|
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
On 17 Aug 2006 13:02:15 -0700, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote: >> >> <restore> >> >> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it >> >> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage? >> >> >> >> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate, >> <end restore> >> >> >> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not >> >> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get >> >> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds. >> >> >> >> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing >> >> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner. >> > >> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification. >> >> No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an >> animal or bird should never include debasing it > >...nor the pet owner himself... Of course, but I don't believe the animal fiddlers here appreciate that aspect very well. A little further down this page I wrote, "She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing him and herself." de·base To lower in character, quality, or value; degrade. See Synonyms at adulterate. See Synonyms at corrupt. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debased >> by availing >> yourself as its sexual partner. >> >> >> >It makes them "better pets" >> >> >> >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't >> >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests. >> > >> >Well, yeah. >> >> Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the >> animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets" >> for you, even if that interest debases both you and the >> animal. >> >> >> <restore> >> >> >> or, >> >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives, >> >> <end restore> >> >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down >> >> > >> >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek. >> >> >> >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking >> >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, >> > >> >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of >> >sexual arousal. >> >> I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way, >> you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and >> yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative >> is being sought. >> . >> >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy. >> >> > >> >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate >> >> >> >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate >> >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's >> >> hand. >> > >> >No, it sees Karen as its mate. >> >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's >> hand. >> >> >> >and many birds are strictly >> >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate. >> >> >> >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on >> >> a person's hand. >> >> Well? >> >> >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys". >> >> >> >> Yes, you can. >> > >> >Not if you care about the health of the bird. >> >> A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily >> as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all. >> >> >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers >> >> > causing serious intestinal problems. >> >> >> >> Then give it a soft rubber one. >> > >> >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with >> >flexibility. >> >> No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy. >> >> >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing >> >> >>it to masturbate on her hand. >> >> > >> >> >What a prude! >> >> >> >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to >> >> masturbate on I would be a prude? >> > >> >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide >> >him some means of sexual release. >> >> Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing >> him and yourself. >> >> >> If he continually tried >> >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would >> >> be a prude? >> > >> >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face, >> >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and >> >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his >> >advances. >> >> Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he >> continually tried to mount your face, according to your >> perverted standards you would have no option but to >> oblige him. >> >> >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing". >> >> >> >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself >> >> as its sexual partner. >> > >> >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact. >> >> She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing >> him and herself. >> >> >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either, >> > >> >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden >> >shovel has any value? >> >> From the same source which made that accusation; >> >> 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously >> a fake you stupid ******s. >> http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o >> >> tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary. >> >> >> because like Karen you're willing to >> >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will >> >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler. >> > >> >You thick-headed junkie, >> >> That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even >> smoke cigarettes these days. >> >> >neither Karen nor I are interested in making >> >any animals "better pets". >> >> Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you >> dirty little animal-fiddler. |
Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
Leif Erikson wrote: > lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered: > > Leif Erikson wrote: > > > No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to > > > artificial insemination. > > > > There is certainly no sexual gratification for the female. > > So what? What an inane comment! I gave you more credit than is due. The point is clear within the context of my post. The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is gratifying for the male. If sexual release for an animal is the basis used to determine whether the human participant in sexual manipulation of an animal is a "diddler", ranchers are clearly "diddlers". > Why would anyone care about sexual gratification in livestock? Indeed, your kind cares nothing about the gratification of any instinctual needs for non-human animals. (That's why you keep nocturnal animals like your cats cruelly confined in carriers throughout the night.) > > > > as long as people can make money doing it. > > > > > > Making money is moral. > > > > "Making money" by any means is not moral. > > Straw man: no one defended making money by any means conceivable. You categorically asserted, "Making money is moral." Period. Be careful what you write, your true colors are showing. > > > Making money by > > appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral. > > It most certainly is. No, it isn't. It's morally reprehensible and, like many morally reprehensible activities, it's done all the time in the name of profit. It's curious that the current thinking on animal hoarders is that they are criminals, mentally ill or both. Their animals are seized and they are barred from owning animals. Yet, when livestock operators do the same thing to animals in their care they are called "good businessmen" and are exempted from laws governing the treatment of animals. > > > > Animal agriculture is moral. > > > > Husbandry pratices which prevent an animal from engaging in instinctual > > behaviors are not moral. > > Not necessarily. Without exception. Animal insticnts evolved with a purpose, to serve the individual animal and its species as a whole. When we thwart these instincts we do so at great cost to the quality of life for individual animals. Such disregard for animals wholly dependent on our care is not moral. > > > Chickens can't scratch, ducks can't preen, > > mink can't swim, pigs can't build nests, cows can't nurse their young > > and on and on. Thousands of years of domestication have not destroyed > > these animals instincts, so we must prevent them by restraint. > > Which is not inherently immoral. > > For the most part, it isn't by restraint; it's by removal. Worthless semantics. Okay, we "remove" the ground from the reach of chickens when we restrain them in cages. We "remove" water from the reach of ducks and mink when we restrain them in cages. We "remove" the ability of highly intelligent and very social pigs to nest when we restrain them in concrete-floored, indoor pens or, worse yet, farrowing