Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel wrote: >> That explains it. Complete depravity, >> sola scriptura and all that. > Yes, all that stuff that offends you. It doesn't particularly *offend* me, but the catholic church does not accept it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > James doesn't say faith plus works equals > justification or salvation or even sanctification, but rather that true > faith will bear fruits of good works. Glorfindel wrote: Which is exactly what I said. Several times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I think we may be arguing a classic Catholic/Protestant difference >> of emphasis here. > I think it's much more than a difference of emphasis -- you're > misinterpreting the scripture (Matthew 25) to suggest that your AR > activities are "unto the least of these." They are. > Worse, you further suggest > that the passage relates to OUR works rather than Christ's It does, as far as anyone I've ever heard preach on it in my denomination has said. I've never heard your interpretation before. > and further > (say that) sending money to an "animal rescue" group > rather than giving a chicken to a needy person is ministering to Christ. It is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I certainly would disagree that Christ did not instruct us to practice >> a certain *degree* of asceticism. > Examples. For one thing, He said we should sell everything we have and give the money to the poor. We are supposed to control our impulses, and act according to His teachings on morality, justice, charity, temperance. We are supposed to fast. >> It can become extreme, but different >> periods have had different ideas of what constitutes "extreme." Much >> of what you recommend is seen as extreme by many people in our modern >> culture. > Such as...? I don't recall recommending any form of ascetic practice. From your earlier posts, I gather you are anti-choice on abortion and against committed *** relationships. That is seen as an extreme position by many people today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> At a *temporal* level. That, though, is NOT the issue at hand in >>> Matthew 25. >> Yes, it is. Feeding and clothing are quite temporal and material. > Spoken by symbols, metaphors: sheep, goats, etc. I can't see it referring to anything except concrete, material feeding and clothing of those in need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> His point is that if one is to *be* saved, one >> will have done temporal acts of charity before judgment. > Wrong. His point is about the absolute perfection demanded by the law: > fail in ONE point of the law (failed to do unto the least of these), you > fail the WHOLE law. Not the way I see it. That's the fire-and-brimstone Calvinist in you coming out. Christ frequently said that the old Law should be secondary to the needs of mercy and charity (as in the example of the ox and the pit, healing on the Sabbath, and so on.) The early Church expanded on that by allowing gentile converts to avoid circumcision, eat foods not allowed under Jewish ritual, and so on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It's not tortured. It's not a novel interpretation. It's both as far as catholic doctrine is concerned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > From John Calvin's Commentaries: Of no interest to me. Have any commentary on the subject from Hooker? >>>>>>>>>>>> >> but I have never heard >> any priest suggest such a reading, > Too bad, but that's the price you've paid for preacher-shopping You preacher-shop as well, if by that you mean you attend a parish which you believe preaches correct doctrine. If you discovered that a parish you were attending was Roman Catholic, or had a liberal, social-activist, *** priest as rector, I assume you would leave to worship elsewhere. I.e. -- you would preacher-shop to find a parish *you* agree with. I doubt you would conclude that God had sent you there because the liberal, social-activist, *** priest was preaching something God thought you ought to hear and learn from. He just might be, you know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>..... >>> NOTE: *Brethren*, not animals. >> Misplaced comma: "the least of these, my Brethren." He's addressing >> His brethren, not excluding others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You're wrong. O.K. -- I'm wrong on that point. I'll go with St. Francis in calling animals brothers and sisters, and then, I'm right again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> The goats, too, had works. >> The Bible does not say that; >> that is entirely your opinion. > No, that's what the text conveys. No, I still don't see that in the text. >>> God gave animals for our benefit and welfare; >> That I find blasphemous. > Take it up with the LORD: I already have. I still find it blasphemous to suggest that God made creation for *our* benefit. God made Creation, including the animals, for Himself, and it is His. It's purpose is to glorify Him, not serve humans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Christ's disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen -- commercial > fishermen. Christ went out to fish with them. He told them where and > when to find fish. He fed fish to others. He ate fish himself. Why would > he do that if he were an ARA? I didn't say He was. He wasn't an anti-slavery abolitionist either, but Christians today generally accept that holding other people in slavery is not appropriate for Christians. Christians do not need to be fossilized in first-century culture like the mosquito in _Jurassic Park_ amber. When you try to reanimate the extinct past, you get mutant monsters. We need to listen to what the Holy Spirit is telling us *today*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not > judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat; And you know that referred to ritual practices, not vegetarianism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. There is, because it is an advance in the cause of mercy, charity, and self-giving which Christ gave us as an example to follow. I don't expect a Calvinist to see that, however. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> We share inherent worth and a basic right to life >>> Right to life -- including for human fetuses, or just chicken fetuses? >> Neither human nor chicken fetuses until either is conscious and >> self-aware. > Determined by science or by pro-abortion zealots? Real science, if and when it can. ( I don't think there are any "pro-abortion zealots" ) >> It is not sinful to eat an egg; it is sinful to kill >> a chicken for food without grave need, > Hunger is a grave need. But the motive for those who buy chicken or raise them for food today is not hunger. It is one of the seven deadly sins: gluttony. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Dave wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote: >>Why did you not address the issue of primates teaching each other >>sign language and conversing with each other in it? >>There's also many examples of parrots using human words to communicate >>their own ideas to humans. I can look up links to at least two I am >>thinking of right now, but I assume you will dismiss any evidence I >>present on animal thought. > I would be interested to see them. I'll see what I can find and get back to you. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Dave wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>There's also many examples of parrots using human words to communicate >>their own ideas to humans. I can look up links to at least two I am >>thinking of right now, but I assume you will dismiss any evidence I >>present on animal thought. > I would be interested to see them. Google "animal cognition and parrot" and a whole group of items come up, including several entire books. One page on exactly what Alex has learned to do and how is at http://www.org/~rporter/PA (I hope) |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > >>>>>>There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. > >>>>> > >>>>>Genesis > >>>>>1:29 And Elohim said, Behold, I have given you every > >>>>>herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, > >>>>>and every tree, which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; > >>>>>to you it shall be for meat. > > > > Yes. > > No: Yes. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > >>>><...> > >>>> > >>>>>Ouseley's name at the bottom). Here is part of what > >>>>>this Preface says: ' > >>>>> > >>>>>How can we know who this prefaced twentieth edition > >>>>>was published by? > >>>> > >>>>Irrelevant. > >>> > >>>Absolutely relevant. > >> > >>No, entirely irrelevant. > > > > You're -a joke-. > > You're dodging. You're dodging. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > It appears that the Bible, both OT and NT, have been corrupted. > > Not nearly to the extent you've been corrupted. Projection. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > >> Karen Winter wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> It's difficult to discuss animal cognition > >> It's an issue which continues to be debated among researchers: > > And some people still claim the earth is flat. I'm not one of them. The fact remains that you choose to *believe* in something, and even lie that it's *established*, despite controversy and bitter disagreement between experts in the relevant fields. > Why did you not address the issue of primates teaching each other > sign language and conversing with each other in it? I did when I posted the bit about Nim Chimpsky, but you, naturally, chose to snip it. So here's more about the issue than you ever wanted to address: Efforts... focused on teaching non-human primates to communicate using sign language. In 1966, Allen and Beatrice Gardner began teaching American Sign Language (ASL) to an infant chimpanzee named Washoe. The Gardner's claimed that Washoe acquired 132 sign words within a period of 51 months. Her development of language was compared to that of a human child. Several other chimpanzees were introduced to the project; soon they were reported to be signing to humans and to each other. Washoe and the other chimpanzees even taught her adopted infant Loulis to sign without the intervention of humans although the validity of this claim is also disputed. In later projects, chimpanzees were taught to communicate using plastic symbols and computer-controlled-keyboards. The chimpanzee Sarah was said to recognize nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, and quantifiers; she was also taught same-difference, negation, and compound sentences. Herbert Terrace's work with the chimpanzee, Nim Chimpsky, cast doubts on the capacity of apes to "acquire" ASL. Although Nim learned some words, Terrace, who had become increasingly skeptical concerning the linguistic abilities of his subject, concluded that Nim, incapable of understanding what he was signing, was merely imitating his trainer. In 1972, Francine Patterson started work with the infant gorilla, Koko, who "acquired" 250 signs during the first 52 months of training and has become the most famous example of "interspecies" communication. In 1998, 13,000 people "questioned" Koko during an online session. Earlier this year, she was taken on a "virtual" tour of Stanford University using videoconferencing technology. Assessing ten years of work with Koko, Patterson and her partner, Ronald Cohn, reported that 876 of her signs qualified according to emitted criteria of spontaneous or appropriate use on one or more occasion. BUT CAN WE ACCEPT THAT KOKO, WASHOE AND CO. COMPREHEND THE MEANINGS OF THE SIGNS THEY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT? OR ARE THEY MERELY "APING" GESTURES TAUGHT THEM IN A PAVLOVIAN REACTION TO STIMULI SUCH AS FOOD? RESEARCHERS LIKE FRANCINE PATTERSON CLAIM EVIDENCE FOR THE INNOVATIVE USE OF LANGUAGE BY APES LIKE KOKO INCLUDING NON-INSTRUMENTAL (NOT PROMPTED BY A REWARD), AND SELF-DIRECTED SIGNING. KOKO'S VOCABULARY IS SAID TO INCLUDE WORDS OF HER OWN INVENTION SUCH AS "BODY-HAIR" AND "THERMOMETER". CLAIMS LIKE THESE ARE DISMISSED BY WRITERS LIKE JOEL WALLMAN WHO ARGUE THAT NOT ONE "OF THE APE-LANGUAGE PROJECTS SUCCEEDED IN INSTILLING EVEN A DEGENERATE VERSION OF A HUMAN LANGUAGE IN AN APE." MUCH OF THIS THORNY DEBATE CENTERS ON THE DEFINITION OF "LANGUAGE" ITSELF. What constitutes language is open to various interpretations but using just two criteria: performance (through the production and comprehension of speech); and competence, (in the form of abstract linguistic knowledge), IT SEEMS THAT NON-HUMAN PRIMATES ARE CAPABLE OF IMITATING "SPEECH" AFTER A FASHION. Of course, this conclusion is fiercely disputed and there are other definitions of language apart from the one used here. PART OF THE CONTROVERSY OVER APE LANGUAGE PROJECTS ARISES FROM THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE TAUGHT TO THE SUBJECTS. AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE IS AS RICH AND AS COMPLEX AS A SPOKEN LANGUAGE AND MANY LINGUISTS CLAIM THAT EVERY CRUDE GESTURE EMPLOYED BY AN APE CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS "LANGUAGE." The sole *native* [I think this is highly relevant] signer on the Washoe Project reported: "Every time the chimp made a sign, we were supposed to write it down in the log. ... They were always complaining because my log didn't show enough signs. "All the *hearing* people turned in logs with long lists of signs. They always saw more signs than I did. ... "The hearing people were logging every movement the chimp made as a sign. Every time the chimp put his finger in his mouth, they'd say 'Oh, he's making the sign for DRINK,' ... When the chimp scratched himself, they'd record it as the sign for SCRATCH.... When [the chimps] want something, they reach. "Sometimes [the trainers] would say, 'Oh, amazing, look at that, it's exactly like the ASL sign for GIVE!' It wasn't." [quoted in Steven Pinker The Language Instinct p. 337-8.] ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE APES' USE OF "LANGUAGE" IS THAT IT LACKS GRAMMAR, NOT AS IN SYNTACTICAL RULES, BUT IN THE WAY THAT CHILDREN ARE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT MEANINGFUL SENTENCES AND TO DECODE THE MEANING OF SENTENCES OTHERS MAKE, SOMETHING EVERY HUMAN CHILD LEARNS WITHOUT ANY DIRECT INSTRUCTION. SOME DETRACTORS OF THE APE LANGUAGE PROJECTS POINT OUT THAT THE SUBJECTS ARE PRONE TO MERELY REPEATING A SENTENCE OR PART OF A SENTENCE THE TRAINER HAD JUST SIGNED. MANY OF THE SIGNS ARE ONES THAT ARE FAMILIAR TO THE APE AND ARE USED REPETITIVELY TO CONVEY SIMPLE DESIRES (FOOD, CHASE, FRIEND) RATHER THAN THE COMPLEX THOUGHT PROCESSES OF A HUMAN CHILD'S MIND. http://www.languagemagazine.com/inte.../mj99/p12.html I found the transcript for Koko's "interspecies webchat" from 1998. What strikes me most about it is how much interpretation is required, and the subjective nature of it, on the part of Patterson. A few examples: PENNY: We're going to be on the phone with a lot of people who are going to ask us questions... KOKO: Nipple. (Koko sometimes uses 'nipple' as a 'sounds like' for 'people.') PENNY: ...about you and about me. . . Lots of people. "Nipple" has nothing whatsoever to do with "people," unless she was calling Patterson a tit -- a point with which I may agree if Patterson's interpretation of "nipple" is "people." Don't tell me it's like when a young child misspeaks or through poor vocalization slurs a L into a W sound. Sign language doesn't exactly allow for physical "slurring" in the sense that a "widdle" kid might vocally. The "communication" got pretty weird at times: PENNY: Questions about colors or how you're feeling. OK? KOKO: That red. (Indicating her own hair.) PENNY: Honey, this is black. KOKO: XXX XXX. (XXX looks like 'sun'.) Koko is trying to sign 'black.' Penny touch prompts 'black'. KOKO: Black. There hurry. (Indicating Penny's pocket.) K has one ape doll kiss the other. KOKO: Kisses.* KOKO: Lips lipstick. PENNY: Yes, 'lips lipstick,' right. KOKO: Lips fake candy give-me. (Then Koko reaches for Penny's pocket.) I'm unconvinced from the following exchange that Koko had any concept at all about the chat: KOKO: Bad hear (left hand on lt. ear) hear.(left hand on rt. ear) Hurry. (Koko reaches for Penny's hand.) AOL: Is Koko aware that she's chatting with thousands of people now? PENNY: I just explained it to her so she has some idea. KOKO: Hear. (Koko reaches for Penny's treat pocket.) PENNY: You want to hear? . . . OK. Koko is ready. AOL: Welcome, Dr. Patterson and Koko, we're so happy you're here! PENNY: They said 'Welcome.' . . . That was me actually. I'm translating for her. . . . I gave Koko an explanation of what we're doing and she said 'Good hear.' Koko pulls Penny close and kisses her cheek. KOKO: Pink this. (Grasping Penny's shirt sleeve.) PENNY: She's just signed 'pink' and she's looking . . . KOKO: Pink this pink. (Indicating Penny's shirt sleeve.) "Some idea" my ass. Koko wanted a treat and was signing color names in hopes of getting one. I would also bet that Patterson taught her to kiss by conditioning her with treats -- hence all the heavy petting. Then we get to the questions. Tell me how responsive you find this gorilla: AOL: MInyKitty asks Koko are you going to have a baby in the future? PENNY: OK, is that for Koko? Koko are you going to have a baby in the future? KOKO: Koko-love eat ... sip. So the question is asked again, and this time Patterson again interprets: PENNY: What about a baby? You going to have baby? She's just thinking...her hands are together... KOKO: Unattention. PENNY: Oh poor sweetheart. She said 'unattention.' She covered her face with her hands..which means it's not happening, basically, or it hasn't happened yet. . . I don't see it. How does Patterson know "unattention" refers to not mating or to Patterson paying more attention to the phone and computer than to Koko? And in the following exchange, how does Patterson know Koko is happy or responding to *English*? KOKO: Listen. PENNY: Koko just signed 'listen' and she wants to hear the phone so I'm going to hold it to her for a second. Did you hear them? (to Koko.) KOKO: Huff.* PENNY: She just made a vocalization. Did you hear that? That was her talking on the phone. AOL: Hi Koko! I can hear her! She breathed at me! This is so cool! PENNY: I'm working to create a family here in Woodside which would mean that we would need to add an additional female at a minimum. So I've been working with the zoo community to do that. And in Hawaii, we'll have much more space which means we will be in a much better situation to welcome additional gorillas to our family and then she's almost assured to have a family of her own. KOKO: Purr.* AOL: So she really is looking forward to this! PENNY: That's a happy sound when I said 'a family of her own'...Yes, she seems to be responding to my English. Another round of non-responsive answers followed: AOL: SBM87: ask What are the names of your kittens? (and dogs?) KOKO: Candy give-me. PENNY: OK. Penny gives treat. KOKO: See give-me. (Indicating the phone?) PENNY: What's the name of your kitty ? Kitty's name and dog's name? K picks up the foot of the large stuffed gorilla doll she is sitting on. KOKO: Foot... (Many times, first on the doll's foot then on her own foot.)... Foot. (Twice on the doll's foot.) PENNY: 'Foot' isn't the name of your kitty. KOKO: Hear lip. PENNY: She wants to hear the lady on the phone. Maybe you can ask her that question. Penny puts the phone to K's ear. AOL: Koko, what's the name of your cat? KOKO: Huff* no. (Headshake.) Contrary to the claim above that Koko was so excited to chat, she turned away, demanded more treats, and required more interpretation: AOL: Question: Do you like to chat with other people? PENNY: Koko, do you like to talk to people? KOKO: Fine nipple. PENNY: Yes, that was her answer. 'Nipple' rhymes with 'people,' OK? She doesn't sign people per se, so she may be trying to do a 'sounds like...' but she indicated it was 'fine.' K climbs up on lg. box & PP asks her to turn around. KOKO: Give-me. (For more treats.) Not only does "nipple" mean "people," but apparently "lip" means "woman" and "foot" means "man." AOL: Are there any birds out there now? PENNY: She's looking out the window and one just flew by. She [expresses herself] with actions and this is very characteristic of young children. Actually, the newer ways of studying very young children is to look at very subtle behaviors. She's looking out the window... KOKO: Lips. PENNY:... and signing 'lips', which is her word for 'woman'. I can't see what she's seeing completely. I'm at an angle with the window and can't leave where I am. Then Koko pretty much shut down: AOL: JAM6860 asks, You like your trainer a lot don't you? I think she means you, Dr. P! PENNY: Do we want to ask that (laughing)? This is asking for it (laughing). Koko, do you like Penny? Do you like me? No comment. Hey Koko, at least you can give me a bad review. Do you like me? Penny? She's thinking about it (laughing)? Maybe not with all these questions. You like me normally. KOKO: (No response) AOL: Question: Hi Koko, you are a beautiful gorilla. Was it hard to learn sign language? OceanFish asked that one! I agree -- she's the most beautiful gorilla I know! PENNY: Somebody says you are a beautiful gorilla. Was it hard or easy to learn sign? Was it hard or was it easy? Easy or hard... KOKO: (No response.) PENNY: She's not really - neither here nor there. She's not answering. AOL: ReBeL1999 asks, do you dream at night? Wouldn't it be amazing to know what a gorilla dreams! PENNY: I think I may have asked her his once. Do you dream at night when you sleep? Do you dream? I asked her this once and I had to explain it . I asked her if she - what senses that might be used - did she hear things smell things, see things. So I needed to explain what a dream was and I don't remember. I could ask her again. Koko, when you dream, do you hear things, smell things, see things? Do you dream? KOKO: (No response.) PENNY: Are those too hard? Let's go for an easy question. AOL: What do you like to do best, for fun, asks TrukkasW? PENNY: What do you like to do best for fun?... How do you have fun?...What's the most fun thing to do?...Do you have something that's fun to do?...Can you show me, maybe, what you like to do?...Do you like to tickle or chase or you like watch TV? What you play?...What do you do?...What's your favorite game? KOKO: (No response.) The rest of the chat was uninteresting, with more "give candy" and "nipple" remarks. I saw nothing in this that demonstrated much more than standard conditioning, especially considering how many times in the session Koko wanted treats. Much of her behavior was consistent with doing the kinds of things which have probably been rewarded with treats before -- kisses, playing with toys, doing certain tasks -- and done in anticipation of treats. http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html The following article from a Smithsonian Zoo publication favorably addresses some of the primate communication stuff, which I've addressed above with the article from Language magazine. I think it's of further relevance to our discussion because it quotes Pepperberg as saying that Alex is NOT using language. ...As with humans, animals use more than just vocal signals to convey information or emotion. Animals may use body movement, odor, posture, change in color, facial expression, or other gestures to communicate anger, warning, fear, uncertainty, subservience, willingness to mate, and other messages. Does this alone suggest language use? EUGENE MORTON, AN EXPERT ON BIRDS, AND NATIONAL ZOO BIOLOGIST, SAYS NO. "THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND AND COMPREHEND WHAT THEY'RE SIGNALLING," ARGUES MORTON. HE CRITICIZES CERTAIN SCIENTISTS' PREOCCUPATION WITH THE CONTENT OF ANIMAL COMMUNICATION ("THE INFORMATION IMPEDIMENT," HE LABELS IT). INSTEAD, MORTON ASSERTS, ANIMALS ARE SIMPLY DEMONSTRATING MOTIVATION THROUGH THEIR SIGNALS. "[RESEARCHERS] HAVE GONE OVERBOARD IN THEIR INTERPRETATIONS," says Morton. In his book, Animal Talk, co-written by Jake Page, Morton urges "an understanding of animal communication as what it seems to accomplish, not what it symbolizes.'" Morton emphasizes that the use of such communication is innate to animals; they react to stimuli in "pre-programmed" ways, without real thought. Following this argument, WHILE ANIMALS MAY BE AWARE OF THE ENDS THEY SEEK VIA SIGNALLING, THEY MAY NOT BE CONSCIOUS OF THE SYMBOLIC NATURE OF THE MEANS THEY USE TO REACH THOSE ENDS. However, many animals, from birds to apes, may have a thing or two to say about that. Although genetic programming can explain much of animal communication, certain species have shown a remarkable ability to use languages novel to them, EITHER THROUGH TRAINING OR SIMPLY THROUGH IMITATION. Parrots, mynahs, and other birds can reproduce literally hundreds of human words. Yet most show no understanding of the words they copy. Some animals, though, seem to have demonstrated a more profound comprehension of human language. Irene Pepperberg of the University of Arizona has worked with an African grey parrot named Alex. Alex apparently is able to "request, refuse, identify, categorize, or quantify" more than 50 items, and label them according to color, shape, and material. He also has learned concepts of sameness and difference. Shown a red triangle and a blue triangle, Alex will say they are same in shape and different in color. Alex uses some syntax, always saying "green wood" not "wood green" for example. HOWEVER, PEPPERBERG ADDS, "UNTIL ALEX GIVES TALKS FOR ME, IT'S NOT REALLY LANGUAGE...." Ronald Schusterman, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, has worked with a female sea lion named Rocky. As with Louis Herman's tests on the dolphins, Schusterman and fellow UC-Santa Cruz biologist Robert Gisiner taught