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
  #121 (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?

"William" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "William" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >> > Billy Bligh wrote:

....
> >> >> My faculties are in peek condition.
> >> >
> >> > Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are
> >> > stupid-by-choice.
> >> >
> >> Actually, I was trying to be funny. Oh well.

> >
> > .

>
> These guys have no sense of humour. It seems my use of peek in place of peak aroused
> in Leif a state of pique. :-)


He just likes to pick on people. ( ouch .

> >> >>>>>She married a skinhead.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>He married a vegan.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>She married a skinhead.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while.
> >> >
> >> > You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him.
> >>
> >> If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that
> >> because Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself.

> >
> > That's the truth of it.

>
> I would say so.


They don't appear to understand that humans are (usually) multi-faceted..

> >> > In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of
> >> > being one herself.
> >>
> >> You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of
> >> actually being one.

> >
> > Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything
> > else. !
> >

> My bad. Sorry.


O h no ... *you* have nothing to apologise for. Just telling it as it really was.

> >> >>>>>She was a skinhead-wannabe herself.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> They often do.
> >> >
> >> > When did you last?
> >>
> >> Can't remember. I was a vegetarian for quite a long time before going vegan about
> >> two years ago.






  #122 (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?

"William" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "William" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "William" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> He was a lying criminal
> >> >> >>>>>>>> Then how can you believe him
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> cut
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information
> >> >> >> come from lying criminals.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture?
> >> >>
> >> >> The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge.
> >> >
> >> > He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto me.
> >> >
> >> Naturally. I've blamed my ex girlfriends for our break ups but not to the extent
> >> he went to.

> >
> > Seems that the appearance of being happily married and settled meant a lot to him-
> > he relied on it to lend some credibility to his ranting. Couldn't lose face after that.
> >

> He says you lured him, and that's shifting the blame onto you for the breakup.


And I supposedly achieved this by shaving my head?? Golly .. skins would be
right silly push overs. Not to mention that it took him over a year here to realise
that I'm a 'love and rainbows hippy' with lots of little fluffy critters..? Pulease.


<..>



  #123 (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?

Karen Winter lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >> chico chupacabra wrote:

>
> Pearl wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> bestiality

>
> >> <snip>

>
> >>>>> Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS)
> >>>>> is repeatedly
> >>>>> paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively elicits an
> >>>>> unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the
> >>>>> response.
> >>>>> Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to
> >>>>> coerce behavior
> >>>>> children and animals would normally not engage.

>
> >>>> Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical.

>
> >>> How friggin' long did it take you to realize animals generally don't go
> >>> around seeking interspecies copulation?

>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> It would be nice if we could discuss this *scientific* claim in a calm
> >> and rational manner; shall we try?

>
> >> Mammals and birds are not born knowing which species they belong to,
> >> [snip crap Glorfindel is not qualified to know]

>
>
> Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?


Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.


> > Prove it.

>
> I don't know that one can prove it, but the scientific
> community agrees the evidence is overwhelming that it is
> so.


Prove that.


> >> <snip>

>
> >>>>> I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the
> >>>>> animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per
> >>>>> se_.

>
> >> This, I think, is true.

>
> > It's bullshit.

>
> Why?


Because animals don't have "personhood", Karen.


> >>>> Rat just condemned all conditioning, contrary
> >>>> to your implying that she defended it).

>
> >> <snip>

>
> >>> She was suggesting one's position on such
> >>> conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we
> >>> condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.).

>
> >> *IF* the issue is conditioning in itself. I, myself, do reject
> >> conditioning in general as a violation of animal rights ethics,
> >> and do not think the purpose of the conditioning is the sole
> >> criterion.

>
> >> <snip>

>
> >>>> To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an
> >>>> animals'
> >>>> instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.

>
> >> I agree

>
> > But if it doesn't require such conditioning, you and
> > lesley-the-foot-rubbing-whore are strongly supportive of it.

>
> No. One can condemn it on the grounds that it causes harm either to the
> animal or to the human involved, or to both.


