Leif Erikson wrote:
> Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts
> as <bleagh> 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> >
> >> pearl wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.
> >
> >
> >> I approve of agriculture;
> >
> >
> > You approve of people "diddling" animals
>
> No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
> artificial insemination.

There is certainly no sexual gratification for the female. I'm sure
you and wifey-poo know all about lack of female sexual gratification.
>
> > as long as people can make money doing it.
>
> Making money is moral.

"Making money" by any means is not moral. Making money by
appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral.

> Animal agriculture is moral.

Husbandry pratices which prevent an animal from engaging in instinctual
behaviors are not moral. Chickens can't scratch, ducks can't preen,
mink can't swim, pigs can't build nests, cows can't nurse their young
and on and on. Thousands of years of domestication have not destroyed
these animals instincts, so we must prevent them by restraint. This is
profoundly immoral and the surge of consumers seeking humanely farmed
animal products is testament to the fact that a growing number of
humans recognize it as such.

You're lagging behind again, Ball. But then, that's the story of your
life, no?

> Artificial insemination of livestock animals is not
> "diddling" them, and has no sexual gratification
> dimension to it.

A bull's sperm cannot be harvested without sexual release. Ejaculation
IS sexual gratification, Bum****. Are you going to pretend you are not
"gratified" when you jerk-off into a scented Puff?.

>You know this - you are choosing to
> misrepresent the facts.

Back atcha.

>Deliberate misrepresentation
> is unethical.

Who knows this better than you?>
>
> > You have no moral
> > objection to what you are calling "bestiality".
>
> Yes, he does.

The act of forcible sexual manipulation of animals is the same whether
the pleasure experienced by the human participant is borne of profit or
sex.

> > This is because you have no concern for the animals
> > themselves.
>
> The concern is for humans.

For an extremely limited number of humans, those that make their living
by raising and killing animals.

It's not as if animals will not breed on their own. What they won't do
is birth offspring in rapid succession. What they won't do is select
mates according to characteristics more uselful to man than to the
species.
>
> >> I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals
> >
> > Which does not include me.
>
> It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.

Are you blaming the cockatiel for initiating the activity?