Morrissey is a cunt

Eh? What do you think the advice and guidance on their website is based upon? And what about the other bodies I referenced?

Again, please share with us what it is you know that these groups don't regarding animal welfare.

 

You tell me mate youre the expert.

 

That's the point though, I am not claiming to be an expert, hence the reason I defer to the groups who are qualified in this area. If you don't believe the recommendations for animal welfare from the RSPCA are based on science, then please tell me what you think they are based on - after all you are the one who stated that they aren't.

From their website:
"A strength of the RSPCA is that it strives to base its policies, activities and approaches to promoting animal welfare on scientific evidence. This gives the organisation credibility with its supporters, the general public and decision-makers."

"Our Science Group employs approximately 20 postgraduate and postdoctoral animal welfare scientists organised into four departments covering companion, farmed, research animals and wildlife. We aim to be an authority on a wide range of animal welfare science by gathering, assessing and presenting comprehensive scientific and technical information and advice on a range of issues."

And let's try this one for the third time: please share with us what it is you know that these groups don't regarding animal welfare.

 

Why should I have to provide evidence to back up your claims?

 

Eh? You claimed the RSPCA is not a scientific body, I am simply asking for you to back that up. I have backed up my claim that it is and would like to hear why you think otherwise, as you stated.

Plus, I have asked you three times now to tell us what you know about animal welfare that the aforementioned groups don't. I would have to assume that you don't have anything to back this up.

 

That's not how things work mate. If you're saying something is true then you have to provide evidence to back that up.

You can't just talk a load of * then say, "prove it's not true".

* brain damage.

 

Well you pushed the matter because you couldn't take the post in...I answered your questions.

Since you seem obsessed wi

Well you * asked me what preferred way of slaughter I think appropriate...I answered you 3 post back ya ticket...but you keep pushing ..eh!

You a student?

Bango...since you seem a wee bit obsessed that every * is a racist because they think Halal is cruel...I used to smoke the stuff in Egypt ...it got me high...ok?

* sake we have a wide * here.

 

Which bits of what I have said are "a load of *" then? I have provided statements from the RSPCA website to back up my claims about science. I would like to hear why you would refute this. That's how debate works.

As for "* brain damage", if that's the level of debate you can offer, then I am not surprised you are not able to make a cohesive argument. Maybe you should leave this kind of debate to people who can engage with others in a constructive manner?

 

Your no that fukin Garioch from Kerrydale are you?

 

Think you might've overdone it on the old bango mate.

Ah yes, that famous scientific organisation.

 

Well I have backed up my claims that the RSPCA bases its policies on scientific research.

You, however, have not backed up your statement that it is not science based.

If your statement wasn't true, why make it at all?

 

Ye didnae though.

Saying "It says on their website that they 'strive to' back up claims with scientific data", isn't the same as showing scientific evidence.

Fed up wae your pish anyway, you sound like a pure tory.

 

That's just semantics. Every science based organisation strives to back up claims with scientific data - that's how science works. People theorise a position and seek evidence to back it up, if there is no evidence they don't pursue the claim.

Plus in my original post I referred to three other organisations that object to non-stun exemptions. Though you neglected to address the veracity of these.

As I said, if all you can bring to an * debate is childish ad hominems like "you sound like a pure tory" then why even bother? There is nothing inherently Tory (far less "pure tory") about wanting to see animal welfare laws based upon scientific research as opposed to ancient religious texts.

 

You sound like a racist

You sound like a Tory

Do you always make assumptions based on sweet * all ?

 

If all you can you in an * debate is "thats just semantics" then why even bother.

Those arent assumptions.

 

But that isn't all I "can you" (your words), did I? Taking my reply with its explanation and cutting out the relevant part before quoting it in your reply is just bizarre.

Going back to the original point, I have provided source material and organisations which support my position, you have provided nothing except factually incorrect statements and ad hominems.

Can actually provide anything substantive that supports your view on animal welfare, or are you simply trying to derail the topic to deflect from the fact that you are wrong?

 

Thank you.

Fact is none of the stuff you posted proves anything and its sources are sketchy at best.

 

You cannot beat a Luxury Chicken Sandwich and i would love to ram one down this *'s throat,if i do,hope it does not effect his voice too much

 

He does seem a *, but his comments on Halal, Kosher, and the Chinese are all based on his animal rights activism. I agree wholeheartedly with his first 2 points - letting an imaginary pixie in the sky dictate how an animal is killed is * outrageous. I think it's wrong to brand a whole nation as 'evil', but I understand his frustrations over the Chinese. The country is notoriously bad for animal abuse. Animal rights campaigning has improved there in recent years though, so fingers crossed progress continues to be made!

I've never heard or read his Sadiq Khan ramblings though - if correct, it's out of order!