Mostly Vegan - Ping Tim

[GB]

If you are going to eat animal, ostrich steaks are one of the most nutritious. White meat. Very lean. Really, quite good for you, if not for the ostrich. I hope I'm not putting you off?

[Fredxx]

Something I have never eaten.

[Tim Streater]

It's not a distraction, it's part of the discussion.

Meaning that you can't tell the difference. Figures.

Ooh look, you're talking about babies. But I thought that for you they're not relevant.

Ah good, you're starting to show understanding of the point. Which is all about us all starting *with* the tolerance (or, expressed more usefully, we start with the *ability* to digest the lactose in milk (any milk, note) and then we might or might not lose it).

Mmm oh dear, I thought I was being over-optimistic. It is, of course, perfectly natural for one species to exploit another, and be exploited right back. I've already mentioned ants, and we could also mention the bacteria we permit to live in our gut, which excrete B-vitamins for our benefit, then there are the mitochondria in every one of our body cells which provide us with energy in exchange for free grub. Or the microscopic mites which live on your eyelashes and oil them (not quite sure why that's a benefit to us).

These are all symbiotic relationships between species, and nature abounds with them.

As you continually fail to appreciate, the tolerance is something we are born with.

[Spike]

That's a scientifically-correct, logical, double negative that goes against T i m ' s latest vegan-claptrap shibboleth.

T i m will never grasp the complexity of it.

I'm not holding my breath.

[T i m]

On 8 May 2021 21:55:48 GMT, Tim Streater [e-mail] wrote: <snip>

If we are born with lactose tolerance then lactose tolerance in infants is not and never has been 'the discussion re 'lactose intolerance' in adults which is what we mean where we are talking of such. So it's not and never has been part of the discussion about how

*adults* not only shouldn't (and typically don't) drink growth fluid of our own species but certainly shouldn't drink the growth fluid of a different species!

Nope, I fully understand the difference but it's only semantics as it's not relevant *to the point*.

Only for the means of proving your attempt of distraction.

Your (irrelevant) point.

We generally did lose it, just that continuous exposure to it has allowed us to maintain a tolerance to it.

You are very simple that's for sure.

Except we are talking about *human* exploitation of other species here, nothing else (so yet another strawman from you).

*Still* completely and utterly irrelevant.

See above but I appreciate you set your moral standards on what animals have to do to survive.

And *still* completely and utterly irrelevant to our consumption of a growth fluid and *especially* from a different species (where we have to slaughter and enslave their young to steal it) when we are 'grown ups' and where there are many alternatives that are better for us, better for them and better for the planet.

Again, what is your justification for knowingly causing *unnecessary* suffering and death of these innocent and sentient creatures (in

2021)?

Cheers, T i m

[Spike]

Where is this law about 'other species' written down?

[Andrew]

what's wrong with eggs from local suppliers, the hobby farm types who treat their hens like pets ?.

[Andrew]

Mung Beans are used to make transparent noodles somewhere in Asia. It was on TV the other night. ?Rick stein

[Andrew]

It was the ability to devise ways to turn cows milk into a form that could be stored for consumption during the winter months (plus other plant-based stuff) that allowed the humans who migrated north to survive the winter. Ditto using animal hides and fleeces to keep warm and dry. A useful side effect of this was better development, leading ultimately to the industrial revolution.

Meanwhile in Africa and pacific countries, all they needed to do was catch fish, collect breadfruit and taro to survive. No impetus to devise a way to survive a food shortage because they never had one. QED They mostly couldn't be arsed, and when it is so hot an humid, doing as little as possible is so much easier.

[T i m]

True, but no more 'natural' than saying they ate each other whilst there to survive or stealing someone else's food to do the same.

(eg, For us to consume milk we need to deny it to the very creature it was made for).

See above. Maybe what might have made more sense is staying where were could survive more easily?

And the near destruction of the planet.

And most native peoples had more respect for 'the land' and only took what they needed (to survive).

And makes much more sense than trying to live is less naturally hospitable places.

Many animals migrate exactly for this reason (including us who because there is generally an easy supply of food wherever we go for the sun (without having to hunt it ourselves), we can do similar. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Andrew]

They took what they needed because there was no shortage of fish and the climate meant root crops, bananas etc grow almost all year round. And without electricity there is no chance of keeping for more than a few hours.

