View Single Post
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2006, 04:19 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
chico chupacabra chico chupacabra is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

Billy Blight indefensibly and stupidly wrote:

He was a lying criminal
Then how can you believe him, and why repeat his lies as being the truth about
Pearl?
This hate campaign against Pearl is over before it starts if the ONLY evidence
supporting it comes from someone you know to be a lying criminal. LOL

cut
She willingly had plenty to do with him, and therefore is most likely
quite comfortable with dishonesty.


No. You only have the word of a lying criminal to go on.


A criminal she willfully married.


A lying criminal you willingly believe.


A violent, vile criminal she willfully married.

That should tell you something of her character. Rather, lack of it.


The same must also apply to you then.


Non sequitur. I don't particularly find either of them credibile,
particularly since they seemed to agree on quite a lot of inane,
childish bullshit, and since both are also hateful authoritarians. Her
husband, though, did write that she'd shaved her head to lure him into
her lair; I suspect he meant that literally (I can't think of a reason
to not believe it), but I also accept that he could've used that as a
figure of speech to describe the process in which she beguiled him into
believing she was something he found agreeable to his worldview and,
accordingly, wanted until he figured out her lies. Either way, whether
she participated in his violent culture by shaving her head or agreed
with him enough to trap him in her nasty web, it's not good on her.

Also, Goo has a list of absurd things
that she believes, and she insists she doesn't believe in some of them
though amusingly she can't say which of them she thinks she doesn't
believe in...even when asked!
I've seen her reject at least two items on that list today. Read her posts.

She didn't reject it outright, dummy. Go back and look. It was qualified in every
clause:
"*IF* it's contrary to an animals' [sic] instinct *AND* requires
conditioning *OR* abuse..."

Why can't she just come right out and categorically say, "It's always wrong to
molest animals"?


She sees artificial insemination as a kind of rape for crying out loud, so I'd say
that she does believe it's always wrong to molest animals.


Another non sequitur. Her objection to artificial insemination is
FARMING itself, not to how animals copulate (including with the human
species) and/or reproduce. She didn't say anything about whether it's
wrong for someone to **** a cow; she objects to a cow being impregnated
without the use of a bull. When pressed on the issue of bestiality, she
wanted to remain "open-minded" and offered only a qualified objection to
it. As such, she tacitly endorsed Karen Winter's deranged, perverted
belief that bestiality is acceptable because it's pro-AR. (Even though
many of us would ask how an animal's rights are protected when it's
being abused like that.)

This is a very strange situation indeed,
The only strange situation going on here is your hate campaign against her and
your
refusal to accept the fact that she rejects at least two of the things you're all
accusing
her of.

She didn't reject it outright, dummy. Go back and look. It was qualified in every
clause:
"*IF* it's contrary to an animals' [sic] instinct *AND* requires
conditioning *OR* abuse..."

Why can't she just come right out and categorically say, "It's always wrong to
molest animals"?


I believe she already has done.


No, she has not. Ever. She objects to farming, she objects mildly to
conditioning; she has NEVER come straight out and said it's
categorically wrong for humans to engage in sex with animals.