Rocky a language-like system of signals, and then tested how she responded to unfamiliar combinations. Rocky too could respond to syntactic structures properly after grammar training. The authors emphasize the importance of reinforcement in Rocky's coming to understand the structure of the commands given. ROCKY'S "LANGUAGE" ABILITY, IN THEIR OPINION, COMES FROM THE "GENERAL LEARNING ABILITIES" OF ANIMALS RATHER THAN ANY INNATE LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION.... [C]OMPLEX COMMUNICATION DOES NOT A LANGUAGE MAKE. BIOLOGISTS, PSYCHOLOGISTS, AND LINGUISTS ALIKE EMPHASIZE THAT LANGUAGE REQUIRES RULES THAT GUIDE HOW SIGNALS ARE COMBINED TO RELAY MEANING. Donald R. Griffin, one of the founders of the study of animal cognition, and the author of the book Animal Minds, writes that "rule-governed combinations of words convey a much wider array of meanings than would otherwise be possible if each word were entirely independent, and its relationship to the other words did not convey any additional meaning." Few studies of animal communication in the wild have attempted, and even fewer have succeeded, in showing such a rule-bound system in operation among animal societies. SHORT OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH STRUCTURED ARRAYS OF COMMUNICATIVE SIGNALS, WE CANNOT COMFORTABLY SAY THAT A GIVEN SPECIES OF ANIMAL USES "LANGUAGE." http://tinyurl.com/cle3r > There's also many examples of parrots using human words to communicate > their own ideas to humans. I can look up links to at least two I am > thinking of right now, Please do. > but I assume you will dismiss any evidence I > present on animal thought. Unlike you, my mind is open -- but at the same time I'd like to see something more convincing than "nipple" and "candy give-me." > There was the case of the parrot who > gave evidence in a murder trial as the only eye-witness, No. I found a purported NYT article from ~1993 in a usenet posting (http://tinyurl.com/acaev): A defense lawyer in a Northern California murder case says he believes Max the Parrot may be more than just an ordinary bird -- that Max may, indeed, hold the answer to who smothered Jane Gill to death in her bedroom two years ago. Max, the lawyer says, may be a witness. But the jurors in the trial in Santa Rosa, 55 miles north of San Francisco, will not hear from Max. An attempt to get the African gray parrot's testimony -- rather, testimony about the bird's testimony -- into evidence this week was blocked by the judge. Max was found dehydrated and hungry in its cage when the body of Ms. Gill, 36, was discovered two days after her death in November 1991. After Max was coaxed back to health at a pet shop, the shop's owner said the bird began to cry out, "Richard, no, no, no!" The man charged in the case is Ms. GIll's husband, and his name is not Richard. He is Gary Joseph Rasp, and he says he is innocent. Mr. Rasp's lawyer, Charles Ogulnik, brought up the parrot in court when he was questioning the defense's private investigator, Gary Dixon. "Why did I ask you to follow up on the bird?" Mr. Ogulnik asked. Mr. Dixon began, "The bird was making some spontaneous statements to its keeper -- " An emphatic objection by the Somoma County deputy district attorney, Phil Abrams, was sustained by Judge Raymond Giordano of Superior Court. Mr. Ogulnik said in a telephone interview that he wanted to introduce evidence about the bird, not put Max on the witness stand. No one will disclose where Max is now, but there are plenty of stories around the courthouse. Mr. Dixon, the private investigator, deadpanned that the bird was in a witness protection program. "Max's identity has been changed and he is now a macaw," he said. > and there > was the case of the parrot who asked where his owner was after the > owner died. Just another anecdote. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
> Dave wrote: > >> Karen Winter wrote: > > >>> Why did you not address the issue of primates teaching each other >>> sign language and conversing with each other in it? > > >>> There's also many examples of parrots using human words to communicate >>> their own ideas to humans. I can look up links to at least two I am >>> thinking of right now, but I assume you will dismiss any evidence I >>> present on animal thought. > > >> I would be interested to see them. > > > I'll see what I can find and get back to you. That's Winterspeak for "don't hold your breath, Dave." |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter admitted she was wrong:
>>>> NOTE: *Brethren*, not animals. > >>> Misplaced comma: "the least of these, my Brethren." He's addressing >>> His brethren, not excluding others. RESTORE Ipse dixit, and *WRONG*. Transliterated Greek: kai apokriqeiV o basileuV erei autoiV amhn legw umin ef oson epoihsate eni toutwn twn adelfwn mou twn elacistwn emoi epoihsate "Elachistos touton mou" means the least of my brothers." Vulgate: et respondens rex dicet illis amen dico vobis quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis mihi fecistis "Fratribus meis minimis" means "the least among my brothers," not a term of address. None of the English translations I've encountered treat it as a term of address as you allege. Douay-Reims: And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me. RSV: And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Young's Literal: `And the king answering, shall say to them, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] to one of these my brethren -- the least -- to me ye did [it]. NKJV: And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' NASB: "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.' NIV: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' You're wrong, Karen. END RESTORE > O.K. -- I'm wrong on that point. And all the others. > I'll go with St. Francis in calling animals brothers and sisters He was wrong about that, and his friars abused that same passage in the same manner you do. Why don't you instead follow *Christ*? Jesus helped COMMERCIAL fishermen: When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch." Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets." When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken... Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account) He fed fish to hungry followers: Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way." His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?" "How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked. "Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish." He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. -- Mathew 15:32-37 He ate fish himself: When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. -- Luke 24:40-43 Christ's disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen -- *commercial* fishermen. Christ went out to fish with them. He told them where and when to find fish. He fed fish to others. He ate fish himself. Why would he do that if he were an ARA? Jesus also engaged in commerce with livestock producers: On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. -- Mark 14:12-16 Did Jesus forbid the killing and eating the lamb? No, he and his disciples partook in the custom of *killing* and *eating* a lamb on Pesach. Jesus also commanded animal sacrifices: A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If you are willing, you can make me clean." Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them." Mark 1:40-44 Mary and Joseph likewise offered animal sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus. Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the animal rights or "vegan" position. He did things in stark contradiction to AR and vegan principles. Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean, but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). Matthew wrote that Jesus offended the Pharisees when he said that; it still offends people like you who think people are ethical, virtuous, etc., on the basis of following rules like "don't eat animals" and "don't wear animal hides." Worse, you follow those who make new commands and demand others not do things which are *permitted* scripturally. St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat; he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to abstain from certain foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils. Yet you judge people according to what they eat and demand others abstain from certain foods to be more ethical, holy, etc., when the scriptures make it clear that those things don't make people ethical or holy. There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. Vegetarianism -- particularly the AR/vegan zealotry kind you seek to infect the world through your demented proselytization -- is entirely at odds with the Bible. So is AR, which is a modern philosophy based on pagan principles which has nothing in common with the Bible or Judeo-Christian culture. >> There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. > > There is, There is not one. See above. The Bible itself (1 Tim 4) refers to restrictions in diet -- including meat -- for spiritual reasons as "a doctrine of devils." >>> It is not sinful to eat an egg; it is sinful to kill >>> a chicken for food without grave need, > >> Hunger is a grave need. > > But the motive for those who buy chicken or raise them for > food today is not hunger. Food is for hunger. Chickens are food. Chickens cure hunger. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel admitted she was wrong: Yes, Usual -- I am willing to do that when I am convinced I *am* wrong on a particular point. That's being honest and listening to other posters. Why do you react as if it is a weakness? Why do you dishonestly suggest it means I am wrong, or admit I am wrong, on any other point of the discussion? This isn't, or shouldn't be, a form of warfare in which posters refuse to concede an inch and hold their battleline down to the last casualty. It should be an exchange of information and opinions. Have you never admitted you were wrong on a point? Or are you only afraid to do it on Usenet because you know the other posters will rip you apart if you do? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> NOTE: *Brethren*, not animals. >>>>>>>>>> >> I'll go with St. Francis in calling animals brothers and sisters > He was wrong about that, and his friars abused that same passage in the > same manner you do. Why don't you instead follow *Christ*? St. Francis followed Christ, and I see him also as a role model of Christian behavior. I wish I could be more like him. I gather you don't have any interest in the saints as examples for us. I do. I am, after all, a Catholic, not a Calvinist. St. Francis is my favorite saint, for many reasons, but especially for his humility, voluntary poverty, and ideas about the natural world and animals. He is, as I'm sure you know, the patron saint of animals and of the environment. He preached *to* the animals, he brought peace between the townspeople and a wolf threatening their flocks, echoing the idea of the lion lying down with the lamb through the stewardship of godly humans, and he chastised the church hierarchy for its riches and its indifference to the poor and oppressed. He was an early example of the ecology-minded, pro-animal, social- activist Catholic Christian. There are Franciscan religious in both the Roman and the Anglican denomination today. Apropos of the season, he is also credited with creating the first Christmas creche, AFAIK. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
