|
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> pearl wrote: > > I have said it is a perversion numerous times. That is condemnation. > > No, it isn't. It isn't making any moral judgment about > it at all. Calling it a perversion is merely observing > that it's different from the norm. No it isn't. 'Perversion, or perverse behavior, differs from deviant behavior, which describes a recognized violation of social rules or norms (though the two terms can apply to the same behavior). [..] In the present day, the term most often refers to "sexual perversions", more neutrally called paraphilias, many of which can contribute to sex crimes. The term, in a general sense, is most often applied to the more abnormal or disturbed types of sexual behavior, mainly those involving compulsion and coercion. ...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion Abnormal or disturbed ... involving compulsion and coercion applies to you, ball. Why do you defend the rape of children? |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > lied in message ink.net...
pearl wrote: > > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > > > >>Misterina wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>Not as authorities, per se, but their show BULLSHIT exposes frauds and > >>>>pseudoscience and other irrational nonsense. "Alternative medicine" is > >>>>bullshit. > >>> > >>>What happens if and when it works? > >> > >>It doesn't. > > > > > > It most certainly does. > > It most certainly does *NOT*. Liar. > > http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm |
Where's everybody gone?
pearl wrote:
> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... <snip> >>> I told you back then that I think it is a perversion. >>Yet you've never categorically condemned it > condemnation > 1. an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing > as wrong or morally culpable > http://www.answers.com/condemnation&r=67 >>the same way you have eating meat. Why is that, >>Why do you find it wrong to eat an animal's flesh but permissible >>to sexually abuse it? > Because it might not cause harm or distress as meat eating does. >>>Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question. >>You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality. > No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying. *Intentionally* is the key word. He knows you condemn it; he just wants to annoy you by pretending he doesn't. The thing is that few, or no, AR supporters *categorically* condemn meat *eating*. Most would agree that it is morally permissible to eat an animal that died naturally of old age or in an accident (e.g. -- roadkill you did not cause). What AR supporters categorically condem is the processes involved in producing meat, especially commercially sold meat. It is the abuse, suffering, hampering of normal behavior, killing, that AR supporters condemn. It is exactly the same with the issue of sexual abuse of animals by humans. Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years, I would gag at the thought of eating any meat, even roadkill. But I would not want to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill or use it to feed carnivores who are being rehabilitated in a wildlife facility. Similarly, Pearl is revolted by the thought of sexual activity with a non-human under any circumstances. But to support a *law* or a *categorical* condemnation would have to depend on showing that the animal involved was not (for example) one imprinted on humans for whom mating behavior with a willing human would not be distressing. What we condemn is harm or distress caused to an animal, or deliberate warping of an animal's natural behavior through intentional conditioning for the benefit of humans. But undoubtedly this concept is too difficult for you to understand -- or you will pretend it is. |
Where's everybody gone?
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:45:36 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > >"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... > > > >> Chelsea foot-rubbing harlot wrote: > > > >Lies # 1, 2 and 3. > > Are you saying that: > > 1. you're not from Chelsea? lol! No, I'm not. > 2. you've never engage in foot rubbing? No, I don't 'rub feet'. > 3. you're not a harlot? Absolutely not. <..> > >> > 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 > > Are you saying that: > > 1. Goo lied and you never made that quote? No. > 2. you made the quote but were lying when you made it? No. Try again. > >> Reflexology is pseudoscience: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexo...cientific_view > >> > >BULLSHIT > > Are you saying Goo is correct in claiming that you believe > in reflexology, regardless of whether you've been trained in > it or not? It's not a matter of belief. It is a scientifically-validated therapy. |
Where's everybody gone?
pervert "Leif Erikson" > lied in message ink.net... pearl wrote: > >>>>>I think it is a perversion. I think it is morally wrong. I condemn it. > >>>> > >>>>So you *don't* think it's okay for people to do it in > >>>>the privacy of their own homes. Why was it so hard to > >>>>get you to say that? > >>> > >>> > >>>I told you that I think it is a perversion, i.e wrong, over two years ago. > >> > >>Then you spent the next two years saying it was the > >>private business of people. > > > > > > No, > > Yes. Cite? > > you spent the next two years telling people I "believe in" it. > > Because, by your condoning it, you *do* believe in it. And you're STILL LYING. > >>You're inconsistent. > > > > > > It's your business if you want to sit in front of your computer all day, every day, in your deluded state wanking off at what you consider to be 'clever' comments replying to your own fabricated strawmen - it is deeply immoral and very disturbing, but as I said- that's your shoddy business, perverse as it is. Just keep it to yourself- we don't want it. > > Right. Don't forget it. |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > lied in message ink.net...
pearl wrote: > > http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm > > There are no legitimate clinical studies All of the abstracts on that page are from legitimate studies. |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > lied in message k.net...
> > > [snip > > > > http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm > > There are no legitimate clinical studies All of the abstracts on that page are from legitimate studies. |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > lied in message ink.net...
pearl wrote: > > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > > > >>Misterina wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>Not as authorities, per se, but their show BULLSHIT exposes frauds and > >>>>pseudoscience and other irrational nonsense. "Alternative medicine" is > >>>>bullshit. > >>> > >>>What happens if and when it works? > >> > >>It doesn't. > > > > > > It most certainly does. > > It most certainly does *NOT*. Liar. > > http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm |
Where's everybody gone?