crates.. We "remove" bawling calves from lactating mothers when we restrain the females in milking pens. Does that make you feel better? > > > This is profoundly immoral > > ipse dixit; also based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism. It's simple respect and humility. > (snip) > > > > For an extremely limited number of humans, > > No - for consumers who have greater access to more nutrition at lower > cost. > The only reason meat is cheap is because taxpayers prop up the meat industry through grain subsidies, over-generous water allocations, give-away leases on public ranges and passes on soil, air, water pollution violations. If prices included the real costs of meat production, only the rich could afford to eat animal products. You know this, but you'll say anything to create an "us" vs. "them" scenario. > It's not as if animals will not breed on their own. > > They don't breed enough. Natural breeding schedules evolved to balance the needs of the species with the bodily integrity of females. Humans commandeer the bodies of female animals, over breed them until they are exhausted at an early age, then slaughter them and sell them as cheap meat cuts. This crass utilization of one of the most intimate of physical processes is cruel and immoral. > There is nothing immoral about humans > exercising control over livestock animals' breeding. In fact, that's > pretty much the definition of modern livestock. That's why modern animal agriculture is a moral outrage. > > > What they won't do > > is birth offspring in rapid succession. What they won't do is select > > mates according to characteristics more uselful to man than to the > > species. > > We are morally justified in promoting our interests by selectively > breeding livestock. No, we are rendering animals more and more useless to themselves as they become more useful to us. This is among the worse exercises of raw power. It's a disgrace. > |
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
Leif Erikson wrote: > Derek wrote: > > On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote: > > >Derek wrote: > > >> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote: > > >> >Derek wrote: > > >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote: > > > > <restore> > > >> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it > > >> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage? > > >> > > >> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate, > > <end restore> > > > > >> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not > > >> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get > > >> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds. > > >> > > >> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing > > >> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner. > > > > > >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification. > > > > No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an > > animal or bird should never include debasing it > > ...nor the pet owner himself... Then why are you trying to "hook up" with farm animals Goo? > > > by availing > > yourself as its sexual partner. > > > > >> >It makes them "better pets" > > >> > > >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't > > >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests. > > > > > >Well, yeah. > > > > Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the > > animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets" > > for you, even if that interest debases both you and the > > animal. > > > > >> <restore> > > >> >> or, > > >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives, > > >> <end restore> > > >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down > > >> > > > >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek. > > >> > > >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking > > >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, > > > > > >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of > > >sexual arousal. > > > > I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way, > > you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking > > about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and > > yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative > > is being sought. > > . > > >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy. > > >> > > > >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate > > >> > > >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate > > >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's > > >> hand. > > > > > >No, it sees Karen as its mate. > > > > No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate > > on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's > > hand. > > > > >> >and many birds are strictly > > >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate. > > >> > > >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on > > >> a person's hand. > > > > Well? > > > > >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys". > > >> > > >> Yes, you can. > > > > > >Not if you care about the health of the bird. > > > > A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily > > as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all. > > > > >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers > > >> > causing serious intestinal problems. > > >> > > >> Then give it a soft rubber one. > > > > > >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with > > >flexibility. > > > > No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy. > > > > >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing > > >> >>it to masturbate on her hand. > > >> > > > >> >What a prude! > > >> > > >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to > > >> masturbate on I would be a prude? > > > > > >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide > > >him some means of sexual release. > > > > Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing > > him and yourself. > > > > >> If he continually tried > > >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would > > >> be a prude? > > > > > >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face, > > >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and > > >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his > > >advances. > > > > Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he > > continually tried to mount your face, according to your > > perverted standards you would have no option but to > > oblige him. > > > > >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing". > > >> > > >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself > > >> as its sexual partner. > > > > > >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact. > > > > She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing > > him and herself. > > > > >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either, > > > > > >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden > > >shovel has any value? > > > > From the same source which made that accusation; > > > > 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously > > a fake you stupid ******s. > > http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o > > > > tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary. > > > > >> because like Karen you're willing to > > >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will > > >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler. > > > > > >You thick-headed junkie, > > > > That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even > > smoke cigarettes these days. > > > > >neither Karen nor I are interested in making > > >any animals "better pets". > > > > Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you > > dirty little animal-fiddler. |
Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " > wrote:
>The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting >of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is >gratifying for the male. Then, according to your view where gratifying animals sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the harvesting of animal semen. Way to go, you dirty little animal-fiddler. |
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
Derek wrote: > On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote: > >Derek wrote: (snip) > > >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification. > > No, you have no way of knowing that, The effects of human imprinting on birds is well established. > and bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing it by availing > yourself as its sexual partner. > How should a responsible owner of an human-identified bird procure sexual release for her avian friend? So far, you've come up with putting it back in its cage until its desire subsides. Not really a solution for the bird, though. Is it? Giving it a dangerous toy and hoping it will miraculously come to see an inanimate object as a suitable mate. Got anything else? > >> >It makes them "better pets" > >> > >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't > >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests. > > > >Well, yeah. > > Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the > animals' interests. Would "Duh" been easier for you to understand? > You want to make them "better pets" > for you, even if that interest debases both you and the > animal. I don't want there to be _any_ pet birds. (I can't remember, have you always been this dense? ) But, since pet birds already exist, responsible bird caregivers have an obligation to meet their charge's needs, _all_ their needs including the often inconvenient sexual and possessive ones. > > >> <restore> > >> >> or, > >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives, > >> <end restore> > >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down > >> > > >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek. > >> > >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking > >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, > > > >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of > >sexual arousal. > > I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way, > you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking > about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and > yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative > is being sought. Sexual instincts lead to sexual arousal. You have a bird that sees its caretaker as its mate. The caretaker takes the bird out of its cage daily, at the very least. Since most uncaged birds have their flight wings clipped to avoid injury from walls and windows, (Flight is another instinct we must prevent in pet birds.), the bird hops around and usually winds up on the arm, head, leg or shoe of its human companion. Birds seek physical contact of all kinds with their caregiver. Sometimes, this contact turns sexual based on the mood of the bird. It is an unconscious impulse of the bird and I don't think they should be "punished" for it by being stuffed back into a cage. It's not as if you can train a bird or any other living being not to have sexual impulses. Maybe your next suggestion will be chemical castration? > . > >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy. > >> > > >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate > >> > >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate > >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's > >> hand. > > > >No, it sees Karen as its mate. > > No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate > on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's > hand. How many times do I have to explain it to you? Birds are not given soft toys. Any toy suitable for a bird is hard enough to injure the bird with prolonged rubbing. > > >> >and many birds are strictly > >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate. > >> > >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on > >> a person's hand. > > Well? Well, what? Soft toys are dangerous for birds. > > >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys". > >> > >> Yes, you can. > > > >Not if you care about the health of the bird. > > A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily > as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all. > > >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers > >> > causing serious intestinal problems. > >> > >> Then give it a soft rubber one. > > > >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with > >flexibility. > > No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy. Crikey! A rubber toy hard enough to withstand the beak of a cockatiel is hard enough to injure the bird if it rubs against it, just as a wooden toy or perch or water container will. > > >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing > >> >>it to masturbate on her hand. > >> > > >> >What a prude! > >> > >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to > >> masturbate on I would be a prude? > > > >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide > >him some means of sexual release. > > Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing > him and yourself. I alter all animals in my care because I want to end the breeding of domestic animals. Masturbation in altered animals is a non-issue. > > >> If he continually tried > >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would > >> be a prude? > > > >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face, > >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and > >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his > >advances. > > Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, Dangerous for the catcher, not the pitcher. Again, crikey! > and if he continually tried to mount your face, according to your > perverted standards you would have no option but to > oblige him. No, I would have the poor, confused and sexually frustrated animal altered. Let's face it, a human sexual partner for a dog is a distant second choice. If the dog is not allowed to mate within its species, it should be altered. It's the kindest thing to do. Unfortunately, cockatiels, like most birds, do not withstand anesthesia and surgery well. Unlike male mammals, removal of testicles in birds is an invasive procedure and not one done unless its a matter of life or death. > >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing". > >> > >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself > >> as its sexual partner. > > > >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact. > > She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing > him and herself. That's not how I see it. > > >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either, > > > >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden > >shovel has any value? > > From the same source which made that accusation; > > 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously > a fake you stupid ******s. > http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o Since one of the statements is clearly a lie, I think it's the second one. This choice is not based on personal preference alone, but follows from the general lack of empathy you have demonstrated toward animals in real life situations. (Remember your rabid defense of the money-minded vet who let a cat die from seizures because its caregiver could not pay in full before the administration of phenobarbitol, the cheap anti-seizure drug of choice for felines?) > tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary. My point stands. You have said nothing over the years to lead me to believe you are a competent animal caregiver. Your posts are full of theoretical wordgames and juvenile tattle-telling. They are undermined by your continued use of pharmacueticals and a quite probable meat-based diet. > > >> because like Karen you're willing to > >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will > >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler. > > > >You thick-headed junkie, > > That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even > smoke cigarettes these days. Whose talking about cigarettes. Still popping those scripts, aren't you? > >neither Karen nor I are interested in making > >any animals "better pets". > > Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you > dirty little animal-fiddler. You must be loaded...again. |
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
chico chupacabra wrote:
>> I'll have to defer to your experience. It's about time. |
Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered: > > > Leif Erikson wrote: > > > > > No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to > > > > artificial insemination. > > > > > > There is certainly no sexual gratification for the female. > > > > So what? What an inane comment! > > I gave you more credit than is due. The point is clear within the > context of my post. It isn't, because your post was the usual reactive, highly self conscious bucket of bullshit. > The process of artificial insemination, including > the harvesting of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female Not important. > and is gratifying for the male. No. But leave it to lead-pipe-wielding militant feminazi Mary Huber to turn this into a "feminist" issue. You stupid ****. > > If sexual release for an animal There's none. > > Why would anyone care about sexual gratification in livestock? > > Indeed, your kind cares nothing about the gratification of any > instinctual needs for non-human animals. That's false. Rational humans don't slavishly indulge *every* irrationally animal-romanticizing "ara's" goofy notions of animals' instinctual "needs", but their instincts are not ignored. *OUR* wants take precedence. That's just how it is, and how it always will be. Learn to live with it, and keep your ****ing pie-hole shut about it. > (That's why you keep > nocturnal animals like your cats cruelly confined in carriers > throughout the night.) Hahahahaha! You still on about that, you dumb ****? I do it for my sleep and their safety. > > > > > as long as people can make money doing it. > > > > > > > > Making money is moral. > > > > > > "Making money" by any means is not moral. > > > > Straw man: no one defended making money by any means conceivable. > > You categorically asserted, "Making money is moral." It is. You feel making money is _ipso facto_ immoral. That's because you're a stupid marxism-contaminated anti-commerce ****. No one said making money by "any" means is moral, you dumb stinking ****. What was said was a refutation of your stupid, ****-4-brain mushy marxist implied statement that making money is immoral. > > > Making money by > > > appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral. > > > > It most certainly is. > > No, it isn't. Yes, it most certainly is. > It's morally reprehensible No, and you wouldn't even know how to start to show that it is. It's an irrational and girlish sentiment, part of your overall hyper-sentimental and unsound view of animals. > it's done all the time in the name of profit. You stupid **** - wanting to make money is *intrinsically* what profit seeking is about. But of course, "profit" is just a swear word to you; it's what those eeeeeeeeeeevil capitalists seek, and you think you have definitively identified capitalists as The Bad Guys. Stupid ****. > > It's curious that the current thinking on animal hoarders is that they > are criminals, mentally ill or both. Their animals are seized and they > are barred from owning animals. Yet, when livestock operators do the > same thing to animals in their care they are called "good businessmen" > and are exempted from laws governing the treatment of animals. That's because animal hoarders neglect their animals' welfare, and livestock owners don't: it reduces the profits of the latter but does no harm to the interests of the former. > > > > Animal agriculture is moral. > > > > > > Husbandry pratices which prevent an animal from engaging in instinctual > > > behaviors are not moral. > > > > Not necessarily. > > Without exception. With many exceptions. > > > Chickens can't scratch, ducks can't preen, > > > mink can't swim, pigs can't build nests, cows can't nurse their young > > > and on and on. Thousands of years of domestication have not destroyed > > > these animals instincts, so we must prevent them by restraint. > > > > Which is not inherently immoral. > > > > For the most part, it isn't by restraint; it's by removal. > > Worthless semantics. No, it's much more. > > > This is profoundly immoral > > > > ipse dixit; also based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism. > > It's simple respect and humility. Wrong. Your view is based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism and your absurdly, childishly sentimental view of animals. > > > For an extremely limited number of humans, > > > > No - for consumers who have greater access to more nutrition at lower > > cost. > > > The only reason meat is cheap is because taxpayers prop up the meat > industry through grain subsidies, over-generous water allocations, give-away > leases on public ranges and passes on soil, air, water pollution > violations. It is cheaper than it would be than it would be without those subsidies - subsidies which I have always opposed - but those aren't the only reasons. It also is cheaper because of artificial breeding leading to more animals than would be the case if we left breeding to the animals themselves. > > It's not as if animals will not breed on their own. > > > > They don't breed enough. > > Natural breeding schedules evolved to balance the needs of the species > with the bodily integrity of females. Natural breeding schedules may successfully be tampered with by humans, and they are, leading to cheaper meat than otherwise would be the case. > > There is nothing immoral about humans > > exercising control over livestock animals' breeding. In fact, that's > > pretty much the definition of modern livestock. > > That's why modern animal agriculture is a moral outrage. Only in your warped, hyper-emotional, absurdly and childishly sentimental view. You fundamentally do not understand ethics and morality. > > > What they won't do > > > is birth offspring in rapid succession. What they won't do is select > > > mates according to characteristics more uselful to man than to the > > > species. > > > > We are morally justified in promoting our interests by selectively > > breeding livestock. > > No, Yes. |
Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
Derek wrote: > On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " > wrote: > > >The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting > >of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is > >gratifying for the male. > > Then, according to your view where gratifying animals > sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the > harvesting of animal semen. I object on the grounds of animal commodification. If Karen was marketing the cockatiel ejaculate, I would object, too. > Way to go, you dirty little > animal-fiddler. I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling". When I do, I'll let you know. |
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
On 17 Aug 2006 14:41:03 -0700, " > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: > >(snip) > >> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification. >> >> No, you have no way of knowing that, > >The effects of human imprinting on birds is well established. Human imprinting or not, debasing yourself and animals by availing yourself as their sexual partner is wrong. If such imprinting meant giving animals oral sex you would no doubt oblige, you dirty little animal-fiddler. >> and bonding with an animal or bird should never include >>debasing it by availing yourself as its sexual partner. >> >How should a responsible owner of an human-identified bird procure >sexual release for her avian friend? Responsible pet owners don't debase themselves or their animals by becoming their sexual partner. >> >> >It makes them "better pets" >> >> >> >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't >> >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests. >> > >> >Well, yeah. >> >> Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the >> animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets" >> for you, even if that interest debases both you and the >> animal. > >I don't want there to be _any_ pet birds. Yes, you do, and to make them "better pets" you want humans to be involved with them as their sexual partners. >But, since pet birds already exist, responsible bird caregivers have an >obligation to meet their charge's needs, _all_ their needs including >the often inconvenient sexual and possessive ones. Responsible pet-owners do not make animals their sexual partners, you perverted animal-fiddler. Hope that helps. |
Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
On 17 Aug 2006 14:56:16 -0700, " > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " > wrote: >> >> >The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting >> >of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is >> >gratifying for the male. >> >> Then, according to your view where gratifying animals >> sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the >> harvesting of animal semen. > >I object on the grounds of animal commodification. No, you don't object at all. You believe humans should sexually gratify animals. >> Way to go, you dirty little animal-fiddler. > >I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling". You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper to sexually gratify animals by being their sexual partner. You endorse and promote zoophilia. |
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
Contrary Mary wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote: >>> Karen's fortunate she's the love object of a cockatiel and not a >>> macaw. That can get pretty intense. >> >> I'll have to defer to your experience. > > It's about time. Only when it comes to your animal molestation. |
The cockatiel
|
Karen Winter warmly reminisces about diddling her cockatiel... atthe breakfast table!
Karen Winter, sectarian bird-diddling "anglo catholic," reminisced:
> I gave him various kinds of physical therapy, You jacked him off. That's not PT. And the more I read and inquire about it, that's also not very "anglo catholic." > and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably > well, but never normally. Oversexed? > He had healthy veggies or > starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at > dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That > was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on > the hand on the table at the time, AT THE TABLE WHILE YOU WERE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST AND YOU LET IT GO ON? Did you at least wash up when he was done? You keep snipping that question, but I have a feeling you didn't wash. Am I right? > after I'd feed him a > bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green > leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like > gesture of food-sharing. Doesn't really matter since YOU still apparently do. > He was really a sweetheart. And you're really depraved. |
Glorfindel warmly reminisces about her friend
chico chupacabra wrote:
> Glorfindel reminisced: >> I gave him various kinds of physical therapy, > You jacked him off. You have a dirty mind and no understanding of bird psychology or biology. >That's not PT. No, indeed. However what I did for him was indeed physical therapy. I worked on gently stretching his wing as far as it would go, and helping him build up his stamina. First, I held him over a soft surface like the bed and released him to flutter to the bed. As he got stronger, a friend and I would hold him above the bed and gently "throw" him to each other, so he would have to fly a short distance but wouldn't hurt himself if he fell. Later, we would stand at opposite sides of the room, later ends of the hall, and call him, or lure him with a treat, to try to fly from one of us to the other, gradually increasing the distance. He eventually could fly the whole length of the house, but only with considerable effort. Normal 'tiels are so strong and fast, many people clip their wings to prevent injury to them or losing them if they get out, but he was so crippled I thought it was safe to leave him unclipped and just watch him carefully. When we first got him, his keel was like a knife blade -- no muscle at all. By the time we had spent several months working with him, he had a normal well-muscled keel and you could not feel his keel-bone easily. He had had almost no time out of the cage or exercise before we got him, because his former companion had so many birds she didn't have the time for the therapy he needed. And the more I read and inquire about > it, that's also not very "anglo catholic." Compassion and care for the crippled and needy "least of these" is very Anglo-Catholic -- or simply, what someone concerned for animals would do. >> and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably >> well, but never normally. > Oversexed? No. In fact, he was rather old and not particularly highly sexed -- he was just a normal, unaltered bird imprinted on humans as a chick. >> He had healthy veggies or >> starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at >> dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That >> was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on >> the hand on the table at the time, > AT THE TABLE WHILE YOU WERE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST AND YOU LET IT GO > ON? Why not? > Did you at least wash up when he was done? You keep snipping that > question, Because it's stupid and offensive. Yes, I did -- but how much semen do you think an old 'tiel produces, anyway? You'd get your hand messier dripping butter off your piece of toast. <snip> >> after I'd feed him a >> bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green >> leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like >> gesture of food-sharing. > Doesn't really matter since YOU still apparently do. It's helpful to encourage a bird to eat healthy human foods if you eat a bite yourself first, to show the bird it's good, then feed a small amount to the bird. The tiel wasn't too fond of veggies, but they were good for him, so I would hold up a leaf like a toy, and get him to nibble it. It's part of flock behavior, how birds normally learn to eat things. >> He was really a sweetheart. > And you're really depraved. No, but you are really dirty-minded and ignorant. |
Karen Winter changes the subject but warmly reminisces aboutdiddling her cockatiel
Karen Winter, schismatic bird-diddling anglo catholic, whined:
> chico chupacabra wrote: > > > Karen Winter, sexual abuser of small animals, reminisced: > > >> I gave him various kinds of physical therapy, > > > You jacked him off. > > You have a dirty mind WTF do you call it? > and no understanding of bird > psychology or biology. You don't. > >That's not PT. > > No, indeed. Stop pretending it was. > > And the more I read and inquire about > > it, that's also not very "anglo catholic." > > Compassion and care ....don't include masturbating a small, defenseless bird. > >> and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably > >> well, but never normally. > > > Oversexed? > > No. You "regularly" diddled him. > >> He had healthy veggies or > >> starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at > >> dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That > >> was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on > >> the hand on the table at the time, > > > AT THE TABLE WHILE YOU WERE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST AND YOU LET IT > > GO ON? > > Why not? Because it's unethical and unsavory. At least we know what your dining habits include. > > Did you at least wash up when he was done? You keep snipping that > > question, > > Because it's stupid and offensive. And jacking it off at the table in the first place ISN'T? > Yes, I did -- but how much > semen do you think an old 'tiel produces, anyway? I'd never know! > <snip> > > >> after I'd feed him a > >> bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green > >> leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like > >> gesture of food-sharing. > > > Doesn't really matter since YOU still apparently do. > > It's helpful It's not helpful to jack birds off at the table, Karen. I suspect you were reared better than that given your father's rank and your mother's pedigree from a family that screwed the Indians and had slaves. > >> He was really a sweetheart. > > > And you're really depraved. > > No Yes, you are. > but you are really dirty-minded I don't diddle animals, you do. And you do it at the table while people (even if it was Sylvia) are eating. I'm not dirty-minded, you pervert. > and ignorant. That's what bestiality practitioners, S&M types, and pedophiles always say about those who reject their perversions. You think we just don't get it. If the problem is so widespread, Karen, don't you think maybe YOU don't get it? |
Glorfindel warmly remembers her friend
chico chupacabra wrote: The usual drivel of those who don't understand animals, care about animals, or have the ability to support their side's false claims. Of course, this whole tangent was only an effort to obscure Leif's claim that animals never want interspecies sexual contact. You *think* you've managed to lose the original topic by inventing your usual stupid anti-animal, ignorant ad hominem attacks. What you've done is accept my original (correct ) scientific observation. You guys are just plain ridiculous. You think you are fooling people and successfully changing the original subject, but you aren't. People who actually know about birds -- e.g. Feralpower and Scented Nectar -- agree you were wrong. You *are* wrong. You are also dirty-minded, ignorant, and unfit to own any companion animal, particularly any bird. Google any bird care site, and it will support Feral's and my observations on domestic parrots. But you knew that already. Derek's dumb tangent is simply beneath contempt -- but typical of his hysterical misrepresentations. Anybody who watched his meltdown on this thread would know everything he's claimed about me is nonsense. He's either really *really* stupid, or deliberately malicious -- and I'd say, both. Exit, laughing.... <snip> |
Karen Winter warmly remembers diddling her bird
Karen Winter, anglo catholic bird diddler who doesn't like her son
as a person, wrote: > chico chupacabra wrote: > > The usual drivel of those who don't understand > animals John Mark Karr thinks other people don't understand children, too, Karen. Those of you who engage in perverted activities with children, animals, etc., always claim to know so much more than everyone else. The problem's not with everyone else. It's with you. BTW, why haven't you replied to the post about church and why you're too fatigued to finish what you started? > People who actually know about birds -- e.g. > Mary Huber and Skanky HAHAHA! That's some expert panel you've assembled, Karen. Some violent SF ditz and a 46 year-old pot-smoking slacker. Why didn't you go ahead and add Lesley to the list of your experts? > Derek's dumb tangent is simply beneath contempt -- No, he's to be commended. Your former vicars are no doubt grateful to know what kind of people you and Sylvia really are. > Exit, laughing.... You mean cackling, you old witch. |
Glorfindel warmly remembers Feralpower
chico chupacabra wrote:
Glorfindel wrote: >>People who actually know about birds -- e.g. >>Feralpower and Scented Nectar > That's some expert panel you've assembled Well, yes. Feralpower knows more about animals and animal behavior than you ever will or could. She has an outstanding background in both practical and theoretical knowledge, plus a thoroughly sound understanding of animal rights philosophy and ethics. Unlike you, Leif, or Derek, she actually knows what she is talking about and understands what it means. I have tremendous respect for her. <snip> |
Question for chico, supporter of animal diddling and mass murder
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> Lesley, who flunked out of engineering school, No. > wrote: > > > So what went wrong, 'chico'? > > The terrorists you and other anti-semites support hijacked commercial > aircraft fully-laden with fuel for transcontinental flights, ??? You think they should be flown on half a tank of fuel? > flew them The alleged hijackers were said to be incompetent at flying. > into buildings (and a field), two of which were the two main WTC > buildings. The initial impact and resulting fire weakened the steel > structure, causing floors above and below the impact areas to collapse. Your hypothesis collapses right here. 'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.' http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html > This caused undue stress on the remaining structure, which gave way > floor by floor as it pancaked down. 'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.' http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html > It went down instead of up because > of gravity, a natural force you irrationally reject out of hand. I've done no such thing, liar. > I've given you links to reports written by engineers which detail the > metal fatigue caused by the impact and fire. Their reports on the steel > are based on scientific metalurgical testing. Their analyses of the > collapse is based on their expertise in the field. Cites? The above is from the first link you gave, remember. 'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse? A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film 1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...191665&q=truth |
Chico/Leif cuts and runs...again
chico chupacabra wrote:
>>The usual drivel of those who don't understand >>animals Still trying to ignore the fact that you and Leif don't understand animals, and don't know about animals. This whole thread has been an obvious attempt at diversion -- the worst kind of sleazy attempted slight-of-hand to try to hide your ignorance and error. Admit Leif was wrong in claiming animals never voluntarily seek out interspecies sexual activity. You don't even have to mention what every high-school biology student knows about imprinting in birds and socialization in mammals on humans. Just repeat after me: mule...coydog...wolfdog... crossbred feline and avian species.... You *try* to turn this into an attack on me for being a responsible bird owner. That's because, as we all know, you have no honor and no honesty, and you're dumb as a post about real animals. But it doesn't work. We see through you. Not that I expect you to have the integrity to accept responsibility for your lies. Just recognize they *are* known as lies. <snip> |
Chico/Leif cuts and runs...again
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:22:34 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>chico chupacabra wrote: > >>>The usual drivel of those who don't understand >>>animals > >Still trying to ignore the fact that you and Leif >don't understand animals, and don't know about >animals. This whole thread has been an obvious >attempt at diversion -- the worst kind of >sleazy attempted slight-of-hand to try to hide >your ignorance and error. Admit Leif was >wrong in claiming animals never voluntarily seek >out interspecies sexual activity. You don't even >have to mention what every high-school biology >student knows about imprinting in birds and >socialization in mammals on humans. Just >repeat after me: mule...coydog...wolfdog... >crossbred feline and avian species.... I would love to see the quote where Goo made that stupid claim, if you don't mind posting it and/or the message id. >You *try* to turn this into an attack on me >for being a responsible bird owner. That's >because, as we all know, you have no honor None. But is he really stupid enough to believe his absurd claim that: "my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo Has anyone who converses with Goo actually been unable to figure out that he is contemptible by his own actions... >and no honesty, ....yes, and *incredibly* dishonest... >and you're dumb as a post about real animals. ....ignorance maintained by stupidity...that's our Goo. >But it doesn't work. We see through you. Is anyone fooled into thinking Goo is respectable? Do you think even Dutch isn't aware of what a childish liar Goo is? LOL...if he's not, do you think there's any chance Goo doesn't laugh at Dutch