OT: Purveyers of animal suffering 'fighting back'.

[T i m]

<snip>

Nothing, I know it will be (to various degrees thought it's 'life').

Tradition, history or acceptance doesn't make natural or right.

IYHO I'm guessing.

Nope (so you are making stuff up or really don't understand the bigger picture)?

Irrelevant.

My life as a vegan is fine thanks?

Sorry, what are you going on about. We are still in 2021 yes?

Of course, but what are you on about? You are the one trying to hold our evolution *back*, I'm taking it forward?

I really don't know what you are talking about John?

What has that got to do with allowing a pig to exist naturally, as they have done for millennia before we turned up?

You seem to be trapped in some sort of mid era portal, you want us to act and live like animals ourselves bur in 2021?

It's nothing to do with being humane re it's end, it's all to do with it's life being a natural one, not one artificially created by us and ended when the animal is very young after living being fed by us and not foraging for itself.

And what is the chance of the pig surviving the electric shock or the gas, compared with defending itself or avoiding a predator?

Yes, animals, with no other choice, not a species that has massive supermarkets with loads of choice, much of which that doesn't require an animal to suffer and die (well before it's time). If all animals lived as long (short) as most livestock does, they would die out as they are often too young to breed (assuming they can still breed naturally that is, and many of the mutations we have created simply can't).

Well, whilst that's not strictly true, we have evolved to a position where for the vast majority it's no longer the case.

No need to argue, it's a fact. ;-)

You do where there are 'victims' involved. Just because we may have not considered them as such for that long, for many (and including the RSPCA and the legal systems), that IS the case.

If a vet fists a cow whilst artificially inseminating it that's 'fine'. You try it and you are likely to get put away. I wonder what differentiation the cow makes and why is you doing it illegal?

Then may I suggest you watch some of the videos that are readily available on Youtube and then you might be able to present a more informed decision. This one was a University doing research into gassing pigs: (oh, don't worry, I don't think there is any sound).

FWIW, 'gassing' with CO2 is a fairly commonly used technique used for stunning and killing many livestock, even though it's *known* to be a very painful process.

Then you are only considering an 'idealistic viewpoint of the process. Why do you think I'd mention the 'pain and suffering if there wasn't any (ignoring the taking of a life when doing so was unnecessary and any mental cruelty (removal of offspring, unnatural environment, intense feeding , de beaking, tail and teeth cutting etc etc).

Just OOI, does the thought of a sentient being having to die, generally very young and against it's will ever cross your mind when you are consuming it's flesh? How many people do you think could / would do it themselves if they had to:?

Ah, they come with saddle and harnesses already fitted do they?

No, what you mean is they have been domesticated, evolved and been ridden. Most footage of horses being ridden for the first time suggest they would prefer not. Why was it called 'breaking a horse in'?

Not all of us. ;-)

Not at all. We could have done most of what we have done under our own steam, it just might have taken a bit longer.

Possibly *then* but I'm only interested in what we have evolved to do

*now*.

But you aren't extending the same level of free will to the sentient beings you exploit and kill for that (unnecessary) self indulgence?

You are knowingly choosing to exploit animals for your own taste pleasure. If you are happy to admit to that then we can finish this discussion as you have laid out your stall.

Well there is that (and there are some here).

Or 'at all' it seems, certainly where some selected species are concerned.

But hey, at least we now know where you stand ... (thanks, that will save me some replying time). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

<snip>

Ok.

A bit disingenuous don't you think, accepting my acceptance of your challenge and then setting further conditions that no doubt you will be the sole arbiter of?

FWIW, I generally aim to report the facts and as yet I can't remember you countering any of them, other than with your own opinion? <snip>

And don't consider such dishonest or patronising? Anything to try to spread FUD, rather than accept there could be a different truth to your own?

So, you never *took* a calf away from their mother, or mother from their calf. You never drunk / sold the milk that was meant for a calf and gave them something else instead? They all lived long and healthy lives, as they would naturally?

To many outsiders, prisoners breaking rocks or slaves picking cotton could 'look' happy and content, after all, they were given food and shelter eh?

It can be, however, there will still only be one outcome re this, if you consider all the needs / desires of the animal rather than what you consider to be acceptable.

In exchange for it's life etc? What choice did they have re being born, or having 50% of their kind macerated because they happened to be 'no use' for the exploitation? What choice were they given where they lived or how many they lived with (and how much stress that puts on them) , or how many eggs they could form into a clutch or therefore produce every year ... and then how long they 'lasted' before their reproduction system was spent and they were slaughtered?