And when the occasional Reverend Baker turns up, why not have a wonderful BBQ with him on the menu ?.

It was the clever, industrious north americans and europeans who had the brains (from meat and protein eating) and the requirement to invent and develop refridgeration and the means to make ice in huge quantities. This brought cheap meat and fish to the global poor, who benefitted greatly.

[T i m]

Because (and possibly though ignorance) they aren't treating them like pets they are (typically) abusing and exploiting them like slaves. ;-(

Most people don't keep a dog and have it work for them generating electricity on a treadmill or getting it to dig over the garden by burying bones here and there?

A chicken is no different to no other bird in that they have a desire to lay eggs, build a clutch (of varying number depending on the species), sit on those eggs (incubation), have them hatch and then tend / feed / protect their chicks until they are mature enough to 'fly the nest'. They might also only have restricted breeding seasons.

We have exploited the chicken (and some other birds) by taking their eggs away from them and so forcing them to keep laying them in an effort to form a clutch and in so doing cause them mental stress and putting extra strain on their reproductive systems. By taking the eggs away you also remove the ability for her to use the egg itself as a way of recouping some of the lost calcium (seen at it's worst in battery farms by all the birds with broken limbs).

Taking on an ex battery hen is obviously a good thing in the sense of their living conditions (they are also under mental strain when forced into a shed containing 10,000 other chickens because they can't cope with that large a social group (they would normally be in flocks of less than 100 as they can only recognise 100 other birds to know they are friends / family and not aggressors from another flock) but may not be much better off in other ways.

Also, they are typically forced to roost on the ground (and so vulnerable to foxes as foxes do get into their cages etc) when they would normally roost in the trees to be away from such predators. Having a fox wandering round at eye level and trying to get into your house is way more stressful than looking at that fox from 20 feet above it.

Also, if you take on (and especially if you 'buy' from the farmer) an ex battery chicken you aren't doing the chickens (in general) any favour if that outlet is more profitable (or even less loss) for the farmer.

It's the same as people who buy animals from food markets in China and set them free, the person trapping them in the wild is still getting reward for their exploitation.

On top of that, given that male chickens play no part useful in the egg industry, they are all generally killed at about 1 day old by being fed live into a macerator.

Rarely is it the obvious, it's often also all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes that people who don't want to support all this cruelty and exploitation want to make people aware of.

Given humans are supposed to be so intelligent and therefore remorseful, you would think we would have devise other ways of surviving without having to cause suffering, exploitation and death of millions of sentient, intelligent, social and trusting [1] animals by now ... and for the vast majority we have of course.

;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] And that makes even more disgusting. In general we only 'domesticated' animals that were generally gentle, curious, intelligent (I think pigs are the 4th most intelligent animal, over dogs and cats) and trusting. We keep, feed and provide shelter ... then cut their throats ...

[ARW]

I am working in an old folks home tomorrow....

[Richard]

No more exotics then. Just same old, same old?

[ARW]

Why would it put me off?

I have worked in an abattoir, a meat processing factory and a Halal chicken slaughterhouse. I have also shot and eaten game.

If push came to shove and a law was introduced that you had to kill and prepare the animal you ate then I would still be a meat eater.

I really have no problems with it.

And I claim first dibs on the mountain oysters.

[ARW]

:-)

With HP sauce.

[Fredxx]

It's not, but firmly imprinted on his mind through indoctrination from his 'loved ones'.

[Fredxx]

Only a fanatical vegan would associate drinking milk with cannibalism.

That is why we have farms, where cows outlive their expected life, where in the wild they would be expected to have two calves before dying.

Is also makes sense to use renewable resources. Didn't you admit to owning leather shoes?

And yet you want us feed more humans. Most of the western world's population has been shrinking. The expansion of the rest of the world is largely dependent on food production.

That's why advanced civilisations have governments to make laws to protect the environment.

No need if we have farms, no need to hunt it ourselves.

[T i m]

Apart from in those places where there weren't.

Strange, we keep most of our fruit and veg out of the fridge?

Quite.

A skill that they gained from eating veg in the first place of course.

Drying and salting were pretty common?

Well, till they were all gone?

Cheers, T i m

[Joey]

They always did with droughts and still do.