"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...
> 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.

He/they have always known that. They just want to use it to
try to discredit me. Of course annoyance for them is a plus.

> 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).

Referring to the meat that lot eat. They're not chewing on roadkill.

> 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.