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > > "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... > > <snip> > > >>> I told you back then that I think it is a perversion. > > >>Yet you've never categorically condemned it > > > condemnation > > 1. an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing > > as wrong or morally culpable > > http://www.answers.com/condemnation&r=67 > > >>the same way you have eating meat. Why is that, > >>Why do you find it wrong to eat an animal's flesh but permissible > >>to sexually abuse it? > > > Because it might not cause harm or distress as meat eating does. > > >>>Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question. > > >>You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality. > > > No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying. > > *Intentionally* is the key word. He knows you condemn it; he > just wants to annoy you by pretending he doesn't. He/they have always known that. They just want to use it to try to discredit me. Of course annoyance for them is a plus. > The thing is that few, or no, AR supporters *categorically* condemn > meat *eating*. Most would agree that it is morally permissible > to eat an animal that died naturally of old age or in an accident > (e.g. -- roadkill you did not cause). Referring to the meat that lot eat. They're not chewing on roadkill. > What AR supporters categorically > condem is the processes involved in producing meat, especially > commercially sold meat. It is the abuse, suffering, hampering of > normal behavior, killing, that AR supporters condemn. It is exactly > the same with the issue of sexual abuse of animals by humans. > > Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years, I would gag at the > thought of eating any meat, even roadkill. But I would not want > to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill or use it to feed > carnivores who are being rehabilitated in a wildlife facility. > Similarly, Pearl is revolted by the thought of sexual activity with > a non-human under any circumstances. But to support a *law* or > a *categorical* condemnation would have to depend on showing that > the animal involved was not (for example) one imprinted on humans > for whom mating behavior with a willing human would not be distressing. > What we condemn is harm or distress caused to an animal, or deliberate > warping of an animal's natural behavior through intentional > conditioning for the benefit of humans. > > But undoubtedly this concept is too difficult for you to understand -- > or you will pretend it is. |
Where's everybody gone?
lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:
> "Leif Erikson" > lied in message ink.net... > > lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: > >>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Misterina wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Not as authorities, per se, but their show BULLSHIT exposes frauds and >>>>>>pseudoscience and other irrational nonsense. "Alternative medicine" is >>>>>>bullshit. >>>>> >>>>>What happens if and when it works? >>>> >>>>It doesn't. >>> >>> >>>It most certainly does. >> >>It most certainly does *NOT*. > > > Liar. No. Foot massage does *not* work to cure any real medical ailment. > > >>>http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm This is the site of a lobbying organization for foot massagers. They have no credibility. There are no legitimate clinical studies that show *any* directly therapeutic effect of foot rubbing for any medical ailment. At best, foot massage has a palliative effect on the fraud victim's mental state. |
Where's everybody gone?
lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:
> <dh@.> wrote in message ... > >>On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:45:36 +0100, lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: >> >> >>>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>Chelsea foot-rubbing harlot wrote: >>> >>>Lies # 1, 2 and 3. >> >> Are you saying that: >> >>1. you're not from Chelsea? > > > lol! No, I'm not. You're not *from* Chelsea; you were *a* Chelsea. For ****wit's benefit, that's a British slang term for the very short hair style favored by female skinheads. >>2. you've never engage in foot rubbing? > > > No, I don't 'rub feet'. Yes, you do. That's *all* "reflexology" is. It's just foot massage; nothing more. There is no science, no theory behind it. It's just a pleasant-feeling foot massage. >>3. you're not a harlot? > > > Absolutely not. Absolutely you *are*. >>>>>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 >> >> Are you saying that: >> >>1. Leif lied and you never made that quote? > > > No. > > >>2. you made the quote but were lying when you made it? > > > No. > > Try again. You were condoning bestiality. >>>>Reflexology is pseudoscience: >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexo...cientific_view >>>> >>> >>>BULLSHIT >> >> Are you saying Leif is correct in claiming that you believe >>in reflexology, regardless of whether you've been trained in >>it or not? > > > It's not a matter of belief. It is a scientifically-validated therapy. It is a scientifically WORTHLESS bit of quackery. There is ZERO scientific validation for foot massage, aka "reflexology". It's bullshit. |
Where's everybody gone?
lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote: > > lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: > > >>>>>>>I think it is a perversion. I think it is morally wrong. I condemn it. >>>>>> >>>>>>So you *don't* think it's okay for people to do it in >>>>>>the privacy of their own homes. Why was it so hard to >>>>>>get you to say that? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I told you that I think it is a perversion, i.e wrong, over two years ago. >>>> >>>>Then you spent the next two years saying it was the >>>>private business of people. >>> >>> >>>No, >> >>Yes. > > > Cite? It has been given several times in the last few days. >>>you spent the next two years telling people I "believe in" it. >> >>Because, by your condoning it, you *do* believe in it. > > > And you're STILL ....correctly pointing out that you believe in it, based on your condoning it. >>>>You're inconsistent. >>> >>> >>>It's your business if you want to sit in front of your computer all day, > >>Right. Don't forget it. It looks as if you may have forgotten it for a bit. I'm happy to remind you: it's my business if I spend a few minutes identifying you as a born liar. |
Where's everybody gone?
lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > > lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: > > >>>http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm >> >>There are no legitimate clinical studies > > > All of the abstracts on that page are Bullshit. They are *not* from any legitimate clinical studies. |
Where's everybody gone?
lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message k.net... > > >>>[snip > > >>>http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm >> >>There are no legitimate clinical studies > > > All of the abstracts on that page are Bullshit. They're bullshit. NO legitimate clinical studies have been done that show any verifiable therapeutic result from foot massage. |
Where's everybody gone?
lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > > lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: > >>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Misterina wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Not as authorities, per se, but their show BULLSHIT exposes frauds and >>>>>>pseudoscience and other irrational nonsense. "Alternative medicine" is >>>>>>bullshit. >>>>> >>>>>What happens if and when it works? >>>> >>>>It doesn't. >>> >>> >>>It most certainly does. >> >>It most certainly does *NOT*. > > > Liar. No, it just doesn't work. > >>>http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm A bullshit lobbying organization for quacks. |
Where's everybody gone?
