BORN LIAR Jonathan Ball aka "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> William wrote:
ball wrote:
<..>
> >>>>>> bestiality
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I very much doubt that.
Thank you. For the record...
> >>>>I thought you were open minded?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>You can doubt things while being open-minded about them.
> >>
> >>You're not being honestly open-minded about it.
> >>
> >
> > Yes I am,
>
> No, you aren't.
>
> Her endorsement of it was correctly inferred from her
> failure to state her opposition to it following her
> statement of support for someone (Karen Winter) who
> openly endorses it. lesley was asked repeatedly if she
> wanted to distance herself from Karen on at least that
> one issue, and she refused to do so. That is implicit
> support for it.
From: pearl =
Date: Sat, Feb 28 2004 2:16 pm
Email: "pearl" >
Groups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >><...>
> >>>>"The side" is wall to wall with paedophiles,
> >>>>zoophiles, blackmailers, would-be human vivisectionists
> >>>>and horse traders like yourself
> >>>Ipse dixit.
> >>No, it's substantiated by posts over the last three weeks addressing those
> >>issues. Your silence over Karen's repeated support of bestiality tells us plenty
> >>about you.
> > I don't recall reading that support. I seldom read off-topic posts.
> It wasn't off topic.
If I didn't read it, it was within an off-topic post/thread.
> >>>>who don't give a damn about the issues
> >>>BS.
> >>Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
> >>to engage in sexual relations with humans?
> > They do?
> Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS) is repeatedly
> paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively elicits an
> unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the response.
> Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to coerce behavior
> children and animals would normally not engage.
Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical.
> Bestiality is a paraphilia. Paraphilias are one of the major groups of sexual
> disorders; in DSM-IV, this group includes exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism,
> pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, voyeurism, transvestic fetishism,
> and paraphilias not otherwise specified, which includes necrophilia and
> klismaphilia. The paraphilias (also called perversions or sexual deviations)
> are recurrent, intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies that involve
> nonhuman objects, children or other nonconsenting persons, or the suffering or
> humiliation of oneself or the sexual partner.
> http://www.mentalhealth.com/whgdata/whlstg0.htm
Is repeatedly verbally abusing non-consenting others with overtly sexual
terms and slander, as you and ball do, a form of sexual sadism? - It is.
> >>>>but rather about protecting each others' interests instead.
> >>>Pah. Nonsense.
> >>Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
> >>to engage in sexual relations with humans?
> > I haven't read that.
> http://snipurl.com/4rgt
I added 'conditioned' to the search and found this;
2004-02-18 11:11:30 PST
<...>
R:
> I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the
> animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per
> se_.
u-s
I don't think so, but you're the extremist here.
(me: 1. Why not? 2. Rat just condemned all conditioning, contrary
to your implying that she defended it).
--end insert--
<snip>
To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an animals'
instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....rnum=1&hl=en#5
fc3d2966c9d12e0
<..>
> >>>>>> sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yeah right.
> >>>>
> >>>>She was married to a ****ing British skinhead, you idiot!
Texan SHARP, you idiot.
> >>>>The guy was an ex-convict.
He did a stint in prison. Where you should be.
> He was a skinhead when she hooked up with him. That's *why* she got
> >>>>together with him: she was aroused by it.
False.
> >>>You can't possibly know all that. Soryy, but I don't believe you.
> >>
> >>I do know all of it.
Deluded as ever.
> > Then you should be quiet and stop all your nonsense.
> >
> > cut
>
> Why did you cut, you chickenshit closed-minded ****wit?
>
> <restore>
>
> She went out of town, and he got into her computer and
> started posting, right here in this newsgroup - a lot
> of wild, violence-tinged stuff. He found and began
> posting in some skinhead-oriented groups as well. Here
> is his post: http://tinyurl.com/p6lp8. He was using
> her computer and her pseudonym at that time, "lilweed".
Following an inappropriate comment to a serious accident.
I gave him free rein.
I was never a skinhead. If I were, I would freely say so.
Ball complaining about violent out-of-control skinheads - lol!
> your closed-mindedness.
'There are those who believe that science is not just mistaken
on some interesting theoretical possibilities, but IRREDEEMIBLY
wrong on the most fundamental questions science can ask. But to
whom should we listen in order to sort all of this out? If the critics
are correct, billions of tax dollars have been misdirected and/or
completely wasted chasing chimeras. Your response might be,
"OK but who the heck are you?" The answer is, I'm a layperson
who has followed discovery with a particular interest in the work
of independent researchers who are skeptical of the current scientific
consensus. But the term "skeptic" has been so debased and misused
over the years that some interpret the word to mean an opposition to
anything unconventional (i.e. "skepticism" of the paranormal, UFO's,
conspiracies, etc.). In reality, the word "skeptic," has the precise
OPPOSITE meaning. As defined by the American Heritage
Dictionary, it means "One who instinctively or habitually doubts,
questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted
conclusions."
In science today, the "generally accepted conclusions" are
routinely presented as inarguable "facts". From the Big Bang, to
the evolution of planets, from the nature of comets, to highly
speculative and hidden phenomena such as black holes, dark
matter, and dark energy, the big cosmological picture is
presented with such confidence that media in this country
have almost never questioned it. But the picture may be much
less clear than we have been led to believe.
....'
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/new_cosmology.htm