On 17 Aug 2006 14:41:03 -0700, " > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>
>(snip) >
>> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.
>>
>> No, you have no way of knowing that,
>
>The effects of human imprinting on birds is well established.

Human imprinting or not, debasing yourself and animals
by availing yourself as their sexual partner is wrong.
If such imprinting meant giving animals oral sex you
would no doubt oblige, you dirty little animal-fiddler.

>> and bonding with an animal or bird should never include
>>debasing it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.
>>
>How should a responsible owner of an human-identified bird procure
>sexual release for her avian friend?

Responsible pet owners don't debase themselves or
their animals by becoming their 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.
>
>I don't want there to be _any_ pet birds.

Yes, you do, and to make them "better pets" you want
humans to be involved with them as their sexual partners.

>But, since pet birds already exist, responsible bird caregivers have an
>obligation to meet their charge's needs, _all_ their needs including
>the often inconvenient sexual and possessive ones.

Responsible pet-owners do not make animals their sexual
partners, you perverted animal-fiddler. Hope that helps.