> The thing is that few, or no, AR supporters *categorically* condemn > meat *eating*. Most would agree that it is morally permissible > to eat an animal that died naturally of old age or in an accident > (e.g. -- roadkill you did not cause). What AR supporters categorically > condem is the processes involved in producing meat, especially > commercially sold meat. It is the abuse, suffering, hampering of > normal behavior, killing, that AR supporters condemn. It is exactly > the same with the issue of sexual abuse of animals by humans. > I just categorically don't eat anything that had a mother. Or eyes. Or brains. Like EUGH!! So here we go, how about this: Hi. My name is Misterina. I *categorically* condemn meat *eating*. *grin* > Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years, I would gag at the > thought of eating any meat, even roadkill. But I would not want > to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill or use it to feed > carnivores who are being rehabilitated in a wildlife facility. > Similarly, Pearl is revolted by the thought of sexual activity with > a non-human under any circumstances. Is THAT what is happening? I was confused for a moment there. I thought those other ones *points* were saying she DOES support this kind of activity. Pearl I ALMOST lost faith in you there ;) I figured that was a bit of an odd thing to condone... > But undoubtedly this concept is too difficult for you to understand -- > or you will pretend it is. Either way, quite a shame that, isn't it just! Wasting away one's god given blessings in such a manner *tsk.tsk* :)) |
Where's everybody gone?
Leif Erikson wrote: > lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: > > > "Leif Erikson" > lied in message ink.net... > > > > lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: > > > >>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Misterina wrote: [..] > > No. Foot massage does *not* work to cure any real > medical ailment. > > > > > > >>>http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm > > This is the site of a lobbying organization for foot > massagers. They have no credibility. > > There are no legitimate clinical studies that show > *any* directly therapeutic effect of foot rubbing for > any medical ailment. At best, foot massage has a > palliative effect on the fraud victim's mental state. > Those last two sentences are contradictory. If a placebo can show direct therapeutic effect, and they often do, I'm sure a foot massage would be that much better. |
Where's everybody gone?
foot-rubbing pro-bestiality pervert in Eire wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *As long as the feelings are mutual*, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with people's personal choices *as long as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> human or animal. [emphasis in original] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not >>>>>>>>> harming or causing distress to another - that's their business. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So you endorse it. You don't condemn it. Saying it's >>>>>>>>"their business" is endorsement of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Saying it is sick as hell is condemnation. >>>>>> >>>>>>No. >>>>> >>>>>Of course it is condemnation. >>>> >>>>No. >>> >>>Of course it is condemnation. >> >>You wrote yesterday, "Whether I think there should be a law against >>it is another question." That CONDONES it, it doesn't condemn it. > > So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it? That isn't quite true. The Supreme Court tossed out our deviant sex statute a few years ago in the Lawrence decision. Our legislature has revisited the issue, but legislation here tends to move slowly since the legislature meets only biannually (and in special sessions when called by the Governor). With respect to the Lawrence decision, Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent, "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called in to question by today's decision." Still, we do have laws which address bestiality. See §43.21.1.B.i and §43.25.2: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu....000043.00.htm > Better get writing to your representatives to tell them to condemn it. They do. Why don't you? > I wrote over two years ago that I think it is a perversion, and I do. All that time to reach a conclusion and you're up in the air about it still, and feel ambiguous enough about it to let people do it in the privacy of their homes. >>>condemnation >>>1. an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing >>>as wrong or morally culpable >> >>Yet you still find it in your heart to condone it: "Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question." > > So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it? See above, dummy. >>>>We're not talking about any states. We're talking about YOU. You >>>>endorse bestiality. >>> >>>No I don't. >> >>I. You offer qualified objections to 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] >> lesley ("liesley") - http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 >> >>II. You've condoned it as a matter of privacy: >>"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 the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it? See above. > Better get writing to your representatives to tell them to condemn it. Our legislature won't meet again until next year. As our state constitution requires, they meet once every two years for a period of about a couple months and only in special sessions as the Governor calls them. >>III. You've further stated that you'd even oppose laws against it: >>"Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question." > > So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it? See above. We have laws which outlaw depictions of bestiality and the US Supreme Court struck down our deviant sex statute in the Lawrence decision. > Better get writing to your representatives to tell them to condemn it. They do. Why don't you, Ms ARA Freak? >>Whose side are you on, Lesley? The animal ****ers' side. > > On the side of responsible freedom of choice. What do you find particularly "responsible" about humans ****ing animals? >>>And, like many, I don't believe that I've >>>the right to interfere with others' choices >> >>Unless they want to EAT an animal instead of **** it. You have a perverted sense of right and wrong, pervert. > > Unless it causes harm and distress Then you better not give your genital warts and Herpes to your rooster. |
Where's everybody gone?
Misterina wrote:
>>The thing is that few, or no, AR supporters *categorically* condemn >>meat *eating*. Most would agree that it is morally permissible >>to eat an animal that died naturally of old age or in an accident >>(e.g. -- roadkill you did not cause). What AR supporters categorically >>condem is the processes involved in producing meat, especially >>commercially sold meat. It is the abuse, suffering, hampering of >>normal behavior, killing, that AR supporters condemn. It is exactly >>the same with the issue of sexual abuse of animals by humans. > I just categorically don't eat anything that had a mother. Or eyes. Or > brains. Like EUGH!! So here we go, how about this: > Hi. My name is Misterina. I *categorically* condemn meat *eating*. O.K. In the case of virtually all meat available to us today, this is reasonable. Could you explain why? Do you condemn it as morally wrong? Or do you just find it disgusting and revolting? Is it the eating of meat you condemn, or the way the living animal was treated before he/she became meat? <snip> >>Pearl is revolted by the thought of sexual activity with >>a non-human under any circumstances. > Is THAT what is happening? I was confused for a moment there. I thought > those other ones *points* were saying she DOES support this kind of > activity. Yes, that is what he is trying to get you to think. It's a sleazy and dishonest tactic he tries on all his opponents. <snip> |
Where's everybody gone?
