OT: Objectifying animals. (Inc using their bodies as seats).

I love my family too, and want them to enjoy a natural and balanced diet. That's why supplying meat and meat products is good for your cats is also good for me and my family.

No, most animals are omnivores, however dogs have a gut which is optimised for meat. Only a fanatical vegan would deprive dogs of meat, claiming it is good for them, whereas it really isn't.

That's true, that can generally pee when they like, s*it when and where they like, although many owners will still stipulate their feeding times.

What's the point in having a pet? It's a sore subject for fanatical vegans and difficult to justify by most.

There was a final solution.

Now there's a plan. We can start with the extermination of vegans.

In message snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, T i m snipped-for-privacy@spaced.me.uk> writes

Indeed. My side of it hinged on you limiting yourself to factual reporting. The OT bit has been pretty good so far. Sadly there are other interesting OT posts so I can't just crop them.

I might remind you that human artificial fertilisation is available for similar reasons.

"I'm so sorry for people with no pets; they have to make such a fuss of their children."

Research on foxes has shown that while they could live for 20 years, in the wild their life-span is more like five years. During that time they are plagued with fleas and lice, and carry a variety of intestinal pests such as ringworm, etc, that take nutrients from their already limited diet. A variety of other diseases, some unpleasant, blight their lives.

But none of this matters! They are living naturally! Living in a zoo with regular balanced meals of good food, somewhere nice for shelter, and with regular medical attention, must be sheer hell for them.

One can't help but notice that *you* don't live in the wild. Care to explain why?

Ah, the simple-minded view of things.

In fact there might not be a surplus of crops but rather a shortage.

What your naive approach fails to take into account is the massive amount of land that would have to given over to growing the plants that would be needed to supply 7 billion people with B12 supplementation

Or not.

There are plenty of people out there who aren't demonstrative and so the chances are they wouldn't be likely to 'make a fuss' of their children or any animals that they happened to share their houses with (not sure you would call them 'pet's in those instances).

I've seen that myself ... people who wouldn't welcome your dogs in their house or that have a dog themselves but don't acknowledge it when they come home (the dog desperate to say 'hello' but is completely ignored).

And of course we shouldn't 'keep' any pets but it becomes a grey area when an animal latches onto you (and not because of imprinting from birth, that should be avoided) but it's therefore possible to share your life / home with another animal (human or other species) as long as it's provided / allowed all it's natural behaviours (or as many as possible), plus any enrichment etc. What you don't typically do with a pet is kill and eat it (although people do of course but then I question the idea of it ever being 'a companion animal').

So a 'rescued' animal, (say in response to human interference / poaching) that has the freedom / protection of a wildlife park till it's able to support / defend itself that *chooses* to maintain contact with it's human rescuers etc.

Ideally there would be no need for any animal 'rescues' because there wouldn't be poaching of parent animals and there wouldn't be live stock 'farmers' who can no longer deal with their moral conflict, giving up their animals to a rescue, rather than selling them as the objects, the commodity that they would typically be.

I would hope that having a tactile pet in the family would mean people would make the link between the sentience of other creatures and their right / desire to live and the (non) consumption of the flesh of the same ... but the normalisation, indoctrination, marketing and peer pressure is so strong that I don't believe it is often the case, or at lest till the person grows up and makes their own choices.

Cheers, T i m

not to mention all those lubly oily fish.

I had a massive lurch as I was driving home yesterday. Monster raptor - maye a buzzard but looked like a f****ng great owl, landed over the car to grab at something dead... Not letting all that good protein go to waste.

I've just looked it up. tawny owl is about 3 ft wingspan. Buzzard 4-5 ft

Musta bin an owl

If T i m had an ounce of honesty in his bigotry and actually lived where his food is grown, he would know that what humans do to animals is benign compared to what happens to them in the wild

I was watching an old 'Touch of Frost' last night

"The more you get to know about people, the more you appreciate dogs"

The facts are so painful you feel obliged to label them as troll s*it. Yet I'm not the troll who started this thread.

Perhaps they don't like pets to be obliged to s*it and pee at their owners command and expectations.

Perhaps they think you are cruelly exploiting animals by keeping then as adornments? Especially when you cruelly refrain from giving them meat and meat products, something they would eat naturally.

Keepiog pets is hardly natural for the pet. Have you considered joining any pressure groups trying to close down zoos, for keeping animals/pets in unnatural conditions?

There should have been no need to rescue an animal. It is a contradiction for a fanatical vegan to keep pets for their personal pleasure and then complain farm animals are kept for my pleasure, and of course a natural source of B12.

In an ideal fanatical vegan world we wouldn't have zoos and pets.

I would hope that eating meat will ensure my B12 levels are kept at normal levels without having to resort to artificial and unnatural sources.