If you're going to tell lies about me, Derek, you might have
the courtesy to do so in a newsgroup where I will read
them, not behind my back.
I don't know what Leif/Jon has on you, but it must be
serious. You are afraid to do anything except lick
his ass any more. Not that you ever were very good at
opposing any anti-AR writers, but you used to try at
least. Now you just attack AR posters and kiss Leif's
feet. Exactly what is he using to hold over your head?
What has he threatened to do if you say anything?
Derek wrote:
<snip>
>>>>>>>What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
>>>>>>Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
Correct. He has never actually presented a good
argument against AR. He does nothing but invent crude
sexual slurs and baseless attacks. You two make a
perfect pair.
<snip>
>>> [Glorfindel to Jon]
>>> "You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
>>> and you quote them when it suits you to use them
>>> against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
>>> to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
>>> pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
>>> defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
>>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl
>>>Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
>>>about rights than ANYONE on this forum,
No, Derek Dimwit. He knows nothing about rights.
He's been here long enough to read what real
pro-AR writers have written about rights, and,
like you, he has learned to parrot authorities
second-hand. He *knows* nothing, because he does
not understand what the arguments he quotes
*mean* either as they were written, or as they
apply to situations in the real world.
>>> and only
>>>a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
>>>advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
>>>manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
>>>back!
Why not learn from real AR supporters, not someone who
twists every argument?
>>He knows the words, but not the song.
Very true.
<snip>
>>>>Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
>>>>whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Glorfindel..
>>>Glorfindel openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
>>>in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;
That is a lie, and you know it, because Feralpower, Pearl,
and I have told you so. Zoophilia, or bestiality, as all
of us informed you, requires a human who gets sexual
pleasure from interactions with non-human animals. That
is the *definition* of zoophilia, you idiot. The antis
at least understand that getting bull ejaculate to sell
is not zoophilia because it is done for profit ( and is
utterly opposed to AR ethics). Feral explained all this
to you, as did I, as did SN and Pearl. You are too
pig-headed and malicious to understand it. I have
*NEVER* promoted zoophilia as a positive good in itself,
and I have *NEVER* participated in "zoophile sexual
activity" with any animal. I have no sexual interest in
non-humans.
>>Glorfindel opposes all conditioning, which rules out zoophilia.
Of course. I oppose conditioning in ALL areas of human
interaction with animals, which is a basic AR position.
<snip>
>>> "I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
>>> my hand."
>>> Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4
>>She believed she was doing the right thing by the bird,
>>- rightly or wrongly.
As Feral noted, when an animal is not neutered, and is
imprinted on humans ( which was a basic wrong done
to the bird by OTHERS ) some form of sexual release
(not involving self-mutilation on hard objects, or
unsafe soft toys ) is necessary for the *ANIMAL'S*
welfare. It has nothing to do with zoophilis. It
has to do with a real AR person's concern for the
welfare of an old animal crippled in both mind and
body by what humans had done to him. You suggested
things which would either have hurt him physically or
hurt him even worse mentally. That's because you don't
know about real animals, and you don't really care
about real animals. And you evidently are too stupid
to learn from those who do.
<snip>
>>>It might just as easily have been a dog and something
>>>more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
>>>into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
>>>readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
>>>NOT take place in an AR-based society.
>>I think she may subscribe to the view that dogs who aren't
>>allowed to mate with their own species should be altered.
As things exist now, yes. Mammals can be made sexually
neuter, which is itself a violation of their basic
nature, but that can be defended on utilitarian grounds in our
current society. BIRDS CAN'T as Feral and I told you.
Surgery on birds, especially small ones, is very serious,
potentially lethal. Medicine for companion birds is now
where medicine for companion mammals was in the early 20th
century. Until non-specialist vets are better trained,
neutering companion birds is too dangerous. We have to live
with intact birds, and deal with the issues of bonding,
aggression, and sexual needs this creates. READ, Derek, you
incompetent idiot. Learn about real animals before trying
to spout off about things you know nothing about.
<snip>
>>> "Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
>>> aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
>>> wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
>>> pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
>>> would take place between free, wild animals and
>>> humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
>>> there."
>>> Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc
How that can be seen as "promoting zoophilia" is beyond
any rational person.
<snip>
>>You are doing the same thing you've been doing since
>>you got here -- misinterpreting the positions of various
>>AR supporters
That's true. He does not understand what he parrots,
any more that Leif does. So he basically misinterprets
what AR supporters who really know AR and really care
about real animals -- the real animals AR is ABOUT --
say.
Derek has a sick, cruel mind and an evil, malicious
heart, which makes him both incompetent and dangerous.
<snip>
>>>Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
>>>claims to be.
We must make some use of utilitarian calculation in the
real world in order to help real animals. If you would
actually READ some real AR writers such as Regan and
Francione, Sapontzis and Rollin, you might ( if you
could understand as well as read them ) see what Rupert
is getting at. Francione in _Rain Without Thunder_ and
_Introduction to Animal Rights_ gives examples of how
real AR people can promotive *incremental* changes
which improve the welfare of animals in the real world
AND fit with AR theory at the same time. "Deontological"
is not the same as "absolutist" as you seem to think.
The idea is to make small changes which agree with AR
theory by not replacing one evil with another, but which
can be presented to the public as welfare issues, as well
as AR issues, and will have a good chance of being passed
as law on welfare grounds. Where Francione objects is that
he believes some "AR" groups have turned this around by
supporting welfare measures as AR, even when they make no
fundamental change.
<snip>
>>>Why don't YOU
>>>challenge him if you can?
She has, and so have I, and both of us have driven
him to a standstill at times. I recently did so
on TPA. You have never done any real good in
trying to oppose Leif, and now you are a part of
his fan-club. You are clearly not an AR supporter,
if you ever were.
<snip>