Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: River Don on February 04, 2014, 09:03:08 pm
-
Oh dear, Doncaster weighs in as the UKs second fattest town.
Just shy of three quarters of the population of Doncaster are classified as overweight or obese. Quite a shocking stat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10617126/Revealed-the-fattest-towns-and-cities-in-England.html
-
Oh dear, Doncaster weighs in as the UKs second fattest town.
Just shy of three quarters of the population of Doncaster are classified as overweight or obese. Quite a shocking stat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10617126/Revealed-the-fattest-towns-and-cities-in-England.html
Just seen this, with the apathy for following your local team maybe we could get some of them down to the Keepmoat with a gentle walking exercise to the ground to shed the pounds and then they could queue up at the kiosks for food but not get served due to running out of pies lol
-
i blame this on lindleys make the pies cheaper and get them to us faster so we can get to the top of the league. If they dont its a lack of ambition imo
Also it could make our stadium look fuller less is more :chair:
-
I wonder how many calories this burns off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5YjjMxnTE
(c) Cussie
-
Oh dear, Doncaster weighs in as the UKs second fattest town.
Just shy of three quarters of the population of Doncaster are classified as overweight or obese. Quite a shocking stat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10617126/Revealed-the-fattest-towns-and-cities-in-England.html
Yes I read on the back of my fish and chip wrapper. I'll pick up a clean copy of the paper when I go for my kebab and beer later.
-
i blame this on lindleys make the pies cheaper and get them to us faster so we can get to the top of the league. If they dont its a lack of ambition imo
Also it could make our stadium look fuller less is more :chair:
Well I'm doing my best in that department :)
But as a side issue, the title of this thread seems to be perfectly acceptable for the PC brigade, as we don't appear to have had one complaint about it. Yet replace the word fat with the word black and You can bet your life there'll be complaints of the highest order pretty sharpish. Abuse is abuse, wether it be race, colour, gender, sexuality or in this case body shape
-
The difference is that you can't do anything about being black whereas being a fat bas**rd is a lifestyle choice (in most cases).
-
Maybe the fat bas**rds of Doncaster need to read this thread from the excellent mjdgreg.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=234033.0
-
The difference is that you can't do anything about being black whereas being a fat bas**rd is a lifestyle choice (in most cases).
And how do you decide who's weight is lifestyle choice and who's is a result of a medical condition before you direct your abuse?
Like I said abuse is abuse, it's that simple
-
Maybe the fat bas**rds of Doncaster need to read this thread from the excellent mjdgreg.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=234033.0
Thats very sensible advice to give to diabetics isn't it, numbskull!
-
Shock horror, Mick recommending a thread by Mick. f**king seen it all now. Sad bas**rd.
-
I'm not trying to be abusive and did qualify my comment about fat b*****ds. I do realise that there are some fat b*****ds out there that are fat through no fault of their own. People such as the sexually abused, depressed etc. who have sought solace in food for example. However it is my contention that the vast majority of fat b*****ds are fat because of lifestyle choices and greed.
I was once fat. It was nothing to do with a medical condition. I was a greedy, beer drinking fat b*****d. I copped myself on and decided to sort myself out. This is what the majority of fat b*****ds need to do.
mjdgreg did state in his thread 'I would advise checking with your doctor before embarking on such a way of life if you currently have any health problems'. So I do believe that covers diabetics. It is also true that depending on the type of diabetes you suffer from that losing weight can make you better, so I don't see where you are coming from.
-
How do they arrive at the figures?
-
i blame this on lindleys make the pies cheaper and get them to us faster so we can get to the top of the league. If they dont its a lack of ambition imo
Also it could make our stadium look fuller less is more :chair:
Well I'm doing my best in that department :)
But as a side issue, the title of this thread seems to be perfectly acceptable for the PC brigade, as we don't appear to have had one complaint about it. Yet replace the word fat with the word black and You can bet your life there'll be complaints of the highest order pretty sharpish. Abuse is abuse, wether it be race, colour, gender, sexuality or in this case body shape
I chose the title I admit to make it a bit provocative and because it's a popular chant in the footballing vernacular.
Perhaps it's less offensive because body shape is at some level a lifestyle choice for everyone, one hundred years ago almost nobody bar a very, very few rich folk were fat.
And maybe partly because I used s***s in the title?
-
Don't get be wrong, I could n't care less what people call me, my point is, why is it acceptable to shout abuse or call certain members of society, but not acceptable to abuse other members of society?
It's hypocritical and all members of society should be accepted for what or who they are regardless
-
Filo
I think it is because everyone can do something about their weight, always accepting that it is much more challenging for some. Anyway, these days it is a lot less acceptable to abuse people because of their body shape.
-
Filo
I think it is because everyone can do something about their weight, always accepting that it is much more challenging for some. Anyway, these days it is a lot less acceptable to abuse people because of their body shape.
Not everyone can though, medication and medical conditions prevent some people from doing something about it, how do you distinguish between a genuine " fat b*****d and some one else that has a condition or takes medication before you call someone a " fat b*****d"? You don't, you just generalise, tar everyone with the same brush. When I use the word " you" I am not referring to you or anyone else in particular
-
What medical condition stops people following a healthy diet?
-
What medical condition stops people following a healthy diet?
Did I say a medical condition prevents people eating healthily?
-
Not everyone can though, medication and medical conditions prevent some people from doing something about it...
I can't think of a medical condition that stops people having a healthy diet, which is part of doing something about it.
-
Regardless of medical condition it should still be possible to lose weight and maintain It. There's a lot of rubbish spoken about being fat. It's very simple. If your body needs 2000 calories to survive for 24 hours then if you take in more than 2000 calories during this time period you will put on weight. If you take in less than 2000 calories you will lose weight.
I accept that some people put on weight 'through no fault of their own' (though this could still be debated), but would argue that this is because there is something going on psychologically rather than physically.
Let's be honest most of the fatties out there are fat because they over eat and quite often try to justify it with ridiculous reasons.
-
I can see you're choosing to ignore the point I'm trying to make
-
If your point is that abuse is abuse, then fair enough you are correct, however there is clearly a clear distinction between racism and fatism whether you like it (or think that it is acceptable), or not.
-
There are degrees of abuse. I would argue that being racist is much worse than being fattist. Sometimes a bit of banter (i.e. being called a fat bas**rd) is just what is needed for the fatty to get their life in order.
The more being fat is seen as being acceptable, the less likely fatties are to lose weight.
-
How do they arrive at the figures?
I bet PIE charts are involved.
-
I think some of us need to lighten up around here.
-
Maybe the fat b*****ds of Doncaster need to read this thread from the excellent mjdgreg.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=234033.0
Thats very sensible advice to give to diabetics isn't it, numbskull!
It's a load of fad quackery too. Just the sort of stuff Mick would believe in.
-
For some people eating a healthy diet doesn't stop weight gain, from my family experience being permanently confined to a wheelchair and taking steroids for medical reasons.
-
It's a load of fad quackery too
No it isn't. It's scientifically backed up and does definitely work. When I started doing it I was 12 stones. I'm now down to 6 stones and still losing.
-
It's a load of fad quackery too
No it isn't. It's scientifically backed up and does definitely work. When I started doing it I was 12 stones. I'm now down to 6 stones and still losing.
Careful now or you'll fade away altogether and nobody would want that. Ahem!
-
Filo
I think it is because everyone can do something about their weight, always accepting that it is much more challenging for some. Anyway, these days it is a lot less acceptable to abuse people because of their body shape.
Not everyone can though, medication and medical conditions prevent some people from doing something about it, how do you distinguish between a genuine " fat b*****d and some one else that has a condition or takes medication before you call someone a " fat b*****d"? You don't, you just generalise, tar everyone with the same brush. When I use the word " you" I am not referring to you or anyone else in particular
Those people are a relatively few and far between but point taken.
I only used the title for a laugh really, apparently though most people reading it are likely to be overweight but It wasn't aimed at any individual and many people reading it won't be either.
-
It's a load of fad quackery too
No it isn't. It's scientifically backed up
By who? Anybody reputable like the BMA, the NHS or the BNF. for example?
-
It's a load of fad quackery too
No it isn't. It's scientifically backed up
By who? Anybody reputable like the BMA, the NHS or the BNF. for example?
The theories behind these restricted calorie diets have been inspired by the work of a number of American institutions, the science is all fairly new. Which ones they are and which scientists are involved in the research I couldn't tell you.
If you really want to find out it was all featured on the BBC Horizon documentary. Horizon is a fairly well respected science program, if they are prepared to feature it, I'd say it points to it being more than quackery.
http://vimeo.com/54089463
I have lost and kept off two and a half stone with it.
-
i blame this on lindleys make the pies cheaper and get them to us faster so we can get to the top of the league. If they dont its a lack of ambition imo
Also it could make our stadium look fuller less is more :chair:
Well I'm doing my best in that department :)
But as a side issue, the title of this thread seems to be perfectly acceptable for the PC brigade, as we don't appear to have had one complaint about it. Yet replace the word fat with the word black and You can bet your life there'll be complaints of the highest order pretty sharpish. Abuse is abuse, wether it be race, colour, gender, sexuality or in this case body shape
I wasn't aware of the centuries of oppression and subordination suffered by fat people and the contrasting and long-standing privilege enjoyed by those of a healthy weight.
Perhaps you could point me in the direction of something I could read to educate me on this that won't make it seem ignorant and puerile to compare it to racism?
Oh, and your use of the term "PC brigade" indicates to me that the moral high-ground you've claimed in this debate is slipping through your fingers before you've even started.
-
How do they arrive at the figures?
By eating too much cake.
-
How do they arrive at the figures?
88
-
I'm now down to 6 stones and still losing.
Are you a dwarf?
-
If you can lose another 6 stone in a week IC1967.
I would like to donate a fiver to your choice of charity.
-
It's a load of fad quackery too
No it isn't. It's scientifically backed up
By who? Anybody reputable like the BMA, the NHS or the BNF. for example?
The three individuals, featured on Horizon, conducting research in this area are:
Prof Luigi Fontana, Washington Uni
Prof Valter Longo, South California Uni
Dr Mark Mattsen, Baltimore Uni
-
How do they arrive at the figures?
By eating too much cake.
All joking aside I am generally interested at how they decide that x% of a town is obese. Surely there is no way to know for certain unless you plonked a set of scales and made everyone get on them..