because of it? >Not that I expect you to have the integrity >to accept responsibility for your lies. In a way his comfort in lying gives Goo freedom to invent whatever he wants to, but it also restricts him from being able to even acknowledge much less deal with reality. As I've explained to the poor stupid moron: When he lies, even if he can persuade other people to be fooled by them, in reality Goo still hasn't "won" or even made an attempt to. >Just recognize they *are* known as lies. > ><snip> Goobernicus...liar...idiot... I again ask that you provide some example(s) of Goo's idiocy in regards to interspecies sexual activity between animals, and now gladly share a growing list of Goobal idiotics for anyone trying to get an idea just how stupid this Goober appears to be, and/or is sometimes amused by reading the idiotic maunderings of an egotistical ignorant fool: __________________________________________________ _______ Ron asked: >So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance >and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in >the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of >supplying the pet food industry? Goo replied: Yes. Message-ID: et> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ Ron pointed out: >You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become >PET FOOD. Goo replied: Some are. Message-ID: .com> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ "Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo "Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo "Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way, hallucinating." - Goo "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life" .. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo "When considering your food choices ethically, assign ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo "I have examined the question at length, and feel there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se, is not a benefit." - Goo "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" - Goo "Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo "Non human animals experience neither pride nor disappointment. They don't have the mental ability to feel either." - Goo "Anticipation requires language." - Goo "No animals anticipate." - Goo "The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo "Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo "They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo "The fact of the matter is, with 135,000,000 cats and dogs in the U.S., the food to feed them simply cannot be "leftovers" from the animals bred to feed humans." - Goo "Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is going to be used entirely for human consumption, entirely for animal consumption, or for some combination; nor do they care." - Goo "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet food. " - Goo "I'm right about all of it." - Goo "I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo "my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo "Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo "I'm not stupid." - Goo "I know exactly what I think" - Goo "I educated the public" - Goo "I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo |
Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
Derek wrote: > On 17 Aug 2006 14:56:16 -0700, " > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " > wrote: > >> > >> >The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting > >> >of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is > >> >gratifying for the male. > >> > >> Then, according to your view where gratifying animals > >> sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the > >> harvesting of animal semen. > > > >I object on the grounds of animal commodification. > > No, you don't object at all. I believe my objection is crystal clear. If Karen sold cockatiel ejaculate to bird breeders, I would vigorously oppose it. You believe humans should (snip) > >I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling". > > You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper to > sexually gratify animals by being their sexual partner. > You endorse and promote zoophilia. I believe zoophilia requires a pleasure-seeking human. I don't think Karen qualifies. |
Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
On 23 Aug 2006 11:35:17 -0700, " > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 17 Aug 2006 14:56:16 -0700, " > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " > wrote: >> >> >> >> >The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting >> >> >of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is >> >> >gratifying for the male. >> >> >> >> Then, according to your view where gratifying animals >> >> sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the >> >> harvesting of animal semen. >> > >> >I object on the grounds of animal commodification. >> >> No, you don't object at all. > >I believe my objection is crystal clear. You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper to sexually gratify animals, and so you have no valid objection to the harvesting of animal semen. >> >I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling". >> >> You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper to >> sexually gratify animals by being their sexual partner. >> You endorse and promote zoophilia. > >I believe zoophilia requires a pleasure-seeking human. No, it only requires that a human has sex with an animal. Karen regularly availed herself as a sexual partner to her pet, and you condone it. You endorse zoophilia. >I don't think Karen qualifies. She regularly availed herself as a sexual partner to her pet. Ergo, she's a zoophile. |
Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
Leif Erikson wrote: > lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered: Apologies if this post is a duplicate. My reader did not pick up the original post. > > It isn't, because your post was the usual reactive, highly self > conscious bucket of bullshit. You say something, I _react_ with a comment of my own. I realize you prefer pontification flavored with outbursts of profanity, but typical conversations are, by nature, reactive. Oddly, for a person so melded to the norm, you haven't gotten the hang of civil conversation. Self-consciousness is one of the attributes animal detractors like to claim separate us from non-human animals. Why shouldn't my thoughts and feelings spring from such a source? Whose consciousness exactly should I tap to express myself? > > > The process of artificial insemination, including > > the harvesting of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female > > Not important. > > > and is gratifying for the male. > > No. Are you saying that sexual excitation culminating in ejaculation is not pleasurable and gratifiying for mammalian males? If a bull's ejaculate was harvested by syringe, I'd agree, but I don't believe that's how it's done. Any evidence this is standard practice? > But leave it to lead-pipe-wielding militant feminazi Mary Huber to > turn this into a "feminist" issue. Utilization of females of any species as breeding machines is a feminist issue. >You stupid ****. Are vaginas smart or stupid? I've never