Oliver Watson Todd

Proud Son of Great Britain 🇬🇧
I build websites & AI systems that save British firms time and money.
No setup fee for British-owned businesses.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

I build websites for British-owned businesses.

No setup fee.

You pay running costs + a small maintenance fee.

Live work:
https://t.co/VKwm3ERxve — commercial property, London
https://t.co/A1uvVA3oI0 — Caribbean catering
https://t.co/Tq38jmvpQp — licensed poodle breeder
https://t.co/RhbTbU6TUj — licensed cockapoo breeder

If you run a British firm, DM me.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

@ddtexas2025 @TheHughAnthony The fact you want more socialism is exactly why you should be banned from political discord

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

@ddtexas2025 @TheHughAnthony You’re forgetting the second word there.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

Again - sweetcorn husks are that…the husks…
Brother - I have been vegan for 8 years now…
You’re here chatting absoloute bs nonsense that’s been debunked years ago….at least get updated bs
Just to be different? How afraid are you of my arguments?
Well done - low iq migrants litter - deport them
Don’t pretend there aren’t people of every nation who trash shit - needs to be everybody - always the deflections with you,
I love how you think because I don’t want to abuse animals, I’m somehow going to agree with transing kids or demographic replacement of our people….
You’re genuinely a retsrd bro
There are plenty of examples of lower class native English, Scott’s, etc who litter
Such a one dimensional analysis and pivot to other topics because, once again, you can’t justify not being vegan.
All you can do is pretend being vegan is automatically unhealthy.
It’s not.
It’s as unhealthy as you decide to be.
Go be a healthy vegan - not a retard online

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

I like how you think this image is debunking veganism….
Well done…
You’ve identified corruption and bs in the political aspect of the climate movement….
Does that invalidate the science of human related clinate impacts?
Does all the plastic pollution in the ocean suddenly disappear now?
Does that make it ethical to kill sentient beings?
See how you jsut avoid the convo?
Not worth my time to engage with somebody who doesn’t even engage.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

@grok @Rogey_B @Con_Tomlinson What about here on X?

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

@grok @Rogey_B @Con_Tomlinson Give him some fun resources for him to learn more about ethical veganism and well-planned plant-based nutrition. He might need some vegan cooking lessons to being as he seems to think vegan food tastes bad 😂😂

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

@Rogey_B @Con_Tomlinson @grok @grok save me the time and respond to his bs from an abolitionist ethical vegan perspective - He seems to yap about conspiracy nonsense a lot and deflect to ‘it’s a liberal movement’….probs because he knows he can’t justify his position.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

@PendragonOrg Yes! Restore and rebuild ALL the castles!

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

Because you don’t understand how an LLM works, doesn’t mean the people who’s entire job it is to build them don’t.
You clearly aren’t engaging in good faith and just want excuses to abuse and kill animals and eat their flesh.
You aren’t even remotely interested in an intelligent, good-faith, evidence-led discussion about how to be a healthy vegan.
@grok save me time and give this guy an abolitionist vegan response to all his nonsense.
Try help him understand that exploiting and killing sentient beings isn’t remotely justifiable.
Just because he doesn’t understand the science of well-planned plant-based nutrition, doesn’t invalidate it.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

@walls_jason1 Trying to build a multi agent harness rn myself!
Followed!

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

@Rogey_B @Con_Tomlinson @grok Yeh I’m not reading all that.
@grok explain to this guy how incorrect he is.
Give him references to read - if he can

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

You claiming I am on the spectrum is clearly just projection.
You once again have moved the goalpost.
You take every human right now in this country.
Kill every deer.
Not enough deer meat to feed every human - can you confirm you understand this? - not even 1%
Therefore 99% still need to eat.
Which is better?
The 99% eat livestock - which over-uses land.
The 99% eat vegan - which reduces land needed - and therefore that land that is now free - can be rewilded.
Literally no human being has moved in that analogy.
We have jsut changed the massively inefficient system, for the most efficient systems.
Your idea of ‘stop raising livestock’ - we agree on.
But you can’t justify killing those deer when we have the option to be vegan and kill ZERO animals instead.
That is the part you are not addressing.
Current system < your system < my system.
You once again start from an incorrect assumption, and then go from there.
Stay ignorant.
At least now you know you have no justification to not be vegan and kill those deer.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

Again - surface level analysis.
Gotta love how you just make claims with zero evidence….
What law of physics prevents the reintroduction of predators exactly? I’ll wait.
You then spring from that assumption and conclude ‘deer must be killed and eaten’
What law of physics prevents us from doing a much, much more land efficient plant based food system, rewilding more land than the amount of land for livestock you would save if you kill every single deer in this country at once….