Misterina wrote:
>>It *doesn't* "work" as its scammers suggest. Reflexology's benefits don't > > extend beyond palliative results, like reducing stress or in the treatment > of psychosomatic issues for which there's no underlying health problem to > treat. While stress reduction *is* important, that's a much lower hurdle to > clear than the "cure-all" nonsense its advocates claim for it. Reflexology > has failed to live up to its hype in every double-blind study to which it's > been subjected. Every single one. > > > Again, I am not arguing with you about its merits. Yes, you are. > You did not answer my question: Yes, I did. > what happens IF and WHEN it works? It doesn't. > What would you say to someone like me, I would say, "You're very gullible and prone to accepting (and providing) anecdotes rather than science." > who had severe whiplash (and I mean SEVERE) and one half an hour of > reflexology cured what conventional doctors could not? As I stated, it's benefits are palliative and tend to "work" for people with psychosomatic complaints. Thirty-****ing-minutes of foot massage isn't going to cause systemic changes to your body aside from maybe helping you relax. While you're providing anecdotes, give it credit for "curing" your diabetes, gout, dyspepsia, poor eyesight, and every other malady. > I can give you the case history should you require that. It's still *anecdotal*, dummy. When put to double blind study, reflexology and other "alternative medicine" (oxymoronic) do not deliver on their promises. I provided you with links. Did you read them to see if there's any science behind your anecote or are you so closed-minded that you refuse to look? > In al curiosity, what if and when? It doesn't. The only benefits are palliative; reflexology does nothing systemically beyond helping people relax. So, too, do other non-touch therapies: LAUGHTER http://tinyurl.com/e2mn http://tinyurl.com/e2mv MUSIC http://tinyurl.com/e2nb http://tinyurl.com/e2nf ANIMALS/PETS http://tinyurl.com/e2nn http://tinyurl.com/e2ns How do YOU explain that laughing hysterically, listening to soothing music, and contact with small animals produces the same, or BETTER, results as foot massage? |
Where's everybody gone?
lesLIE continued her defense of bestiality:
>>I'm not so sure animals get off, so to speak, on being sexually assaulted by humans or even by being conditioned to be receptive >>to sexual assault. > > You don't know that, and neither do I. You excuse it when it serves your needs. No, I don't. Why do you continue to defend those who engage in bestiality in the same breath you call it a perversion? Answer: because you're disingenuous about calling it a perversion; otherwise, you would categorically say it's wrong rather than engaging in ambiguities about whether it should be legal, how "wrong" it is, and whether or not it's beneficial. >>>>>Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question. >>>> >>>>You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality. >>> >>>No. >> >>Yes. > > No. Yes. >>I. You offer only qualified objections to it: > > I have stated that it is a perversion. That is condemnation. No, and you continue to condone it as if you're some kind of libertarian (you're not: you're reflexively authoritarian) and you're ambiguous about just how "wrong" it might be (suggesting others don't know if it's good or bad for animals). >> *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] >> lesley ("liesley") - http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 >> >>II. You've condoned it as a matter of privacy: > > I have stated that it is a perversion. That is condemnation. No, you condone it: >>"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 the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it? The Supreme Court struck it down. > Better get writing to your representatives to tell them to condemn it. We have other laws that address the issue, and perhaps we'll find a way to get around the Lawrence decision. >>III. You've further stated that you'd even oppose laws against it: >>"Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question." > > So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it? No, but apparently a majority of the US Supreme Court does. >>Whose side are you on, Lesley? The animal ****ers' side. > > On the side of responsible freedom of choice. What's responsible about sexually assaulting animals, LesLIE? Do your clients know you support their right to **** sheep? |
Where's everybody gone?
Misterina wrote:
>>>What happens if and when it works? >> >>It doesn't. > > > Dude, seriously - that does so not answer the question now, does it? Yes, it does. "reflexology" doesn't work, as far as therapeutic results for legitimate medical ailments. It may make the fraud victim feel a little more relaxed - foot massage feels nice - but it cannot "cure" anything. |
Where's everybody gone?
Misterina wrote:
>>No. Foot massage does *not* work to cure any real >>medical ailment. > > > > Hang on hang on... isn't stress a real medical ailment by the way? The charlatans/fraudsters who promote "reflexology" as a medical therapy claim it can provide a major therapeutic effect against all kinds of serious illnesses. It's bullshit. > Because I > can tell you one thing for freaking sure man - someone massaging and rubbing > my tootsies, gets me more than just destressed! *grin* > > |
Where's everybody gone?
Misterina wrote:
>>The thing is that few, or no, AR supporters *categorically* condemn >>meat *eating*. Most would agree that it is morally permissible >>to eat an animal that died naturally of old age or in an accident >>(e.g. -- roadkill you did not cause). What AR supporters categorically >>condem is the processes involved in producing meat, especially >>commercially sold meat. It is the abuse, suffering, hampering of >>normal behavior, killing, that AR supporters condemn. It is exactly >>the same with the issue of sexual abuse of animals by humans. >> > > > I just categorically don't eat anything that had a mother. Or eyes. Or > brains. Like EUGH!! So here we go, how about this: > > Hi. My name is Misterina. I *categorically* condemn meat *eating*. > > *grin* Why is it that, having seen you embrace and promote foot massage as a therapeutic cure-all, I'm not surprised to see you emerge as a crackpot air-head "vegan"? |
Where's everybody gone?
gullible, befuddled Misterina wrote:
>>>What happens if and when it works? >> >>It doesn't. > > Dude, seriously - that does so not answer the question now, does it? Yes, it does. > Can you read? Apparently well enough to answer your question. As I stated the first time through, reflexology *doesn't* "work" as its scammers suggest. Reflexology's benefits don't extend beyond palliative results, like reducing stress or in the treatment of psychosomatic issues for which there's no underlying health problem to treat. While stress reduction *is* important, that's a much lower hurdle to clear than the "cure-all" nonsense its advocates claim for it. Reflexology has failed to live up to its hype in every double-blind study to which it's been subjected. Every single one. http://skepdic.com/reflex.html http://mtrsn.burtcom.homeip.net/sfaq_004.htm http://skepdic.com/comments/reflexcom.html http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/reflexology.html Etc. The best you can offer is anecdotal evidence. When put to a double blind study, reflexology will fail every time because it's based on superstition and pseudoscience. Alas, I realize that doesn't stop uninformed and gullible people from believing in its powers. There will always be some idiots among us. Thanks for standing up to be counted among them. |
Where's everybody gone?
Misterina wrote:
>>No. Foot massage does *not* work to cure any real >>medical ailment. > > Hang on hang on... Why are you echoing yourself, you emotive twit? > isn't stress a real medical ailment by the way? No. Stress is not an ailment. "Stress" is an emotional or psychological state. It's cumulative, though certain stimuli can trigger it acutely. It can affect physical conditions, but it's not an ailment in and of itself as you suggest. Studies have shown that stress can be very beneficial, e.g., the first of the next two links. http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com...lth_news.shtml http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=20104 > Because I can tell you one thing for freaking sure man - You can tell me whatever you want; that doesn't make it true. LesLIE, the reflexologist whose case you're NOT making with your anecdote, also believes the earth is hollow and filled with little green men who are hiding from the government and that the government is trying to silence her by spraying her with "chemtrails." Neither of which is true, but she's written about and attempted to defend such beliefs in these groups. > someone massaging and rubbing > my tootsies, gets me more than just destressed! *grin* TMI. Go away. |
Where's everybody gone?
> Apparently well enough to answer your question. As I stated the first
> time through, reflexology *doesn't* "work" as its scammers suggest. > Reflexology's benefits don't extend beyond palliative results, like > reducing stress or in the treatment of psychosomatic issues for which > there's no underlying health problem to treat. While stress reduction > *is* important, that's a much lower hurdle to clear than the "cure-all" > nonsense its advocates claim for it. Reflexology has failed to live up > to its hype in every double-blind study to which it's been subjected. > Every single one. > > http://skepdic.com/reflex.html > http://mtrsn.burtcom.homeip.net/sfaq_004.htm > http://skepdic.com/comments/reflexcom.html > http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/reflexology.html > > Etc. > > The best you can offer is anecdotal evidence. When put to a double blind > study, reflexology will fail every time because it's based on > superstition and pseudoscience. Alas, I realize that doesn't stop > uninformed and gullible people from believing in its powers. There will > always be some idiots among us. Thanks for standing up to be counted > among them. You don't have one original thought do you. Who ORIGINALLY mentioned "palliative results"? You? |
Where's everybody gone?
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:05:23 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: > >> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >> >>>On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:45:36 +0100, lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: >>> >>> >>>>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Chelsea foot-rubbing harlot wrote: >>>> >>>>Lies # 1, 2 and 3. >>> >>> Are you saying that: >>> >>>1. you're not from Chelsea? >> >> >> lol! No, I'm not. > >You're not *from* Chelsea; you were *a* Chelsea. For >****wit's benefit, that's a British slang term for the >very short hair style favored by female skinheads. Thanks Goo. She doesn't seem very proud of that one for some reason. [...] >You were condoning bestiality. Not this time, but things she's written suggest she thinks it's okay as long as the animals don't mind. |
Where's everybody gone?
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 19:37:35 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:45:36 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: >> >> >"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... >> > >> >> Chelsea foot-rubbing harlot wrote: >> > >> >Lies # 1, 2 and 3. >> >> Are you saying that: >> >> 1. you're not from Chelsea? > >lol! No, I'm not. It appears you're not proud of being one either. >> 2. you've never engage in foot rubbing? > >No, I don't 'rub feet'. > >> 3. you're not a harlot? > >Absolutely not. Not any more? >> >> > 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 >> >> Are you saying that: >> >> 1. Goo lied and you never made that quote? > >No. > >> 2. you made the quote but were lying when you made it? > >No. > >Try again. You were doing fine in engineering school, but gave it up to pursue reflexology taught by new age hippies who you don't believe were conmen? >> >> Reflexology is pseudoscience: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexo...cientific_view >> >> >> >BULLSHIT >> >> Are you saying Goo is correct in claiming that you believe >> in reflexology, regardless of whether you've been trained in >> it or not? > >It's not a matter of belief. It is a scientifically-validated therapy. Maybe to some extent. From what little I've looked into it, it appears to be similar to a lame version of acupuncture. Whether it's of any value or not, it certainly appears to involve the rubbing of feet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexology_chart |
Where's everybody gone?
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:40:22 +0200, "Misterina" > wrote:
> >> Yes "they"--and probably as many more--are the same >> desperate and contemptible poster. > >Wow, that explains a lot actually! Multiple personality disorder to boot >dh@? :) Goo's dishonesty, stupidity, ignorance, rudeness, inconsideration and mental illness all mix together in a way that even Goo probably remains in a constant state of confusion as to who all he thinks he is, and what he thinks he believes, etc. For example: Something that the Goober insisted is one of "the real complaints of "vegans" regarding human use of animals", is his insistence that: "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." Later, Goo claimed to think he disagreed with himself about it though amusingly he could never explain how he thought he did. More recently, Goo has reverted back to agreeing with himself about it again. This poor Goober is so bewildered and disturbed that he doesn't know what he thinks he thinks, much less does he have a clue how to back it up or even try to. |
Where's everybody gone?
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:50:53 +0200, "Misterina" > wrote:
> >> The thing is that few, or no, AR supporters *categorically* condemn >> meat *eating*. Most would agree that it is morally permissible >> to eat an animal that died naturally of old age or in an accident >> (e.g. -- roadkill you did not cause). What AR supporters categorically >> condem is the processes involved in producing meat, especially >> commercially sold meat. It is the abuse, suffering, hampering of >> normal behavior, killing, that AR supporters condemn. It is exactly >> the same with the issue of sexual abuse of animals by humans. >> > >I just categorically don't eat anything that had a mother. Or eyes. Or >brains. Like EUGH!! So here we go, how about this: > >Hi. My name is Misterina. I *categorically* condemn meat *eating*. · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful: Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by being vegan. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · |
Where's everybody gone?
****wit David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying goober cracker,
cluelessly lied: > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:05:23 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > > >lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: > > > >> <dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> > >>>On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:45:36 +0100, lesley the lying slut of Cork lied: > >>> > >>> > >>>>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Chelsea foot-rubbing harlot wrote: > >>>> > >>>>Lies # 1, 2 and 3. > >>> > >>> Are you saying that: > >>> > >>>1. you're not from Chelsea? > >> > >> > >> lol! No, I'm not. > > > >You're not *from* Chelsea; you were *a* Chelsea. For > >****wit's benefit, that's a British slang term for the > >very short hair style favored by female skinheads. > > Thanks Leif. She doesn't seem very proud of that > one for some reason. It's morally equivalent to being a lying goober cracker by choice. > >You were condoning bestiality. > > Not this time, but things she's written suggest she > thinks it's okay as long as the animals don't mind. She condones bestiality, period. |
Where's everybody gone?
chico chupacabra wrote:
<snip> >> So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it? > No, but apparently a majority of the US Supreme Court does. <snip> This kind of comment shows how completely you misunderstand responsible freedom. You once claimed to be a Libertarian. Obviously, you are not one now, nor are you a supporter of the kind of freedom the United States is based upon: that individuals have a right to decide for themselves what they consider appropriate, as long as their actions do not harm or distress others. Your mentality is the same as that of those who would impose religious law on a whole population, and enforce it with State power. Part of the problem with harm to animals is that the legal system -- and you -- allow any harm, no matter how serious or distressing to the animal, as long as it is generally considered to benefit humans. Rape of a sheep cannot possibly be considered more painful or harmful to the sheep than being hoisted upside down by one leg, having one's throat cut while still conscious, and bleeding to death slowly in great pain while being flayed alive, is harmful to a cow, or having one's beak burned off by a hot knife and being scalded to death in boiling water is harmful to a chicken. Yet these cruel practices are accepted *by you* and the legal system because lots of people want to eat beef or chicken, while only a tiny number of people want to rape sheep. This is hypocrisy of the worst type. AR supporters have a consistent moral position: these cruel practices toward "food" animals *AND* the rape of unwilling animals are *BOTH* condemned, for the same reason. Any action which causes harm or distress to a companion animal is also covered in most civilized areas ( which probably excludes Texas ) by anti-cruelty laws. However, the Supreme Court has very properly concluded in the Lawrence case that an activity between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home -- and action which cannot be shown to be imposed without consent, or to cause any harm -- should not be prohibited by law. Anyone who believes, for religious or ethical reasons, that bestiality is immoral ( as Pearl does ) has a right to say so, to avoid the activity, and to try to *persuade* others not to engage in the activity. But unless someone can present genuine evidence that the action is *harmful* mentally or physically, it is wrong to forbid the action under law in a free society. There are people who believe it is immoral to allow young girls to escape genital mutilation, or to allow women to go outside without wearing a veil. Some of them would impose this belief on women without consent, by force, and even kill women who resist. But this is not the kind of behavior which can be accepted in a free society. <snip> |
Where's everybody gone?
chico chupacabra wrote: > wrote: > > Leif Erikson wrote: > > > >>This is the site of a lobbying organization for foot > >>massagers. They have no credibility. > >> > >>There are no legitimate clinical studies that show > >>*any* directly therapeutic effect of foot rubbing for > >>any medical ailment. At best, foot massage has a > >>palliative effect on the fraud victim's mental state. > >> > > > > > > Those last two sentences are contradictory. > > No, shev, they aren't. Palliative benefits from touch therapies like > massage (back, feet, whatever) may make it easier to live with > migraines, but they don't cure migraines. > You're saying a palliative benefit is not a direct therapeutic effect? > > If a placebo can show direct therapeutic effect, and they often do, I'm > > sure a foot massage would be that much better. > > No better than music, laughter, or pets: > LAUGHTER > http://tinyurl.com/e2mn > http://tinyurl.com/e2mv > > MUSIC > http://tinyurl.com/e2nb > http://tinyurl.com/e2nf > > ANIMALS/PETS > http://tinyurl.com/e2nn > http://tinyurl.com/e2ns Good point. I imagine your original foot massage advocate would also agree.. we all have quite different nervous, endochrine, etc. systems as well as comforts and whatever floats your boat as they say. Just remember that past results are no guarantee of future performance etc. |
Where's everybody gone?
Karen Winter, schismatic child abandoner and ex-cat shampooer, wrote:
> <snip> > >>> So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it? > >> No, but apparently a majority of the US Supreme Court does. > > <snip> > > This kind of comment shows how completely you misunderstand > responsible freedom. Quite the contrary. > You once claimed to be a Libertarian. I have libertarian tendencies. > Obviously, you are not one now, Non sequitur. > nor are you a supporter of > the kind of freedom the United States is based upon: Ipse dixit. > that > individuals have a right to decide for themselves what they > consider appropriate, as long as their actions do not harm > or distress others. Libertarian philosophy extends a bit further than you suggest, Karen. As to the "founding principles" of our nation, I would submit that the founders left it to the states (Tenth Amendment) to determine laws about issues such as pornography, sodomy, and bestiality. And that was the case up until the Bowers and Lawrence decisions -- the Supreme Court had found that it was a local issue, not a federal one, to be determined by the people and their representatives. The Lawrence decision vitiates the Tenth Amendment. And YOU call ME un-American? BTW, the real irony is your pose as a libertarian when you've written in support of groups carrying out terrorism in the name of animal liberation. The truth is, you're a libertine -- an IRRESPONSIBLE libertine -- and NOT a libertarian, much less a "responsible" one (just ask your son, whom you abandoned so you could pursue your own selfish pleasures). > Your mentality is the same as that of > those who would impose religious law on a whole population, > and enforce it with State power. That's a non sequitur, and it's funny coming from someone who would use the same power to forbid people from eating meat or wearing fur (but you WOULD let people **** animals). I've not made a religious statement about this series of issues, aside from asking how your religious are congruent with your advocacy of bestiality, homosexuality, and pedophilia. How is that all congruent, Karen? > Part of the problem with harm to animals is that the legal > system -- and you -- allow any harm, Bullshit. The system -- and I -- forbid wanton abuse of and cruelty to animals. > no matter how serious > or distressing to the animal, as long as it is generally > considered to benefit humans. Most livestock aren't distressed -- they live their lives with very good care. > Rape of a sheep cannot possibly > be considered more painful or harmful to the sheep than being > hoisted upside down by one leg, having one's throat cut while > still conscious, and bleeding to death slowly It's actually quite quick. The brain is deprived of oxygen, the animal sinks quickly into unconsciousness. > in great pain while being flayed alive, They're not alive when flayed. > is harmful to a cow, or having one's beak burned > off by a hot knife and being scalded to death in boiling water > is harmful to a chicken. Yet these cruel practices are accepted > *by you* and the legal system because lots of people want to > eat beef or chicken, while only a tiny number of people want > to rape sheep. This is hypocrisy of the worst type. It's neither as cruel as you portray nor as hypocritical. Why do you always have to side with the most marginal minority? I mean, what is it about humans who **** animals that you find worthy of protecting? > AR supporters have a consistent moral position: You don't. > these cruel > practices toward "food" animals *AND* the rape of unwilling > animals are *BOTH* condemned, for the same reason. You've written very approvingly of bestiality, Karen, and you call me anti-American for not approving of it with you. What's so consistent about that? > Any action which causes harm or distress to a companion animal *PET*. They're called PETS, Karen. > is also covered in most civilized areas ( which probably excludes > Texas ) Haha. You elitist swine. > by anti-cruelty laws. For the record, Texas has AND enforces animal cruelty laws. > However, the Supreme Court has > very properly concluded No, improperly. The majority opinion didn't get to the Constitutional issues at hand but instead referred to international law and sentiment. > in the Lawrence case that an activity > between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home -- > and action which cannot be shown to be imposed without consent, > or to cause any harm -- should not be prohibited by law. Lawrence is a big red strike through the Tenth Amendment. We're no longer free to make our own laws; we have to pass the muster of the sentiments of international law and those who pay allegiance to it instead of the Constitution. > Anyone who believes, for religious or ethical reasons, that > bestiality is immoral ( as Pearl does ) has a right to say > so, to avoid the activity, and to try to *persuade* others > not to engage in the activity. But unless someone can > present genuine evidence that the action is *harmful* mentally > or physically, It's classified in DSM-IV as a paraphilia. Snip and run from discussing that, you disingenuous cow, like you did two (or was it three?) years ago. > it is wrong to forbid the action under law > in a free society. No, it isn't. A free society allows community standards to prevail, not a lowest common denominator of libertine sentiment. <snip weird digression> |
Where's everybody gone?
wrote:
>>>>This is the site of a lobbying organization for foot >>>>massagers. They have no credibility. >>>> >>>>There are no legitimate clinical studies that show >>>>*any* directly therapeutic effect of foot rubbing for >>>>any medical ailment. At best, foot massage has a >>>>palliative effect on the fraud victim's mental state. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Those last two sentences are contradictory. >> >>No, shev, they aren't. Palliative benefits from touch therapies like >>massage (back, feet, whatever) may make it easier to live with >>migraines, but they don't cure migraines. > > You're saying a palliative benefit is not a direct therapeutic effect? No, because the underlying cause/issue remains. >>>If a placebo can show direct therapeutic effect, and they often do, I'm >>>sure a foot massage would be that much better. >> >>No better than music, laughter, or pets: >>LAUGHTER >>http://tinyurl.com/e2mn >>http://tinyurl.com/e2mv >> >>MUSIC >>http://tinyurl.com/e2nb >>http://tinyurl.com/e2nf >> >>ANIMALS/PETS >>http://tinyurl.com/e2nn >>http://tinyurl.com/e2ns > > Good point. I try only to make that kind. > I imagine your original foot massage advocate would also > agree.. She doesn't. She's a true-believer in reflexology. > we all have quite different nervous, endochrine, etc. systems > as well as comforts and whatever floats your boat as they say. But we don't allow people to make unfounded, untrue statements about medical procedures or potions. That's supposed to include flim-flam BS like "alternative medicine." > Just remember that past results are no guarantee of future performance > etc. Read LesLIE's posts again and you'll see that she's a true-believer who claims it's a cure-all. |
Where's everybody gone?
chico chupacabra wrote: > Lesley, perverted foot-rubbing shithead from Eire, wrote: > > > > > > > > >>><snip> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> *As long as the feelings are mutual*, > > > > > > > >>>>>> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why > > > > > > > >>>>>> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no > > > > > > > >>>>>> problem with people's personal choices *as long as > > > > > > > >>>>>> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it > > > > > > > >>>>>> human or animal. [emphasis in original] > > > > > > > >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>>>From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of > > > > > > > > their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not > > > > > > > > harming or causing distress to another - that's their business. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you endorse it. You don't condemn it. Saying it's > > > > > > > "their business" is endorsement of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying it is sick as hell is condemnation. > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > Of course it is condemnation. > > > > > > No. > > > > Of course it is condemnation. > > You wrote yesterday, "Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question." That CONDONES it, it doesn't condemn it. > > > condemnation > > 1. an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing > > as wrong or morally culpable > > Yet you still find it in your heart to condone it: "Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question." > > > > We're not talking about any states. We're talking about YOU. You > > > endorse bestiality. > > > > No I don't. > > I. You offer qualified objections to 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] > lesley ("liesley") - http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 > Seems like a very reasonable position to me. > II. You've condoned it as a matter of privacy: > "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." > > III. You've further stated that you'd even oppose laws against it: > "Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question." > > Whose side are you on, Lesley? The animal ****ers' side. > What's wrong with sex with animals if it doesn't cause harm or distress, or involve coercion? > > And, like many, I don't believe that I've > > the right to interfere with others' choices > > Unless they want to EAT an animal instead of **** it. You have a perverted sense of right and wrong, pervert. I think objecting to sex with animals when it causes no harm or distress, and involves no coercion, but endorsing modern farming practices, is utterly bizarre. I think all the fuss you people make about bestiality is ridiculous. |
Where's everybody gone?
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> > It *doesn't* "work" as its scammers suggest. Reflexology's benefits don't > > extend beyond palliative results, Paediatr Nurs. 2003 Apr;15(3):20-1. Reflexology in the management of encopresis and chronic constipation. Bishop E, McKinnon E, Weir E, Brown DW. Encopresis or faecal incontinence in children is an extremely distressing condition that is usually secondary to chronic constipation/stool withholding. Traditional management with enemas may add to the child's distress. This study investigated the efficacy of treating patients with encopresis and chronic constipation with reflexology. An observational study was carried out of 50 children between three and 14 years of age who had a diagnosis of encopresis/chronic constipation. The children received six sessions of 30-minutes of reflexology to their feet. With the help of their parents they completed questionnaires on bowel motions and soiling patterns before, during and after the treatment. A further questionnaire was completed by parents pre and post treatment on their attitude towards reflexology. Forty-eight of the children completed the sessions. The number of bowel motions increased and the incidence of soiling decreased. Parents were keen to try the reflexology and were satisfied with the effect of reflexology on their child's condition. It appears that reflexology has been an effective method of treating encopresis and constipation over a six-week period in this cohort of patients. Publication Types: Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial PMID: 12715585 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract 1: Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2001 Apr;8(2):86-9. [Influence of reflex zone therapy of the feet on intestinal blood flow measured by color Doppler sonography] [Article in German] Mur E, Schmidseder J, Egger I, Bodner G, Eibl G, Hartig F, Pfeiffer KP, Herold M. Universitatsklinik fur Innere Medizin, Innsbruck, Osterreich. OBJECTIVE: An influence on organ-associated blood flow is considered as a possible mechanism of action of reflex zone massage of the feet (FRZM) therapy. In the present study we investigated whether changes in intestinal blood flow can be achieved by FRZM. Material and Methods: 32 healthy adults (19 women and 13 men) were randomly assigned to the treatment or the placebo group. Subjects of the treatment group received foot massage on the zones assigned to the intestines and those of the placebo group received massage on zones unrelated to the intestines. Before, during and after FRZM, the blood flow velocity, the peak systolic and the end diastolic velocities in the superior mesenteric artery as well as the resistive index as a parameter of vascular resistance were calculated. Results: During FRZM, in the subjects of the treatment group there was a significant reduction in the resistive index (p = 0.021), suggesting an increase in the blood flow in the superior mesenteric artery and the subordinate vascular system. In contrast, there were no significant changes in the resistive index in the subjects of the placebo group. Conclusion: The reduction in the resistive index observed in the treatment group supports the assumption that FRZM improves blood flow in the organs considered to be associated with the specific foot zones, at least during the therapy process. Copyright 2001 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg PMID: 11340315 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ool=pubmed_doc sum |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> There are no legitimate clinical studies that show > *any* directly therapeutic effect of foot rubbing for > any medical ailment. At best, foot massage has a > palliative effect on the fraud victim's mental state. 'Paediatr Nurs. 2003 Apr;15(3):20-1. Reflexology in the management of encopresis and chronic constipation. Bishop E, McKinnon E, Weir E, Brown DW. Encopresis or faecal incontinence in children is an extremely distressing condition that is usually secondary to chronic constipation/stool withholding. Traditional management with enemas may add to the child's distress. This study investigated the efficacy of treating patients with encopresis and chronic constipation with reflexology. An observational study was carried out of 50 children between three and 14 years of age who had a diagnosis of encopresis/chronic constipation. The children received six sessions of 30-minutes of reflexology to their feet. With the help of their parents they completed questionnaires on bowel motions and soiling patterns before, during and after the treatment. A further questionnaire was completed by parents pre and post treatment on their attitude towards reflexology. Forty-eight of the children completed the sessions. The number of bowel motions increased and the incidence of soiling decreased. Parents were keen to try the reflexology and were satisfied with the effect of reflexology on their child's condition. It appears that reflexology has been an effective method of treating encopresis and constipation over a six-week period in this cohort of patients. Publication Types: Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial PMID: 12715585 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter