Karen Winter lied:
> 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?

Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.


> > Prove it.
>
> I don't know that one can prove it, but the scientific
> community agrees the evidence is overwhelming that it is
> so.

Prove that.


> >> <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?

Because animals don't have "personhood", Karen.


> >>>> 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.

But apparently *not* on the ground that it is immoral and a perversion.
You don't believe in those, Karen - you're too post-modern and hip for
it, aren't you?

Lesley, in any case, endorses it:

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7

That is your position as well.