But apparently *not* on the ground that it is immoral and a perversion.
You don't believe in those, Karen - you're too post-modern and hip for
it, aren't you?

Lesley, in any case, endorses it:

*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

That is your position as well.

  #124 (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?

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "William" > wrote in message ...


> > > If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that because
> > > Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself.

> >
> > That's the truth of it.

>
> Bullshit. You adopted the outward appearance, and you talked the talk,
> even if you didn't fully walk the walk. For all intents and purposes,
> you *were* a skinhead during the time you were married to that violent
> felon.


Bullshit. I did not. I wouldn't even know where to start.

> > > > In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of
> > > > being one herself.
> > >
> > > You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of actually
> > > being one.

> >
> > Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything else.

>
> That's a lie, you dirty foot-rubbing Chelsea.


No. You are the dirty liar, ball. Everyone knows it too.

> 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.




  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Where's everybody gone?


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "William" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "William" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
>> >> ink.net...
>> >> > Billy Bligh wrote:

> ...
>> >> >> My faculties are in peek condition.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are
>> >> > stupid-by-choice.
>> >> >
>> >> Actually, I was trying to be funny. Oh well.
>> >
>> > .

>>
>> These guys have no sense of humour. It seems my use of peek in place of peak
>> aroused
>> in Leif a state of pique. :-)

>
> He just likes to pick on people. ouch .
>

Yeah - ouch. That was crap ;-)

>> >> >>>>>She married a skinhead.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>He married a vegan.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>She married a skinhead.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while.
>> >> >
>> >> > You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him.
>> >>
>> >> If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that
>> >> because Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself.
>> >
>> > That's the truth of it.

>>
>> I would say so.

>
> They don't appear to understand that humans are (usually) multi-faceted..


They pretend to forget when it suits them.

>> >> > In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance
>> >> > of
>> >> > being one herself.
>> >>
>> >> You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of
>> >> actually being one.
>> >
>> > Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything
>> > else. !
>> >

>> My bad. Sorry.

>
> O h no ... *you* have nothing to apologise for. Just telling it as it really was.
>

Thanks.

>> >> >>>>>She was a skinhead-wannabe herself.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They often do.
>> >> >
>> >> > When did you last?
>> >>
>> >> Can't remember. I was a vegetarian for quite a long time before going vegan
>> >> about
>> >> two years ago.

>
>
>
>
>




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Where's everybody gone?


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "William" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "William" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > "William" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> He was a lying criminal
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Then how can you believe him
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> cut
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information
>> >> >> >> come from lying criminals.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge.
>> >> >
>> >> > He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto
>> >> > me.
>> >> >
>> >> Naturally. I've blamed my ex girlfriends for our break ups but not to the
>> >> extent
>> >> he went to.
>> >
>> > Seems that the appearance of being happily married and settled meant a lot to
>> > him-
>> > he relied on it to lend some credibility to his ranting. Couldn't lose face
>> > after that.
>> >

>> He says you lured him, and that's shifting the blame onto you for the breakup.

>
> And I supposedly achieved this by shaving my head?? Golly .. skins would be
> right silly push overs. Not to mention that it took him over a year here to
> realise
> that I'm a 'love and rainbows hippy' with lots of little fluffy critters..?
> Pulease.
>

LOL.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #127 (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?

pearl wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com...
> > pearl wrote:
> > > "William" > wrote in message ...

>
> > > > If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that because
> > > > Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself.
> > >
> > > That's the truth of it.

> >
> > Bullshit. You adopted the outward appearance, and you talked the talk,
> > even if you didn't fully walk the walk. For all intents and purposes,
> > you *were* a skinhead during the time you were married to that violent
> > felon.

>
> Bullshit. I did not.


Bullshit. You did, too.

> I wouldn't even know where to start.


You started with shaving your head. You continued by marrying a
violent skinhead felon.

>
> > > > > In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of
> > > > > being one herself.
> > > >
> > > > You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of actually
> > > > being one.
> > >
> > > Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything else.

> >
> > That's a lie, you dirty foot-rubbing Chelsea.

>
> No.


Yes, you lying slut.


> > 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.


>From a sex-with-animals point of view. You endorse it.


  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Where's everybody gone?

Billy Blight wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > William wrote:
> >> cut
> >>
> >> > He was a lying criminal
> >>
> >> Then how can you believe him,

> >
> > He was right about lesley's appearance and the way she at least
> > pretended to be a skinhead in order to lure him into shagging her.
> >

> Based on his evidence, and let's not forget that you called him a lying criminal.


He spoke the truth about lesley shaving her head and giving the
appearance of being a skinhead. He had nothing to gain by lying about
it.

  #129 (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?

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?


> Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.


I have.

>>>Prove it.

>>
>>I don't know that one can prove it, but the scientific
>>community agrees the evidence is overwhelming that it is
>>so.


> Prove that.


If you'd studied the relevant disciplines in science,
you'd know it is so.

<snip>

>>>>>>>I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the
>>>>>>>animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per
>>>>>>>se_.


>>>>This, I think, is true.


>>>It's bullshit.


>>Why?


> Because animals don't have "personhood"


That is your opinion, but others disagree.

However, that does not address the relevant
question he how can one claim a practice
is wrong *because it involves conditioning*
while not condemning conditioning? That
makes no logical sense. Conditioning
is either wrong in itself, or not. There
is no other alternative.

You may condemn a practice for some other
reason, which appears to be the case here,
but you apparently do not condemn conditioning
in itself. Therefore, you cannot condemn
a practice *simply* because it involves conditioning.
I can, and do.

<snip>

>>>>> She was suggesting one's position on such
>>>>>conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we
>>>>>condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.).


>>>>*IF* the issue is conditioning in itself. I, myself, do reject
>>>>conditioning in general as a violation of animal rights ethics,
>>>>and do not think the purpose of the conditioning is the sole
>>>>criterion.


<snip>
>>
>>>>>>To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an
>>>>>>animals'
>>>>>>instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.


>>>>I agree


>>>But if it doesn't require such conditioning, you and
>>>Pearl are strongly supportive of it.


>>No. One can condemn it on the grounds that it causes harm either to the
>>animal or to the human involved, or to both.


> But apparently *not* on the ground that it is immoral and a perversion.


If it causes harm, unless that harm is for the greater benefit
of the individual harmed (such as the pain of a medical
procedure to prevent the greater harm of the disease/injury ),
I believe it is immoral. I certainly believe there are things
which are, indeed, immoral.

<snip>

> Lesley, in any case, endorses it:


> *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


> That is your position as well.


Well, yes, it is. 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. There may be
things which religious groups regard as sin, but in
a non-theocratic state, religious groups only have the
authority to enforce their views on their own members.
There may be things I dislike or regard as wrong, but
unless they cause *harm* -- harm which can be objectively
observed -- I do not have the right to enforce my
opinion on others against their will.




  #130 (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?

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.


>>From a sex-with-animals point of view. You endorse it.


That is a logical fallacy. She does not endorse it,
and has said so.



  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Where's everybody gone?


Leif Erikson wrote:
> Billy Blight wrote:
> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > > William wrote:
> > >> cut
> > >>
> > >> > He was a lying criminal
> > >>
> > >> Then how can you believe him,
> > >
> > > He was right about lesley's appearance and the way she at least
> > > pretended to be a skinhead in order to lure him into shagging her.
> > >

> > Based on his evidence, and let's not forget that you called him a lying criminal.

>
> He spoke the truth about lesley shaving her head and giving the
> appearance of being a skinhead. He had nothing to gain by lying about
> it.



How do you know he spoke the truth Goo?

  #132 (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?

Karen Winter blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>> chico chupacabra wrote:

>
>
> Pearl wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> bestiality

>
>
>>> <snip>

>
>
>>>>>> Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS)
>>>>>> is repeatedly
>>>>>> paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively
>>>>>> elicits an
>>>>>> unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the
>>>>>> response.
>>>>>> Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to
>>>>>> coerce behavior
>>>>>> children and animals would normally not engage.

