal of the unnecessary suffering, exploitation and death of animals in their sights yes. Given that animal suffering is not a 'belief' but a very tangible fact (as a visit to a slaughterhouse will quickly confirm).

Sort of. It was actually more providing a facility to allow me (us) to choose that (veganism) or not. There was *no pressure* at all. There was no obligation at all. There was no expectation at all. There was support (upon request) because soon after deciding to continue with the experiment we were hit with Covid and daughter offered to do all our shopping. We then had it easy as she had done more research at that point (from being a veggie for a while before realising it was bollox, RSPCA Approved and Red Tractor no better than 'Trade checkers' etc) and niece had already had experience of home cooked veg based high protein / nutrient foods when cooking for her Mum when she was first diagnosed with cancer and had little appetite).

Of course I am and you have no way of suggesting otherwise.

Last nights meal was probably 25% 'std kibble' (of which only a small percentage is meat) and the rest a special vegan kibble, plus mashed pulses and some veg oil.

How I can be an ethical vegan and keep and feed a dog on meat:

"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."

So, when we are reasonably sure we are fulfilling all our (rescue() dogs nutritional requirements he will also be only eating vegan food. Not only is this likely give him a much more considered, balanced and varied diet, it's also likely to remove some of the chemical and medical risk that feeding him commercially made dog food could bring. Many dogs have been put on meat free diets to cure them of mead diet related issues.

We are highly confident that as long as we do sufficient research and keep an eye on his general condition and activity, we are guaranteed he will get a better diet than he might in the wild as a domesticated animal. He certainly has more exercise and enrichment than most other 'pets' and certainly 98% of livestock.

What is the difference? If you take opportunities to reduce the suffering and death of innocent creatures I guess that is a level of 'activism' as would have been the case for pretty well every instance where there has been improvements made for people, animals and the environment since the beginning of time. Anyone who is aware of any such injustice and who chooses to keep quiet about it is no less culpable than the people actually doing it.

And here we go again, all the pathetic and childish bullshit. It's as if the stress of having to keep up any level of rational discussion is impossible for you and you melt down.

IYO.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

More than enough. What I have said is that I have the mental ability to be flexible, not continue to be trapped in a situation that I have felt causes conflict between my actions and my morals. Now I have been able to snap out of that (conditioning) and so are living more logically.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Are you really that stupid? (You don't need to answer that of course).

Where did I state anything even like that?

The opposite of indoctrination (into anything) isn't other indoctrination but *NO* indoctrination. It's education, giving people ALL the facts and allowing them to choose for themselves.

Allowing a child to consider the drinking of the growth fluid created for the young of a different species isn't being honest to that child because there is no evidence WHAT SO EVER to suggest that process is in any way natural, desirable or even acceptable.

Human mothers produce milk for their human babies. After about 1 year they can be weaned off of human milk and onto solids. A few months after that the child would entirely on solids, they would stop consuming milk and the mother would stop producing it.

*THAT* is what is natural for a human mother and a human baby, just as it is similar for many other mammal species and their young of course.

Of course, or why on earth would I have still been doing it (all be it at restricted levels) till I was 60?

Ok, someone who isn't a world champion 100m runner suddenly one day run a world record beating 100m time. How does the fact that they weren't a record breaker the day before, impact the fact that they are a record breaker at that point?

Preempting the fact that such an analogy is likely to cause your troll brain to implode, the answer is 'it isn't'.

If it turned out I was killing my wives and burying them under the patio and was then found out, I would be held responsible for those historic events because those were illegal when I did them. I have chosen to stop doing what I was indoctrinated to do and it's only my own guilt I now have to carry and the regret for not doing it sooner. If only you had spoken up in support for your semi-vegetarianism (or whatever conflict you still exist under) I might have been able to save more animals sooner.

Well, rather than coming out with bogus accusations and pointless trolling you could try to explain.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

I can but you are still wrong.

It's much more likely for someone to continue to fight the cognitive dissonance when they are a left brainer yes. They do so because they are likely to be less open to alternative / new / different ideas.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong. The opposite of indoctrination is not more but just the facts / truth.

Yes, it is and why I would advocate against doing it with animal rights and children.

No, it's yours, it's an analogy re your tolerance to seeing the routine slaughter of animals as a child, your normalisation of it and conditioning to it. It's (probably) a lie like many of the lies you tell about me but as you continue to tell them, I assumed it was ok for me to do the same?

"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."

<snip>

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

It's good to have a hobby and thank you for continuing to keep the discussions 'active'. The animals will thank you for it (well, the ones out of a list you must have that you don't stamp on of course).

Aww, too difficult for you to follow is it?

No, all that says is that you have selected something you think is 'important' and keep repeating it when I don't consider it to be true or relevant.

If eating the brains from live monkeys could be shown to make us 5% more intelligent are you suggesting we should all start doing that?

Do you think that would reflect us 'evolving' into more sentient, more compassionate beings that is what is considered to set us 'above' the 'other animals'?

The fact that prior to us appearing it was perfectly 'natural'. As soon as we are involved species that may not have died out now do so are down to us. If we are 'different' from all the others and that difference is supposed to be considered 'better', being better would mean we didn't make things worse.

And? I also like unprocessed vegetables, fruits, nuts, berries ...

Nope, it's 100% pathetic strawman.

You have no idea what I eat and it is completely irrelevant to the cause of protecting innocent creatures from unnecessary suffering, exploitation and death what I eat, as long as it doesn't contain animals or their excretions or exploitation.

But I get it, you don't eat cow or sheep and as yes seem unable to explain why you only don't eat those particular species. The answer to that is more interesting than the one of why someone might not want to kill any species to eat at all?

So, given how fixated you are on what I *don't* eat, how about you tell us what logic / facts go behind what you decide *to* eat, animal wise?

Is it all about you or are there any considerations for others involved at all?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

<snip>

Supply and demand mate. If people don't want or like it they won't demand it and the manufacturers won't make it.

There are *millions* of products that have been pushed onto a market and have failed due to lack of interest. Many animal based food manufacturers are realising that the writing is on the wall and are 'getting onboard' with vegan products because they will either have to go that way (because of demand) or go broke.

It does no such thing. The only people even slightly interested in that aspect are the trolls desperate to make some point.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

So, what's your take on the gluten 'thing' then OOI?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Now, if you could just get all the other trolls to killfile me we could get back to regular and respectful adult conversation across a whole range of subjects.

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

<snip>

Ah yes, that's why they just put two or three 'Smoking is bad for you' adverts on telly and that was 'enough'.

We have had people on here who don't know you can get vegan chocolate, or don't realised that animals are routinely killed for the production of milk or eggs so *of course* the whole thing needs more / deeper conversation for people to be better educated on it all.

But hey, I appreciate if you are old and can't get say a simple phone app to work in a restaurant you could easily get overloaded by the sheer throughput of DIY related posts on here every day and how some OT posts (on subjects that affect all of us) could push you over the edge.

Funny how all the non OT marked and completely irrelevant to anything that affects us or DIY (or is of interest in most cases) posts don't even get a mention? It's like talking about animal rights touches nerves?

Cheers, T i m

[The Natural Philosopher]

T i m is such a wanker i wouldn't want to hear his on topic drivel

typical case of projection. veganism has turned his brain to porridge

[T i m]

Thanks for that. The less denial I have to deal with here the easier it will be for me to properly discuss the topic (that impacts us all) with the grownups. ;-)

You seem to find plenty to reply to troll?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And I use the same email address, news reader, news server (till I have to move from VM) and (real) name to make killfiling easier. No socks, aliases or hiding behind false email addresses here.