>>> Glorfindel wrote: >>>> It's difficult to discuss animal cognition >>> It's an issue which continues to be debated among researchers: >> And some people still claim the earth is flat. > I'm not one of them. The fact remains that you choose to *believe* in > something, Yes, I believe the years of evidence are quite conclusive. > and even lie that it's *established*, I do believe it is established in the field in general, and certainly among most laypeople. We are so close in every biological, social, and genetic aspect to the great apes, particularly the chimpanzees, that I can't see how they could be completely unlike us in ability to communicate with us and with each other. The amazing thing is that they communicate with us in *our* language; I don't see many humans, except perhaps Jane Goodall, trying to communicate with them in their language. They, like parrots, are working at a major disadvantage. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > MUCH > OF THIS THORNY DEBATE CENTERS ON THE DEFINITION OF "LANGUAGE" > ITSELF. This is an important aspect of the controversy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > SOME DETRACTORS OF THE APE LANGUAGE PROJECTS POINT OUT THAT THE > SUBJECTS ARE PRONE TO MERELY REPEATING A SENTENCE OR PART OF A > SENTENCE THE TRAINER HAD JUST SIGNED. So are young kids. The same criticisms have been leveled at parents whose children are just learning to talk. But no one suggests children aren't capable of learning to talk because of that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Alex apparently > is able to "request, refuse, identify, categorize, or quantify" > more than 50 items, and label them according to color, shape, > and material. He also has learned concepts of sameness and > difference. Shown a red triangle and a blue triangle, Alex will > say they are same in shape and different in color. Alex uses > some syntax, always saying "green wood" not "wood green" for > example. HOWEVER, PEPPERBERG ADDS, "UNTIL ALEX GIVES TALKS FOR > ME, IT'S NOT REALLY LANGUAGE...." Sounds like language to me -- and there's definitely evidence on abstract set concepts there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > [C]OMPLEX COMMUNICATION DOES NOT A LANGUAGE MAKE. A matter of definition again. Language is an ability to communicate meaning, especially in new situations, and there doesn't seem to be any real disagreement that many non-human animals can do that. We can't judge other species by how successful they are at being humans, unless you are willing to judge human intelligence by how successful we are at being chimpanzees or parrots. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > > Karen Winter admitted she was wrong: > > Yes, Usual -- I am willing to do that when I am convinced > I *am* wrong on a particular point. That's being honest > and listening to other posters. You only partially listened. I'm correct on all the other points in the thread, too. > Why do you react as if it is a weakness? I don't consider it a weakness. In fact, I think it's a good step forward for you. The journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. > Why do you dishonestly suggest it means > I am wrong, I *honestly* dealt with both the issue and your admission that you were wrong. The only "dishonesty" was your attempt to say that "my brethren" was addressed to the listeners rather than "the least of these" in *your* dishonest attempt to suggest that passage includes charity to poultry. > or admit I am wrong, on any other point of the > discussion? This isn't, or shouldn't be, a form of warfare Why are your feathers so ruffled by pointing out that you were caught, shown to be wrong, and that you conceded as much? > in which posters refuse to concede an inch and hold their > battleline down to the last casualty. It should be an > exchange of information and opinions. Shall I recount your attempts to run away from discussions -- as "rat," as "Cynomis," and even now as "Glorfindel" -- rather than exchange information and opinions? Consider just last night that you wrote, "I can look up links to at least two I am of right now, but I assume you will dismiss any evidence I present on animal thought." > Have you never > admitted you were wrong on a point? I've admitted that I was woefully wrong that diet was a distinct and separable part of "veganism," when in fact veganism is predicated entirely on AR and has nothing to do with food. > Or are you only afraid I'm not afraid of anyone, especially usenet vegans. (And "wannabes" if you want to include Skanky.) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> NOTE: *Brethren*, not animals. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> I'll go with St. Francis in calling animals brothers and sisters > >> He was wrong about that, and his friars abused that same passage in >> the same manner you do. Why don't you instead follow *Christ*? > > St. Francis followed Christ, and I see him also as a role model of > Christian behavior. *Fishing* is Christian behavior. Jesus helped COMMERCIAL fishermen: When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch." Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets." When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken... Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account) Eating fish is also Christian behavior. Jesus fed *fish* to hungry followers: Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way." His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?" "How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked. "Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish." He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. -- Mathew 15:32-37 Jesus ate *fish* himself: When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. -- Luke 24:40-43 Christ's disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen -- *commercial* fishermen. Christ went out to fish with them. He told them where and when to find fish. He fed fish to others. He ate fish himself. Why would he do that if he were an ARA? Livestock production is Christian behavior. Jesus engaged in commerce with *livestock producers*: On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. -- Mark 14:12-16 Jesus and his disciples followed the custom of *killing* and *eating* a lamb on Pesach. Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the animal rights or "vegan" position. He did things in stark contradiction to AR and vegan principles. Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean, but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). Matthew wrote that Jesus offended the Pharisees when he said that; it still offends people like you who think people are ethical, virtuous, etc., on the basis of following rules like "don't eat animals" and "don't wear animal hides." Worse, you follow those who make new commands and demand others not do things which are *permitted* scripturally. St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat; he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to abstain from certain foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils. Yet you judge people according to what they eat and demand others abstain from certain foods to be more ethical, holy, etc., when the scriptures make it clear that those things don't make people ethical or holy. St Francis was an ascetic. He may be a fine role model for other ascetics, but I'm "in the world" even if I'm not of it. I'm told to fix my eyes on "Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2). > I wish I could be more like him. I gather > you don't have any interest in the saints as examples for us. Strawman, and funny considering my congregation is named after one. > I do. I am, after all, a Catholic, not a Calvinist. You're a small c-catholic just like I am. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > >>>> Karen Winter wrote: > >>>>> It's difficult to discuss animal cognition > >>>> It's an issue which continues to be debated among researchers: > >>> And some people still claim the earth is flat. > >> I'm not one of them. The fact remains that you choose to *believe* in >> something, > > Yes, I believe the years of evidence are quite conclusive. Despite controversy and bitter disagreement between experts in the relevant fields. >> and even lie that it's *established*, > > I do believe it is established in the field in general, Despite controversy and bitter disagreement between experts in the relevant fields. > and certainly among most laypeople. Especially those! Vegans, ARAs, etc. -- they all fall for the wildest claims and make the most specious conjectures despite controversy and bitter disagreement between *experts* in the relevant fields. <...> >> Alex apparently >> is able to "request, refuse, identify, categorize, or quantify" >> more than 50 items, and label them according to color, shape, >> and material. He also has learned concepts of sameness and >> difference. Shown a red triangle and a blue triangle, Alex will >> say they are same in shape and different in color. Alex uses >> some syntax, always saying "green wood" not "wood green" for >> example. HOWEVER, PEPPERBERG ADDS, "UNTIL ALEX GIVES TALKS FOR >> ME, IT'S NOT REALLY LANGUAGE...." > > Sounds like language to me -- Not to Pepperberg, and she's the one who's spent decades with him (not you). |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
>> Glorfindel admitted she was wrong: >> Yes, Usual -- I am willing to do that when I am convinced >> I *am* wrong on a particular point. That's being honest >> and listening to other posters. > You only partially listened. I'm correct on all the other points in the > thread, too. No, I don't agree on that. I accept you are correct on one point only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I *honestly* dealt with both the issue and your admission that you were > wrong. On *one* point. One only. > The only "dishonesty" was your attempt to say that "my brethren" > was addressed to the listeners rather than "the least of these" That's the way it's always read in church. > in > *your* dishonest attempt to suggest that passage includes charity to > poultry. I believe it does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Repeating a list of texts doesn't make you any more convincing than you were the first time you posted them. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
> Repeating a list of texts I fully realize I'm casting pearls before swine. :-) |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
> I fully realize I'm casting pearls before swine. :-) Likewise, I'm sure. The Calvinist mindset is not one that lends itself to concern for the environment, or animals, or even humanity. Catholic and Orthodox and Celtic, in one way or another, allow people to see God in His creation, to see a need to respect and care for it, and to see a basic goodness in humanity - marred by sin, of course, but still visible in our nature. I would far rather see a society motivated by non-Calvinist Christianity -- it's likely to be more humane for both humans and the rest of the world. I suggest a good dose of Gerard Manley Hopkins, or some of the Psalms celebrating nature. Or even the Narnia movie. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
> The Calvinist mindset is not one that lends itself to concern > for the environment, or animals, or even humanity. Ipse dixit. I'm not entirely surprised someone who pretends to be so tolerant is so intolerant, nor that you're prone to rushing to the most extreme stereotypes when comparing your brand of religion to any other. <...> > I would far rather see a society motivated by non-Calvinist > Christianity IOW, you want the world to be run according to the whims of liberals rather than by consensus -- especially when the consensus at this point in time is significantly more socially- and theologically-conservative than you are. Since you opened this can of worms, I shall revisit some of the blatant lies you wrote previously to reprove your errors. You still don't know when to quit blathering, do you. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter lied:
<...> >> Such as...? I don't recall recommending any form of ascetic practice. > > From your earlier posts, I gather you are anti-choice on abortion > and against committed *** relationships. That is seen as an > extreme position by many people today. You're lying about my views, and you're also lying about what's "extreme" -- which is ironic coming from someone who's so openly supported pedophilia and bestiality. Now, the facts about my views. I tend to be pro-life, as do the majority of people in my state, but I accept that there are circumstances where abortion is preferable to carrying a baby to term (such as when the mother's life is endangered by a pregnancy). I think abortion has become too much of a sacred cow in our society. I think it should be regulated as ANY OTHER medical procedure; alas, it currently isn't. Accordingly, I would like to see abortion more tightly regulated, especially regarding informed consent, parental consent (it's unconscionable that teens require parental consent for ear piercings but not for something as invasive and serious as abortion), and oversight into clinical procedure (abortion still has a too-high rate of injury and death even though your side said legalizing it would make it safer). So, in a nutshell, I don't favor a complete ban but would like to see stricter limits placed on it. How does that compare to popular opinion? I found some recent polls on the issue of abortion: "Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted." Generally Available: 38% Stricter Limits: 39% Not Permitted: 20% Unsu 3% CBS/NY TIMES poll: 12/2-6/05 http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm That puts me in the largest plurality. If you include those who would allow versus those who would ban it outright, I'm in the majority. From the same site, another poll for CNN/USA TODAY asked: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" Always Legal: 26% Sometimes Legal: 56% Always Illegal: 16% Unsu 2% CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 11-13, 2005 same site as above Again, my view is that it should be sometimes legal: I'm in the mainstream. You're not. Now to your strawman about homosexual relationships. I've told you that I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom, so long as it's between