Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It’s the alpacalypse for Geronimo – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 31 in General
It’s the alpacalypse for Geronimo – politicalbetting.com

Geronimo is EXECUTED: Police clash with animal rights activists as Defra officials drag alpaca away https://t.co/gHMRIRkYwU pic.twitter.com/cnYJWCShSx

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Test to see if the comments work.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611
    First. Though I do wonder how many of Mr Farthing's animals will be rehoused, given the stats for UK-born ones - I can't see that the stats for Kabul-born ones are likely to be much better, unless Afghans love their cats and dogs more than the Brits. Which I can't see as being plausible.

    And if they are not rehoused, they'll get the Geronimo treatment - or rather the alpacolypse: the real one aka Goyaałé lived a lot longer after the relevant state got him into its claws.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,931
    edited August 31

    The Shrivster has written this just to laud the wonderful multi cultural melting pot of a society in which we live surely?


    Wait until the Shrivster finds out that WIlfred Johnson and the Prince of Wales have a parent outside the UK.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    Could be hitting the Tether end game here

    https://twitter.com/CoinDesk/status/1432720998873411586?s=19
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,238
    I'm disappointed you didn't head it up with Deuteronomy 32:35 rather than this rather garbled version of Revelation 19:11.

    But it is a good pun.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,238
    I wonder how many of those 40% eat meat?

    Because sure as fuck 40% of the population ain't vegetarian.
  • ydoethur said:

    I'm disappointed you didn't head it up with Deuteronomy 32:35 rather than this rather garbled version of Revelation 19:11.

    But it is a good pun.

    You know that error that stops anyone posting on the thread.

    Well you see it is caused by PB thread header headlines being too long, so we're having to display pith in the headline.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 3,684
    Out of those polled who say animals are just as important as humans there must be a fair amount of meat eaters so logically they must feel its ok to kill humans for food as well then? Or it could be that polls like this are so stupid in the question in the first place they are best not being done at all
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611
    ydoethur said:

    I'm disappointed you didn't head it up with Deuteronomy 32:35 rather than this rather garbled version of Revelation 19:11.

    But it is a good pun.


    Exodus 20:24

    An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen.
  • FossFoss Posts: 437
    Carnyx said:

    First. Though I do wonder how many of Mr Farthing's animals will be rehoused, given the stats for UK-born ones - I can't see that the stats for Kabul-born ones are likely to be much better, unless Afghans love their cats and dogs more than the Brits. Which I can't see as being plausible.

    And if they are not rehoused, they'll get the Geronimo treatment - or rather the alpacolypse: the real one aka Goyaałé lived a lot longer after the relevant state got him into its claws.

    Their origin is a talking point so probably all that make it out onto the UK adoption market will be rehoused - at least for a month or two.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097
    Geronimo’s owner by giving him a name revered by Native Americans?

    And almost as bad, the wrong continent.
    Quetzalcóatl, surely preferable ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097

    The Shrivster has written this just to laud the wonderful multi cultural melting pot of a society in which we live surely?


    Wait until the Shrivster finds out that WIlfred Johnson and the Prince of Wales have a parent outside the UK.
    Shriver has two !
  • Nigelb said:

    Geronimo’s owner by giving him a name revered by Native Americans?

    And almost as bad, the wrong continent.
    Quetzalcóatl, surely preferable ?

    I did check this out, he if officially classed as a Native American according to multiple reputable sources.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611

    Out of those polled who say animals are just as important as humans there must be a fair amount of meat eaters so logically they must feel its ok to kill humans for food as well then? Or it could be that polls like this are so stupid in the question in the first place they are best not being done at all

    As\ discussed before, it depends what animals are seen as 'animals' - rats, tapeworms, Rover, lamb?

    There must be some weird interaction between mammals, dinner, and pets which none of us can make sense of.

  • Nigelb said:

    The Shrivster has written this just to laud the wonderful multi cultural melting pot of a society in which we live surely?


    Wait until the Shrivster finds out that WIlfred Johnson and the Prince of Wales have a parent outside the UK.
    Shriver has two !
    Oh.

    I can now see the argument about the dangers of having a foreign born parents.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909
    I suppose human meat will be the most nutritious, especially if you cook it well to avoid any disease. It has the right nutrients in the right proportions. Add in orange juice for Vitamin C.

