FoodBanter.com

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

[email protected] 07-08-2006 01:55 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 

chico chupacabra wrote:
> 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.

> >
> > Why would a true believer in reflexology deny that music, laughter, and
> > proximity to other animals could also have healthful effects?

>
> She's a knucklehead who believes the earth is hollow and filled with
> little green men. Ask her why reflexology works better or differently
> than those other palliative therapies.
>
> >>>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."

> >
> > You don't allow people to make unfounded, untrue statements about
> > medical procedures? I can't think of any other field where such
> > statements are more rampant, and they have been for millenia.

>
> This isn't the golden age of bloodletting and lead-based amalgams, and
> it's ironic that you bring up the argument against "the ages" because
> reflexology puts itself in that category. In our more enlightened,
> scientific age, reflexology and other similar modalities like iridology
> have been debunked.
>


Yes, more enlightened in some ways. Definitely the most on drugs.
However, been to a geriatric institute recently? Are we at 20% of GDP
for health services yet?

> <snip rest of your emotive rant against medical science>
>
> (just remember how wrong you were about the polio vaccine)


Not very wrong. Thanks for your help then; remember the conclusion was
50% efficacy.
Pretty good but for the poster boy of vaccination not all that
impressive.

Cheers -


Derek[_2_] 07-08-2006 02:42 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:13:10 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>
>Derek, I know that you will argue endlessly


Yes, you can count on that.

>for the sake of argument


No, for the sake in getting my point across and demolishing
yours.

><snip>
>>> a violation of rights only takes place when an actual
>>>concrete harm takes place.

>
>> ...


Leave what I write intact and stop cutting my sentences
away to misrepresent my position.

>> <restore> No because without a preceding decision to violate
>> their right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms
>> don't occur.

>
>That is correct.


Then you cannot continue to assert that, "a violation of
rights ONLY takes place when an actual concrete harm
takes place." You're wrong, and you've just conceded
you're wrong. The rights violation takes place before
"actual concrete harm takes place." The actual concrete
harm (by that I take it to mean slaughter and or confinement,
etc.) that takes place is merely a consequence of that rights
violation.

>It's like Harrison
>and his imaginary pre-existing cattle -- there can be
>no benefit until the animal actually exists.


No, you're trying to misrepresent my position again, and I'm
going to allow you to do that. I'm only concerned about the
rights of currently living animals that are reduced to utilities.

>> If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY
>> takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.",
>> the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not
>> being violated.

>
>Of course they are.


They do not suffer from the lack of anything because
while alive they are given great care and as much
freedom to roam as they would in the wild, allegedly.
No "concrete harm" is done to them, and as such,
according to your warped view on rights where "a
violation of rights ONLY takes place when an actual
concrete harm takes place", their rights are not violated
until that concrete harm is done to them. Way to go, Karen!

>> Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so
>> you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin
>> has all the faculties you have because you paid to have
>> yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose.
>> Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be
>> violating her right to your respectful treatment.

>
>Correct. You are violating her rights by your *action*
>because that action is a *harm* even though it does
>not involve suffering at the time.


No, you would be violating your clone's right to your
respectful treatment by reducing her moral status to
a mere utility. The situation I described involved no
harms whatsoever. She enjoys all the benefits you
enjoy bar one; the status of non-utility which she is
made unaware of.

><snip>
>>>>Having sex with them certainly does carry a very
>>>>serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect.

>
>>>Ipse dixit.

>
>> Having sex with an adult without meaningful consent shows
>> a total lack of respect to that person's right to our respectful
>> treatment. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to extend that
>> rule to animals.

>
>>>Zoophiles would disagree

>
>> Of course they would, because they want to suck off their
>> dogs, and what not.

>
>Well, certainly. But that does not make it any less
>or more true.


Of course it does. They want to suck off dogs, and to make
their gross act acceptable they presume without meaningful
consent that that is what the animal wants as well.

>> Take those beliefs of the Sambia and
>> Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example. They would
>> disagree with me that a child holds a right against them,
>> because they want young boys to continue sucking their
>> cocks every day.

>
>> "The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea
>> include the following: for adult males the presence in their
>> bodies, in the testicles, of semen is essential for the existence
>> and maintenance of their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse
>> therefore involves the termporary loss of something important
>> (so women are dangerous); the bodies of young boys do not
>> yet internally produce, and so they do not yet have, this
>> ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an
>> external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males.
>> The Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from
>> these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the age of
>> seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate
>> older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio
>> insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity of the
>> donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the
>> boys become the men who are sucked and who provide the
>> masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated is the staple
>> of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until marriage."
>> (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations").

>
>This is a perfectly moral action in the context of the culture.


Nevertheless, it is NOT a perfectly moral action. Another case
in point concerns those paedophiles on Pitcairn Island. They too
believed that having sex with young girls was a part of their
tradition and argued that they should be allowed to continue on
that basis. They were badly mistaken and found guilty of rape.

> The action is done for the benefit of the boys, to enable them
> to become adult men. They are respected, and the action is done
> for their benefit.


No, they are being used to perform depraved acts on older
men, and that is a gross act of human rights violations.

>No doubt both parties enjoy the activity,


Only in your depraved view, you disgusting pervert.

> which is fine,


No, it is NOT fine!

>but there is no exploitation involved.


Of course there is. Those paedophiles whom you respect
are exploiting their position and preying on younger boys.

>> Perverts will dream up anything they can to get their hands on
>> young boys.

>
>In that culture


Their culture takes nothing away from the fact that what they
get young boys to do is a gross violation of their human rights.

><snip>
>>>I don't agree animals are not capable of giving meaningful consent
>>>in some areas.

>
>> Try to watch out for those sloppy double negatives

>
>That was a perfectly grammatical construction.


No, it was sloppy and contained a double negative.

>> Just
>> say you agree that animals are capable of giving meaningful
>> consent in some areas.

>
>I do.


Then say it without the use of a double negative.

>> That said, prove to me that they are
>> capable of giving meaningful consent to sex

>
>I believe they can give meaningful consent to a great many
>things


Your wrong beliefs are not the proof I asked for. You
believe that paedophiles are responsible and loving to
their victims, and you also believe they should be given
positions where they come into contact with them. It's
the same kind of wrong thinking that lead to your being
kicked out of your parish by your priest. I'm not going
to accept your wrong beliefs as proof.

Derek[_2_] 07-08-2006 03:01 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On 6 Aug 2006 18:11:19 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2006 20:52:49 -0700, wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>> >> >> >Derek wrote:

[..]
>> >> >> >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
>> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
>> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
>> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
>> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
>> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
>> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
>> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
>> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
>> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms
>> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
>> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
>> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
>> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
>> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a
>> >> >> >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees
>> >> >> >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect,
>> >> >> >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms
>> >> >> as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply
>> >> >> that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm
>> >> >> means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You
>> >> >> cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm
>> >> >> when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful
>> >> >> treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not
>> >> >> trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given.
>> >> >
>> >> >What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >in a sexual context and no other.
>> >>
>> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
>> >
>> >"The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea include the
>> >following: for adult males the presence in their bodies, in the
>> >testicles, of semen is essential for the existence and maintenance of
>> >their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse therefore involves the
>> >termporary loss of something important (so women are dangerous); the
>> >bodies of young boys do not yet internally produce, and so they do not
>> >yet have, this ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an
>> >external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. The
>> >Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from these beliefs,
>> >in which young boys, starting around the age of seven to ten and
>> >lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate older males to orgasm and
>> >ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs
>> >daily. The masculinity of the donors thereby passes to the
>> >beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the boys become the men who are sucked
>> >and who provide the masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated
>> >is the staple of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until
>> >marriage." (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations").
>> >
>> >Presumably, you think this is incompatible with respectful treatment.

>>
>> Yes, I most certainly do, and it does nothing to support your above
>> claim to which I responded where you wrote, "What I'm not clear
>> on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
>> context and no other."

>
>That's not a claim. It's a question.


Then where is the question mark indicating that it was a question?
Your statement was not a question. It was a wrong claim that "the
issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no
other.", and that you were "not clear on why the issue of
"respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."
I replied, "Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment"
arises in many areas as well in a sexual context." Try again, Rupe.

>> It clearly does arise in other contexts, so
>> you were wrong to suggest it doesn't.

>
>It was an attempt at interpreting your position.


No, liar, it was an attempt at MISinterpreting my position. It failed.
My position on harms, respectful treatment and zoophilia is clear.

>> >On the other hand, we have our own institution of compulsory education.
>> >Is that consistent with respectful treatment?

>>
>> Yes, it is.


That feeble attempt at another digression out of the way, note
that in my post to which you responded I wrote, "The issue of
respectful treatment is raised in many different contexts, but
the context here is wrongful sex between moral agents and
moral patients." I also wrote, "Try sticking with the subject,
Rupe: respectful treatment and wrongful sex with animals and
children. Can you do that?"

>> >How about the practice of encouraging a child to attend a confirmation
>> >ceremony? Is that consistent with respectful treatment?

>>
>> Yes, it is if the child isn't sexually mutilated or made to perform
>> deviant acts while attending that ceremony. How many more
>> examples are you going to try while attempting to digress from
>> the issue of sex between moral agents and moral patients, such
>> as animals and children?

>
>It's wrong to interact with someone in such a way that there's a
>significant risk of harm to which they don't or can't give informed
>consent. I think we can all agree on that.
>
>You apparently want to move beyond that, saying that whether there is a
>significant risk of harm is not the central issue,


No. You're attempting to misrepresent my position again, and
I'm not going to let you do that. I haven't said or implied that
the central issue is whether there is a significant risk.

>that certain types
>of interaction with those who allegedly can't give "meaningful consent"
>violate the right to respectful treatment. I am trying to get clearer
>about which types of interactions these are.


Causing unnecessary death, torture, enslavement, reducing beings
to the status of utilities, etc. The list is a long one, but in the context
of this discussion I'm referring to wrongful sex with moral patients.
You knew that but wanted to digress by trying to include interactions
which don't involve disrespectful treatment such as schooling.

>At the moment I don't understand what the criterion is.


Yes, you do, but you're trying to digress.

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


No, I wrote, "The issue of respectful treatment is raised in many
different contexts, but the context here is wrongful sex between
moral agents and moral patients." I also wrote, "Try sticking with
the subject, Rupe: respectful treatment and wrongful sex with
animals and children. Can you do that?"

>So I want to know what criterion you are using.


I've told you quite a few times now, as indicated above, and I
asked you try sticking with it instead of trying to digress from
it.

>It's not a digression.


Yes, it is.

>I'm trying to get you to clarify your position.


I've clarified it while you attempt to digress from it by referring
to interactions which don't involve disrespectful treatment, such
as schooling and religious ceremonies, etc. To head off any future
attempts at digressing let me make my position on this issue clear
once again.

The issue of respectful treatment is raised in many different
contexts, but the context here is wrongful sex between moral
agents and moral patients. Meaningful consent cannot be
extracted from moral patients, even if they appear willing to
have sex, and presuming they have given meaningful consent
without actually receiving it is a gross violation of their right to
our respectful treatment. You cannot presume that meaningful
consent exists without first violating their right to our respectful
treatment. It's as simple and as straightforward as that, so deal
with it and stop wasting my time by digressing onto schools,
religious ceremonies and scratching dog's bellies. The position
I've put forward is clear enough for a child to understand, so stop
feigning ignorance and start making your case against it.

Derek[_2_] 07-08-2006 03:24 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:35:38 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:

>
><snip> repeat of previous discussion


<restore previous discussion you've failed to address>

>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...",
>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights
>>>>violations,

>
>>>That is correct.

>
>> Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations

>
>No, Derek


Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped
him away.

"The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms
occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
the fundamental wrong."
Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199

>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right.


When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a rights
violation. Take Harrison's grass fed beef, for example. According
to your back-to-front concept of what makes for a rights violation:
harm, while farmed in ideal bucolic settings no rights are violated
because it isn't being harmed, even though the intention behind
farming it in the first place is anything but respectful treatment.
Farmed animals, whatever the conditions they are kept in, are not
being treated with respect. They are being farmed for slaughter.
Their right to our respectful treatment is violated. A lack of respect
is by definition a violation of their right to our respectful treatment.

>> and are
>> not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is where
>> "their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what
>> makes their murder wrong." The fundamental wrong occurs
>> the moment the decision is made to violate their right to our
>> respectful treatment

>
>No, again. No violation has taken place until the murder
>is actually attempted or carried out.


Wrong. The moment a decision is made to violate another's
right to our respectful treatment, a rights violation has taken
place, by definition.

>If I sit and
>fantasize about murdering someone, but it never goes
>any further than fantasy, I have done nothing more than
>have a nasty daydream. I have not violated anyone's
>rights.


A passing whim to throttle someone is not the same as
deciding to kill him.

>, and the harm (murder or sex with a moral
>> patient) comes after as a consequence of that fundamental
>> wrong.

>
>The lack of respect may be a moral wrong,


It IS the ONLY moral wrong. Harms themselves are not
wrong.
Listen to Hume;
"Take any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for
Instance. Examine it in all lights and see if you can find that
matter of fact or real existence which you call vice. In
which-ever way you take it you find only certain passions,
motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter
of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you as long
as you consider the object. You never can find it till you
turn your reflection into your own breast and find a
sentiment of disapprobation which arises in you towards
this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of
feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.
So that when you pronounce any action or character to
be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution
of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame
from the contemplation of it."

And, according to Regan, harms are only a consequence
of a fundamental wrong, not the fundamental wrong
themselves.

"The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms
occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
the fundamental wrong."
Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199

You simply cannot assume that harms are what make a rights
violation. They don't. They are nothing but "a sentiment of
disapprobation which arises in you towards [them]." The lack
of respectful treatment is the ONLY moral wrong, and by
definition is a violation of another's right to it.
<end restore>

Shame on you, Karen, for snipping and running away.

>> Attempted murder is a violation of your right to my respectful
>> treatment.

>
>Correct, because an action has taken place


The action, being an attempt to murder has taken place, but
not the murder itself. You've agreed that attempted murder
is a violation of your right to my respectful treatment, even
though the murder itself has not taken place. How is that
any different to the intended murder of animals that takes
place when farming them for slaughter? You've hitherto
claimed that "If there is no harm, no right is violated.", yet
grass fed beef are not harmed while being farmed in ideal
conditions. From that you are made to conclude that the
rights of grass fed beef animals are not being violated.

What you fail to grasp is that the fundamental wrong being
done is reducing the grass fed beef animals' moral status to
that of a utility, not in farming them. Farming them is merely
a consequence of the fundamental wrong in reducing their
moral worth.

>> when the decision is made to euthanize an animal for
>> *our* benefit (after all, no one likes seeing an animal suffer)

>
>That is not euthanasia; it is murder.


Then so be it. No animal can be said to benefit by death
until you can provide information on the state of its death
and conclude that it would be better than its current living
state.

>It is only euthanasia
>when the death is carried out for the animal's benefit, not
>for ours.


Then it is murder, Karen, even though we might wish to
believe it is something different and done for the benefit
of the animal, because no one can assert that the unknown
state of death is preferential to the known state of living,
and no one can presume that the animal has given any
meaningful consent to be killed.

><snip>
>>>(Regan)He is saying that suffering or lack of suffering
>>>is irrelevant to whether harm has occurred.

>
>> NO, he is not.

>
>I'm afraid he is.


No, he states quite clearly that suffering and harm is merely
a consequence of a fundamental wrong, not, as you claim,
that "suffering or lack of suffering is irrelevant to whether
harm has occurred." You made that up, and it doesn't make
sense because suffering IS relevant to whether harm has
occurred, being that both terms are synonymous.

"The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
according to the rights view, this suffering and these other
harms occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals
with a lack of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as
much as we would wish them away, the suffering and other
harms are not themselves the fundamental wrong."
Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199

There. Hope that helps.

>> He is saying that suffering or lack of suffering
>> is merely a consequence of the fundamental wrong

>
>which is not a rights violation until it is acted upon.


Then you have no quarrel with farmers who keep their cattle
in ideal conditions and provide them with every care. Understand
this; a rights violation occurs the moment when an animal's moral
status is reduced to a utility, and then the harms follow. It's as
simple and as straight-forward as that.

>> in violating
>> another's right to our respectful treatment. How on Earth can
>> suffering (harm) be irrelevant to whether harm (suffering)
>> occurred?

>
>Because there can be more than one kind of harm, and all
>harm does not involved suffering.


False. Harm is synonymous with suffering and is always
relevant to it.

>> What the heck are you talking about? Of course
>> suffering or lack of suffering is relevant to whether harm
>> has occurred. They are synonymous!

>
>Suffering is a harm, but not all harm involves suffering.


Yes, it does. The terms are synonymous, so how can suffering
(harm) be irrelevant to whether harm (suffering) occurred?

>>>If we
>>>are willing to accept the validity of an animal's
>>>preference when we euthanize him/her

>
>> I don't.

>
>Regan says that is one thing that is required for
>a killing to be euthanasia instead of murder.


Both killings are murder until we can extract meaningful
consent from the animal that it would prefer to die rather
than continue to live.

>See _The Case for Animal Rights_; check "Euthanasia"
>in the index. You do have a copy, don't you?


Yes, and nowhere does Regan say that animals can
give meaningful consent to be killed.

>> We euthanize them because we consider it to be
>> respectful treatment.

>
>Correct
>
>> It's not for the animal's preference
>> that we kill it. Animals don't prefer death to their current
>> circumstances

>
>Wrong on both counts, according to Regan.


Then indicate the page and paragraph where he claims
animals can make such a value judgment between death
and continuing to suffer, and that they can give meaningful
consent to their killers.

><snip>
>>
>> Animals don't prefer death. To get your point accepted
>> you need to provide information showing that an animal
>> understands death,

>
>Not necessary.


Yes, it is very necessary, because until you do you have
no grounds on which to declare that the unknown state
of death is preferable to an animal. Your claim is that
animals *prefer* something even we can't understand,
and then you go on to claim that they give meaningful
consent to their killers. I don't buy it! You need to do
much better than just assert these things, Karen.

>> and that it finds it preferential to its
>> current circumstances.

>
>The animal prefers an end to suffering to continued suffering
>without possibility of relief or end.


That may be so, but you still haven't provided the required
information to force us to conclude that an animal can
make value judgments regarding death and finds it a
better state than the one currently being experienced.

>Humans understand
>that, in some cases, death is the only way to respect this
>preference on the part of the animal.


In other words, WE decide that death is preferable. The
animal cannot make this value judgment, so it's absurd
to assume it can and then proceed to kill it on those
grounds. We don't, of course. We kill it because WE
prefer that quiet state rather than watching it struggle
for a life in pain.

Derek[_2_] 07-08-2006 03:35 PM

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

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

>>
>> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
>> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?

>
>I didn't imply that.


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

>It was my attempt at interpreting your position.


No, it was your attempt at MISinterpreting my position. I rejected
your claim by replying, "Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful
treatment" arises in many areas as well in a sexual context."

>I apologize if it was a misinterpretation, but you've rejected all my
>examples of how it might arise in a non-sexual context


No, that's false. I accepted two examples: compulsory schooling
and attending ceremonies "if the child isn't sexually mutilated or
made to perform deviant acts while attending that ceremony."
I then followed that with, "How many more examples are you
going to try while attempting to digress from the issue of sex
between moral agents and moral patients ..."

>I'm really struggling to understand what your
>criterion is


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

>> >>>There are all sorts of situations
>> >>>where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to
>> >>>which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example).
>> >>>If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see
>> >>>why it's given in these contexts, either.
>> >
>> >> It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or
>> >> children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries
>> >> no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when
>> >> scratching them.
>> >
>> >Really?

>>
>> Yes. When I scratch my dog's belly I'm not hoping for a shag.
>>
>> >I doubt that.

>>
>> Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert.

>
>Try and stay civil.


She is a disgusting pervert, and saying so is my prerogative.
Her perverted views on sex with children is well documented
and lead to her being kicked out of her parish. Her support for
the perversion of zoophilia is also on record and before us right
now, and that's why I can say without any hesitation that she's
a disgusting pervert.

Leif Erikson[_1_] 07-08-2006 04:01 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Rupert wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Glorfindel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If there is no harm, no right is violated.
>>>>>>>>>>>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is
>>>>>>>>>>>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.",
>>>>>>>>>>then comes the harm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, but, as I said, the lack of respect is wrong ( not *a*
>>>>>>>wrong )
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's THE wrong - the ONLY wrong. Harms are just a bad
>>>>>>consequence of that fundamental wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>but a violation of rights only takes place when an actual
>>>>>>>concrete harm takes place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, because without a preceding decision to violate their
>>>>>>right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms
>>>>>>don't occur. If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY
>>>>>>takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.",
>>>>>>the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not
>>>>>>being violated. Way to go, Karen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so
>>>>>>you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin
>>>>>>has all the faculties you have because you paid to have
>>>>>>yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose.
>>>>>>Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be
>>>>>>violating her right to your respectful treatment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>>>>>>>>>in a sexual context and no other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>>>>>>>>in many areas as well in a sexual context.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
>>>>>>treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't imply that. It was my attempt at interpreting your position. I
>>>>>apologize if it was a misinterpretation, but you've rejected all my
>>>>>examples of how it might arise in a non-sexual context and claimed I'm
>>>>>changing the subject. I'm really struggling to understand what your
>>>>>criterion is for when the issue of respectful treatment arises, if not
>>>>>whether the interaction is sexual.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>but respectful treatment does not rule out all sexual contact
>>>>>>>between a willing animal and a willing human.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It most certainly does. You cannot extract meaningful consent
>>>>>
>>>>>>from an animal for such an intimate trespass, and to presume
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>without knowing that you have that consent is a gross violation
>>>>>>of that animal's right to your respectful treatment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There are all sorts of situations
>>>>>>>>>where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to
>>>>>>>>>which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example).
>>>>>>>>>If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see
>>>>>>>>>why it's given in these contexts, either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or
>>>>>>>>children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries
>>>>>>>>no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when
>>>>>>>>scratching them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes. When I scratch my dog's belly I'm not hoping for a shag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I doubt that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Try and stay civil.
>>>>
>>>>Karen Winter has put herself far beyond the bounds of
>>>>civil discourse. So have you, rupie.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is rich coming from you of all people.

>>
>>You'll take it, rupie, and you'll learn to like it.
>>That's just how it is, pal.

>
>
> This is a bit bizarre.


You are nothing BUT bizarre, rupie. The psychotic
"vegan" maths whiz - not too many of those around.

Glorfindel 07-08-2006 06:47 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
pearl wrote:

<snip>

> I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow.


I very much appreciate and respect your willingness to think
about the arguments which both sides ( or all sides) of an
issue present. I respect ( :) ) your view, even if it does
not agree with mine, because it is intellectually honest and
reasoned. You are an example to all of us, Pearl.

<snip>

> Ok, but action stems from intent; that originates from thoughts
> which should be culled from inception with the Knowledge of
> Right and Wrong - understood with real education, and instinct.


I'll agree with this. There are indeed two meanings to "respect".
One is a mental attitude -- "to have respect for" and that
involves intent and thoughts. The second -- "to respect rights"
means to take no *action* which trespasses on the boundaries
set around a subject-of-a-life being's inherent rights. The one
thing -- a violation of rights -- may, and often does, result
from the other -- the disrespectful attitude. But it is important
to keep them separate when talking about laws and social
sanctions, because the law should only punish action, not thoughts,
and only punish actions which cause objective harm.

> It is Wrong, because it contravenes Natural Laws. It is deviant.


Everything we do to captive and domestic animals contravenes
Natural Laws and is deviant from an AR perspective. Animals
should be free and autonomous beings, not slaves or property.
But I think we should apply the same criteria to sexual
interactions with animals as we do to other interactions
with them. This is where I disagree with Derek.

> Animals normally follow their instinct - but that can be perverted.
> Zoophiles - however 'caring' they may be, DO -actively involve-
> animals - 'grooming' them for what *we* *should* *know* to be
> an *aberrant* activity, taking advantage of the animals' innocence.
> That is disrespectful - and no different from the selfish attitude that
> leads to and allows *all* other animal abuses for humans' desires.