thought of them as having anything to do with intelligence, but maybe you know something I don't. Please provide proof that vaginas have any connection to female intellect and can rightly be referred to as "stupid" or smart. > > > If sexual release for an animal > > There's none. ? (snip) > > Indeed, your kind cares nothing about the gratification of any > > instinctual needs for non-human animals. > > That's false. Rational humans don't slavishly indulge *every* > irrationally animal-romanticizing "ara's" goofy notions of animals' > instinctual "needs", but their instincts are not ignored. You're not going to try to pull the needs vs. wants stunt on confined farm animals, are you? Farmed animals are slaughtered at an early age before the deleterious effects of their living conditions manifest. Even so, millions of animals are condemned preslaughter because of tumors, infections, wounds and systemic diseases that are the direct result of modern husbandry practices. There is nothing "goofy" about recognizing the behavioral needs of various species. To do otherwise is positively pre-scientific. What's next? Claiming animals don't experience pain? > *OUR* wants take precedence. Strangely, it might be just this attitude that brings some relief to food animals. New regulations limiting the preventive use of antibiotics and profit-enhancing, growth-stimulating hormones make raising tens of thousands of animals indoors very difficult. BSE was disappointing as a deterrent to meat consumption, maybe antibiotic tolerant bacteria and the ill effects of animal hormones will do better. >That's just how it is, and how it always will be. Heh. Careful of that burning bush, Ball. It's fire season. > Learn to live with it, No. >and keep your ****ing pie-hole shut about it. No. > > > (That's why you keep > > nocturnal animals like your cats cruelly confined in carriers > > throughout the night.) > > Hahahahaha! You still on about that, you dumb ****? I do it for my > sleep Can't afford a bedroom door, either? Maybe an equity loan for home improvements is in order? Or are you already maxed out? >and their safety. What dangers lurk in your darkened house? > > > > > > > > as long as people can make money doing it. > > > > > > > > > > Making money is moral. > > > > > > > > "Making money" by any means is not moral. > > > > > > Straw man: no one defended making money by any means conceivable. > > > > You categorically asserted, "Making money is moral." > > It is. You feel making money is _ipso facto_ immoral. That's because > you're a stupid marxism-contaminated anti-commerce ****. > > No one said making money by "any" means is moral, Yes, you did with your unqualified "Making money is moral." Making money is not moral when it causes harm to others, by intention or negligence. >you dumb stinking ****. Oh, now it's dumb and stinky. Do these always go together or can a **** be smart and stinky or, conversely, dumb and fragrant? What credentials does a self-employed accounting consultant hold on this subject? > What was said was a refutation of your stupid, ****-4-brain > mushy marxist implied statement that making money is immoral Where is the implication in my statement reproduced below?> > > > > > Making money by > > > > appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral. (snip) > > It's morally reprehensible > > No, and you wouldn't even know how to start to show that it is. Beingness confers certain rights on individuals, not the least of which is the right of self-possession. To steal another being's selfhood is to distort the very essence of life. These matters are beyond the limits of rational proofs. > It's an irrational Reason does not make us kind. Reason does not make us generous. Many of the finest impulses in human nature have absolutely nothing to do with reason. > and girlish sentiment, You think sentiment is weak and infantile. Without sentiment you are a bad father, a bad husband, a bad son, brother and friend. What a creep! > part of your overall > hyper-sentimental and unsound view of animals. How is the recognition of intinctual needs in farm animals an "unsound view of animals"? >You stupid **** - wanting to make money is *intrinsically* what profit > seeking is about. But of course, "profit" is just a swear word to you; > it's what those eeeeeeeeeeevil capitalists seek, and you think you have > definitively identified capitalists as The Bad Guys. Some capitalists are "badder" than others. Operators of CAFO's are "badder" than farmers raising animals under the principles of Humane Farming. Unfortunately, soulless consumers such as yourself, ones who, though they can afford to shop ethically, opt for the cheapest meat, guarantee the "badder" capitalists win. Maybe when your son's respiratory infection can't be cured with amoxicillin anymore, you'll understand the benefit of allowing farm animals to lead a healthier existence outside the sheds and feedlots. > > Stupid ****. You're repetitive. It's boring. > > > It's curious that the current thinking on animal hoarders is that they > > are criminals, mentally ill or both. Their animals are seized and they > > are barred from owning animals. Yet, when livestock operators do the > > same thing to animals in their care they are called "good businessmen" > > and are exempted from laws governing the treatment of animals. > > That's because animal hoarders neglect their animals' welfare, and > livestock owners don't: it reduces the profits of the latter but does > no harm to the interests of the former. Most hoarders sell puppies and kittens. Young animals that survive are sold and often don't show any immediate signs of neglect. Problems come later. There is no "later" for farmed animals. > > > > > Animal agriculture is moral. > > > > > > > > Husbandry pratices which prevent an animal from engaging in instinctual > > > > behaviors are not moral. > > > > > > Not necessarily. > > > > Without exception. > > With many exceptions. Please list these exceptions. (snip) > > > It's simple respect and humility. > > Wrong. Your view is based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism > and your absurdly, childishly sentimental view of animals. > I'll not apologize for emotions in the face of injustice and mistreatment of other beings. In fact, a lack of emotional response to the sad state of most farmed animals is sinister and demonstrates a lack of empathy that is downright dangerous. > > (snip) > > Natural breeding schedules evolved to balance the needs of the species > > with the bodily integrity of females. > > Natural breeding schedules may successfully be tampered with by humans, > and they are, leading to cheaper meat than otherwise would be the case. > Are you implying that the standard of morailty is that which is possible? (snip) |
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
|
Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
|
Chico/Leif cuts and runs...again
On 8/19/2006 6:22 PM, Glorfindel wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote: > >>> The usual drivel of those who don't understand >>> animals > > Still trying to ignore the fact that you and Leif > don't understand animals, and don't know about > animals. False. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter