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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #361 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

Karen Winter, schismatic/sectarian "anglo catholic" S&M advocate who
repeatedly dodges serious and germane questions and instead focuses on
the most irrelevant issues, wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter, former house-whore of the Society for Creative
>> Anachronisms commune,

>
> You *are* getting more creative with the insults lately.


Too bad the same can't be said for your uncreative snipping and dodging.

> <snip>


Restoring the last part:

> But I would not want
> to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill


What about those who want to eat normal meat? Why do you object to that
in a manner similar to my objections to bestiality and pedophilia,
Karen? What is it about eating meat or wearing leather or fur that's
less noble than sexually assaulting a minor or a defenseless animal?

End restore.

Answer the questions.
  #362 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>>Karen Winter, former house-whore of the Society for Creative
>>Anachronisms commune, wrote:
>>
>><...>
>>
>>>>>You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality.
>>>
>>>>No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying.
>>>
>>>*Intentionally* is the key word.

>>
>>No, Karen. Lesley has repeatedly equivocated on the issue. She's written
>>that it's a perversion but should be tolerated; she's written that it's
>>okay as long as it doesn't involve conditioning or coercion and then
>>failed to respond appropriately when asked when it does NOT involve
>>conditioning or coercion; she's written that it's nobody else's business
>>if someone ****s an animal even though she finds it patently offensive
>>if someone eats an animal.
>>
>>
>>>He knows you condemn it;

>>
>>One doesn't condone what one condemns; the two are mutually exclusive.
>>Lesley condones bestiality. She doesn't condemn it. She has only offered
>>qualified objections to it while firmly insisting that it be legal.
>>
>><...>
>>
>>>Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years,

>>
>>You have not been. Your depraved FAS-defective sidekick Sylvia wrote
>>that you had chiles rellenos when you returned to Santa Fe.
>>
>>
>>>I would gag at the thought of eating any meat,

>>
>>You should gag at the thought of munching that old bat's carpet.
>>
>>
>>>even roadkill.

>>
>>Even? *Especially* roadkill.
>>
>>
>>>But I would not want
>>>to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill

>>
>>What about those who want to eat normal meat? Why do you object to that
>>in a manner similar to my objections to bestiality and pedophilia,
>>Karen? What is it about eating meat or wearing leather or fur that's
>>less noble than sexually assaulting a minor or a defenseless animal?

>
>
> Surely you can not be so stupid as to be unaware of what she thinks the
> morally relevant difference is.


I want her to answer the questions and explain why she finds it morally
acceptable for someone to sexually abuse an animal but not to eat it.
Feel free to give it a stab yourself, numbnuts.
  #363 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Where's everybody gone?

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> Rupert wrote:
>
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> >
> >>pearl wrote:


>>>I've been thinking about this,

>>
>>oh dear god... she's trying to use her braincell.


'If man is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness
towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also
in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his
treatment of animals. -Immanuel Kant

> >>>Ok, but action stems from intent; that originates from thoughts
> >>>which should be culled from inception with the Knowledge of
> >>>Right and Wrong - understood with real education, and instinct.
> >>>It is Wrong, because it contravenes Natural Laws. It is deviant.
> >>>
> >>>Animals normally follow their instinct - but that can be perverted.
> >>>Zoophiles - however 'caring' they may be,
> >>
> >>They're not caring or selfless; they're selfish deviants who prey upon
> >>those who, or (in this instance) those that, cannot speak for
> >>themselves, defend themselves, etc. They are sexual predators every bit
> >>as much as child molestors are.


'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
...
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
"cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

> >>>DO -actively involve-
> >>>animals - 'grooming' them for what *we* *should* *know* to be
> >>>an *aberrant* activity, taking advantage of the animals' innocence.
> >>
> >>I don't know about the animals' innocence bit, but they DO take
> >>advantage of them.


'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
...
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
"cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

> >>>That is disrespectful - and no different from the selfish attitude that
> >>>leads to and allows *all* other animal abuses for humans' desires.
> >>
> >>It's MORE selfish and abusive, Les.

> >
> > Ridiculous.

>
> No, it isn't. What's ridiculous is that you find it objectionable when
> people eat animals but nobody else's business when they molest them. Why
> is that, Rupie? Why is it your business what other people eat or wear,
> but not your business whom or what they ****?


'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
...
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
"cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

> >>Contrary to your fantasy-world
> >>notions about nature, animals don't frolic blissfully all day weary only
> >>of mankind; they live in a world where some are prey and others are
> >>predators. It's not selfish to eat meat or wear fur, it's part of nature
> >>[for] animals to eat and to be eaten.


"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us
because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat,
was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
- Quoted from an editorial by William Clifford Roberts, M.d.,
Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Cardiology

>> Of course it's selfish.

>
> It's not selfish to eat meat or wear fur.


"Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining
from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident
and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched
his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead
creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and
ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little
before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his
eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed
and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench?
How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which
made contact with the sores of others and sucked juices and
serums from mortal wounds? . The obligations of law and
equity reach only to mankind, but kindness and benevolence
should be extended to the creatures of every species, and these
will flow from the breast of a true man, in streams that issue
from the living fountain. Man makes use of flesh not out of
want and necessity, seeing that he has the liberty to make his
choice of herbs and fruits, the plenty of which is inexhaustible;
but out of luxury, and being cloyed with necessaries, he seeks
after impure and inconvenient diet, purchased by the slaughter
of living beasts; by showing himself more cruel than the most
savage of wild beasts ... were it only to learn benevolence to
human kind, we should be merciful to other creatures. . It is
certainly not lions and wolves that we eat out of self-defense;
on the contrary, we ignore these and slaughter harmless, tame
creatures without stings or teeth to harm us, creatures that, I
swear, Nature appears to have produced for the sake of their
beauty and grace. But nothing abashed us, not the flower-like
tinting of the flesh, not the persuasiveness of the harmonious
voice, not the cleanliness of their habits or the unusual intelligence
that may be found in the poor wretches. No, for the sake of a
little flesh we deprive them of sun, of light, of the duration of life
to which they are entitled by birth and being.Why do you belie
the earth, as if it were unable to feed and nourish you? Does it
not shame you to mingle murder and blood with her beneficent
fruits? Other carnivores you call savage and ferocious - lions
and tigers and serpents - while yourselves come behind them
in no species of barbarity. And yet for them murder is the only
means of sustenance! Whereas to you it is superfluous luxury
and crime!"
Plutarch (c. 56 - 120 A.D.) (Roman historian and scholar)



  #364 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Where's everybody gone?

On 7 Aug 2006 17:50:53 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 6 Aug 2006 18:11:19 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 5 Aug 2006 20:52:49 -0700, wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:

>> [..]
>> >> >> >> >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
>> >> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
>> >> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
>> >> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
>> >> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
>> >> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
>> >> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
>> >> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
>> >> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
>> >> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms
>> >> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
>> >> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
>> >> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
>> >> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
>> >> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a
>> >> >> >> >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees
>> >> >> >> >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect,
>> >> >> >> >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms
>> >> >> >> as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply
>> >> >> >> that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm
>> >> >> >> means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You
>> >> >> >> cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm
>> >> >> >> when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful
>> >> >> >> treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not
>> >> >> >> trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> >in a sexual context and no other.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
>> >> >
>> >> >"The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea include the
>> >> >following: for adult males the presence in their bodies, in the
>> >> >testicles, of semen is essential for the existence and maintenance of
>> >> >their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse therefore involves the
>> >> >termporary loss of something important (so women are dangerous); the
>> >> >bodies of young boys do not yet internally produce, and so they do not
>> >> >yet have, this ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an
>> >> >external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. The
>> >> >Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from these beliefs,
>> >> >in which young boys, starting around the age of seven to ten and
>> >> >lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate older males to orgasm and
>> >> >ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs
>> >> >daily. The masculinity of the donors thereby passes to the
>> >> >beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the boys become the men who are sucked
>> >> >and who provide the masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated
>> >> >is the staple of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until
>> >> >marriage." (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations").
>> >> >
>> >> >Presumably, you think this is incompatible with respectful treatment.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I most certainly do, and it does nothing to support your above
>> >> claim to which I responded where you wrote, "What I'm not clear
>> >> on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
>> >> context and no other."
>> >
>> >That's not a claim. It's a question.

>>
>> Then where is the question mark indicating that it was a question?

>
>See that word "why"? That usually indicates a question.


Yes, and it also indicates 2 statements or claims made in a single
sentence;

1) What I'm not clear on is *why* there are only 7 days in a week.
This sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
facts; the fact that there are only 7 days in a week, and the fact
that you're not clear on the fact that there are only 7 days in a week.

2) "What I'm not clear on is *why* the issue of "respectful treatment"
arises in a sexual context and no other."
Again, this sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
facts; the fact that "the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual
content and no other", and the fact that you're not clear on why "the
issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual content and no other."

