Your problem is you are a Left Brainer and you don?t see the Big Picture.
You refuse to accept that eating fruit, vegetables etc is cruel. Every apple is a baby apple tree you robbed of life. Every carrot dug up to feed you had it?s life cut short. Who knows the pain it suffered.
You are exploiting innocent fruit and vegetables every time you eat.
Ah again, everything has to be taken literally ...
"So, where this discussion you were talking about where you *think* can counter the idea that the 'farming' and exploitation of any animals can ever be considered humane, compassionate or acceptable, especially on the levels it's currently at?"
Did you miss the whole farming and levels references when you scraped the bottom of the barrel to come up your pretty extreme example?
Ok, for the binary thinkers / trolls ... ITRW, you start with the biggest cause of the problem, those who *choose* to cause pain and suffering to innocent animals to simply satisfy their appetite when there is no practical reason for them to.
*Massive difference* between someone tucking into huge steaks, eggs chicken and fish with milk and cheese *every day* using animals that have been treated as a factory product ... and someone taking what they need to survive in a very sustainable way, the way the indigenous peoples of this planet did for thousands of years and especially when no viable alternatives are available (although personally I don't see why their life is any more relevant than that of said animal).Cheers, T i m
Not at all. But I find it's a useful starting point with words when people holds themselves out as ready for a "real discussion" of a serious issue.
If you wanted us to think of you as Humpty Dumpty you only had to ask.
Ah, the Brian Reay troll under another nym?
And considering the majority of our vegetation goes to feed livestock, you have already shot yourself in you foot (again).
See above, and BS. Most apples not taken by anything will simply fall from the tree and rot away. The seeds won't grow because of the shade of it's parent tree. Any taken away or eaten by anything (inc us) may allow the seeds to pass though and then the seeds may geminate wherever they end up (where they are likely to be eaten by animals long before they become a mature tree).
Round out way there are thousands of blackberry bushes and the 'gatherers' were out in vast numbers when they were ready for picking (the 'hunters' get someone else to kill their animals these days, not killed in the wild but shot in the head whilst their heads are trapped in a frame). It looks like the blackberry season is now over and the thousands of bushes I referenced are *still* COVERED in drying and shrunken berries that are unlikely to now be eaten by anything or grow into more bushes.
See above.
Not you, that blatantly obvious.
Plants don't feel pain as they don't have a brain or central nervous system. The might 'react' to something (they obviously do re sunlight etc) but they don't 'respond' like a sentient creature might.
What sort of living hell would that be if they felt pain but couldn't
*respond* by being able to move away (and the purpose of pain for those creatures that can respond).And when you eat meat you are exploiting both your veg and the animals you feed them to that you then kill and eat (or drink lactate from, denying it to the baby it was meant for).
Cheers, T i m
ROFL
It's an interpretation of the words you used. If those words were wrong, or imparted the wrong meaning, it's up to you, not the rest of us, to correct that - or, heaven forbid, get it right the first time.
However, one huge drawback to this is that the words you use seem to mean what you want them to mean, with the meaning changing as the discussion tries to advance in the face of your going off at tangents, deflecting the argument, ignoring the questions your statements demanded, or just calling people a 'troll'. That's hardly a way to have a sensible discussion, and in fact gives the impression you are either the troll in all this or you are having difficulty with using words to express ideas.
See what I mean about your calling people trolls?
I think the meaning you attach to the word 'discussion' has a different meaning to that used by the rest of us, as you will see below.
That's not a discussion! With no evidence whatsoever to substantiate it, you have gratuitously claimed that I eat "...meat, eggs, cheese and drink cows milk...". What on Earth makes you think that is a basis or contribution for a discussion?
But having raised the straw man, you then go on to claim "...and so 'of course' you defend *your choice*...". Note that nowhere in your silly Meat Eaters Licence threads have I mentioned my diet. So, you are clearly making things up to suit your own argument, supported by using that in a false argument. That's pathetic to say the least.
According to what you have said, several times now, you are content with letting animals suffer from vitamin B12 deficiency because you think their diet supplementation with it is 'ridiculous' - but of course, your own supplementation is perfectly acceptable because is is necessary with a vegan diet.
Well, you could always set an example here.
<rest snipped><snip>
I might be if you ever stopped insisting (consciously or unconsciously) your dogma is incontrovertible. If you are not willing to accept you might be wrong in some respects then IMO what you want is not a "reasoned discussion", it's an opportunity to preach/convert.
This article suggests otherwise:
It's no more BS than your own argument.Perhaps you are understanding how stupid a meat eaters license is, and how it will do little to improve animal welfare.
<snip BS>Yes, see above
It's a common theme you care so little about welfare.
Some animals have very little sensitivity to pain. Perhaps you might consider campaigning for improving animal welfare if it truly concerned you.
Precisely, are you coming round to the idea we shouldn't be eating plants?
Are you agreeing these are equivalent levels of exploitatioins?
+1
It is. You and I might not be around to see a complete move away from keeping and killing 'animals' for food but it will be the case.
Just in the same way I knew that smoking over people would become socially unacceptable, as did the concept of 'official' slavery and not allowing women the right to vote.
I gave you the floor to raise them.
See above. Give it your best shot.
Cheers, T i m
You invite me to discuss views you have just /explicitly/ stated you hold to be incontrovertible. So it seems (a) you don't know what incontrovertible means or (b) you wear your bridge with pride.
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:32:09 +0100, Robin snipped-for-privacy@outlook.com wrote: <snip>
And of course in your left brainer world *everything* is absolute.
I gave you the opportunity to give it your best shot. Now, you know (or should by now) the things I'll call BS on (because they are scientifically, morally, ethically, practically or compassionately) so it's up to you to find something that I would consider to be relevant / acceptable, and not just a selfish excuse or some bizarre (we will get round to that one when appropriate) exception.
You never know, you *might* be able to come up with something. ;-)
<snip>Cheers, T i m
That is because you are a left brainer and only see things from your view point.
Excellent! A d-i-y kill file (for me)! ;-)
Cheers, T i m
On 31 Aug 2020 22:19:53 GMT, Tim Streater snipped-for-privacy@greenbee.net wrote: <snip>
I understand why you are petrified of aliens, you think they will treat us (as on War of the Worlds) like we treat most livestock.
Cheers, T i m
Not something most people, mental illness excepted, would be proud of.
What, a kill file that creates itself automagically and stops me having to interact with weirdos, what not's to like!
Cheers, T i m
don't worry timmy it will be the same kind of kill file that you use...
Sometime around 1902, 'wireless' was declared a 'finished art', a fact which was incontrovertible at the time. Things have moved on since then. Phlogiston was incontrovertible, until oxidation was discovered. It was incontrovertible that chlorine wasn't an element, until isotopes were discovered. It was incontrovertible that the microcosm and the macrocosm were different entities, until Wohler synthesised urea. The list of incontrovertible facts that have since been destroyed by the advancement of science is huge. Keep that in mind when you claim something is incontrovertible.
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.