Of course you aren't, even though they are 'known facts' (and you presented me with some yourself) you will probably deny them or try to discount them some how.

A wild chicken would lay around 10-15 eggs a year and live around 7 years. A battery / organic (it doesn't matter) will produce around 300 eggs a year and last around 18 months (before dying or being killed if it survives, calcium depletion, exhaustion). You can argue semantics but not the general facts.

<snip>

What, like the trolls you mean or those who try to suggest my interest in NOT causing exploitation, pain, suffering and death is some sort of cult or religion? That me asking people to consider their actions is 'propaganda or overreacting?

By convert you mean have finally faced what I knew to be wrong all along and changed my ways? Do I feel any guilt / remorse that I didn't do it sooner? Of course. ;-(

No, you have as much right to question my lifestyle choices as I have yours, especially if I'm exploiting or causing pain and suffering to someone who doesn't have a voice to defend themselves.

Luckily, they do now and in ever growing numbers, hence why the purveyors of meat and dairy have created a £1.5M TV advert to advertise something people already know about and have been consuming for years. Not the same thing as the 'new' vegan products that are coming onto the market every day.

<snip>

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

<snip>

Wow, pot kettle black.

<snip>

If only you looked harder you would see yourself as a troll.

[Richard]

WTF? Why are people bothering with responding to the resident zealot?

[John Rumm]

Progress does not make natural better!

No its a fact! (TM) T i m

You are the one claiming that animals deserve only a "natural" life and that they would somehow be better off.

Would your dog have a happier and more fulfilling life if you turfed it out onto the streets?

Are you sure? You seem to feel compelled to preach about it all the time.

The bigger picture dear boy.

You don't need to try to make evolution happen, it just does.

If you insist that an animal must "enjoy" a natural life, then you are insisting that it is deprived of the benefits that it gets from its non natural one.

So are you saying that because pigs had a poorer existence before man's intervention they should carry on that way?

We are animals - get over it.

Yeah right...

Some of our species have supermarkets with loads of choice.

How much of that Vegan produce is actually sustainable, and not reliant on forced agriculture, and 100k+ food miles to bring together a product that is not insipid dull and boring?

The RSPCA seem to have little regard for animal welfare these days and spends rather too much time chasing dubious political objectives.

Last time I tried, it smiled and mooed "Yes, yes, yes!"

You can but I won't thanks. Having witnessed the process in real life (and death), right there in front of me, I don't need the animal activist shock vid version.

Is it *known*?

CO2 asphyxiation normally just results in a loss of consciousness.

Having spoken to someone who has experienced it, he did not describe it as painful - just a reasonably quick transition from "normal" to feeling a bit "odd" to "lights out". Then the embarrassment of being revived a few moments later!

He was an excise officer who was taking specific gravity readings from a fermentation vat in a brewery - he lent a little too far over the fermentation vessel, got rather too bigger a lung full of CO2 and the next thing he knew was waking up on the floor looking up at the smiling face of the chief brewer.

(One of the reasons that they are instructed to never take readings while alone!)

Yup.

Not many[1]. However that is why we have professional butchers, abattoir workers, & meat processors. No different from the multitude of jobs "most people" could not, or would not, or even be prepared to do personally.

[1] Unless of course they were starving. In which case there will come a point where even the family dog will go in the pot if it means you can feed the kids.

Yup, horse 2.0, have you not seen any?

How about a guide dog? Is that ok?

A pet dog? Also domesticated - living an unnatural life. Does it really feel like it's suffering when it cosies up on the couch beside you and uses you leg as a pillow?

Watch the speed at which kids can knock out text these days!

Again that is wishful thinking.

Pre-industrial revolution agriculture was dependant of livestock for motive power and many other things. The size of population supported

*required* it. There is no route from there to here without animal "exploitation" if that is what you want to call it.

Yup, pull up that drawbridge...

Yup, that is true I am not.

Yup I am happy with that. Also happy to keep a pet. I have no objection to people riding horses (or racing them), or even hunting foxes on them!

I am happy to use them for medical research where it will save many human lives. Happy to wear leather shoes or jacket (perhaps nourished with neatsfoot oil!), drink beer clarified with isinglass finings, or eat something prepared with gelatin. Happy to have a vaccination that was cultured in egg. Happy to polish furniture using secretions from lac beetles, or bees, flux a lead pipe with tallow (see I can aggressivity push my DIY agenda into any poor unsuspecting OT post!), or wear a silk tie. Also happy to eat veggies fertilised with animal by products.