Your statement wasn't a question, so why lie?

>> Your statement was not a question. It was a wrong claim that "the
>> issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no
>> other.", and that you were "not clear on why the issue of
>> "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."

>
>No, it was not.


I've shown clearly that it is, liar.

>> I replied, "Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment"
>> arises in many areas as well in a sexual context."

>
>Thank you. Which ones?


Work them out for yourself. You don't get to take control of
this discussion by digressing from it with endless examples
that don't pertain to the issue at hand.

>> >> It clearly does arise in other contexts, so
>> >> you were wrong to suggest it doesn't.
>> >
>> >It was an attempt at interpreting your position.

>>
>> No, liar, it was an attempt at MISinterpreting my position.

>
>If you're going to call me a liar then I can't be bothered talking to
>you.


I've shown that you've lied while trying to pretend that your
statement of fact was a question. Ergo, you're a liar.

>Civil replies


Go **** yourself.

> please, or else shut up.


I come and go here as I see fit, liar.

>> It failed.
>> My position on harms, respectful treatment and zoophilia is clear.

>
>Not to me.


Then you should pay closer attention.

>> >Everything you've said so far is
>> >consistent with the criterion being that the interaction is a sexual
>> >one

>>
>> No, I wrote, "The issue of respectful treatment is raised in many
>> different contexts, but the context here is wrongful sex between
>> moral agents and moral patients."

>
>Yes, so you claimed, but it was like pulling teeth to get you to
>actually say what these different contexts were.


Then you lied again, because, as we can see, you've just
conceded that I did in fact tell you what these different
contexts were, even though you believe it was like pulling
teeth to get me to actually tell you. You lied again in an
effort to misrepresent my position so you can knock that
false position down easily, only then to announce a defeat
over my real position.

>Now you've said it


I said it about three or four posts ago, liar.

>> I also wrote, "Try sticking with
>> the subject, Rupe: respectful treatment and wrongful sex with
>> animals and children. Can you do that?"

>
>Yes, I know, I heard you the first time you said it


Then why lie and pretend that I didn't?

>> while you attempt to digress from it by referring
>> to interactions which don't involve disrespectful treatment, such
>> as schooling and religious ceremonies, etc. To head off any future
>> attempts at digressing let me make my position on this issue clear
>> once again.
>>
>> The issue of respectful treatment is raised in many different
>> contexts, but the context here is wrongful sex between moral
>> agents and moral patients. Meaningful consent cannot be
>> extracted from moral patients, even if they appear willing to
>> have sex, and presuming they have given meaningful consent
>> without actually receiving it is a gross violation of their right to
>> our respectful treatment. You cannot presume that meaningful
>> consent exists without first violating their right to our respectful
>> treatment. It's as simple and as straightforward as that, so deal
>> with it and stop wasting my time by digressing onto schools,
>> religious ceremonies and scratching dog's bellies.

>
>Apparently in those contexts we can presume that meaningful consent
>exists


No, and once again you are trying to misrepresent my position
again with the term "we". I don't presume meaningful consent
exists in animals to engage in sexual activity with moral agents.

>> The position
>> I've put forward is clear enough for a child to understand, so stop
>> feigning ignorance and start making your case against it.

>
>Who says I want to make a case against it?


Then stop wasting my time, liar.
  #365 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Where's everybody gone?

On 7 Aug 2006 18:00:46 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 6 Aug 2006 18:19:41 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

>> [..]
>> >> >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >>>in a sexual context and no other.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
>> >> >
>> >> >True
>> >>
>> >> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
>> >> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
>> >
>> >I didn't imply that.

>>
>> Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not
>> clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
>> context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of
>> "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you
>> declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why.


Well, lair?

>> >It was my attempt at interpreting your position.

>>
>> No, it was your attempt at MISinterpreting my position.

>
>I won't stand for being told I'm deliberately misinterpreting your
>position.


You have no option but to, liar, because it's clear that you are
trying to misinterpret my position so you can knock that false
position easily and then declare a defeat over my real position.

>Accept my good faith or else stop talking to me.


Liars don't act in good faith, Rupe.

>> I rejected
>> your claim by replying, "Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful
>> treatment" arises in many areas as well in a sexual context."

>
>It wasn't a claim, it was a question.


No, it wasn't a question;

"What I'm not clear on is *why* the issue of "respectful treatment"
arises in a sexual context and no other."

That sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two facts;
the fact that "the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual
content and no other", and the fact that you're not clear on why "the
issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual content and no other."

Here's another example following the same line;

"What I'm not clear on is *why* there are only 7 days in a week."

This sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
facts; the fact that there are only 7 days in a week, and the fact
that you're not clear on the fact that there are only 7 days in a week.

Your statement wasn't a question, so why lie?

>> >> Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert.
>> >
>> >Try and stay civil.

>>
>> She is a disgusting pervert, and saying so is my prerogative.

>
>What is a pervert


Karen Winter.

>> Her perverted views on sex with children is well documented
>> and lead to her being kicked out of her parish.

>
>Holding an ethical view can make you a pervert, can it?


Our views are what make us what we are, Rupe. Hope that
helps.

>> Her support for
>> the perversion of zoophilia is also on record and before us right
>> now, and that's why I can say without any hesitation that she's
>> a disgusting pervert.

>
>So, you're happy with calling people disgusting perverts simply for
>expressing ethical views.


Yes, because our views are what make us what we are.

>Well, sure, that's your perogative


Yes, it is.

> but if
>you're going to continue doing it I don't think you're worth having a
>conversation with.


Not if you're a pervert, no, because I always defeat them
and make them wish they'd never walked up to the mark.


  #366 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Where's everybody gone?

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:29:09 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:11:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:

>
>>>Hey, Leif, we're finally getting a civil ( or semi-civil )
>>>discussion among AR people here. Hurrah!

>
>> Why do you, a self-confessed apologist for and enabler of
>> zoophilia

>
>Only under very limited circumstances


The circumstances are such that you condone and promote
zoophilia when it's obviously certain that no meaningful
consent can be extracted from an animal to participate in
such perverted act, and those circumstances are anything
BUT limited, you lying, disgusting old perv.

>> rank yourself alongside genuine 'AR people'?

>
>Because I am an "AR person"


No, you are not and cannot be while promoting animal
abuse.

>> Only a while ago today you wrote, "I highly, HIGHLY
>> doubt zoophilia would take place between free, wild animals
>> and humans, or in an AR-based society.",

>
>Yes, I did. Think about it a bit, Derek.


I have, and it's crystal clear that your total disregard for
an animal's right against our trespass against it puts you
well outside the AR tent, you disgusting animal-abuser.
You have conceded that the abuse you condone and
promote would not take place in an AR-based society,
so that leaves you well outside it.
  #367 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Where's everybody gone?

chico chupacabra wrote:

<snip>
> I want her to answer the questions


I did in the very post you are quoting.

and explain why she finds it morally
> acceptable for someone to sexually abuse an animal


I don't find it morally acceptable to abuse an animal
in any way, sexual or not.

> but not to eat it.


The post you are quoting explained my position on
eating animals.

But you knew all that. You are just arguing
to be annoying here.
  #368 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Where's everybody gone?

Scented Nectar wrote:
> cheeky upchuck wrote:


>>Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.


> While I'm completely against all bestiality, there are exceptions to
> the above quote. Some pet animals use (or try to use) their owners to
> masturbate/mate with. There are dogs that hump legs, birds that try to
> hump human hands, and even a cat I've heard of that wanks off on its
> owner's leg. If the human involved does NOT feel sexual about the
> animal, yet allows it to do this, it puts them in a bit of a grey area.
> It may be completely gross that a person lets their pet do this to
> them, but is it immoral? I'm unsure.



Why would it be immoral?

I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
he was quite old when I adopted him, and he was definitely oriented
toward humans. Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
for him by denying him this release, when it did him no harm, and it
did me no harm?



  #369 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Where's everybody gone?


cheeky upchuck wrote:

> Thanks for sharing your little anecdotes about your cat humping your
> hand and cankles. TMI.


I have never had a cat do that to me. Care to try again?

> This doesn't prove an exception to the rule I stated. Animals act
> instinctively and don't seek out humans for sexual conquest. An animal
> humping a woman's leg (or in the case of larger animals, humping the
> woman) when she's having her period doesn't qualify as an exception --
> that's still an animal acting on instinct (scent-driven sexuality, not
> some sense of interspecies "fun").


It's a misconception that period smells sexually attract other species,
or even our own!

> Your "exceptions" remind me of the lame and pathetic attempts by
> homosexuals to pass off their behavior as natural because male dogs will
> often mount other male dogs. The problem with that is that male dogs,
> when mounted by other male dogs, will respond very fiercely and aren't
> receptive at all to being butt-****ed.


You just don't like gays no matter what.

