OT: Fredxx was right all along.

I would never eat liver anyway ....

The production of foie gras is so cruel and horrifying that it has been banned in 16 countries. ... Many birds have difficulty standing because their engorged livers distend their abdomens, and they may tear out their own feathers and attack each other out of stress.

It's no longer your birthday so you are back to being obliged to correct *everone* here who says something that you don't believe is right, whilst not admitting that much of what you say is wrong.

Byee!

Cheers, T i m

No, I never liked being forced to eat it as a child (my parents were also indoctrinated like Fredxx) and I've never bought and cooked or ordered / had it out either.

And when people see 'Oxtail' or 'tongue or 'cheek' as the main ingredient of a food, do they ever think what that's talking about?

It's bad enough looking at any animal just as a range of 'cuts'.

Given most people explain the whole idea of 'being kind to animals' and not even tormenting them, let alone killing them, at what age do you think all children should visit a farm (arable, dairy, egg, livestock) and, if they want to eat meat (or sausages, burgers, or chicken nuggets even), what age should that be?

And I don't mean with the continuing conditioning and de-sensitisation of 'yes, we *have* to do that to the animals ...' because it's blatantly obvious that we don't (especially in 2021) and further, much of what is marketed at them is likely to be why many of them are obese?

Cheers, T i m

Child abuse, eh?

FTAOD it was all the chickens, one or two at a time.

Note that you're now so unhinged that you not only condemn people for not following The Gospel According to T i m, but also for actually following it. So much for your silly Meat Eaters Licence.

Get help.

And that's *exactly* the situation with chickens. That's why they cut the tips of their beaks off ... because they are used to being in social groups (flocks) of 100 or less as they can recognise a maximum of 100 and so become comfortable which birds are part of their flock. Put them with more birds (thousands) and it causes stress and they start pecking at each other ... so the farmer fixes that by damaging their key sensory organ and life tool (beak), just to stop his commodities from damaging themselves out of frustration (for the position the farmer has put them into)?

They also have many vocalisations so talk to each other.

They are forced to grow so fast their legs often break because their legs can't take the weight as they haven't grown as fast as their bodies (or 'meat' as some see them).

The egg layers would typically lay a clutch of eggs and around 10-15 year (not 300). Except as soon as they lay one we take it away, causing mental stress.

But force feeding a bird with a pipe to make it's liver bigger quicker to then kill it to eat said liver is considered by you / Fredxx as being cruel, but effectively forcing animals to grow faster with high protein foods (with the associated problems that causes) in unnatural conditions that cause massive stress and be killed quicker is perfectly acceptable? Is it that mental stress can't be seen and so not considered by some but a broken beak can?

It all seems pretty illogical to me. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

You keep saying "bye".

Just to remind you what you snipped:

If this is important to you then campaign to put a stop to it. However these condition serve your purpose and a way of proffering / justifying your fanatical veganism at the cost of continued animal cruelty and suffering.

I have made this point several times, and all you can do is snip it hoping the point will go away. It won't.

The age when meat should be part of their natural balanced diet of course.

You do ask some stupid questions.

Spuke / burk / any other nyms you post under?

But I'll play ...

Well, if that were our kid and was doing the same we would have considered it to be more 'see how you like it' and would have thanked anyone for putting him / her straight.

Personally, I would consider exposing a child to the routine slaughter on innocent / defenseless creatures to be way more abusive and potentially mind affecting (for the rest of their lives), than any 'clip round the ear'.

Lovely. All helping with the early conditioning.

WTF are you talking about?

I have no 'gospel' and you can be assured that any efforts to reduce the unnecessary cruelty to animals didn't initially emanate from me.

So, are you as confused / hypocritical as Fredxx, or don't you GAS about the ducks and geese and foie gois production at all either?

See, he recognises that ducks / geese abused that way is very wrong, and probably (hopefully) would feel the same way about fox hunting, bare / badger bating and bull / dog fighting (because of the cruelty involved) but is completely happy with piglets having their tails and teeth cut off, chicks having the beaks burned off, goats / sheep having their horn stubs burned off, cows having their newborns taken away or sows not being allowed to move to tend for or get away from their piglets.