Perhaps you should canvas opinion here - you may find you can save yourself not only lots of replies, but all lots of OT posts as well.

(I may be wrong - but just a hunch!)

[John Rumm]

Yes you are right. To be totally fair we should start eating dog as well... and you know what they say about a dong not just being for Christmas? With careful carving and preservation it should last well into the new year.

[T i m]

At least it wouldn't be so logically inconsistent.

I do. Do you think you might be leading to attempt a light hearted point re a very serious situation? (That would be logically consistent re your stated stance / POV re animal cruelty and exploitation at least).

... Yeah, I thought you might ... ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[Robin]

I'll assume that's a whale's dong :)

[Tim Streater]

Still waiting for T r o l l to define 'natural'.

Waiting for an answer to this one.

And it doesn't go backwards or forwards. It just moves.

Probably why so many died at that lake CO2 outgassing incident in Africa some years ago. No pain, so no-one woke up to warn others.

Own goal here I would say.

Perhaps T r o l l also thinks we should each deal with our own shit.

[Spike]

Or get on their family's side because it would be 'too difficult' for them to do otherwise.

And then bragging to others non-stop as to how right they are.

[T i m]

<snip>

It generally does where animal welfare is concerned.

Well it might be if you could counter any of it with coherent counter argument but so far you haven't? ;-(

Your only justification for the exploitation and killing of animals is because that's what we have always done and you like the taste. Presumably therefore you think we have the right to do whatever we like as long as you / <some arbitrary body> determines the process to be 'humane'? What you don't seem willing or able to do is confront the conflict I predict you have between the animals you choose to kill to eat and those you don't.

Correct and 'of course.

In these streets and at this time, no, just as if you had turfed out the farmed turkey you had for Xmyth out before killing it the species would die out as they can't reproduce themselves any more.

Are you saying that a pack of wild dogs couldn't live a more 'natural' life than a domesticated one? (There is at least one town were all the dogs go out on their own and congregate on the village green then go back home for their dinner. Can you see how that couldn't be a 'better life' for the dogs?

Absolutely.

Nice emotive words re the messenger rather than the message again.

I guess you would dismiss all those who pushed to end slavery or give women the vote as 'preaching'?

OK?

But some can still fail to evolve with it. Those who use history to try to justify what we do now or in the future?

No, I don't insist that at all. I say they should *experience* a natural life.

The benefits being a guaranteed early death in say a gas chamber you mean?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying us breeding, holding and killing at an early age, isn't what would happen to them *natural* (for certain). Many would live long and complex lives, deciding what they want to do when they want to do it.

We have the obligation of a duty of care over the less technologically advanced animals because we can (so should). Caring, not exploiting.

Yes right.

Of course and they are the ones the vegan goals are talking about.

IT's all about having the choice and *not* choosing to exploit and kill animals when you don't *need* to.

Nope, it's all very relevant but a parallel issue. As it happens, most of the vegan choices *are* more sustainable and can more efficiently feed more people than the current solution does. Have not seen / heard all the experts on it that state 'we will *have' to move to a more plant based diet'?

We agree on that at least (especially re livestock).

I see ...

Why not. What if what you witnessed was fairly unique in the world of animal meat production. What if the vast majority (and why I am referencing of course) was nothing like that, why would you simply hide your head in the sand?

Yes, scientifically tested and proven.

Yes, if you ignore the burning of the throat and lungs and the panic and fear it induces in the creature.

And this was in 80% CO2 was it. I wonder why pigs scream and jump about uncontrollably when being gassed then?

Ah, so *nothing* like a pig gas chamber then.

And that doesn't cause you to question what you are doing?

What, you think that's the only reason?

I believe most people would rather do most other jobs before they took on slaughterhouse worker. (And risked suffering from Perpetration Induced Traumatic Stress)?

Not in all cases (inc here).

Nope.

Not really.

No, but still 'not right' as they also can't live a life as they might choose for themselves in many cases. However, dog came to man and became domesticated and we don't generally kill and eat them (and even China is going more that way).

But again, well cared for domestic dogs (specifically) are right down the list, it's the young and healthy animals that are bred, kept, exploited *and killed* by the trillion, just to satisfy a taste not a need is where we start first.

Well quite, not here though. ;-(

It isn't, we have used mainly human power to build some massive structures and do many things.

