|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|
|
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
Derek wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:
>
> <restore>
> >> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
> >> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?
> >>
> >> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,
> <end restore>
>
> >> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
> >> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
> >> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.
> >>
> >> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
> >> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.
> >
> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.
>
> No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an
> animal or bird should never include debasing it
....nor the pet owner himself...
> by availing
> yourself as its sexual partner.
>
> >> >It makes them "better pets"
> >>
> >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
> >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.
> >
> >Well, yeah.
>
> Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
> animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets"
> for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
> animal.
>
> >> <restore>
> >> >> or,
> >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
> >> <end restore>
> >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
> >> >
> >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
> >>
> >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,
> >
> >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
> >sexual arousal.
>
> I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way,
> you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
> yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
> is being sought.
> .
> >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
> >> >
> >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate
> >>
> >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> >> hand.
> >
> >No, it sees Karen as its mate.
>
> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> hand.
>
> >> >and many birds are strictly
> >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
> >>
> >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
> >> a person's hand.
>
> Well?
>
> >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".
> >>
> >> Yes, you can.
> >
> >Not if you care about the health of the bird.
>
> A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
> as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.
>
> >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> >> > causing serious intestinal problems.
> >>
> >> Then give it a soft rubber one.
> >
> >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
> >flexibility.
>
> No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.
>
> >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
> >> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
> >> >
> >> >What a prude!
> >>
> >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
> >> masturbate on I would be a prude?
> >
> >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
> >him some means of sexual release.
>
> Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing
> him and yourself.
>
> >> If he continually tried
> >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
> >> be a prude?
> >
> >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
> >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
> >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
> >advances.
>
> Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he
> continually tried to mount your face, according to your
> perverted standards you would have no option but to
> oblige him.
>
> >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
> >>
> >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
> >> as its sexual partner.
> >
> >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.
>
> She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing
> him and herself.
>
> >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,
> >
> >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
> >shovel has any value?
>
> From the same source which made that accusation;
>
> 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
> a fake you stupid ******s.
> http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o
>
> tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary.
>
> >> because like Karen you're willing to
> >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
> >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.
> >
> >You thick-headed junkie,
>
> That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even
> smoke cigarettes these days.
>
> >neither Karen nor I are interested in making
> >any animals "better pets".
>
> Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you
> dirty little animal-fiddler.
|