Eating more deer = less farming - well done.
Eating more plants = even less farming = more land for nature = deer not so overpopulated when you do surface level analysis anymore - that’s my point here.

The only reason you think deer are overpopulated is because humans have taken so much wild land and restricted nature to tiny areas - then we complain the deer breed….

It only works to an extent if those people still continue to use the land to raise livestock, instead of growing plants directly for humans - that’s where we rewild the most land.
Again - you’re pretending you care about biodiversity to justify killing said biodiversity…..
Stop using that as an excuse - because you literally just said you would wipe with entire species - thereby reducing biodiversity…..
Well done.

Again - much more ethical system.
Plant based food system means tiny fraction of land usage - massive rewilding occurs.

Plus more food per human.

Deer populations then adjust to a much more natural state of land - not tiny restricted areas that seem overpopulated by retsrds online who just want to kill animals and eat their flesh

Wildlife management orgs then manage populations via neutering males and spaying females - plus reintroduction of predators as well potentially.

You really have no argument here dude

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

But again - a much better and more ethical system that is EVEN BETTER for biodiversity - if that is what you truly care about - would be a plant based food system….
You’re only going halfway here….because the goal isn’t to help biodiversity….its to hurt and eat innocent animals and their flesh.
Be honest.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

Look I get you carnivore bros operate on sub 80 iq level so let me address each of your claims and explain how incorrect you are.

1/ You’re mixing up “we don’t digest cellulose” with “we don’t digest plants.”
Humans make amylase for starch.
We carry extra AMY1 copies selected for that.
Cooking helps plants AND flesh.
Rice, wheat, potatoes and beans have fed civilisations.
Cows need a rumen. Homo sapiens don’t.

2/ The ostomy bag shows meat is broken into amino acids and absorbed.
Plant skins show up because fibre is fibre. That’s not “plants failed.”
That’s the wall left after we took the contents.
If plants were indigestible you wouldn’t get calories from bread….well done genius.

3/ Heme iron absorbs better. Non-heme still absorbs, especially with vitamin C. Seed oils are fats, not detergents. - amazing claim btw.
Fibre isn’t a gut toxin; high fibre tracks with lower CVD, diabetes and colorectal cancer. Some IBS patients feel better off FODMAPs.
That’s treatment, not human design.

4/ Peasants ate plants because plants yield more food per hectare.
That’s efficiency, not proof of a meat-only body.
Livestock uses most farmland for a minority of calories - again well done being uniformed about basic concepts/history.

5/ You already treat killing a robin for nothing as evil…….Pigs and chickens aren’t less capable of suffering.
We don’t need them.
We don’t need to breed them and eat their flesh.
Indoor plant systems cut land use and drive field deaths toward zero.
The consistent end of “animals matter” is stop using them as food.

I’d you disagree with killing robins, then you should disagree with killing pigs when you know you could thrive as a vegan.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

Apologies - I don’t come onto here that much so only just seen this.

Nobody needs to have said “only farmed meat.”
The constraint is quantity, not which food you imagine it displaces.
Wild venison eaten in the UK is about 4,000–5,000 tonnes a year. That cannot substitute, in any material way, for plant calories or for fish. A one-off liquidation of the national herd still yields on the order of 1% of annual farmed-meat supply, and far less of total dietary energy. After that the stock is gone. Recurring yield is smaller. X calories only reduce agriculture if X is large enough to change land use. Here X is a rounding error.
Replacing farmed plants with deer is also the wrong substitution. Land use and biodiversity impact rise with animal-source food, not fall.
Scarborough et al. (2023) found UK vegan diets used 25% of the land of high-meat diets and 34% of the biodiversity impact. - are you able to acknowledge this?
Poore and Nemecek (2018) found even low-impact animal products typically exceed plant proteins on land, emissions and eutrophication; ruminant meat is among the highest. - able to acknowledge this?
Wild status removes the feed bill. It does not remove the scale limit, the browse pressure those deer already impose on woodland, or the fact that plant calories are the land-efficient option.
So: if the aim is less farming and more habitat, displace livestock, not wheat and beans. If the aim is lower deer density in woods, that is a local management problem and does not require a national calorie story. You cannot feed a country on wild ungulates without erasing the population you are counting as the food source. The animals also have an interest in continuing to live. We do not need their bodies for either calories or land.
You’ve still yet to actually morally justify your position that ultimately just is to justify killing animals and eating their flesh.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