Yes, I know, that doesn't mean it had to be the case? Or are you saying that there aren't any agricultural processes that aren't done entirely by humans?

Or the population expanded because of it?

No, in the past, before we had the technology and knowledge we do now, it was more excusable. However, we do know better now and should (are) doing something about it.

Nope, as mentioned above, we can't bring back the trillions of animals we have killed since we could have survived easily without doing so. It's what we do (or don't do) now and in the future that matters

*now*.

Ok. That's something at least.

Ok.

Of course. If you would kill and eat one simply because you like how they taste, then all bets on what else you would consider 'acceptable' are off.

Of course (see above).

Unfortunately, much medical research using animals is just for students to do stuff on a grant and little of it has any real / final benefit to us, or not given the huge cost to the animals.

As above (all goes without saying ... )

Coincidentally I have been reminded I haven't taken up my winter flu vaccine yet and will enquire about the vegan one.

As above (and further cements your position of course).

Are you equally happy to suffer from all the pollution that causes?

I'm fine thanks, I enjoy the practice and leaning what other people are really like.

Well, thanks for helping me further learn just what some people can be like (re their disregard for other species etc). (Genuine thanks for that etc).

Cheers, T i m

[Scion]

I managed 40 minutes. TBH I don't think he made many salient points and he lost my attention somewhat when he asserted that people don't want to work in slaughterhouses ("they are forced to!" Really?), and his continuation that if you personally don't want to work in a slaughterhouse then you've no right to think it's morally OK to pay someone else to do it.

The bit about "your ham and cheese sandwich HAS A PIG IN IT and COW SECRETIONS" made me laugh though.

[Tim Streater]

It's just the usual bollocks from T r o l l. I dunno why you bother with him.

[Scion]

He puts his point across, he's passionate about it, he takes time to answer points made, usually politely. I like to think I'm not closed- minded although I probably am. There's no harm in a little introspection every now and again.

If you're going to debate a point, you need to know the counter-argument. One of the atheist's most powerful tools is knowledge of the bible.

[Tim Streater]

None of his arguments are worth a damn since they are always larded with and couched in emotive language as used by all the woke types. He's not interested in a reasonable debate, but in painting us as evil.

My wife's degree is in Maths and Theology. That comes in handy from time to time.

[Scion]

Not always.

Like I said, he's passionate :-) But I have pointed out, I think in my first post responding to one of his posts, that he comes across as a bit fanatical.

So... how many gods are there? ;-)

[T i m]

<snip>

As should everyone be when it comes to the effective persecution on a holocaust scale of sentient and innocent creatures?

I generally 'treat as I find'.

I think we all can be, but shouldn't continue to be once any negative consequences of our actions are pointed out to us?

That is a very good and big point. So many people simply blunder on, doing what they have always done and can 1) ignore changes in the world around them and 2) (as you say), not question *why* we may do stuff.

I probably do that more than average and in consequence, probably live more comfortably because I don't do 'what we have always done', if I don't see the point or good reason.

<snip more Squeaker goblin s**te>

Of course I'm passionate about cruelty to animals, who isn't?

Bingo. That's why I try to learn as much as I can about what *really* goes on 'behind the scenes' in the livestock industry, not run away from the truth because it would put me off my dinner.

If you want to debate that sort of thing (and this atheist doesn't, preferring to stick to real-world changing issues).

Working out how much they have just stolen from the collection plate, judging by the Squeaker Goblins ethics and morals.

Apart from him you mean (in his head)? None? ;-)

But I get it, they are old (most of the carnist supporters of animal exploitation and death) ... and they probably also 'Pandemic Enthusiasts', Global Warming deniers and Brexit supporting cat lovers!

Their offspring will still condemn them in their graves in the future (for all of it).

Cheers, T i m

[John Rumm]

Yeah... she said to me, "I can't take all that, I have got a weak heart!" So I said - "ok, lay on your side and I will miss it!"

[Spike]

Quite so.

T i m ' s problem is that he spent the first 65 years of his life doing exactly what he accuses others of, such as what he refers to as animal rape and animal murder, eating animal flesh and enjoying consuming their secretions. I doubt he ever worked in a slaughterhouse. So one must begin to question his moral compass. For example, I gave up drinking milk many decades ago, and gave up eating beef and lamb some 40 years ago. By those standards, T i m will have to live to about 110 merely to make up the ground between him and me, I don't think he'll make it. He might as well give it all up now.

