FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Where's everybody gone? (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/96820-wheres-everybody-gone.html)

Leif Erikson[_2_] 01-08-2006 06:12 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:
"chico chupacabra" wrote in message ...

lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:

...
Or as Karen Winter put it:


I don't think I have a right to prevent people by force
from doing things which cause no harm to another,
human or animal.


IOW, you don't object to humans ****ing animals. Case closed.


What case? I told you back then that I think it is a perversion.


You don't condemn it. You think people ****ing animals in the privacy
of their own homes is their business.

You *don't* think people should have the right to eat meat in the
privacy of their own homes, but you do think it's okay if they ****
animals. Go figure!


Leif Erikson[_2_] 01-08-2006 06:14 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
lesley the sick slut of Cork blabbered:
Karen Winter blabbered:
Leif Erikson wrote:

lesley the sick slut of Cork blabbered:

snip
What makes you think that you are qualified to know that?


snip

He isn't. And he is wrong. I have indeed studied animal
biology, ethology, and behavior at a university level,


You have not. You studied history from a post-modernist,
deconstructionist perspective. In other words, you studied shit.

Look up "imprinting" and "socialization" and "wildlife
rehabilitation". The earliest modern resource is
Konrad Lorenz, who pioneered the scientific concept of
imprinting, working with birds. All people working
with re-releasing captive-bred wild species, or with
natural behavior of such species, cover the subject.


I don't doubt you. In fact one of my roosters will do


....you. That's sick.


Leif Erikson[_2_] 01-08-2006 06:17 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, schismatic, lied:
Leif Erikson wrote:

lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:

snip
What makes you think that you are qualified to know that?


snip

He isn't. And he is wrong. I have indeed studied animal
biology, ethology, and behavior at a university level,


That's a lie. You studied an especially loathesome PC form of history
in university.

Stop lying, Karen.


[email protected] 01-08-2006 07:13 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Leif Erikson wrote:
Karen Winter, schismatic, lied:
Leif Erikson wrote:

lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:

snip
What makes you think that you are qualified to know that?


snip

He isn't. And he is wrong. I have indeed studied animal
biology, ethology, and behavior at a university level,


That's a lie. You studied an especially loathesome PC form of history
in university.

Stop lying, Karen.




Did you give your money to Benny Hinn yet Goober?


pearl[_1_] 01-08-2006 07:23 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Jonathan Ball the sick child rapist of Pasadena, LA aka"Leif Erikson" lied in message
oups.com...

pearl wrote:

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message ink.net...

lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:

Jonathan Ball the sick child rapist of Pasadena, LA aka"Leif Erikson" wrote in message

nk.net...

Glorfindel wrote:


Leif Erikson wrote:


pearl wrote::


snip

And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality:

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7


From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of
their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not
harming or causing distress to another - that's their business.

So you endorse it. You don't condemn it. Saying it's
"their business" is endorsement of it.


Saying it is sick as hell is condemnation.


No.


Of course it is condemnation.

Saying "that is WRONG and BAD,


Same thing.

and you shoud STOP it" is
condemning it. Saying that what people do in the privacy of their own
homes is their own business, is an endorsement of it.


Are you going to claim that all of these states, Federal Law and
countries ENDORSE bestiality because they don't prohibit it?

'LAW - Is their a specific law against bestiality in that state/country.
NONE = No specific law found against bestiality
YES = Law found regarding bestiality.

SN - Statute Number. If a law has been found this is the state/country's
statute number it was found under.

PEN - Penalty classification for violating the law. This may vary between
states/countries. PT = Prison time