>
>
>>>>> Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical.

>
>
>>>> How friggin' long did it take you to realize animals generally don't go
>>>> around seeking interspecies copulation?

>
>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> It would be nice if we could discuss this *scientific* claim in a calm
>>> and rational manner; shall we try?

>
>
>>> Mammals and birds are not born knowing which species they belong to,
>>> [snip crap Glorfindel is not qualified to know]

>
>
>
> Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?


Because you aren't, Karen. You studied history at
universtiy, and you dabbled in some ****ing bullshit
called "creative anachronism". You don't know your
pimply doughy ass from your florid face when it comes
to biology and zoology
  #133 (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?

Karen Winter Blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> KAREN WINTER blabbered:


Karen, my post did *not* say, "Glorfindel wrote". *MY*
post said, "Karen Winter blabbered". Leave it alone, ****.


>
>>> Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?

>
>
>> Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.

>
>
> I have.


You have not, Karen. You studied history, and you
dabbled in some worthless navel-gazing bullshit called
"creative anachronism". You have not studied biology
and zoology - not ever. Stop lying.



>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know that one can prove it, but the scientific
>>> community agrees the evidence is overwhelming that it is
>>> so.

>
>
>> Prove that.

>
>
> If you'd studied the relevant disciplines in science,


You haven't.


>>>>>>>> I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the
>>>>>>>> animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per
>>>>>>>> se_.

>
>
>>>>> This, I think, is true.

>
>
>>>> It's bullshit.

>
>
>>> Why?

>
>
>> Because animals don't have "personhood"

>
>
> That is your opinion,


It is fact.


>>>>>> She was suggesting one's position on such
>>>>>> conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we
>>>>>> condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.).

>
>
>>>>> *IF* the issue is conditioning in itself. I, myself, do reject
>>>>> conditioning in general as a violation of animal rights ethics,
>>>>> and do not think the purpose of the conditioning is the sole
>>>>> criterion.

>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>>>>>> To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an
>>>>>>> animals'
>>>>>>> instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn
>>>>>>> it.

>
>
>>>>> I agree

>
>
>>>> But if it doesn't require such conditioning, you and
>>>> Pearl are strongly supportive of it.

>
>
>>> No. One can condemn it on the grounds that it causes harm either to the
>>> animal or to the human involved, or to both.

>
>
>> But apparently *not* on the ground that it is immoral and a perversion.

>
>
> If it causes harm, unless that harm is for the greater benefit
> of the individual harmed (such as the pain of a medical
> procedure to prevent the greater harm of the disease/injury ),
> I believe it is immoral.


Oh, switching from deontology to utilitarianism, are
you? You incompetent dilettante.



>> Lesley, in any case, endorses it:

>
>
>> *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

>
>
>> That is your position as well.

>
>
> Well, yes, it is.


Right: an endorsement of bestiality. This is what was
claimed all along, for both you and the foot rubbing
whore of Cork, lesley.
  #134 (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?

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.

>
>
>>> From a sex-with-animals point of view. You endorse it.

>
>
> That is a logical fallacy.


No.


> She does not endorse it,


She endorses it. Her quote proves it.
  #135 (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?

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> > Glorfindel wrote:

>
> >
> >>> Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?

> >
> >
> >> Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.

> >
> >
> > I have.

>
> You have not, Karen.


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

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?

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...

>>Rubystars wrote:

<..>
> not only because rape is violence,


Ipse dixit, and petitio principii.

> but because it could cause all manner of problems in those young children.


It *could*, but it wouldn't necessarily, and in fact
usually wouldn't. Your standard crumbles further...

> Damage to the vagina or anus, STDs, etc. but your claim that penetration of
> children is not violent,


It is not _intrinsically_ violent. It cannot be
defined as violent _per se_.

> is demonstrably wrong, due to soreness and bleeding
> from both the anus and the vagina.


No. Those might not happen, and as I said, almost
assuredly won't happen with girls 13 or older.

> Keep in mind that grown ups are much
> larger than children.


They are not always much larger than early adolescents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are you defending the rape of children, jonathan ball?






  #136 (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?

"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.

Or as Glorfindel 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. There may be things which religious
groups regard as sin, but in a non-theocratic state, religious
groups only have the authority to enforce their views on
their own members. There may be things I dislike or regard
as wrong, but unless they cause *harm* -- harm which can
be objectively observed -- I do not have the right to enforce
my opinion on others against their will.

Snip it again, ball.

"I think it's so cute that you erase the parts you just dont like
<snicker>.....FYI.. this stuff is ARCHIVED.... <snicker>
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html





  #137 (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?

Leif Erikson wrote:

> Glorfindel wrote:


>>>> Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?


>>> Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.


>> I have.


<snip>


*smile*

So, as I expected, you have bailed on any attempt to defend your
opinion on the morality of conditioning, or to defend your
mistaken scientific opinion on imprinting/socialization of animals
and later mating behavior. You have returned to lies about people.
You really are incompetent at any discussion of animals or ethics
at all, so, unless you want to address the *topic* I see no point
in continuing with this thread.

  #138 (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?

lesley the slut of Cork lied:

> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>Karen Winter lied:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>Karen Winter lied:

>>
>>>>>Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have.

>>
>>You have not, Karen.

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


She has stated that she studied history at university.
Then she got a job shampooing cats. She hasn't
studied biology, zoology, anatomy or any other science
at the university level. Neither have you.
  #139 (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?

lesley the slut of Cork lied:

> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
>>Karen Winter blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>lesley the 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.


> 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.
  #140 (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?

Karen Winter blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Glorfindel wrote:


No, Leif Erikson did *not* write "Glorfindel wrote".
Leif Erikson wrote "Karen Winter blabbered". Leave it.


>
>
>>>>> Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?

>
>
>>>> Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.

>
>
>>> I have.

>
>
> <snip>


<restore>
You have not, Karen. You studied history, and you
dabbled in some worthless navel-gazing bullshit called
"creative anachronism". You have not studied biology
and zoology - not ever. Stop lying.


>
>
> *smile*


You used to write "*smile*" and "*yawn*" when you used
"Rat", too.


  #141 (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?

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

> pearl wrote


> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
> >>Glorfindel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Glorfindel wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have.
> >>
> >>You have not, Karen.

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

>
> She has stated that she studied history at university.
> Then she got a job shampooing cats. She hasn't
> studied biology, zoology, anatomy or any other science
> at the university level. Neither have you.


You don't know what we've studied.

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?

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...

>>Rubystars wrote:

<..>
> not only because rape is violence,


Ipse dixit, and petitio principii.

> but because it could cause all manner of problems in those young children.


It *could*, but it wouldn't necessarily, and in fact
usually wouldn't. Your standard crumbles further...

> Damage to the vagina or anus, STDs, etc. but your claim that penetration of
> children is not violent,


It is not _intrinsically_ violent. It cannot be
defined as violent _per se_.

> is demonstrably wrong, due to soreness and bleeding
> from both the anus and the vagina.


No. Those might not happen, and as I said, almost
assuredly won't happen with girls 13 or older.

> Keep in mind that grown ups are much
> larger than children.


They are not always much larger than early adolescents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are you defending the rape of children, jonathan ball?







  #142 (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?

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

pearl wrote:
>
> > "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.

> > 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. There may be things which religious
groups regard as sin, but in a non-theocratic state, religious
groups only have the authority to enforce their views on
their own members. There may be things I dislike or regard
as wrong, but unless they cause *harm* -- harm which can
be objectively observed -- I do not have the right to enforce
my opinion on others against their will.
>
> That's endorsement of it, too.


No it isn't. She has agreed that it is a perversion.

Stop lying, ball - if you can. I think you can't.



  #143 (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?

Leif Erikson wrote:

Pearl wrote:

<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,
and I also have practical experience with both domestic
and exotic animals.

None of that is required, however, to deal with the issue
at hand. All that is necessary is reading the material
available in print and on the Internet. Anyone can do it,
but Leif and his various nyms do not appear to be willing
to do the basic research necessary for an informed opinion.

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.

  #144 (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 ...
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Pearl wrote:
>
> <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,
> and I also have practical experience with both domestic
> and exotic animals.
>
> None of that is required, however, to deal with the issue
> at hand. All that is necessary is reading the material
> available in print and on the Internet. Anyone can do it,
> but Leif and his various nyms do not appear to be willing
> to do the basic research necessary for an informed opinion.
>
> 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 his/their
sweet little courtship dance if near enough. I raised him/them,
albeit together with mom and chicks. Now I understand why.





  #145 (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?

Chelsea foot-rubbing harlot wrote:

>>>>>>>Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have.
>>>>
>>>>You have not, Karen.
>>>
>>>
>>>What makes you think that you are qualified to know that?

>>
>>She has stated that she studied history at university.
>> Then she got a job shampooing cats. She hasn't
>>studied biology, zoology, anatomy or any other science
>>at the university level. Neither have you.

>
>
> You don't know what we've studied.


Uh huh. You failed out of engineering school and ended up learning
"reflexology" from new age hippie conmen:

I am a qualified Reflexologist and received my training in

London.
http://tinyurl.com/mh7a

Reflexology is pseudoscience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexo...cientific_view

My favorite episode of P&T's BULLSHIT was this part quoted in the above:
On the TV programm Bullshit!, Penn Jillette compared reflexology
to hitting the tires of your car in order to change the
sparkplugs.

Hahahaha!

<snip>


  #146 (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?

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.

<...>
  #147 (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 ...

> 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.

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


  #148 (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 ...

> Chelsea foot-rubbing harlot wrote:


Lies # 1, 2 and 3.

> >>>>>>>Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I have.
> >>>>
> >>>>You have not, Karen.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What makes you think that you are qualified to know that?
> >>
> >>She has stated that she studied history at university.
> >> Then she got a job shampooing cats. She hasn't
> >>studied biology, zoology, anatomy or any other science
> >>at the university level. Neither have you.

> >
> >
> > You don't know what we've studied.

>
> Uh huh. You failed out of engineering school and ended up learning
> "reflexology" from new age hippie conmen:


Lie #4.

> I am a qualified Reflexologist and received my training in
>
> London.
> http://tinyurl.com/mh7a
>
> Reflexology is pseudoscience:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexo...cientific_view
>

BULLSHIT


  #149 (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?

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
>
> > Chelsea foot-rubbing harlot wrote:

>
> Lies # 1, 2 and 3.
>
> > >>>>>>>Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>I have.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You have not, Karen.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>What makes you think that you are qualified to know that?
> > >>
> > >>She has stated that she studied history at university.
> > >> Then she got a job shampooing cats. She hasn't
> > >>studied biology, zoology, anatomy or any other science
> > >>at the university level. Neither have you.
> > >
> > >
> > > You don't know what we've studied.

> >
> > Uh huh. You failed out of engineering school and ended up learning
> > "reflexology" from new age hippie conmen:

>
> Lie #4


- and 5.

> > I am a qualified Reflexologist and received my training in
> >
> > London.
> > http://tinyurl.com/mh7a
> >
> > Reflexology is pseudoscience:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexo...cientific_view
> >

> BULLSHIT
>
>



  #150 (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?

lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >

> lesley the sick slut of Cork lied:
> >
> > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net...
> > >
> > >>Karen Winter the schismatic ex-Episcopalian 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. Saying "that is WRONG and BAD, 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.


> > > 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.



  #151 (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?

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!

  #152 (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?

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.

  #153 (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?

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.

  #154 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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?

  #155 (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?

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







  #156 (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?

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?


>



  #157 (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?

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.

  #158 (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?

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.

  #159 (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?

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.





  #160 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default 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.

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 12:19 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"