You do know growth hormones were banned years ago, including for dairy cattle, in the UK?
Obviously you don?t going by your uninformed posting.
Go and check.
Ditto the use of antibiotics unless used therapeutically.
Well, as long as the UK is the only place in the world that animals are farmed, that's fine then. We can stop worrying.
<snip>
Quite.
Unfortunately (for trolls like him) is they have a very selective POV and this suits them when trying to come up with a bogus reply to a global issue / problem.
All the experts are warning of antibiotic resistance in the human population, mostly because of the antibiotics they consume in meat.
All the experts are saying we should cut out processed food, cut back on meat and increase our plant based food intake.
Only an idiot wouldn't make the connection between our mass management of animals and all the zoonotic diseases and pandemics that have killed millions of us (and we have had to 'cull' millions of the animals every time ... that wouldn't exist if we hadn't forced them into existence).
All the experts state that our consumption of meat, especially in older men is a common cause of bowel cancer, heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.
All the experts state that animal waste runoff is a major pollutant of our rivers, estuaries and seas.
All the experts agree that we have to all move to a more plant based diet to better use the available resources and continue to feed the world.
Now the thing is, the 'Pandemic Enthusiasts' also can't consider a world different to the one they know. So, vertical farming / hydroponics ... if we can construct a building in space, control vehicles on planets millions of miles away, build massive structures on tops of and underneath mountains ... and in the sea, I see no reason why we couldn't build vertical farms on land that can only used by a few sheep.
Better use of water, better use of space, less use of pesticides and better control of nutrients.
We already commercially grow lettuces and other veg hydroponically and it's a very efficient solution.
The irony though, if we stopped feeding all the veg we grow to animals and ate it ourselves, we would have more than enough food to feed the entire world population. ~70% of the soy grown is fed to livestock, mostly pigs, chickens, fish and cattle (inc dairy. 'Dairy nuts' containing soya hulls, soya bean meal and full fat Soya).
Unfortunately (for trolls like T i m) is they have a very selective POV and this suits them when trying to come up with a bogus reply to a global solution.
'All the experts' being T i m, presumably.
All the selected experts, perhaps. It's a bit like "97% of scientists" support the global warming scam.
To end zoonotic disease transfer, there are only two solutions:
Kill All Animals, or Kill All Humans.
Will you be the first to fall on your animal-welfare sword?
All the selected experts, perhaps. It's a bit like the fraudulent "97% of scientists support the global warming" scam.
All the selected experts, perhaps. It's a bit like the fraudulent "97% of scientists support the global warming" scam.
All the selected experts, perhaps. It's a bit like the fraudulent "97% of scientists support the global warming" scam.
Your low B12 levels are making their presence felt.
...claims T i m
LOL
You clearly haven't given any consideration whatsoever to consider the vast amount of B12-bearing crops that would have to be grown in order to supply 8 billion people with a daily dose. Think of the enormous amount of land that would have to be given over to B12-bearing crops that produce a mere few mg of product, the rest being CO2- and methane-producing waste. Then there's the water consumption, transport, manufacture, storage, and distribution to factor in. While you vegan dieters pretend that the solution to every problem that you manufacture is easy and straightforward, you never seem to want to think about the wider picture - see the implications of your rant about zoonotic diseases above, for example.
Oh, surely you realise that some people *obsess" about what new tyres to buy, comparing tests and reviews, stopping distances in the wet and dry, whether they contain vegan stearic acid or not, etc etc, Clearly they are considering the safety aspects (apart from the stearic acid, of course) and therefore taking the possibility of them killing an animal or person though making the wrong choice. It's just a case of seeing the wider picture when it comes to your claims.
Many millions of people who "do actually care for animals", eat animals. Bet there are more of that category than there are your type.
Globally, there are thought to be 0.1% of the population who are vegan. Being generous, there may be 1 million of the population of this country who are vegan. Disagree all you like, but please do it quietly. Thank you.
Here's something to laugh at.
Like India, China also has an ancient spiritual tradition that encourages non-violence towards all living beings.
Buddhist monks in ancient China produced their own food in their monasteries. And, since the Buddhist teachings forbade them from killing any living being, the monks produced and ate only vegan food.
Even today, many Buddhist temples have an attached vegetarian restaurant that is open to the public. These often serve incredibly convincing mock meat dishes made from seitan. Incidentally, seitan was also invented by monks in China, as early as the sixth century!
