chico chupacabra wrote:

> chelsea foot-masseuse wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> bestiality

<snip>

>>> 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.

> How friggin' long did it take you to realize animals generally don't go
> around seeking interspecies copulation?

<snip>

It would be nice if we could discuss this *scientific* claim in a calm
and rational manner; shall we try?

Mammals and birds are not born knowing which species they belong to,
or who would be a biologically appropriate mate. They learn through
imprinting and/or socialization after hatching or during a fairly narrow
window of time during the growing-up period. If the young animals are
not raised by/with conspecifics, they often regard members of whichever
species raised them as appropriate mates when they grow up. Anyone
who is familiar with raising orphan animals or wildlife rehabilitation
can tell many stories of non-human animals who were raised by humans and
later tried to court and mate with humans. The earliest example I
remember reading about was the hand-raised jackdaw who tried to court
Konrad Lorenz ( described in _King Solomon's Ring_). This is so common
that people working with wildlife now understand it and deliberately
try to avoid it by disguising themselves as the animal's own species.
In most cases, this interspecies attraction was unintentional and was
not desired by the human, but it certainly is not that uncommon. It's
not surprising that in some few cases among humans, the attraction
would be found on the human's side of the equation as well; we are,
after all, not that different from other mammals.

We see a variety of examples of interspecies copulation which do not
involve humans. In the cases where the two species are close, we
sometimes get hybrid offspring, such as mules, coy- and wolf-dogs,
and lion/tiger crossbreeds. Sometimes these interspecies matings
happen in the wild, without human intervention, as in the case of
wolf/dog or coyote/dog matings. More often, human intervention of
some kind is involved, as in the case of deliberately breeding mules.

Certainly, if humans deliberately condition young animals to want to
mate with humans instead of their own species, for the benefit of
humans, it is unethical by AR standards, but no more unethical
than deliberately conditioning animals to do other unnatural things
for the benefit of humans, such as pulling wagons, allowing humans to
ride them, engaging in silly entertainment shows, or herding sheep
or cattle for humans.

<snip>

>>> I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the
>>> animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per
>>> se_.

This, I think, is true.

<snip>

>> Rat just condemned all conditioning, contrary
>> to your implying that she defended it).

<snip>

> She was suggesting one's position on such
> conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we
> condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.).

*IF* the issue is conditioning in itself. I, myself, do reject
conditioning in general as a violation of animal rights ethics,
and do not think the purpose of the conditioning is the sole
criterion.

<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.

I agree

<snip>