> > There are dogs that hump legs, birds that try to
> > hump human hands, and even a cat I've heard of that wanks off on its
> > owner's leg. If the human involved does NOT feel sexual about the
> > animal, yet allows it to do this, it puts them in a bit of a grey area.
> >
> > It may be completely gross that a person lets their pet do this to
> > them, but is it immoral? I'm unsure.

>
> You're unsure about a lot of things, thanks to all that pot you smoke.


You're a little too sure of yourself. Care for a toke and open your
mind a bit? Just kidding, none for you, Usual.

  #370 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Where's everybody gone?


Glorfindel wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > cheeky upchuck wrote:

>
> >>Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.

>
> > While I'm completely against all bestiality, there are exceptions to
> > the above quote. Some pet animals use (or try to use) their owners to
> > masturbate/mate with. There are dogs that hump legs, birds that try to
> > hump human hands, and even a cat I've heard of that wanks off on its
> > owner's leg. If the human involved does NOT feel sexual about the
> > animal, yet allows it to do this, it puts them in a bit of a grey area.
> > It may be completely gross that a person lets their pet do this to
> > them, but is it immoral? I'm unsure.

>
>
> Why would it be immoral?


I guess it isn't. Just grosses me out.

> I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
> Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
> he was quite old when I adopted him, and he was definitely oriented
> toward humans. Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
> for him by denying him this release, when it did him no harm, and it
> did me no harm?


I used to have a cockatiel who kept trying to do that to me. Luckily,
he was also attracted to any fruit or veg I would put on top of his
cage, like a chunk of cabbage, so I redirected him there. He would
mount it, do his thing, and then when finished, do a cute little
run-around and song. Happy little bird.



  #371 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Where's everybody gone?

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...

> I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
> Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
> he was quite old when I adopted him, and he was definitely oriented
> toward humans. Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
> for him by denying him this release, when it did him no harm, and it
> did me no harm?


Good grief, Glorfindel! The OBVIOUS and CORRECT thing to
do would have been to adopt a FEMALE cockatiel! *That* would
have been the *respectful* thing to do. Wrongly thinking that it was
just ok to enable the aberrant behaviour resulted in him missing out,
not only the opportunity to engage in their natural courtship, etc., but
every other facet of meaningful association with one of his own kind!




  #372 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Where's everybody gone?



Rupert was trying to be polite in phrasing his discussion with you,
and he certainly did not lie or misrepresent anything about your
views.

Apparently you have trouble carrying on a civil conversation
and have to go into "outrage" mode to talk to anyone who
disagrees with you. That's a bit childish, to say the least.

<snip>

>>>>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:


>>>>>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>>>>>>>>in a sexual context and no other.


<snip>
  #373 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Where's everybody gone?

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:35:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:

>Rupert was trying to be polite in phrasing his discussion with you,
>and he certainly did not lie or misrepresent anything about your
>views.


I've shown that he has lied while trying misrepresent my
position, but of course you had to snip the evidence of
that all away.

<restore>
>> >> >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >>>in a sexual context and no other.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
>> >> >
>> >> >True
>> >>
>> >> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
>> >> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
>> >
>> >I didn't imply that.

>>
>> Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not
>> clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
>> context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of
>> "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you
>> declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why.


Well, lair?

>> >It was my attempt at interpreting your position.

>>
>> No, it was your attempt at MISinterpreting my position.

>
>I won't stand for being told I'm deliberately misinterpreting your
>position.


You have no option but to, liar, because it's clear that you are
trying to misinterpret my position so you can knock that false
position easily and then declare a defeat over my real position.

>Accept my good faith or else stop talking to me.


Liars don't act in good faith, Rupe.

>> I rejected
>> your claim by replying, "Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful
>> treatment" arises in many areas as well in a sexual context."

>
>It wasn't a claim, it was a question.


No, it wasn't a question;

"What I'm not clear on is *why* the issue of "respectful treatment"
arises in a sexual context and no other."

That sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two facts;
the fact that "the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual
content and no other", and the fact that you're not clear on why "the
issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual content and no other."

Here's another example following the same line;

"What I'm not clear on is *why* there are only 7 days in a week."

This sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
facts; the fact that there are only 7 days in a week, and the fact
that you're not clear on the fact that there are only 7 days in a week.

Your statement wasn't a question, so why lie?
<end restore>

There is no doubt that his statement was a statement of fact and
not a question, perv.
  #374 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Where's everybody gone?

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 06:46:33 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:

>I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.


That's disgusting, but not surprising when we consider the
fact that you're a pervert.

>Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
>he was quite old when I adopted him,


If he was able to masturbate on your hand I don't see why
you couldn't have provided him an appropriate mate.

>and he was definitely oriented toward humans.


No, you're just presuming he was, just like you presumed
those 7 year old boys who were made to such the dicks
of their elders every day gave meaningful consent and
enjoyed it.

"Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from
these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the
age of seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate
and fellate older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate;
this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity
of the donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries."

So, these elders were so sincere in their belief that their semen
gave young boys masculinity that it gave them a hard on, eh?
Why didn't they just jerk off into a bowl, perv?

>Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
>for him by denying him this release,


Exactly! Why didn't you get the poor thing a mate or just
leave him alone to do what it wants to do on something
else like a toy, perv?

>when it did him no harm, and it did me no harm?


It debased both you and the bird, you stupid bitch.
  #375 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Where's everybody gone?


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> > cheeky upchuck wrote:
>> >
>> >> Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.
>> >
>> > While I'm completely against all bestiality, there are exceptions to
>> > the above quote. Some pet animals use (or try to use) their owners to
>> > masturbate/mate with. There are dogs that hump legs, birds that try to
>> > hump human hands, and even a cat I've heard of that wanks off on its
>> > owner's leg. If the human involved does NOT feel sexual about the
>> > animal, yet allows it to do this, it puts them in a bit of a grey area.
>> > It may be completely gross that a person lets their pet do this to
>> > them, but is it immoral? I'm unsure.

>>
>> This is more about immorality in the sense of defying or respecting
>> social
>> taboos, not causing harm per se. I knew a guy once who had trained his
>> boxer
>> to give him head. At the time I just thought he was a weirdo, which I
>> already knew, it never seemed to me that it harmed the dog. He confirmed
>> his
>> wierdness by volunteering for The Vietnam War as a dual-citizen living in
>> Canada and getting killed.

>
> I think in cases where the human feels sexual about an animal, as in
> the boxer, this is worse than a person simply letting their pet wank
> off. It can and probably often does lead to harm.


The only harm that came out of the above was to his reputation as a normal
person, but we all knew he was weird anyway. What other harm do you envisage
coming out of the perversion I described?




  #376 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Where's everybody gone?


Dutch wrote:
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >> > cheeky upchuck wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.
> >> >
> >> > While I'm completely against all bestiality, there are exceptions to
> >> > the above quote. Some pet animals use (or try to use) their owners to
> >> > masturbate/mate with. There are dogs that hump legs, birds that try to
> >> > hump human hands, and even a cat I've heard of that wanks off on its
> >> > owner's leg. If the human involved does NOT feel sexual about the
> >> > animal, yet allows it to do this, it puts them in a bit of a grey area.
> >> > It may be completely gross that a person lets their pet do this to
> >> > them, but is it immoral? I'm unsure.
> >>
> >> This is more about immorality in the sense of defying or respecting
> >> social
> >> taboos, not causing harm per se. I knew a guy once who had trained his
> >> boxer
> >> to give him head. At the time I just thought he was a weirdo, which I
> >> already knew, it never seemed to me that it harmed the dog. He confirmed
> >> his
> >> wierdness by volunteering for The Vietnam War as a dual-citizen living in
> >> Canada and getting killed.

> >
> > I think in cases where the human feels sexual about an animal, as in
> > the boxer, this is worse than a person simply letting their pet wank
> > off. It can and probably often does lead to harm.

>
> The only harm that came out of the above was to his reputation as a normal
> person, but we all knew he was weird anyway. What other harm do you envisage
> coming out of the perversion I described?


He might escalate and do something like rape the animal, thinking it
likes it too (dogs can't say yes or no). A mindset that sexualizes
animals is on very shaky grounds. I would recommend to anyone has that
mindset, that they try to refocus their libidoes on something safe,
like those Furries or Plushies people or whatever they're called.
They're weird, but nonharmful. They dress up as animals and have sex
with each other. Some have sex with stuffed animals, I think. One of
the weirdest fetishes I've heard of, but morally they are completely ok
as they harm no one.

  #377 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Where's everybody gone?

pearl wrote:

> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...


>>I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
>>Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
>>he was quite old when I adopted him, and he was definitely oriented
>>toward humans. Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
>>for him by denying him this release, when it did him no harm, and it
>>did me no harm?