STATE/COUNTRY VAR LAW SN PEN

USA LAWS

Alabama: C YES Code of Ala. @13A-6-63 "sodomy in the 1st degree"
(1994) criminal offense.
Alaska: C NONE
Arizona: C NONE
Arkansas: C YES Ark. Stat. Ann. Criminal Offense:
@13A-6-63 (1994) "sodomy in 1st degree"
California: C YES Penal Code Section 286.5 Misdemeanor
Colorado: C NONE
Connecticut: C YES General Statutes of CT Class A misdemeanor
Sec. 53a-73a Sexual assault in the fourth degree.
Delawa C YES 11 Del. C. @777 (1993) Class D Criminal felony.
Florida: C NONE
Georgia: C YES O.C.G.A. @16-6-6 (1994) 1-5 yr. jail sentence.
Hawaii: C NONE
Idaho: C YES Idaho Code @18-6605 "length of imprisonment in
(1994) excess of 5 years is left to discretion of court."
Illinois: C YES 720 ILCS 5/12-12 (1994) Crime.
Indiana: C YES Burn Ind. Code. Ann.
@35-42-4-2 (1994)
Iowa: C NONE
Kansas: C YES K.S.A. @2103506 (1993) Aggravated criminal sodomy
security level 2, felony
Kentucky: C NONE
Louisiana: C YES Revised Statutes 14:89 $2,000 fine and/or 5 years
with or without hard labor.
Maine: C YES 17-A M.R.S. @ 251 (1994) Class C Crime; 3-5 years
Maryland: C YES Unnatural/Perverted up to $1,000 fine,
Sexual Acts Article 27, Max of 10 years PT
Section 553
Massachusetts: C YES Mass. Ann. Laws. Jail sentence of not
ch. 272 @34 (1994) more than 20 years
Michigan: C YES MCL @750.185 (1992) Jail sentence of not more
than 15 years
Minnessota: C YES Minn. Stat. @609.294, Either fine of not more
(1993) than $3,000 or sentence of
not more than 1 year.
Mississippi: C YES Miss. Code. Ann., Sentence of not more than
@97-29-59 10 years.
Missouri: C NONE
Montana: C YES Mont. Code. Ann., 10 year sentence and/or
@45-5-505 (1994) $50,000 fine.
Nebraska: C NONE
Nevada: C NONE
New Hampshi C NONE
New Jersey: C NONE
New Mexico: C NONE
New York: C YES NY CLS Penal @130.20 Class A misdemeanor.
(1994)
North Carolina: C YES N.C. Gen. Stat. @14-177 Class I felony. 3-10 years
(1994)
North Dakota: C YES N.D. Cent. Code Various penalties, and can
@12.1-20-03, 12.1-20-07, be considered either
12.1-20-12(1993) "gross sexual imposition,"
"sexual assault" or
"deviate sexual act"
Ohio: C NONE
Oklahoma: C YES 21 Okl. St. @886 (1994) "imprisonment not to
exceed 10 years"
Oregon: C NONE
Pennsylvania: C YES 18 Pa. C. S. @3101,
3123 and 3124 (1994)
Rhode Island: C YES R.I. Gen. Laws @11-10-1 7-20 years.
(1993)
South Carolina: C YES S.C. Code Ann. 5 yrs jail and/or fine of
@16-15-120 (1993) at least $500
South Dakota: C NONE
Tennessee: C YES Tenn. Code. Ann.
@39-13-501 (1994)
Texas: C NONE
Utah: C YES Bestiality 76-9-301.8 Class B Misdemeanor
Vermont: C NONE
Virginia: C YES Va. Code. Ann. Class 6 Felony
@18.2-361 (1994)
Washington: C NONE
Washington DC: C YES DC Code @22-3502 (1994) Fine not more than $1,000
("Sexual Psychopath" and/or sentence of not
chapter) more than 10 yrs
West Virginia: C NONE
Wisconsin: C YES Wis. State. @944.17 None listed
(1993)
Wyoming: C NONE

========================[C - LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES]========================

Canada: C YES Criminal Code of Canada Approx 10 years
Part V, Section 160.
URL:http://canada.justice.gc.ca/
Denmark: W NONE
Finland: W NONE - -
Mexico: C NONE according to Franz, Carl:
"The People's Guide to Mexico", 1988. pg. 398.
New Zealand: C YES Crimes Act of 1964 Maximum 7 years PT
Section 143 & 144
Switzerland: W NONE
United Kingdom: C YES Sexual Offences Act of Life imprisonment
1956, Section 12(1) (typically 30 years)
Sexual Offences Act of
1967, Section 3(1)

===D - FEDERAL LAWS OF THE U.S. REGARDING BESTIALITY]===

1 - Introduction
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

There is no *federal* law which prohibits sex between humans and animals.
There are a few federal laws, however, which list bestiality, along with many
other forms of sex, which are prohibited when involving children (18 USCS
@2256, 3509 (1994) ).
...'
http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_.../beastlaw.html

Or as Karen Winter put it:

I don't think I have a right to prevent people by force
from doing things which cause no harm to another,
human or animal.


