lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered:
> > > Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> > > > No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
> > > > artificial insemination.
> > >
> > > There is certainly no sexual gratification for the female.
> >
> > So what? What an inane comment!
>
> I gave you more credit than is due. The point is clear within the
> context of my post.

It isn't, because your post was the usual reactive, highly self
conscious bucket of bullshit.


> The process of artificial insemination, including
> the harvesting of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female

Not important.

> and is gratifying for the male.

No. But leave it to lead-pipe-wielding militant feminazi Mary Huber to
turn this into a "feminist" issue. You stupid ****.

>
> If sexual release for an animal

There's none.


> > Why would anyone care about sexual gratification in livestock?
>
> Indeed, your kind cares nothing about the gratification of any
> instinctual needs for non-human animals.

That's false. Rational humans don't slavishly indulge *every*
irrationally animal-romanticizing "ara's" goofy notions of animals'
instinctual "needs", but their instincts are not ignored. *OUR* wants
take precedence. That's just how it is, and how it always will be.
Learn to live with it, and keep your ****ing pie-hole shut about it.


> (That's why you keep
> nocturnal animals like your cats cruelly confined in carriers
> throughout the night.)

Hahahahaha! You still on about that, you dumb ****? I do it for my
sleep and their safety.


> > > > > as long as people can make money doing it.
> > > >
> > > > Making money is moral.
> > >
> > > "Making money" by any means is not moral.
> >
> > Straw man: no one defended making money by any means conceivable.
>
> You categorically asserted, "Making money is moral."

It is. You feel making money is _ipso facto_ immoral. That's because
you're a stupid marxism-contaminated anti-commerce ****.

No one said making money by "any" means is moral, you dumb stinking
****. What was said was a refutation of your stupid, ****-4-brain
mushy marxist implied statement that making money is immoral.


> > > Making money by
> > > appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral.
> >
> > It most certainly is.
>
> No, it isn't.

Yes, it most certainly is.

> It's morally reprehensible

No, and you wouldn't even know how to start to show that it is. It's
an irrational and girlish sentiment, part of your overall
hyper-sentimental and unsound view of animals.

> it's done all the time in the name of profit.

You stupid **** - wanting to make money is *intrinsically* what profit
seeking is about. But of course, "profit" is just a swear word to you;
it's what those eeeeeeeeeeevil capitalists seek, and you think you have
definitively identified capitalists as The Bad Guys.

Stupid ****.


>
> It's curious that the current thinking on animal hoarders is that they
> are criminals, mentally ill or both. Their animals are seized and they
> are barred from owning animals. Yet, when livestock operators do the
> same thing to animals in their care they are called "good businessmen"
> and are exempted from laws governing the treatment of animals.

That's because animal hoarders neglect their animals' welfare, and
livestock owners don't: it reduces the profits of the latter but does
no harm to the interests of the former.


> > > > Animal agriculture is moral.
> > >
> > > Husbandry pratices which prevent an animal from engaging in instinctual
> > > behaviors are not moral.
> >
> > Not necessarily.
>
> Without exception.

With many exceptions.

> > > 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.
> >
> > Which is not inherently immoral.
> >
> > For the most part, it isn't by restraint; it's by removal.
>
> Worthless semantics.

No, it's much more.


> > > This is profoundly immoral
> >
> > ipse dixit; also based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism.
>
> It's simple respect and humility.

Wrong. Your view is based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism
and your absurdly, childishly sentimental view of animals.


> > > For an extremely limited number of humans,
> >
> > No - for consumers who have greater access to more nutrition at lower
> > cost.
> >
> The only reason meat is cheap is because taxpayers prop up the meat
> industry through grain subsidies, over-generous water allocations, give-away
> leases on public ranges and passes on soil, air, water pollution
> violations.

It is cheaper than it would be than it would be without those subsidies
- subsidies which I have always opposed - but those aren't the only
reasons. It also is cheaper because of artificial breeding leading to
more animals than would be the case if we left breeding to the animals
themselves.


> > It's not as if animals will not breed on their own.
> >
> > They don't breed enough.
>
> Natural breeding schedules evolved to balance the needs of the species
> with the bodily integrity of females.

Natural breeding schedules may successfully be tampered with by humans,
and they are, leading to cheaper meat than otherwise would be the case.


> > There is nothing immoral about humans
> > exercising control over livestock animals' breeding. In fact, that's
> > pretty much the definition of modern livestock.
>
> That's why modern animal agriculture is a moral outrage.

Only in your warped, hyper-emotional, absurdly and childishly
sentimental view. You fundamentally do not understand ethics and
morality.


> > > 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.
> >
> > We are morally justified in promoting our interests by selectively
> > breeding livestock.
>
> No,

Yes.