Leif Erikson wrote:

>> chico chupacabra wrote:

Pearl 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,
>> [snip crap Glorfindel is not qualified to know]


Why do you claim I am not qualified to know? And what
scientific evidence can you offer to disprove anything
I wrote? You are engaging in fallacies, not argument
here.

I put forward the material I cited for others, and
to make my own position clear. I don't think
anyone with any background in scientific study of
animal behavior can argue with the examples I gave.

> Prove it.

I don't know that one can prove it, but the scientific
community agrees the evidence is overwhelming that it is
so. There are far too many examples of animals raised
with other species, imprinting on them, and later
engaging in courtship behavior with them, and sometimes
( although rarely with humans )copulation. One could
cite examples such as the lioness raised by Gareth
Patterson, the Siberian tiger cub raised by a dog, who
refused later to mate with other tigers, the goshawks
raised by Robert Berry who refused to mate with other
goshawks, or many other examples. It doesn't
involve just sexual behavior. Birds raised with other
species mimic their song; primates raised with humans
mimic some human behaviors, including sign language
and cuddling a doll (and sometimes engage in courtship
behavior toward humans). Exactly who these animals believe
they are, we can't know. But what we *can* know --
because we can observe it -- is that they will often
demonstrate a desire for a mate relationship with
members of other species, including 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.

> It's bullshit.

Why?

<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

> But if it doesn't require such conditioning, you and
> lesley-the-foot-rubbing-whore are strongly supportive of it.

No. One can condemn it on the grounds that it causes harm either to the
animal or to the human involved, or to both.