> Good grief, Glorfindel! The OBVIOUS and CORRECT thing to
> do would have been to adopt a FEMALE cockatiel! *That* would
> have been the *respectful* thing to do. Wrongly thinking that it was
> just ok to enable the aberrant behaviour resulted in him missing out,
> not only the opportunity to engage in their natural courtship, etc., but
> every other facet of meaningful association with one of his own kind!


I adopted him from a person who had more birds than she could
take care of properly. He had lots of opportunity to find a
female, but in the eight years or so he had lived with her,
he had had zero success. She gave him to me because he was
crippled and barely able to fly. The other birds beat
up on him, so she couldn't let him out of the cage with the
others. I started giving him physical therapy, letting him out
most of the day as an "only bird" and he got much stronger and
eventually was able to fly the full length of the house.

It was either my hand, or Scented Nectar's piece of vegetation.
I thought it was rather sweet, in fact. He certainly was a
happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.

OTOH, I once adopted a 'tiel who hated humans. She bit any
hand or other part of a human body which came near her. We
tried all the suggestions of the local bird behaviorist, but
she just was having none of it. After a year of trying, we
gave her to a person who had a breeding colony of 'tiels where
she didn't have to be friendly with humans at all, and *she*
was a happier bird there. She was not wild-caught, either, so
she just didn't like people. It wasn't just us,either. She
bit the bird behaviorist too.

So birds are just as individual as humans.
  #378 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

carpet-munching child abandoner Karen Winter > wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I want her to answer the questions

>
> I did


No, you didn't. And stop snipping posts to death.

<SNIP... how do you like that>
  #379 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

perverted "anglo catholic" Karen Winter > wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > chico chupacabra wrote:

>
> >>Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.

>
> > While I'm completely against all bestiality, there are exceptions to
> > the above quote. Some pet animals use (or try to use) their owners to
> > masturbate/mate with. There are dogs that hump legs, birds that try to
> > hump human hands, and even a cat I've heard of that wanks off on its
> > owner's leg. If the human involved does NOT feel sexual about the
> > animal, yet allows it to do this, it puts them in a bit of a grey area.
> > It may be completely gross that a person lets their pet do this to
> > them, but is it immoral? I'm unsure.

>
> Why would it be immoral?


Why would it be moral?

> I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.


You sick ****.

> Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,


You could've found him another little cockatiel. Or are they ****atiels?

> he was quite old when I adopted him,


So was that FAS-defective fleabag Sylvia when you started munching her carpet.

> and he was definitely oriented toward humans.


So you enabled him.

<...>
  #380 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

Skanky wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> > Thanks for sharing your little anecdotes about your cat humping your
> > hand and cankles. TMI.

>
> I have never had a cat do that to me. Care to try again?


Why are you so defensive about it?

> > This doesn't prove an exception to the rule I stated. Animals act
> > instinctively and don't seek out humans for sexual conquest. An animal
> > humping a woman's leg (or in the case of larger animals, humping the
> > woman) when she's having her period doesn't qualify as an exception --
> > that's still an animal acting on instinct (scent-driven sexuality, not
> > some sense of interspecies "fun").

>
> It's a misconception that period smells sexually attract other species,


In a study designed to test the hypothesis that bears are attracted to the odors of menstruation, Cushing (1983) reported that when presented with a series of different odors (including seal scents, other food scents, nonmenstrual human blood, and used tampons), four captive polar bears (Ursus maritimus) elicited a strong behavioral response only to seal scents and menstrual odors (used tampons). Cushing (1983) also reported that free-ranging polar bears detected and consumed food scent samples and used tampons, but ignored nonmenstrual human blood and unused tampons. This suggests that polar bears are attracted to odors associated with menstrual blood.
Cushing, B. 1983. Responses of polar bears to human menstrual odors. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:270-274.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/nature/anima...per/info7.html

> or even our own!


Especially with your endometriosis and smeggy vaginitis.

> > Your "exceptions" remind me of the lame and pathetic attempts by
> > homosexuals to pass off their behavior as natural because male dogs will
> > often mount other male dogs. The problem with that is that male dogs,
> > when mounted by other male dogs, will respond very fiercely and aren't
> > receptive at all to being butt-****ed.

>
> You just don't like gays no matter what.


Dogs don't. Neither do most other normal male animals.

> > > There are dogs that hump legs, birds that try to
> > > hump human hands, and even a cat I've heard of that wanks off on its
> > > owner's leg. If the human involved does NOT feel sexual about the
> > > animal, yet allows it to do this, it puts them in a bit of a grey area.
> > >
> > > It may be completely gross that a person lets their pet do this to
> > > them, but is it immoral? I'm unsure.

> >
> > You're unsure about a lot of things, thanks to all that pot you smoke.

>
> You're a little too sure of yourself. Care for a toke and open your
> mind a bit?


It doesn't open your mind; it fries it. You're an example of why it's not a good idea.


  #381 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

Skanky wrote:

> > >>Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.

> >
> > > While I'm completely against all bestiality, there are exceptions to
> > > the above quote. Some pet animals use (or try to use) their owners to
> > > masturbate/mate with. There are dogs that hump legs, birds that try to
> > > hump human hands, and even a cat I've heard of that wanks off on its
> > > owner's leg. If the human involved does NOT feel sexual about the
> > > animal, yet allows it to do this, it puts them in a bit of a grey area.
> > > It may be completely gross that a person lets their pet do this to
> > > them, but is it immoral? I'm unsure.

> >
> > Why would it be immoral?

>
> I guess it isn't.


What would be moral about letting it have its way with you or any part of your body?

> Just grosses me out.


That pervert Karen got off on it.

> > I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
> > Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
> > he was quite old when I adopted him, and he was definitely oriented
> > toward humans. Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
> > for him by denying him this release, when it did him no harm, and it
> > did me no harm?

>
> I used to have a cockatiel who kept trying to do that to me.


That was the last decent date you had, too, Skanky.
  #382 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

Lesley correctly wrote:

> > I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
> > Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
> > he was quite old when I adopted him, and he was definitely oriented
> > toward humans. Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
> > for him by denying him this release, when it did him no harm, and it
> > did me no harm?

>
> Good grief, Karen Winter! The OBVIOUS and CORRECT thing to
> do would have been to adopt a FEMALE cockatiel! *That* would
> have been the *respectful* thing to do.


Since when has Karen been respectful of anyone or anything?

> Wrongly thinking that it was
> just ok to enable the aberrant behaviour resulted in him missing out,


Yeah, but she got some...

> not only the opportunity to engage in their natural courtship, etc., but
> every other facet of meaningful association with one of his own kind!


That's irrelevant to a navel-gazing perv like Karen.
  #383 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

Karen Winter, incessant snipper and pro-S&M "anglo catholic," wrote:

> Apparently you have trouble carrying on a civil conversation


Look who's talking...

> That's a bit childish, to say the least.


The pot calleth the kettle black.
  #384 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

Derek > wrote:

> Karen Winter, pro-bestiality zealot, wrote:
>
> >I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.

>
> That's disgusting, but not surprising when we consider the
> fact that you're a pervert.
>
> >Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
> >he was quite old when I adopted him,

>
> If he was able to masturbate on your hand I don't see why
> you couldn't have provided him an appropriate mate.


Because Sylvia was tied up. Literally.

> >and he was definitely oriented toward humans.

>
> No, you're just presuming he was, just like you presumed
> those 7 year old boys who were made to such the dicks
> of their elders every day gave meaningful consent and
> enjoyed it.
>
> "Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from
> these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the
> age of seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate
> and fellate older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate;
> this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity
> of the donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries."
>
> So, these elders were so sincere in their belief that their semen
> gave young boys masculinity that it gave them a hard on, eh?
> Why didn't they just jerk off into a bowl, perv?
>
> >Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
> >for him by denying him this release,

>
> Exactly! Why didn't you get the poor thing a mate or just
> leave him alone to do what it wants to do on something
> else like a toy, perv?
>
> >when it did him no harm, and it did me no harm?

>
> It debased both you and the bird, you stupid bitch.


Her whole life sounds as if it revolves around debauchery and self-defilement.
  #385 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

Karen Winter, bird molestor, wrote:

> >>I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
> >>Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
> >>he was quite old when I adopted him, and he was definitely oriented
> >>toward humans. Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
> >>for him by denying him this release, when it did him no harm, and it
> >>did me no harm?

>
> > Good grief, Karen Winter! The OBVIOUS and CORRECT thing to
> > do would have been to adopt a FEMALE cockatiel! *That* would
> > have been the *respectful* thing to do. Wrongly thinking that it was
> > just ok to enable the aberrant behaviour resulted in him missing out,
> > not only the opportunity to engage in their natural courtship, etc., but
> > every other facet of meaningful association with one of his own kind!

>
> I adopted him from a person who had more birds than she could
> take care of properly.


Sounds like you did an even worse job...

> I thought it was rather sweet, in fact.


You would, you deranged perv.

> He certainly was a
> happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.


You feel special for it?

> OTOH, I once adopted a 'tiel who hated humans. She bit any
> hand or other part of a human body which came near her.


Good, she probably knew of your reputation and didn't want you ****ing with her.


  #386 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Where's everybody gone?


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> >> > cheeky upchuck wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.
>> >> >
>> >> > While I'm completely against all bestiality, there are exceptions to
>> >> > the above quote. Some pet animals use (or try to use) their owners
>> >> > to
>> >> > masturbate/mate with. There are dogs that hump legs, birds that try
>> >> > to
>> >> > hump human hands, and even a cat I've heard of that wanks off on its
>> >> > owner's leg. If the human involved does NOT feel sexual about the
>> >> > animal, yet allows it to do this, it puts them in a bit of a grey
>> >> > area.
>> >> > It may be completely gross that a person lets their pet do this to
>> >> > them, but is it immoral? I'm unsure.
>> >>
>> >> This is more about immorality in the sense of defying or respecting
>> >> social
>> >> taboos, not causing harm per se. I knew a guy once who had trained his
>> >> boxer
>> >> to give him head. At the time I just thought he was a weirdo, which I
>> >> already knew, it never seemed to me that it harmed the dog. He
>> >> confirmed
>> >> his
>> >> wierdness by volunteering for The Vietnam War as a dual-citizen living
>> >> in
>> >> Canada and getting killed.
>> >
>> > I think in cases where the human feels sexual about an animal, as in
>> > the boxer, this is worse than a person simply letting their pet wank
>> > off. It can and probably often does lead to harm.

>>
>> The only harm that came out of the above was to his reputation as a
>> normal
>> person, but we all knew he was weird anyway. What other harm do you
>> envisage
>> coming out of the perversion I described?

>
> He might escalate and do something like rape the animal, thinking it
> likes it too (dogs can't say yes or no).


Rape is a violent act, there is no supportable reason to believe that he
would harm his dog.

> A mindset that sexualizes
> animals is on very shaky grounds.


You're presuming something that doesn't necessarily follow, I'm surprised a
*** person would do this. There is a stereotype among straight people that
all gays have tendencies towards pedophilia. This is also an unsupported
conclusion. I agree that one must be weird to do what he did, but it doesn't
make it necessarily immoral except in a social context. Just because
something seems icky does not make it immoral.

> I would recommend to anyone has that
> mindset, that they try to refocus their libidoes on something safe,
> like those Furries or Plushies people or whatever they're called.
> They're weird, but nonharmful. They dress up as animals and have sex
> with each other. Some have sex with stuffed animals, I think. One of
> the weirdest fetishes I've heard of, but morally they are completely ok
> as they harm no one.


As far as I know his dog was never harmed at all. Licking his master's dick
meant he got whatever yummy treat was smeared on it, I doubt if it had any
more significance than that to the animal.


  #387 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default Where's everybody gone?

Rupert wrote:
> Derek wrote:
> > On 6 Aug 2006 18:19:41 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> > >Derek wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
> > >> >Derek wrote:
> > >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

> > [..]
> > >> >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> > >> >>>in a sexual context and no other.
> > >> >
> > >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> > >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
> > >> >
> > >> >True
> > >>
> > >> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
> > >> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
> > >
> > >I didn't imply that.

> >
> > Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not
> > clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
> > context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of
> > "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you
> > declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why.
> >
> > >It was my attempt at interpreting your position.

> >
> > No, it was your attempt at MISinterpreting my position.

>
> I won't stand for being told I'm deliberately misinterpreting your
> position. Accept my good faith or else stop talking to me.


Derek - Rupie does a lot of ordering people not to talk to him. Just
ignore him and reply to his posts as you see fit. Rupie does not
occupy any moral high ground, and he is not the emperor of usenet.


> > I rejected
> > your claim by replying, "Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful
> > treatment" arises in many areas as well in a sexual context."
> >

>
> It wasn't a claim, it was a question. I thank you for your
> clarification of your position. Then I had further questions, see my
> other posts.
>
> > >I apologize if it was a misinterpretation, but you've rejected all my
> > >examples of how it might arise in a non-sexual context

> >
> > No, that's false. I accepted two examples: compulsory schooling
> > and attending ceremonies "if the child isn't sexually mutilated or
> > made to perform deviant acts while attending that ceremony."

>
> You rejected those examples in the sense that you claimed in these
> contexts there was no violation of the right to respectful treatment.
>
> We are agreed that an interaction violates the right to respectful
> treatment if there is a significant risk of harm to which the being
> can't or doesn't give informed consent, or if the being expresses a
> preference that the interaction not take place. Apart from those cases,
> which interactions violate the right to respectful treatment? As far as
> I can tell, you believe that apart from those cases, an interaction
> violates the right to respectful treatment if and only if it is a
> sexual one. Or have I got that wrong? Are there any examples apart from
> the cases involving harm or an expressed preference to the contrary
> where a non-sexual interaction violates the right to respectful
> treatment? That's what I was trying to clarify.
>
> > I then followed that with, "How many more examples are you
> > going to try while attempting to digress from the issue of sex
> > between moral agents and moral patients ..."
> >

>
> Stop your pitiful whingeing. It is not a digression, what I am trying
> to do is get some illumination on *why* you think sexual interactions
> which do not harm and are not contrary to a preference raise an issue
> about respectful treatment.
>
> > >I'm really struggling to understand what your
> > >criterion is

> >
> > No, rather, you're really struggling to digress and misrepresent
> > my clear position.
> >

>
> No, I am not, and I won't stand for you casting aspersions on my
> motives in that way. Stop it or we'll have to terminate the
> conversation.
>
> > >> >>>There are all sorts of situations
> > >> >>>where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to
> > >> >>>which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example).
> > >> >>>If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see
> > >> >>>why it's given in these contexts, either.
> > >> >
> > >> >> It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or
> > >> >> children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries
> > >> >> no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when
> > >> >> scratching them.
> > >> >
> > >> >Really?
> > >>
> > >> Yes. When I scratch my dog's belly I'm not hoping for a shag.
> > >>
> > >> >I doubt that.
> > >>
> > >> Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert.
> > >
> > >Try and stay civil.

> >
> > She is a disgusting pervert, and saying so is my prerogative.

>
> What is a pervert, and what is your evidence that she is one?
>
> > Her perverted views on sex with children is well documented
> > and lead to her being kicked out of her parish.

>
> Holding an ethical view can make you a pervert, can it?
>
> > Her support for
> > the perversion of zoophilia is also on record and before us right
> > now, and that's why I can say without any hesitation that she's
> > a disgusting pervert.

>
> So, you're happy with calling people disgusting perverts simply for
> expressing ethical views. Well, sure, that's your perogative, but if
> you're going to continue doing it I don't think you're worth having a
> conversation with.


  #388 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Where's everybody gone?


chico chupacabra wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> >
> >>Karen Winter, former house-whore of the Society for Creative
> >>Anachronisms commune, wrote:
> >>
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>>You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality.
> >>>
> >>>>No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying.
> >>>
> >>>*Intentionally* is the key word.
> >>
> >>No, Karen. Lesley has repeatedly equivocated on the issue. She's written
> >>that it's a perversion but should be tolerated; she's written that it's
> >>okay as long as it doesn't involve conditioning or coercion and then
> >>failed to respond appropriately when asked when it does NOT involve
> >>conditioning or coercion; she's written that it's nobody else's business
> >>if someone ****s an animal even though she finds it patently offensive
> >>if someone eats an animal.
> >>
> >>
> >>>He knows you condemn it;
> >>
> >>One doesn't condone what one condemns; the two are mutually exclusive.
> >>Lesley condones bestiality. She doesn't condemn it. She has only offered
> >>qualified objections to it while firmly insisting that it be legal.
> >>
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years,
> >>
> >>You have not been. Your depraved FAS-defective sidekick Sylvia wrote
> >>that you had chiles rellenos when you returned to Santa Fe.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I would gag at the thought of eating any meat,
> >>
> >>You should gag at the thought of munching that old bat's carpet.
> >>


Her sexual activities are none of your business, you disgusting
homophobe.

> >>
> >>>even roadkill.
> >>
> >>Even? *Especially* roadkill.
> >>
> >>
> >>>But I would not want
> >>>to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill
> >>
> >>What about those who want to eat normal meat? Why do you object to that
> >>in a manner similar to my objections to bestiality and pedophilia,
> >>Karen? What is it about eating meat or wearing leather or fur that's
> >>less noble than sexually assaulting a minor or a defenseless animal?

> >
> >
> > Surely you can not be so stupid as to be unaware of what she thinks the
> > morally relevant difference is.

>
> I want her to answer the questions and explain why she finds it morally
> acceptable for someone to sexually abuse an animal but not to eat it.
> Feel free to give it a stab yourself, numbnuts.


Not if that's going to be your level of courtesy. As I say, I really
cannot comprehend how you could fail to grasp what her answer would be.
I will explain it to you if you're prepared to be civil.

  #389 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Where's everybody gone?


Derek wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2006 17:50:53 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 6 Aug 2006 18:11:19 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 20:52:49 -0700, wrote:
> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> >> >> >> >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
> >> >> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
> >> >> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
> >> >> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
> >> >> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
> >> >> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
> >> >> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
> >> >> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
> >> >> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
> >> >> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms
> >> >> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
> >> >> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
> >> >> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
> >> >> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
> >> >> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a
> >> >> >> >> >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees
> >> >> >> >> >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect,
> >> >> >> >> >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms
> >> >> >> >> as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply
> >> >> >> >> that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm
> >> >> >> >> means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You
> >> >> >> >> cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm
> >> >> >> >> when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful
> >> >> >> >> treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not
> >> >> >> >> trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >> >> >> >in a sexual context and no other.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea include the
> >> >> >following: for adult males the presence in their bodies, in the
> >> >> >testicles, of semen is essential for the existence and maintenance of
> >> >> >their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse therefore involves the
> >> >> >termporary loss of something important (so women are dangerous); the
> >> >> >bodies of young boys do not yet internally produce, and so they do not
> >> >> >yet have, this ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an
> >> >> >external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. The
> >> >> >Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from these beliefs,
> >> >> >in which young boys, starting around the age of seven to ten and
> >> >> >lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate older males to orgasm and
> >> >> >ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs
> >> >> >daily. The masculinity of the donors thereby passes to the
> >> >> >beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the boys become the men who are sucked
> >> >> >and who provide the masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated
> >> >> >is the staple of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until
> >> >> >marriage." (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations").
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Presumably, you think this is incompatible with respectful treatment.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, I most certainly do, and it does nothing to support your above
> >> >> claim to which I responded where you wrote, "What I'm not clear
> >> >> on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
> >> >> context and no other."
> >> >
> >> >That's not a claim. It's a question.
> >>
> >> Then where is the question mark indicating that it was a question?

> >
> >See that word "why"? That usually indicates a question.

>
> Yes, and it also indicates 2 statements or claims made in a single
> sentence;
>
> 1) What I'm not clear on is *why* there are only 7 days in a week.
> This sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
> facts; the fact that there are only 7 days in a week, and the fact
> that you're not clear on the fact that there are only 7 days in a week.
>
> 2) "What I'm not clear on is *why* the issue of "respectful treatment"
> arises in a sexual context and no other."
> Again, this sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
> facts; the fact that "the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual
> content and no other", and the fact that you're not clear on why "the
> issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual content and no other."
>
> Your statement wasn't a question, so why lie?
>


Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd said "What I'm not clear on
is why you think the issue of 'respectful treatment' arises in a sexual
context and no other." I thought you were a normal speaker of English
who could understand what is and is not reasonably implied by a
statement. I'll try to be more careful in future.

Apologize for accusing me of lying and stop doing it. Then I'll address
the rest of your post.

  #390 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Where's everybody gone?


Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:35:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>
> >Rupert was trying to be polite in phrasing his discussion with you,
> >and he certainly did not lie or misrepresent anything about your
> >views.

>
> I've shown that he has lied while trying misrepresent my
> position, but of course you had to snip the evidence of
> that all away.
>


You have shown no such thing, moron. If you want to know what I
intended to say you'll have to ask me. You can contend that I wasn't
using the English language correctly if you like, but that's actually
not the case, it's you who are incompetent at understanding it.



  #391 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Where's everybody gone?


chico chupacabra wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> >
> >>Lesley wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Karen Winter, schismatic sectarian, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Derek, I know that you will argue endlessly for the sake
> >>>>of argument, even if it is obvious to any rational person
> >>>>that you are making no sense. So I don't intend to
> >>>>repeat the points I have already made again and again.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are simply wrong. You don't understand what a rights
> >>>>violation is,and you certainly don't understand Regan,
> >>>>who frames his philosophical arguments at a level you just
> >>>>don't have the intellectual capacity to follow. Leif would
> >>>>be the first to agree with me, if you weren't attacking me
> >>>>at this point.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I've been thinking about this,
> >>
> >>oh dear god... she's trying to use her braincell.
> >>
> >>
> >>>as you know. Comments follow.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>><snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>a violation of rights only takes place when an actual
> >>>>>>concrete harm takes place.
> >>>>
> >>>>>...without a preceding decision to violate their
> >>>>>right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms
> >>>>>don't occur.
> >>>>
> >>>>That is correct. But the decision to violate a right
> >>>>is not a violation of a right; it is only a *decision*
> >>>>to take an action in the future. It's like Harrison
> >>>>and his imaginary pre-existing cattle -- there can be
> >>>>no benefit until the animal actually exists. You
> >>>>have agreed with Leif on that point, and so do I.
> >>>>
> >>>>If you agree imaginary beings don't gain a benefit
> >>>>until they actually exist, and an action is done
> >>>>which benefits them, you *logically* must agree that
> >>>>a violation of a being's rights cannot take place until
> >>>>a real action in the real world takes place. Saying
> >>>>a rights violation takes place without an action is
> >>>>exactly the same as saying a benefit takes place
> >>>>without an action.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ok, but action stems from intent; that originates from thoughts
> >>>which should be culled from inception with the Knowledge of
> >>>Right and Wrong - understood with real education, and instinct.
> >>>It is Wrong, because it contravenes Natural Laws. It is deviant.
> >>>
> >>>Animals normally follow their instinct - but that can be perverted.
> >>>Zoophiles - however 'caring' they may be,
> >>
> >>They're not caring or selfless; they're selfish deviants who prey upon
> >>those who, or (in this instance) those that, cannot speak for
> >>themselves, defend themselves, etc. They are sexual predators every bit
> >>as much as child molestors are.
> >>
> >>
> >>>DO -actively involve-
> >>>animals - 'grooming' them for what *we* *should* *know* to be
> >>>an *aberrant* activity, taking advantage of the animals' innocence.
> >>
> >>I don't know about the animals' innocence bit, but they DO take
> >>advantage of them.
> >>
> >>
> >>>That is disrespectful - and no different from the selfish attitude that
> >>>leads to and allows *all* other animal abuses for humans' desires.
> >>
> >>It's MORE selfish and abusive, Les.

> >
> > Ridiculous.

>
> No, it isn't. What's ridiculous is that you find it objectionable when
> people eat animals but nobody else's business when they molest them. Why
> is that, Rupie? Why is it your business what other people eat or wear,
> but not your business whom or what they ****?
>


Do you really not know, or are you just pretending? Can you really be
that thick?

Well, if you want to know, just miraculously transform yourself into
someone who is worthy of my conversation, and I'll tell you.

> >>Contrary to your fantasy-world
> >>notions about nature, animals don't frolic blissfully all day weary only
> >>of mankind; they live in a world where some are prey and others are
> >>predators. It's not selfish to eat meat or wear fur, it's part of nature
> >>[for] animals to eat and to be eaten.

>
> [Edited my own sentence.]
>
> > Of course it's selfish.

>
> It's not selfish to eat meat or wear fur.
>


Absurd.

> > The idea that modern farming practices are
> > "part of nature" is ridiculous.

>
> It's very natural for man to maximize yields using minimal inputs,
> whether it's getting more corn per acre or developing faster growing
> chickens. Other animals also engage in efficient/economical behaviors
> like burying or storing up food or scavenging.
>


Seems like a pretty warped view of what's "natural" to me. As I say,
the question of what's natural is irrelevant.

> > In any case, demonstrating that a
> > behaviour is natural is not to prove that it is immune to ethical
> > criticism.

>
> It's normal, natural, and ethical for people to eat animals; it's
> unethical to molest other species that cannot give consent to being
> molested.
>


Ipse dixit, doesn't address my point.

> >>It's both unnatural

> >
> > Prove it.(It's irrelevant anyway, but it'd be interesting to see how
> > you'd go about arguing that modern farming practices are "natural" and
> > human-nonhuman sexual interactions aren't).

>
> Here's a link to get you started with the former, dummy:
> http://tinyurl.com/lpzxt
>
> As for the latter, a quick consultation with DSM-IV, as well as books
> about our culture, will reinforce my already-stated position.
>


That's how we figure out what's natural, is it? Consult DSM-IV and our
cultural taboos? You really are funny.

> A brief synopsis of paraphilias from DSM:
> http://health.enotes.com/mental-diso...ia/paraphilias
>
> Wikipedia on cultural perspectives of sexual abuse of animals:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...s_on_zoophilia
>


  #392 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Where's everybody gone?


Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Derek wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:12:42 GMT, Leif Erikson
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
> >> >> >>>Derek wrote:
> >> >> >>>>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>Derek wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>><snip>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of
> >> >> >>>>>>view...",
> >> >> >>>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights
> >> >> >>>>>>violations,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>That is correct.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>No, Derek
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped
> >> >> >> him away.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other
> >> >> >> harms
> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a rights
> >> >> >> violation.
> >>
> >> A man may have great respect for deer yet still shoot a deer for food. A
> >> man
> >> may have no respect for deer yet never harm one.
> >>
> >> >> >Karen is equivocating on "respect".
> >> >>
> >> >> Well caught that man!
> >> >
> >> > Explain the point, then. What are the two senses of "respect" between
> >> > which she is equivocating?
> >>
> >> Regan is just talking in circles, like all AR authors do. What meaningful
> >> difference can there be between rights violations which are lack of
> >> respect
> >> leading to harm and simply acts which cause harm?

> >
> > I was wanting to know how Derek interpreted Leif Erikson's claim that
> > Karen was equivocating on the word "respect". I wasn't so much
> > concerned with the project of trying to interpret Regan.

>
> Derek talks in circles too.
>
> > I guess I'd have to read what Regan has to say, but most rights
> > theorists agree that there are some actions which adversely affect the
> > well-being of another which do not violate rights. A woman refusing a
> > suitor, for example.

>
> Any moron knows that, literally. People who think of obvious ideas like this
> as "rights theory" are pompous twits.
>
> >The idea is usually something like: this action
> > does not violate any of the constraints on how to treat another being.
> > Perhaps Regan would say that, as long as we do not violate the
> > constraints, we are treating the other being with respect, even though
> > they may be worse-off as a result of our action. I don't know. I agree
> > it's a topic that deserves careful discussion.

>
> No it doesn't, it's bloody simple, unless one's head is firmly implanted in
> one's ass.
>
> > Contrary to what you say
> > this is not a problem unique to AR authors, that's just your
> > narrow-minded prejudices and your lack of familiarity with moral
> > philosophy. Rather, all rights theorists have to address this problem.

>
> I didn't say talking in circles was unique to AR authors, pompous twit, I
> said all AR authors do it. Get the difference?


Yeah, right, anyone who tries to produce a systematic theory that
explains our moral intuitions is talking in circles and is a pompous
twit. I'm sure you'd be competent to know. Well, thanks for
enlightening me, I guess I'll give up studying moral philosophy. See ya
round.

  #393 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Where's everybody gone?


Dutch wrote:
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message

....
> > He might escalate and do something like rape the animal, thinking it
> > likes it too (dogs can't say yes or no).

>
> Rape is a violent act, there is no supportable reason to believe that he
> would harm his dog.


I hope not.

> > A mindset that sexualizes
> > animals is on very shaky grounds.

>
> You're presuming something that doesn't necessarily follow, I'm surprised a
> *** person would do this. There is a stereotype among straight people that
> all gays have tendencies towards pedophilia. This is also an unsupported
> conclusion. I agree that one must be weird to do what he did, but it doesn't
> make it necessarily immoral except in a social context. Just because
> something seems icky does not make it immoral.


You're presuming I'm ***. I presume that most people, *** or straight,
would not think too highly of what that friend of your's is doing.

> > I would recommend to anyone has that
> > mindset, that they try to refocus their libidoes on something safe,
> > like those Furries or Plushies people or whatever they're called.
> > They're weird, but nonharmful. They dress up as animals and have sex
> > with each other. Some have sex with stuffed animals, I think. One of
> > the weirdest fetishes I've heard of, but morally they are completely ok
> > as they harm no one.

>
> As far as I know his dog was never harmed at all. Licking his master's dick
> meant he got whatever yummy treat was smeared on it, I doubt if it had any
> more significance than that to the animal.


It's still wrong, just like it would be wrong if he were to smear his
dick with candy and invite children to lick it off. I see it as
comparable.

  #394 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Where's everybody gone?

chico chupacabra wrote:

> Glorfindel wrote:


<snip>

>>I adopted him from a person who had more birds than she could
>>take care of properly.


<snip>

>>He certainly was a
>>happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.


> You feel special for it?


Not special, but pleased that I could give him a home
where he could overcome his crippled wing and live
what to all appearances was a happy and healthy life.
It is always satisfying when one can help a
disadvantaged animal improve his situation. That is
really the only moral justification for keeping a
companion animal -- to give him the best possible life
under the circumstances.

<snip>
  #395 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Where's everybody gone?

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:12:42 GMT, Leif Erikson
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
>> >> >> >>>Derek wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>Derek wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>><snip>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of
>> >> >> >>>>>>view...",
>> >> >> >>>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights
>> >> >> >>>>>>violations,
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>>That is correct.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>No, Derek
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped
>> >> >> >> him away.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
>> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
>> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes
>> >> >> >> their
>> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly,
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in
>> >> >> >> these
>> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
>> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to
>> >> >> >> endure
>> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a
>> >> >> >> lamentable,
>> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
>> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other
>> >> >> >> harms
>> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a
>> >> >> >> lack
>> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we
>> >> >> >> would
>> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not
>> >> >> >> themselves
>> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
>> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a
>> >> >> >> rights
>> >> >> >> violation.
>> >>
>> >> A man may have great respect for deer yet still shoot a deer for food.
>> >> A
>> >> man
>> >> may have no respect for deer yet never harm one.
>> >>
>> >> >> >Karen is equivocating on "respect".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well caught that man!
>> >> >
>> >> > Explain the point, then. What are the two senses of "respect"
>> >> > between
>> >> > which she is equivocating?
>> >>
>> >> Regan is just talking in circles, like all AR authors do. What
>> >> meaningful
>> >> difference can there be between rights violations which are lack of
>> >> respect
>> >> leading to harm and simply acts which cause harm?
>> >
>> > I was wanting to know how Derek interpreted Leif Erikson's claim that
>> > Karen was equivocating on the word "respect". I wasn't so much
>> > concerned with the project of trying to interpret Regan.

>>
>> Derek talks in circles too.
>>
>> > I guess I'd have to read what Regan has to say, but most rights
>> > theorists agree that there are some actions which adversely affect the
>> > well-being of another which do not violate rights. A woman refusing a
>> > suitor, for example.

>>
>> Any moron knows that, literally. People who think of obvious ideas like
>> this
>> as "rights theory" are pompous twits.
>>
>> >The idea is usually something like: this action
>> > does not violate any of the constraints on how to treat another being.
>> > Perhaps Regan would say that, as long as we do not violate the
>> > constraints, we are treating the other being with respect, even though
>> > they may be worse-off as a result of our action. I don't know. I agree
>> > it's a topic that deserves careful discussion.

>>
>> No it doesn't, it's bloody simple, unless one's head is firmly implanted
>> in
>> one's ass.
>>
>> > Contrary to what you say
>> > this is not a problem unique to AR authors, that's just your
>> > narrow-minded prejudices and your lack of familiarity with moral
>> > philosophy. Rather, all rights theorists have to address this problem.

>>
>> I didn't say talking in circles was unique to AR authors, pompous twit, I
>> said all AR authors do it. Get the difference?

>
> Yeah, right, anyone who tries to produce a systematic theory that
> explains our moral intuitions is talking in circles and is a pompous
> twit.


No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral philosophy
that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of others
without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit. I may rush out
and buy the last air conditioner in a store resulting in the person behind
me dying of heat stroke the next day. I didn't violate his rights, yet my
actions definitely adversely affected that person. There are endless
examples, so many that this could almost be called a defining cornerstone of
society. I would welcome the ideas of anyone who makes a serious attempt to
produce a systematic theory that explains our moral intuitions but those
people are not well represented among AR authors as far as I have seen.

> I'm sure you'd be competent to know. Well, thanks for
> enlightening me, I guess I'll give up studying moral philosophy. See ya
> round.


If you are reading authors who fall into the above category you are wasting
your time. I admit that I am not well-read in this area of "academia" but I
have a lot of common sense and a highly-developed bullshit meter.




  #396 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Where's everybody gone?


"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message

> ...
>> > He might escalate and do something like rape the animal, thinking it
>> > likes it too (dogs can't say yes or no).

>>
>> Rape is a violent act, there is no supportable reason to believe that he
>> would harm his dog.

>
> I hope not.


You'd be crazy to **** off an animal with large teeth who has your dick in
its mouth.


>> > A mindset that sexualizes
>> > animals is on very shaky grounds.

>>
>> You're presuming something that doesn't necessarily follow, I'm surprised
>> a
>> *** person would do this. There is a stereotype among straight people
>> that
>> all gays have tendencies towards pedophilia. This is also an unsupported
>> conclusion. I agree that one must be weird to do what he did, but it
>> doesn't
>> make it necessarily immoral except in a social context. Just because
>> something seems icky does not make it immoral.

>
> You're presuming I'm ***.


I thought you said you were, anyway the point is the same.

> I presume that most people, *** or straight,
> would not think too highly of what that friend of your's is doing.


I agree, but not because he's harming the dog. I found it to be sick, in a
funny way, like the love affairs between farmers and their sheep...


>> > I would recommend to anyone has that
>> > mindset, that they try to refocus their libidoes on something safe,
>> > like those Furries or Plushies people or whatever they're called.
>> > They're weird, but nonharmful. They dress up as animals and have sex
>> > with each other. Some have sex with stuffed animals, I think. One of
>> > the weirdest fetishes I've heard of, but morally they are completely ok
>> > as they harm no one.

>>
>> As far as I know his dog was never harmed at all. Licking his master's
>> dick
>> meant he got whatever yummy treat was smeared on it, I doubt if it had
>> any
>> more significance than that to the animal.

>
> It's still wrong, just like it would be wrong if he were to smear his
> dick with candy and invite children to lick it off. I see it as
> comparable.


It's not comparable AT ALL, children have a basic human sexual identity from
a very young age, and sexual interaction with adults is well-known to cause
severe psychological trauma and loss of self-esteem. A high proportion of
teen drug addicts, prostitutes and sexual dysfunction can be traced back to
early sexual interference from adults. I am describing the HARM caused by
adult-on-child sex, NONE of this applies to animals. Sex with animals is
just sicko, it shows poor taste, perhaps poor character on the part of the
person doing it, but it's not immoral in the same way that HARMFUL sex with
children is.



  #397 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default Where's everybody gone?

wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6 Aug 2006 18:19:41 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>>>>>>>>>in a sexual context and no other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>>>>>>>>in many areas as well in a sexual context.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
>>>>>>treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't imply that.
>>>>
>>>>Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not
>>>>clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
>>>>context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of
>>>>"respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you
>>>>declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It was my attempt at interpreting your position.
>>>>
>>>>No, it was your attempt at MISinterpreting my position.
>>>
>>>I won't stand for being told I'm deliberately misinterpreting your
>>>position. Accept my good faith or else stop talking to me.

>>
>>Derek - Rupie does a lot of ordering people not to talk to him.

>
>
> Liar and coward.


No.


> I have never ordered you not to talk to me,


Liar.

"stop talking to me"
Rupert, psychotic rainman
http://tinyurl.com/jgtbz
  #398 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Where's everybody gone?


Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>Rupert wrote:
> >>
> >>>Derek wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 6 Aug 2006 18:19:41 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>[..]
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >>>>>>>>>in a sexual context and no other.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >>>>>>>>in many areas as well in a sexual context.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>True
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
> >>>>>>treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I didn't imply that.
> >>>>
> >>>>Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not
> >>>>clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
> >>>>context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of
> >>>>"respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you
> >>>>declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>It was my attempt at interpreting your position.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it was your attempt at MISinterpreting my position.
> >>>
> >>>I won't stand for being told I'm deliberately misinterpreting your
> >>>position. Accept my good faith or else stop talking to me.
> >>
> >>Derek - Rupie does a lot of ordering people not to talk to him.

> >
> >
> > Liar and coward.

>
> No.
>
>
> > I have never ordered you not to talk to me,

>
> Liar.
>
> "stop talking to me"
> Rupert, psychotic rainman
>
http://tinyurl.com/jgtbz


Yes, well, we'll let that link speak for itself, shall we?

  #399 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Where's everybody gone?


Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:12:42 GMT, Leif Erikson
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>>><snip>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of
> >> >> >> >>>>>>view...",
> >> >> >> >>>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights
> >> >> >> >>>>>>violations,
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>That is correct.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>>Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>No, Derek
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped
> >> >> >> >> him away.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
> >> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
> >> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes
> >> >> >> >> their
> >> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly,
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in
> >> >> >> >> these
> >> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
> >> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to
> >> >> >> >> endure
> >> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a
> >> >> >> >> lamentable,
> >> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
> >> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other
> >> >> >> >> harms
> >> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a
> >> >> >> >> lack
> >> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we
> >> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not
> >> >> >> >> themselves
> >> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
> >> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a
> >> >> >> >> rights
> >> >> >> >> violation.
> >> >>
> >> >> A man may have great respect for deer yet still shoot a deer for food.
> >> >> A
> >> >> man
> >> >> may have no respect for deer yet never harm one.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Karen is equivocating on "respect".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Well caught that man!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Explain the point, then. What are the two senses of "respect"
> >> >> > between
> >> >> > which she is equivocating?
> >> >>
> >> >> Regan is just talking in circles, like all AR authors do. What
> >> >> meaningful
> >> >> difference can there be between rights violations which are lack of
> >> >> respect
> >> >> leading to harm and simply acts which cause harm?
> >> >
> >> > I was wanting to know how Derek interpreted Leif Erikson's claim that
> >> > Karen was equivocating on the word "respect". I wasn't so much
> >> > concerned with the project of trying to interpret Regan.
> >>
> >> Derek talks in circles too.
> >>
> >> > I guess I'd have to read what Regan has to say, but most rights
> >> > theorists agree that there are some actions which adversely affect the
> >> > well-being of another which do not violate rights. A woman refusing a
> >> > suitor, for example.
> >>
> >> Any moron knows that, literally. People who think of obvious ideas like
> >> this
> >> as "rights theory" are pompous twits.
> >>
> >> >The idea is usually something like: this action
> >> > does not violate any of the constraints on how to treat another being.
> >> > Perhaps Regan would say that, as long as we do not violate the
> >> > constraints, we are treating the other being with respect, even though
> >> > they may be worse-off as a result of our action. I don't know. I agree
> >> > it's a topic that deserves careful discussion.
> >>
> >> No it doesn't, it's bloody simple, unless one's head is firmly implanted
> >> in
> >> one's ass.
> >>
> >> > Contrary to what you say
> >> > this is not a problem unique to AR authors, that's just your
> >> > narrow-minded prejudices and your lack of familiarity with moral
> >> > philosophy. Rather, all rights theorists have to address this problem.
> >>
> >> I didn't say talking in circles was unique to AR authors, pompous twit, I
> >> said all AR authors do it. Get the difference?

> >
> > Yeah, right, anyone who tries to produce a systematic theory that
> > explains our moral intuitions is talking in circles and is a pompous
> > twit.

>
> No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral philosophy
> that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of others
> without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit.


It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not supposed to
be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when
trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is. I
brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating rights
violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case.

> I may rush out
> and buy the last air conditioner in a store resulting in the person behind
> me dying of heat stroke the next day. I didn't violate his rights, yet my
> actions definitely adversely affected that person. There are endless
> examples, so many that this could almost be called a defining cornerstone of
> society. I would welcome the ideas of anyone who makes a serious attempt to
> produce a systematic theory that explains our moral intuitions but those
> people are not well represented among AR authors as far as I have seen.
>
> > I'm sure you'd be competent to know. Well, thanks for
> > enlightening me, I guess I'll give up studying moral philosophy. See ya
> > round.

>
> If you are reading authors who fall into the above category you are wasting
> your time.
> I admit that I am not well-read in this area of "academia" but I
> have a lot of common sense and a highly-developed bullshit meter.


  #400 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Where's everybody gone?

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...

>
> >>I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
> >>Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
> >>he was quite old when I adopted him, and he was definitely oriented
> >>toward humans. Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
> >>for him by denying him this release, when it did him no harm, and it
> >>did me no harm?

>
> > Good grief, Glorfindel! The OBVIOUS and CORRECT thing to
> > do would have been to adopt a FEMALE cockatiel! *That* would
> > have been the *respectful* thing to do. Wrongly thinking that it was
> > just ok to enable the aberrant behaviour resulted in him missing out,
> > not only the opportunity to engage in their natural courtship, etc., but
> > every other facet of meaningful association with one of his own kind!

>
> I adopted him from a person who had more birds than she could
> take care of properly. He had lots of opportunity to find a
> female, but in the eight years or so he had lived with her,
> he had had zero success.


Because of the competition.

> She gave him to me because he was
> crippled and barely able to fly. The other birds beat
> up on him, so she couldn't let him out of the cage with the
> others. I started giving him physical therapy, letting him out
> most of the day as an "only bird" and he got much stronger and
> eventually was able to fly the full length of the house.


And probably strong enough to finally have a mate.

> It was either my hand, or Scented Nectar's piece of vegetation.
> I thought it was rather sweet, in fact. He certainly was a
> happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.


Neither extreme was the optimum, imho.

> OTOH, I once adopted a 'tiel who hated humans. She bit any
> hand or other part of a human body which came near her. We
> tried all the suggestions of the local bird behaviorist, but
> she just was having none of it. After a year of trying, we
> gave her to a person who had a breeding colony of 'tiels where
> she didn't have to be friendly with humans at all, and *she*
> was a happier bird there. She was not wild-caught, either, so
> she just didn't like people. It wasn't just us,either. She
> bit the bird behaviorist too.


She wanted the company of other birds too.

> So birds are just as individual as humans.


Of course they are.. but they're still birds.





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"