Now, assuming you don't consider *all* the above (inc the illegal / banned things) 'perfectly ok', there must be somewhere down that list where you would draw the line?

That doesn't seem a very kind / humane / benevolent / compassionate thing for a (so called) advanced species to do to any other species does it? War of the worlds?

Hardly silly, given how common the use of such tools are for making people aware of the consequences of their actions.

Making offenders confront their victims etc. A meat eater licence is the exact same thing and *would* have a direct impact on the number of animals abused and killed. This isn't stopping anyone doing anything, it's reminding them that they shouldn't have ever started doing what they did in the first place.

The likes of Fredxx has stated how distressing he finds the picture of a duck with a broken beak (which is the *right* response of course) so just think how upset he might be if he had the balls to watch the videos of the things going on in everyday slaughterhouses around the UK today. RSPCA / Red Tractor *approved* processes that don't actually stop the suffering and death ... the things he pays to have done for him but won't watch. He won't watch it because he knows it will upset him and he doesn't want to be reminded of that when he is selfishly (therefore) enjoying the flesh of an animal he has (effectively) killed.

None of that would bother you of course, you lost any compassion you may have had when a child (not your fault, you too were a victim of abuse). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

The idea is that children should learn according to their age as they mature. It's why there are laws about inflicting indecent images to children.

What you are advocating is child abuse.

As a side-effect it may well improve animal welfare. Something you care little about. We might end up with some pretty touch children.

You've been given numerous chances to deny you follow a mythical deity like father christmas.

Are all this time are you going to admit to being an atheist?

Either? You're the one who says you don't want the conditions during the animal's life to be improved. Do make up your mind.

Whereas from your numerous posts on the subject, you choose to nothing about animal welfare. You have no line.

Quite, but you condone the process of slaughter where these processes are carried out where the animal is aware of it's environment. Some of us don't.

That is because we are a higher animal, and it natural for higher animals to consume lower ones in the food chain.

No more silly to have a pet license when household members should carry out the castration of the pet they're about to own.

That is the point, up to the point of slaughter I want to look an animal in the eye and confident it has been treated well. After slaughter the animal won't care.

I never said I found the duck with a broken beak distressing. Have you been hearing those voices again or dreaming about me? All I have said is I dislike the practice and support the banning of import of fois gras. I even said the photo was unnecessary and inappropriate but designed for an emotional response.

Of course you don't care about the force feeding of geese as you don't want the conditions during the animal's life to be improved.

Where did that come from?

Aww bless. Thanks for playing and caring though.

But consider this ... many of those who have had progressive views over history were pilloried, 'the world is round' or 'the earth revolves around the sun' and the ever increasing number of people who now care more about what we do with animals in all sorts of areas *is* another.

We have already outlawed, banned, licensed, controlled *loads* of animal related things, most of which were perfectly legal and socially acceptable at one time.

Why wouldn't anyone, knowing how innocent, sentient and trusting creatures have to suffer unnecessarily, not choose something that didn't cause all that I don't know?

But I guess many people are very routine, they always have the same thing to eat each day of the week or simply aren't aware of all the alternatives that in the main are more sustainable, healthier for us and create less pollution.

And you live in one of the top countries for veganism////// people caring about animals.

He is right, you do need help.

The successful ones were those who achieved things incrementally.

Brexit is a case in point. Through John Major and Tony Blair pushing through significant changes in the EEC to EU causing sufficient disquiet over a number of issues made the pack op cards come tumbling down.

You don't understand the concept of managed change, in the same way you don't understand consent.

Quite, but you admit you don't care about animal welfare when they're alive. You simply want to stop us eating them after that point, but then have the audacity to feed your dog meat.

So support campaigns to improve their lot, stop whingeing about use eating meat through your envy, because you're not allowed to.

And you proposed increasing the population still further.

Veganism is a personal life choice, I commend those who don't inflict their way of life, either religion or diet, onto others.

So, you condone child abuse?

Don't try that excuse in court. It won't go well.

Only following your Meat Eaters Licence rules, seventy years before you thought of them.

I'm talking about you being a two-faced f****it.

So?

Get help.

I condone what may now be describes as such today by snowflakes as it was applied by sensible people *then*.

Experiment. Put a remote speaker in what looks like a dog carrier, give it to a kid (say a 10 year old boy) and sit him in a shopping centre. Play the sounds of a dog yelping / whimpering and whenever the noises play, have the boy kick and shout at the carrier and see how long that goes on before someone remonstrates / stops the kid.

The irony of this experiment (apart from demonstrating that even a 10 year old child is likely to be 'dealt with' when they appear to be being cruel to animals) is the same people doing the remonstrating will go back into eating their beef burger or ham sandwich. Such is the cognitive dissonance of the general population.

Like you could ever have a balanced view on that. ;-(

Except the rules were really aimed at those typically buying 'meat'

The irony is that most people, including meat eaters:

The only way you might be able to soften that blow is to start with all the normalisation and conditioning / lies first, telling them it's 'nature' and 'we need to eat meat', when most animals in nature aren't gassed in a cage and we don't *need* to eat meat (as any one of the millions of vegetarians and vegan's round the world will attest).

Ah, but only based on your twisted interpretation of things. Talk English and I might understand you.

So you are shooting the messenger (and using bollox for ammunition).

Aww, poor nymshifting Spuke. Just like that other coward Fredxx, can't actually discuss (only spuke out your selfish animal cruelty biased bs) the core topic so roll out all sort of strawmen to try to cover your desperation.

The thread was about Fredxx and his hypocrisy and trolling BS on his birthday. He wants to force people to stop eating foie gras whilst eating what he wants himself and whilst attacking me for not eating or exploiting any animal? He doesn't need to sign any petitions to stop me being cruel to any animals.

Not that you would be likely to be able to understand / follow that, what with your troubled background etc. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

You have just confirmed you approve of child abuse. Shame on you.

Furious piece of back-pedalling there to condone your views on child abuse.

They are all things you have said, which (at different times) say different things?

Such that in your rush (to condemn), you trip over yourself?

Ah, the abuse hurled by the very poor loser, having been shot down with his own arguments?

Get help.

Cheers, T i m

There is no irony. You can't comprehend that the average human being doesn't like wanton cruelty to animals. You had admitted that you don't care about animal welfare during the life of animals.

There is no cognitive dissonance shared by the population when it comes to animal cruelty. Most caring humans want to minimise pain and suffering during the animals life and slaughter.

You on the other hand endorse ritual slaughter, a disgusting practice.

All your posts show envy to meat eaters, where out loved ones allow us to eat meat as part of a natural, balanced healthy diet.

I don't think a fanatical vegan with an admission they don't care about animal welfare whilst the animal is alive is not a balanced person giving a balanced view.

Some of us have and we would rather spend our time to improve slaughter practices. You, by way of example, endorse ritual slaughter, and then whinge about the gassing, bolting or stunning of animals. Such practices could easily be improved.

In much the same way we don't show our children films that incorporate violence. You are sick if you want to show age restricted films to children.

Quite, we should be told that meat is part of a natural balanced diet, one that provides us with vitamins like B12.

No, someone who admits they don't care about animal welfare is twisted. No interpretation is required when your views are written down in black and white.

Is that a way of saying that others care about animal welfare while you don't?

I am no coward. I discuss every point you make. It is you who snip chunks of text that gives you cognitive dissonance, and now you admit you want to subject children to age restricted violence.

The post was about you and your 'weirdo'[1] family. And your dreams.

You misunderstand I want to minimise animal cruelty. I know this is not important for you.

Force feeding geese is unnecessary. If you don't think it causes the goose pain or discomfort then please do let me know and I'll then remove my name from the petition (if I can).

You come across as the troubled fanatic. The parts that trouble you most simply get snipped from your replies.

You tend to snip contents that aren't to your liking. It's to be expected from a fanatic who is blinkered to the truth they would rather not exist.