That's endorsement of it, too.


No it isn't.


Yes, it is. It's the same thing you're saying, in effect: "live and
let live". Pity you two fascist ****s won't apply that to people's
choices of foods.


The next paragraphs of the above page apply to you, you sick fascist.

'2 - The Roth Test
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court developed the "Roth Test" to define
"obscenity." The Roth Test requires that the court ask "whether to the
average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme
of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest"
(Roth v. United States, 354 US 476, 1). Since the Roth decision, the
Supreme Court has added that such material must be utterly without redeeming
social values.

3 - United States Code Chapter 71; Obscenity
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Section Content
======= =======
1460 Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on
Federal property
1461 Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter
1462 Importation or transportation of obscene matters
1463 Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes
1464 Broadcasting obscene language
1465 Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution
1466 Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene
matter
1467 Criminal forfeiture
1468 Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television
1469 Presumptions
...'
http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_.../beastlaw.html






pearl[_1_] 01-08-2006 07:27 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Jonathan Ball the sick child rapist of Pasadena, LA aka "Leif Erikson" lied in message
ps.com...

pearl wrote:

"chico chupacabra" wrote in message ...

pearl wrote:

...
Or as Karen Winter put it:


I don't think I have a right to prevent people by force
from doing things which cause no harm to another,
human or animal.

IOW, you don't object to humans ****ing animals. Case closed.


What case? I told you back then that I think it is a perversion.


You don't condemn it.


Yes, I do.

You think people ****ing animals in the privacy
of their own homes is their business.


So apparently do all of these US states and countries:

'LAW - Is their a specific law against bestiality in that state/country.
NONE = No specific law found against bestiality
YES = Law found regarding bestiality.

SN - Statute Number. If a law has been found this is the state/country's
statute number it was found under.

PEN - Penalty classification for violating the law. This may vary between
states/countries. PT = Prison time