consenting adult humans. I have to spell out the last part of that because you think animals can consent to sex with humans, and that it's desirable. I disagree. I also disagree with your assertions that pedophiles are ever "responsible," and, unlike you, I would *never* introduce *any* child to one: I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate with the responsible pedophiles I met. -- Karen Winter, http://snipurl.com/4nay Furthermore, I've stated in threads in which you participated that I'm open to certain steps short of homosexual marriage that would extend benefits to whatever loved one one chooses. I disagree with you that homosexual marriage is the best or only way to deal with issues raised by homosexual activists, like hospital visitation, choosing who makes decisions when someone is incapacitated, inheritences, joint ownership of common property, and so on. Those can be remedied piecemeal through existing options like powers of attorney, legal business partnerships, etc., but I'm open to creating a way of treating them _en bloc_. My reluctance is based on the tendency of certain judges to overrule their authority on such matters, such as happened in NY when a judge struck down a domestic partnership law on the grounds that it didn't provide for homosexual marriage (the NY Supreme Court has since overturned that decision). I'll support solid, reasonable civil union legislation that can withstand the assault of liberal judges and not open the door to blurring the lines between marriage and such unions. Here's one example of what I wrote previously: I'm somewhat opposed to civil unions, but I think that's an area where we can grant some of the things that affect those in long-term homosexual relationships so they can have rights to visit in hospital, etc. I don't favor extending other financial benefits, though, even if we do that for all people who shack-up. http://tinyurl.com/8woxd I would include benefits like group health insurance in "other financial benefits." Let employers choose whether they want to insure "partners" -- *** or straight -- of their employees or make such coverage available. Is this view out of the mainstream? Let's look at the polling data again: "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and *******s to marry legally?" Favor: 36% Oppose: 53% Unsu 11% I'm again in the mainstream majority who disagree with homosexual marriage. You're outside the mainstream in the marginal third of the country who support it. What about civil unions and domestic partnerships? The same poll asked the following question: "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing *** and ******* couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples?" Favor: 53% Oppose: 40% Unsu 7% Pew Research Center/Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm Again, I'm in the majority and mainstream on this issue. I'm open to legal agreements between ANYONE for any reason. Thus, I've caught you in your lies twice again. I'm not an extremist -- you ARE. I'm in the mainstream of public opinion -- you AREN'T. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel wrote: >> From your earlier posts, I gather you are anti-choice on abortion >> and against committed *** relationships. That is seen as an >> extreme position by many people today. > You're lying about my views, Why resort to attack and call it a "lie"? I said, "I gather". That was what I gathered from such comments as "throw another fetus on the fire," which certainly sounds anti-choice. So, if I gathered incorrectly, I have no objection to you clarifying your views. Your opinions are seen as extreme by many people. "Many" is not a number on a specific poll. Many is many, and there are thousands of people who do think your views are extreme. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I think abortion has become > too much of a sacred cow in our society. I think it should be regulated > as ANY OTHER medical procedure; alas, it currently isn't. No, it certainly isn't. Which is unfortunate indeed for women who want this medical procedure and can't get it because locals have driven providers out of the area by bombing facilities, killing doctors who provide it, and picketing. When was the last time people killed a heart surgeon for doing a by-pass or bombed a clinic because it provided tonsillectomies? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >(abortion still has a too-high rate of injury > and death even though your side said legalizing it would make it safer). Safer, certainly. It is safer than carrying a child to term. But no medical procedure is completely without side-effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I disagree with you that > homosexual marriage is the best or only way to deal with issues raised > by homosexual activists, like hospital visitation, choosing who makes > decisions when someone is incapacitated, inheritences, joint ownership > of common property, and so on. Those can be remedied piecemeal through > existing options like powers of attorney, legal business partnerships, > etc., At considerable cost and inconvenience, when straights get them for free along with the ceremony. Also, such legal provisions are sometimes ignored. > but I'm open to creating a way of treating them _en bloc_. Yes -- it's called "marriage". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel wrote: >> The Calvinist mindset is not one that lends itself to concern >> for the environment, or animals, or even humanity. > Ipse dixit. I'm not entirely surprised someone who pretends to be so > tolerant is so intolerant, Why is this intolerant? It's generally true. >>>>>>>>>> >> I would far rather see a society motivated by non-Calvinist >> Christianity > IOW, you want the world to be run according to the whims of liberals All non-Calvinist Christians are liberal? Have you informed the new Pope of this? > rather than by consensus There are a whole lot more non-Calvinist than Calvinist Christians. >>>>>>>>>>>> > You still don't know > when to quit blathering, do you. I knew you'd respond to this. It's fun discussing with you. You're so cute when you froth at the mouth.... |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > > Karen Winter wrote: > >>> From your earlier posts, I gather you are anti-choice on abortion >>> and against committed *** relationships. That is seen as an >>> extreme position by many people today. > >> You're lying about my views, > > Why resort to attack I didn't attack. I pointed out that you stated something that's patently false. Where I come from, what you did is called "lying." > and call it a "lie"? I said, "I gather". That > was what I gathered from such comments as "throw another fetus on > the fire," which certainly sounds anti-choice. It was a reference to something "Pastor Rennick," a character on the Phil Hendrie Show, said. You would've agreed with the good Pastor's arguments in support of "alternative sex" to reduce teen pregnancy. > So, if I gathered You didn't gather, you lied. > Your opinions are seen as extreme by many people. Ipse dixit, and I showed you polling data to the contrary. > "Many" is not a number on a specific poll. Especially when YOUR views are seen as "extreme" by *many MORE* people. > Many is many, and there are > thousands of people who do think your views are extreme. And yours are both marginal (with respect to polling data) and extreme (with respect to what the mainstream believes). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I think abortion has become >> too much of a sacred cow in our society. I think it should be >> regulated as ANY OTHER medical procedure; alas, it currently isn't. > > No, it certainly isn't. Which is unfortunate indeed for women who > want this medical procedure and can't get it because locals have > driven providers out of the area by bombing facilities, killing > doctors who provide it, and picketing. When was the last time > people killed a heart surgeon for doing a by-pass or bombed a > clinic because it provided tonsillectomies? More importantly, when was the last time the Supreme Court overruled the democratic process and mandated a surgical procedure as a "constitutional right"? The blame for civil discord over abortion lay at the feet of the Supreme Court and the Roe decision. Far from settling the issue, it only exacerbated tensions in society over the issue. At the extremes of the two sides are the ideologues -- those who are energized not only by the issue itself but by the presence of their "opponents." You're on the far left side of the extreme elements. In the middle are those of us who don't like abortion, who think it shouldn't be either outlawed or unrestricted, and who want a civil discourse over the issue. The problem is, both extremes have controlled the debate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>(abortion still has a too-high rate of injury >> and death even though your side said legalizing it would make it safer). > > Safer, certainly. It is safer than carrying a child to term. Ipse dixit and false according to studies in both the US and Finland: Results: Aborting women who had no known live births were significantly more likely to die than women with no known history of abortion, and women with a history of both abortion and childbirth. The relative risk was highest when comparing low income women with only one known pregnancy outcome. Compared to women who delivered, those who aborted had a significantly higher age adjusted risk of dying from all causes (1.62), from suicide (2.54), and accidents (1.82), as well as a higher risk of dying from nonviolent causes (1.44), including AIDS (2.18), circulatory diseases (2.87) and cerebrovascular disease (5.46). The higher death rates were significant across an eight year period and over four of the six age groups examined. After controlling for history of prior psychiatric care, the results remained significant and in many cases the relative risk increased. http://clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/con...t/2001030003v1 That study, published in the Southern Medical Journal, finds similarly to a study from Finland published in 1997. That Finnish study showed significantly higher death rates associated with abortion than with childbirth. The US study linked above concluded that: The pattern of death rates associated with prior pregnancy outcomes among low income women of California are similar to the pattern previously observed among the general population of women in Finland. Moreover, the apparent beneficial effects of childbirth and/or the detrimental effects of pregnancy loss persist over many years. > But no medical procedure is completely without side-effects. There have been far too many punctured uteruses and infections from "safe, legal" abortions to overlook the acute dangers of abortion. Indeed, every instance I can recall of pro-abortion people objecting to parental consent laws has involved teens like Becky Bell who died from "safe, legal" abortions -- the fact that Becky had to go out of state to avoid telling her parents takes a backseat to the fact that she was given inadequate medical care by those who took her across state lines and those who performed her abortion. >> but I'm open to creating a way of treating them _en bloc_. > > Yes -- it's called "marriage". No, society disapproves of radically redefining its institutions. This is yet another instance of your marginalism and extremism. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > > Karen Winter wrote: > >>> The Calvinist mindset is not one that lends itself to concern >>> for the environment, or animals, or even humanity. > >> Ipse dixit. I'm not entirely surprised someone who pretends to be so >> tolerant is so intolerant, > > Why is this intolerant? Because, yet again, you've chosen to see things as "what Karen believes is good" and everything else is "bad." There are many protestant charities and relief organizations acting with great compassion for humans, and many protestants, individually and corporately, are very concerned about the environment and animal welfare. > It's generally true. Ipse dixit. And false. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel wrote: >>>> The Calvinist mindset is not one that lends itself to concern >>>> for the environment, or animals, or even humanity. >>> Ipse dixit. I'm not entirely surprised someone who pretends to be so >>> tolerant is so intolerant, >> Why is this intolerant? > > Because, yet again, you've chosen to see things as "what Glorfindel believes > is good" and everything else is "bad." Ipse dixit. Nowhere did I suggest that. > There are many protestant > charities and relief organizations acting with great compassion for > humans, and many protestants, individually and corporately, are very > concerned about the environment and animal welfare. But which ones espouse a specifically Calvinist theological position? You've clearly said that good works are irrelevant -- a sort of mindless spasm resulting from a predestined salvation which have no relationship to the humans doing them at all. They are all "Christ's work". So why bother? You've said we have no real need to see the environment as God's; it's made for humans and we can do anything we want with it. So why bother with environmentalism? Calvinists believe humans are predestined to salvation or damnation, and, historically, Calvinists have seen people like the robber barons and the good New England Calvinists who stole the native people's land in Hawaii as demonstrating that they were among the "saved" because they had achieved material prosperity. St. Francis, St Claire, and the other religious orders saw voluntary poverty and giving to others as good. That's part of the difference between Calvinist and non-Calvinist mindsets. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter lied:
> usual suspect wrote: > > Karen Winter lied: > >>>>> The Calvinist mindset is not one that lends itself to concern >>>>> for the environment, or animals, or even humanity. > > >>>> Ipse dixit. I'm not entirely surprised someone who pretends to be so >>>> tolerant is so intolerant, > > >>> Why is this intolerant? >> >> >> Because, yet again, you've chosen to see things as "what Glorfindel >> believes is good" and everything else is "bad." > > > Ipse dixit. Nowhere did I suggest that. Implied. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel wrote: >>>> From your earlier posts, I gather you are anti-choice on abortion >>>> and against committed *** relationships. That is seen as an >>>> extreme position by many people today. >>> You're lying about my views, >> Why resort to attack > I didn't attack. Yes, you did. > I pointed out that you stated something that's patently > false. It is not at all *patently* false. In fact, it is quite a plausible conclusion from your statements. I'm willing to accept your explanation of your views, however. > Where I come from, what you did is called "lying." Where I come from your reaction is called "paranoid projection." >> and call it a "lie"? I said, "I gather". That >> was what I gathered from such comments as "throw another fetus on >> the fire," which certainly sounds anti-choice. > It was a reference to something "Pastor Rennick," a character on the > Phil Hendrie Show, said. I don't watch or listen to that program. I assumed "Pastor Rennick" was the minister at your church. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I think abortion has become >>> too much of a sacred cow in our society. I think it should be >>> regulated as ANY OTHER medical procedure; alas, it currently isn't. >> No, it certainly isn't. Which is unfortunate indeed for women who >> want this medical procedure and can't get it because locals have >> driven providers out of the area by bombing facilities, killing >> doctors who provide it, and picketing. When was the last time >> people killed a heart surgeon for doing a by-pass or bombed a >> clinic because it provided tonsillectomies? > More importantly, when was the last time the Supreme Court overruled the > democratic process and mandated a surgical procedure as a > "constitutional right"? Anyone should have a right to a surgical procedure as long as her doctor agrees it's appropriate and someone is willing to pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> (abortion still has a too-high rate of injury >>> and death even though your side said legalizing it would make it safer). >> Safer, certainly. It is safer than carrying a child to term. > Ipse dixit and false according to studies in both the US and Finland: That's not the information I have read. The risks from early-term abortion, which is what I support unreservedly, are indeed lower than the risks of carrying a child to term. Women frequently are forced to have later-term abortions because so many roadblocks are put in their way by the anti-choice zealots, and that increases the risks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> But no medical procedure is completely without side-effects. > There have been far too many punctured uteruses and infections from > "safe, legal" abortions to overlook the acute dangers of abortion. > Indeed, every instance I can recall of pro-abortion people objecting to > parental consent laws has involved teens like Becky Bell who died from > "safe, legal" abortions -- the fact that Becky had to go out of state to > avoid telling her parents takes a backseat to the fact that she was > given inadequate medical care by those who took her across state lines > and those who performed her abortion. Wouldn't it have been better if she could have had a safe, legal abortion in her local hospital by a physician she knew, instead of having to be smuggled out of state? As long as anti-choice zealots put such extreme pressures on doctors who perform this procedure, few new doctors will train in it, and women will have to take a chance on finding someone to help them. There are few -- growing fewer -- places available, many of the doctors are reaching retirement age, and others live in constant fear. Those who are not morally committed to offering this service often go into less controversial fields of specialization. We need abortion to be a required course for all medical students, and a procedure provided by all secular hospitals. If it is indeed to be treated as a medical procedure, let's *treat* it as a medical procedure, and let the patient and the doctor decide, not the state or the protesters. Having a baby is a lot like adopting a parrot. You can expect to have a relationship with the being for decades, and often the being will even outlive you. You have to be very, very sure you want to take on the long-term responsibility. I think any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted -- even encouraged -- to have one as early in her pregnancy as possible. There are so many unwanted children available for adoption, most of whom are the result of unwanted pregnancies. Only a woman who is absolutely, completely certain that she wants to raise a child should carry one, and only a woman with the resources to provide adequate care for at least 20 years should be allowed to have a child. Children should not be the result of accident, whim, or carelessness, any more than animals should be adopted on impulse. >>> but I'm open to creating a way of treating them _en bloc_. >> Yes -- it's called "marriage". > No, society disapproves of radically redefining its institutions. What about those members of society who want to participate in the institution, but are denied the option? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > > Karen Winter wrote: > >>>>> The Calvinist mindset is not one that lends itself to concern >>>>> for the environment, or animals, or even humanity. > >>>> Ipse dixit. I'm not entirely surprised someone who pretends to be so >>>> tolerant is so intolerant, > >>> Why is this intolerant? >> >> Because, yet again, you've chosen to see things as "what Glorfindel >> believes is good" and everything else is "bad." > > Ipse dixit. Nowhere did I suggest that. You sure as hell have been implying it, and not very subtly. >> There are many protestant charities and relief organizations acting >> with great compassion for humans, and many protestants, individually >> and corporately, are very concerned about the environment and animal >> welfare. > > But which ones espouse a specifically Calvinist theological position? Aid and relief agencies seldom "espouse" doctrine. They dispense aid. For example: http://www.crwrc.org/ http://www.pca-mna.org/ > You've clearly said that good works are irrelevant -- Strawman. I said they're the fruit of the redeemed; good works do not redeem sinners. > a sort of mindless spasm resulting from a predestined salvation Strawman -- you *don't* understand Calvin, Matthew 25, or what I wrote about it. I exhaustively quoted from Calvin on Matthew 25. You snipped it (with the lame response of "I'm not a Calvinist, and I don't accept Calvinist theology") rather than address its points: We must therefore hold these two principles, first, that believers are called to the possession of the kingdom of heaven, so far as relates to good works, not because they deserved them through the righteousness of works, or because their own minds prompted them to obtain that righteousness, but because God justifies those whom he previously elected, (Romans 8:30.) Secondly, although by the guidance of the Spirit they aim at the practice of righteousness, yet as they never fulfill the law of God, no reward is due to them, but the term reward is applied to that which is bestowed by grace. Christ does not here specify every thing that belongs to a pious and holy life, but only, by way of example, refers to some of the duties of charity, by which we give evidence that we fear God. For though the worship of God is more important than charity towards men, and though, in like manner, faith and supplication are more valuable than alms, yet Christ had good reasons for bringing forward those evidences of true righteousness which are more obvious. If a man were to take no thought about God, and were only to be beneficent towards men, such compassion would be of no avail to him for appeasing God, who had all the while been defrauded of his right. Accordingly, Christ does not make the chief part of righteousness to consist in alms, but, by means of what may be called more evident signs, shows what it is to live a holy and righteous life; as unquestionably believers not only profess with the mouth, but prove by actual performances, that they serve God. Most improperly, therefore, do fanatics, under the pretext of this passage, withdraw from hearing the word, and from observing the Holy Supper, and from other spiritual exercises; for with equal plausibility might they set aside faith, and bearing the cross, and prayer, and chastity. But nothing was farther from the design of Christ than to confine to a portion of the second table of the Law that rule of life which is contained in the two tables. The monks and other noisy talkers had as little reason to imagine that there are only six works of mercy, because Christ does not mention any more; as if it were not obvious, even to children, that he commends, by means of a synacdoche, all the duties of charity. For to comfort mourners, to relieve those who are unjustly oppressed, to aid simple-minded men by advice, to deliver wretched persons from the jaws of wolves, are deeds of mercy not less worthy of commendation than to clothe the naked or to feed the hungry. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.htm > which have > no relationship to the humans doing them at all. They are all > "Christ's work". So why bother? I've addressed that strawman already and alluded to James: faith without works is dead. Contrary to your own "mindless spasm" about Calvinism, Calvin himself addressed the issue: ...[b]elievers not only profess with the mouth, but prove by actual performances, that they serve God. > You've said we have no real need > to see the environment as God's; When did I say that? > it's made for humans and we can > do anything we want with it. It's for our benefit and welfare. > So why bother with environmentalism? I think it depends on how you mean "environmentalism." You most likely mean the old "watermelon" -- green on the outside, red on the inside -- as if socialism and communism have good track records for air, water, or people. I don't think we need to embrace radical leftist ideology to have clean air and water. > Calvinists believe humans are predestined to salvation or damnation, > and, historically, Calvinists have seen people like the robber barons Pretty funny you bring this up after the way Sylvia prated about your mother's family -- the Corletts -- ran Colorado and New Mexico: Rattie's credentials: Her mother was one of the twin daughters of the vice-governor of Colorado. The family went waaaaay back in the Southwest region. We always smile when we see (anywhere in CO, AZ or NM) "Corlett Rd" or Corlett st" or Corlett anything... it's Rattie's middle name and was her grandfather's surname. -- Jun 3 2003, alt.support.childfree It *is* [Karen's] home state. Her mother's maiden name was Corlett. For those in the Southwest, yes THAT Corlett, the vice governor of Colorado. So Rat's family roots run DEEP in CO and NM. -- Jun 25 2003, alt.support.childfree If I'm not mistaken, your relative George Corlett was one of those responsible for the Rio Grande Compact scam. This scheme deprived Natives of water rights and it limited the amount of water available to New Mexicans and Texans downstream from all the dams he wanted built so Colorado could control the Rio Grande. Are your grandpa's dams good for the environment, and how have they contributed to "social justice" considering tribes were blocked from participating, tribes and small family farmers could no longer use the aquacias? http://wrri.nmsu.edu/publish/dr/xxiii1.pdf Also: [T]he Rio Grande is subject to an interstate compact that apportions annual flow between the states of Colorado, New Mexico and Texas, as well as an international treaty that allocates 60,000 acre-feet (more than 19 billion gallons) of water to Mexico every year. After nearly a century, these arrangements seem inherently flawed. *The rights of Native Americans were recognized but not delineated, and no water was set aside for river ecosystems.