View Single Post
  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
chico chupacabra chico chupacabra is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Question for KAREN WINTER

Karen Winter, sectarian bird diddler, wrote:

> Skanky wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:

>
> >>>>pearl wrote:

>
> >>>You approve of people "diddling" animals

>
> >>No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
> >>artificial insemination.

>
> > There was also no sexual gratification for Glorfindel when she
> > allowed the bird to do its thing. She only said that she thought
> > it was sweet that the bird was getting some enjoyment in its
> > difficult life. Since she did not get sexual gratification, and
> > since the cattle ranchers who, um, 'milk' the sperm from the bulls
> > do not get gratification, they are on the same moral level.
> > Possibly Glorfindel's morals are even better than the ranchers.
> > Her motive was for the bird to be happy, and their motive was to
> > sell the sperm for money and then impregnate the females without
> > regard to letting the animals do it their own way.

>
>
> That is why I feel artificial insemination is wrong at both
> (bad pun ) ends of the process.


But you thought it was "sweet" when you "regularly" jacked off the
fleabag cockatiel.

> The bull does not choose
> to be forced into this process. He may get some gratification,
> but that is not the purpose of the activity. The purpose
> is to *USE* an animal, make the animal a thing, a slave,


Animals aren't slaves. Your ancestors had some, though. And they also
****ed the Indians out of water rights. For all your do-gooder liberal
wastoid sentiments, how have you made amends, Karen? By jacking off
small animals?

> a tool. The person doing it doesn't *care* if the bull enjoys
> it,


Correct, and this is the difference between what they do to bulls and
what YOU do to small animals.

> only that the bull produces. That is wrong.


No, it isn't.

> The same is
> true of the cow: she gets no enjoyment from the insemination


Irrelevant.

> at all. That's why the restraint used is called a "rape rack."
> It is rape for her, and she gets no more moral consideration than
> the bull.


Cows don't deserve more consideration than what animal welfare
laws already afford them.

> She is an economic tool for the farmer.


Correct. So...?

> He gets
> milk (by taking the calf away and turning him into veal
> and her into another milk-machine slave) and eventually sells the
> spent cow for meat.


Because consumers demand milk, veal, beef.

> It is a thoroughly evil system


No, there's nothing evil about it.

> and
> both inhumane and harmful to all the animals involved -- bull,
> cow, and calf.


*playing mock violin... mockingly*

> It is, simply, morally evil and wrong.


No, but you are for diddling that bird. WWJD?