    For the more finicky, I don't see why puppy meat isn't OK. It doesn't harm the Koreans. Perhaps we should have designer puppies bred for eating purposes?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,238

    Out of those polled who say animals are just as important as humans there must be a fair amount of meat eaters so logically they must feel its ok to kill humans for food as well then? Or it could be that polls like this are so stupid in the question in the first place they are best not being done at all

    Or alternatively a high proportion of them were virtue signalling hypocrites.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,026
    FPT @dixiedean
    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Gah. US troops are now combatants in Afghan and hence they are the direct target of the Taliban. This is not the case in South Korea or Germany or indeed the UK.

    If US troops were to stay in Afghan then the Taliban would have resumed killing them and Biden would have had either to pull out completely or ramp up the war to protect them.

    But look, if you can't see this, then that's fine. You wouldn't be the only one.
    It's a little remembered fact that the US general who defeated the North Koreans - Matt Ridgway - strongly opposed US involvement in Vietnam for similar reasons.
    One of the very best of the WWII generation.
    Yes indeed. But I suppose there are publics to satisfy both one way and the other. We are a fickle, capricious lot.

    And I will leave you to "discuss" with HYUFD about all this as I find that what strength I had has now evaporated.
    Wearying of a lengthy struggle against a fanatical enemy convinced of their own rectitude who engages in persistent low level sniping and a refusal to accept defeat in the face of all facts and logic. Despite being armed with little more than religious zeal.
    The military eventually shrugs and wearily trudges from the battlefield asking was any of that really worth it?
    There may be an analogy there.
    LOL!!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    My wife is dedicated to all animals and fights with her conscience every day when she eats chicken, (she avoids most other meat) but when I said the alpaca had been put to sleep she said there was no choice regrettably

    When I said the BBC had reported it was killed she was not at all happy with the BBC for their description, as putting it to sleep is the respectful description of this unfortunate situation

    I very much doubt it will have any adverse effect on public opinion
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,238
    CD13 said:

    I suppose human meat will be the most nutritious, especially if you cook it well to avoid any disease. It has the right nutrients in the right proportions. Add in orange juice for Vitamin C.

    For the more finicky, I don't see why puppy meat isn't OK. It doesn't harm the Koreans. Perhaps we should have designer puppies bred for eating purposes?

    I've had a nice pot noodle, but I've never had a poodle.

    And I've never met a nice South African.

    (Chorus).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    Have you never seen little lambs gamboling about a field without a care in the world, every now and again stopping to nibble at the grass, rubbing up against each other for companionship, happy in the knowledge they have their whole lives ahead of them?
    Yes.

    I've never had them as a pet personally though, so all I have to say about that is they're best served with mint sauce.
    So you'll eat anything you haven't had as a pet?
    I wouldn't eat cats or people.

    But within reason, yes.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,227
    ydoethur said:

    I wonder how many of those 40% eat meat?

    Because sure as fuck 40% of the population ain't vegetarian.

    You mean meat isn't vegetarian?

    (There's a great scene in Scott Pilgrim versus the World with the Vegan Police. "Chicken isn't vegan?")

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgEmxGL1JvQ
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,874
    Carnyx said:

    First. Though I do wonder how many of Mr Farthing's animals will be rehoused, given the stats for UK-born ones - I can't see that the stats for Kabul-born ones are likely to be much better, unless Afghans love their cats and dogs more than the Brits. Which I can't see as being plausible.

    And if they are not rehoused, they'll get the Geronimo treatment - or rather the alpacolypse: the real one aka Goyaałé lived a lot longer after the relevant state got him into its claws.

    He should of course buy up some woodland somewhere, name it after himself and then do a TV deal.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,550
    It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence

    "Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo

    When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."

    “I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-alpaca-geronimo-death-b1901049.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523

    My wife is dedicated to all animals and fights with her conscience every day when she eats chicken, (she avoids most other meat) but when I said the alpaca had been put to sleep she said there was no choice regrettably

    When I said the BBC had reported it was killed she was not at all happy with the BBC for their description, as putting it to sleep is the respectful description of this unfortunate situation

    I very much doubt it will have any adverse effect on public opinion

    Indeed, sad but had to happen because of the TB risk.

    Of course in some US states they still 'put to sleep' human murderers and in some parts of the world state sanctioned executions are rather worse than that
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,755
    Sean_F said:

    That poll finding is genuinely disturbing.

    There are comments on that Daily Mail article saying they hope humans get wiped out.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 867
    Yep... its still the silly season in the Daily Mail... "Executed", rather than "Put Down" you note. Next time I want my opinions supplied by a twelve year old sub from the Daily Heil I will make sure I use the same absurd, loaded vocabulary.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,260
    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    First. Though I do wonder how many of Mr Farthing's animals will be rehoused, given the stats for UK-born ones - I can't see that the stats for Kabul-born ones are likely to be much better, unless Afghans love their cats and dogs more than the Brits. Which I can't see as being plausible.