Yes and no. Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is
an aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic wrong
in keeping domestic animals, especially as pets and property.
I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia would take place between free,
wild animals and humans, or in an AR-based society. You are
right there. But, as I said at the beginning of this thread,
some animals are imprinted during their learning period on
humans as appropriate mates. A zoophile may not "groom"
such an animal at all. If the zoophile does condition or groom
a young animal who is not already imprinted, for the zoophile's
benefit, without concern for the animal -- that is very wrong,
completely immoral and unethical, I agree. It is a deliberate
perversion of the animal's natural behavior. BUT if the animal
is already imprinted on humans, IMO it is not wrong of the
zoophile to have a loving, committed, respectful mate
relationship with such an animal -- IF the animal is treated
with the same respect and concern any other human would have for
a human mate. The number of such relationships is undoubtedly
minuscule, and the amount of attention we give them is rather
ridiculous, given all the other abuses humans visit on animals.

<snip>
>> Take those beliefs of the Sambia and
>>>Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example.


<snip> description

>>This is a perfectly moral action in the context of the culture.
>>The action is done for the benefit of the boys, to enable them
>>to become adult men. They are respected, and the action is done
>>for their benefit. No doubt both parties enjoy the activity,
>>which is fine, but there is no exploitation involved. Even if
>>the adults did not enjoy the activity, or the boys did not enjoy
>>the activity, it would still not be exploitative, non-respectful,
>>or a violation of rights, because it is done, not primarily for
>>sexual pleasure, but as a necessary rite of passage in the culture,
>>almost what we would regard as a medical necessity or a cultural
>>requirement, as going to school is a cultural requirement in our
>>culture. It prepares the boys to take their place in their own
>>culture as adults.


> But they are not adults, and they have no choice in the matter -


We don't know that. It doesn't say the boys -- or the men --
are forced to participate. It just says this is the cultural
norm in that society. Cultural norms in our society impose
many actions and restraints on children as they grow up, and
one could certainly argue about any of them. Should children
be forced to go to school against their will? Should babies
be circumcised without their content? Should children be
vaccinated without their consent because their parents want
to do it? Should children be forced to eat meat when they
don't want to, because their parents think it is healthier?
Dress codes. Music. Tattoos or piercings. All sorts of things.
Kids and adults fight about these issues every day.

<snip>

>>Sexual activity is no different.


> It is. Sexual activity's PRIMARY function is procreation.


Biologically, but not emotionally.

> On another level, the act is Sacred and highly meaningful.


Sometimes. Sometimes not. It depends on the individuals,
and the situation.


chico chupacabra 07-08-2006 06:50 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, cat-shampooing child abandoner, wrote:

<...>
>> Stop running away from the arguments you raise.

>
> That's a laugh


No, because it's your _modus operandi_.

> considering you ran away from the
> arguments *you* raised about the scientific
> evidence for cross-species imprinting and mating
> behavior, and the ethics of conditioning.


I will address every old post I downloaded just now when I get time this
evening.

Glorfindel 07-08-2006 07:23 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Derek wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:13:10 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:


<snip>

>>>If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY
>>>takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.",
>>>the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not
>>>being violated.


>>Of course they are.


> They do not suffer from the lack of anything because
> while alive they are given great care and as much
> freedom to roam as they would in the wild, allegedly.
> No "concrete harm" is done to them, and as such,
> according to your warped view on rights where "a
> violation of rights ONLY takes place when an actual
> concrete harm takes place", their rights are not violated
> until that concrete harm is done to them.


From an AR perspective ( as you *should* understand
after all this time) they suffer a harm because their
right to autonomy is violated by their status as
property. That harm does not involve physical
or mental pain, but it is still a violation of rights
and a concrete harm. This is Regan's view.

<snip>

>>>Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so
>>>you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin
>>>has all the faculties you have because you paid to have
>>>yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose.
>>>Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be
>>>violating her right to your respectful treatment.


>>Correct. You are violating her rights by your *action*
>>because that action is a *harm* even though it does
>>not involve suffering at the time.


> No, you would be violating your clone's right to your
> respectful treatment by reducing her moral status to
> a mere utility. The situation I described involved no
> harms whatsoever.


Reducing her status to that of a mere utility *IS* a
harm, a violation of her rights.

> She enjoys all the benefits you
> enjoy bar one; the status of non-utility which she is
> made unaware of.


As AR theorists all agree, being unaware of a right
does not mean the right does not exist. This is
true for all moral patients and all moral agents.

<snip>

>>>>Zoophiles would disagree


>>>Of course they would, because they want to suck off their
>>>dogs, and what not.


>>Well, certainly. But that does not make it any less
>>or more true.


> Of course it does. They want to suck off dogs, and to make
> their gross act acceptable they presume without meaningful
> consent that that is what the animal wants as well.


If they presume incorrectly, it should be obvious from
observing the animal's behavior. If they presume
incorrectly and continue by force, it is rape. But
if they presume correctly, no violation of rights has
taken place in that specific situation. A violation
would have taken place earlier, if the zoophile
deliberately imprinted the animal previously.

<snip>

>>I believe they (animals)can give meaningful consent
>>to a great many things.


> Your wrong beliefs are not the proof I asked for.


What would you accept as proof?

<snip>

Dutch 07-08-2006 07:31 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 

"Rupert" > wrote
>
> Derek wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:12:42 GMT, Leif Erikson
>> > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
>> >>>Derek wrote:
>> >>>>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
>> >>>>>Derek wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>><snip>
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...",
>> >>>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights
>> >>>>>>violations,
>> >>>
>> >>>>>That is correct.
>> >>>
>> >>>>Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations
>> >>>
>> >>>No, Derek
>> >>
>> >> Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped
>> >> him away.
>> >>
>> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
>> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
>> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
>> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
>> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
>> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
>> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
>> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
>> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
>> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms
>> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
>> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
>> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
>> >> the fundamental wrong."
>> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
>> >>
>> >>>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right.
>> >>
>> >> When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a rights
>> >> violation.


A man may have great respect for deer yet still shoot a deer for food. A man
may have no respect for deer yet never harm one.

>> >Karen is equivocating on "respect".

>>
>> Well caught that man!

>
> Explain the point, then. What are the two senses of "respect" between
> which she is equivocating?


Regan is just talking in circles, like all AR authors do. What meaningful
difference can there be between rights violations which are lack of respect
leading to harm and simply acts which cause harm?



Derek[_2_] 07-08-2006 08:13 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:23:30 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:13:10 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:

>
><snip>


Yes, I thought you might, you useless waste of time.

>>>>If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY
>>>>takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.",
>>>>the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not
>>>>being violated.

>
>>>Of course they are.

>
>> They do not suffer from the lack of anything because
>> while alive they are given great care and as much
>> freedom to roam as they would in the wild, allegedly.
>> No "concrete harm" is done to them, and as such,
>> according to your warped view on rights where "a
>> violation of rights ONLY takes place when an actual
>> concrete harm takes place", their rights are not violated
>> until that concrete harm is done to them.

>
> From an AR perspective


No, from YOUR perspective grass fed beef kept in ideal
conditions suffer no rights violations, because according to
your back-to-front concept of rights "a violation of rights
ONLY takes place when an actual concrete harm takes
place." Stop trying to hide your ignorance on this issue
by claiming your position is the AR perspective, only to
then misrepresent it to get your point accepted.

>>>>Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so
>>>>you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin
>>>>has all the faculties you have because you paid to have
>>>>yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose.
>>>>Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be
>>>>violating her right to your respectful treatment.

>
>>>Correct. You are violating her rights by your *action*
>>>because that action is a *harm* even though it does
>>>not involve suffering at the time.

>
>> No, you would be violating your clone's right to your
>> respectful treatment by reducing her moral status to
>> a mere utility. The situation I described involved no
>> harms whatsoever.

>
>Reducing her status to that of a mere utility *IS* a
>harm


No, the harms done come after the fundamental wrong
and are not the fundamental wrong themselves. Regan
makes this VERY clear when writing,

"The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
according to the rights view, this suffering and these other
harms occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals
with a lack of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as
much as we would wish them away, the suffering and other
harms are not themselves the fundamental wrong."
Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199

So stop trying to hide your ignorance on this issue by claiming
your position is the AR perspective, only to then misrepresent
it to get your wrong point accepted. You clearly don't understand
it as well as I thought you did.

>> She enjoys all the benefits you
>> enjoy bar one; the status of non-utility which she is
>> made unaware of.

>
>As AR theorists all agree, being unaware of a right
>does not mean the right does not exist.


I didn't say otherwise, Karen, but you knew that. Your clone
suffers no harm while alive and enjoying all the benefits your
money provides it, and according to your wrong view on rights
where,"a violation of rights ONLY takes place when an actual
concrete harm takes place" your clone's rights aren't being
violated. Likewise, grass fed beef kept in ideal conditions and
free to roam as far and as wide as they might want to are not
being harmed, and, according to your rule their rights aren't
being violated.

><snip>
>
>>>>>Zoophiles would disagree

>
>>>>Of course they would, because they want to suck off their
>>>>dogs, and what not.

>
>>>Well, certainly. But that does not make it any less
>>>or more true.

>
>> Of course it does. They want to suck off dogs, and to make
>> their gross act acceptable they presume without meaningful
>> consent that that is what the animal wants as well.

>
>If they presume incorrectly


They shouldn't presume such a thing in the first place, but being
the perverts they and you are, you do anyway and go right ahead
with it and have sex. You're a pervert, Karen, as well as being a
potential danger to minors. Obviously, being kicked out of your
parish by your priest for your perverted views didn't teach you
anything about yourself at all. You are and always will remain a
pervert and a danger to minors.

Derek[_2_] 07-08-2006 09:33 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:47:21 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>pearl wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow.

>
>I very much appreciate and respect your willingness to think
>about the arguments which both sides ( or all sides) of an
>issue present. I respect ( :) ) your view, even if it does
>not agree with mine, because it is intellectually honest and
>reasoned. You are an example to all of us, Pearl.


Yuck! Please stop, Karen. You're making me feel quite sick.

><snip>
>
>> Ok, but action stems from intent; that originates from thoughts
>> which should be culled from inception with the Knowledge of
>> Right and Wrong - understood with real education, and instinct.

>
>I'll agree with this. There are indeed two meanings to "respect".


Only when YOU choose to equivocate on the term.

>One is a mental attitude -- "to have respect for" and that
>involves intent and thoughts. The second -- "to respect rights"
>means to take no *action* which trespasses on the boundaries
>set around a subject-of-a-life being's inherent rights. The one
>thing -- a violation of rights -- may, and often does, result
>from the other -- the disrespectful attitude. But it is important
>to keep them separate when talking about laws and social
>sanctions, because the law should only punish action, not thoughts,
>and only punish actions which cause objective harm.


The law isn't just set there to punish, it's there to protect
innocent victims from perverts like you as well. I'm not
going to allow you to equivocate on the term 'respect'
because, as you've just admitted, the reason for this
equivocation is to allow one sense of the term a free pass.

>> It is Wrong, because it contravenes Natural Laws. It is deviant.

>
>Everything we do to captive and domestic animals contravenes
>Natural Laws and is deviant from an AR perspective.


So, it's fine to contravene the natural laws because YOU
believe that, "Everything we do to captive and domestic
animals contravenes Natural Laws and is deviant from an
AR perspective." Nice one, Karen, but I don't agree.

>Animals
>should be free and autonomous beings, not slaves or property.
>But I think we should apply the same criteria to sexual
>interactions with animals as we do to other interactions
>with them.


Then you are a menace to animals. You condone this
animal abuse and even promote it.

>This is where I disagree with Derek.


You're damn right, pervert.

>> Animals normally follow their instinct - but that can be perverted.
>> Zoophiles - however 'caring' they may be, DO -actively involve-
>> animals - 'grooming' them for what *we* *should* *know* to be
>> an *aberrant* activity, taking advantage of the animals' innocence.
>> That is disrespectful - and no different from the selfish attitude that
>> leads to and allows *all* other animal abuses for humans' desires.