* Yet today, federal laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, require minimum flows for the dilution of treated wastewater and for species habitat, leaving management agencies and water rights holders to try and meet the mandates. http://www.geotimes.org/may04/feature_riogrande.html While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you still call yourself a "vegan": We went for dinner at the restaurant Rat used to go to as a tiny ratling. I had a fabulous shrimp fajita and Rattie had the chile relleno, pronouncing it excellent. I also had one of the restaurnat's carnivorous margaritas! MMMMMM! -- Sylvia, Mar 9 2004, alt.support.childfree FWIW, chiles relleno are made with cheese, and often with eggs. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter, bad mother, wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > > Karen Winter wrote: > >>>>> From your earlier posts, I gather you are anti-choice on abortion >>>>> and against committed *** relationships. That is seen as an >>>>> extreme position by many people today. > >>>> You're lying about my views, > >>> Why resort to attack > >> I didn't attack. > > Yes, you did. No, I didn't. >> I pointed out that you stated something that's patently false. > > It is not at all *patently* false. Yes, it was. >>> Safer, certainly. It is safer than carrying a child to term. > >> Ipse dixit and false according to studies in both the US and Finland: > > That's not the information I have read. I provided you with published, peer-reviewed studies to the contrary of what you alleged. Rather than address it, you chose to snip it and repeat your unsupported claims. > Having a baby is a lot like adopting a parrot. Ironically, you would've taken better care of a bird than you did your own son and probably keep it away from your bestiality-inclined friends. I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate with the responsible pedophiles I met. -- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://tinyurl.com/6gxmp No, I don't like him as a person. If he weren't my son, I wouldn't want anything to do with him. -- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://snipurl.com/4aea And when speaking of your grandson, you want him to rebel against his father and be a marginal just like you: Maybe in the classic way of things, his son will rebel against his father's values, and turn out to be a sensitive, loving, fannish, imaginative, socially-conscious and artistic type -- if I'm really lucky, maybe even *** -- and my grandson and I will bond eventually. -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 01/22/04 > You can expect to have > a relationship with the being for decades, Look at your relationship with your son -- a human being. You dumped him off on relatives so you could go to Ohio and California to dress up in weirdo communes, wash stray cats, experiment with various sexual perversions, become sympathetic to NAMBLA and receive their newsletter, and so on. Your son didn't rebel against you the way you did against your father -- you avoided your responsibility as a parent and rebelled against your father AND son in the process. > You have to be very, very sure you want to take on > the long-term responsibility. You sure didn't take your responsibility very seriously. > Only a woman who is absolutely, completely certain that she wants to > raise a child should carry one, You didn't raise yours. You passed him off on his father and his wife, then on your family when you decided to hit the road to navel gaze. >>>> but I'm open to creating a way of treating them _en bloc_. > >>> Yes -- it's called "marriage". > >> No, society disapproves of radically redefining its institutions. > > What about those members of society who want to participate in > the institution You're living an *alternative* lifestyle. You should graciously accept the consequences of it. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Having a baby is a lot like adopting a parrot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ironically, you would've taken better care of a bird than you did your > own son I have not mentioned having any children. I don't discuss my private life on unmoderated newsgroups. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter ****wittedly tried to keep the charade going:
> usual suspect wrote: > > Karen Winter lied: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> Having a baby is a lot like adopting a parrot. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Ironically, you would've taken better care of a bird than you did your >> own son > > > I have not mentioned having any children. I don't discuss my private > life on unmoderated newsgroups. Cut the shit, Karen. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> There are many protestant charities and relief organizations acting >>> with great compassion for humans, and many protestants, individually >>> and corporately, are very concerned about the environment and animal >>> welfare. >> But which ones espouse a specifically Calvinist theological position? > Aid and relief agencies seldom "espouse" doctrine. They dispense aid. Glorfindel wrote: Well, there you are. Of course, there are *many* non-protestant relief and charity organizations which do specifically identify themselves with a theological position. On the national level, we have such groups as the Episcopal Relief and Development fund, of the Episcopal church, and Catholic Charities, and a wide variety of charities identified with the various Franciscan orders. There are Protestant groups such as the Salvation Army, but I don't know which denomination they identify themselves with, so I can't say if their parent group is Calvinist or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> You've clearly said that good works are irrelevant -- > Strawman. I said they're the fruit of the redeemed; good works do not > redeem sinners. So did I. >> a sort of mindless spasm resulting from a predestined salvation > Strawman -- you *don't* understand Calvin, Matthew 25, or what I wrote > about it. I understand it. Parts of what you wrote are good Christian doctrine, and are shared by the Catholic church. The aspect which is so stressed in Calvinism, and which is less central to Catholic doctrine is: >>>>>>>>>>>> > because God justifies those whom he > previously elected, (Romans 8:30.) Secondly, although by the > guidance of the Spirit they aim at the practice of > righteousness, yet as they never fulfill the law of God, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic doctrine generally stresses that, while the Holy Spirit helps and encourages Christians to do good works, and we cannot do them without God's help, yet humans do good works through their own will, and through the good that is in them, because God did create us good. Baptism frees us of Original Sin, and we do express the good nature God gave us in our acts after that, as well as doing individual sinful acts. We are not "utterly depraved" in the Calvinist model. We cannot fulfill God's will *perfectly* (being human and fallible) but we can fulfill God's will and His law in part, with God as our helper. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> You've said we have no real need >> to see the environment as God's; > When did I say that? see below >> it's made for humans and we can >> do anything we want with it. > It's for our benefit and welfare. No, it exists for God's glory. It is not for our benefit. >> So why bother with environmentalism? > I think it depends on how you mean "environmentalism." You most likely > mean the old "watermelon" -- green on the outside, red on the inside -- I did not say that. > as if socialism and communism have good track records for air, water, or > people. It depends on where, and what version, especially of socialism. A number of socialist countries have better records on the environment and social justice than the United States, which has a generally dismal record under the last few Republican administrations, and is rapidly degenerating. > I don't think we need to embrace radical leftist ideology to > have clean air and water. Possibly, but it certainly helps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you call yourself a > "vegan": Because I am. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > > Karen Winter wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> Having a baby is a lot like adopting a parrot. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Ironically, you would've taken better care of a bird than you did your >> own son > > I have not mentioned having any children. Cut the crap, Karen. You would've taken better care of a bird than you did your own son and probably tried hard to keep it away from your bestiality-inclined friends. I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate with the responsible pedophiles I met. -- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://tinyurl.com/6gxmp No, I don't like him as a person. If he weren't my son, I wouldn't want anything to do with him. -- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://snipurl.com/4aea And when speaking of your grandson, you want him to rebel against his father and be a marginal just like you: Maybe in the classic way of things, his son will rebel against his father's values, and turn out to be a sensitive, loving, fannish, imaginative, socially-conscious and artistic type -- if I'm really lucky, maybe even *** -- and my grandson and I will bond eventually. -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 01/22/04 Why are you playing this charade now when everybody knows who you are? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
> Karen Winter wrote: > >> usual suspect wrote: >> >> Karen Winter wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> Having a baby is a lot like adopting a parrot. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Ironically, you would've taken better care of a bird than you did >>> your own son >> >> >> I have not mentioned having any children. > > > Cut the crap, Karen. You would've taken better care of a bird than you > did your own son and probably tried hard to keep it away from your > bestiality-inclined friends. > > I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate > with the responsible pedophiles I met. > -- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://tinyurl.com/6gxmp > > No, I don't like him as a person. If he weren't my son, I > wouldn't want anything to do with him. > -- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://snipurl.com/4aea > > And when speaking of your grandson, you want him to rebel against his > father and be a marginal just like you: > > Maybe in the classic way of things, his son will > rebel against his father's values, and turn out to > be a sensitive, loving, fannish, imaginative, > socially-conscious and artistic type -- if I'm > really lucky, maybe even *** -- and my grandson and > I will bond eventually. > -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 01/22/04 > > Why are you playing this charade now when everybody knows who you are? She's an idiot. She's Karen Winter, she knows we know it, and it's really funny that she's just trying to ignore it. What a pathetic ****. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
> Why are you playing this charade now when everybody knows who you are? You don't, and I intend to keep it that way. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