STATE/COUNTRY VAR LAW SN PEN

USA LAWS

Alabama: C YES Code of Ala. @13A-6-63 "sodomy in the 1st degree"
(1994) criminal offense.
Alaska: C NONE
Arizona: C NONE
Arkansas: C YES Ark. Stat. Ann. Criminal Offense:
@13A-6-63 (1994) "sodomy in 1st degree"
California: C YES Penal Code Section 286.5 Misdemeanor
Colorado: C NONE
Connecticut: C YES General Statutes of CT Class A misdemeanor
Sec. 53a-73a Sexual assault in the fourth degree.
Delawa C YES 11 Del. C. @777 (1993) Class D Criminal felony.
Florida: C NONE
Georgia: C YES O.C.G.A. @16-6-6 (1994) 1-5 yr. jail sentence.
Hawaii: C NONE
Idaho: C YES Idaho Code @18-6605 "length of imprisonment in
(1994) excess of 5 years is left to discretion of court."
Illinois: C YES 720 ILCS 5/12-12 (1994) Crime.
Indiana: C YES Burn Ind. Code. Ann.
@35-42-4-2 (1994)
Iowa: C NONE
Kansas: C YES K.S.A. @2103506 (1993) Aggravated criminal sodomy
security level 2, felony
Kentucky: C NONE
Louisiana: C YES Revised Statutes 14:89 $2,000 fine and/or 5 years
with or without hard labor.
Maine: C YES 17-A M.R.S. @ 251 (1994) Class C Crime; 3-5 years
Maryland: C YES Unnatural/Perverted up to $1,000 fine,
Sexual Acts Article 27, Max of 10 years PT
Section 553
Massachusetts: C YES Mass. Ann. Laws. Jail sentence of not
ch. 272 @34 (1994) more than 20 years
Michigan: C YES MCL @750.185 (1992) Jail sentence of not more
than 15 years
Minnessota: C YES Minn. Stat. @609.294, Either fine of not more
(1993) than $3,000 or sentence of
not more than 1 year.
Mississippi: C YES Miss. Code. Ann., Sentence of not more than
@97-29-59 10 years.
Missouri: C NONE
Montana: C YES Mont. Code. Ann., 10 year sentence and/or
@45-5-505 (1994) $50,000 fine.
Nebraska: C NONE
Nevada: C NONE
New Hampshi C NONE
New Jersey: C NONE
New Mexico: C NONE
New York: C YES NY CLS Penal @130.20 Class A misdemeanor.
(1994)
North Carolina: C YES N.C. Gen. Stat. @14-177 Class I felony. 3-10 years
(1994)
North Dakota: C YES N.D. Cent. Code Various penalties, and can
@12.1-20-03, 12.1-20-07, be considered either
12.1-20-12(1993) "gross sexual imposition,"
"sexual assault" or
"deviate sexual act"
Ohio: C NONE
Oklahoma: C YES 21 Okl. St. @886 (1994) "imprisonment not to
exceed 10 years"
Oregon: C NONE
Pennsylvania: C YES 18 Pa. C. S. @3101,
3123 and 3124 (1994)
Rhode Island: C YES R.I. Gen. Laws @11-10-1 7-20 years.
(1993)
South Carolina: C YES S.C. Code Ann. 5 yrs jail and/or fine of
@16-15-120 (1993) at least $500
South Dakota: C NONE
Tennessee: C YES Tenn. Code. Ann.
@39-13-501 (1994)
Texas: C NONE
Utah: C YES Bestiality 76-9-301.8 Class B Misdemeanor
Vermont: C NONE
Virginia: C YES Va. Code. Ann. Class 6 Felony
@18.2-361 (1994)
Washington: C NONE
Washington DC: C YES DC Code @22-3502 (1994) Fine not more than $1,000
("Sexual Psychopath" and/or sentence of not
chapter) more than 10 yrs
West Virginia: C NONE
Wisconsin: C YES Wis. State. @944.17 None listed
(1993)
Wyoming: C NONE

========================[C - LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES]========================

Canada: C YES Criminal Code of Canada Approx 10 years
Part V, Section 160.
URL:http://canada.justice.gc.ca/
Denmark: W NONE
Finland: W NONE - -
Mexico: C NONE according to Franz, Carl:
"The People's Guide to Mexico", 1988. pg. 398.
New Zealand: C YES Crimes Act of 1964 Maximum 7 years PT
Section 143 & 144
Switzerland: W NONE
United Kingdom: C YES Sexual Offences Act of Life imprisonment
1956, Section 12(1) (typically 30 years)
Sexual Offences Act of
1967, Section 3(1)

===D - FEDERAL LAWS OF THE U.S. REGARDING BESTIALITY]===

1 - Introduction
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

There is no *federal* law which prohibits sex between humans and animals.
There are a few federal laws, however, which list bestiality, along with many
other forms of sex, which are prohibited when involving children (18 USCS
@2256, 3509 (1994) ).
...'
http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_.../beastlaw.html

You *don't* think people should have the right to eat meat in the
privacy of their own homes, but you do think it's okay if they ****
animals. Go figure!


I oppose anything which causes harm and distress. Why don't you?






Leif Erikson[_2_] 01-08-2006 08:39 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:
Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:

lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:

"chico chupacabra" wrote in message ...

lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:

...
Or as Karen Winter put it:


I don't think I have a right to prevent people by force
from doing things which cause no harm to another,
human or animal.

IOW, you don't object to humans ****ing animals. Case closed.

What case? I told you back then that I think it is a perversion.


You don't condemn it.


Yes, I do.


No:

You think people ****ing animals in the privacy
of their own homes is their business.


So apparently do all of these US states and countries:


That doesn't get you off the hook for your LYING about having condemned
it. You do *not* condemn it. Condemning it would be saying it's
unequivocally wrong and that no one should do it, anywhere or any
time. You won't do that; your phony sense of "tolerance" won't let
you.

You snipped - unethically - my comment that you're not willing to grant
meat eaters the same free pass. You and that lying **** Karen Winter
are both fascists.


Leif Erikson[_2_] 01-08-2006 08:42 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:
Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:

lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:


Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:

lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:

Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:

Karen Winter, schismatic cat shampooer, blabbered:


Leif Erikson wrote:


lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:


snip

And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality:

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7


From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of
their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not
harming or causing distress to another - that's their business.

So you endorse it. You don't condemn it. Saying it's
"their business" is endorsement of it.

Saying it is sick as hell is condemnation.


No.


Of course it is condemnation.


No.

Saying "that is WRONG and BAD,


Same thing.


No, they're not the same thing, you stupid ****. That moron Skanky got
her ass slapped over this, too.


and you shou.d STOP it" is
condemning it. Saying that what people do in the privacy of their own
homes is their own business, is an endorsement of it.


Are you going to claim that all of these states


We're not talking about any states. We're talking about YOU. You
endorse bestiality. So does that other fascist ****, Karen Winter.


Glorfindel 01-08-2006 08:45 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Leif Erikson wrote:


Pearl wrote:

snip


What makes you think that you are qualified to know that?


snip


Glorfindel wrote:

He isn't. And he is wrong. I have indeed studied animal
biology, ethology, and behavior at a university level,


snip

Look up "imprinting" and "socialization" and "wildlife
rehabilitation". The earliest modern resource is
Konrad Lorenz, who pioneered the scientific concept of
imprinting, working with birds. All people working
with re-releasing captive-bred wild species, or with
natural behavior of such species, cover the subject.


I don't doubt you. In fact one of my roosters will do


snip

That's sick.


Uh -uh. Great scientific attitude there, Leif. I suppose
you are now going to give Pearl's rooster a stern lecture on
his moral turpitude. How does that square with your
belief that animals lack personhood and ability to
anticipate? A Cartesian machine is capable of immorality?

Your belief system is just plain weird, and certainly
shows no understanding of biological science at all.

Do you even understand how imprinting in birds works?
Evidently not.






Leif Erikson[_2_] 01-08-2006 08:51 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, schismatic cat shampooer, lied:
Leif Erikson wrote:


Lesley the whore of Cork lied:

snip


What makes you think that you are qualified to know that?


snip


Karen Winter, schismatic cat shampooer, lied:

He isn't. And he is wrong. I have indeed studied animal
biology, ethology, and behavior at a university level,


You have not.

Stop lying, Karen.

Look up "imprinting" and "socialization" and "wildlife
rehabilitation". The earliest modern resource is
Konrad Lorenz, who pioneered the scientific concept of
imprinting, working with birds. All people working
with re-releasing captive-bred wild species, or with
natural behavior of such species, cover the subject.


I don't doubt you. In fact one of my roosters will do

...you

That's sick.


Uh -uh. Great scientific attitude there, Leif.


What's unscientific about condemning lesley for having sex with
roosters?


Your belief system is just plain weird, and certainly
shows no understanding of biological science at all.


You have no expertise in the field. Stop pretending you have.


Glorfindel 02-08-2006 03:58 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 


You know, just when I think you can't sink any lower,
you surprise me again. Have you *no* shame? Well,
obviously not.

You have totally abandoned any attempt to defend your
*original* claim in this thread, which I explained was
incorrect. In fact, you are now claiming exactly the
opposite of what you said at first, in an effort to
attack Pearl with a sick fantasy of *yours*.

She and I both understand the scientific facts of
imprinting in animals, particularly birds. You may
or may not -- you have never addressed the scientific
issue which was in question at all, because you know
you are wrong about it. You hope by creating another one
of your ridiculous fantasies to obscure that fact --
that you are unable to address the scientific question.

So, since you have abandoned your original claim,
we can assume you have no evidence to present, and
you show by your silence that you know you were wrong.

You are an idiot, and a particularly dishonorable
one. You used to at least *attempt* an on-topic argument
before fleeing the field and turning to personal
attacks. Now you don't even try.

LOL!

snip

Look up "imprinting" and "socialization" and "wildlife
rehabilitation". The earliest modern resource is
Konrad Lorenz, who pioneered the scientific concept of
imprinting, working with birds. All people working
with re-releasing captive-bred wild species, or with
natural behavior of such species, cover the subject.



Leif Erikson[_1_] 02-08-2006 05:20 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, schismatic cat shampooer, lied:



You know, just when I think you can't sink any lower,


You abandoned your son when he was a young boy. *THAT*
is sinking low, Karen.


pearl[_1_] 02-08-2006 12:18 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
pervert jonathan ball aka "Leif Erikson" lied in message
oups.com...

pearl wrote:


...
Or as Karen Winter put it:


I don't think I have a right to prevent people by force
from doing things which cause no harm to another,
human or animal.

IOW, you don't object to humans ****ing animals. Case closed.

What case? I told you back then that I think it is a perversion.

You don't condemn it.


Yes, I do.


No:


I think it is a perversion. I think it is morally wrong. I condemn it.

You think people ****ing animals in the privacy
of their own homes is their business.


So apparently do all of these US states and countries:


That doesn't get you off the hook for your LYING about having condemned
it. You do *not* condemn it.


I told you that think it is a perversion, LIAR. That is condemnation.

Condemning it would be saying it's
unequivocally wrong and that no one should do it, anywhere or any
time. You won't do that; your phony sense of "tolerance" won't let
you.


What is -your- objection to it? Unlike me, you don't care about animals,
- so it must be that you think it is debasing to the human involved. Well,
that's absolutely incredible coming from the most foul lowlife on usenet!

You snipped - unethically - my comment that you're not willing to grant
meat eaters the same free pass. You and that lying **** Karen Winter
are both fascists.


You're the one wanting to CONTROL every aspect of people's lives.

YOU snipped it, stupid lying fascist ball. -- restore --

You *don't* think people should have the right to eat meat in the
privacy of their own homes, but you do think it's okay if they ****
animals. Go figure!


I oppose anything which causes harm and distress. Why don't you?

---

Answer the question, ball. And these as well, while you're at it...
(You won't - you'll snip and run leaving a trail of filth behind you)

Where did you learn that "no animal anticipates", as you have
repeatedly claimed? What are your qualifications in the field?

Where did you study various aspects of rape, and anatomy?
Why do you try to defend the rape of children, jonathan ball?






pearl[_1_] 02-08-2006 12:39 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
pervert jonathan ball "Leif Erikson" lied in message
oups.com...

pearl wrote:

snip

And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality:

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7

From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of
their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not
harming or causing distress to another - that's their business.

So you endorse it. You don't condemn it. Saying it's
"their business" is endorsement of it.

Saying it is sick as hell is condemnation.

No.


Of course it is condemnation.


No.


Of course it is condemnation.

condemnation
1. an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing
as wrong or morally culpable
http://www.answers.com/condemnation&r=67

Saying "that is WRONG and BAD,


Same thing.


No, they're not the same thing,


condemnation
1. an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing
as wrong or morally culpable
http://www.answers.com/condemnation&r=67

and you shou.d STOP it" is
condemning it. Saying that what people do in the privacy of their own
homes is their own business, is an endorsement of it.


Are you going to claim that all of these states


We're not talking about any states. We're talking about YOU. You
endorse bestiality.


No I don't. I think it is a perversion, as the vast majority do, whether
it is legislated against or not. And, like many, I don't believe that I've
the right to interfere with others' choices - so long as they don't harm
or cause distress to others. Your moral posturing is bogus, psycho.








chico chupacabra 02-08-2006 02:36 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Lesley the foot-rubbing trollop wrote:

...
Or as Karen Winter put it:


I don't think I have a right to prevent people by force
from doing things which cause no harm to another,
human or animal.


IOW, you don't object to humans ****ing animals. Case closed.


What case?


Exactly, you never had one.

I told you back then that I think it is a perversion.


Yet you've never categorically condemned it the same way you have eating meat. Why is that, Lesley? Why do you find it wrong to eat an animal's flesh but permissible to sexually abuse it?

Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question.


You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter