Vegan children have stunted growth

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:29:07 +0100, williamwright

Post by williamwright
It was in yesterday's Times. Apparently they have poor bones and they
are shorter than normal.
I suppose the authorities should pick up on this. But it's like FGM,
child abuse that's overlooked because a lot of people do it. However I
don't suppose vegans are regarded as being above the law like certain
other groups.
Bill

Not sure about the poor bones, I usually just spit them out.
Being shorter though, now that might be a solution to the
overpopulation problem, if we can just make people smaller using
dietry means. Don't see how we're going to solve the problem
otherwise.
Yes, I know BIGGER is better... but just saying.

--
Ric_Treen

Rod Speed

2021-06-06 17:30:14 UTC

Post by Richard Treen
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:29:07 +0100, williamwright

Not sure about the poor bones, I usually just spit them out.
Being shorter though, now that might be a solution to the
overpopulation problem, if we can just make people smaller using
dietry means.
Don't see how we're going to solve the problem otherwise.

That 'problem' is fixing itself. EVERY country has seen the birth rate
dropping dramatically except where its already right down in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate#1950_and_2015

And China and India COMBINED, by far the two most
populous countrys isnt even self replacing now.

Post by Richard Treen
Yes, I know BIGGER is better... but just saying.

Peeler

2021-06-06 18:08:23 UTC

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 03:30:14 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID: <f9056fe6-1479-40ff-8cc0-***@googlegroups.com>

jkn

2021-06-06 09:41:44 UTC

And you think this association means ... what, exactly?

https://xkcd.com/552/

T i m

2021-06-06 11:17:49 UTC

Post by jkn

And you think this association means ... what, exactly?

1) It means Bill is now going to get a bolloking from all the netcops
for posting about veganism without marking it OT:

2) Bill doesn't care about any association, that wasn't why he posted.

3) Because Bill is so desperate to push his carnist agenda, he tries
to link feeding a child a vegan diet (as approved by the BDA and ADA),
with FGM, hoping it will sensationalise / link the two things.

4) Bill is obviously now suffering from the guilt created by his
actions (killing and eating innocent and sentient creatures (like
livestock)) with his morals that stops him killing and eating innocent
and sentient creatures (like his dogs).

4) Bill didn't include any link or reference as if he did, people
might also read things like:

"The number of vegans in Britain has quadrupled in four years to some
600,000, amid rising concerns over animal welfare and the
environment."

(So, human health is much more than just what people eat it also
includes things the level of pollution they have to live in and how
much food and water they have available).

"Lead author Professor Jonathan Wells, from UCL, said: 'We know that
people are increasingly being drawn to plant-based diets for several
reasons, including promoting animal welfare and reducing our impact on
the climate.

Indeed, a global shift towards plant-based diets is now recognised to
be crucial for preventing climate breakdown, and we strongly support
this effort.

We found that vegan children had lower bone mass even after accounting
for their smaller body and bone size. This means they may enter
adolescence, a phase when bone-specific nutrient needs are higher,
with a bone deficit already established.

If such deficits are caused by a diet that persists into adolescence,
this might increase the risk of adverse bone outcomes later in life."

(*IF* such deficits ... *MIGHT* ...)

"However, on the positive side, the vegan children had 25 per cent
lower levels of 'bad' LDL cholesterol and lower levels of body fat.

Co-author Dr Malgorzata Desmond said: 'We found the vegans had higher
intakes of nutrients that indicated an 'unprocessed' type of plant
-based diet, which is in turn linked to lower body fat and better
cardiovascular risk profile."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9648849/Children-trendy-vegan-diets-1-2-inches-SHORTER-average.html

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/child-health/news/2021/jun/vegan-diets-children-may-bring-heart-benefits-pose-growth-risks

One thing that generally happens when people go vegan and follow a
vegan diet is that they actually start taking notice of the things
they eat and often discover a whole range of high protein, high
nutrient, high fibre food stuffs that can easily be included in your
diet in an unrefined / unprocessed form.

Anything has to be better than a diet of 'chicken nuggets' and chips.

Personally, I would rather my child was 3cm shorter at some arbitrary
time in their life but live a longer life and not die of bowel cancer
[1], heart disease way before they are old enough to possibly suffer
the other non-life-threatening issues that *might* exist.

Post by jkn
https://xkcd.com/552/

Quite.

The good thing though is that it shows that my discussions here aren't
going un-considered, even by the carnists and if Bill ends up learning
a bit more about veganism and *all* the facets it covers, that can
only be a good thing (and not for me specifically of course, but
certainly millions of innocent sentient creatures, the environment and
human health).

Cheers, T i m

[1] Step daughter died at 39 of bowel cancer and loved her processed
meats and was never a big consumer of fruit and veg.

Fredxx

2021-06-06 12:57:05 UTC

Post by jkn

And you think this association means ... what, exactly?

1) It means Bill is now going to get a bolloking from all the netcops
2) Bill doesn't care about any association, that wasn't why he posted.
3) Because Bill is so desperate to push his carnist agenda, he tries
to link feeding a child a vegan diet (as approved by the BDA and ADA),
with FGM, hoping it will sensationalise / link the two things.

If he's anything like me he cares for his family and doesn't want his
family is disadvantaged by force-feeding children a diet that will harm
them.

Post by T i m
4) Bill is obviously now suffering from the guilt created by his
actions (killing and eating innocent and sentient creatures (like
livestock)) with his morals that stops him killing and eating innocent
and sentient creatures (like his dogs).

Just because you feel guilt eating animals doesn't mean we do.

Post by T i m
4) Bill didn't include any link or reference as if he did, people

Try this one:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200127-how-a-vegan-diet-could-affect-your-intelligence

There are others. With the increase number of vegans there is more
concern over the damage it causes children. It's good to see common
sense tends to prevail:

https://qz.com/1622642/making-your-kids-go-vegan-can-mean-jail-time-in-belgium/

Spike

2021-06-06 15:13:23 UTC

Personally, I would rather my child was 3cm shorter at some arbitrary
time in their life

You like making choices for other sentient beings, don't you, especially
those that can't answer back.

Post by T i m
but live a longer life and not die of bowel cancer

To which authority does one apply to have this choice enforced?

--
Spike

Richard

2021-06-06 11:18:36 UTC

Post by jkn

And you think this association means ... what, exactly?
https://xkcd.com/552/

BLM trumps VLM?

alan_m

2021-06-06 10:54:34 UTC

Veganism is just another crackpot religion, hence the sermons we
constantly get on this group about the subject

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Fredxx

2021-06-06 13:00:32 UTC

Veganism is just another crackpot religion, hence the sermons we
constantly get on this group about the subject

There is nothing wrong with veganism, or indeed any blind faith. It
becomes wrong when pressure is applied through abusing or forcing others
who don't conform. It then becomes fanaticism, aka crackpot cult/religion.

T i m does a great disservice to genuine vegans who follow their own
personal beliefs without trying to impose them on others.

T i m

2021-06-06 14:35:13 UTC

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:54:34 +0100, alan_m <***@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

Post by alan_m
Veganism is just another crackpot religion,

Aww bless. Ok, let's replace the word 'veganism' with 'not being cruel
to and killing animals' and 'religion / beliefs' with 'fact' and see
how you then sound. That's right, 'like a nutter'! ;-)

Post by alan_m
hence the sermons

Advocacy, as happened to end slavery, to give women the vote, to end
racism, more things I'm sure people like you preferred others had kept
quiet about.

Post by alan_m
we
constantly get on this group about the subject

And that you have no obligation to read let alone reply to, unless
your inability to refrain is the same as that from causing pain,
suffering, exploitation and death to innocent animals of course?

And what about the pollution to the environment the livestock cause
that affects *everyone*, I'm guessing you don't care about that
either, or the fact that what we are doing re food isn't sustainable?

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

Luckily more and more people *do* care about such things and are
actually doing something about it, for the benefit of everyone (other
than those making a living from the death and exploitation of animals
of course).

Cheers, T i m

Spike

2021-06-06 15:15:40 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-06 17:25:26 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

And we don't need the crap land to still be able to feed everyone,
that can be re-wilded.

Cheers, T i m

alan_m

2021-06-06 17:32:34 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure. Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep. I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

T i m

2021-06-06 18:11:48 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure.

It certainly is in the Amazon and all the other areas that are being
cleared primarily to feed *livestock*.

Many of those environments have evolved over the years to *only* be
self sufficient *because* of what grew there. Cut it all down and
plant for animal feed and the soil is exhausted very quickly.

Post by alan_m
Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass? Chances are, trees,
absorbing CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Post by alan_m
I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.

It wouldn't be, we don't need to, it would be re-wilded.

And it's not 'vegan food', it's 'food' as everyone can eat it (and
they have been for thousands of years).

Cheers, T i m

Fredxx

2021-06-06 18:28:44 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure.

It certainly is in the Amazon and all the other areas that are being
cleared primarily to feed *livestock*.

No, demand is rising to grow soy by plant eaters.

Post by T i m
Many of those environments have evolved over the years to *only* be
self sufficient *because* of what grew there. Cut it all down and
plant for animal feed and the soil is exhausted very quickly.

Cut it down to satisfy users of synthetic meat and the soil is exhausted
very quickly.

Post by alan_m
Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass? Chances are, trees,
absorbing CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Probably bare hills.

Post by alan_m
I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.

It wouldn't be, we don't need to, it would be re-wilded.

So less food overall, so this is all envy we're allowed to eat meat and
you're not. If you were worried about efficient land use, wilding it is
hardly a solution to your imaginary problem.

Post by T i m
And it's not 'vegan food', it's 'food' as everyone can eat it (and
they have been for thousands of years).

Quite, and we've cooked and eaten meat for thousands of years, as well
as evolving the gene to digest milk.

Spike

2021-06-07 08:26:47 UTC

Post by alan_m
Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?
[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees, there was a glacier about a km thick, but 'global
warming' some tens of thousands of years before the Industrial Age, got
rid of it. Shouldn't we go back to those times instead, as interglacial
warm periods are quite short when compared to the glacials?

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-07 09:04:18 UTC

Post by alan_m
Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?
[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees,

<snip>

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

1/10 (you *really* must try harder).

Cheers, T i m

Spike

2021-06-07 10:26:10 UTC

Post by alan_m
Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?
[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-07 11:03:51 UTC

Post by alan_m
Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?
[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

But not to our current use or restoration to a 'realistic' timescale
level of bio-diversity for the purposes of a sensible discussion.

Cheers, T i m

Spike

2021-06-08 08:48:55 UTC

Post by alan_m
Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?
[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

But not to our current use or restoration to a 'realistic' timescale
level of bio-diversity for the purposes of a sensible discussion.

Now comes T i m ' s qualifiers to shore up his argument...

"...current use... ...realistic time-scale... ...level of
bio-diversity... ...sensible discussion..."

...none of which were previously mentioned.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-08 14:09:14 UTC

Post by alan_m
Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?
[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

But not to our current use or restoration to a 'realistic' timescale
level of bio-diversity for the purposes of a sensible discussion.

Now comes T i m ' s qualifiers to shore up his argument...
"...current use... ...realistic time-scale... ...level of
bio-diversity... ...sensible discussion..."
...none of which were previously mentioned.

Do I *really* have to mention *every little and obvious thing*, *every
time* I cover the subject in general, just to placate the ignorant /
left brainers?

Oh, no need to answer that because it's obvious (well, to non troll /
left brainers).

It's the same when mentioning anything when you *try* to use your
distraction techniques to attempt to justify something ... like 'we
have drunk cows milk for thousands of years' like that in any way
justifies our continuing to drink it NOW.

There are *loads* of things we used to do that we no longer do (thank
goodness) and so all of them were likely to be justified by the likes
of you at the time when the likes of me had already opposed them.

So yes, a lot of the world was once covered in ice bit that has no
bearing whatsoever in a conversation of how most of the UK (in
particular) was once covered in trees (so that sets the starting
timeline) and now there are far fewer.

We might want / need to go back to the time where there were loads of
trees but the chances are we wouldn't want to go back to the time when
we were covered in ice.

Cheers, T i m

Spike

2021-06-08 14:26:24 UTC

Post by Spike
Now comes T i m ' s qualifiers to shore up his argument...
"...current use... ...realistic time-scale... ...level of
bio-diversity... ...sensible discussion..."
...none of which were previously mentioned.

It's unacceptable to shift the grounds of a discussion you started.

Post by T i m
It's the same when mentioning anything when you *try* to use your
distraction techniques to attempt to justify something ... like 'we
have drunk cows milk for thousands of years' like that in any way
justifies our continuing to drink it NOW.

Waffle.

Post by T i m
There are *loads* of things we used to do that we no longer do (thank
goodness) and so all of them were likely to be justified by the likes
of you at the time when the likes of me had already opposed them.

Waffle.

Post by T i m
So yes, a lot of the world was once covered in ice bit that has no
bearing whatsoever in a conversation of how most of the UK (in
particular) was once covered in trees (so that sets the starting
timeline)

There was *no* starting timeline in your unbounded argument. It's only
now that you've realised your error and are back-pedalling furiously.

Post by T i m
and now there are far fewer.

Unimportant on a geologic scale.

Post by T i m
We might want / need to go back to the time where there were loads of
trees but the chances are we wouldn't want to go back to the time when
we were covered in ice.

So you say, but it's the planet's natural condition. The warm bits are
the anomaly.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-08 15:16:04 UTC

It's unacceptable to shift the grounds of a discussion you started.

Wasn't shifting any grounds. You simply couldn't predict what would be
considered by most a reasonable bounds for the discussion.

Waffle.

Relevant point to a right brainer.

Waffle.

Relevant point to a right brainer.

There was *no* starting timeline in your unbounded argument. It's only
now that you've realised your error and are back-pedalling furiously.

Post by T i m
and now there are far fewer.

Unimportant on a geologic scale.

Relevant to the timescale likely to be in discussion. If it wasn't we
would be throwing dinosaurs into the discussion and you haven't (yet).

Post by T i m
We might want / need to go back to the time where there were loads of
trees but the chances are we wouldn't want to go back to the time when
we were covered in ice.

So you say, but it's the planet's natural condition. The warm bits are
the anomaly.

Again, not when compared to our habitation of the world as we know and
deal with it it isn't.

Cheers, T i m

Fredxx

2021-06-06 18:23:19 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

In many cases it wouldn't economically feasible. Land used for sheep
farming is usually difficult to grow crops on. It would simple revert to
disused pasture.

Then of course more land would be required to farm plant food. Leading
to more Amazonian rainforest felled for industrial processes making tofu.

Spike

2021-06-07 08:27:05 UTC

Post by Fredxx
Land used for sheep
farming is usually difficult to grow crops on. It would simple revert to
disused pasture.
Then of course more land would be required to farm plant food. Leading
to more Amazonian rainforest felled for industrial processes making tofu.

No! No!

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-07 09:07:05 UTC

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:27:05 +0000, Spike <***@mail.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>

Post by Spike
T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Cheers, T i m

Spike

2021-06-08 08:49:10 UTC

Post by Spike
T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

You make them sound like Frankenfoods.

Post by T i m
But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Waffle.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-08 14:11:24 UTC

Post by Spike
T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

You make them sound like Frankenfoods.

NO, you want them to sound like that to =try to offset your desire to
cause pain and suffering to (a bizarre subset) of animals.

Post by T i m
But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Waffle.

Complicated isn't it, all this general talk, when you are a left
brainer.

So, Spuke, WHY don't you eat cows and sheep?

Cheers, T i m

Spike

2021-06-08 14:27:20 UTC

Post by Spike
T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

You make them sound like Frankenfoods.

NO, you want them to sound like that to =try to offset your desire to
cause pain and suffering to (a bizarre subset) of animals.

Post by T i m
But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Waffle.

Complicated isn't it, all this general talk, when you are a left
brainer.
So, Spuke, WHY don't you eat cows and sheep?

<groan> Freedom of choice - something that veganists would like to ban.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-08 15:10:44 UTC

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:27:20 +0000, Spike <***@mail.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>

Post by T i m
So, Spuke, WHY don't you eat cows and sheep?

<groan> Freedom of choice -

<snip bs>

Yes, I know you have the 'freedom of choice' but that isn't an answer
to *why / only* sheep and cows that you don't eat?

There must be *some* sort of rational reason, even if it's only part
of your general logical inconsistency and speciesism?

I mean, if when you were a child, happily stamping on chickens and
then were traumatised by your Dad being killed by a cow (when trying
to kill 'it' say) and your Mum killed by a sheep (when trying to do
the same), I would have thought you would *want* to kill cows and
sheep and the best / easiest / legal way to do that is to buy and eat
their flesh? (Ok, someone else actually kills them for you but you are
still causing their deaths eh).

Or maybe the trauma of recalling all that is why you can't answer such
a simple and straightforward question?

Cheers, T i m

John Rumm

2021-06-07 13:13:44 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

Traditional crop rotation used to include a year or two laid to grass
and used for livestock grazing. That way they lots of nice organic
fertilizer got deposited on the ground in the process (displacing more
carbon generated as a result of the manufacture of industrial fertilizer
and its transportation), and the livestock converted all that inedible
grass into something nice tasty and nutritious.

A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

T i m

2021-06-07 14:16:59 UTC

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

Traditional crop rotation used to include a year or two laid to grass
and used for livestock grazing.

Traditional in the UK and in some cases more likely.

Post by John Rumm
That way they lots of nice organic
fertilizer got deposited on the ground in the process (displacing more
carbon generated as a result of the manufacture of industrial fertilizer
and its transportation),

Yup, we don't want any of that stuff thanks ...

Post by John Rumm
and the livestock converted all that inedible
grass into something nice tasty and nutritious.

Ah, the 'good old days' (well, unless you were 'livestock' that is).

Post by John Rumm
A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Richard

2021-06-07 14:23:53 UTC

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm

<snip>

Post by John Rumm
A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.
:(

John Rumm

2021-06-07 14:58:14 UTC

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm

<snip>

Post by John Rumm
A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.
:(

Well I did specify sane :-)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

T i m

2021-06-07 15:42:21 UTC

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:58:14 +0100, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm

<snip>

Post by John Rumm
A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.
:(

Well I did specify sane :-)

The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short. So,
if we say 'none' we mean 'as few as possible' and whilst a single
unnecessary death is still one too many, we would start with those
creatures who also live the worst 'lives' first and work back from
there.

So, yer stereotypical (2% representative) beef cow raised on grass
(and ignoring the fact that it's killed whilst very young, making the
death particularly 'unkind') would be further down the 'list' than
those who spend their (short) lives in a concrete feed lot (inc in the
UK).

Regarding sanity, I think most people would judge the idea of killing
something when it's death wasn't necessary might put a question mark
on the sanity of such a choice? Well, till you tell them it's for 5
minutes of taste and *specifically* that they don't have to see, let
alone do it themselves ...

History will tell just how sane we have been ... ;-)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

Cheers, T i m

Richard

2021-06-07 16:46:53 UTC

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:58:14 +0100, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm

<snip>

Post by John Rumm
A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.
:(

Well I did specify sane :-)

The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short. So,

why not post a link to something from 2017?

Post by T i m
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aAbMGE9_460swp.webp

T i m

2021-06-07 19:17:58 UTC

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:46:53 +0100, Richard
<***@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

Post by T i m
The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short. So,

why not post a link to something from 2017?

Post by T i m
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

Erm, I did, because that was when the film was made? You aren't very
bright are you mate? ;-(

Post by Richard
https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aAbMGE9_460swp.webp

I can't open that on here for some reason but I'm sure it's insightful
/ funny / sad / clever.

Cheers, T i m

Fredxx

2021-06-07 20:31:59 UTC

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:46:53 +0100, Richard
<snip>

Post by T i m
The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short. So,

why not post a link to something from 2017?

Post by T i m
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

Erm, I did, because that was when the film was made? You aren't very
bright are you mate? ;-(

Post by Richard
https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aAbMGE9_460swp.webp

I can't open that on here for some reason but I'm sure it's insightful
/ funny / sad / clever.

Yet you can watch age restricted animal porn. Do you really have no
talents to open a simple link to an innocent photo?

Fredxx

2021-06-07 20:29:53 UTC

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:58:14 +0100, John Rumm

Post by John Rumm

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm

<snip>

Post by John Rumm
A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.
:(

Well I did specify sane :-)

The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short.

The usual technique is bit-wise slow changes. Going for broke tend to
leave you penniless and achieving nothing.

Post by T i m
So,
if we say 'none' we mean 'as few as possible' and whilst a single
unnecessary death is still one too many, we would start with those
creatures who also live the worst 'lives' first and work back from
there.

Does this mean you'll going to support initiative that improve animal
welfare? For you that will be a first.

Post by T i m
So, yer stereotypical (2% representative) beef cow raised on grass
(and ignoring the fact that it's killed whilst very young, making the
death particularly 'unkind') would be further down the 'list' than
those who spend their (short) lives in a concrete feed lot (inc in the
UK).

I don't think the dead cow is going to be very aware of anything.

Post by T i m
Regarding sanity, I think most people would judge the idea of killing
something when it's death wasn't necessary might put a question mark
on the sanity of such a choice? Well, till you tell them it's for 5
minutes of taste and *specifically* that they don't have to see, let
alone do it themselves ...

Not just taste, but all those nutrients we don't get from plant food.
Without which a child's brain development is stunted.

Post by T i m
History will tell just how sane we have been ... ;-)

Quite.

Post by T i m
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

In your dreams.

Spike

2021-06-07 08:25:48 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

So in your Post-Truth world, habitat loss and consequent species loss is
to be celebrated just so long as it supports your anti-meat-eating
veganist crusade.

Post by T i m
And we don't need the crap land to still be able to feed everyone,
that can be re-wilded.

Not if you've been conditioned to add a thin, cold gruel to your mug of
tea, both of the ingredients of which came by ship.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-07 09:16:24 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

So in your Post-Truth world,

Well, I'm just being guided by the scientists and farmers who should
know what they are talking about (and *guaranteed* to have a better
view on it all than you).

Post by Spike
habitat loss and consequent species loss is
to be celebrated just so long as it supports your anti-meat-eating
veganist crusade.

You really are stupid aren't you. Have you not taken any notice of the
science and the farmers who are in agreement that we can't keep
destroying the environment and habitats without giving / putting back.

Replacing margins and hedgerows, fewer massive monocultures / more
crop diversity, re-wilding, moving to *plant based* (not animal based)
foods ... ALL likely / targeted to help support / return native
species that are currently being pushed out and make the areas more
*naturally productive and doing so sustainably*.

Post by T i m
And we don't need the crap land to still be able to feed everyone,
that can be re-wilded.

Not if you've been conditioned to add a thin, cold gruel to your mug of
tea, both of the ingredients of which came by ship.

WTF are you talking about now? Any chance you could stay on some sort
of logical / linear track or you will further expose yourself as a
lunatic troll!

Cheers, T i m

Spike

2021-06-07 10:20:54 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

So in your Post-Truth world, habitat loss and consequent species loss is
to be celebrated just so long as it supports your anti-meat-eating
veganist crusade.

Well, I'm just being guided by the scientists and farmers who should
know what they are talking about (and *guaranteed* to have a better
view on it all than you).

You're being guided by *some of* the scientists and farmers. I'm mildly
surprised you didn't claim '97% of scientists and farmers', it has some
history.

Post by Spike
habitat loss and consequent species loss is
to be celebrated just so long as it supports your anti-meat-eating
veganist crusade.

*Some* of the farmers an scientists.

Post by T i m
Replacing margins and hedgerows, fewer massive monocultures / more
crop diversity, re-wilding, moving to *plant based* (not animal based)
foods ... ALL likely / targeted to help support / return native
species that are currently being pushed out and make the areas more
*naturally productive and doing so sustainably*.

In your dreams.

Post by T i m
And we don't need the crap land to still be able to feed everyone,
that can be re-wilded.

Not if you've been conditioned to add a thin, cold gruel to your mug of
tea, both of the ingredients of which came by ship.

WTF are you talking about now? Any chance you could stay on some sort
of logical / linear track or you will further expose yourself as a
lunatic troll!

There's me thinking you were supporting the recent post on the alleged
environmental damage cause by shipping. Was that a different T i m ?

--
Spike

Spike

2021-06-08 08:49:23 UTC

Post by Spike
Not if you've been conditioned to add a thin, cold gruel to your mug of
tea, both of the ingredients of which came by ship.

WTF are you talking about now? Any chance you could stay on some sort
of logical / linear track or you will further expose yourself as a
lunatic troll!

There's me thinking you were supporting the recent post on the alleged
environmental damage cause by shipping. Was that a different T i m ?

And answer came there none...

--
Spike

Andrew

2021-06-06 18:26:39 UTC

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

And for "bio fuel"

T i m

2021-06-06 19:06:22 UTC

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 19:26:39 +0100, Andrew

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

And for "bio fuel"

Nope, it's the exact same issue.

There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

If we weren't 'wasting space' to grow food for livestock, we could be
using that space for growing other stuff, inc biofuels.

Cheers, T i m

alan_m

2021-06-06 19:22:13 UTC

Post by T i m
There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

Only if the diet of people in richer countries was lowered to match the
diet of people in poorer countries - no great variety in food and no
substitute meat products for vegans.

However, you seem to be also advocating "re-greening" of the countryside
and more sustainable farming (aka low productivity farming).

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

T i m

2021-06-06 19:40:59 UTC

Post by T i m
There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

Only if the diet of people in richer countries was lowered to match the
diet of people in poorer countries

Nope, as it stands now, unless you are trying to conflate content bias
with nutritional quality? I haven't since going vegan and have no
plans in the future ... to eat foods that I don't enjoy.

What I have done (at minor initial inconvenience) is stop eating
things I shouldn't have been eating in the first place so I've not
*stopped* eating anything (I should).

Post by alan_m
- no great variety in food and no
substitute meat products for vegans.

What is all this 'substitute for meat' stuff? You talk of it like it's
some elixir or multivitamin and it's neither. It's consumption is one
of the current biggest causes of heard disease, bowel / colon cancer
and diabetes and why ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.
I'm not aware of anyone being advise to cut down on their intake of
fruit and veg (other than people going OTT with fruit smoothies etc).

Post by alan_m
However, you seem to be also advocating "re-greening" of the countryside
and more sustainable farming (aka low productivity farming).

I'm not, I'm not a farmer, the scientists and farmers are because they
know what we are doing is both destructive and unsustainable.

Ok, when did we do for *thousands* of years before we had the means to
artificially fertilise the land? A, 'crop rotation', just the act of
leaving a field to go fallow for one in four years (or somesuch,
remembering it from school) is enough to keep the land fertile.

Plus, someone developed a fertiliser that was (blind) tested by a
specialist in the field and he determined it was the best quality
fertiliser he'd ever seen. It was made from plant waste.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I have a mate who is a big meat eater and who has to regularly
take stuff (like Fybogel, doctors orders) to keep him 'moving' (for
risk of something more serious). The chances are, that would happen
naturally (and more naturally) if he ate less meat and more fruit /
veg.

Fredxx

2021-06-06 20:20:38 UTC

Post by T i m
There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

Only if the diet of people in richer countries was lowered to match the
diet of people in poorer countries

Nope, as it stands now, unless you are trying to conflate content bias
with nutritional quality? I haven't since going vegan and have no
plans in the future ... to eat foods that I don't enjoy.

Yet, by your own admission you pass a kebab shop a crave eating a kebab.

Any deterioration in health through a vegan diet is slow, you won't
notice the effects over an extended period of time. For B12 it can take
years.

Post by T i m
What I have done (at minor initial inconvenience) is stop eating
things I shouldn't have been eating in the first place so I've not
*stopped* eating anything (I should).

We evolved to cook and eat meat, and to digest milk. We should be eating
food we have evolved to eat.

Post by alan_m
- no great variety in food and no
substitute meat products for vegans.

What is all this 'substitute for meat' stuff? You talk of it like it's
some elixir or multivitamin and it's neither.

It is something you have mentioned numerous times. You had tofurkey for
christmas

Post by T i m
It's consumption is one
of the current biggest causes of heard disease, bowel / colon cancer
and diabetes and why ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

Yes, we should cut down on meat and processed foods, but for a healthy
diet we should still consume the foods we have evolved to consume.

Post by T i m
I'm not aware of anyone being advise to cut down on their intake of
fruit and veg (other than people going OTT with fruit smoothies etc).

There are numerous articles on eating sugar laden fruit and of course
smoothies.

Spike

2021-06-07 08:26:07 UTC

Post by T i m
ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and flu.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-07 09:19:43 UTC

Post by T i m
ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and flu.

Yup, and then we learned better and that's where we are now re meat,
eggs and dairy re human heath and it's negative impact on the
environment.

Cheers, T i m

Fredxx

2021-06-07 20:35:05 UTC

Post by T i m
ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and flu.

Yup, and then we learned better and that's where we are now re meat,
eggs and dairy re human heath and it's negative impact on the
environment.

That's right, we now know that children are damaged by eating an
exclusively plant food diet.not eating meat and meat products.

It's called progress.

Spike

2021-06-08 08:49:53 UTC

Post by T i m
ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and flu.

Yup, and then we learned better and that's where we are now re meat,
eggs and dairy re human heath and it's negative impact on the
environment.

And we will learn better from this, too. In fact, it's already started -
we now know that vegan diets result in stunted growth and lowered
intelligence, and it seems they may be banned for children and pets. We
are slowly getting there, no thanks to you - you're rather similar in
manner to the cognitive-dissonant smoker of yesteryear.

--
Spike

charles

2021-06-07 11:01:39 UTC

Post by T i m
ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and flu.

It was also a good appetite suppressant, and, pipe smoking kept midges
away. But, I haven't smoked since 1988.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Bob Eager

2021-06-07 11:19:25 UTC

Post by charles
It was also a good appetite suppressant

Yes, SWMBO found that. At least it got her off the cigarettes.

Post by charles
and, pipe smoking kept midges
away. But, I haven't smoked since 1988.

She gave up around 1992. She deliberately went on a 10 day European coach
trip without any of her pipes.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

charles

2021-06-07 15:19:25 UTC

Post by Bob Eager

Post by charles
It was also a good appetite suppressant

Yes, SWMBO found that. At least it got her off the cigarettes.

Post by charles
and, pipe smoking kept midges
away. But, I haven't smoked since 1988.

She gave up around 1992. She deliberately went on a 10 day European coach
trip without any of her pipes.

whereas. I was in hospital with Legionella.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Robin

2021-06-07 11:23:00 UTC

<snip> pipe smoking kept midges away.

and a fair few people :)

--
Robin (Exmoor Hunt, 1970-1995)

reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

T i m

2021-06-07 13:18:25 UTC

Post by Robin
Robin (Exmoor Hunt, 1970-1995)

Ah, that explains quite a lot.

Cheers, T i m

T i m

2021-06-07 13:13:12 UTC

Post by charles

Post by T i m
ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and flu.

It was also a good appetite suppressant,

I think that's the reason many (young) girls took up smoking. ;-(

Post by charles
and, pipe smoking kept midges
away.

I should have taken it up when camping at Ft William! We asked one of
the wardens at the site if he was a 'local' and if he had a cure for
the midges ... he said yes and then pulled his sleeve up (displaying a
load of bites) and added if he could find a cure he would make a
fortune! ;-)

Post by charles
But, I haven't smoked since 1988.

I've never smoked (never saw the point ... it stinks, is expensive,
dangerous (fires), anti-social, wasn't affected by peer-pressure etc)
but the Mrs did from quite young and stopped when it looked like we
were going to be 'a couple' (30+ years ago now so a similar period to
you).

Cigarette smoke / fumes used to make my eyes sting, cigar smoke /
fumes used to make me feel sick whilst some pipe smoke could be fairly
aromatic.

Cheers, T i m

Richard

2021-06-07 14:21:57 UTC

On 07/06/2021 14:13, T i m wrote:

<snip>

Post by T i m
I've never smoked

FFS, get back on topic.

T i m

2021-06-07 15:44:24 UTC

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:21:57 +0100, Richard

Post by T i m
<snip>

Post by T i m
I've never smoked

FFS, get back on topic.

I can't think of much 'back on topic' than smoking and the stunted
growth in children but it's good to see you are treating everone here
equally.

Or is it that you only read what *I* type?

Cheers, T i m

Richard

2021-06-07 17:00:24 UTC

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:21:57 +0100, Richard

Post by T i m
<snip>

Post by T i m
I've never smoked

FFS, get back on topic.

I can't think of much 'back on topic' than smoking and the stunted
growth in children but it's good to see you are treating everone here
equally.

Irony alert - you left out the "vegan" part and have gone into full-on
anti smoking (how quaint). Soon we'll be on the cat improvements to your
humble abode and garden.

Post by T i m
Or is it that you only read what *I* type?

I read a lot of other stuff. Your evangelism is what irks me. If you
were a Jehovah's Witness I could live with that because I'd just shut
the door and you'd be gone.
You are much worse, in that you simply cannot take a hint. You cannot
even see that you are alienating people who are much more tolerant of
your crap than I can ever be.

T i m

2021-06-07 17:42:08 UTC

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:00:24 +0100, Richard

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:21:57 +0100, Richard

Post by T i m
<snip>

Post by T i m
I've never smoked

FFS, get back on topic.

I can't think of much 'back on topic' than smoking and the stunted
growth in children but it's good to see you are treating everone here
equally.

Irony alert - you left out the "vegan" part and have gone into full-on
anti smoking (how quaint).

What, and I started that did I?

Your bigotry seems to have some bounds at least (it's only me).

Post by Richard
Soon we'll be on the cat improvements to your
humble abode and garden.

I will?

Post by T i m
Or is it that you only read what *I* type?

I read a lot of other stuff.

Doesn't look like it from here.

Post by Richard
Your evangelism is what irks me.

Oh, what, and you think that would bother me?

Post by Richard
If you
were a Jehovah's Witness I could live with that because I'd just shut
the door and you'd be gone.

And you don't have the equivalent here with a killfile. If you need
some help with that ...

Post by Richard
You are much worse, in that you simply cannot take a hint.

A hint that you don't like the facts I state?

Post by Richard
You cannot
even see that you are alienating people who are much more tolerant of
your crap than I can ever be.

Well, if your engagement with me here is anything to go by it's no
loss from this POV and all the rest who actually 'get' someone can
have a different POV seem to still be having grown-up conversations
with me.

So, go on, you have the power (really) ...

Cheers, T i m

Richard

2021-06-07 18:34:50 UTC

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:00:24 +0100, Richard

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:21:57 +0100, Richard

Post by T i m
<snip>

Post by T i m
I've never smoked

FFS, get back on topic.

I can't think of much 'back on topic' than smoking and the stunted
growth in children but it's good to see you are treating everone here
equally.

Irony alert - you left out the "vegan" part and have gone into full-on
anti smoking (how quaint).

What, and I started that did I?
Your bigotry seems to have some bounds at least (it's only me).

Post by Richard
Soon we'll be on the cat improvements to your
humble abode and garden.

I will?

Post by T i m
Or is it that you only read what *I* type?

I read a lot of other stuff.

Doesn't look like it from here.

Post by Richard
Your evangelism is what irks me.

Oh, what, and you think that would bother me?

Post by Richard
If you
were a Jehovah's Witness I could live with that because I'd just shut
the door and you'd be gone.

And you don't have the equivalent here with a killfile. If you need
some help with that ...

Post by Richard
You are much worse, in that you simply cannot take a hint.

A hint that you don't like the facts I state?

Post by Richard
You cannot
even see that you are alienating people who are much more tolerant of
your crap than I can ever be.

Tad sensitive today Tim? You really should learn to chill at your age.
Of course I can have sensible conversations with people from all walks
of life. There are those however, who I cannot engage without prejudice.
It is the zealot types. You know, the people who are religious fanatics
or openly stupid to the point of not knowing that they are fanatics.
As I said, chill.

T i m

2021-06-07 19:15:14 UTC

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:34:50 +0100, Richard
<***@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

Post by T i m
Well, if your engagement with me here is anything to go by it's no
loss from this POV and all the rest who actually 'get' someone can
have a different POV seem to still be having grown-up conversations
with me.
So, go on, you have the power (really) ...

Tad sensitive today Tim?

You really (like many of the other trolls) have no idea about people
do you?

Post by Richard
You really should learn to chill at your age.

If I was any more laid back I'd fall over. Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Post by Richard
Of course I can have sensible conversations with people from all walks
of life.

Where did I say that you couldn't? Just that you can't do that with me
for your own personal / problem reasons.

Post by Richard
There are those however, who I cannot engage without prejudice.

Yes, I've noticed, you ought to chill mate.

Post by Richard
It is the zealot types.

Oh?

Post by Richard
You know, the people who are religious fanatics

Yeah, don't trust em myself ... I can't trust someone that can't be
seen with my own eyes, like an innocent animal collapsing to it's
knees before having it's throat cut, just for being what some people
consider to be 'food'?

I just did dinner using half a bag of the Plant Pioneers mince and I
really can't say I could tell the difference between that and the
stuff that was from a mined up animal carcase (other than there were
no bits of gristle, bone, eyeballs or aresholes in it).

https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/meat-free-/sainsburys-vegetarian-mince-500g

Post by Richard
or openly stupid

Yup, I've dealt with you remember so I'm used to that. ;-)

Post by Richard
to the point of not knowing that they are fanatics.

I guess if you are on the back foot, feeling guilty about your
lifestyle choices then 'of course you would see someone who *doesn't*
want to say cause animals unnecessary suffering, exploitation and
death as some sort of fanatic. Arse backwards or what!

Post by Richard
As I said, chill.

As I said, I'm so chilled I don't feel the urge to cause animals
unnecessary pain, suffering and death, just because I like how their
cooked flesh tastes when there are plenty of alternatives.

How about you Richard, could you be that chilled?

Cheers, T i m

Spike

2021-06-08 08:50:24 UTC

Post by T i m
Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Pasta meals usually involve lots of (cheap) tomatoes - a known trigger
for arthritic pain.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-08 13:59:51 UTC

Post by T i m
Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Pasta meals usually involve lots of (cheap) tomatoes - a known trigger
for arthritic pain.

The Aldi pasta sauce contains tomatoes but I didn't add any extra in
this instance.

So, you constantly harass me because you are concerned about my wife's
*choice* to eat such things (because she likes to, even with her
arthritis) but you can't tell me why you have chosen to not eat cows
or sheep?

Cheers, T i m

Fredxx

2021-06-08 16:20:24 UTC

Post by T i m
Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Pasta meals usually involve lots of (cheap) tomatoes - a known trigger
for arthritic pain.

The Aldi pasta sauce contains tomatoes but I didn't add any extra in
this instance.
So, you constantly harass me because you are concerned about my wife's
*choice* to eat such things (because she likes to, even with her
arthritis) but you can't tell me why you have chosen to not eat cows
or sheep?

Many of us post to correct your lies and fallacious claims.

No harassment intended. If you stopped posting lies you wouldn't feel
harassed.

Fredxx

2021-06-06 19:46:20 UTC

Post by T i m
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 19:26:39 +0100, Andrew

Post by T i m
Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

And for "bio fuel"

Nope, it's the exact same issue.
There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

Some say more than that.

Post by T i m
If we weren't 'wasting space' to grow food for livestock, we could be
using that space for growing other stuff, inc biofuels.

No, the population would simply grow to match the food source.

Spike

2021-06-07 08:27:22 UTC

Post by T i m
There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.
If we weren't 'wasting space' to grow food for livestock, we could be
using that space for growing other stuff, inc biofuels.

Wrong.

The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-07 09:21:51 UTC

Wrong.

I'm afraid not mate.

Post by Spike
The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

That is *another* problem yes, but not to be conflated with the waste
of resources (land, feed, water) and the pollution involved in keeping
more livestock than people on the same small rock.

Cheers, T i m

Spike

2021-06-07 10:23:42 UTC

Wrong.

I'm afraid not mate.

Post by Spike
The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

That is *another* problem yes, but not to be conflated with the waste
of resources (land, feed, water) and the pollution involved in keeping
more livestock than people on the same small rock.

Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.

--
Spike

T i m

2021-06-07 11:06:11 UTC

Wrong.

I'm afraid not mate.

Post by Spike
The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

That is *another* problem yes, but not to be conflated with the waste
of resources (land, feed, water) and the pollution involved in keeping
more livestock than people on the same small rock.

Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.

Irrelevant when people don't have the choice.

Where they do, moving to a plant based solution is the only way
forward.

Cheers, T i m

Spike

2021-06-08 08:48:16 UTC

Post by T i m
There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

That is *another* problem yes, but not to be conflated with the waste
of resources (land, feed, water) and the pollution involved in keeping
more livestock than people on the same small rock.

Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.

Irrelevant when people don't have the choice.

It's still a waste of resources whether people choose subsistence
farming or are forced into it.

Post by T i m
Where they do, moving to a plant based solution is the only way
forward.

....resulting in stunted growth and low intelligence.

--
Spike

Andrew

2021-06-07 15:38:52 UTC

Wrong.

I'm afraid not mate.

Post by Spike
The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

That is *another* problem yes, but not to be conflated with the waste
of resources (land, feed, water) and the pollution involved in keeping
more livestock than people on the same small rock.

Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.

And in Scotland, massively subsidised by the taxpayer.

T i m

2021-06-07 15:56:22 UTC

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 16:38:52 +0100, Andrew
<Andrew97d-***@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Spike
Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.

And in Scotland, massively subsidised by the taxpayer.

Acceptable if they are also re-wilding and putting less destructive
demand on the land?

Cheers, T i m

Andrew

2021-06-07 16:26:44 UTC

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 16:38:52 +0100, Andrew
<snip>

Post by Spike
Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.

And in Scotland, massively subsidised by the taxpayer.

Acceptable if they are also re-wilding and putting less destructive
demand on the land?
Cheers, T i m

Are you joking ?. They are paid by the taxpayer to keep
Highland coos, a few sheep and possibly one or two pigs.
And not for pets because in that part of the world you
cannot grow crops and survive.

T i m

2021-06-07 16:39:50 UTC

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:26:44 +0100, Andrew
<Andrew97d-***@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by T i m
Acceptable if they are also re-wilding and putting less destructive
demand on the land?

Are you joking ?. They are paid by the taxpayer to keep
Highland coos, a few sheep and possibly one or two pigs.

Yes, 'subsistence.

Post by Andrew
And not for pets because in that part of the world you
cannot grow crops and survive.

But you don't need to if you are getting grants for you to re-wild and
sensitively 'manage' the environment?

And they do have shops in Scotland now you know? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Andrew

2021-06-08 10:11:23 UTC

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:26:44 +0100, Andrew
<snip>

Post by T i m
Acceptable if they are also re-wilding and putting less destructive
demand on the land?

Are you joking ?. They are paid by the taxpayer to keep
Highland coos, a few sheep and possibly one or two pigs.

Yes, 'subsistence.

Post by Andrew
And not for pets because in that part of the world you
cannot grow crops and survive.

But you don't need to if you are getting grants for you to re-wild and
sensitively 'manage' the environment?
And they do have shops in Scotland now you know? ;-)
Cheers, T i m

You should visit some of these crofts and you might be amazed
how far you have to drive your diesel vehicle to get there, and
how far they have to drive to get to a 'shop'.
Please explain how so-called 'rewilding' pays the bills ?

charles

2021-06-08 11:37:35 UTC

Post by T i m
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:26:44 +0100, Andrew
<snip>

Post by T i m
Acceptable if they are also re-wilding and putting less destructive
demand on the land?

Are you joking ?. They are paid by the taxpayer to keep
Highland coos, a few sheep and possibly one or two pigs.

Yes, 'subsistence.

Post by Andrew
And not for pets because in that part of the world you
cannot grow crops and survive.

But you don't need to if you are getting grants for you to re-wild and
sensitively 'manage' the environment?
And they do have shops in Scotland now you know? ;-)
Cheers, T i m

Last week there was programme on North Uist where a lot of people had won
money on the PostCode Lottery. Asked what sort of holiday they might take,
having won a 5 figure sume, one couple thought they might like to go to
Inverness.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

williamwright

2021-06-08 13:59:20 UTC

Post by charles
Last week there was programme on North Uist where a lot of people had won
money on the PostCode Lottery. Asked what sort of holiday they might take,
having won a 5 figure sume, one couple thought they might like to go to
Inverness.

I'd probably be like that!

Bill

T i m

2021-06-08 14:51:33 UTC

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:11:23 +0100, Andrew
<Andrew97d-***@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by T i m
And they do have shops in Scotland now you know? ;-)

You should visit some of these crofts and you might be amazed
how far you have to drive your diesel vehicle to get there,

I have, and it was on a petrol motorcycle (doing 50 mpg). ;-)

Post by Andrew
and
how far they have to drive to get to a 'shop'.

Ah yes, and for all those *choosing* to move there or even stay there,
it's part of the cost of living there.

eg. We *choose* to holiday in the country but we accept that it's not
as convenient as living a walk from everything.

Post by Andrew
Please explain how so-called 'rewilding' pays the bills ?

Grants. Keep up ...

https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants

You either leave it to nature (costs nothing) or pay someone who is
stuck there [1] to look after it for us all.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Many who were born in the back of beyond don't want to live in
isolation in shift and mud all their lives and move to the towns.

p.s. I saw on Countryfile where they were offering old farmers money
to fuck off to allow new people in (who would have a more 'forward
thinking' attitude towards the environment).

ARW

2021-06-06 16:13:20 UTC

Veganism is just another crackpot religion, hence the sermons we
constantly get on this group about the subject

And they are not very good at stats.

https://trulyexperiences.com/blog/veganism-uk-statistics/

If I was making stats up I would at least try to make them look credible.

--
Adam

Fredxx

2021-06-06 17:23:34 UTC

Post by ARW

Post by williamwright
It was in yesterday's Times. Apparently they have poor bones and they
are shorter than normal.
I suppose the authorities should pick up on this. But it's like FGM,
child abuse that's overlooked because a lot of people do it. However
I don't suppose vegans are regarded as being above the law like
certain other groups.
Bill

Veganism is just another crackpot religion, hence the sermons we
constantly get on this group about the subject

And they are not very good at stats.
https://trulyexperiences.com/blog/veganism-uk-statistics/
If I was making stats up I would at least try to make them look credible.

I liked the bit:

* 7.2 million British adults currently follow a meat-free diet
* 262,000 more men than women don’t consume meat (7.2 million vs 7 million)

Of course meat free doesn't mean vegan.

It is true that 82% of statistics are made up in the spot.

ARW

2021-06-06 17:47:00 UTC

Post by Fredxx

Post by ARW

Post by williamwright
It was in yesterday's Times. Apparently they have poor bones and
they are shorter than normal.
I suppose the authorities should pick up on this. But it's like FGM,
child abuse that's overlooked because a lot of people do it. However
I don't suppose vegans are regarded as being above the law like
certain other groups.
Bill

Veganism is just another crackpot religion, hence the sermons we
constantly get on this group about the subject

And they are not very good at stats.
https://trulyexperiences.com/blog/veganism-uk-statistics/
If I was making stats up I would at least try to make them look credible.

* 7.2 million British adults currently follow a meat-free diet
* 262,000 more men than women don’t consume meat (7.2 million vs 7 million)
Of course meat free doesn't mean vegan.
It is true that 82% of statistics are made up in the spot.

50% of Brits know someone that is vegan.

Personally I would tattoo the fuckers for target practice of a knuckle
sandwich.

--
Adam

charles

2021-06-06 17:47:33 UTC

Post by ARW

Post by williamwright
It was in yesterday's Times. Apparently they have poor bones and they
are shorter than normal. I suppose the authorities should pick up on
this. But it's like FGM, child abuse that's overlooked because a lot
of people do it. However I don't suppose vegans are regarded as
being above the law like certain other groups.
Bill

Veganism is just another crackpot religion, hence the sermons we
constantly get on this group about the subject

And they are not very good at stats.
https://trulyexperiences.com/blog/veganism-uk-statistics/
If I was making stats up I would at least try to make them look credible.

* 7.2 million British adults currently follow a meat-free diet * 262,000
more men than women dont consume meat (7.2 million vs 7 million)
Of course meat free doesn't mean vegan.
It is true that 82% of statistics are made up in the spot.

a great many years ago, Prince Philip said that there were only 3
statistics that mattered and theyb were vital.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Scribbles

2021-06-06 18:07:15 UTC

Post by charles
a great many years ago, Prince Philip said that there were only 3
statistics that mattered and theyb were vital.
--

Something has always puzzled me about people who follow proscriptive diets (vegan, halal, kosher, etc).

If a such a person invites me to dinner, they will no doubt serve me their preferred type of food and I will probably enjoy it thoroughly.

On the other hand, if I offer return hospitality, I will be expected to research new recipes, shop for unfamiliar ingredients and stress over creating dishes I've never made before rather than relax in good company with food I'm accustomed to cooking and which reflects my way of life. If I don't do all of that, the chances are the diet-follower will be mortally offended and thus will end the friendship.

Hey, I like some vegan/kosher/halal dishes. Why can you not be broad minded enough to try some of mine, too?

(I feel I should add here that, of course, if a dinner guest has an allergy or other health condition which precludes certain foods, then I will do my utmost to ensure the offending item(s) has no place on the table. Nothing kills a dinner party quicker than killing a guest.)

Tim+

2021-06-06 18:13:52 UTC

Post by charles
a great many years ago, Prince Philip said that there were only 3
statistics that mattered and theyb were vital.
--

Something has always puzzled me about people who follow proscriptive
diets (vegan, halal, kosher, etc).
If a such a person invites me to dinner, they will no doubt serve me
their preferred type of food and I will probably enjoy it thoroughly.
On the other hand, if I offer return hospitality, I will be expected to
research new recipes, shop for unfamiliar ingredients and stress over
creating dishes I've never made before rather than relax in good company
with food I'm accustomed to cooking and which reflects my way of life.
If I don't do all of that, the chances are the diet-follower will be
mortally offended and thus will end the friendship.
Hey, I like some vegan/kosher/halal dishes. Why can you not be broad
minded enough to try some of mine, too?
(I feel I should add here that, of course, if a dinner guest has an
allergy or other health condition which precludes certain foods, then I
will do my utmost to ensure the offending item(s) has no place on the
table. Nothing kills a dinner party quicker than killing a guest.)

This is one of my biggest bugbears. The only thing stopping vegans being
“normal” guests is their inability to compromise. I’d have a lot more
respect for folk on self imposed restrictive diets if they followed normal
social codes and compromised when they’re guests.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

T i m

2021-06-06 19:02:41 UTC

On 6 Jun 2021 18:13:52 GMT, Tim+ <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Tim+
This is one of my biggest bugbears. The only thing stopping vegans being
normal guests is their inability to compromise.

Really, you find their not wanting the blood of an innocent creature
on their hands confusing, when it's completely avoidable?

Post by Tim+
Id have a lot more
respect for folk on self imposed restrictive diets

Or 'more humane and compassionate / healthy / ecological' lifestyles?

The irony is that you should be happy they still respect you!

Post by Tim+
if they followed normal
social codes and compromised when theyre guests.

See elsewhere.

They are inviting you round for a game of cards.
You are inviting them round for some dog fighting, not chess.

Cheers, T i m

Fredxx

2021-06-06 19:50:02 UTC

Post by T i m
<snip>

Post by Tim+
This is one of my biggest bugbears. The only thing stopping vegans being
“normal” guests is their inability to compromise.

Really, you find their not wanting the blood of an innocent creature
on their hands confusing, when it's completely avoidable?

After preparing and cooking there would be no blood. More likely some
splashed gravy.

Post by Tim+
I’d have a lot more
respect for folk on self imposed restrictive diets

Or 'more humane and compassionate / healthy / ecological' lifestyles?

By improving animal welfare, something that is independent on whether
guests are vegan or not.

Post by T i m
The irony is that you should be happy they still respect you!

I don't respect fanatics. I don't expect any respect from a fanatic in
return.

Post by Tim+
if they followed normal
social codes and compromised when they’re guests.

See elsewhere.

Quite.

Post by T i m
They are inviting you round for a game of cards.
You are inviting them round for some dog fighting, not chess.

Nope, only a sicko would think inviting guests round for a meal is
equivalent to dog fighting.

You are sick, get help.

Tim Streater

2021-06-06 21:13:02 UTC

Post by charles
a great many years ago, Prince Philip said that there were only 3
statistics that mattered and theyb were vital.

Something has always puzzled me about people who follow proscriptive
diets (vegan, halal, kosher, etc).
If a such a person invites me to dinner, they will no doubt serve me
their preferred type of food and I will probably enjoy it thoroughly.
On the other hand, if I offer return hospitality, I will be expected to
research new recipes, shop for unfamiliar ingredients and stress over
creating dishes I've never made before rather than relax in good company
with food I'm accustomed to cooking and which reflects my way of life.
If I don't do all of that, the chances are the diet-follower will be
mortally offended and thus will end the friendship.
Hey, I like some vegan/kosher/halal dishes. Why can you not be broad
minded enough to try some of mine, too?
(I feel I should add here that, of course, if a dinner guest has an
allergy or other health condition which precludes certain foods, then I
will do my utmost to ensure the offending item(s) has no place on the
table. Nothing kills a dinner party quicker than killing a guest.)

ITYM unwilling. They're not unable, at all. There are selfish cunts who expect
you to put yourself out for them. I wouldn't, although SWMBO would, given
notice. We had a relly visit once who was coming for dinner. He phoned when
the grub was already cooking (FFS!) to announce that (1) he was bringing the
g/f and that (2) she was a veggie. That didn't go down at all well, with
either of us. But then he had form for being thoughtless.

--
When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

Jean-Claude Juncker, Reuters 31st May 2013.

T i m

2021-06-06 22:29:20 UTC

On 6 Jun 2021 21:13:02 GMT, Tim Streater <***@greenbee.net>
wrote:

<snip>

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Tim+
This is one of my biggest bugbears. The only thing stopping vegans being
normal guests is their inability to compromise. Id have a lot more
respect for folk on self imposed restrictive diets if they followed normal
social codes and compromised when theyre guests.

ITYM unwilling.

Nope, simply not an (ethical) option. See, some people do have ethics
and stick by them.

Post by Tim Streater
They're not unable, at all.

Of course they are, just as likely you would be if they brought in a
live rabbit for you to kill, prep and cook for you all.

Post by Tim Streater
There are selfish cunts who expect
you to put yourself out for them.

I doubt it very much. More like you being an arrogant twat who wants
to force his views on a guest / guests (of all people).

Post by Tim Streater
I wouldn't,

Of course you wouldn't, you are a Goblin and devoid of any humility.

Post by Tim Streater
although SWMBO would, given
notice.

She could (easily) have done better (than you).

Post by Tim Streater
We had a relly visit once who was coming for dinner. He phoned when
the grub was already cooking (FFS!) to announce that (1) he was bringing the
g/f and that (2) she was a veggie.

Was it 'likely' that the food would already be cooking when he phoned?
What sort of meal was he 'expecting'? I wouldn't 'expect' people to
make a big fuss and if you were already cooking 6 hours before the
dinner time I wouldn't have thought that 'excessive' (when a sandwich
would have been fine).

Post by Tim Streater
That didn't go down at all well, with
either of us.

Aww bless. I bet you wrote and angry letter to your MP didn't you and
it upset your whole year?

Post by Tim Streater
But then he had form for being thoughtless.

Then that could set a precedence and you might have been ready for the
outcome that happened and made something suitable (like a stew or
curry). If he was 'known' to be like that I would have eaten when
agreed (if I was hungry at that time) and he / they could have had
eaten whatever you could be bothered to prepare (or order in) when
he/they arrived. Or 'it's in the kitchen, help yourselves'.

Have you never had someone 'pop in' and fed them, or does it always
have to be arranged weeks in advance and all signed in triplicate?

Cheers, T i m

Fredxx

2021-06-06 23:11:50 UTC

Post by T i m
<snip>

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Tim+
This is one of my biggest bugbears. The only thing stopping vegans being
“normal” guests is their inability to compromise. I’d have a lot more
respect for folk on self imposed restrictive diets if they followed normal
social codes and compromised when they’re guests.

ITYM unwilling.

Nope, simply not an (ethical) option. See, some people do have ethics
and stick by them.

And you don't; evidenced by keeping dogs.

Some of us are ethically open minded, and find it ethical to consume
food prepared by a friend rather than refuse.

Post by Tim Streater
They're not unable, at all.

Of course they are, just as likely you would be if they brought in a
live rabbit for you to kill, prep and cook for you all.

Some of us don't have the skills to prepare rabbit, and use a butcher or
purchase from a local supermarket.

And no, it is not "just as likely" however you might wish it to be.

Post by Tim Streater
There are selfish cunts who expect
you to put yourself out for them.

I doubt it very much. More like you being an arrogant twat who wants
to force his views on a guest / guests (of all people).

The arrogant twat is the one who expect their host to jump through hoops
to prepare an acceptable meal. A very selfish and arrogant twat.

Post by Tim Streater
I wouldn't,

Of course you wouldn't, you are a Goblin and devoid of any humility.

Is that your way of saying he has a point and you don't?

Post by Tim Streater
although SWMBO would, given
notice.

She could (easily) have done better (than you).

Was it 'likely' that the food would already be cooking when he phoned?

Why not? Just because you are a compulsive liar doesn't mean everyone
else is.

Post by T i m
What sort of meal was he 'expecting'? I wouldn't 'expect' people to
make a big fuss and if you were already cooking 6 hours before the
dinner time I wouldn't have thought that 'excessive' (when a sandwich
would have been fine).

An edible one, that he might have appreciated.

Post by Tim Streater
That didn't go down at all well, with
either of us.

Aww bless. I bet you wrote and angry letter to your MP didn't you and
it upset your whole year?

Is that your way of saying he has a point and you don't?

Post by Tim Streater
But then he had form for being thoughtless.

Then that could set a precedence and you might have been ready for the
outcome that happened and made something suitable (like a stew or
curry). If he was 'known' to be like that I would have eaten when
agreed (if I was hungry at that time) and he / they could have had
eaten whatever you could be bothered to prepare (or order in) when
he/they arrived. Or 'it's in the kitchen, help yourselves'.
Have you never had someone 'pop in' and fed them, or does it always
have to be arranged weeks in advance and all signed in triplicate?

Yep, and they've eaten heartily, and thanked me. Not sort of behaviour I
would expect from a fanatical vegan.

Fredxx

2021-06-06 18:30:28 UTC

Post by charles
a great many years ago, Prince Philip said that there were only 3
statistics that mattered and theyb were vital.
--

Something has always puzzled me about people who follow proscriptive
diets (vegan, halal, kosher, etc).
If a such a person invites me to dinner, they will no doubt serve me
their preferred type of food and I will probably enjoy it
thoroughly.
On the other hand, if I offer return hospitality, I will be expected
to research new recipes, shop for unfamiliar ingredients and stress
over creating dishes I've never made before rather than relax in good
company with food I'm accustomed to cooking and which reflects my way
of life. If I don't do all of that, the chances are the
diet-follower will be mortally offended and thus will end the
friendship.
Hey, I like some vegan/kosher/halal dishes. Why can you not be broad
minded enough to try some of mine, too?
(I feel I should add here that, of course, if a dinner guest has an
allergy or other health condition which precludes certain foods, then
I will do my utmost to ensure the offending item(s) has no place on
the table. Nothing kills a dinner party quicker than killing a
guest.)

I respect others' 'diets' I just wish they might respect mine.

T i m

2021-06-06 18:58:43 UTC

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Scribbles

Post by charles
a great many years ago, Prince Philip said that there were only 3
statistics that mattered and theyb were vital.
--

Something has always puzzled me about people who follow proscriptive diets (vegan, halal, kosher, etc).

OK ...

Post by Scribbles
If a such a person invites me to dinner, they will no doubt serve me their preferred type of food and I will probably enjoy it thoroughly.

Not necessarily, but even if it was the case, what is there in
non-meat / egg / dairy food that you can't eat?

Post by Scribbles
On the other hand, if I offer return hospitality, I will be expected to research new recipes,

If you want to offer them such hospitality yes, but are you saying you
have never cooked and eaten veg, or had a salad, or Quorn?

Post by Scribbles
shop for unfamiliar ingredients and stress over creating dishes I've never made

If it's that much stress, don't invite them for a meal, or ask them if
they would prefer to bring non meat / egg / milk based food in?

I'm sure if they were really friends they would prefer that than you
getting all hot under the collar over it?

Post by Scribbles
before rather than relax in good company with food I'm accustomed to cooking and which reflects my way of life.

But isn't innocent of taking another creatures life, whereas their
choice is.

Post by Scribbles
If I don't do all of that, the chances are the diet-follower will be mortally offended and thus will end the friendship.

Then I think you need to find better friends.

Post by Scribbles
Hey, I like some vegan/kosher/halal dishes.

Well, the chances are you have been eating plenty of 'vegan food' all
your life. ;-)

Post by Scribbles
Why can you not be broad minded enough to try some of mine, too?

Because you are making the mistake about what it is you can eat (or if
it's animals, how it's killed) when it's all about what you shouldn't
(want to) or don't need to eat.

The chances are that your vegan friends weren't raised vegan and have
chosen that lifestyle / diet since, so they know very well what meat /
eggs / milk taste like and probably enjoyed it, just that now they
prefer their food without all the associated death and suffering?

They are inviting you out for a game of tennis.
You are inviting them out foxhunting, not golf.

Post by Scribbles
(I feel I should add here that, of course, if a dinner guest has an allergy or other health condition which precludes certain foods, then I will do my utmost to ensure the offending item(s) has no place on the table.

So you would be happy to cater for them and their accidental food
aversions but not some they choose themselves?

Post by Scribbles
Nothing kills a dinner party quicker than killing a guest.)

I'll take your word for that. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Tim+

2021-06-06 19:17:14 UTC

Post by T i m
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Scribbles

Post by Scribbles
Why can you not be broad minded enough to try some of mine, too?

Because you are making the mistake about what it is you can eat (or if
it's animals, how it's killed) when it's all about what you shouldn't
(want to) or don't need to eat.

I see. YOU decide it’s a mistake and force hosts to accommodate your eating
choices? I know perfectly well what I CAN eat. You choose to be
“anti-social” (as in conforming to normal societal rules) and insist that
the world changes to accommodate you.

Post by T i m
The chances are that your vegan friends weren't raised vegan and have
chosen that lifestyle / diet since, so they know very well what meat /
eggs / milk taste like and probably enjoyed it, just that now they
prefer their food without all the associated death and suffering?
They are inviting you out for a game of tennis.
You are inviting them out foxhunting, not golf.

When you equate eating a diet that we evolved on (and made us who we are
today) with killing for sport, it just reveals your fanaticism.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

T i m

2021-06-06 19:54:21 UTC

Post by T i m
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Scribbles

Post by Scribbles
Why can you not be broad minded enough to try some of mine, too?

Because you are making the mistake about what it is you can eat (or if
it's animals, how it's killed) when it's all about what you shouldn't
(want to) or don't need to eat.

I see.

I doubt it very much! ;-)

Post by Tim+
YOU decide its a mistake and force hosts to accommodate your eating
choices?

Nope, who is forcing anything on anyone?

Post by Tim+
I know perfectly well what I CAN eat.

I'm sure you do, even if it's not good for you, the animals, the other
humans or the planet.

Post by Tim+
You choose to be
anti-social (as in conforming to normal societal rules) and insist that
the world changes to accommodate you.

Only the world as you see it today. It's not my world or a world we
*will* all be living in in the future.

When you equate eating a diet that we evolved on (and made us who we are
today) with killing for sport, it just reveals your fanaticism.

Whoosh. It's funny how a simple but accurate analogy confuses people
who are already very confused.

The analogy should have said it all, but 'of course' you won't want to
consider it because you haven't yet got that it is you that *IS* the
foxhuner and the others not.

Just because we have done something doesn't mean it's right (now or
ever) to have done it. All you can say is that 'it's what we once did'
and need not have any greater relevance or bearing other than that.

So, if you invite *anyone* round and offer them a glass of water the
chances are 'most people' would be willing / able to drink it. Offer
them a glass of wine, a beer, tea with milk or sugar and you are now
*assuming* they should drink it, just because you or 'most people' do.

Just because 'most people' currently eat meat (although *millions of
people don't for all sorts of reasons), doesn't mean that of all the
'social norms' should or would be acceptable to everyone (when it
obviously isn't).

There is no one I know that if invited round for 'a meal' wouldn't eat
and hopefully enjoy most of the vegan meals I cook and none of them
could tell me that for religious, cultural, allergy or any other
reason that the meal *must* include meat?

A council has stipulated that all it's buffets should be vegan because
in that case *everyone* can eat them. No faffing about with how some
poor animal has been killied or if it's fish, foul, hooven or 'dirty'.

Cheers, T i m

Fredxx

2021-06-06 20:53:22 UTC

Post by T i m
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Scribbles

Post by Scribbles
Why can you not be broad minded enough to try some of mine, too?

Because you are making the mistake about what it is you can eat (or if
it's animals, how it's killed) when it's all about what you shouldn't
(want to) or don't need to eat.

I see.

I doubt it very much! ;-)

Post by Tim+
YOU decide it’s a mistake and force hosts to accommodate your eating
choices?

Nope, who is forcing anything on anyone?

Post by Tim+
I know perfectly well what I CAN eat.

I'm sure you do, even if it's not good for you, the animals, the other
humans or the planet.

Post by Tim+
You choose to be
“anti-social” (as in conforming to normal societal rules) and insist that
the world changes to accommodate you.

Only the world as you see it today. It's not my world or a world we
*will* all be living in in the future.

When you equate eating a diet that we evolved on (and made us who we are
today) with killing for sport, it just reveals your fanaticism.

Whoosh. It's funny how a simple but accurate analogy confuses people
who are already very confused.

It's not an analogy. There is no confusion.

Post by T i m
The analogy should have said it all, but 'of course' you won't want to
consider it because you haven't yet got that it is you that *IS* the
foxhuner and the others not.
Just because we have done something doesn't mean it's right (now or
ever) to have done it. All you can say is that 'it's what we once did'
and need not have any greater relevance or bearing other than that.

When it comes to a natural wholesome diet, and the known damage it does
to children it is extremely relevant.

Post by T i m
So, if you invite *anyone* round and offer them a glass of water the
chances are 'most people' would be willing / able to drink it. Offer
them a glass of wine, a beer, tea with milk or sugar and you are now
*assuming* they should drink it, just because you or 'most people' do.
Just because 'most people' currently eat meat (although *millions of
people don't for all sorts of reasons), doesn't mean that of all the
'social norms' should or would be acceptable to everyone (when it
obviously isn't).

It is a social norm to accept hospitality.

Post by T i m
There is no one I know that if invited round for 'a meal' wouldn't eat
and hopefully enjoy most of the vegan meals I cook and none of them
could tell me that for religious, cultural, allergy or any other
reason that the meal *must* include meat?

I'm sure I would enjoy a meal you cooked for me too. That isn't the
issue here.

Post by T i m
A council has stipulated that all it's buffets should be vegan because
in that case *everyone* can eat them. No faffing about with how some
poor animal has been killied or if it's fish, foul, hooven or 'dirty'.

Some gluten sensitive friends would disagree with the "everyone can eat
them".

Personally I would ensure all diets are considered, perhaps apart from
strict religious requirements, but certainly wouldn't pander to a
fanatic's desire to force all attendees to eat plant food.

Brian Gaff (Sofa)

2021-06-07 07:14:26 UTC