-
How do they arrive at the figures?
By eating too much cake.
All joking aside I am generally interested at how they decide that x% of a town is obese. Surely there is no way to know for certain unless you plonked a set of scales and made everyone get on them..
It seems to be from a survey of Local Health Authorities but just scanning through documents published by Public Health England, it's not immediately obvious where they are getting the data from.
There are documents like this.
http://www.phoutcomes.info/documents/PHOF_Data_Tool_User_Survey.pdf
There are email addresses on those pages, if you're keen enough to find out exactly how they get the data.
-
I've been doing a bit of research of my own which backs up the findings. I've been 'scanning' people as I go about my daily business and the evidence is conclusive. 75% of the people I've looked at are fat bas**rds.
I've taken my research a bit further. The shocking fact is that over 80% of the people I've scanned who are not Eastern European are fat bas**rds. It seems that not only are immigrants benefiting our economy by doing the jobs that the scroungers won't do, they are also getting our obesity figures lower on average than they otherwise would be.
-
Real technical research that one
-
Thank you. I try my best. It's nice to know it's appreciated.
-
Adult obesity figures are very difficult to arrive at and not particualrly robust.
Anything to do with Body Mass Index is also extremely unsound. An Olympic athlete would find themselves classified as obese in many cases, due solely to their weight.
Figures for children are for more robust as they are measured at Reception year and at Year 6 I believe.
Regardless of which local authority comes top, the problem of obesity cannot be underestimated in this country. It is one of the largest causes of diabetes, which is the single largest expense faced by the NHS.
-
The government has to take a lot of the blame for the obesity epidemic. They allow the food manufacturers to put as much fat, sugar and salt and other ingredients into food as they please. They also allow them to bamboozle the population with misleading product claims. The government then has to spend more of the taxpayers money every year on the NHS to deal with the consequences. This is a false economy.
Get strict with the food manufacturers (and all the fast food outlets) and watch spending on the NHS fall.
Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen anytime soon so you need to do what I do. You need to develop an iron will power. It is very difficult being slim in our society. I have banned certain items from the home as I believe if it is not there you will be far more likely to eat less. Here is a list of some of the banned substances:
Meat
Fish
Booze of any kind
Crisps or similar
Sugar
Biscuits or similar
Chocolate items
Fizzy pop
Sugary breakfast cereals (this includes nearly all of them)
I could go on but by now I am sure you are getting my drift. I suggest most households have vast quantities of the above in the house most of the time. You only need to look at what people put in their shopping trollies when you are in the supermarket for the full horror of what is in our homes to be exposed.
I hope this helps.
-
No meat, no fish?! I would go insane!
-
Unfortunately the issues around obesity are very complex.
For a start, deprivation plays a huge part in the problem. Whilst fast food is unhealthy, it's also cheap. Areas with higher levels of deprivation will tend to have a glut of takeaways, churning out cheap meals packed full of fat. A lot of people simply cannot afford to eat meals that provide them with their basic nutrional needs but are also healthy.
Another issue relates to culture and immigration. Take the Turkish for example. In Turkey, a big child is viewed as a good thing. The size of a child is seen as an indicator of a famiy's wealth. The fatter they are the more it demonstrates how much money you have to spend. The idea that a fat child is a bad thing, because fat children invariably become fat adults and then develop a number of long term conditions, is not widely accepted. With immigration of people comes the immigration of cultures. And unfortunately, changing cultures is not easily done.
N.B. Banning meat and fish is not an appropriate response. Fish is the main component of the Japanese diet. Japan has one of the lowest rates of obesity in the world.
-
Ask yourself the question. How many fat vegetarians have you ever seen? Not many.
If you look at the league tables of fatness you will see Brighton near the very bottom of the table. Brighton is the vegetarian capital of the country. I rest my case.
-
There is also the side issue that animals and fish suffer unimaginable cruelty just so we can eat just what we want.
-
No meat, no fish?! I would go insane!
Dietary intake?
Or are you Denis Law,and I can claim my five pounds?
:P
-
There is also the side issue that animals and fish suffer unimaginable cruelty just so we can eat just what we want.
Do you own any leather products at all?
-
A lot of people simply cannot afford to eat meals that provide them with their basic nutrional needs but are also healthy.
I would totally disagree with that statement. It is perfectly possible to eat a much healthier diet for less than what a so called cheap fast food high fat diet costs.
The problem is that people can't be bothered to source their food from markets etc. They also can't be bothered to put any effort into cooking.
http://casualkitchen.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/its-too-expensive-to-eat-healthy-food.html
-
Do you own any leather products at all?
Yes I do unfortunately. In our society it is impossible to live without having to use products that are in some way associated with animal cruelty.
-
Do you own any leather products at all?
Yes I do unfortunately. In our society it is impossible to live without having to use products that are in some way associated with animal cruelty.
I disagree, if you are willing to put the effort in you can live a happy life safe in the knowledge that the things you eat/wear etc are not associated with animal cruelty.
A good friend of mine is a very strict vegan and disassociates with anything to do with animal cruelty - as you said above in the post about a healthy diet, it is possible, albeit it with effort.
I also know a few fat vegetarians...
-
A lot of people simply cannot afford to eat meals that provide them with their basic nutrional needs but are also healthy.
I would totally disagree with that statement. It is perfectly possible to eat a much healthier diet for less than what a so called cheap fast food high fat diet costs.
The problem is that people can't be bothered to source their food from markets etc. They also can't be bothered to put any effort into cooking.
http://casualkitchen.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/its-too-expensive-to-eat-healthy-food.html
I'm more than happy for you to.disagree. I'm a bit unclear why you're linking to a blog post from over 3 years ago discussing American product prices however.
-
I disagree, if you are willing to put the effort in you can live a happy life safe in the knowledge that the things you eat/wear etc are not associated with animal cruelty.
A good friend of mine is a very strict vegan and disassociates with anything to do with animal cruelty - as you said above in the post about a healthy diet, it is possible, albeit it with effort.
I also know a few fat vegetarians...
I totally disagree. It is impossible to live in our society and have nothing to do with anything that has involved animal cruelty. The use of parts of animals is everywhere in our society. For example does your friend ever fly? Would they not bother if they knew that the foam in the fire extinguishers in the airport has part of an animal hoof in it? Do they check with the airport first?
Do they refuse to get in a car without checking with the manufacturer that they haven't used any animal parts? What about drugs? Do they carry a card around with them saying they don't want any drugs administering if they fall ill and are rushed to hospital? I suspect not. Do they refuse to go into buildings before checking it out that there are no animal parts in it. Of course not.
I admire vegans but even they have to compromise as do I. As for fat vegetarians, yes there are some but on the whole they are much slimmer than the vast majority of the population.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13670184
-
I'm more than happy for you to.disagree. I'm a bit unclear why you're linking to a blog post from over 3 years ago discussing American product prices however.
America is the fat capital of the world. If they can eat healthier for less then so can we.
-
America is the fat capital of the world. If they can eat healthier for less then so can we.
Surely the fact that its the fat capital of the world renders the second part of your post redundant?
-
I'm not saying they do. I'm saying they could.
-
I'm not saying they do. I'm saying they could.
If they could, they would, wouldn't they?
Anywho, the reality in this country is that a lot of people can't afford to eath healthier.
Living in London, If I were king for a day, or Mayor, the first thing I would do would be to take free bus passes off school children. Get them walking.
-
If they could, they would, wouldn't they?
Anywho, the reality in this country is that a lot of people can't afford to eath healthier.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Rather than you be king for a day, what we need is me to be installed as the benevolent dictator of the country for life. I'd soon get everything sorted out (not just the obesity problem).
-
Do you own any leather products at all?
Yes I do unfortunately. In our society it is impossible to live without having to use products that are in some way associated with animal cruelty.
I disagree, if you are willing to put the effort in you can live a happy life safe in the knowledge that the things you eat/wear etc are not associated with animal cruelty.
A good friend of mine is a very strict vegan and disassociates with anything to do with animal cruelty - as you said above in the post about a healthy diet, it is possible, albeit it with effort.
I also know a few fat vegetarians...
Last time I saw Morrissey on TV he was looking a bit chunky.
-
Top bloke Morrisey. True legend. He summed it up very nicely with his 'Meat is Murder' song.
Heifer whines could be human cries
Closer comes the screaming knife
This beautiful creature must die
This beautiful creature must die
A death for no reason
And death for no reason is MURDER
And the flesh you so fancifully fry
Is not succulent, tasty or kind
It's death for no reason
And death for no reason is MURDER
And the calf that you carve with a smile
Is MURDER
And the turkey you festively slice
Is MURDER
Do you know how animals die ?
Kitchen aromas aren't very homely
It's not "comforting", cheery or kind
It's sizzling blood and the unholy stench
Of MURDER
It's not "natural", "normal" or kind
The flesh you so fancifully fry
The meat in your mouth
As you savour the flavour
Of MURDER
NO, NO, NO, IT'S MURDER
NO, NO, NO, IT'S MURDER
Oh ... and who hears when animals cry ?
-
There may be some fat vegetarians but on the whole we are a lot slimmer than you carnivores.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/vegetarians-slimmer-meat-eaters-weight_n_4039441.html
-
The kind people
Have a wonderful dream
Margaret on the guillotine
Cause people like you
Make me feel so tired
When will you die?
When will you die?
When will you die?
When will you die?
And people like you
Make me feel so old inside
When will you die?
And kind people
Do not shelter this dream
Make it real
Make the dream real
Make the dream real
Make it real
Make the dream real
Make it real
Make the dream real
-
No meat, no fish?! I would go insane!
Or find yourself only weighing six stones...!
-
Ask yourself the question. How many fat vegetarians have you ever seen? Not many.
If you look at the league tables of fatness you will see Brighton near the very bottom of the table. Brighton is the vegetarian capital of the country. I rest my case.
Captain Sensible is fat, a vegetarian and lives in Brighton.
-
Interesting reading:
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2014/us_obesity_initiative_fails.html
-
This study indicates that cost is not the factor when choosing what to eat. Poor people tend to be less educated and more lazy and can't be bothered to cook a proper meal with healthy ingredients.
So your contention that poor people can't afford healthy food is not the issue. Even when it is put under their nose at the right price they still don't buy it. I can only conclude that the majority of poor people are very stupid.
-
It certainly suggests that it's not just a cost issue. As the quote at the end says:
"Though these interventions are plausible and well-meaning, this study suggests that they are only effective in taking us part of the way in changing dietary behaviour – in order to realise their full potential we need to better understand how to translate changes in perception to changes in behaviours".
I'm a firm believer in nudge theory.
N.B. Actally IC1967 I've just re-read this article. There's no mention of the stores been low cost, merely stocking healthy foods in an area where healthy foods were previously not available. I'd be keen to review the full study before I change my mind.
-
Early on in the article it says the following.
'Disadvantaged neighbourhoods often lack access to low-cost healthy foods, which has led to initiatives in the UK and US that focus on increasing the number of local supermarkets through grants and loans'.
There you have it. The initiative was for low cost healthy foods. The supermarkets were obviously subsidised through grants. There would have been no point doing what they did if the healthy food was expensive.
-
Obviously we will agree to disagree on this again IC1967.
I'm reviewing what little detail there is on the study and it doesn't mention low-cost unfortunately - only the intro bit you mentioned, which appears more contextual to me.
It certainly is a tricky thing to solve though.
-
I notice Hull City do a Fit Fans program.
http://www.fitfans.co.uk/
Perhaps Rovers could look at something like this, with us having the facilities and the club Doncaster thing an' all.
I quite like the idea of involving players and coaching staff to give advice and help.
-
Top bloke Morrisey. True legend. He summed it up very nicely with his 'Meat is Murder' song.
Heifer whines could be human cries
Closer comes the screaming knife
This beautiful creature must die
This beautiful creature must die
A death for no reason
And death for no reason is MURDER
And the flesh you so fancifully fry
Is not succulent, tasty or kind
It's death for no reason
And death for no reason is MURDER
And the calf that you carve with a smile
Is MURDER
And the turkey you festively slice
Is MURDER
Do you know how animals die ?
Kitchen aromas aren't very homely
It's not "comforting", cheery or kind
It's sizzling blood and the unholy stench
Of MURDER
It's not "natural", "normal" or kind
The flesh you so fancifully fry
The meat in your mouth
As you savour the flavour
Of MURDER
NO, NO, NO, IT'S MURDER
NO, NO, NO, IT'S MURDER
Oh ... and who hears when animals cry ?
That Morrissey fella is a bit of an old drama queen, isn't he? :rolleyes:
-
He's just pointing out how cruel eating meat is. He is one of the finest men ever to have been born in this country.
-
He's just pointing out how cruel eating meat is. He is one of the finest men ever to have been born in this country.
Really? Seriously? :huh:
Everything is a part of the food chain; cruelty doesn't even come into it.
-
I notice Hull City do a Fit Fans program.
http://www.fitfans.co.uk/
Perhaps Rovers could look at something like this, with us having the facilities and the club Doncaster thing an' all.
I quite like the idea of involving players and coaching staff to give advice and help.
I'm sure there was something like this going at one point that was plugged on here, can't remember what it was called though.
-
He's just pointing out how cruel eating meat is. He is one of the finest men ever to have been born in this country.
Really? Seriously? :huh:
Everything is a part of the food chain; cruelty doesn't even come into it.
I suspect cruelty does come in to it, and that's why we have laws to protect the welfare of animals, even if their ultimate destination is the slaughterhouse.
-
I'm always amazed at how little meat eaters know about the scandalous cruelty that goes into producing the food you eat and drink. Take milk as an everyday example. 99.9% of the population are totally unaware of the barbarism that goes into milk production.
I dare any of you to read the following article. If you do, unless you have a heart of stone, you will never feel the same way about your daily pint.
Ghandi once said you can judge a society by how it treats animals. On that measure we have a very long way to go.
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/cows-milk-cruel-unhealthy-product/
-
He's just pointing out how cruel eating meat is. He is one of the finest men ever to have been born in this country.
Really? Seriously? :huh:
Everything is a part of the food chain; cruelty doesn't even come into it.
I suspect cruelty does come in to it, and that's why we have laws to protect the welfare of animals, even if their ultimate destination is the slaughterhouse.
We were talking about the eating of meat.
Everything is a part of the food-chain. Eating meat is not inherently cruel.
Animal cruelty, abuse and/or neglect is something altogether different.
-
That last post is the biggest load of b*llocks I have ever read. Trust me I know what I'm talking about. I've read no end of BST posts but that last post beggars belief.
-
You obviously don't read your own posts then Mick. ;)
-
You obviously don't read your own posts then
Of course not. I'm a forward thinker and always moving on to the next big issue that I need to sort out.
-
Crikey do you sell those as well?
-
That last post is the biggest load of b*llocks I have ever read. Trust me I know what I'm talking about. I've read no end of MadMick50 posts but that last post beggars belief.
Fixed. :P
How are animals not a part of the food chain?
How is the act of eating meat cruel, and any different from, say, the act of wearing leather shoes?
How is the act of eating meat no different than animal abuse, cruelty and/or neglect?
Feel free to use google, cut/paste, Children's Britannica, or post a link to your favourite political extremist website.
As the undisputed King of WUMs on this site, surely old fashioned trolling is beneath you?
-
Orlando, you are making yourself look very silly. If you can't see that eating animals involves cruelty then I don't know what to say to you.
You obviously haven't bothered to read the link I posted earlier to see how milk is produced. You sound like you don't even want to confront the issue of cruelty in food production because you are scared that what you will find will be a total contradiction of your naively held views.
I'd have much more respect for your views if you knew what you were on about. It is patently obvious from your statements you know nothing of food production.
-
Orlando, you are making yourself look very silly. If you can't see that eating animals involves cruelty then I don't know what to say to you.
You obviously haven't bothered to read the link I posted earlier to see how milk is produced. You sound like you don't even want to confront the issue of cruelty in food production because you are scared that what you will find will be a total contradiction of your naively held views.
I'd have much more respect for your views if you knew what you were on about. It is patently obvious from your statements you know nothing of food production.
You still haven't answered the questions Mick. I purposely kept them quite specific, in an attempt to avoid knee-jerk reactions like yours and stay on topic. If you'd bothered to read my post clearly, you'd realise that you've made a bit of an arse out of yourself by making assumptions and jumping down my throat.
Understanding the position and importance that animals hold in the food-chain, doesn't equate to a lack of respect or indifference towards their well-being.
If you think that all milk, meat and eggs come from factories similar to those featured on PETA's website, then you're as naive and ignorant as you assume I am.
I hunt, keep, raise, breed, rescue and also slaughter a variety of animals. I live and work on a small farm/ranch in a national forest. I have friends that work in a variety of agricultural industries. I rescue horses (at my own expense, I might add), and I also volunteer my time to help monitor local bear populations. None of this makes me an expert, or right, but it does mean that I am able to offer a perfectly valid POV, backed up by RL experience.
PETA have an extremist agenda. They shock people with the worst examples of animal cruelty, and use the horrendous actions of a minority to damn whole industries and ways of life. They do a lot of good in making sure that the law is being adhered to, and also in lobbying for tighter controls and higher standards. However, I'm not convinced they ultimately do more good than harm, tbh. They scare people away from supporting important causes with their blinkered intolerance of other perspectives.
I produce a good proportion of the food my family eats with my own two hands, but what would I know of food production? :whistle:
-
The only saving grace for you in your post is that you rescue horses. As for the rest of your post you demonstrate a complete lack of empathy with animals. You view them as part of the food chain and all your beliefs and actions stem from this mistaken view point.
You hunt. A despicable thing to do. You kill animals thus depriving their young of their parents who will then probably go on to starve to death. When you shoot your prey no doubt just before they die they are terror stricken and then often die a slow painful death due to to your lack of accuracy with your weapon. I'd like to see how you would feel if you were hunted. I'd pay to watch that.
You slaughter animals. Another despicable thing to do. Animals are not on this earth just to provide you with sport and food.
You complain about PETA because they expose the food industry. They don't need to try and shock people. They just have to make them aware of what is going on. The way the food industry treats animals is shocking in itself.
My previous link shows how the vast bulk of milk is produced. If you cannot accept this is accurate then please provide us with your version of reality. I think we'll be waiting a long time because you won't be able to.
I despair of human nature when I read posts such as yours. The meat industry have done a very good job in brainwashing the likes of you to think that what you do is in any way normal.
You need to have a good long hard look at yourself in the mirror and just contemplate the amount of suffering you are responsible for. Once you've done that you need to turn vegan for the rest of your life as a small recompense for your misdeeds.
-
I failed to mention that I train and ride these horses on occasion. I even enjoy it, much to the disdain of PETA, I'm sure. Am I now beyond redemption? :ohmy:
When you figure out what animals (and humans, for that matter) ARE on this earth for... you know... the meaning of life and all that, be sure to let me know. The Bible states that God gave us dominion over the animals, but I don't take you for the religious sort. ;)
I currently have 7 horses, and I've found good homes for many more. Every one of them saved from a trip to the slaughterhouse, with the exception of my latest project, a rescue who was perhaps a week away from starving to death. A 1200lb Brabant, ($2000+ in vet bills and counting), who I'm estimating is a good 1100lbs underweight. Don't tell me I lack empathy for animals, when unlike many bleeding-heart animal 'lovers', I put my time, effort and money where my mouth is, 7 days a week.
I view animals in the food chain, in the same way the vast majority of the world currently does, always has, and likely always will. I know you're a big fan of learning from movies, so watch "The Lion King," and the complexities of the "Circle of Life" will be wonderfully explained to you through song.
You'll thank me after.
In regards to hunting, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you're talking about. Do yourself a favour and get help regarding your Bambi-related childhood trauma. Your ignorance, as demonstrated, is astounding. The biggest threat to deer is overpopulation. Whether you like it or not, in many places, hunting is a necessity. Shooting a small minority is preferable to wide spread starvation and disease.
The problem is that there are not sufficient predators to keep their population under control, because humans don't hunt them in sufficient numbers anymore. PETA's answer? Let 'em die. Yep, just let them all die. As long as no human benefits from their deaths, and thus doesn't compromise their mission statement, they don't give a crap. No thought, care or consideration is given to the disastrous ecological consequences that would inevitably follow, just so they can feel good about sticking to their lofty principles.
The "what, when, and how many", is strictly controlled in hunting. Nobody shoots Bambi's mother; it's not allowed. Fawns may not die because their mothers get shot, but they certainly die from disease and starvation if the population isn't kept under control, by people like me. I don't especially enjoy it, tbh, but it needs to be done.
Another way to help regulate the population is to assist in increasing the numbers of natural predators, like bears. Perhaps if I had any empathy towards animals, I'd get involved in something like that... :whistle:
I do slaughter some animals. Not many, not often, but I do it. I much prefer to sell them whenever possible, but I only have so much room, and I like to know where my food comes from. I treat all of my animals very well, and nothing goes to waste.
I dislike PETA because they are extremists. I don't have much time for fanatics of any kind, political, religious, or otherwise. PETA and those associated with them have used shock tactics for decades, as you well know.
I don't accept PETA's "version of reality", because their propaganda doesn't match my own experience. I'm not saying that there aren't some deplorable farms out there, but such conditions are not the norm, as they would have you believe.
Fair enough?
Thousands of years of animal husbandry, throughout the span of human civilization, has led "people like me" to think the way we do about animals. On the other hand, a couple of decades of vegetarian/vegan propaganda was all it took to have "people like you" crying into your cornflakes.
Nature is about balance, and as long as I'm leaving my little part of the world in a much better state than I found it, I can look at myself in the mirror just fine.
Go ahead and condemn me from your ivory tower.
-
There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?
-
I failed to mention that I train and ride these horses on occasion. I even enjoy it, much to the disdain of PETA, I'm sure. Am I now beyond redemption?
Yes you are beyond redemption. The only reason you 'rescue' horses is so you can gain some pleasure at their expense. Why do they need rescuing in the first place? No doubt because some cruel human has disposed of them.
-
When you figure out what animals (and humans, for that matter) ARE on this earth for... you know... the meaning of life and all that, be sure to let me know. The Bible states that God gave us dominion over the animals, but I don't take you for the religious sort.
I suspected you were a religious nut job. I am a devout atheist and proud of it. I've got news for you. Humans are also animals. You trot out the usual rubbish from the fairy story that is the Bible. Even if the Bible was a factual document having dominion over the 'animals' does not mean treating them cruelly. I suspect you also believe in Adam and Eve and that God made the world in 7 days. No wonder the way you think is so out of touch with how it should be.
-
I currently have 7 horses, and I've found good homes for many more. Every one of them saved from a trip to the slaughterhouse, with the exception of my latest project, a rescue who was perhaps a week away from starving to death. A 1200lb Brabant, ($2000+ in vet bills and counting), who I'm estimating is a good 1100lbs underweight. Don't tell me I lack empathy for animals, when unlike many bleeding-heart animal 'lovers', I put my time, effort and money where my mouth is, 7 days a week.
Like I said earlier. You only do what you do for horses because you gain pleasure from riding them. No doubt when they are old you send them to the slaughterhouse.
-
I view animals in the food chain, in the same way the vast majority of the world currently does, always has, and likely always will. I know you're a big fan of learning from movies, so watch "The Lion King," and the complexities of the "Circle of Life" will be wonderfully explained to you through song.
You'll thank me after.
Just because most of the rest of the world views animals as part of the food chain doesn't make it right. There was a time when most of the world thought slavery was OK.
-
In regards to hunting, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you're talking about. Do yourself a favour and get help regarding your Bambi-related childhood trauma. Your ignorance, as demonstrated, is astounding. The biggest threat to deer is overpopulation. Whether you like it or not, in many places, hunting is a necessity. Shooting a small minority is preferable to wide spread starvation and disease.
The problem is that there are not sufficient predators to keep their population under control, because humans don't hunt them in sufficient numbers anymore. PETA's answer? Let 'em die. Yep, just let them all die. As long as no human benefits from their deaths, and thus doesn't compromise their mission statement, they don't give a crap. No thought, care or consideration is given to the disastrous ecological consequences that would inevitably follow, just so they can feel good about sticking to their lofty principles.
There is no need for hunting. Anyone who thinks its OK is a barbarian. Overpopulation is a problem because humans have decided to steal animals habitats. In America you have no excuse for doing this as there is so much land available. But of course humans do as they please and let the animals suffer the consequences. So what solution do the humans come up with? Kill them. Great.
-
The "what, when, and how many", is strictly controlled in hunting. Nobody shoots Bambi's mother; it's not allowed. Fawns may not die because their mothers get shot, but they certainly die from disease and starvation if the population isn't kept under control, by people like me. I don't especially enjoy it, tbh, but it needs to be done.
Like I said, if humans didn't steal animal's habitats then there wouldn't be a problem with overpopulation. Instead of killing defenseless animals, you'd do better spending your time trying to get their habitat sorted out.
-
Another way to help regulate the population is to assist in increasing the numbers of natural predators, like bears. Perhaps if I had any empathy towards animals, I'd get involved in something like that...
So you are admitting that you are an unnatural predator.
-
I do slaughter some animals. Not many, not often, but I do it. I much prefer to sell them whenever possible, but I only have so much room, and I like to know where my food comes from. I treat all of my animals very well, and nothing goes to waste.
I doubt your animals think they are treated well. They either get killed by you or by whoever you sell them on to.
-
I dislike PETA because they are extremists. I don't have much time for fanatics of any kind, political, religious, or otherwise. PETA and those associated with them have used shock tactics for decades, as you well know.
I don't accept PETA's "version of reality", because their propaganda doesn't match my own experience. I'm not saying that there aren't some deplorable farms out there, but such conditions are not the norm, as they would have you believe.
Fair enough?
So the likes of Paul Mcartney are extremists. I don't think so. People like you try to brand PETA as extremists because you are very uncomfortable with the truth. It makes you feel better as you don't want to confront the reality of what you do.
Fair enough? Don't make me laugh. I gave one example of how milk is produced in the vast majority of cases and you say fair enough. You cannot deny that milk production is extremely cruel. I'd have more respect for you if you just admitted that this is the case but you are happy with the situation because you have dominion over all animals. You need to counter my milk argument much better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
-
Go on Mick
You tell him how to counter arguments and get taken seriously.
-
Thousands of years of animal husbandry, throughout the span of human civilization, has led "people like me" to think the way we do about animals. On the other hand, a couple of decades of vegetarian/vegan propaganda was all it took to have "people like you" crying into your cornflakes.
Aren't you the macho man. What has gone on in the past bears no resemblance to the cruel factory farming that goes on today.
-
Nature is about balance, and as long as I'm leaving my little part of the world in a much better state than I found it, I can look at myself in the mirror just fine.
At last something we can agree on. Nature is about balance. Unfortunately it is people like you that have totally unbalanced nature and are responsible for leaving the world in a much worse state than you found it.
-
Go ahead and condemn me from your ivory tower.
You are suitably condemned. I just wish there was a God, as I'm sure there is no way he would let the likes of you into heaven.
-
You tell him how to counter arguments and get taken seriously.
As the unrivaled expert in this department, he would do well do read some of my previous posts to see how it should be done.
-
There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?
I disagree. As usual I will furnish you with the facts that back me up.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/no-population-explosion-too-few-owning-too-much
Also the last time I checked, there were no bears on the loose in Doncaster. Bears tend to live in the wild and only in certain countries. I would not be daft enough to live near a bear population. Those that do must accept the risks and the consequences.
-
There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?
I disagree. As usual I will furnish you with the facts that back me up.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/no-population-explosion-too-few-owning-too-much
Also the last time I checked, there were no bears on the loose in Doncaster. Bears tend to live in the wild and only in certain countries. I would not be daft enough to live near a bear population. Those that do must accept the risks and the consequences.
I'm still interested to know where this affluent area of Doncaster is
-
Probably one of them houses next to the like in Costa del Bessacarr.
-
You tell him how to counter arguments and get taken seriously.
As the unrivaled expert in this department, he would do well do read some of my previous posts to see how it should be done.
Oh you DO answer posts from me Mick. I'm so glad. When you ignored those posts yesterday asking for a straight answer to a simple question, I thought I'd upset you or something.
So. You going to answer yesterday's question then?
-
I refer you to my previous answer about going off topic. Thanking you in anticipation for your cooperation.
-
There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?
I disagree. As usual I will furnish you with the facts that back me up.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/no-population-explosion-too-few-owning-too-much
Also the last time I checked, there were no bears on the loose in Doncaster. Bears tend to live in the wild and only in certain countries. I would not be daft enough to live near a bear population. Those that do must accept the risks and the consequences.
But there used to be bears in Doncaster, and wolves, until they were hunted to extinction beacuse they were a threat to life and domestic livestock. Are you saying they should be reintroduced and left to roam free?
-
But Mick. The original question was very much ON topic. Yet you ignored it several times. Very, very disappointing behaviour for one who prides himself on answering direct questions.
And so odd for a betting man, that you should make a bold prediction yet resile from it when challenged to make a wager.
Since you clearly DON'T intend to take the bet, one assumes that you don't and didn't believe the guff you wrote at the time.
Eh Mick? Yes or no will do. In this thread or any other one.
-
There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?
I disagree. As usual I will furnish you with the facts that back me up.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/no-population-explosion-too-few-owning-too-much
Also the last time I checked, there were no bears on the loose in Doncaster. Bears tend to live in the wild and only in certain countries. I would not be daft enough to live near a bear population. Those that do must accept the risks and the consequences.
Mick, this wasn't a question for you. There are no bears in Doncaster. Therefore, I don't know why you thought it was aimed at you.
Oh and same paper different angle: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/26/earth-population-consumption-disasters
-
Probably one of them houses next to the like in Costa del Bessacarr.
Nope, it's not there is it Mick?
-
There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?
No, silly, what we do is provide education and birth control.
Since that's not really an option for animals, you could always ask PETA to set up and fund a spay and neutering program for tens of thousands of deer every year. Good luck with that.
If you really insist in relating this to humans, following your/their logic, we should simply do nothing, let the human population spiral out of control, and when there are untold millions starving and dying of disease, simply sit back and let nature take its' course. It'll sort itself out eventually, right?
And I'M the one accused of lacking empathy?
-
I failed to mention that I train and ride these horses on occasion. I even enjoy it, much to the disdain of PETA, I'm sure. Am I now beyond redemption?
Yes you are beyond redemption. The only reason you 'rescue' horses is so you can gain some pleasure at their expense. Why do they need rescuing in the first place? No doubt because some cruel human has disposed of them.
And PETA members don't have pets? Do me a favour! :lol:
You really don't think things through, do you?
Nobody needs 7 horses, whether they ride any of them or not. I save the poor buggers, nurse them back to health, and find them homes. I don't have unlimited time, resources and space, so I can't keep them all. If I'm to rescue more, I need to move them on. Training them, especially after having been abused, is difficult and time consuming, but is necessary to make them safe around humans, so that I can find them homes. Horses require regular interactions with humans for their own sake (farrier, vet etc), and an undisciplined horse is incredibly dangerous. It's for their own good. Most people have absolutely no interest in a $200 a month pasture ornament. Making them safe to ride gives them the best chance of finding a loving home. I'll just have to live with the fact that the pleasure I derive from doing this bothers you.
Most horses that I come across need to be rescued because their owners can't keep them any longer. People lose their jobs or even their homes and simply can't afford to keep them. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.
-
When you figure out what animals (and humans, for that matter) ARE on this earth for... you know... the meaning of life and all that, be sure to let me know. The Bible states that God gave us dominion over the animals, but I don't take you for the religious sort.
I suspected you were a religious nut job. I am a devout atheist and proud of it. I've got news for you. Humans are also animals. You trot out the usual rubbish from the fairy story that is the Bible. Even if the Bible was a factual document having dominion over the 'animals' does not mean treating them cruelly. I suspect you also believe in Adam and Eve and that God made the world in 7 days. No wonder the way you think is so out of touch with how it should be.
:lol: There you go, making assumptions again. You really could hang yourself with a tassel, couldn't you?
You were the one to infer that you had the meaning of life all figured out. I merely offered an explanation which may work for you, depending upon your belief system.
You really don't need to tell anybody you're a devout atheist, it's obvious. The clues are all there in the attitude. You enjoy talking down to people far too much, and genuinely believe that if only they were as knowledgeable as you are, they'd see everything as you do. I don't doubt you also begrudge anybody whatever small amount of comfort they derive from their faith, and take great pleasure in explaining to them just how stupid they are for not knowing the "truth" as you see it.
You scoff, snort and smirk a lot too, I can tell. I bet you're great fun at parties.
I'm a good, solid, law-abiding citizen. I treat everyone I meet with kindness and respect, because it's the right thing to do, not out of fear of some sort of divine being.
We are indeed animals too, and the acceptance of that fact is one of the main reasons most see nothing wrong with taking our earned placed at the top of the food chain. When a lion eats a zebra, is it cruel? Of course not.
FYI, I'm pretty sure the term "sacrificial lamb" is biblical.
-
I currently have 7 horses, and I've found good homes for many more. Every one of them saved from a trip to the slaughterhouse, with the exception of my latest project, a rescue who was perhaps a week away from starving to death. A 1200lb Brabant, ($2000+ in vet bills and counting), who I'm estimating is a good 1100lbs underweight. Don't tell me I lack empathy for animals, when unlike many bleeding-heart animal 'lovers', I put my time, effort and money where my mouth is, 7 days a week.
Like I said earlier. You only do what you do for horses because you gain pleasure from riding them. No doubt when they are old you send them to the slaughterhouse.
Again, I rescue them, they cost me a small fortune, and I send them to a new home, free of charge. That's a lot of work for somebody who just wants to ride a horse.
I saved them from going to the glue factory, so why would I send them there? I do have a sick, unbroken old horse that I have never ridden, but since they are unfit for adoption, I can't take in many such horses. I'd rather rescue a new horse every few months and help as many as possible, than run a hospice for a handful of horses.
Do you have a pet? Let me guess, a big fat cat that you stroke while you post on here, like a super-villain from James Bond?
-
I view animals in the food chain, in the same way the vast majority of the world currently does, always has, and likely always will. I know you're a big fan of learning from movies, so watch "The Lion King," and the complexities of the "Circle of Life" will be wonderfully explained to you through song.
You'll thank me after.
Just because most of the rest of the world views animals as part of the food chain doesn't make it right. There was a time when most of the world thought slavery was OK.
Perhaps, but when everybody around you disagrees with you, a wise man would at least acknowledge that there may be an perfectly valid, alternative point of view.
You still haven't watched "The Lion King" yet, have you? It expains it to you in simple terms you can understand.
-
In regards to hunting, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you're talking about. Do yourself a favour and get help regarding your Bambi-related childhood trauma. Your ignorance, as demonstrated, is astounding. The biggest threat to deer is overpopulation. Whether you like it or not, in many places, hunting is a necessity. Shooting a small minority is preferable to wide spread starvation and disease.
The problem is that there are not sufficient predators to keep their population under control, because humans don't hunt them in sufficient numbers anymore. PETA's answer? Let 'em die. Yep, just let them all die. As long as no human benefits from their deaths, and thus doesn't compromise their mission statement, they don't give a crap. No thought, care or consideration is given to the disastrous ecological consequences that would inevitably follow, just so they can feel good about sticking to their lofty principles.
There is no need for hunting. Anyone who thinks its OK is a barbarian. Overpopulation is a problem because humans have decided to steal animals habitats. In America you have no excuse for doing this as there is so much land available. But of course humans do as they please and let the animals suffer the consequences. So what solution do the humans come up with? Kill them. Great.
And you accuse ME of not countering a point?
"Well.... Well... Hunting is still wrong," is not a counterpoint. Dodging the question again. You offer neither a solution of your own, nor do you even bother to defend PETA's illogical rambling. All you do is point out the imperfection of the current policy.
It's OK to be an idealist, but sometimes all you can do is to pick the best of the options available to you.
Overpopulation occurs in the US due to a lack of predators, not diminishing habitat.
Humans have a role to play as predators. Even the bloody Native Americans understood this. Bears, wolves, panthers, mountain lions etc are protected and are being nurtured, but there are simply not enough of them yet.
By completely refusing to address any points regarding PETA's absurd stance on simply letting them all die, I'll take it that some degree of logic may have actually sunk in.
"What solution do the humans come up with? Kill them. Great."
Well those with any degree of common sense and foresight agree that killing a few is preferable to mass starvation and disease.
It's an imperfect solution for an imperfect world, but a much more humane option than the extremists suggest. YOUR humans are willing to cause an ecological disaster, as long as they can still cling to their principles. It's pathetic, wilfully ignorant and cowardly.
-
The "what, when, and how many", is strictly controlled in hunting. Nobody shoots Bambi's mother; it's not allowed. Fawns may not die because their mothers get shot, but they certainly die from disease and starvation if the population isn't kept under control, by people like me. I don't especially enjoy it, tbh, but it needs to be done.
Like I said, if humans didn't steal animal's habitats then there wouldn't be a problem with overpopulation. Instead of killing defenseless animals, you'd do better spending your time trying to get their habitat sorted out.
:facepalm:
Nobody is encroaching on their habitat.
National Parks are not being bulldozed to make way for malls and housing developments, and yet the problem persists.
There's nothing wrong with their habitat. If there habitat was an issue, there wouldn't be so bloody many of them!
Once again, lack of sufficient predators is the problem. :headbang:
-
Another way to help regulate the population is to assist in increasing the numbers of natural predators, like bears. Perhaps if I had any empathy towards animals, I'd get involved in something like that...
So you are admitting that you are an unnatural predator.
Arguing semantics? Really? :facepalm:
(edited for relevance).
Natural :- Existing in nature and not made or caused by people.
: usual or expected.
-
I do slaughter some animals. Not many, not often, but I do it. I much prefer to sell them whenever possible, but I only have so much room, and I like to know where my food comes from. I treat all of my animals very well, and nothing goes to waste.
I doubt your animals think they are treated well. They either get killed by you or by whoever you sell them on to.
Is it the lack of meat that makes vegans so emotional? Animals don't sit around contemplating the meaning of the universe. Give them plenty of space, shelter, companionship, and ensure they get enough to eat and they're perfectly content.
Everything dies eventually, and I guarantee a swifter and more humane death than any animal experiences in the wild. If eating meat is cruel, then nature is cruel, and animals making use of the resources around them is the norm. As much as you claim to accept our status as animals, you seem to think that we are somehow apart and exempt from that simple fact. You accept that if a bear eats a goat, it's merely hungry, yet if a man eats a chicken, he's a monster?
It makes no logical sense.
-
I dislike PETA because they are extremists. I don't have much time for fanatics of any kind, political, religious, or otherwise. PETA and those associated with them have used shock tactics for decades, as you well know.
I don't accept PETA's "version of reality", because their propaganda doesn't match my own experience. I'm not saying that there aren't some deplorable farms out there, but such conditions are not the norm, as they would have you believe.
Fair enough?
So the likes of Paul Mcartney are extremists. I don't think so. People like you try to brand PETA as extremists because you are very uncomfortable with the truth. It makes you feel better as you don't want to confront the reality of what you do.
Fair enough? Don't make me laugh. I gave one example of how milk is produced in the vast majority of cases and you say fair enough. You cannot deny that milk production is extremely cruel. I'd have more respect for you if you just admitted that this is the case but you are happy with the situation because you have dominion over all animals. You need to counter my milk argument much better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
Are you kidding me? It has to be obvious to everybody but you, that I am perfectly comfortable with what I do. I'm starting to think you're copying and pasting your comments from somewhere, because much of it is irrelevant.
They are not only extremists, but hypocrites. PETA disciples love their pets, yet keeping animals in captivity purely for your own amusement is wrong, right?
Extremists refuse to compromise. They lack respect and tolerance for other people and their point of view. Just like you.
I don't care if you eat meat or not, wear leather or not, buy cheese made from bean curds... I really don't give a shit. Extremists, like you, want to force your ideals down people's throats, and dictate to the vast majority of society. And then you wonder why people are turned off by hearing the very name "PETA".
You asked me a question, I answered it. I even explained my reasoning, and yet you still insist that I am not entitled to my own opinion/perspective, based on my own experience.
I don't own a dairy farm, and the few I've been to were small, local businesses. They were nothing like PETA would have you believe they all are. I'm not going to form an opinion of a whole industry based upon the claims made by a political group with a clear anti-farming agenda. That would be stupid and ignorant, woudn't it?
You gave one example, from a less than neutral source. I replied that wasn't typical of my experience. I honestly don't know what more you expect. Did you want an honest answer, or just an argument?
-
Thousands of years of animal husbandry, throughout the span of human civilization, has led "people like me" to think the way we do about animals. On the other hand, a couple of decades of vegetarian/vegan propaganda was all it took to have "people like you" crying into your cornflakes.
Aren't you the macho man. What has gone on in the past bears no resemblance to the cruel factory farming that goes on today.
Make your mind up. Is it all evil, or just the big, modern commercial farms?
My farm bears absolutely no resemblance to a factory farm.
-
Nature is about balance, and as long as I'm leaving my little part of the world in a much better state than I found it, I can look at myself in the mirror just fine.
At last something we can agree on. Nature is about balance. Unfortunately it is people like you that have totally unbalanced nature and are responsible for leaving the world in a much worse state than you found it.
Unbalanced nature? People like me? Are you typing with your elbows, and this is what auto-correct is putting together?
I do plenty to aid conservation in my region, and my carbon footprint doubles every time one of my cows fart.
You're clutching at straws.
Sorry bud, but eating tofu and wearing pleather doesn't make you exempt from mankind's collective responsibility for trashing the environment.
People like me? Pfft. Unlike most, I actually give a crap, and more importantly, I act on my convictions.
All you do is spout PETA ideals and propaganda from behind the parapet. A proper armchair activist.
-
Go ahead and condemn me from your ivory tower.
You are suitably condemned. I just wish there was a God, as I'm sure there is no way he would let the likes of you into heaven.
How do you keep a straight face as you type this crap? I refuse to believe you're not a persona.
Do you have a son who is obsessed with Billy Kee?
-
There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?
I disagree. As usual I will furnish you with the facts that back me up.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/no-population-explosion-too-few-owning-too-much
Also the last time I checked, there were no bears on the loose in Doncaster. Bears tend to live in the wild and only in certain countries. I would not be daft enough to live near a bear population. Those that do must accept the risks and the consequences.
But there used to be bears in Doncaster, and wolves, until they were hunted to extinction beacuse they were a threat to life and domestic livestock. Are you saying they should be reintroduced and left to roam free?
Bears are fascinating animals. They pass through my property several times a day, with no issues. The dog's not a fan, but they maintain a respectful distance.
They're no threat to us, and with a little knowledge and common sense, it's not hard to live alongside them. Coyotes, like wolves, are no real threat to people either. It's ignorance and lazy/greedy livestock owners that are responsible for their eradication from many parts of the world.
Now the polar bears and wolf/dog hybrids up in Alaska, they're creatures to be feared.
As for re-introduction, it has been done over here with success.
-
Part of me thinks this might be a new tack from Mick. Is he both Orlandokarla and IC1967?
-
You have posted so much drivel that I'd be here all week pointing out how ridiculous your point of view is so I'll just take your argument apart bit by bit as and when I get the chance.
And PETA members don't have pets? Do me a favour!
Yes they do have pets but would have preferred it if pet keeping had never been introduced. You need to read the following article to get up to date with PETA's point of view before making such a ridiculous statement.
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
Back to milk production. You still haven't offered up a reasonable explanation as to why this barbaric practice is OK. I'm waiting.
-
You have posted so much drivel.
The irony.
-
Nobody is encroaching on their habitat.
National Parks are not being bulldozed to make way for malls and housing developments, and yet the problem persists.
There's nothing wrong with their habitat. If there habitat was an issue, there wouldn't be so bloody many of them!
Once again, lack of sufficient predators is the problem.
Have you ever thought why there are National Parks? They were formed to give animals somewhere to live free of human encroachment. The encroachment I'm talking about happened before the National parks were formed. Lack of sufficient predators has been caused by human interference in animal's habitats. This has happened because people like you feel you have dominion over all the other animals on the planet because you have twisted what the fairy story that is the Bible says to suit your own selfish agenda.
-
Part of me thinks this might be a new tack from Mick. Is he both Orlandokarla and IC1967?
You caught me!
IC1967 is just a wacky persona I use to amuse BST.
-
Less that.
More Orlandokarla is a wacky persona you use to amuse MadMick.
-
Part of me thinks this might be a new tack from Mick. Is he both Orlandokarla and IC1967?
I had honestly wondered the same about you.
-
Less that.
More Orlandokarla is a wacky persona you use to amuse MadMick.
Oh yeah, I eat meat and see nothing wrong with it... I'm such a radical! :lol:
-
You have posted so much drivel that I'd be here all week pointing out how ridiculous your point of view is so I'll just take your argument apart bit by bit as and when I get the chance.
And PETA members don't have pets? Do me a favour!
Yes they do have pets but would have preferred it if pet keeping had never been introduced. You need to read the following article to get up to date with PETA's point of view before making such a ridiculous statement.
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
Back to milk production. You still haven't offered up a reasonable explanation as to why this barbaric practice is OK. I'm waiting.
Not quite true Mick, you'll spend a week finding articles to make your arguments for you.
I had already read that hypocritical nonsense. Have you honestly read it, objectively?
PETA wish that nobody had pets, yet they perpetuate the practice themselves. How convenient; the extremist animal lovers get to keep animals AND still claim the moral high-ground whilst doing so. :whistle:
I've directly answered you regarding milk production TWICE.
-
Nobody is encroaching on their habitat.
National Parks are not being bulldozed to make way for malls and housing developments, and yet the problem persists.
There's nothing wrong with their habitat. If there habitat was an issue, there wouldn't be so bloody many of them!
Once again, lack of sufficient predators is the problem.
Have you ever thought why there are National Parks? They were formed to give animals somewhere to live free of human encroachment. The encroachment I'm talking about happened before the National parks were formed. Lack of sufficient predators has been caused by human interference in animal's habitats. This has happened because people like you feel you have dominion over all the other animals on the planet because you have twisted what the fairy story that is the Bible says to suit your own selfish agenda.
If memory serves, they were set aside, what, 150 years ago? That's plenty of time for nature to find balance if it was ever going to happen without intervention.
I see you're falling back on PETA's rhetoric of blaming everything on everybody else. "People like you," blah, blah, blah.
The problem is lack of predators, and hunting is the best option until sufficient populations can be reintroduced. Of course, PETA are against predator reintroduction. (More predators = more cute and furries getting eaten). It's not a perfect solution either, but it's the only possible long term solution, and even you must admit it's preferable to hunting?
The bible's not my book, I'm afraid, so you can lay off with the religious trolling. It's tacky, and unnecessary.
Also, I think you'll find that hunting and animal husbandry predates the bible.
-
I've directly answered you regarding milk production TWICE.
You most certainly haven't. You've totally skirted around the issue. I'll make it simple for you. Do you feel the way that milk is produced for the mass market is acceptable or barbaric?
-
PETA wish that nobody had pets, yet they perpetuate the practice themselves. How convenient; the extremist animal lovers get to keep animals AND still claim the moral high-ground whilst doing so.
PETA are realists, unlike you. They deal with the situation as it is now, not how they wish it was. It is far more preferable for someone who supports PETA to look after a pet than a cruel person like you who views animals as part of your dominion and only fit for food.
-
If memory serves, they were set aside, what, 150 years ago? That's plenty of time for nature to find balance if it was ever going to happen without intervention.
150 years is nothing in the great scheme of things.
-
I've directly answered you regarding milk production TWICE.
You've totally skirted around the issue.
This affluent area Mick?
Not like you to ignore or skirt round the issue is it?
-
The problem is lack of predators, and hunting is the best option until sufficient populations can be reintroduced. Of course, PETA are against predator reintroduction. (More predators = more cute and furries getting eaten). It's not a perfect solution either, but it's the only possible long term solution, and even you must admit it's preferable to hunting?
You really are clueless. Reintroducing predators is not the solution, neither is hunting. There is a reason why reintroducing predators is not the solution. Let me explain.
Animals can very often escape artificial boundaries and become a “nuisance,” leading to their being poisoned, hit by cars, or shot. In failed attempts to escape, they might become entangled in barbed wire or be shocked by electric fences. Upon introduction to their new homes, their prey scatter, and their lives and behavior patterns are turned upside-down.
Wolves, bears, lynxes, and boars deserve to lead free, natural lives. Reintroduction programs subject wild animals to capturing and handling, which is always very stressful for them and may eventually put them in the line of fire of farmers who are already angry about predator-reintroduction programs.
To capture and transport wolves and other predators to a new area, the animals must first be tranquilized. When they recover from the anesthesia, they are released into unfamiliar terrain. This unnatural process causes a great deal of stress to animals and threatens their physical health and well-being.
Wolves are social animals who live in tightly knit packs. It is nearly impossible to capture and relocate an entire pack, so relocation almost always breaks up a tightly bonded extended family, likely causing loneliness, pining, separation anxiety, depression, and grieving.
Relocated animals often have difficulty determining where they can find food and shelter. Some of the wolves who were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park have left their new packs because it is difficult to adapt to the new area and function in their contrived “family” units.
Reintroducing wolves and other predators into an environment that has been free of such animals for a long time is also traumatic for the animals who already live there, such as deer, birds, and any other animals who suddenly find themselves being stalked and attacked.
While supporters of predator-reintroduction programs believe in the concept of restoring the “balance of nature,” it’s not possible to artificially impose this balance. Ecosystems are in a constant state of change, which has been sped up by human expansion and technological advances.
Our species has wiped out predator populations in many areas of the world but must also realize that the system has evolved and recovered to its current state. Rather than attempting to return wilderness areas to some semblance of an undefined previous state and manipulating populations of animals, we need to focus our efforts on alleviating the suffering and promoting the well-being of those who are there now.
Many articles and news reports about the wolf-reintroduction program in the U.S. focus on people’s interests—the idea that the absence of wolves makes us miss out on a majestic part of nature. Such reports romanticize hearing “the cry of wolves” one day again in Yellowstone but do not consider the extensive suffering that could be expressed in these cries.
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/predator-reintroduction-programs/
-
The bible's not my book, I'm afraid, so you can lay off with the religious trolling. It's tacky, and unnecessary.
You're the one that brought the Bible into the argument to try and back up your case. Only one in five Americans think the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man." One in three think everything in it should be accepted literally. I suspect you are not in the one in five category and are far more likely to be in the 'literal' camp from what you've been saying.
It is a great worry to me that the most powerful nation on Earth is inhabited by so many stupid people.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx
-
Bigerty Bigerty Boring Kitson
-
I've directly answered you regarding milk production TWICE.
You most certainly haven't. You've totally skirted around the issue. I'll make it simple for you. Do you feel the way that milk is produced for the mass market is acceptable or barbaric?
I most certainly have answered the question.
I gave you an answer, an honest answer, but apparently it's not the answer you wanted. I'd have to know a lot more about it before I'd start waving a placard. I do know enough to know that PETA's example is not typical, and that I'm not naive enough to trust a single source for my information, especially if the source in question is dedicated to the abolition of the industry!
For the record, I'd be perfectly happy with tighter regulations governing the welfare of animals in agriculture. In my experience, most FAR exceed industry standards and regulations willingly, but it would be great if the minority were held to that higher standard. There will always be those that cut corners, in any industry, and they should be suitably punished for it, and not held up as 'typical' of the industry by extremists.
You offered PETA's perspective of dairy faming, and asked me to formulate an opinion of an industry based upon that. Even IF that was accurate and typical, they're still damning an entire industry based upon the methods employed by some. That's akin to condemning coal mining because some companies blow the tops off mountains in Kentucky.
You'll ask me for my opinion regarding animal testing after posting a link to the ALF next.
You've dodged the vast majority of points that I've made, or answered them either with sniping, trolling remarks, or page-long, emotionally charged drivel cut/pasted from PETA's website.
Is the sum of your knowledge and life experience contained within the PETA website?
-
PETA wish that nobody had pets, yet they perpetuate the practice themselves. How convenient; the extremist animal lovers get to keep animals AND still claim the moral high-ground whilst doing so.
PETA are realists, unlike you. They deal with the situation as it is now, not how they wish it was. It is far more preferable for someone who supports PETA to look after a pet than a cruel person like you who views animals as part of your dominion and only fit for food.
The law states that I own my animals. Just as you own your pets. Somebody has to be held accountable for their care, well-being and behaviour. What would stop somebody taking your cat, if you didn't own it? Who would be prosecuted if an animal was not being fed? Animal ownership is a practical necessity for liability reasons.
Only fit for food? 'Cruel people' like me eat our pets now? Clutching. At. Straws.
Keeping cats indoors, cats on leashes (WTF?). Mental. Their arguments are based upon emotion rather than logic. They talk about how cruel it is that animals are stuck in homes, and only eat, drink and urinate when/where they are told to by their owners, and then go on to say that letting a cat wander free is cruel because something might happen to it! Disease is taken care of by a responsible owner, and if anything, not letting your cat outside because bad things *can* happen is cruel and selfish.
You'd think it was written by a tween girl ffs.
PETA are only remotely realistic when it suits their current argument.
You don't think it's hypocritical that PETA euthanize thousands of dogs and cats every year to control population, but condemn the idea of humans or reintroduced predators doing it in the wild?
They want their pets and also to take the moral high-ground at the same time. What's the difference between a PETA "animal rescuer" and a "selfish" pet owner? The reason you tell yourself you keep animals, perhaps? Whether or not you're honest with yourself and acknowledge the fact that you love animals and simply want to keep one in your home? Do you have a pet? Is it free to wander over acres of pasture and forest, or is it locked in a house the majority of the day, and only taken outside to relieve itself or walk on a leash?
One of PETA's biggest failings is that they see everything human-animal related as being "wrong," or humans just taking advantage of or "using" animals. They fail to acknowledge that just as happens in nature between animals, humans and animals can have a symbiotic relationship. A "barn cat" keeps rodent populations under control, and has food/shelter/medical care etc, for doing no more than living free and following natural instincts.
Dogs can be valuable guards for livestock and property, doing what comes naturally, again in return for food/shelter/medical care etc.
-
If memory serves, they were set aside, what, 150 years ago? That's plenty of time for nature to find balance if it was ever going to happen without intervention.
150 years is nothing in the great scheme of things.
Course it isn't, but it's plenty of time to observe animal populations, and draw valid conclusions.
Just how long should we wait before trying to do something positive?
-
The problem is lack of predators, and hunting is the best option until sufficient populations can be reintroduced. Of course, PETA are against predator reintroduction. (More predators = more cute and furries getting eaten). It's not a perfect solution either, but it's the only possible long term solution, and even you must admit it's preferable to hunting?
You really are clueless. Reintroducing predators is not the solution, neither is hunting. There is a reason why reintroducing predators is not the solution. Let me explain.
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/predator-reintroduction-programs/
Oh the irony! :laugh:
You didn't explain anything; you copied and pasted more of PETA's drivel.
Do you have an original thought of your own?
It's all emotional nonsense as per usual. Typical of PETA. Blame all of human kind (except themselves) for destroying nature, but won't let anybody try to fix it in a logical manner.
We shouldn't try to reintroduce predators to areas they once dwelt in large numbers, because some of the animals already living there might be traumatised? Chuff me. They'll get eaten; that's half the point! Population control, natural balance. The incoming predators might get stressed out? Perhaps at first, until they realise what a target-rich environment they are now in. Then they will thrive.
If PETA were realistic, they would be more concerned with achieving a natural balance, even if (in the short-term) it upsets a few predators, and leads to a few more prey animals being eaten by their natural predators. A few years down the line, the problem is solved.
-
The bible's not my book, I'm afraid, so you can lay off with the religious trolling. It's tacky, and unnecessary.
You're the one that brought the Bible into the argument to try and back up your case. Only one in five Americans think the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man." One in three think everything in it should be accepted literally. I suspect you are not in the one in five category and are far more likely to be in the 'literal' camp from what you've been saying.
It is a great worry to me that the most powerful nation on Earth is inhabited by so many stupid people.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx
You just can't help yourself, can you?
Did you even read your own quote?
I put forward the comment on the bible as a suggestion as to why some people feel the way they do about animals. I clearly stated that - "You were the one to infer that you had the meaning of life all figured out. I merely offered an explanation which may work for you, depending upon your belief system."
For the last time, I do not read the bible, nor believe everything in it, literally or otherwise. I'm not American either, so again, refrain from the irrelevant, needless trolling.
It makes you look even sillier than your PETA's opinions already do.
-
I'll try yet again. This time please can you keep your answer short and to the point. Do you think the way milk is mass produced is barbaric or acceptable? A one word answer will do.
-
I'm not American either
As far as I'm concerned if you live in America you are American and must accept some responsibility for your countrymen's laughable views of the Bible.
-
i have lived in cyprus and germany , does that make me an english , german cypriot ? and make me part responsible for the economic crash and lederhosen?
-
Where you live and make your home is what your nationality becomes.
-
really i will tell the Goverment of this country and the MOD that then . Should be an intresting disscussion in whitehall.
-
I'll try yet again. This time please can you keep your answer short and to the point. Do you think the way milk is mass produced is barbaric or acceptable? A one word answer will do.
Insufficient data.
-
Where you live and make your home is what your nationality becomes.
Try telling that to the ex pat Brits in Spain :)
I presume that you are paid by the amount of b*llocks you spout and the replies this generates. There would appear to be no other reason for your inane ramblings.
ps Glad to have increased your bank account by 5p :)
-
I'm not American either
As far as I'm concerned if you live in America you are American and must accept some responsibility for your countrymen's laughable views of the Bible.
I thought you said you weren't English? ;) I certainly can't be arsed to check, but didn't you declare yourself Irish in the Scottish Independence thread? You talk so much nonsense, you can't help but trip over your own BS.
Not my countrymen, not my views.
You're getting more illogical and irrational by the post, not to mention dodging points and counter-points with increasing regularity.
-
Where you live and make your home is what your nationality becomes.
So you're declaring yourself English then?
-
Insufficient data!!! Avoiding the issue again more like.
-
By the usual conventions for determining nationality I am considered to be English.
-
I dodge nothing. Feel free to throw anything you want at me and as long as it is not silly just for the sake of it I will answer everything. Just be aware that by the time I'm finished with you you'll feel like you've been up through the mincer (just like those poor animals you slaughter).
-
Insufficient data!!! Avoiding the issue again more like.
Nope; simply answering the question as succinctly as possible, as requested.
-
I dodge nothing. Feel free to throw anything you want at me and as long as it is not silly just for the sake of it I will answer everything. Just be aware that by the time I'm finished with you you'll feel like you've been up through the mincer (just like those poor animals you slaughter).
Read back a page or two; there's plenty to keep you busy.
I can't be bothered to summarize for you. Do try to keep up.
-
I've repeatedly asked you if you think milk production is cruel. You repeatedly avoid the question because the way milk is produced does not fit with your Biblical view of the world that man has dominion over all animals and can do what he wants with them. After all, animals are just food.
Well here's another website which explains in graphic, painful detail just how cruel milk production is. I defy anyone who bothers to take on board the information to ever look at milk the same way again (I fully expect you not to change your mind as you have demonstrated a total lack of empathy for our fellow animals).
I'd just be grateful if you could be honest and just admit that milk production is barbaric. The fact you think this is OK says a lot about you and your kind.
http://milkiscruel.com/
-
Mick
I've asked you straight questions and seen you ignore them more times than I can remember. So you are being a naughty little tinker getting worked up about someone else doing the same thing.
-
I've asked you straight questions and seen you ignore them more times than I can remember. So you are being a naughty little tinker getting worked up about someone else doing the same thing.
I am legendary on this forum for always answering everything that is thrown at me. I do refuse to answer silly questions though. You have asked plenty of these just to try and make yourself look clever. I'm amazed you haven't cut your losses before after all the batterings I've dished out to you previously.
-
So you DON'T answer everything thrown at you.
Actually, the last question I repeatedly asked of you was whether you would take up a bet on a subject that you have repeatedly pontificated on.
Was that a silly question or a valid enquiry?
You didn't have to take up the bet by the way. Just do me the courtesy of telling me whether you would. It seems surprising that you regale us with your opinions frequently, but when asked to man up and back them up, you don't even acknowledge that the question had been asked.
-
You do realise that wanting to bet on everything makes you sound like a little boy in the school playground. We all remember being at school and the phrase 'I'll bet you then'. This phrase was always employed by someone who had already lost the argument.
I didn't respond to your question in this instance as out of the goodness of my heart I didn't want to make you look daft (again). But you just couldn't let it lie.
Next question please.
-
You do realise that wanting to bet on everything makes you sound like a little boy in the school playground. We all remember being at school and the phrase 'I'll bet you then'. This phrase was always employed by someone who had already lost the argument.
I didn't respond to your question in this instance as out of the goodness of my heart I didn't want to make you look daft (again). But you just couldn't let it lie.
Next question please.
I'd prefer it that you made BST look daft than evade the question
-
I'd prefer it that you made BST look daft than evade the question
I refer you to my previous post in this thread where I have done exactly as you asked.
-
I'd prefer it that you made BST look daft than evade the question
I refer you to my previous post in this thread where I have done exactly as you asked.
You've evaded many questions Mick, why refer to the previous post?
-
I've repeatedly asked you if you think milk production is cruel. You repeatedly avoid the question because the way milk is produced does not fit with your Biblical view of the world that man has dominion over all animals and can do what he wants with them. After all, animals are just food.
Well here's another website which explains in graphic, painful detail just how cruel milk production is. I defy anyone who bothers to take on board the information to ever look at milk the same way again (I fully expect you not to change your mind as you have demonstrated a total lack of empathy for our fellow animals).
I'd just be grateful if you could be honest and just admit that milk production is barbaric. The fact you think this is OK says a lot about you and your kind.
http://milkiscruel.com/
Still waiting.
-
Another question for you. Do you think factory farming is OK or barbaric?
On today’s factory farms, animals are crammed by the thousands into filthy, windowless sheds and confined to wire cages, gestation crates, barren dirt lots, and other cruel confinement systems. These animals will never raise their families, root around in the soil, build nests, or do anything that is natural and important to them. Most won’t even feel the sun on their backs or breathe fresh air until the day they are loaded onto trucks bound for slaughter. The green pastures and idyllic barnyard scenes of years past are now distant memories.
The factory farming industry strives to maximize output while minimizing costs—always at the animals’ expense. The giant corporations that run most factory farms have found that they can make more money by cramming animals into tiny spaces, even though many of the animals get sick and some die. The industry journal National Hog Farmer explains, “Crowding pigs pays,” and egg-industry expert Bernard Rollins writes that “chickens are cheap; cages are expensive.”
Cows, calves, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and other animals live in extremely stressful conditions:
Kept in small cages or jam-packed sheds or on filthy feedlots, often with so little space that they can’t even turn around or lie down comfortably
Deprived of exercise so that all their bodies’ energy goes toward producing flesh, eggs, or milk for human consumption
Fed drugs to fatten them faster and keep them alive in conditions that could otherwise kill them
Genetically altered to grow faster or to produce much more milk or eggs than they naturally would (many animals become crippled under their own weight and die just inches away from water and food)
When they have finally grown large enough, animals raised for food are crowded onto trucks and transported over many miles through all weather extremes, typically without food or water, to the slaughterhouse. Those who survive this nightmarish journey will have their throats slit, often while they are still conscious. Many remain conscious when they are plunged into the scalding-hot water of the defeathering or hair-removal tanks or while their bodies are being skinned or hacked apart.
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/
-
I've repeatedly asked you if you think milk production is cruel. You repeatedly avoid the question because the way milk is produced does not fit with your Biblical view of the world that man has dominion over all animals and can do what he wants with them. After all, animals are just food.
Well here's another website which explains in graphic, painful detail just how cruel milk production is. I defy anyone who bothers to take on board the information to ever look at milk the same way again (I fully expect you not to change your mind as you have demonstrated a total lack of empathy for our fellow animals).
I'd just be grateful if you could be honest and just admit that milk production is barbaric. The fact you think this is OK says a lot about you and your kind.
http://milkiscruel.com/
Still waiting.
Sorry luv, real life and all that. ;)
IF that was my view, then it would fit PRECISELY with that world view!
Milk production is not cruel. How one may go about it, is another matter entirely. Can it be done humanely? Absolutely. Is that always the case? Clearly not.
I too am against animal cruelty. We simply don't share the same definition.
I've never said that animals are 'just food,' but it's true that we all have our place on the food chain.
As you have intimated yourself, you require very little proof of anything if it fits your preconceived idea or agenda.
Peta.com, milkiscruel.com; hardly objective websites to educate the skeptical, are they?
In the case of PETA, you provide a link to a biased source and expect me to believe every word, as you do. Firstly, I'm not that gullible. Secondly, much of it is illogical. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that even you mindlessly buy into all their arguments. Pet hypocrisy/destruction, keeping cats indoors/on leashes etc, etc... Really???
Did you read the predator reintroduction page? You'll see less use of emotive language in a teenage girl's diary. Such use of figurative language is unnecessary if the argument is rational, logical, and valid.
As for milkiscruel, well I can link you to a hundred dog-fight videos, or a hundred cats dressed up in festive costumes, but that doesn't prove that the majority of pet owners treat their animals that way. Clearly, the video is disturbing, but then that is the point. They are attempting to close down the industry on philosophical grounds, and using this as their ammunition. No amount of welfare legislation will ever be enough to pacify groups whose aim is converting the world to a vegan lifestyle.
Always be suspicious of your sources. They are only showing you what they want you to see. 4 negligent dairy farms in a country of over 310 million people, doesn't equate to common by any definition.
You claim you're asking a simple question, yet what you are asking is to formulate an opinion based upon extremely limited data, from incredibly questionable sources. That I refuse to, is hardly dodging a question. The burden of proof is on you. Prove your argument; provide numerous, CREDIBLE sources and there may be something to discuss.
I'm still waiting for you to catch up.
You never did respond regarding hunting or pets. If you're all out of ideas links, I'll allow you to withdraw with dignity.
-
Another question for you. Do you think factory farming is OK or barbaric?
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/
OK or barbaric? Nothing in between?
I don't like so-called 'factory farming;' too few genuine farmers, and too many unskilled, often illegal, (at least over here) labourers.
Laziness and greed are the biggest issue.
It's not difficult to run a farm humanely, but it is labour-intensive and not as profitable.
Primarily, that means giving the animals as much space as possible, and only administering medications that are absolutely necessary for the wellbeing of the animals.
Not all large-scale farming concerns are what you would term 'factory farms,' although some would have you believe that all farms with livestock, regardless of size, are the same. I can assure you that's not the case.
-
OK or barbaric? Nothing in between?
I don't like so-called 'factory farming;
It's very simple. The answer is barbaric. In between is barbaric but just to a lesser degree.
-
I give up on the milk issue. The correct answer is barbaric.
-
Like I say, if you've got any questions for me just fire them at me. I promise a brief and to the point answer that does not contain any waffle. If only I could say the same about some others around here.
Another question. Do you think fishing is OK or barbaric?
-
OK or barbaric? Nothing in between?
I don't like so-called 'factory farming;
It's very simple. The answer is barbaric. In between is barbaric but just to a lesser degree.
In between is 'could do better'.
-
I give up on the milk issue. The correct answer is barbaric
1-0. ;)
Like I say, if you've got any questions for me just fire them at me. I promise a brief and to the point answer that does not contain any waffle. If only I could say the same about some others around here.
Another question. Do you think fishing is OK or barbaric?
The reasoning behind the answer is the whole point. A magic 8-ball can answer questions.
Commercial or recreational? For food, or catch and release?
-
All types of fishing.
-
All types of fishing.
So if you saw a couple of kids fishing with butterfly nets in Sandall Park, what would you do?
Punch them hard in the face then make a citizens arrest?
-
I would point out to them how cruel what they were doing was and have a word with their parents to tell them they need to educate their children better.
-
And they'd probably tell you where to go as well.
-
If they did, that would just go to show how ignorant they are of how much fish suffer for human pleasure/food. There is a big education job needed on this subject because 99% of people are blissfully unaware of the suffering that the human race causes to fish.
-
Are people 'blissfully unaware', or having considered it, do they simply think no more of eating fish than you would a carrot?
Do you have kids? How would you respond to a stranger approaching your child in a park, and then proceeding to explain to them that the beliefs and values you've instilled in them are wrong? I wouldn't (and didn't) put up with that from my kids' school teacher, never mind a stranger in a park.
I have no issues whatsoever with fishing. In fact I have a stocked lake. I'm not the only one taking fish from there either. Bears, panthers, eagles, herons etc, all frequent it. In fact, I was watching the sand crane chicks down by the lake just this morning.
A few questions for you:-
Where do you draw the line with your 'anti-cruelty' stance?
Do you use/wear leather products? Do you extend your principles to insects, vermin, household pests etc?
If I could prove to you that fruit and vegetables felt pain, would you reconcile yourself with it, or starve yourself to death?
-
Where do you draw the line with your 'anti-cruelty' stance?
Do you use/wear leather products? Do you extend your principles to insects, vermin, household pests etc?
If I could prove to you that fruit and vegetables felt pain, would you reconcile yourself with it, or starve yourself to death?
Of course I don't wear/use leather products wherever possible.
Of course I extend my principles to insects, 'vermin', (not a good choice of word which says a lot about how you view animals), household pests e.t.c. wherever this is practicable.
Of course I would starve myself to death if you could prove that fruit and vegetables were sentient beings (good luck with trying to prove that one).
Do you have kids?
Yes.
How would you respond to a stranger approaching your child in a park, and then proceeding to explain to them that the beliefs and values you've instilled in them are wrong?
I'd listen with great interest and if the stranger made a convincing case I would tell my children to take on board the advice. I'd also tell them that they shouldn't believe everything I've ever told them because I don't know everything about everything (I almost do). As they get older they need to take in a wide range of views and then make up their own minds about things. They should always be prepared to change their minds.
I wouldn't (and didn't) put up with that from my kids' school teacher, never mind a stranger in a park.
I'm not surprised. You seem like a control freak with a serious lack of empathy for other animals which then translates to your relationships with human animals.
Are people 'blissfully unaware', or having considered it, do they simply think no more of eating fish than you would a carrot?
People are blissfully unaware. There is no comparison between eating a fish (with all the pain that's gone into it's capture) and a carrot. Comparing fish to vegetables is laughable.
I have no issues whatsoever with fishing. In fact I have a stocked lake.
Why am I not surprised.
Feel free to throw more questions at me. I guarantee to answer everything thrown at me (unlike some others around here I could mention).
In conclusion here is the damning truth about fish:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/fish/
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/cruel-sports/fishing/
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/catch-and-release-fishing/
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/fish/commercial-fishing/