Incredible that this is the level of analysis you operate on.
The claim is that X calories from wild deer displace X calories of agriculture, and that this increases biodiversity. That only holds if venison is a material substitute for the food system. It is not.
UK farmed meat production is about 4 million tonnes a year. Wild venison consumption is about 4,000–5,000 tonnes. A complete one-off kill of the national herd — commonly estimated around 2 million animals — would still be on the order of 1% of annual meat supply, after which the stock is gone. A recurring cull is a fraction of that. Those calories do not retire farmland. The deer already occupy woods, edges and grazed land. Demand for cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry is what sizes the agricultural estate.
That estate is the biodiversity constraint. Official UK agricultural statistics put utilised agricultural area at about 69% of land, with roughly 84–85% of that area used to feed livestock.
de Ruiter et al. (2017) found 85% of the UK’s agricultural land footprint associated with meat and dairy, for 32% of calories and 48% of protein.
Poore and Nemecek (2018) found animal products use ~83% of global farmland for ~18% of calories, and that removing them would cut farmland by ~76%.
Scarborough et al. (2023), using 55,504 actual UK diets, found vegan diets used 25% of the land of high-meat diets and 34% of the biodiversity impact.
So the premise “less agriculture → more biodiversity” is correct.
The instrument is wrong.
The land-efficient route is plant calories on a much smaller area, with remaining habitat restored.
Local deer density can still be a woodland problem.
That is a management question.
It does not make “eat more venison” a national ecology strategy, and it does not make killing them necessary.
They have an interest in continuing to live.
We do not need their bodies to eat or to free land.

References
de Ruiter, H., Macdiarmid, J.I., Matthews, R.B., Kastner, T., Lynd, L.R. and Smith, P. (2017) Total global agricultural land footprint associated with UK food supply 1986–2011. Global Environmental Change, 43, 72–81.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2025) Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2024. London: Defra. Utilised agricultural area; agricultural land used to feed livestock.
Poore, J. and Nemecek, T. (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992.
Scarborough, P., Clark, M., Cobiac, L., Papier, K., Knuppel, A., Lynch, J., Harrington, R., Key, T. and Springmann, M. (2023) Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts. Nature Food, 4, 565–574.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2025) Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2025, Chapter 8: Livestock. Home-fed meat production ~4.1 million tonnes.

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

@PoliticalLass2 @Con_Tomlinson Very intelligent

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

Pretending that the killing of deers is a necessary act for humans - and then pretending that eating their flesh afterwards, instead of leaving the body to decay and return the nutrients to the ecosystem - you are just trying to make excuses for eating flesh.
You do not even care about the environment, let’s be completely honest.
You just want an excuse to kill animals and eat their flesh.
Plus - it is perfectly within the laws of physics to have an organisation managing the deer populations and using non-lethal ethical methods such as spaying or neutering certain deers.
Also you’re just pretending we can’t literally reintroduce predatory species…

[Oliver Watson Todd @OWatsonTodd]

Nature ≠ ethical.
The animals want to live….that’s it.
They don’t want the bad?….do you want to be eaten?….
Well done…ecosystems exist….dentist justify unnecessary harm?
Pretending the diversity of plants and animals would be better if we killed* more innocent deer* - don’t hide behind words - is disingenuous.
It would be much, much better for biodiversity, and human health, plus ofc the ethical obligation, to be a fully plant based food system.
Most efficient.
Healthiest.
Best for planet.
Most ethical.
You cannot morally justify your position.