>
>Yes and no. Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is
>an aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic wrong
>in keeping domestic animals,


Don't you dare blame society for your perverted character and
views, Karen Winter.

> especially as pets and property.
>I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia would take place between free,
>wild animals and humans, or in an AR-based society.


Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that your perverted
views concerning animals leave you well outside the AR tent,
you disgusting animal-abuser.

>But, as I said at the beginning of this thread,
>some animals are imprinted during their learning period on
>humans as appropriate mates.


And that makes it alright to have sex with it? What about young
girls that've been groomed by their uncles for 'special cuddles' -
is it alright to have sex with them now they've been groomed
for such purposes?

>BUT if the animal
>is already imprinted on humans, IMO it is not wrong of the
>zoophile to have a loving, committed, respectful mate
>relationship with such an animal


So, you believe it's alright to take advantage of a dog's previous
grooming and have sex all over it.

>The number of such relationships is undoubtedly
>minuscule


Irrelevant!

> and the amount of attention we give them is rather
>ridiculous, given all the other abuses humans visit on animals.


So, because animals suffer so many other abuses it's perfectly
alright to abuse them a bit more by having sex with them?
You're obscene.

><snip>
>>> Take those beliefs of the Sambia and
>>>>Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example.

>
><snip> description
>
>>>This is a perfectly moral action in the context of the culture.
>>>The action is done for the benefit of the boys, to enable them
>>>to become adult men. They are respected, and the action is done
>>>for their benefit. No doubt both parties enjoy the activity,
>>>which is fine, but there is no exploitation involved. Even if
>>>the adults did not enjoy the activity, or the boys did not enjoy
>>>the activity, it would still not be exploitative, non-respectful,
>>>or a violation of rights, because it is done, not primarily for
>>>sexual pleasure, but as a necessary rite of passage in the culture,
>>>almost what we would regard as a medical necessity or a cultural
>>>requirement, as going to school is a cultural requirement in our
>>>culture. It prepares the boys to take their place in their own
>>>culture as adults.

>
>> But they are not adults, and they have no choice in the matter -

>
>We don't know that.


Yes, we most certainly DO know that. Those 7 year old boys have
NO choice but to suck dick every day under a false premise, and
you ****ing know that you filthy, lying pervert. Small wonder I had
such little trouble in getting your priest to kick you out of your parish.

Glorfindel 07-08-2006 10:11 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Leif Erikson wrote:

<snip>

Hey, Leif, we're finally getting a civil ( or semi-civil )
discussion among AR people here. Hurrah! Maybe if we
all ignore you, genuine discourse can continue. That
would be wonderful.

Derek[_2_] 07-08-2006 10:21 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:11:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:

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


Why do you, a self-confessed apologist for and enabler of
zoophilia rank yourself alongside genuine 'AR people'?
Only a while ago today you wrote, "I highly, HIGHLY
doubt zoophilia would take place between free, wild animals
and humans, or in an AR-based society.", yet it would
be perfectly alright if it took place in your World.

chico chupacabra 07-08-2006 11:55 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, pedophilia/bestiality advocate and self-described "anglo
catholic," wrote:

<...>
> [Lesley] and I both understand the scientific facts of
> imprinting in animals, particularly birds.


I'm not sure you do, but that foot-rubbing fakir sure as hell doesn't
know the first thing about science, let alone about sexual imprinting of
birds. Spalding, Heinroth, Lorenz, et al, observed filial imprinting --
not interspecies sexual habits or desires of birds. Likewise with
others, like Immelman, who've specifically studied sexual imprinting of
birds. Immelman observed that male zebra finches desired mates like the
birds that nurtured them as fledglings, not that birds desired to mate
with humans. Etc.

> You may or may not -- you have never addressed the scientific
> issue which was in question at all,


Recklessly throwing out Lorenz as a source doesn't make the issue
scientific. As it is, you've not posited any scientific evidence, much
less dealt with the issue in a scientific manner.

<...>

chico chupacabra 08-08-2006 12:03 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, former house-whore of the Society for Creative
Anachronisms commune, wrote:

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

>
>> No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying.

>
> *Intentionally* is the key word.


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

> He knows you condemn it;


One doesn't condone what one condemns; the two are mutually exclusive.
Lesley condones bestiality. She doesn't condemn it. She has only offered
qualified objections to it while firmly insisting that it be legal.

<...>
> Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years,


You have not been. Your depraved FAS-defective sidekick Sylvia wrote
that you had chiles rellenos when you returned to Santa Fe.

> I would gag at the thought of eating any meat,


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

> even roadkill.


Even? *Especially* roadkill.

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


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

chico chupacabra 08-08-2006 12:13 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, carpet-munching schismatic child-abandoner, wrote:

>>> No, dear.

>
>> Don't call me by terms of affection

>
> Believe me, there is no affection involved.


In this instance, I will believe you because I believe you're wholly
incapable of blessing those who curse you. The irony in your little
rants about "sects" at ARCE is that you're the most sectarian person
there -- between being a "vegan," a radical schismatic who sees
opponents as "fundamentalists" instead of Christians who disagree with
you based on principle, a pro-bestiality and pro-pedophilia zealot, etc.
You have no room to point your finger at anyone else about engaging in
sectarianism, Karen. You should point it at yourself.

> <snip>
>
>> Tell me how your views on pedophilia, bestiality, and homosexuality
>> jibe with "anglo-catholicism".

>
> Sin is a matter for the Church, and one's relationship
> with God.


That isn't what I asked you. I asked you to explain how those issues are
consistent with being a Christian, much less with being an
"anglo-catholic." Is there something in that particular tradition that
brings out the pro-child molestor or pro-animal molestor in you?

>> Stop running away from the arguments you raise.

>
> That's a laugh,


No, Karen, I counted at least 20 instances in which I asked probitive
questions and you snipped them with AND without noting snips.

> considering you ran away from the
> arguments *you* raised about the scientific
> evidence for cross-species imprinting and mating
> behavior, and the ethics of conditioning.


I didn't, and won't, run away from such discussion. I just replied a few
moments ago. You've offered no science, just an allusion to Lorenz.

chico chupacabra 08-08-2006 12:19 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, who abandoned her son to become a schismatic
cat-shampooing *******, wrote:

> <snip>
>
>> It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect.
>> Animals are like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect
>> them.

>
>
> <snip>
>
> As Pearl said, adult animals are adults, not children. Their personal
> and sexual orientation is set. It would certainly have been better to
> allow them to develop in freedom, with members of their own species,
> out of human control. But this does not happen with domestic animals
> or captive exotics; their lives are unnatural from birth.
>
> All this talk of "respecting" animals by preventing them from doing
> what they clearly want to do, in cases where they are oriented toward
> humans, reminds me of the sort of people who claimed allowing women
> to vote would drag them into the sordid world of politics, and
> treating women with "respect" meant keeping them from making any
> real decisions about their lives for themselves. That is not "respect"
> it is tyranny: "*I* know what's good for you, and what *you* think
> you want doesn't matter; I have power over you and I'll use it the
> way I want, "for your own good."


Non sequitur. Congratulations, you're the Queen of Irrelevant Analogies.

> If we really see animals as autonomous beings with the moral right
> to own their own lives, we must respect them by allowing *them* to
> make decisions about their own lives. That includes their sexuality.


They don't make decisions "about their own lives," much less with whom
or what they mate. They act on instincts, not on rational thought or reason.

> Of course, humans also have the right to own their own lives,


Just not to eat animals or wear fur, eh.

> and the vast majority of humans who are not zoophiles


What would that be, Karen? Statistically about 100%?

> have every right
> to refuse the advances of human-oriented animals,


Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.

> just as they
> would to refuse the advances of a human with whom they did not
> want to have a relationship.


Ipse dixit. Conditioned animals will engage in behaviors in which
they've been conditioned until re-conditioned to act in "normal" ways.

> But the concept of "respect" here is strictly a smokescreen.


Speaking of smokescreens, does your vicar "respect" your pro-bestiality
and pro-pedophilia beliefs? Have you discussed this with him lately?

chico chupacabra 08-08-2006 12:53 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Lesley wrote:

> Karen Winter, schismatic sectarian, wrote:
>
>>
>>Derek, I know that you will argue endlessly for the sake
>>of argument, even if it is obvious to any rational person
>>that you are making no sense. So I don't intend to
>>repeat the points I have already made again and again.
>>
>>You are simply wrong. You don't understand what a rights
>>violation is,and you certainly don't understand Regan,
>>who frames his philosophical arguments at a level you just
>>don't have the intellectual capacity to follow. Leif would
>>be the first to agree with me, if you weren't attacking me
>>at this point.

>
>
> I've been thinking about this,


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

> as you know. Comments follow.
>
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>a violation of rights only takes place when an actual
>>>>concrete harm takes place.

>>
>>>...without a preceding decision to violate their
>>>right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms
>>>don't occur.

>>
>>That is correct. But the decision to violate a right
>>is not a violation of a right; it is only a *decision*
>>to take an action in the future. It's like Harrison
>>and his imaginary pre-existing cattle -- there can be
>>no benefit until the animal actually exists. You
>>have agreed with Leif on that point, and so do I.
>>
>>If you agree imaginary beings don't gain a benefit
>>until they actually exist, and an action is done
>>which benefits them, you *logically* must agree that
>>a violation of a being's rights cannot take place until
>>a real action in the real world takes place. Saying
>>a rights violation takes place without an action is
>>exactly the same as saying a benefit takes place
>>without an action.

>
>
> Ok, but action stems from intent; that originates from thoughts
> which should be culled from inception with the Knowledge of
> Right and Wrong - understood with real education, and instinct.
> It is Wrong, because it contravenes Natural Laws. It is deviant.
>
> Animals normally follow their instinct - but that can be perverted.
> Zoophiles - however 'caring' they may be,


They're not caring or selfless; they're selfish deviants who prey upon
those who, or (in this instance) those that, cannot speak for
themselves, defend themselves, etc. They are sexual predators every bit
as much as child molestors are.

> DO -actively involve-
> animals - 'grooming' them for what *we* *should* *know* to be
> an *aberrant* activity, taking advantage of the animals' innocence.


I don't know about the animals' innocence bit, but they DO take
advantage of them.

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


It's MORE selfish and abusive, Les. Contrary to your fantasy-world
notions about nature, animals don't frolic blissfully all day weary only
of mankind; they live in a world where some are prey and others are
predators. It's not selfish to eat meat or wear fur, it's part of nature
animals to eat and to be eaten. It's both unnatural and selfish to groom
an animal for sexual purposes (much less force oneself upon a member of
another species).

>>>If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY
>>>takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.",
>>>the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not
>>>being violated.

>>
>>Of course they are. Their right to own their own
>>lives is violated, and their right to freedom is
>>violated, because they are being kept captive merely
>>for the benefit of their captors. They are being
>>treated without respect for their right to autonomy,
>>because they are being treated as property, as
>>slaves, and not as ends in themselves.
>>
>>The captivity, the status as property, is as much a
>>rights violation as the slaughter. This is
>>exactly what Regan is talking about in the passage
>>you quoted ( without understanding it). The rights
>>violation is still a violation because treating
>>the cattle as property is a concrete *HARM* even
>>though it does not involve ( or may not involve )
>>suffering.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so
>>>you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin
>>>has all the faculties you have because you paid to have
>>>yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose.
>>>Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be
>>>violating her right to your respectful treatment.

>>
>>Correct. You are violating her rights by your *action*
>>because that action is a *harm* even though it does
>>not involve suffering at the time. This is what Regan
>>is talking about, again.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>Having sex with them certainly does carry a very
>>>>>serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect.

>>
>>>>Ipse dixit.

>>
>>>Having sex with an adult without meaningful consent shows
>>>a total lack of respect to that person's right to our respectful
>>>treatment. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to extend that
>>>rule to animals.

>>
>>>>Zoophiles would disagree

>>
>>>Of course they would, because they want to suck off their
>>>dogs, and what not.

>>
>>Well, certainly. But that does not make it any less
>>or more true. You're engaging in an ad hominem argument
>>here.
>>
>> Take those beliefs of the Sambia and
>>
>>>Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example. They would
>>>disagree with me that a child holds a right against them,
>>>because they want young boys to continue sucking their
>>>cocks every day.