But T i m is not really different to the rest of us - he lives comfortably in a house (unnatural) with gas and electricity (unnatural). fridge and freezer (unnatural), wears manufactured clothes (unnatural), owns and uses vehicles (unnatural), owns an unnatural mutilated dog (unnatural), goes shopping for his unnatural needs, blathers over the internet (unnatural), etc etc. It's a pretty long list of unnatural behaviours on his part. Yet he has the temerity to lecture the rest of us on what we should or shouldn't be doing. He doesn't seem to have squared that particular circle, and I doubt he ever will. It makes him a figure of pathos rather than a crusader. He's no'but piss and wind, as they say.

[John Rumm]

There is no counter argument to nonsense!

(and even if there were, I suspect you would not be open to it anyway).

Have you ever seen / heard the discussions between scientists and flat earthers?

No actually I have pointed out some other valid justifications as well. Like the ability to derive food from non cultivatable landscapes, or transport it long distances and keep it fresh on expeditions etc.

Do you suppose I might look at a pet and think, hmmm I bet you would be delicious in a sandwich! Oh no, I can't, you are my pet - oh no, I am so conflicted!

Its really not difficult unless you are particularly squeamish... Fido, pet. Porky, Sunday dinner.

Can your dog still reproduce? Is that a requirement for a natural life?

You can call it natural if you like, but its objectively a much harsher and more brutal existence. That pretty much guarantees it will suffer far more during its life than its domesticated counterpart. Spending most of its waking time trying to find shelter and adequate food. Living a life that will slowly (or possibly quickly) deteriorate in quality due to untreated disease and injury, until one day it succumbs and dies of exposure or from mortal injury, or is set upon by a bigger dog (and there is always a bigger dog!)

Contrast and compare with the cared for existence the domesticated pet enjoys, adequate food and shelter. Medical care when required, and protection for predictors (mostly).

I expect, given a free choice, Fido will go for the latter option every time, and (quite rightly) nibble the nadgers off anyone attempting to coerce it back to its "natural" life only because they have a bee in their bonnet about "natural" being better!

ouch, you just bent the needle on my irony meter!

But is partly true that I have much more of a problem with the aggressive new age hippy delivery of the message, than with the message itself. TBH I find the "I have just found religion" style charismatic zeal a complete turn off.

If someone wants to follow a vegan lifestyle, let them go for it. If you want to encourage them, then provide help on how to do it - how to get good food, how to find substitutes for the animal based things you really used to enjoy. How to avoid malnutrition, how to do it at reasonable cost and so on.

Got some good recipes? Post em on the wiki if you want.

Support, don't brow beat.

Don't assume that because not everyone has drawn the same conclusion as you that they have not made an informed choice for what is right for them.

Evolution is change - not to be confused with progress.

History does not need to justify anything - it can't. All you can do is use history to inform - learn from it and see if there are parallels that might apply now.

I was thinking before that - you know fed, sheltered, and cared for.

A "wild" pig is unlikely to live beyond 10 years, and the majority won't make it past 5. Held in captivity it may well last 20. Natural is different, but not necessarily better.

Technologically advanced huh? Like robo pig, or cyber cow?

The problem for many is that your definition of "exploitation" comically broad and goes way beyond what many rational people would consider perfectly acceptable relationships with animals.

For example, you have said that you believe training guide dogs for the blind is an unacceptable level of exploitation. I suspect that if I were blind and a guide dog owner, and as a result received a massive increase in my quality of life - at the same time providing a loving home for the dog, I would be feeling a mixture of emotions toward anyone attempting to deprive me of that relationship. Probably best expressed by suggesting sex and travel!

So much so that the Humane Slaughter Association suggest its one of the most humane processes...

Yup, and having given it due consideration, I am content with that.

Yes I expect that not wanting to do it themselves, and having the option to have someone else do it for them, is the main reason they don't do it themselves. Hardly rocket science is it?

Probably true - although I can think of worse jobs.

Tell me that *after* you have been in that circumstance, and then I might believe it.

None of us get to live the life we would necessarily choose in every way and circumstance. Holding up an ideal for a dog that you can't even begin to approach for any other species seems a bit daft to me.

You might, but personally I feel there are many cases of human exploitation and suffering that would be better to focus on fixing first.

With slave labour as well no doubt.

Population expansion powered only by animal powered agriculture is a

*very* slow process (under 0.04%/year) - it has a ERoEI of under 5 which is borderline for survival.

Well now we have easy access alternatives to animal motive power, and that was the single most significant game changer in population growth.

See if you can spot the start of the industrial revolution on the graph: