Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. <..> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. <...> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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 > > |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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? > |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|