<...> > There are Protestant groups such as the Salvation Army, but I don't know > which denomination they identify themselves with The Salvation Army is its own denomination. They're an offshoot of the Methodists, which are an Arminian offshoot out of your church (which, from the gist of your reply, is even more Arminian than the Wesleyans are now). > Parts of what you wrote are good Christian doctrine, Everything I wrote is sound Christian doctrine. > and are shared by the Catholic church. The aspect > which is so stressed in Calvinism, and which is less central to > Catholic doctrine is: > >> because God justifies those whom he >> previously elected, (Romans 8:30.) Secondly, although by the >> guidance of the Spirit they aim at the practice of >> righteousness, yet as they never fulfill the law of God, I'm fully aware of doctrinal distinctions between Romanist and Protestant bodies, Karen. I know that your church hates doctrines like election and predestination, but they're in the Bible and worthy of open and candid discussion rather than dismissal. > Catholic doctrine You don't understand catholic doctrine. You're still a phony who likes using certain words to describe yourself. Today it's "Anglo-catholic." In the past it was "Republican" and then "libertarian" and then "green," as though there's a coherent strand between those particular labels you've used to describe yourself. What about your homosexuality is in keeping with catholic (Anglo-. Roman, whatever) doctrine? What about your views on homosexual marriage is in keeping with catholic doctrine? What about your views on abortion are in keeping with catholic doctrine? What about the way you abandoned your son to engage in a life of flitting around between dress-up communes and NAMBLA meetings has been in keeping with catholic doctrine? You use that label because it makes you feel special, NOT because you're actually catholic in any sense of the word. > We are not "utterly depraved" in the Calvinist model. It isn't the "Calvinist model," it's the Bible: And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that *every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually*. Genesis 6:5 Behold, *I was shapen in iniquity*, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalms 51:5 As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one*: There is none that understandeth, *there is none that seeketh after God*. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; *there is none that doeth good, no, not one*. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. -- Romans 3:10-18 No man can come to me, *except the Father which hath sent me draw him*: and I will raise him up at the last day. -- John 6:44 Therefore said I unto you, that *no man can come unto me*, except it were given unto him of my Father. -- John 6:65 > We cannot fulfill God's will *perfectly* > (being human and fallible) but we can fulfill God's will and His > law in part, with God as our helper. Synergism. See: http://tinyurl.com/cg42b >>> You've said we have no real need >>> to see the environment as God's; > >> When did I say that? > > see below I didn't say what you accuse me of saying. >>> it's made for humans and we can >>> do anything we want with it. > >> It's for our benefit and welfare. > > No, it exists for God's glory. It is not for our benefit. Ipse dixit and non sequitur. God did not put us here to engage in extreme austerity. He made us in his image and gave us dominion. He commanded us to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth. He gave us plants and animals for our benefit. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and *let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground*." Genesis 1:26 Dominion comes from the Hebrew word "raddah" which means "subjugate, reign, or rule over." ...God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and *subdue it*. Genesis 1:28 Subdue is from the Hebrew word "kabash" which means "to make to serve, by force if necessary." >>> So why bother with environmentalism? > >> I think it depends on how you mean "environmentalism." You most likely >> mean the old "watermelon" -- green on the outside, red on the inside -- > > I did not say that. I said "most likely," and you confirmed as much by suggesting below that leftist ideology is inherently better for the environment. >> as if socialism and communism have good track records for air, water, >> or people. > > It depends on where, and what version, especially of socialism. A > number of socialist countries have better records on the environment > and social justice than the United States, which has a generally dismal > record under the last few Republican administrations, Ipse dixit and false. It was the "last few Republican administrations" that signed off on tightening both the Clean Water Act (Nixon) and Clean Air Act (Bush 41). Air and water quality has also continued to improve over the last 20 years. > and is rapidly degenerating. Nice watching your knees jerk every time another Republican is elected. >> I don't think we need to embrace radical leftist ideology to have >> clean air and water. > > Possibly, but it certainly helps. Ipse dixit, and the track records of the Left around the world don't suggest that it would help at all. >> While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you call yourself a >> "vegan": > > Because I am. No, you ate chiles relleno in the last couple years. That restaurant most likely uses battery eggs and commercial cheeses made by farmers who divert bovine offspring to beef and veal production. Killer. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
>> Why are you playing this charade now when everybody knows who you are? > > You don't, and I intend to keep it that way. I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but Sylvia's said just about everything there is to know about you at alt.support.childfree. Rattie's credentials: Her mother was one of the twin daughters of the vice-governor of Colorado. The family went waaaaay back in the Southwest region. We always smile when we see (anywhere in CO, AZ or NM) "Corlett Rd" or Corlett st" or Corlett anything... it's Rattie's middle name and was her grandfather's surname. -- Jun 3 2003, alt.support.childfree It *is* [Karen's] home state. Her mother's maiden name was Corlett. For those in the Southwest, yes THAT Corlett, the vice governor of Colorado. So Rat's family roots run DEEP in CO and NM. -- Jun 25 2003, alt.support.childfree The atomic bombs over Hiershima and Nagasaki were, in fact, the more merciful alternative. My sources for this are the reading I have done on the subject, the history classes I've taken and Colonel Hugh O. Winter (Ret) USAF, now deceased, who actually took part in the reconstruction of Japan after the war. He lived in Japan, worked with their government and people, received many commendations FROM the Japanese government and people (we have them, framed and hanging up) and the US government as well. He went in almost immediately after the war had ended and he stayed with the Japanese rebuilding effort for many years until they were finally back on their feet. He told me that the bomb was seen almost as a salvation, BY the Japanese people, even with the devastation it caused. Col. Winter spoke to Hirohito, to the Diet, to many major government people and he was able to see the war through their eyes for a while. This is about as close to living history as one can GET. I believed the Colonel completely. He was *there*. -- Sep 5 2002, alt.support.childfree And there's all the stuff about Sanbusco, the '88 Cutlass and Kia rental (http://snipurl.com/5v2l), that y'all are celibate (http://tinyurl.com/ax74o :way tmi!), that your ex-husband's name is Mark and you named your son after your dad (http://tinyurl.com/acwda), etc. So why are you still pulling this Glorfindel crap? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter lied:
> usual suspect wrote: > > > Why are you playing this charade now when everybody knows who you are? > > You don't, We do. The headers in your posts reveal it: - same ISP - same newsreader software (right down the the *build level*, for ****'s sake!) - same florid writing style - same familiarity with ALLLLLLLLLL the idiot "ar" writers - same highly directed/selective knowledge of weird religious crapola It's all there. You are Karen Winter. > and I intend to keep it that way. It isn't "that way"; we *DO* know who you are. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I'm fully aware of doctrinal distinctions between Romanist and > Protestant bodies Glorfindel wrote: Not Romanist specifically, but one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. > I know that your church hates doctrines like > election and predestination, but they're in the Bible They're in Calvin's interpretation. You can claim almost anything's "in the Bible" if you tweak the texts to your taste. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You don't understand catholic doctrine. Ipse dixit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > What about your views on homosexual marriage > is in keeping with catholic doctrine? They are in keeping with the U.S. tradition of separation of church and state. Civil marriage should be open to *** couples; liturgical marriage is up to the denomination involved. > What about your views on abortion > are in keeping with catholic doctrine? The catholic church has traditionally held that the fetus is not ensouled until it quickens ( about the fourth month). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> We are not "utterly depraved" in the Calvinist model. > It isn't the "Calvinist model," it's the Bible: No, it's not. It's Calvin's weird, self-loathing opinion, and an insult to the God Who created us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> We cannot fulfill God's will *perfectly* >> (being human and fallible) but we can fulfill God's will and His >> law in part, with God as our helper. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> It's for our benefit and welfare. >> No, Creation exists for God's glory. It is not for our benefit. > God did not put us here to engage in > extreme austerity. Respecting our obligations of stewardship is not "extreme austerity". > He made us in his image and gave us dominion. Yes indeed -- He made us in His image, with the self-emptying, self-sacrificing, merciful example of Christ's death for His lesser creatures as our template, and the dominion of the Good Shepherd who gives His *life* for the sheep, who sacrifices his own welfare, and suffers for his flock, as the model for our life. Christ was the self-sacrifice, the suffering servant, Who gave up His own welfare for the welfare of others. Yes -- I'll agree we are made in God's image, and intended to follow Christ's example of dominion as self-giving, and self-sacrifice. That means we advance the welfare of others, we don't use them for our benefit and welfare. God forbid -- in fact He does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> So why bother with environmentalism? > I said "most likely," and you confirmed as much by suggesting below that > leftist ideology is inherently better for the environment. Not inherently. >>> as if socialism and communism have good track records for air, water, >>> or people. >> It depends on where, and what version, especially of socialism. A >> number of socialist countries have better records on the environment >> and social justice than the United States, which has a generally dismal >> record under the last few Republican administrations, > Ipse dixit and false. It was the "last few Republican administrations" > that signed off on tightening both the Clean Water Act (Nixon) and Clean > Air Act (Bush 41). Air and water quality has also continued to improve > over the last 20 years. What nonsense. These last few administrations, especially George Bush's, are removing protections for the environment, gutting the Endangered Species Act, removing controls on pollution, refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement, or even recognize the threat of global warming and our major contributions to it. There is not a single mainstream environmental organization or animal welfare organization which does not regard Bush and his land-raping buddies as an unmitigated disaster for everybody except his rich campaign contributers. Even the radical right ideologues who thought he was one of them see now that he's out for nothing but money and power. Or rather his handlers are. He's too stupid to run a model railroad by himself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I don't think we need to embrace radical leftist ideology to have >>> clean air and water. >> Possibly, but it certainly helps. > Ipse dixit, and the track records of the Left around the world don't > suggest that it would help at all. Oh, you're wrong there. The socialist countries in Europe have been outstanding models for environmental protection and social justice. They are the ones leading in laws against factory farming methods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you call yourself a >>> "vegan": >> Because I am. > No, you ate chiles relleno in the last couple years. No, I did not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter lied:
> usual suspect wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > I'm fully aware of doctrinal distinctions between Romanist and > > Protestant bodies > > Karen Winter lied: >[...] > >>> While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you call yourself a > >>> "vegan": > > >> Because I am. > > > No, you ate chiles relleno in the last couple years. > > No, I did not. Yes, you did. Sylvia, the piece of FAS flotsam, "ratted" you out. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
My favorite episode of TTZ was just on | General Cooking | |||
When did this FopodTV episode air? | General Cooking | |||
Lidia's Italy Episode 221 | General Cooking | |||
**THAT** Sandra Lee episode | General Cooking | |||
wife swap vegan episode | Vegan |