    And if they are not rehoused, they'll get the Geronimo treatment - or rather the alpacolypse: the real one aka Goyaałé lived a lot longer after the relevant state got him into its claws.

    He should of course buy up some woodland somewhere, name it after himself and then do a TV deal.
    Pen's Puppy..er..Farm.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    "EXECUTED" the Daily Heil really is a hateful rag isn't it?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    Cicero said:

    Yep... its still the silly season in the Daily Mail... "Executed", rather than "Put Down" you note. Next time I want my opinions supplied by a twelve year old sub from the Daily Heil I will make sure I use the same absurd, loaded vocabulary.

    Ha! Finally something we can agree upon.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    I'm disappointed you didn't head it up with Deuteronomy 32:35 rather than this rather garbled version of Revelation 19:11.

    But it is a good pun.


    Exodus 20:24

    An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen.
    Jeremiah 49:29

    ... or perhaps Leviticus 11:4 ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523

    Out of those polled who say animals are just as important as humans there must be a fair amount of meat eaters so logically they must feel its ok to kill humans for food as well then? Or it could be that polls like this are so stupid in the question in the first place they are best not being done at all

    Indeed, if they were vegetarian or vegan they at least would have consistency on this, otherwise those of the 43% who do not say human lives are worth more are hypocritical.

    Of course if you were a shark or a tiger or an anaconda or a crocodile a human life would not be worth more anymore, it could still be your lunch regardless
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,482
    I haven't eaten an animal in over thirty years but I would never put animal lives above human lives and thought the whole Afghan dog evacuation thing was kind of awful. I think the badger cull was a disgrace though, it didn't seem to be based on solid science and I suspect was just pandering to farmers' dislike of 'vermine' (aka animals that don't make them money).
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    Cicero said:

    Yep... its still the silly season in the Daily Mail... "Executed", rather than "Put Down" you note. Next time I want my opinions supplied by a twelve year old sub from the Daily Heil I will make sure I use the same absurd, loaded vocabulary.

    'Put to sleep' is the best way to describe it for let us not forget there are many children who really love animals and will have petted alpacas, there is no need for sensational headlines

    But the daily mail is a lost cause anyway
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,242
    edited August 31
    CD13 said:

    I suppose human meat will be the most nutritious, especially if you cook it well to avoid any disease. It has the right nutrients in the right proportions. Add in orange juice for Vitamin C.

    For the more finicky, I don't see why puppy meat isn't OK. It doesn't harm the Koreans. Perhaps we should have designer puppies bred for eating purposes?

    I seem to recall that why the Chinese developed Chow dogs.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,482

    Sean_F said:

    That poll finding is genuinely disturbing.

    There are comments on that Daily Mail article saying they hope humans get wiped out.
    It's the logical end point of the hateful misanthropy peddled by the Daily Mail.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320

    "EXECUTED" the Daily Heil really is a hateful rag isn't it?

    It is a disgrace and not just on this subject either
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    For the hand egg fans.....antivaxxer been given the heave-ho...

    BREAKING NEWS: The #Patriots have released Cam Newton. Mac Jones is the starting QB in New England. https://t.co/3qE1qu6xqC
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909
    I went to a Korean restaurant when I was in America. No dog on the menu, but I ate the most disgusting food ever.

    It was called Tofu. It looked like congealed snot and was tasteless. I hear there's people in the UK who eat it on a regular basis. Chacun son gout, as the French say, and for good reason.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 31
    CD13 said:

    I went to a Korean restaurant when I was in America. No dog on the menu, but I ate the most disgusting food ever.

    It was called Tofu. It looked like congealed snot and was tasteless. I hear there's people in the UK who eat it on a regular basis. Chacun son gout, as the French say, and for good reason.

    Korean food is great....kimchi stew....mmmmhh.....and of course Korean BBQ. Washed down with soju.

    I have a Korean friend in Vancouver, and with him been taken to a number of locals places on the West coast. Not a clue what was being said, often not sure what was been ordered, but great food.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,238

    I haven't eaten an animal in over thirty years but I would never put animal lives above human lives and thought the whole Afghan dog evacuation thing was kind of awful. I think the badger cull was a disgrace though, it didn't seem to be based on solid science and I suspect was just pandering to farmers' dislike of 'vermine' (aka animals that don't make them money).

    Depends on what you mean by 'based on solid science.' No scientist doubts that badgers have TB and can transmit it to cattle. The evidence is pretty well incontrovertible there. The bigger difficulty is that if you try and shoot out the badgers in a locality to control TB the risk is they will all run away somewhere else and spread the bloody disease further than it was to start.

    So culling is a possible solution *but* it has to be in areas with tightly defined geographical boundaries that the badgers can't or won't cross. It's fine to shoot out badgers in the Forest of Dean, where they won't cross the rivers or the M50, but not a lot of use on say, the Wiltshire Downs.

    Which means while culling badgers would be helpful in some areas, it's not the only solution and we have to keep looking for that. (It also explains incidentally why badger groups in the Forest of Dean were in favour of culling, surprising though many people find it.)

    Vaccinating badgers would be the solution but that's not quite there yet. The trick is to find a way to transmit it to the newborn cubs before their parents infect them.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 908

    Cicero said:

    Yep... its still the silly season in the Daily Mail... "Executed", rather than "Put Down" you note. Next time I want my opinions supplied by a twelve year old sub from the Daily Heil I will make sure I use the same absurd, loaded vocabulary.

    'Put to sleep' is the best way to describe it for let us not forget there are many children who really love animals and will have petted alpacas, there is no need for sensational headlines

    But the daily mail is a lost cause anyway
    "Put to sleep" is fine for Newsround. "Put down" or "humanely destroyed" is preferable for media allegedly aimed at adults.

    Excessive sentimentality about animals is how we arrive at nonsense situations like the Nowzad airlift, or otherwise sensible people wasting tens of thousands that they can likely ill afford to part with in legal fees trying to save a diseased alpaca from being shot, in the first place.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097
    CD13 said:

    I went to a Korean restaurant when I was in America. No dog on the menu, but I ate the most disgusting food ever.

    It was called Tofu. It looked like congealed snot and was tasteless. I hear there's people in the UK who eat it on a regular basis. Chacun son gout, as the French say, and for good reason.

    If it was tasteless (which it more or less is) why so disgusted ?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,494
    On thread: I'm not normally one for a pun, but I enjoyed that one.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    edited August 31

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    Have you never seen little lambs gamboling about a field without a care in the world, every now and again stopping to nibble at the grass, rubbing up against each other for companionship, happy in the knowledge they have their whole lives ahead of them?
    Yes.

    I've never had them as a pet personally though, so all I have to say about that is they're best served with mint sauce.
    So you'll eat anything you haven't had as a pet?
    I wouldn't eat cats or people.
    Ok. Noted for if you ever come round to mine.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,399
    edited August 31
    Sean_F said:

    That poll finding is genuinely disturbing.

    Agree. let's hear it for

    65+
    Male
    Tory Voting
    ABC1s


    (modesty forbids...)

    who appear on this data to be the only people fit to be warders in the asylum.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,606
    edited August 31
    @HYUFD

    Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.



    Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.

    Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909
    Mr b,

    "If it was tasteless (which it more or less is) why so disgusted ?"

    Once thinking it could be snot, there's no ignoring it. I have my principles, you know. I'll eat horse happily, even if I find it a little 'rich'. But I can be a finicky bastard at times. They would soon disappear if I were starving.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    As predicted the government has reheated their Covid ID card scheme.

    They are divisive, unworkable and expensive and the Liberal Democrats will oppose them.
    https://twitter.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1432735554794307591?s=20
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    isam said:

    It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence

    "Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo

    When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."

    “I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-alpaca-geronimo-death-b1901049.html

    You manage to find the Starmer angle.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,606
    Carnyx said:

    First. Though I do wonder how many of Mr Farthing's animals will be rehoused, given the stats for UK-born ones - I can't see that the stats for Kabul-born ones are likely to be much better, unless Afghans love their cats and dogs more than the Brits. Which I can't see as being plausible.

    And if they are not rehoused, they'll get the Geronimo treatment - or rather the alpacolypse: the real one aka Goyaałé lived a lot longer after the relevant state got him into its claws.

    You don't get it: Pen Farthing was working to bring down the Taliban by removing a source of protein from them. It was a brilliant ploy to lower their calorie intake, and therefore their opportunity to make mischief.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,606
    ydoethur said:

    I wonder how many of those 40% eat meat?

    Because sure as fuck 40% of the population ain't vegetarian.

    Without knowing what proportion of the population are cannibals, that statistic is irrelevant.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,735
    Nigelb said:

    CD13 said:

    I went to a Korean restaurant when I was in America. No dog on the menu, but I ate the most disgusting food ever.

    It was called Tofu. It looked like congealed snot and was tasteless. I hear there's people in the UK who eat it on a regular basis. Chacun son gout, as the French say, and for good reason.

    If it was tasteless (which it more or less is) why so disgusted ?
    Texture?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097
    CD13 said:

    Mr b,

    "If it was tasteless (which it more or less is) why so disgusted ?"

    Once thinking it could be snot, there's no ignoring it. I have my principles, you know. I'll eat horse happily, even if I find it a little 'rich'. But I can be a finicky bastard at times. They would soon disappear if I were starving.

    Traditionally given uncooked to released prisoners in Korea.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,238
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder how many of those 40% eat meat?

    Because sure as fuck 40% of the population ain't vegetarian.

    Without knowing what proportion of the population are cannibals, that statistic is irrelevant.
    True, I was forgetting that in 2019 43% of the population declared they eat babies.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    edited August 31
    I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,622
    ydoethur said:

    I wonder how many of those 40% eat meat?

    Because sure as fuck 40% of the population ain't vegetarian.

    It may well not be that they don't want to eat meat, but are happy for other humans to be killed for their convenience in other ways. It is a reflection of the world as it is.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,460
    FPT kinabalu said:

    Have you never seen little lambs gamboling about a field without a care in the world, every now and again stopping to nibble at the grass, rubbing up against each other for companionship, happy in the knowledge they have their whole lives ahead of them?
    --------
    Yes, I had exactly that experience and resolved never to eat lamb again. Awkwardly, in my current job we advise that it's often more humane to eat lamb and beef than chicken, because they on many farms they live reasonable lives outdoors and chickens generally have pretty hellish lives. Just eating less of meat generally is undoubtedly a good idea, from both humane and climate change perspectives.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    edited August 31
    rcs1000 said:

    @HYUFD

    Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.



    Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.

    Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.

    Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries has a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate. They are ALL under 2.1 replacement rate (the closest being Georgia at 2.05 which has 81% saying religion is important to them). It is the whole of Europe which is in demographic decline in comparison to Africa for example. Hence not only is Africa growing but so many Africans are trying to move to Europe where we have a shortage of workers of working age.

    Of the top 3 nations by global birthrate for example ie Niger, at 6.8, Somalia at 5.9 and Congo at 5.8, Niger and Somalia have 100% of their population saying religion is important to them and Congo has 94% saying religion is important to them.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
  • I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.

    Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,606
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @HYUFD

    Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.



    Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.

    Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.

    Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.

    Of the top 3 nations by global birthrate for example ie Niger, at 6.8, Somalia at 5.9 and Congo at 5.8, Niger and Somalia have 100% of their population saying religion is important to them and Congo has 94% saying religion is important to them.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
    So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.

    Got it.

    Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519

    Out of those polled who say animals are just as important as humans there must be a fair amount of meat eaters so logically they must feel its ok to kill humans for food as well then? Or it could be that polls like this are so stupid in the question in the first place they are best not being done at all

    Not a useful poll at all. The sample was 100% human. Despite being central to the question not a single animal was asked for its opinion.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,871
    isam said:

    It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence

    "Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo

    When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."

    “I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-alpaca-geronimo-death-b1901049.html

    Not sure if you saw it earlier @isam, what do you make of my Starmer = Arteta comparison? Both useless and out of their depth.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,238

    I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.

    Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
    Wasn't there a time some politician was caught waving a banana?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199

    I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.

    Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
    That wasn't a month of headlines....one story on this animal perhaps, but it has been a daily major story. I presume somebody important is involved and thus behind this.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611
    kinabalu said:

    Out of those polled who say animals are just as important as humans there must be a fair amount of meat eaters so logically they must feel its ok to kill humans for food as well then? Or it could be that polls like this are so stupid in the question in the first place they are best not being done at all

    Not a useful poll at all. The sample was 100% human. Despite being central to the question not a single animal was asked for its opinion.
    PB pedantry: "non-human animal" more correct.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    Have you never seen little lambs gamboling about a field without a care in the world, every now and again stopping to nibble at the grass, rubbing up against each other for companionship, happy in the knowledge they have their whole lives ahead of them?
    Yes.

    I've never had them as a pet personally though, so all I have to say about that is they're best served with mint sauce.
    So you'll eat anything you haven't had as a pet?
    I wouldn't eat cats or people.
    Ok. Noted for if you ever come round to mine.
    Have you anything in particular in mind? I have quite an adventurous palate. Within reason I'll try anything once.
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 676
    Murder is illegal, leg of lamb is delicious, those polled don't know what they're talking about.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909
    I checked google and it seems rabies will be a big risk for this soft shite's dogs.

    "Rabies remains a major public health concern in Afghanistan. Although the disease is present in many wild animals, most cases in humans are caused by dog bites."

    You don't need a bite, even a lick of gratitude will do the trick. If this Farthing starts frothing at the mouth and making wild statements - it will be kinder to have him 'put to sleep'.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,622
    Carnyx said:

    First. Though I do wonder how many of Mr Farthing's animals will be rehoused, given the stats for UK-born ones - I can't see that the stats for Kabul-born ones are likely to be much better, unless Afghans love their cats and dogs more than the Brits. Which I can't see as being plausible.

    And if they are not rehoused, they'll get the Geronimo treatment - or rather the alpacolypse: the real one aka Goyaałé lived a lot longer after the relevant state got him into its claws.

    According to this article, virtually all the dogs and cats have been adopted already, many by military families. It seems too that the squaddies both Brits and American were keen to help.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938293/amp/Pen-Farthing-praises-British-troops-helped-bring-170-cats-dogs-UK.html?__twitter_impression=true
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,931
    edited August 31
    ydoethur said:

    I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.

    Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
    Wasn't there a time some politician was caught waving a banana?
    Whenever I think of politicians and bananas my mind goes back to my youth and seeing the headline

    'Bodyguard sodomised by Banana.'

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan_Banana#Sodomy_charges_and_imprisonment
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611
    HYUFD said:

    Out of those polled who say animals are just as important as humans there must be a fair amount of meat eaters so logically they must feel its ok to kill humans for food as well then? Or it could be that polls like this are so stupid in the question in the first place they are best not being done at all

    Indeed, if they were vegetarian or vegan they at least would have consistency on this, otherwise those of the 43% who do not say human lives are worth more are hypocritical.

    Of course if you were a shark or a tiger or an anaconda or a crocodile a human life would not be worth more anymore, it could still be your lunch regardless
    Or a tapeworm. Or a Coronavirus.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    20,967 Covid cases in England reported today - meaning that the rolling average has now fallen for seven consecutive days.

    Good news ahead of the new term and return to more normal habits this month.

    Tho cases surging in Scotland, where schools returned two weeks ago


    https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1432736831548928002?s=20

    Although its far from clear that schools are behind Scotland's surge in cases...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,622
    CD13 said:

    I checked google and it seems rabies will be a big risk for this soft shite's dogs.

    "Rabies remains a major public health concern in Afghanistan. Although the disease is present in many wild animals, most cases in humans are caused by dog bites."

    You don't need a bite, even a lick of gratitude will do the trick. If this Farthing starts frothing at the mouth and making wild statements - it will be kinder to have him 'put to sleep'.

    His animals are all vaccinated.
  • I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.

    Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
    That wasn't a month of headlines....one story on this animal perhaps, but it has been a daily major story. I presume somebody important is involved and thus behind this.
    I remember listening to a podcast and stories that involved adorable animals generate lots of clicks which sees ad revenues increase for the media.

    This is the perfect story for the media.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    edited August 31
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @HYUFD

    Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.



    Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.

    Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.

    Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.

    Of the top 3 nations by global birthrate for example ie Niger, at 6.8, Somalia at 5.9 and Congo at 5.8, Niger and Somalia have 100% of their population saying religion is important to them and Congo has 94% saying religion is important to them.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
    So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.

    Got it.

    Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
    Yes quite clearly you are.

    You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.

    There is not a single European nation in the top 50 nations who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 nations by birthrate either
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 676
    If you do it as a trolley problem, with one human baby tied to the top track, and five deer tied to the bottom, who would flip the switch so the trolley hits the baby? A moron.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,026

    FPT kinabalu said:

    Have you never seen little lambs gamboling about a field without a care in the world, every now and again stopping to nibble at the grass, rubbing up against each other for companionship, happy in the knowledge they have their whole lives ahead of them?
    --------
    Yes, I had exactly that experience and resolved never to eat lamb again. Awkwardly, in my current job we advise that it's often more humane to eat lamb and beef than chicken, because they on many farms they live reasonable lives outdoors and chickens generally have pretty hellish lives. Just eating less of meat generally is undoubtedly a good idea, from both humane and climate change perspectives.

    Comes back to that question of whether it's more "humane" to keep animals, gambolling or otherwise, and then kill them or not to have the animals in the first place.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    I'm not sure loudly publicising their case is the most effective way to go about it:

    The government is being threatened with legal action over its failure to give visas to a female judge and a female MP from Afghanistan

    Both women are still in Afghanistan and are being assisted by a team of lawyers in Britain who are acting for free (“pro bono”.)


    https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/1432688446271889408?s=20
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,755

    I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.

    Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
    That wasn't a month of headlines....one story on this animal perhaps, but it has been a daily major story. I presume somebody important is involved and thus behind this.
    I remember listening to a podcast and stories that involved adorable animals generate lots of clicks which sees ad revenues increase for the media.

    This is the perfect story for the media.
    Geronimo's devastated owner has accused the Government of 'murdering' her alpaca and demanded an independent witness be present at his post-mortem

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9943067/Is-D-Day-Geronimo-Police-finally-arrive-alpacas-farm.html
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 908
    CD13 said:

    I checked google and it seems rabies will be a big risk for this soft shite's dogs.

    "Rabies remains a major public health concern in Afghanistan. Although the disease is present in many wild animals, most cases in humans are caused by dog bites."

    You don't need a bite, even a lick of gratitude will do the trick. If this Farthing starts frothing at the mouth and making wild statements - it will be kinder to have him 'put to sleep'.

    One way to get a fraction closer to getting rid of Boris Johnson: a daily summary of how many of these rescue animals have had to be destroyed because they were too diseased or too disturbed to be rehomed, accompanied by a daily summary of how many of the people the UK failed to rescue from Afghanistan have been beaten, raped, shot and beheaded by the Taliban.

    Probably wouldn't do any good, but there's a project at least for some industrious hack to get his or her teeth into.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,238

    ydoethur said:

    I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.

    Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
    Wasn't there a time some politician was caught waving a banana?
    Whenever I think of politicians and bananas my mind goes back to my youth and seeing the headline

    'Bodyguard sodomised by Banana.'

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan_Banana#Sodomy_charges_and_imprisonment
    I bet he wasn't a bit grapeful.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909
    Dr Fox,

    "His animals are all vaccinated."

    Thanks, but if I were a journalist, I'd probably ignore that.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,837
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    First. Though I do wonder how many of Mr Farthing's animals will be rehoused, given the stats for UK-born ones - I can't see that the stats for Kabul-born ones are likely to be much better, unless Afghans love their cats and dogs more than the Brits. Which I can't see as being plausible.

    And if they are not rehoused, they'll get the Geronimo treatment - or rather the alpacolypse: the real one aka Goyaałé lived a lot longer after the relevant state got him into its claws.

    According to this article, virtually all the dogs and cats have been adopted already, many by military families. It seems too that the squaddies both Brits and American were keen to help.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938293/amp/Pen-Farthing-praises-British-troops-helped-bring-170-cats-dogs-UK.html?__twitter_impression=true
    Oh good.

    Doggies vs darkies.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,611
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    First. Though I do wonder how many of Mr Farthing's animals will be rehoused, given the stats for UK-born ones - I can't see that the stats for Kabul-born ones are likely to be much better, unless Afghans love their cats and dogs more than the Brits. Which I can't see as being plausible.

    And if they are not rehoused, they'll get the Geronimo treatment - or rather the alpacolypse: the real one aka Goyaałé lived a lot longer after the relevant state got him into its claws.

    According to this article, virtually all the dogs and cats have been adopted already, many by military families. It seems too that the squaddies both Brits and American were keen to help.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938293/amp/Pen-Farthing-praises-British-troops-helped-bring-170-cats-dogs-UK.html?__twitter_impression=true
    That's interesting. I hope, as one hopes with the home-grown variety, not too many will have to be returned to Mr F.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    Have you never seen little lambs gamboling about a field without a care in the world, every now and again stopping to nibble at the grass, rubbing up against each other for companionship, happy in the knowledge they have their whole lives ahead of them?
    Yes.

    I've never had them as a pet personally though, so all I have to say about that is they're best served with mint sauce.
    So you'll eat anything you haven't had as a pet?
    I wouldn't eat cats or people.
    Ok. Noted for if you ever come round to mine.
    Have you anything in particular in mind? I have quite an adventurous palate. Within reason I'll try anything once.
    Given it's you I think it'll have to be a heaped plate of "Australian style" bush tucker.

    And I'll have a pizza.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,606
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @HYUFD

    Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.



    Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.

    Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.

    Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.

    Of the top 3 nations by global birthrate for example ie Niger, at 6.8, Somalia at 5.9 and Congo at 5.8, Niger and Somalia have 100% of their population saying religion is important to them and Congo has 94% saying religion is important to them.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
    So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.

    Got it.

    Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
    Yes quite clearly you are.

    You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.

    There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
    You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.

    Shall I remind you?

    We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.

    And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.

    So you're now bringing in African birth rates.

    Do you think that:

    (a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty
    or
    (b) The result of them believing in God
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @HYUFD

    Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.



    Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.

    Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.

    Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.

    Of the top 3 nations by global birthrate for example ie Niger, at 6.8, Somalia at 5.9 and Congo at 5.8, Niger and Somalia have 100% of their population saying religion is important to them and Congo has 94% saying religion is important to them.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
    So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.

    Got it.

    Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
    There's also the minor question of correlation/causation, and several shedloads of confounding factors, but this is another bee in the HYUFD bonnet.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,199
    Just spent $10 million on my first punk digital avatar. 🤣#NewProfilePic #TPUNK 3442 https://t.co/Oeijxcs7mK

    Tulips....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,606

    20,967 Covid cases in England reported today - meaning that the rolling average has now fallen for seven consecutive days.

    Good news ahead of the new term and return to more normal habits this month.

    Tho cases surging in Scotland, where schools returned two weeks ago


    https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1432736831548928002?s=20

    Although its far from clear that schools are behind Scotland's surge in cases...

    Good news, although presumably there's a Bank Holiday effect at work.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,460
    As in lots of emotive spheres, there's a danger of letting ourselves be defined by extremes. Most people are at least somewhat uneasy about factory farming and would be pleased if conditions improved. Few people are absolutely solid vegan, even fewer prefer ants to people. But the National Food Strategy recommends a 30% reduction on meat consumption on climate change grounds, and if that was nudged along by some subsidies for healthy alternatives, I don't think many people would really grumble.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.

    Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
    Wasn't there a time some politician was caught waving a banana?
    Whenever I think of politicians and bananas my mind goes back to my youth and seeing the headline

    'Bodyguard sodomised by Banana.'

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan_Banana#Sodomy_charges_and_imprisonment
    I bet he wasn't a bit grapeful.
    At least the court case was not fruitless.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909
    Mr1000,

    I assumed high birthrates were also a consequence of high infant mortality.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097

    Just spent $10 million on my first punk digital avatar. 🤣#NewProfilePic #TPUNK 3442 https://t.co/Oeijxcs7mK

    Tulips....

    As mine is a younger Johnson, I have a good claim to No.10, I believe.
    Though I don't think I could afford the child support.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,550
    MaxPB said:

    isam said:

    It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence

    "Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo

    When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."

    “I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-alpaca-geronimo-death-b1901049.html

    Not sure if you saw it earlier @isam, what do you make of my Starmer = Arteta comparison? Both useless and out of their depth.
    I saw it! Tough times for Arteta, that is for sure.

    I don't know that Sir Keir is useless and out of his depth - if he were PM he probably would do a competent enough job as far as I can judge. I just think LotO's have to have a certain something to usurp PM's, and he hasn't got it. So he is probably useless and out of his depth as a LotO, but counter intuitively wouldnt be as a PM

    You could say both men were handed very tricky tasks
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    MaxPB said:

    isam said:

    It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence

    "Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo

    When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."

    “I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-alpaca-geronimo-death-b1901049.html

    Not sure if you saw it earlier @isam, what do you make of my Starmer = Arteta comparison? Both useless and out of their depth.
    Isam will agree with that, I predict. If I'm wrong, £5 from me to a reactionary charity I disapprove of.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,837
    pigeon said:

    CD13 said:

    I checked google and it seems rabies will be a big risk for this soft shite's dogs.

    "Rabies remains a major public health concern in Afghanistan. Although the disease is present in many wild animals, most cases in humans are caused by dog bites."

    You don't need a bite, even a lick of gratitude will do the trick. If this Farthing starts frothing at the mouth and making wild statements - it will be kinder to have him 'put to sleep'.

    One way to get a fraction closer to getting rid of Boris Johnson: a daily summary of how many of these rescue animals have had to be destroyed because they were too diseased or too disturbed to be rehomed, accompanied by a daily summary of how many of the people the UK failed to rescue from Afghanistan have been beaten, raped, shot and beheaded by the Taliban.

    Probably wouldn't do any good, but there's a project at least for some industrious hack to get his or her teeth into.
    It would be good to know the fate, specifically, of Farthing's assistants who got left behind. Collaborators are being summoned to appear before taliban courts, and the expectation is that they will be executed. The only possible course of action for Farthing was to have all his animals put down two weeks ago and get busy getting his people to safety. I don't often feel genuine moral rage and revulsion, but this c--t and his backers are really special.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,460
    TOPPING said:



    Comes back to that question of whether it's more "humane" to keep animals, gambolling or otherwise, and then kill them or not to have the animals in the first place.

    I think that takes 2 seconds to decide. Having animals to live a miserable life is emphatically worse than not having them. I'd say the same of deciding to have children, come to that - if you think they'd be unhappy, don't.
This discussion has been closed.