OT: Purveyers of animal suffering 'fighting back'.

[T i m]

It was interesting to see an advert on TV earlier: 'Eat balanced', showing the highly glamorised ideal of beef cows grazing on green pasture with the commentary telling us they will be eating plants that we can't eat that is just grown with rainwater ...

and eating it (meat) is a good source of vitamins (and it displays B12 on the screen) but with no pictures showing the bulk of the animals that never see grass (esp worldwide), are fed on soy from devastated rain forests and bolt gunned in the head and their throats cut?

Hardly a 'balanced' view of the whole process is it and no mention that 70% of the B12 that is made is fed to livestock so that we get some from it when we eat their flesh (when it would be better for *us* to eat it directly).

"Where else can I get vitamin B12?

If you?re cutting out meat, fish, dairy and eggs you can get vitamin B12 from:

Fortified foods (e.g. yeast extract, some breakfast cereals, some plant alternatives to milk and milk products). Supplements."

Ah yes, 'supplements', like the ones we give to the livestock?

And if you can get it from elsewhere, why would you kill an animal to get it, and no mention that many people (so meat eaters) are B12 deficient in any case?

Look deeper into the 'campaign' and it cites / references a counter attack against veganism, a group of people who simply don't want to cause pain and suffering to animals? Who on earth would 'push' the continuing pain, suffering and exploitation of innocent creatures who don't want to die? Oh, that's right, those purveying the stuff who are now panicking.

"Food Advisory Board members ensure they practice in line with their associated professional codes of conduct, including: HCPC Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics, BDA (British Dietetic Association) Code of Professional Conduct for BDA members, the Royal Society of Biology, the Royal Society of Medicine, the Learned Society of Wales and the Medical Defence Union."

I *think* this is the same BDA (along with the ADA) ... who state:

"British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can support healthy living in people of all ages"

'Well-planned' = 'balanced' of course but with no mention of *having* to exploit animals to do so.

So we are back to the exact same thing as the big tobacco companies of the early days, pushing their product as being 'good for you' and cool adverts with cowboys and film stars smoking when anyone with some common sense would know it to be bad for you.

I do get it though, if you have been brought up and so conditioned / de-sensitised to the rights / feelings of innocent animals that we exploit for no good reason (we don't *need* to eat animals to survive, lions don't have choices or access to the supermarket and at least lions have the teeth and digestive systems to do it) how you might want to carry on doing it.

The meat and dairy industries have just poured £1.5M on this campaign (and time will tell if any of it was our money, like the £500M the Gov spent of our money pushing milk a while back).

I wonder what vegans themselves are trying to 'push', other than not exploiting animals?

Cheers, T i m

[John Rumm]

I think the error here is that you seem to equate animal suffering with raising animals for food. This is a logical fallacy, since there is no implied relationship.

It's quite possible to mistreat animals that are not being raised for food, and equally possible to care humanely for those that are.

So by all means campaign to stamp out animal cruelty, just don't expect me to not enjoy my ethically sourced roast beef this weekend!

[alan_m]

Yes just ask the animal charities about animal suffering not related to food production.

What about all the animal suffering being cause by habitat removal in order to the supply the needs of Vegans?

[Tim Lamb]

All religions have their own blind spots.

I believe M&S recently agreed with their milk producers to avoid Soya in dairy production.

I don't suppose Tim is interested in this sort of news:-

>

>

[alan_m]

Is this more to do with most of our imported soya being a GM crop?

[Spike]

A vegan diet isn't healthy.

Impossible with a vegan diet:

Virtue signalling. Some people do it a lot - haven't you noticed?

[Fredxx]

+1

You should be able to understand by now that animal cruelty is not high on Tim's agenda.

What he wants is for us to stop enjoying meat as part of a naturally balanced diet because he's not allowed to.

In much the same way those who are most anti-smoking are often ex-smokers.

[Fredxx]

It's also down to the clearance of Amazonian rain forest for cattle feed and for Soya milk and Tofu enjoyed by vegans. I think Tofurky was mentioned recently.

If we wan to save the planet perhaps we should ban imports of Soy and Soy products?

[T i m]

No error, factual statement mate. The 'levels' of suffering that are considered acceptable are managed by bodies like the RSPCA and have been 'improved' (proving that they existed in the first place) all the time.

See above.

Of course.

Till you gas them to death ...

I am, starting myself by not exploiting them in any way wherever possible.

No, I wouldn't expect your 'ethics' to extend to not taking the life of an animal that didn't give up it's life freely (so you took what was never yours to take), because you are too old / conditioned (said respectfully).

You would be one of those who were happily keeping slaves because 'at the time', doing so was not illegal or considered wrong ethically by many of those who created the rules. It was *never* acceptable to those who were exploited of course.

There is *NO* right way to do a wrong thing.

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Well, why don't we first start with the *biggest* problem, the habitat removed because of foods grown to feed livestock?

800 million people starving in the world whilst we feed 80 Billion animals. Please explain how much of that land currently growing feed for animals couldn't grow food for us instead (well, much of it is anyway but it's fed to animals instead).

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

And many old people are indoctrinated and conditioned.

Yup, the world is changing. If they could only agree not to exploit the cows by raping them every year (in a 'Rape rack'), taking their calves away within a few days, killing the males calves or keeping them in a small space (rose veal) for a few months before putting a bolt gun to their heads or enslaving the females and using drugs to force them to produce loads more milk than they would have ever done naturally.

This isn't 'just milk', it's the exact same levels of suffering as everyone else's milk, a food we take away from the creature it was meant for so that we can consume it ourselves, even after we have weaned!!!!!!!

Please explain why you think it's 'right / normal' for *us* to drink

*cows* milk (if you dare, the chances are you won't).

The irony of course is I read far more of what you post about the subject that you read of mine, so biased and blinkered are you.

I read most of the posts on the farmers forum you linked to the other day and most of it was farmers themselves bickering as to what they should be doing in the future.

Cheers, T i m

[Robin]

On 06/01/2021 10:37, T i m wrote: <snip>

the idea that the best way to convert people to your point of view is to insult them?

[Fredxx]

The habitat is being destroyed to supply your Soay milk and Tofurky.

Some say if we want to save the planet we should switch from Soy milk to Cows. But then you DGAS about the planet.

"Vegans in the UK should switch from drinking soy milk to cow?s milk if they want to help the planet, according to the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT)."

That just suggests there are 800m too many people on this planet.

[Torx]

I the world was to become vegetarian what would become of all the billions of "food" animals around the world? Except for a few in zoos they'd be slaughtered. Maybe some (not all) vegans actually want to see the mass slaughter of animals?

[Tim Lamb]

In message [e-mail], T i m [e-mail]> writes

I have no irons in this particular fire. You posted OT as requested so none of my business how the discussion goes.

It is their livelihood you are choosing to attack. Mostly they are struggling to make head or tail of the impacts of Brexit.

On the ludicrous rape issue, I don't suppose you have ever witnessed a bull mounting a cow:-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

The plan was supposed to be to replace EU subsidies with UK ones and then have a Big Conversation as to which way to develop UK farming.

Has that not happened?

The only variable would then be export markets

[T i m]

What makes you think I'm actually trying to convert anyone here or that it's (just) 'my' pov?

If you think you have a way that is likely to convert anyone here to being less cruel to and not exploiting animals I'd be happy to hear it?

Why would anyone knowingly cause animal suffering and exploitation when there is no need?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

<snip>

They wouldn't exist, like they wouldn't if we didn't 'breed' them artificially (in many cases) and artificially sustain them if massive quantities in unnatural circumstances?

Yup, no change there then?

It happens by the trillion every year mate, how can not doing it any more be worse than that?

We are currently suffering yet another animal related pandemic with avian flu. Millions of ducks, chickens and turkeys having to be 'culled', because they become infected by wild birds. Millions of ducks, chickens and turkeys that simply wouldn't be there in the first place, if we didn't breed them to eat?

That goes on from the millions of mink that were also 'culled' because of Covid and the chance of cross infecting humans, and swine flu, BSE, SARS and all the others before it.

Maybe vegan ism will come in automatically thanks to Darwinism?

But I get it, most older people have lived a lifestyle for many years and have become indoctrinated, conditioned, desensitised (contrive dissonance) to the exploitation of animals and therefore have to go back on everything their parents taught them was 'good' and acceptable (by their actions), if they were to stop exploiting animals now.

They love, protect and care for their dog but wouldn't accept as 'humane' to have it gassed when it needed to be euthanised because of illness, but think it's perfectly acceptable for a healthy and very young pig to die that way, simply because they like how their flesh tastes?

Cheers, T i m

[Tim Lamb]

The Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs has just sent me a glossy booklet explaining how they plan to halve direct payments by

2024.

There are vague hints about *agri-environment* schemes where payments may be made for what is perceived as public good. Very short on detail other than a glossy photo of cattle grazing under some of your windmills and a field of oilseed rape surrounded by poppies and other wildflowers.

I have no direct involvement but the deal has not been hugely criticised so far.

[Radio Man]

You are suggesting we stop feeding the 80 billion animals and let them die. That doesn?t sound very animal friendly.