pearl wrote:

> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

<snip>

>>> I told you back then that I think it is a perversion.

>>Yet you've never categorically condemned it

> condemnation
> 1. an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing
> as wrong or morally culpable
> http://www.answers.com/condemnation&r=67

>>the same way you have eating meat. Why is that,
>>Why do you find it wrong to eat an animal's flesh but permissible
>>to sexually abuse it?

> Because it might not cause harm or distress as meat eating does.

>>>Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question.

>>You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality.

> No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying.

*Intentionally* is the key word. He knows you condemn it; he
just wants to annoy you by pretending he doesn't.

The thing is that few, or no, AR supporters *categorically* condemn
meat *eating*. Most would agree that it is morally permissible
to eat an animal that died naturally of old age or in an accident
(e.g. -- roadkill you did not cause). What AR supporters categorically
condem is the processes involved in producing meat, especially
commercially sold meat. It is the abuse, suffering, hampering of
normal behavior, killing, that AR supporters condemn. It is exactly
the same with the issue of sexual abuse of animals by humans.

Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years, I would gag at the
thought of eating any meat, even roadkill. But I would not want
to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill or use it to feed
carnivores who are being rehabilitated in a wildlife facility.
Similarly, Pearl is revolted by the thought of sexual activity with
a non-human under any circumstances. But to support a *law* or
a *categorical* condemnation would have to depend on showing that
the animal involved was not (for example) one imprinted on humans
for whom mating behavior with a willing human would not be distressing.
What we condemn is harm or distress caused to an animal, or deliberate
warping of an animal's natural behavior through intentional
conditioning for the benefit of humans.

But undoubtedly this concept is too difficult for you to understand --
or you will pretend it is.