While most Chinese people today are not devout Buddhists and do not identify as vegan or vegetarian, the local diet has always been largely plant-based. Noodles, rice, tofu, and vegetables are the mainstays of Chinese cuisine. </q>
Donald Trump would be proud of misinformation on this scale. China, the country where they will eat anything organic. How about campaigning for the boycotting of Chinese goods based on the Chinese contribution to the depletion of endangered species?
Contradiction of terms.
"caring: displaying kindness and concern for others."
If you think that involves exploiting, imprisoning, gassing and enslaving then you have a strange interpretation of the words.
If you *think* killing a creature, especially when it's young, simply because you like the taste of it's flesh to be caring under the same terms, then again, you are crazy.
Yup, it's called 'cognitive dissonance' Dick.
Yup, like there used to be 0% of the women who had a vote, or black people who could travel on the front of a bus. Things change (well, except you of course, you will stay a Neanderthal).
Going well then, considering how much indoctrination and marketing people are having to see though to get to the truth.
I'll continue to disagree loudly if you don't mind (or even if you do etc).
You are welcome.
Oh, is it a picture of you?
Yup.
And like him, your narcissism forces you to interpret things as you choose, rather than the actual truth (like the word 'caring').
Here, I'll help with a right brainers take on that quote:
"the local diet has always been largely plant-based."
There, still laughing left brainer?
Yup, no mention of animals being the biggest component in their diets.
How about you taking your (ineffectual / pointless) 'advice' and ...
I'll carry on doing it my way (where I can have a *direct* impact) and boycotting the purveyors of any meat, egg and dairy products, the trillions of animals that shouldn't exist, that are being fed artificially produced food (for them) that are also endangering species.
Cheers, T i m
p.s. I can't remember if you were on my 'Ignoring sick / pointless trolls New Years resolution' list? I'm sure time will quickly tell. ;-)
Yes, the thought of eating animal flesh is so repulsive to vegans that they are awaiting the availability of factory-made frankenfoods dressed up to be just like...animal flesh!
You couldn't make it up.
As many have explained to you many times, the farming of animals for our consumption does not mean that the livestock are not cared for. In this country, the farmer will spend a great deal on caring for his livelihood.
Just can't leave it alone, can you?
"PLANT BASED" - not wholly vegan and, yes still laughing.
So it doesn't matter if we have veg with our beef then, does it?
You mean that you'll carry on being an irritant here. Your direct impact doesn't involve actual protesting in the street does it? How else is the average meat eating neanderthal to know of your cause, as your audience in uk.d-i-y isn't enormous?
How about campaigning about the billions of people that shouldn't exist? After all, it is the caring of them by advanced technologies which has brought about their domination of the ecosystem. Artificially produced food is being produced to feed us.
Like I give a f*ck if I am on your list.
<snip the rest unread>
Ah yes, a left brained troll (you are now on the list).
Cheers, T i m
ok let's see.
Reading between the lines I am getting the feeling that you are not keen on the use of C02 gas to render animals unconscious before bleeding them out.
So given that the world is not going to en masse go vegetarian any time soon, what method would you rather see used?
I appreciate that you would rather they don't get bred for food in the first place and all that, but since that is not something within your gift right now, suggest what method you would like to see that would be "better"?
It not intended to be derogatory - it just highlights that discussions between people with such a vast gulf of perspective are rarely productive or useful.
Neither side wants to "lose" the argument, and so no amount of logic or reasoning will change that, all the time trying to paint the opposing viewpoint in overly simplistic terms or in a somewhat absurd light.
All you get is low quality debate lacking any nuance.
Do I live in an ideal world where livestock is treated well? - no of course not. Are there cases of bad practice and poor standards? - yes many many cases I am sure, and many more that happen in places where I have no influence or voice.
I would argue that in highly regulated countries like ours, with high food standards, well (if not even over) regulated policies for livestock welfare, and with professional farmers with access to modern equipment, medicines, and veterinary care, the standards are in the most part pretty good.
Hence I am happy sourcing meat from places with similar standards to British (e.g. Germany, Ireland, New Zealand etc). That gives me *some" choice and control as a consumer, and like many I will use that.
You have seen the results of this kind of pressure over the years with things like free range and barn eggs now becoming the largest selling category. Or legislation that has banned use of growth hormones, or overuse of antibiotics for non treatment purposes.
For me, whether it's needed or not is of no real importance. Meat and fish is readily available, a very good source of natural protein and is dense in many valuable nutrients. It also tastes good and is very versatile in recipes. For me its always been the "important" part of the meal.
(lets face it, there are vast industries supporting creation of all kind of things that are "not needed" - however that is not the same as not wanted).
I have no desire to become vegetarian. However that does not mean I don't recognise that I personally would be better off eating less meat (and less generally TBH!)
Will the world move to less meat over all? Maybe maybe not in absolute terms[1], although it will certainly move to less per capita.
[1] As poorer nations grow in wealth and prosperity, their consumption will also likely grow.Well I am not sure what the point is really.
Vegetarianism I can understand (although don't fancy it myself), but I do get the whole concept that Bacon and Eggs is all in a days work for a chicken but a lifetime commitment for the pig.
Actually it is somewhat - I tend to find radicalised exponents of anything make me want to retreat from their message.
And yes I do class you as radicalised since this is a new obsession for you. (Ironic really, given I think you are a bit older than me, you have spend more years eating meat than I have).
It also points to a modern malaise brought about by algorithm driven content selection. You use social media, or watch youtube, and it works out what you like and then sits you in an echo chamber where it feeds you more and more of the same, pushing you away from the middle ground toward the more extreme content. You can end up believing that whatever you are "into" no matter how fringe, you form part of the mainstream consensus. It tends to polarise into opposing camps.
Maybe that is where all the sensationalist terminology comes from that seems to have been imported from some of the loons in the US.
Some of them certainly...
True.
I am sure many don't
Although if you want to influence opinion, you would probably do better in a forum with lots of young folk that are still more easily influenced, than in a group of "traditionalist" (predominately) older chaps like here!
They have a product to sell, and business to run, and quite possibly shareholders to keep happy. So it seems like a reasonable thing to do.
I expect most have it pigeonholed along with self flagellation and wearing sack cloth and ashes.
So if that is the case, what are *you* hoping to achieve here in this (notionally) DIY group?
Yup, cook it obviously.
(I would not want to eat a raw potato or egg either, and I am not even a fan of sushi).
Regardless of how or why they were conceived, they are now animals that should be cared for in a humane way. What would be the alternative? "Its fine to mistreat you, since you are going to die in 18 months anyway!"
DNA programmed to experience? I think you need a lesson in biology!
So that's not exploitation then, but still not ok? Or am I missing some hidden nuance here?
I thought that was in your list of unacceptable animal exploitation?
I expect it would be hard to replicate the companionship with an app, and tricky to get your phone to go find your slippers.
anyway, enough....
Of course, one is a noun and the other an adjective.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Yes, we all know how you enjoy age restricted videos where animals are subjected to painful procedures.
Some of us would prefer to minimise that pain. Without offering an alternative to CO2 you are pretty much endorsing the practise.
At least I know that my points were spot on with your response.
I do feel for those who still continue to try with you. I lack the patience for that. HAND
ITYM 'misinformation'
Both, really. Scientific findings later superseded were not misinformation at the time. I gather red meat is currently quite good for us, but preserved meat is unlikely to be rehabilitated any time soon.
You could expand that to include the responsibility on us (all, young / old) of knowing the process of producing tyres. After all, it isn't a pleasant process.
Like how good smoking was good for you you mean?
'Good' in a 'very unnecessary sense of the word?
Or ever. The thing is, I belive bad things will generally only lose ground, every time the bad things they represent are highlighted to the great unwashed.
Like the Mink <> covid link. The chances are many mink farmers will go out of business over it and because of all the general social pressure
*against* fur of all kinds.Milk consumption down here and the USA, not because people aren't consuming as much but because people are consuming alternatives instead. Those people are unlikely to go back to consuming cows milk.
Lots of people regularly use the likes of Quorn mince and so animal flesh mince is unlikely to go back on their shopping list.
As an aside, daughter got us a Birds Eye frozen 'complete' spag bol the other day and we had one between us (might have one each next time and if particularly hungry) last night and it was both quick and 'fine' (as a spag-bol type meal, on some wholemeal spag etc).
Cheers, T i m
Isn't that the definition of Leftycunt? Concerned about everything: Able to do nothing?
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.