View Single Post
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-07-2006, 02:12 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
pearl[_1_] pearl[_1_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Where's everybody gone?

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