'We' currently have two rescued dogs, one (now) belonging to our daughter and the other has been convalescing round my Mums since lockdown (to the benefit of both parties) and is hopefully soon going to it's new 'forever' home.
Much as though my Mum (90) loves him and he's obviously very close to her, she accepts that she can't give him the exercise (more than enrichment) such a companion should enjoy and so she wants to do the best thing for him.
We (daughter, Mrs and I) have never got a dog from a breeder, only from the various rescue agencies because 'helping animals' is more important to us than our own personal choices (of dog).
And dogs are also omnivore / opportunist eaters like us and many are currently living long and healthily lives as vegetarians / vegans (that is their 'opportunistic nature).
Cheers, T i m
p.s. We were out dog walking the other day and came across a small family group out blackberry picking. The funny bit was their Labrador was eating as many (direct from the bush) as they were picking themselves. ;-)
Not regs (I never mentioned such) but viewer warnings to protect those they deem such material might be in some way inappropriate.
It says "This video may be inappropriate for some users. [I understand and which to proceed]", where the interpretation of 'some users' would typically be considered children or people not ready for 'adult content'.
How would I be able to do that, or why would you think that I could, even if I wanted (and don't worry, I don't).
It was also a dig as those who use such protection systems as an excuse not to watch true real world content for some reason (like 'I have to sign up to Youtube' etc).
So why did you not say "This video may be inappropriate for some users. [I understand and which to proceed]" instead of posting bollocks?. In fact why bother stating what the video says?
It's you that has decided to post bollocks and say "It's only 35 seconds long but you have to be a 'responsible and open minded adult' to view it"
Not here. I saw "Sign in to confirm your age". After that there is no warning as to the content that follows. That seems to me irresponsible. I can imagine many people being triggered by those images - eg someone who suffered poisoning after eating strawberries from an uncovered punnet.
I think you have to do that first (at some time and on FF on a PC) and
*then* you just get the 'Do you wish to continue' message.
I get it here, as a signed in / authenticated person every time I access such content. It was what Fredxx was whining about previously (not wanting to give his details to Youtube and so couldn't view such content).
Yup, people are triggered (or not) by all sorts of things. ;-)
For example, imagine seeing animal cruelty and not being bothered by it? ;-(
I didn't suggest otherwise? But do you think that because you have just signed in you might have already accepted the check, something you might then see the next time you look at something with a similar warning (assuming you can't default it to off etc)?
Of course you don't (because I don't, *obviously*).
Except I didn't, saying more about you and you imagination / frailties than you may have intended. ;-(
'Am I bothered by nature ...' WTF is wrong with you?
Do I enjoy watching predators kill their prey, no I don't. Can I accept they can't generally go to the supermarket and buy pre packaged impala or monkey ... that they had to have someone else kill and prepare for them because (in most cases) they don't have what it takes to do for themselves ... ? That if they don't kill they starve? Yes, 'of course'.
WTF is wrong with you? We are natural animals whose instinct is to eat meat. Our bodies are even designed to consume meat products to get our fix of B12.
That's because nature has made us social animals that can organise better than lower animals.
It's ironic that those who don't actually snatch the monkey still go on to eat it, much in the same way we enable others to raise and kill animals for our dinner plates.
No more godlike than a cat hunting and eating meat.
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.
Not sure the point you're making apart from confirming that man is a higher animal that can control it's environment more than any other animal.
There is no torture, certainly no more than keeping a pet.
Quite, which means as a higher animal we kill animals more humanely than lions.
No worse than your ego that seems to think it's right to impose your ideals on others around you.
Quite, I'm please you now admit we were designed/created/evolved to eat meat. I also agree not exclusively. But without meat products we would have a deficiency in B12.
It's not bogus, you don't need to consume much meat product to get your daily B12 requirement.
if I had to, yes I would. But in the same way you would have your car serviced by someone else I would prefer some guy in an abattoir under veterinary supervision do the job for me.
More likely by vegans.
So you agree animal welfare isn't important for you. You don't give a damn how animals are killed and don't want to stipulate the stunning of animals so they are not left upside down bleeding to death while alive. You don't come across as a decent person, but someone who want to impose their own values on others around them.
This where your deficiency of B12 is showing. As I have repeatedly said I am happy for improved animal welfare whereas you make it obvious you don't give a shit.
It's exactly the same as keeping pets. Have you considered how much pain and suffering you cause them?
The point is animal welfare is not a priority for you. Sorry for coming across as stupid for pointing out the obvious.
The point you are making is that you don't want improved animal welfare, but wish to impose your values on others. If this is wrong then you need to explain better.
Quite a lot, the concept that there might be some emotional attachment to a pet but not to a farm animal destined for the pot must be very difficult for you.
Are you agreeing that keeping animals as pets is torturing and abusing these animals after all?
Yes, it most definitely does.
I fully understand the point you are making. Its a very stupid point. You believe that a piece of paper will improve animal welfare. I say if you want to improve animal welfare there are far more productive ways.
Are you agreeing that pets that are raised in a humane way?
If you want animals to be killed humanely then support the stunning of animals so they are not left upside down bleeding to death while alive. You don't come across as a decent person, but someone who want to impose their own values on others around them yet in reality don't give a damn about animal welfare.
You think you can keep animals as pets (you shouldn't), you think that pets can be raised humanely (they 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) just to have a pet dog is somehow uninformed or out to get you, when they are only out to protect innocent animals.
That is how you sound to others. Stupid isn't it, but to a fanatics who campaigns against holding animals in captivity it probably doesn't.
It was along the lines of what a fanatic lover of plants would write, who believed we should be eating meat only. The argument is as ridiculous as yours and deserves the same respect.
I assume Spike wrote that as a tongue in cheek argument along the lines of yours to show how stupid you are being; and the fact you bit shows you are the nut job. The definition of a nut job is someone who can't recognise the futility of their own argument.
That is a function of their physiological makeup and requirements, it isn't ours.
If you consider the dismissal of any living creature as being any less relevant than you then you are less then them in my opinion (and no wonder you don't understand).
Of course, but nature didn't invent guns or tools that gave us rights over everything else.
Nope, because it's all arrogant and ignorant BS>
Nope. Fact, 100% not. More ignorant bs.
Same old BS chestnut. Look up how we acquire B12 and learn something for a change.
Of course and a lack of water can case us to die very quickly..
That is blatantly obvious. How big do you think your brain is?
Only because of how we use those skills to manipulate and mange other life forms. I'd love to see you in a cage with a Loin and just see how your higher brain copes. Or drop you in the middle of an ocean and let you swim 1000 miles home, or get you to see a sequence on a screen for a matter of milliseconds and then repeat it accurately. You my friend are actually *pathetic* compared with the *natural* abilities of nearly every other living creature!
Yup, and completely f*ck it up in 200 years. Well done us!
Stupid troll. If only you had the brains and balls you think you have you would have figured out how you can watch a simple Youtube video and learned some of the truths and why most of what you spout on this is complete BS.
It's because you are mentally limited to just the animals death it's no wonder you don't have a clue. Another mass murderer (that killed people, not just animals like you) has just been given a life prison sentence. Why? Why not have him executed? Because it's considered that a life in prison is *worse* than execution. Like this:
formatting link
Aww, poor baby. Except the difference between us is that you are killing and torturing innocent creatures and I'm not.
Stupid troll.
Stupid troll.
It is, it's ignorant BS.
Look up how we (animals inc humans) gain B12 then come back to me (then STFU on it).
Ok, than that's all I need to know about or from you. Thanks, bye!
Not at all. You are merely showing that you haven't thought things through, even with your superior half-brain.
Your problem is that you see only meat-eating as an issue, but there are plenty of special-interest groups about over which your own interest is not superior.
For example, we all *have* to breath air, and we all *have* to drink water, because if we don't we'll be dead in short order. So, to make people aware of the problems involved, appropriate Licences would have to be issued after the requisite training. Your own pet project comes way down the list in importance as there are any number of things we can eat - and that makes it merely a personal choice essentially of little importance instead of a vital requirement. Keep in mind that the animals you wish to serve also need to breath air and drink water, so these two necessities trump your virtue-signalling lifestyle choice.
Actually, it's *you* who are '...talking about the slaughter of vegetables...', for reasons only you know.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.