>>
>>> "The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea
>>> include the following: for adult males the presence in their
>>> bodies, in the testicles, of semen is essential for the existence
>>> and maintenance of their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse
>>> therefore involves the termporary loss of something important
>>> (so women are dangerous); the bodies of young boys do not
>>> yet internally produce, and so they do not yet have, this
>>> ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an
>>> external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males.
>>> The Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from
>>> these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the age of
>>> seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate
>>> older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio
>>> insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity of the
>>> donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the
>>> boys become the men who are sucked and who provide the
>>> masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated is the staple
>>> of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until marriage."
>>> (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations").

>>
>>This is a perfectly moral action in the context of the culture.
>>The action is done for the benefit of the boys, to enable them
>>to become adult men. They are respected, and the action is done
>>for their benefit. No doubt both parties enjoy the activity,
>>which is fine, but there is no exploitation involved. Even if
>>the adults did not enjoy the activity, or the boys did not enjoy
>>the activity, it would still not be exploitative, non-respectful,
>>or a violation of rights, because it is done, not primarily for
>>sexual pleasure, but as a necessary rite of passage in the culture,
>>almost what we would regard as a medical necessity or a cultural
>>requirement, as going to school is a cultural requirement in our
>>culture. It prepares the boys to take their place in their own
>>culture as adults.

>
> But they are not adults, and they have no choice in the matter -
> whether they like it, or not. Horrific circumcision of both sexes
> could be similarly 'defended' on the grounds of 'cultural context'
> ... as can *all* abuses of humans and animals. But it is wrong!


Karen, though, approves of man-boy love:

When I first started reading NAMBLA literature, I had
no idea what to expect. I came to it with a completely open
mind. What amazed me (but shouldn't, I suppose) was the
depth of respect and concern for children's welfare in all
areas, and the conviction expressed that children were not
the property of adults, not a means for adults to advance their
own identity and gain prestige point ( "MY kid is...did..."
etc.), but equal people, due equal concern. Smaller, weaker,
more ignorant people sometimes ( not always) -- rather like
some non-human animals in that regard -- but NOT less worthy
or less autonomous people.

NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for children and
genuinely respects them. They are as "un-predatory" as any
adult can be.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 22 July 1999

I'm not a spokesperson for NAMBLA, but from reading their
publications for many years...
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 25 July 1999

I've been receiving their [NAMBLA's] newsletter since 1984...
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 24 November 2001

NAMBLA is an advocacy organization for people who want to
eliminate the age of consent laws. There's never been, AFAIK, a
poll of NAMBLA members to provide numbers for how many members
prefer boys of a specific age range. The members I knew
personally preferred teens.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 17 January 2001

And don't forget, she's the one who hopes her grandson will be *** and
rebel against her son. The woman's mind is *totally* warped.

>>>Perverts will dream up anything they can to get their hands on
>>>young boys.

>>
>>In that culture, it would be the adults and the boys who did *not*
>>participate who would be seen by their peers as perverts.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>I don't agree animals are not capable of giving meaningful consent
>>>>in some areas.

>>
>>>Try to watch out for those sloppy double negatives

>>
>>That was a perfectly grammatical construction.
>>
>>
>>>Just
>>>say you agree that animals are capable of giving meaningful
>>>consent in some areas.

>>
>>I do.
>>
>>
>>>That said, prove to me that they are
>>>capable of giving meaningful consent to sex

>>
>>I believe they can give meaningful consent to a great many
>>things, including having their bellies rubbed. If a dog
>>rolls over willingly, without compulsion, conditioning, or
>>threat, to have his belly rubbed, he is consenting. If
>>he growls, snaps, or runs away, he is not consenting.
>>What's so difficult to understand about that? To hold a
>>dog down and forcibly rub his belly because you enjoy it
>>is as much a rights violation as rape. To rub the dog's
>>belly because he obviously shows by his actions that he
>>is willing, and would enjoy the exchange, is showing
>>respect for the dog. To do it because the dog wants it,
>>even if you would rather be typing on your computer keys,
>>is a respectful action, because it is putting the dog's
>>interests before your own. At the same time, no one is
>>obligated to rub the dog's belly if they don't want to,
>>or it is objectionable to them ( they hate dogs or are
>>allergic ).
>>
>>Sexual activity is no different.

>
> It is. Sexual activity's PRIMARY function is procreation.
> On another level, the act is Sacred and highly meaningful.
>
> See Genesis. :).


See Leviticus and Deuteronomy, too. Ancient cultures certainly frowned
on bestiality (and everything else Karen seems to hold in high regard).

>><snip>

>
>
>


chico chupacabra 08-08-2006 12:59 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, ******* schismatic and pro-bestiality "anglo catholic"
sectarian, disingenuously wrote:

> <snip>
>
>> I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow.

>
>
> I very much appreciate and respect your willingness to think
> about the arguments which both sides ( or all sides) of an
> issue present. I respect ( :) ) your view, even if it does
> not agree with mine, because it is intellectually honest and
> reasoned.


But Messrs Nash's and Erikson's aren't?

> You are an example to all of us, Pearl.


Oh lord, no. No, no, no, no, no. NO.

<...>
> BUT if the animal
> is already imprinted on humans, IMO it is not wrong of the
> zoophile to have a loving, committed, respectful mate
> relationship with such an animal -- IF the animal is treated
> with the same respect and concern any other human would have for
> a human mate.


Is this the general consensus among the faithless at St Bede's?

<...>

Rupert 08-08-2006 01:50 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

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

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

> >
> >That's not a claim. It's a question.

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


See that word "why"? That usually indicates a question. I modified it
into a statement by the phrase "What I'm not clear on...". It means, I
am not clear on why, according to you, the issue of "respectful
treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other. That does not mean
that I am committed to this position. (If I was, I wouldn't be asking
for a justification). It means that I think you hold the position and I
want you to justify it.

You claim you don't hold the position. Fine. So I want to know what
position you do hold. When does the issue of "respectful treatment"
arise?

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


No, it was not. Improve your English comprehension skills.

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


Thank you. Which ones?

> Try again, Rupe.
>
> >> It clearly does arise in other contexts, so
> >> you were wrong to suggest it doesn't.

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

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


If you're going to call me a liar then I can't be bothered talking to
you. Civil replies, please, or else shut up.

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


Not to me. What sort of interactions violate the right to respectful
treatment?

> >> >On the other hand, we have our own institution of compulsory education.
> >> >Is that consistent with respectful treatment?
> >>
> >> Yes, it is.

>
> That feeble attempt at another digression out of the way,


No, that is not the end of the matter. I would like to know on the
basis of what criterion you made that judgement.

> note
> that in my post to which you responded I wrote, "The issue of
> respectful treatment is raised in many different contexts, but
> the context here is wrongful sex between moral agents and
> moral patients." I also wrote, "Try sticking with the subject,
> Rupe: respectful treatment and wrongful sex with animals and
> children. Can you do that?"
>


In order to understand your view that all sex between moral agents and
animals or children is wrongful and violates their right to respectful
treatment, I want to know your criterion for when an interaction
between a moral agent and a moral patient violates the right to
respectful treatment. It would be helpful if you could illustrate the
criterion by showing how it works in other contexts. It seems a simple
enough question, and I was wondering if you could answer it. Can you do
that?

> >> >How about the practice of encouraging a child to attend a confirmation
> >> >ceremony? Is that consistent with respectful treatment?
> >>
> >> Yes, it is if the child isn't sexually mutilated or made to perform
> >> deviant acts while attending that ceremony. How many more
> >> examples are you going to try while attempting to digress from
> >> the issue of sex between moral agents and moral patients, such
> >> as animals and children?

> >
> >It's wrong to interact with someone in such a way that there's a
> >significant risk of harm to which they don't or can't give informed
> >consent. I think we can all agree on that.
> >
> >You apparently want to move beyond that, saying that whether there is a
> >significant risk of harm is not the central issue,

>
> No. You're attempting to misrepresent my position again, and
> I'm not going to let you do that. I haven't said or implied that
> the central issue is whether there is a significant risk.
>


I never said you did. I said you said that that is *not* the central
issue. Try to read carefully. Don't accuse me of trying to misinterpret
your position. If I get it wrong, correct me. As I understand you, you
are saying that whether there is a significant risk of harm is *not*
the central issue. Is that correct, or not?

> >that certain types
> >of interaction with those who allegedly can't give "meaningful consent"
> >violate the right to respectful treatment. I am trying to get clearer
> >about which types of interactions these are.

>
> Causing unnecessary death, torture, enslavement, reducing beings
> to the status of utilities, etc. The list is a long one, but in the context
> of this discussion I'm referring to wrongful sex with moral patients.


Well, apparently you're just offering a list and saying sex happens to
be on it, without offering any explanation as to what the criterion is
for whether something goes on the list. I agree it is tricky to come up
with a general criterion for when an action violates a being's rights.
However, if we're going to say that an interaction can violate a
being's rights when it doesn't harm the being or entail a significant
risk of harm to which the being can't give informed consent, and is not
contrary to any of the being's preferences, and the being is given an
opportunity to express a preference that the interaction cease and if
and when she does that preference will be respected, then that's
interesting and I would like to explore under exactly what
circumstances that's the case.

Take causing unnecessary death. In a case where an animal had a
preference that could only be satisfied by death, and death did not
make the animal worse off, you probably wouldn't judge the death to be
unnecessary. Likewise with torture, you would probably only call it
torture if it seriously harmed the animal. Causing some pain would be
justified if it didn't make the animal worse off in the long term and
was the only way to ensure that the animal's most important preferences
are respected. Now with enslavement and reducing beings to the status
of utilities, can there be cases of these where the animal is not made
worse off, and does not express any preference for the interaction not
happening? And if so, exactly which interactions count as "reducing a
being to the status of a utility"?

> You knew that but wanted to digress by trying to include interactions
> which don't involve disrespectful treatment such as schooling.
>


I can understand judging an interaction to be a rights violation when
there is a significant risk of harm to which the being can't or won't
give informed consent. Or when the being expresses a preference for the
interaction not happening. If we're going to go beyond that, then I
would like to see some sort of account of when something counts as a
rights violation and when it doesn't. That's what I was after. I was
trying to get some sort of feel for your position on this matter by
asking about my examples. I think this is reasonable on my part, and I
don't think you have any cause for complaint.

> >At the moment I don't understand what the criterion is.

>
> Yes, you do, but you're trying to digress.
>


No, I don't. Kindly do me the courtesy of taking my statements at face
value.

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

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


Yes, so you claimed, but it was like pulling teeth to get you to
actually say what these different contexts were. Now you've said it.
Most of your other contexts seem to me to be cases where there is a
significant risk of harm to which the being can't or won't give
informed consent, or where the being expresses a preference for the
interaction not happening. And we can agree about those. Where these
two things are not the case, is sexual interaction the only thing that
is ruled out? Or are there other sorts of interaction that are ruled
out?

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


Yes, I know, I heard you the first time you said it and now you've
repeated it twice. If you don't want to answer my questions then don't.
But I resent being taken to task for asking them. I'll ask whatever
questions I want, thank you very much.

> >So I want to know what criterion you are using.

>
> I've told you quite a few times now, as indicated above, and I
> asked you try sticking with it instead of trying to digress from
> it.
>


You have not given me any criterion. You have given me an incomplete
list. I now have further questions, see above.

> >It's not a digression.

>
> Yes, it is.
>


No, it's not. I just want to understand what your view is. Either
answer my questions or don't, but stop complaining that I'm digressing.
The questions are of interest to me and related to the topic of
discussion. I don't need any further justification for asking them.

> >I'm trying to get you to clarify your position.

>
> I've clarified it


Not sufficiently yet, not to me.

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


Apparently in those contexts we can presume that meaningful consent
exists, or go ahead with the interaction anyway without a presumption
of meaningful consent. Why? What's the relevant difference?

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


Who says I want to make a case against it? Before I know whether I want
to make a case against it I'll have to know what it is.


Rupert 08-08-2006 02:00 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

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

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

> >
> >I didn't imply that.

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

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


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

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


It wasn't a claim, it was a question. I thank you for your
clarification of your position. Then I had further questions, see my
other posts.

> >I apologize if it was a misinterpretation, but you've rejected all my
> >examples of how it might arise in a non-sexual context

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


You rejected those examples in the sense that you claimed in these
contexts there was no violation of the right to respectful treatment.

We are agreed that an interaction violates the right to respectful
treatment if there is a significant risk of harm to which the being
can't or doesn't give informed consent, or if the being expresses a
preference that the interaction not take place. Apart from those cases,
which interactions violate the right to respectful treatment? As far as
I can tell, you believe that apart from those cases, an interaction
violates the right to respectful treatment if and only if it is a
sexual one. Or have I got that wrong? Are there any examples apart from
the cases involving harm or an expressed preference to the contrary
where a non-sexual interaction violates the right to respectful
treatment? That's what I was trying to clarify.

> I then followed that with, "How many more examples are you
> going to try while attempting to digress from the issue of sex
> between moral agents and moral patients ..."
>


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

> >I'm really struggling to understand what your
> >criterion is

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


No, I am not, and I won't stand for you casting aspersions on my
motives in that way. Stop it or we'll have to terminate the
conversation.

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

> >
> >Try and stay civil.

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


What is a pervert, and what is your evidence that she is one?

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


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

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


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


Rupert 08-08-2006 02:09 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>Rupert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Rupert wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>><snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Glorfindel wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>If there is no harm, no right is violated.
> >>>>>>>>>>>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering"
> >>>>>>>>>>>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is
> >>>>>>>>>>>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental
> >>>>>>>>>>wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.",
> >>>>>>>>>>then comes the harm.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Yes, but, as I said, the lack of respect is wrong ( not *a*
> >>>>>>>wrong )
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It's THE wrong - the ONLY wrong. Harms are just a bad
> >>>>>>consequence of that fundamental wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>but a violation of rights only takes place when an actual
> >>>>>>>concrete harm takes place.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, because without a preceding decision to violate their
> >>>>>>right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms
> >>>>>>don't occur. If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY
> >>>>>>takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.",
> >>>>>>the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not
> >>>>>>being violated. Way to go, Karen.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so
> >>>>>>you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin
> >>>>>>has all the faculties you have because you paid to have
> >>>>>>yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose.
> >>>>>>Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be
> >>>>>>violating her right to your respectful treatment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >>>>>>>>>in a sexual context and no other.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >>>>>>>>in many areas as well in a sexual context.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>True
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
> >>>>>>treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I didn't imply that. It was my attempt at interpreting your position. I
> >>>>>apologize if it was a misinterpretation, but you've rejected all my
> >>>>>examples of how it might arise in a non-sexual context and claimed I'm
> >>>>>changing the subject. I'm really struggling to understand what your
> >>>>>criterion is for when the issue of respectful treatment arises, if not
> >>>>>whether the interaction is sexual.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>but respectful treatment does not rule out all sexual contact
> >>>>>>>between a willing animal and a willing human.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It most certainly does. You cannot extract meaningful consent
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>from an animal for such an intimate trespass, and to presume
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>without knowing that you have that consent is a gross violation
> >>>>>>of that animal's right to your respectful treatment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>There are all sorts of situations
> >>>>>>>>>where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to
> >>>>>>>>>which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example).
> >>>>>>>>>If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see
> >>>>>>>>>why it's given in these contexts, either.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or
> >>>>>>>>children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries
> >>>>>>>>no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when
> >>>>>>>>scratching them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Really?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes. When I scratch my dog's belly I'm not hoping for a shag.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I doubt that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Try and stay civil.
> >>>>
> >>>>Karen Winter has put herself far beyond the bounds of
> >>>>civil discourse. So have you, rupie.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This is rich coming from you of all people.
> >>
> >>You'll take it, rupie, and you'll learn to like it.
> >>That's just how it is, pal.

> >
> >
> > This is a bit bizarre.

>
> You are nothing BUT bizarre, rupie. The psychotic
> "vegan" maths whiz - not too many of those around.


I am not psychotic, I have been perfectly well for three years. But
otherwise you're correct, I am a "vegan" maths whiz who has a history
of psychosis. The first two rather reinforce my self-esteem, actually.
I would also add that I'm quite good at philosophy, a lot better than
you. I could give a description of you to which not many other people
answer, which certainly should not reinforce your self-esteem.


Rupert 08-08-2006 02:38 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
> >
> > Derek wrote:
> >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:12:42 GMT, Leif Erikson
> >> > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
> >> >>>Derek wrote:
> >> >>>>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
> >> >>>>>Derek wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>><snip>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...",
> >> >>>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights
> >> >>>>>>violations,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>That is correct.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations
> >> >>>
> >> >>>No, Derek
> >> >>
> >> >> Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped
> >> >> him away.
> >> >>
> >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms
> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
> >> >>
> >> >>>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right.
> >> >>
> >> >> When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a rights
> >> >> violation.

>
> A man may have great respect for deer yet still shoot a deer for food. A man
> may have no respect for deer yet never harm one.
>
> >> >Karen is equivocating on "respect".
> >>
> >> Well caught that man!

> >
> > Explain the point, then. What are the two senses of "respect" between
> > which she is equivocating?

>
> Regan is just talking in circles, like all AR authors do. What meaningful
> difference can there be between rights violations which are lack of respect
> leading to harm and simply acts which cause harm?


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

I guess I'd have to read what Regan has to say, but most rights
theorists agree that there are some actions which adversely affect the
well-being of another which do not violate rights. A woman refusing a
suitor, for example. The idea is usually something like: this action
does not violate any of the constraints on how to treat another being.
Perhaps Regan would say that, as long as we do not violate the
constraints, we are treating the other being with respect, even though
they may be worse-off as a result of our action. I don't know. I agree
it's a topic that deserves careful discussion. Contrary to what you say
this is not a problem unique to AR authors, that's just your
narrow-minded prejudices and your lack of familiarity with moral
philosophy. Rather, all rights theorists have to address this problem.


Rupert 08-08-2006 02:39 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

chico chupacabra wrote:
> Karen Winter, ******* schismatic and pro-bestiality "anglo catholic"
> sectarian, disingenuously wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> >> I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow.

> >
> >
> > I very much appreciate and respect your willingness to think
> > about the arguments which both sides ( or all sides) of an
> > issue present. I respect ( :) ) your view, even if it does
> > not agree with mine, because it is intellectually honest and
> > reasoned.

>
> But Messrs Nash's and Erikson's aren't?
>


Erikson has actually contributed something intellectually worthwhile to
the debate? I must have missed it.

I think Nash is being perfectly intellectual honest, but there are
certain questions I'd like to ask about his position and I seem to be
having trouble getting answers.

> > You are an example to all of us, Pearl.

>
> Oh lord, no. No, no, no, no, no. NO.
>
> <...>
> > BUT if the animal
> > is already imprinted on humans, IMO it is not wrong of the
> > zoophile to have a loving, committed, respectful mate
> > relationship with such an animal -- IF the animal is treated
> > with the same respect and concern any other human would have for
> > a human mate.

>
> Is this the general consensus among the faithless at St Bede's?
>
> <...>



chico chupacabra 08-08-2006 02:54 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Rupert wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>>Karen Winter, ******* schismatic and pro-bestiality "anglo catholic"
>>sectarian, disingenuously wrote:
>>
>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow.
>>>
>>>
>>>I very much appreciate and respect your willingness to think
>>>about the arguments which both sides ( or all sides) of an
>>>issue present. I respect ( :) ) your view, even if it does
>>>not agree with mine, because it is intellectually honest and
>>>reasoned.

>>
>>But Messrs Nash's and Erikson's aren't?

>
> Erikson has actually contributed something intellectually worthwhile to
> the debate? I must have missed it.


You did, dumbass.

> I think Nash is being perfectly intellectual honest, but there are
> certain questions I'd like to ask about his position


Then ask them.

> and I seem to be
> having trouble getting answers.


Join the club. Nash is an insufferable, shit-stirring arsehole. He's
right about Karen and how ****ing sick and perverted she is, though.

>>>You are an example to all of us, Pearl.

>>
>>Oh lord, no. No, no, no, no, no. NO.
>>
>><...>
>>
>>>BUT if the animal
>>>is already imprinted on humans, IMO it is not wrong of the
>>>zoophile to have a loving, committed, respectful mate
>>>relationship with such an animal -- IF the animal is treated
>>>with the same respect and concern any other human would have for
>>>a human mate.

>>
>>Is this the general consensus among the faithless at St Bede's?
>>
>><...>

>
>


Scented Nectar 08-08-2006 03:24 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
cheeky upchuck wrote:

> Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.


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


Rupert 08-08-2006 04:24 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

chico chupacabra wrote:
> Lesley wrote:
>
> > Karen Winter, schismatic sectarian, wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Derek, I know that you will argue endlessly for the sake
> >>of argument, even if it is obvious to any rational person
> >>that you are making no sense. So I don't intend to
> >>repeat the points I have already made again and again.
> >>
> >>You are simply wrong. You don't understand what a rights
> >>violation is,and you certainly don't understand Regan,
> >>who frames his philosophical arguments at a level you just
> >>don't have the intellectual capacity to follow. Leif would
> >>be the first to agree with me, if you weren't attacking me
> >>at this point.

> >
> >
> > I've been thinking about this,

>
> oh dear god... she's trying to use her braincell.
>
> > as you know. Comments follow.
> >
> >
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>>a violation of rights only takes place when an actual
> >>>>concrete harm takes place.
> >>
> >>>...without a preceding decision to violate their
> >>>right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms
> >>>don't occur.
> >>
> >>That is correct. But the decision to violate a right
> >>is not a violation of a right; it is only a *decision*
> >>to take an action in the future. It's like Harrison
> >>and his imaginary pre-existing cattle -- there can be
> >>no benefit until the animal actually exists. You
> >>have agreed with Leif on that point, and so do I.
> >>
> >>If you agree imaginary beings don't gain a benefit
> >>until they actually exist, and an action is done
> >>which benefits them, you *logically* must agree that
> >>a violation of a being's rights cannot take place until
> >>a real action in the real world takes place. Saying
> >>a rights violation takes place without an action is
> >>exactly the same as saying a benefit takes place
> >>without an action.

> >
> >
> > Ok, but action stems from intent; that originates from thoughts
> > which should be culled from inception with the Knowledge of
> > Right and Wrong - understood with real education, and instinct.
> > It is Wrong, because it contravenes Natural Laws. It is deviant.
> >
> > Animals normally follow their instinct - but that can be perverted.
> > Zoophiles - however 'caring' they may be,

>
> They're not caring or selfless; they're selfish deviants who prey upon
> those who, or (in this instance) those that, cannot speak for
> themselves, defend themselves, etc. They are sexual predators every bit
> as much as child molestors are.
>
> > DO -actively involve-
> > animals - 'grooming' them for what *we* *should* *know* to be
> > an *aberrant* activity, taking advantage of the animals' innocence.

>
> I don't know about the animals' innocence bit, but they DO take
> advantage of them.
>
> > That is disrespectful - and no different from the selfish attitude that
> > leads to and allows *all* other animal abuses for humans' desires.

>
> It's MORE selfish and abusive, Les.


Ridiculous.

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


Of course it's selfish. The idea that modern farming practices are
"part of nature" is ridiculous. In any case, demonstrating that a
behaviour is natural is not to prove that it is immune to ethical
criticism.

> It's both unnatural


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

> and selfish to groom
> an animal for sexual purposes (much less force oneself upon a member of
> another species).
>
> >>>If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY
> >>>takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.",
> >>>the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not
> >>>being violated.
> >>
> >>Of course they are. Their right to own their own
> >>lives is violated, and their right to freedom is
> >>violated, because they are being kept captive merely
> >>for the benefit of their captors. They are being
> >>treated without respect for their right to autonomy,
> >>because they are being treated as property, as
> >>slaves, and not as ends in themselves.
> >>
> >>The captivity, the status as property, is as much a
> >>rights violation as the slaughter. This is
> >>exactly what Regan is talking about in the passage
> >>you quoted ( without understanding it). The rights
> >>violation is still a violation because treating
> >>the cattle as property is a concrete *HARM* even
> >>though it does not involve ( or may not involve )
> >>suffering.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so
> >>>you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin
> >>>has all the faculties you have because you paid to have
> >>>yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose.
> >>>Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be
> >>>violating her right to your respectful treatment.
> >>
> >>Correct. You are violating her rights by your *action*
> >>because that action is a *harm* even though it does
> >>not involve suffering at the time. This is what Regan
> >>is talking about, again.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>>>Having sex with them certainly does carry a very
> >>>>>serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect.
> >>
> >>>>Ipse dixit.
> >>
> >>>Having sex with an adult without meaningful consent shows
> >>>a total lack of respect to that person's right to our respectful
> >>>treatment. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to extend that
> >>>rule to animals.
> >>
> >>>>Zoophiles would disagree
> >>
> >>>Of course they would, because they want to suck off their
> >>>dogs, and what not.
> >>
> >>Well, certainly. But that does not make it any less
> >>or more true. You're engaging in an ad hominem argument
> >>here.
> >>
> >> Take those beliefs of the Sambia and
> >>
> >>>Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example. They would
> >>>disagree with me that a child holds a right against them,
> >>>because they want young boys to continue sucking their
> >>>cocks every day.
> >>
> >>> "The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea
> >>> include the following: for adult males the presence in their
> >>> bodies, in the testicles, of semen is essential for the existence
> >>> and maintenance of their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse
> >>> therefore involves the termporary loss of something important
> >>> (so women are dangerous); the bodies of young boys do not
> >>> yet internally produce, and so they do not yet have, this
> >>> ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an
> >>> external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males.
> >>> The Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from
> >>> these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the age of
> >>> seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate
> >>> older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio
> >>> insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity of the
> >>> donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the
> >>> boys become the men who are sucked and who provide the
> >>> masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated is the staple
> >>> of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until marriage."
> >>> (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations").
> >>
> >>This is a perfectly moral action in the context of the culture.
> >>The action is done for the benefit of the boys, to enable them
> >>to become adult men. They are respected, and the action is done
> >>for their benefit. No doubt both parties enjoy the activity,
> >>which is fine, but there is no exploitation involved. Even if
> >>the adults did not enjoy the activity, or the boys did not enjoy
> >>the activity, it would still not be exploitative, non-respectful,
> >>or a violation of rights, because it is done, not primarily for
> >>sexual pleasure, but as a necessary rite of passage in the culture,
> >>almost what we would regard as a medical necessity or a cultural
> >>requirement, as going to school is a cultural requirement in our
> >>culture. It prepares the boys to take their place in their own
> >>culture as adults.

> >
> > But they are not adults, and they have no choice in the matter -
> > whether they like it, or not. Horrific circumcision of both sexes
> > could be similarly 'defended' on the grounds of 'cultural context'
> > ... as can *all* abuses of humans and animals. But it is wrong!

>
> Karen, though, approves of man-boy love:
>
> When I first started reading NAMBLA literature, I had
> no idea what to expect. I came to it with a completely open
> mind. What amazed me (but shouldn't, I suppose) was the
> depth of respect and concern for children's welfare in all
> areas, and the conviction expressed that children were not
> the property of adults, not a means for adults to advance their
> own identity and gain prestige point ( "MY kid is...did..."
> etc.), but equal people, due equal concern. Smaller, weaker,
> more ignorant people sometimes ( not always) -- rather like
> some non-human animals in that regard -- but NOT less worthy
> or less autonomous people.
>
> NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for children and
> genuinely respects them. They are as "un-predatory" as any
> adult can be.
> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 22 July 1999
>
> I'm not a spokesperson for NAMBLA, but from reading their
> publications for many years...
> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 25 July 1999
>
> I've been receiving their [NAMBLA's] newsletter since 1984...
> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 24 November 2001
>
> NAMBLA is an advocacy organization for people who want to
> eliminate the age of consent laws. There's never been, AFAIK, a
> poll of NAMBLA members to provide numbers for how many members
> prefer boys of a specific age range. The members I knew
> personally preferred teens.
> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 17 January 2001
>
> And don't forget, she's the one who hopes her grandson will be *** and
> rebel against her son. The woman's mind is *totally* warped.
>
> >>>Perverts will dream up anything they can to get their hands on
> >>>young boys.
> >>
> >>In that culture, it would be the adults and the boys who did *not*
> >>participate who would be seen by their peers as perverts.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>>I don't agree animals are not capable of giving meaningful consent
> >>>>in some areas.
> >>
> >>>Try to watch out for those sloppy double negatives
> >>
> >>That was a perfectly grammatical construction.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Just
> >>>say you agree that animals are capable of giving meaningful
> >>>consent in some areas.
> >>
> >>I do.
> >>
> >>
> >>>That said, prove to me that they are
> >>>capable of giving meaningful consent to sex
> >>
> >>I believe they can give meaningful consent to a great many
> >>things, including having their bellies rubbed. If a dog
> >>rolls over willingly, without compulsion, conditioning, or
> >>threat, to have his belly rubbed, he is consenting. If
> >>he growls, snaps, or runs away, he is not consenting.
> >>What's so difficult to understand about that? To hold a
> >>dog down and forcibly rub his belly because you enjoy it
> >>is as much a rights violation as rape. To rub the dog's
> >>belly because he obviously shows by his actions that he
> >>is willing, and would enjoy the exchange, is showing
> >>respect for the dog. To do it because the dog wants it,
> >>even if you would rather be typing on your computer keys,
> >>is a respectful action, because it is putting the dog's
> >>interests before your own. At the same time, no one is
> >>obligated to rub the dog's belly if they don't want to,
> >>or it is objectionable to them ( they hate dogs or are
> >>allergic ).
> >>
> >>Sexual activity is no different.

> >
> > It is. Sexual activity's PRIMARY function is procreation.
> > On another level, the act is Sacred and highly meaningful.
> >
> > See Genesis. :).

>
> See Leviticus and Deuteronomy, too. Ancient cultures certainly frowned
> on bestiality (and everything else Karen seems to hold in high regard).
>
> >><snip>

> >
> >
> >



Glorfindel 08-08-2006 04:29 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Derek wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:11:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:


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


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


Only under very limited circumstances, and only among
animals who are already imprinted sexually on humans,
and only in cases where they are treated as genuine
partners by the human involved.

> rank yourself alongside genuine 'AR people'?


Because I am an "AR person" and have been for many
years. I do not see some of your opinions as
consistent with AR ideas -- such as saying we
euthanize animals for our benefit. Yet I'm willing
to consider you an "AR person". There is diversity
of opinion among AR people.


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


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

<snip>

Glorfindel 08-08-2006 04:41 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

<snip>

>>> Tell me how your views on pedophilia, bestiality, and homosexuality
>>> jibe with "anglo-catholicism".


>> Sin is a matter for the Church, and one's relationship
>> with God.


Law, in a diverse society, must be based on non-religious criteria
of harm, rather than religious concepts of sin.

> That isn't what I asked you. I asked you to explain how those issues are
> consistent with being a Christian, much less with being an
> "anglo-catholic."


I could give you a serious answer, but I don't think you are
asking this as a serious question, and it is really not
appropriate to this group. I think I have answered this
fairly completely at other times, particularly the issue of
homosexuality and the Episcopalian church, on the other
newsgroup.

It would help if you would tell us which denomination you
belong to, and if you consider yourself a Christian.

<snip>

Glorfindel 08-08-2006 04:45 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

> Karen Winter, former house-whore of the Society for Creative
> Anachronisms commune,


You *are* getting more creative with the insults lately. :)

<snip>

[email protected] 08-08-2006 04:50 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

chico chupacabra wrote:
> Karen Winter, former house-whore of the Society for Creative
> Anachronisms commune, wrote:
>
> <...>
> >>> You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality.

> >
> >> No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying.

> >
> > *Intentionally* is the key word.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Leif Erikson[_1_] 08-08-2006 05:30 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter spat out Sylvia's week-old tampon and
blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Hey, Leif, we're finally getting a civil ( or semi-civil )
> discussion among AR people here. Hurrah! Maybe if we
> all ignore you, genuine discourse can continue. That
> would be wonderful.



Hey, Karen,

Shut the **** up and jam your face back in Sylvia's crack.

Glorfindel 08-08-2006 05:43 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>> Pearl and I both understand the scientific facts of
>> imprinting in animals, particularly birds.


<snip>
> Spalding, Heinroth, Lorenz, et al, observed filial imprinting --
> not interspecies sexual habits or desires of birds.


Scientists have observed many examples of animals sexually
imprinting on humans, and people who work with domestic animals
have as well. You can look up specific examples by searching
individual species or "sexual imprinting" and "on humans" in
Google.

> Likewise with
> others, like Immelman, who've specifically studied sexual imprinting of
> birds. Immelman observed that male zebra finches desired mates like the
> birds that nurtured them as fledglings, not that birds desired to mate
> with humans. Etc.


But Lorenz mentions a jackdaw who tried to stuff mashed food
into his ear as a mating gesture when he refused to open his
mouth, and authorities on parrots constantly talk about the
problems which occur when parrots bond with one human as a mate and
defend that mate against other humans in the household. There are
some interesting articles on this on the Web. Parrots are a
familiar example because they have such long life-spans.
Because they take so long to reach sexual maturity, they often
bond with their humans between the time they are adopted after
weaning and the time they are old enough to mate, and since
they are almost never neutered, unlike mammals, they express those
sexual behaviors in captivity.

>> You may or may not -- you have never addressed the scientific
>> issue which was in question at all,


> Recklessly throwing out Lorenz as a source doesn't make the issue
> scientific.


Lorenz was the first to research the issue, but many others have
also since his time.

<snip>



Leif Erikson[_1_] 08-08-2006 06:08 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, self-absorbed child-abandoning schismatic
cat shampooer, stupidly showed her doughy ass and
blabbered:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> Karen Winter, pedophilia/bestiality advocate and self-described "anglo catholic," wrote:
>
>>> Pearl and I both understand the scientific facts of
>>> imprinting in animals, particularly birds.

>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Spalding, Heinroth, Lorenz, et al, observed filial imprinting -- not
>> interspecies sexual habits or desires of birds.

>
>
> Scientists have observed many examples of animals sexually
> imprinting on humans,


You are not qualified to say.

Dutch 08-08-2006 07:03 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>> >
>> > Derek wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:12:42 GMT, Leif Erikson
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
>> >> >>>Derek wrote:
>> >> >>>>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
>> >> >>>>>Derek wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>><snip>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of
>> >> >>>>>>view...",
>> >> >>>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights
>> >> >>>>>>violations,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>>That is correct.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>No, Derek
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped
>> >> >> him away.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
>> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
>> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
>> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
>> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
>> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
>> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
>> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
>> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
>> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other
>> >> >> harms
>> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
>> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
>> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
>> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
>> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a rights
>> >> >> violation.

>>
>> A man may have great respect for deer yet still shoot a deer for food. A
>> man
>> may have no respect for deer yet never harm one.
>>
>> >> >Karen is equivocating on "respect".
>> >>
>> >> Well caught that man!
>> >
>> > Explain the point, then. What are the two senses of "respect" between
>> > which she is equivocating?

>>
>> Regan is just talking in circles, like all AR authors do. What meaningful
>> difference can there be between rights violations which are lack of
>> respect
>> leading to harm and simply acts which cause harm?

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


Derek talks in circles too.

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


Any moron knows that, literally. People who think of obvious ideas like this
as "rights theory" are pompous twits.

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


No it doesn't, it's bloody simple, unless one's head is firmly implanted in
one's ass.

> Contrary to what you say
> this is not a problem unique to AR authors, that's just your
> narrow-minded prejudices and your lack of familiarity with moral
> philosophy. Rather, all rights theorists have to address this problem.


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




Dutch 08-08-2006 07:10 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> cheeky upchuck wrote:
>
>> Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.

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


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



chico chupacabra 08-08-2006 08:59 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Skanky wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>>Animals aren't sexually oriented toward humans.

>
> While I'm completely against all bestiality,


That's nice to know, Skanky.

> there are exceptions to the above quote.


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

> Some pet animals use (or try to use) their owners to
> masturbate/mate with.


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

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

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


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

chico chupacabra 08-08-2006 09:37 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Rupert wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>>Lesley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Karen Winter, schismatic sectarian, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Derek, I know that you will argue endlessly for the sake
>>>>of argument, even if it is obvious to any rational person
>>>>that you are making no sense. So I don't intend to
>>>>repeat the points I have already made again and again.
>>>>
>>>>You are simply wrong. You don't understand what a rights
>>>>violation is,and you certainly don't understand Regan,
>>>>who frames his philosophical arguments at a level you just
>>>>don't have the intellectual capacity to follow. Leif would
>>>>be the first to agree with me, if you weren't attacking me
>>>>at this point.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've been thinking about this,

>>
>>oh dear god... she's trying to use her braincell.
>>
>>
>>>as you know. Comments follow.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>a violation of rights only takes place when an actual
>>>>>>concrete harm takes place.
>>>>
>>>>>...without a preceding decision to violate their
>>>>>right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms
>>>>>don't occur.
>>>>
>>>>That is correct. But the decision to violate a right
>>>>is not a violation of a right; it is only a *decision*
>>>>to take an action in the future. It's like Harrison
>>>>and his imaginary pre-existing cattle -- there can be
>>>>no benefit until the animal actually exists. You
>>>>have agreed with Leif on that point, and so do I.
>>>>
>>>>If you agree imaginary beings don't gain a benefit
>>>>until they actually exist, and an action is done
>>>>which benefits them, you *logically* must agree that
>>>>a violation of a being's rights cannot take place until
>>>>a real action in the real world takes place. Saying
>>>>a rights violation takes place without an action is
>>>>exactly the same as saying a benefit takes place
>>>>without an action.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok, but action stems from intent; that originates from thoughts
>>>which should be culled from inception with the Knowledge of
>>>Right and Wrong - understood with real education, and instinct.
>>>It is Wrong, because it contravenes Natural Laws. It is deviant.
>>>
>>>Animals normally follow their instinct - but that can be perverted.
>>>Zoophiles - however 'caring' they may be,

>>
>>They're not caring or selfless; they're selfish deviants who prey upon
>>those who, or (in this instance) those that, cannot speak for
>>themselves, defend themselves, etc. They are sexual predators every bit
>>as much as child molestors are.
>>
>>
>>>DO -actively involve-
>>>animals - 'grooming' them for what *we* *should* *know* to be
>>>an *aberrant* activity, taking advantage of the animals' innocence.

>>
>>I don't know about the animals' innocence bit, but they DO take
>>advantage of them.
>>
>>
>>>That is disrespectful - and no different from the selfish attitude that
>>>leads to and allows *all* other animal abuses for humans' desires.

>>
>>It's MORE selfish and abusive, Les.

>
> Ridiculous.


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

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


[Edited my own sentence.]

> Of course it's selfish.


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

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


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

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


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

>>It's both unnatural

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


Here's a link to get you started with the former, dummy:
http://tinyurl.com/lpzxt

As for the latter, a quick consultation with DSM-IV, as well as books
about our culture, will reinforce my already-stated position.

A brief synopsis of paraphilias from DSM:
http://health.enotes.com/mental-diso...ia/paraphilias

Wikipedia on cultural perspectives of sexual abuse of animals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...s_on_zoophilia

>>and selfish to groom
>>an animal for sexual purposes (much less force oneself upon a member of
>>another species).
>>
>>
>>>>>If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY
>>>>>takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.",
>>>>>the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not
>>>>>being violated.
>>>>
>>>>Of course they are. Their right to own their own
>>>>lives is violated, and their right to freedom is
>>>>violated, because they are being kept captive merely
>>>>for the benefit of their captors. They are being
>>>>treated without respect for their right to autonomy,
>>>>because they are being treated as property, as
>>>>slaves, and not as ends in themselves.
>>>>
>>>>The captivity, the status as property, is as much a
>>>>rights violation as the slaughter. This is
>>>>exactly what Regan is talking about in the passage
>>>>you quoted ( without understanding it). The rights
>>>>violation is still a violation because treating
>>>>the cattle as property is a concrete *HARM* even
>>>>though it does not involve ( or may not involve )
>>>>suffering.
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so
>>>>>you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin
>>>>>has all the faculties you have because you paid to have
>>>>>yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose.
>>>>>Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be
>>>>>violating her right to your respectful treatment.
>>>>
>>>>Correct. You are violating her rights by your *action*
>>>>because that action is a *harm* even though it does
>>>>not involve suffering at the time. This is what Regan
>>>>is talking about, again.
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Having sex with them certainly does carry a very
>>>>>>>serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect.
>>>>
>>>>>>Ipse dixit.
>>>>
>>>>>Having sex with an adult without meaningful consent shows
>>>>>a total lack of respect to that person's right to our respectful
>>>>>treatment. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to extend that
>>>>>rule to animals.
>>>>
>>>>>>Zoophiles would disagree
>>>>
>>>>>Of course they would, because they want to suck off their
>>>>>dogs, and what not.
>>>>
>>>>Well, certainly. But that does not make it any less
>>>>or more true. You're engaging in an ad hominem argument
>>>>here.
>>>>
>>>> Take those beliefs of the Sambia and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example. They would
>>>>>disagree with me that a child holds a right against them,
>>>>>because they want young boys to continue sucking their
>>>>>cocks every day.
>>>>
>>>>>"The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea
>>>>> include the following: for adult males the presence in their
>>>>> bodies, in the testicles, of semen is essential for the existence
>>>>> and maintenance of their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse
>>>>> therefore involves the termporary loss of something important
>>>>> (so women are dangerous); the bodies of young boys do not
>>>>> yet internally produce, and so they do not yet have, this
>>>>> ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an
>>>>> external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males.
>>>>> The Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from
>>>>> these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the age of
>>>>> seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate
>>>>> older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio
>>>>> insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity of the
>>>>> donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the
>>>>> boys become the men who are sucked and who provide the
>>>>> masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated is the staple
>>>>> of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until marriage."
>>>>> (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations").
>>>>
>>>>This is a perfectly moral action in the context of the culture.
>>>>The action is done for the benefit of the boys, to enable them
>>>>to become adult men. They are respected, and the action is done
>>>>for their benefit. No doubt both parties enjoy the activity,
>>>>which is fine, but there is no exploitation involved. Even if
>>>>the adults did not enjoy the activity, or the boys did not enjoy
>>>>the activity, it would still not be exploitative, non-respectful,
>>>>or a violation of rights, because it is done, not primarily for
>>>>sexual pleasure, but as a necessary rite of passage in the culture,
>>>>almost what we would regard as a medical necessity or a cultural
>>>>requirement, as going to school is a cultural requirement in our
>>>>culture. It prepares the boys to take their place in their own
>>>>culture as adults.
>>>
>>>But they are not adults, and they have no choice in the matter -
>>>whether they like it, or not. Horrific circumcision of both sexes
>>>could be similarly 'defended' on the grounds of 'cultural context'
>>>... as can *all* abuses of humans and animals. But it is wrong!

>>
>>Karen, though, approves of man-boy love:
>>
>> When I first started reading NAMBLA literature, I had
>> no idea what to expect. I came to it with a completely open
>> mind. What amazed me (but shouldn't, I suppose) was the
>> depth of respect and concern for children's welfare in all
>> areas, and the conviction expressed that children were not
>> the property of adults, not a means for adults to advance their
>> own identity and gain prestige point ( "MY kid is...did..."
>> etc.), but equal people, due equal concern. Smaller, weaker,
>> more ignorant people sometimes ( not always) -- rather like
>> some non-human animals in that regard -- but NOT less worthy
>> or less autonomous people.
>>
>> NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for children and
>> genuinely respects them. They are as "un-predatory" as any
>> adult can be.
>> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 22 July 1999
>>
>> I'm not a spokesperson for NAMBLA, but from reading their
>> publications for many years...
>> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 25 July 1999
>>
>> I've been receiving their [NAMBLA's] newsletter since 1984...
>> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 24 November 2001
>>
>> NAMBLA is an advocacy organization for people who want to
>> eliminate the age of consent laws. There's never been, AFAIK, a
>> poll of NAMBLA members to provide numbers for how many members
>> prefer boys of a specific age range. The members I knew
>> personally preferred teens.
>> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 17 January 2001
>>
>>And don't forget, she's the one who hopes her grandson will be *** and
>>rebel against her son. The woman's mind is *totally* warped.
>>
>>
>>>>>Perverts will dream up anything they can to get their hands on
>>>>>young boys.
>>>>
>>>>In that culture, it would be the adults and the boys who did *not*
>>>>participate who would be seen by their peers as perverts.
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>I don't agree animals are not capable of giving meaningful consent
>>>>>>in some areas.
>>>>
>>>>>Try to watch out for those sloppy double negatives
>>>>
>>>>That was a perfectly grammatical construction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Just
>>>>>say you agree that animals are capable of giving meaningful
>>>>>consent in some areas.
>>>>
>>>>I do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That said, prove to me that they are
>>>>>capable of giving meaningful consent to sex
>>>>
>>>>I believe they can give meaningful consent to a great many
>>>>things, including having their bellies rubbed. If a dog
>>>>rolls over willingly, without compulsion, conditioning, or
>>>>threat, to have his belly rubbed, he is consenting. If
>>>>he growls, snaps, or runs away, he is not consenting.
>>>>What's so difficult to understand about that? To hold a
>>>>dog down and forcibly rub his belly because you enjoy it
>>>>is as much a rights violation as rape. To rub the dog's
>>>>belly because he obviously shows by his actions that he
>>>>is willing, and would enjoy the exchange, is showing
>>>>respect for the dog. To do it because the dog wants it,
>>>>even if you would rather be typing on your computer keys,
>>>>is a respectful action, because it is putting the dog's
>>>>interests before your own. At the same time, no one is
>>>>obligated to rub the dog's belly if they don't want to,
>>>>or it is objectionable to them ( they hate dogs or are
>>>>allergic ).
>>>>
>>>>Sexual activity is no different.
>>>
>>>It is. Sexual activity's PRIMARY function is procreation.
>>>On another level, the act is Sacred and highly meaningful.
>>>
>>>See Genesis. :).

>>
>>See Leviticus and Deuteronomy, too. Ancient cultures certainly frowned
>>on bestiality (and everything else Karen seems to hold in high regard).
>>
>>
>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>


chico chupacabra 08-08-2006 09:45 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Karen Winter, un-artful dodging schismatic/sectarian stray
cat-shampooer, wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Tell me how your views on pedophilia, bestiality, and homosexuality
>>>> jibe with "anglo-catholicism".

>
>>> Sin is a matter for the Church, and one's relationship
>>> with God.

>
> Law, in a diverse society, must be based on non-religious criteria
> of harm, rather than religious concepts of sin.


You're the one raising the issue of sin. I submit it's harmful and
abusive to animals and they deserve a similar protection under the law
we afford children and those incapable of making decisions for
themselves. I realize that as a proponent and advocate of pedophilia you
fundamentally disagree with such protections for children. Nevertheless,
we make it a crime to beat or physically abuse animals; I think sexual
assault of an animal fits in that category.

>> That isn't what I asked you. I asked you to explain how those issues
>> are consistent with being a Christian, much less with being an
>> "anglo-catholic."

>
> I could give you a serious answer,


Then give it and quit dodging the issue. I've been asking you for some
time and you stubbornly refuse to answer.

> but I don't think you are
> asking this as a serious question, and it is really not
> appropriate to this group. I think I have answered this
> fairly completely at other times,


No, you've dodged it every time.

> particularly the issue of
> homosexuality and the Episcopalian church, on the other
> newsgroup.


I've asked you about BESTIALITY and PEDOPHILIA, not about homosexuality.
Stop dodging the ****ing question.

> It would help if you would tell us which denomination you
> belong to, and if you consider yourself a Christian.


Both are of no relevance to the question at hand, it's just a silly
attempt you've made to change the subject. Answer the question.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter