OT: Meat eaters licence (update).

[T i m]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:33:20 +0100, T i m [e-mail]> wrote: >

>>Following on from my thoughts that part of the reason why so many > >>> > >Many thanks Tim, > This thought of how far I would go if >the killing wasn't done for me, has crossed my mind on many occasions. > >People should be more aware of the processes involved. >

<snip>

Thanks it needs highligting. If I had seen this yesterday my shopping

>trip to town might have had a different emphasis regarding topping the >freezer up :-(

... I came across this that joins it all together (the hypothetical concept of a meat eaters licence and / (because of) the responsibility for consequences of our actions when buying meat):

(It's only 35 seconds long but you have to be a 'responsible and open minded adult' to view it):

It seems traditionally compassionate people have been indoctrinated to be willing to turn a blind eye to things that have to go on to satisfy their appetites and worse the suggestion that doing so is good for them, when in the main it's neither good for them nor the survival of mankind and the environment (when compared with alternatives in a majority of cases and given most people recommend and accept that a good diet contains at least 60% fruit and veg).

"An udder infection called mastitis is very common in dairy cows and causes pus to leach into milk. Because dairy milk is pooled together in large tanks, virtually all dairy milk contains this pus. A litre of milk can have up to 400,000,000 somatic cells (pus cells) before it is considered unfit for people to drink."

(Even if only 165,000 /l, I'd rather not consume *any*, even if that was the only issue).

So you then get the people trying to defend the practice of humans consuming the lactate of another species (and after we have weaned ourselves?) say that the use of Soy is responsible for most of the damage to the rainforest and whilst they have a point, 75%+ of the soy grown is fed to livestock!!

"The remaining 6% (2% of the overall UK soy supply) were used as a whole-bean animal feed (>5%) and as the basis of foods such as soy milk, tofu and tempeh (<1%). Preliminary data for 2017 show a slight increase in the use of whole soybeans for food."

And the very thing we are indoctrinated to drink cows milk for, calcium, is present in greater quantities in Soy (almond and oat) milk.

Cheers, T i m

[Max Demian]

Change the record Tim FFS.

[Jethro_uk]

The damage ever-thirsty almonds are doing to the environment, for example ...

[T i m]

<snip>

<snip>

Not until 'more people' (than the ever growing number of us already doing so etc) start showing some compassion for the other animals we share this world with and get more people to consider how their 'choices' generally cause so much suffering (to animals, inc humans) and environment damage ... I'll carry on thanks.

Just in the same way as anyone over the history of mankind has campaigned (in whatever way and at whatever level) for right, compassion and justice.

So, did you actually watch the 35 second video and if so, did it resonate with you at all?

Cheers, T i m

[Spike]

<large snip about cows teats>

What a pity you only mention part of the problem. The parallel issue that you avoided referring to, namely chemical and biological moulds, parasites, etc,in fruit and vegetables, should make interesting reading for vegetarians and vegans. That could lead to the concept of a Food Eaters Licence.... which could be developed further into an Air Breathers Licence, a Water Drinkers Licence, etc leading to an overall Licence To Live endorsed with Food Groups that one had passed 'the test' for. A Warmth Users Licence could be issued to those who sign up to the Unprecedented Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Breakdown Emergency Alarm belief system.

What a Utopia, eh, for a Little Blockwart.

[T i m]

Of course, no single solution is going to be perfect (and why we don't consume almond milk here) but for the most part the negative consequences just affect us, not some innocent animal?

I really can't differentiate the mass slaughter of innocent people in a mosque and the mass slaughter of innocent animals every day, or why we are 'concerned' when a few dolphins die on a beach when millions of tonnes of fish are suffocated to death every day (ignoring all the deaths caused by side catches).

If on the news they warn us the sight of these dolphins 'might be distressing', what would they say if they were showing us around a new abattoir that was opened? Why are such things hidden from us, if what goes on would be considered 'ok' to most people that witnessed it?

Why do we 'expose' badger baiting or dog fighting and imprison those doing it but go and watch someone torment a bull?

What's the difference between a pet golden retriever and a pet goat and the principle of eating either (to us here in the UK)?

*Every time* the activists show the public slaughterhouse footage, 'most people' are shock and abhorred. For some that's enough to make them re-consider their options and others just carry on to the stake house.

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Some people find it too difficult to read more than one paragraph!

See above. No avoidance, simply trying to keep some focus on the

*major* point in hand.

Ok ... and what, you think most Vegan's haven't already considered such?

Sorry, are you talking about the slaughter of vegetables to feed humans directly or the slaughter of vegetables to feed cattle and them slaughter them to feed us?

Right, now you show yourself to be the worthless troll you are.

<snip>

Cheers, T i m

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

spike is certainly not that Mr Gaslighter.....

[T i m]

<snip>

Oooh, caught a nerve I see. ;-)

But thanks for continuing to read everything I type Jimmy boy. (You really ought to see if someone can help you sort out your killfile else you are going to *keep* reading everything else I type, especially if it's going to upset you like that). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

That is your issue. If you can't differentiate between higher beings and those who have a brain smaller than a pea with memory of a few seconds you can never move forward.

Nature intended there to be a hierarchy of animals that eat others. Accept it. Man was designed to eat meat products, otherwise he is deficient in B12, by way of example, which leads to serious mental illness.

If you wish to improve the killing process in an abattoir to make it more humane then I'm all with you, except that's not a priority for you. In short you have shown little concern about animal welfare.

There is no difference, if I had a pet goat I probably wouldn't want to eat it either.

BTW I have no idea how you're going to sell the idea that keeping pets is torture for them.

I had hoped you had learnt that imposing your extreme will on others in such an extreme manner is entirely counterproductive. It's actually making me want to eat meat on principle.

[Fredxx]

Not another demonstration of the futility of your argument. It is a common trait of yours to resort to abuse when trying to thrust your failed argument onto others.

[Fredxx]

It seems Spike caught one of yours.

[Jethro_uk]

Makes militant veganism self limiting :)

Just a note: it's not impossible to source B12 from a meat free diet. But the hassle involved does rather suggest as a species it's not by design.

[T i m]

Only to you.

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

<snip>

Oh, that's *my issues* is it?

Ah, like you, a god I'm guessing?

Nothing to do with memory, but if you want to go there, how come you, a 'higher being' can't do half the things even the most 'primitive of create you dismiss so quickly can do? How long would you need to see a sequence of numbers on a screen before you could click them in order, more than a few milliseconds I'm guessing?

Ironically, those of us who make the choice *not* to torture and exploit other animals we share this planet with are the ones 'moving forward'.

Of course, except nature didn't equip lions with factory farms and bolt guns.

Why should I accept the indoctrination (or selfish greed) that has got you?

BS. Man was 'designed' as an omnivore and overcame their limitations on the ability to properly digest animal flesh by pounding it very fine or cooling it. We are NOT carnivores. And I bet you are surprised many humans are 'lactose intolerant'? Hardly surprising, trying to consume the lactate of a *different species* after we have weaned!

Oh, that old bogus chestnut ... the same B12 that many factory farmed animals are supplemented with because of how unnaturally we are raining them. The same B12 that much of the omnivore population is deficient of in any case.

By the way of a distraction from the facts and truth. Are you willing to kill your own food. Yes or no?

Quite, in anyone who suffers it badly, across the entire population, vegan's and meat eaters alike.

I don't, I want to stop the killing process.

No you aren't. You seem to have a threshold that you consider acceptable re how much pain and suffering (over it's entire live) that you are willing to subject any animal you eat to.

It's the whole point. No wonder you are coming across as so stupid. ;-(

In short you have completely missed the point (and / or in denial).

But it's 'a goat', what's the difference between that and any other on a farm? Why would you care for either?

For anyone who get's it, it doesn't need any explaining.

Oh, so you still think that like you, I am sort of goD or the Prime Minister and *can* impose my will on you or anyone. Delicate princess or what! You think that your right to live exceeds that of several animals every year?

Only because you don't understand (or care) for the point. You, along with many are in denial.

You think you must eat meat (you don't), you think that it can be raised and killed humanely (it can't) and that (therefore) you think anyone who is actually against the idea of you hurting, torturing (even if only emotionally) and finally (if they are lucky), killing an innocent animal, just to put on your plate is somehow uninformed or out to get you, when they are only out to protect innocent animals.

You are weird. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Only if the point was valid and it isn't (other than by how we have sanitised our lives these days).

Of course.

No hassles whatsoever, given most foods (especially 'vegan') are fortified with B12 in any case (as is much of the B12 deficient meat we raise that's deficient for the same reason).

However, animals (who need B12) generate it via a bacteria that is often found in the soil and water. So, if you pick a mushroom, dig up a root veg or eat a fallen apple, or drink from a stream or river without over sterilising it you will get the bacteria that supports B12 production.

Sterilise everything you eat and drink (or feed livestock man-made feed on concrete stands and give them chlorinated water to drink) and they are in the exact same position as us.

B12 (lack there of) isn't 'a problem', in the same way that getting any of the essential vitamins and minerals we need isn't a problem. Our treatment of many of the animals we share this earth with is.

By comparison, the 'indigenous peoples' of many of our landmasses used a much more sustainable process, often only killing only what they needed (from the wild) to survive. They *UNDERSTOOD* what was needed to live in balance with this space and didn't exploit it and the resources (and in many cases rely on ourselves), like we are doing now.

We *will* have to change because what we are doing now simply isn't sustainable (and won't be ethically / morally acceptable in time to come).

Luckily many people already understand this and are already doing their bit. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

<snip>

Read what it wrote and show me were it deserved any less.

To trolls and nutjobs.

Aww bless. Grow a pair princess.

Cheers, T i m

[Richard]

He allegedly has a dog, or walks one.

[Jethro_uk]

There was a fascinating (and amusing) documentary a while back (BBC, it may have been a Horizon) looking at how cooking food has super powered humanity beyond recognition as a species. Basically we have outsourced our digestion to cooking pots.

(The amusing bit was following a team of volunteers who tried to live on a totally raw - zero cooking allowed - diet, like apes. They found within a few days between eating and sitting on the loo they were doing f*ck all else ...)

There was a theory put forward that it's our digestive development which led to our increased intelligence and nudged us along that evolutionary pathway.

There's also the (possibly not coincidental) side effect that cooking renders a lot more foodstuffs edible to humans than not.

[T i m]

;-)

Yup, a good enough demonstration of the fact we aren't carnivores if one was needed.

Well, we have gone forward in some way and backwards in others (re our goal of self destruction and disregard of the planet and it's other occupants).

Agreed ... like the suggestion that it takes as much energy to chew / digest a raw carrot then we gain from eating it and how much more we get when (as you say) it's been pre-processed (an external input of energy to save it coming from us), if it wasn't for the other benefits we get from such (vitamins, fibre etc).

Herbivores are *designed* to process such low energy material directly of course and whey they have a different layout of teeth and digestive tract to us (or carnivores etc).

Cheers, T i m