Karen Winter Blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> KAREN WINTER blabbered:

Karen, my post did *not* say, "Glorfindel wrote". *MY*
post said, "Karen Winter blabbered". Leave it alone, ****.


>
>>> Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?
>
>
>> Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.
>
>
> I have.

You have not, Karen. You studied history, and you
dabbled in some worthless navel-gazing bullshit called
"creative anachronism". You have not studied biology
and zoology - not ever. Stop lying.



>>>> 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.
>
>
> If you'd studied the relevant disciplines in science,

You haven't.


>>>>>>>> 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"
>
>
> That is your opinion,

It is fact.


>>>>>> 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
>>>> Pearl 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.
>
>
> If it causes harm, unless that harm is for the greater benefit
> of the individual harmed (such as the pain of a medical
> procedure to prevent the greater harm of the disease/injury ),
> I believe it is immoral.

Oh, switching from deontology to utilitarianism, are
you? You incompetent dilettante.



>> 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.
>
>
> Well, yes, it is.

Right: an endorsement of bestiality. This is what was
claimed all along, for both you and the foot rubbing
whore of Cork, lesley.