Leif Erikson wrote:
> lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered:

Apologies if this post is a duplicate. My reader did not pick up the
original post.
>
> It isn't, because your post was the usual reactive, highly self
> conscious bucket of bullshit.

You say something, I _react_ with a comment of my own. I realize you
prefer pontification flavored with outbursts of profanity, but typical
conversations are, by nature, reactive. Oddly, for a person so melded
to the norm, you haven't gotten the hang of civil conversation.

Self-consciousness is one of the attributes animal detractors like to
claim separate us from non-human animals. Why shouldn't my thoughts
and feelings spring from
such a source? Whose consciousness exactly should I tap to express
myself?
>
> > 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.

Are you saying that sexual excitation culminating in ejaculation is not
pleasurable and gratifiying for mammalian males? If a bull's ejaculate
was harvested by syringe, I'd agree, but I don't believe that's how
it's done. Any evidence this is standard practice?

> But leave it to lead-pipe-wielding militant feminazi Mary Huber to
> turn this into a "feminist" issue.

Utilization of females of any species as breeding machines is a
feminist issue.

>You stupid ****.

Are vaginas smart or stupid? I've never thought of them as having
anything to do with intelligence, but maybe you know something I don't.
Please provide proof that vaginas have any connection to female
intellect and can rightly be referred to as "stupid" or smart.
>
> > If sexual release for an animal
>
> There's none.

?

(snip)

> > 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.

You're not going to try to pull the needs vs. wants stunt on confined
farm animals, are you?

Farmed animals are slaughtered at an early age before the deleterious
effects of their living conditions manifest. Even so, millions of
animals are condemned preslaughter because of tumors, infections,
wounds and systemic diseases that are the direct result of modern
husbandry practices.

There is nothing "goofy" about recognizing the behavioral needs of
various species. To do otherwise is positively pre-scientific. What's
next? Claiming animals don't experience pain?

> *OUR* wants take precedence.

Strangely, it might be just this attitude that brings some relief to
food animals. New regulations limiting the preventive use of
antibiotics and profit-enhancing, growth-stimulating hormones make
raising tens of thousands of animals indoors very difficult. BSE was
disappointing as a deterrent to meat consumption, maybe antibiotic
tolerant bacteria and the ill effects of animal hormones will do
better.

>That's just how it is, and how it always will be.

Heh. Careful of that burning bush, Ball. It's fire season.

> Learn to live with it,

No.

>and keep your ****ing pie-hole shut about it.

No.
>
> > (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

Can't afford a bedroom door, either? Maybe an equity loan for home
improvements is in order? Or are you already maxed out?

>and their safety.

What dangers lurk in your darkened house? >
>
> > > > > > 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,

Yes, you did with your unqualified "Making money is moral." Making
money is not moral when it causes harm to others, by intention or
negligence.

>you dumb stinking ****.

Oh, now it's dumb and stinky. Do these always go together or can a
**** be smart and stinky or, conversely, dumb and fragrant? What
credentials does a self-employed accounting consultant hold on this
subject?

> What was said was a refutation of your stupid, ****-4-brain
> mushy marxist implied statement that making money is immoral

Where is the implication in my statement reproduced below?>
>
> > > > Making money by
> > > > appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral.

(snip)

> > It's morally reprehensible
>
> No, and you wouldn't even know how to start to show that it is.

Beingness confers certain rights on individuals, not the least of which
is the right of self-possession. To steal another being's selfhood is
to distort the very essence of life.

These matters are beyond the limits of rational proofs.

> It's an irrational

Reason does not make us kind. Reason does not make us generous. Many
of the finest impulses in human nature have absolutely nothing to do
with reason.

> and girlish sentiment,

You think sentiment is weak and infantile. Without sentiment you are
a bad father, a bad husband, a bad son, brother and friend. What a
creep!

> part of your overall
> hyper-sentimental and unsound view of animals.

How is the recognition of intinctual needs in farm animals an "unsound
view of animals"?

>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.

Some capitalists are "badder" than others. Operators of CAFO's are
"badder" than farmers raising animals under the principles of Humane
Farming. Unfortunately, soulless consumers such as yourself, ones who,
though they can afford to shop ethically, opt for the cheapest meat,
guarantee the "badder" capitalists win.

Maybe when your son's respiratory infection can't be cured with
amoxicillin anymore, you'll understand the benefit of allowing farm
animals to lead a healthier existence outside the sheds and feedlots.
>
> Stupid ****.

You're repetitive. It's boring.
>
> > 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.

Most hoarders sell puppies and kittens. Young animals that survive are
sold and often don't show any immediate signs of neglect. Problems
come later. There is no "later" for farmed animals.

> > > > > 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.

Please list these exceptions.

(snip)
>
> > 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.
>
I'll not apologize for emotions in the face of injustice and
mistreatment of other beings. In fact, a lack of emotional response
to the sad state of most farmed animals is sinister and demonstrates a
lack of empathy that is downright dangerous.
> >
(snip)

> > 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.
>
Are you implying that the standard of morailty is that which is
possible?

(snip)