Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-08-2006, 12:56 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Glorfindel warmly remembers her friend


chico chupacabra wrote:

The usual drivel of those who don't understand
animals, care about animals, or have the
ability to support their side's false claims.

Of course, this whole tangent was only an effort
to obscure Leif's claim that animals never
want interspecies sexual contact. You *think*
you've managed to lose the original topic by
inventing your usual stupid anti-animal,
ignorant ad hominem attacks. What you've
done is accept my original (correct ) scientific
observation.

You guys are just plain ridiculous. You think
you are fooling people and successfully
changing the original subject, but you aren't.
People who actually know about birds -- e.g.
Feralpower and Scented Nectar -- agree you were
wrong. You *are* wrong. You are also dirty-minded,
ignorant, and unfit to own any companion animal,
particularly any bird. Google any bird care site,
and it will support Feral's and my observations on
domestic parrots. But you knew that already.

Derek's dumb tangent is simply beneath contempt --
but typical of his hysterical misrepresentations.
Anybody who watched his meltdown on this thread
would know everything he's claimed about me is
nonsense. He's either really *really* stupid, or
deliberately malicious -- and I'd say, both.

Exit, laughing....

snip

  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-08-2006, 04:58 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default Karen Winter warmly remembers diddling her bird

Karen Winter, anglo catholic bird diddler who doesn't like her son
as a person, wrote:

chico chupacabra wrote:

The usual drivel of those who don't understand
animals


John Mark Karr thinks other people don't understand children, too,
Karen. Those of you who engage in perverted activities with children,
animals, etc., always claim to know so much more than everyone else.
The problem's not with everyone else. It's with you.

BTW, why haven't you replied to the post about church and why you're
too fatigued to finish what you started?

People who actually know about birds -- e.g.
Mary Huber and Skanky


HAHAHA! That's some expert panel you've assembled, Karen. Some violent
SF ditz and a 46 year-old pot-smoking slacker. Why didn't you go
ahead and add Lesley to the list of your experts?

Derek's dumb tangent is simply beneath contempt --


No, he's to be commended. Your former vicars are no doubt grateful to
know what kind of people you and Sylvia really are.

Exit, laughing....


You mean cackling, you old witch.
  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-08-2006, 10:45 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Glorfindel warmly remembers Feralpower

chico chupacabra wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

People who actually know about birds -- e.g.
Feralpower and Scented Nectar


That's some expert panel you've assembled


Well, yes. Feralpower knows more about animals
and animal behavior than you ever will or could.
She has an outstanding background in both practical
and theoretical knowledge, plus a thoroughly sound
understanding of animal rights philosophy and
ethics. Unlike you, Leif, or Derek, she actually
knows what she is talking about and understands
what it means. I have tremendous respect for her.

snip
  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-08-2006, 11:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Question for chico, supporter of animal diddling and mass murder

"chico chupacabra" wrote in message ...
Lesley, who flunked out of engineering school,


No.

wrote:

So what went wrong, 'chico'?


The terrorists you and other anti-semites support hijacked commercial
aircraft fully-laden with fuel for transcontinental flights,


??? You think they should be flown on half a tank of fuel?

flew them


The alleged hijackers were said to be incompetent at flying.

into buildings (and a field), two of which were the two main WTC
buildings. The initial impact and resulting fire weakened the steel
structure, causing floors above and below the impact areas to collapse.


Your hypothesis collapses right here.

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

This caused undue stress on the remaining structure, which gave way
floor by floor as it pancaked down.


'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

It went down instead of up because
of gravity, a natural force you irrationally reject out of hand.


I've done no such thing, liar.

I've given you links to reports written by engineers which detail the
metal fatigue caused by the impact and fire. Their reports on the steel
are based on scientific metalurgical testing. Their analyses of the
collapse is based on their expertise in the field.


Cites? The above is from the first link you gave, remember.


'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film
1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...191665&q=truth






  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2006, 02:22 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Chico/Leif cuts and runs...again

chico chupacabra wrote:

The usual drivel of those who don't understand
animals


Still trying to ignore the fact that you and Leif
don't understand animals, and don't know about
animals. This whole thread has been an obvious
attempt at diversion -- the worst kind of
sleazy attempted slight-of-hand to try to hide
your ignorance and error. Admit Leif was
wrong in claiming animals never voluntarily seek
out interspecies sexual activity. You don't even
have to mention what every high-school biology
student knows about imprinting in birds and
socialization in mammals on humans. Just
repeat after me: mule...coydog...wolfdog...
crossbred feline and avian species....

You *try* to turn this into an attack on me
for being a responsible bird owner. That's
because, as we all know, you have no honor
and no honesty, and you're dumb as a post
about real animals. But it doesn't work.
We see through you.

Not that I expect you to have the integrity
to accept responsibility for your lies.
Just recognize they *are* known as lies.

snip


  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2006, 07:43 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Chico/Leif cuts and runs...again

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:22:34 -0600, Glorfindel wrote:

chico chupacabra wrote:

The usual drivel of those who don't understand
animals


Still trying to ignore the fact that you and Leif
don't understand animals, and don't know about
animals. This whole thread has been an obvious
attempt at diversion -- the worst kind of
sleazy attempted slight-of-hand to try to hide
your ignorance and error. Admit Leif was
wrong in claiming animals never voluntarily seek
out interspecies sexual activity. You don't even
have to mention what every high-school biology
student knows about imprinting in birds and
socialization in mammals on humans. Just
repeat after me: mule...coydog...wolfdog...
crossbred feline and avian species....


I would love to see the quote where Goo made
that stupid claim, if you don't mind posting it and/or
the message id.

You *try* to turn this into an attack on me
for being a responsible bird owner. That's
because, as we all know, you have no honor


None. But is he really stupid enough to believe
his absurd claim that:

"my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo

Has anyone who converses with Goo actually been
unable to figure out that he is contemptible by his
own actions...

and no honesty,


....yes, and *incredibly* dishonest...

and you're dumb as a post about real animals.


....ignorance maintained by stupidity...that's our Goo.

But it doesn't work. We see through you.


Is anyone fooled into thinking Goo is respectable?
Do you think even Dutch isn't aware of what a
childish liar Goo is? LOL...if he's not, do you think there's
any chance Goo doesn't laugh at Dutch because of it?

Not that I expect you to have the integrity
to accept responsibility for your lies.


In a way his comfort in lying gives Goo freedom to
invent whatever he wants to, but it also restricts him
from being able to even acknowledge much less deal
with reality. As I've explained to the poor stupid moron:
When he lies, even if he can persuade other people
to be fooled by them, in reality Goo still hasn't "won"
or even made an attempt to.

Just recognize they *are* known as lies.

snip


Goobernicus...liar...idiot... I again ask that you
provide some example(s) of Goo's idiocy in regards
to interspecies sexual activity between animals, and
now gladly share a growing list of Goobal idiotics for
anyone trying to get an idea just how stupid this
Goober appears to be, and/or is sometimes amused
by reading the idiotic maunderings of an egotistical
ignorant fool:
__________________________________________________ _______
Ron asked:
So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
supplying the pet food industry?


Goo replied:
Yes.

Message-ID: et
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
Ron pointed out:
You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become
PET FOOD.


Goo replied:
Some are.

Message-ID: .com
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
.. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"The fact of the matter is, with 135,000,000 cats and
dogs in the U.S., the food to feed them simply cannot
be "leftovers" from the animals bred to feed humans." - Goo

"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
going to be used entirely for human consumption,
entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo

"I'm right about all of it." - Goo
"I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
"my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo
"Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo
"I'm not stupid." - Goo
"I know exactly what I think" - Goo
"I educated the public" - Goo
"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo

  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2006, 07:35 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'


Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 14:56:16 -0700, " wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " wrote:

The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting
of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is
gratifying for the male.

Then, according to your view where gratifying animals
sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the
harvesting of animal semen.


I object on the grounds of animal commodification.


No, you don't object at all.


I believe my objection is crystal clear. If Karen sold cockatiel
ejaculate to bird breeders, I would vigorously oppose it. You believe
humans should

(snip)

I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling".


You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper to
sexually gratify animals by being their sexual partner.
You endorse and promote zoophilia.


I believe zoophilia requires a pleasure-seeking human. I don't think
Karen qualifies.

  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2006, 08:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

On 23 Aug 2006 11:35:17 -0700, " wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 14:56:16 -0700, " wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " wrote:

The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting
of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is
gratifying for the male.

Then, according to your view where gratifying animals
sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the
harvesting of animal semen.

I object on the grounds of animal commodification.


No, you don't object at all.


I believe my objection is crystal clear.


You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper
to sexually gratify animals, and so you have no valid
objection to the harvesting of animal semen.

I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling".


You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper to
sexually gratify animals by being their sexual partner.
You endorse and promote zoophilia.


I believe zoophilia requires a pleasure-seeking human.


No, it only requires that a human has sex with an animal.
Karen regularly availed herself as a sexual partner to her
pet, and you condone it. You endorse zoophilia.

I don't think Karen qualifies.


She regularly availed herself as a sexual partner to her pet.
Ergo, she's a zoophile.
  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2006, 09:48 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'


Leif Erikson wrote:
lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered:


Apologies if this post is a duplicate. My reader did not pick up the
original post.

It isn't, because your post was the usual reactive, highly self
conscious bucket of bullshit.


You say something, I _react_ with a comment of my own. I realize you
prefer pontification flavored with outbursts of profanity, but typical
conversations are, by nature, reactive. Oddly, for a person so melded
to the norm, you haven't gotten the hang of civil conversation.

Self-consciousness is one of the attributes animal detractors like to
claim separate us from non-human animals. Why shouldn't my thoughts
and feelings spring from
such a source? Whose consciousness exactly should I tap to express
myself?

The process of artificial insemination, including
the harvesting of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female


Not important.

and is gratifying for the male.


No.


Are you saying that sexual excitation culminating in ejaculation is not
pleasurable and gratifiying for mammalian males? If a bull's ejaculate
was harvested by syringe, I'd agree, but I don't believe that's how
it's done. Any evidence this is standard practice?

But leave it to lead-pipe-wielding militant feminazi Mary Huber to
turn this into a "feminist" issue.


Utilization of females of any species as breeding machines is a
feminist issue.

You stupid ****.


Are vaginas smart or stupid? I've never thought of them as having
anything to do with intelligence, but maybe you know something I don't.
Please provide proof that vaginas have any connection to female
intellect and can rightly be referred to as "stupid" or smart.

If sexual release for an animal


There's none.


?

(snip)

Indeed, your kind cares nothing about the gratification of any
instinctual needs for non-human animals.


That's false. Rational humans don't slavishly indulge *every*
irrationally animal-romanticizing "ara's" goofy notions of animals'
instinctual "needs", but their instincts are not ignored.


You're not going to try to pull the needs vs. wants stunt on confined
farm animals, are you?

Farmed animals are slaughtered at an early age before the deleterious
effects of their living conditions manifest. Even so, millions of
animals are condemned preslaughter because of tumors, infections,
wounds and systemic diseases that are the direct result of modern
husbandry practices.

There is nothing "goofy" about recognizing the behavioral needs of
various species. To do otherwise is positively pre-scientific. What's
next? Claiming animals don't experience pain?

*OUR* wants take precedence.


Strangely, it might be just this attitude that brings some relief to
food animals. New regulations limiting the preventive use of
antibiotics and profit-enhancing, growth-stimulating hormones make
raising tens of thousands of animals indoors very difficult. BSE was
disappointing as a deterrent to meat consumption, maybe antibiotic
tolerant bacteria and the ill effects of animal hormones will do
better.

That's just how it is, and how it always will be.


Heh. Careful of that burning bush, Ball. It's fire season.

Learn to live with it,


No.

and keep your ****ing pie-hole shut about it.


No.

(That's why you keep
nocturnal animals like your cats cruelly confined in carriers
throughout the night.)


Hahahahaha! You still on about that, you dumb ****? I do it for my
sleep


Can't afford a bedroom door, either? Maybe an equity loan for home
improvements is in order? Or are you already maxed out?

and their safety.


What dangers lurk in your darkened house?

as long as people can make money doing it.

Making money is moral.

"Making money" by any means is not moral.

Straw man: no one defended making money by any means conceivable.


You categorically asserted, "Making money is moral."


It is. You feel making money is _ipso facto_ immoral. That's because
you're a stupid marxism-contaminated anti-commerce ****.

No one said making money by "any" means is moral,


Yes, you did with your unqualified "Making money is moral." Making
money is not moral when it causes harm to others, by intention or
negligence.

you dumb stinking ****.


Oh, now it's dumb and stinky. Do these always go together or can a
**** be smart and stinky or, conversely, dumb and fragrant? What
credentials does a self-employed accounting consultant hold on this
subject?

What was said was a refutation of your stupid, ****-4-brain
mushy marxist implied statement that making money is immoral


Where is the implication in my statement reproduced below?

Making money by
appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral.


(snip)

It's morally reprehensible


No, and you wouldn't even know how to start to show that it is.


Beingness confers certain rights on individuals, not the least of which
is the right of self-possession. To steal another being's selfhood is
to distort the very essence of life.

These matters are beyond the limits of rational proofs.

It's an irrational


Reason does not make us kind. Reason does not make us generous. Many
of the finest impulses in human nature have absolutely nothing to do
with reason.

and girlish sentiment,


You think sentiment is weak and infantile. Without sentiment you are
a bad father, a bad husband, a bad son, brother and friend. What a
creep!

part of your overall
hyper-sentimental and unsound view of animals.


How is the recognition of intinctual needs in farm animals an "unsound
view of animals"?

You stupid **** - wanting to make money is *intrinsically* what profit
seeking is about. But of course, "profit" is just a swear word to you;
it's what those eeeeeeeeeeevil capitalists seek, and you think you have
definitively identified capitalists as The Bad Guys.


Some capitalists are "badder" than others. Operators of CAFO's are
"badder" than farmers raising animals under the principles of Humane
Farming. Unfortunately, soulless consumers such as yourself, ones who,
though they can afford to shop ethically, opt for the cheapest meat,
guarantee the "badder" capitalists win.

Maybe when your son's respiratory infection can't be cured with
amoxicillin anymore, you'll understand the benefit of allowing farm
animals to lead a healthier existence outside the sheds and feedlots.

Stupid ****.


You're repetitive. It's boring.

It's curious that the current thinking on animal hoarders is that they
are criminals, mentally ill or both. Their animals are seized and they
are barred from owning animals. Yet, when livestock operators do the
same thing to animals in their care they are called "good businessmen"
and are exempted from laws governing the treatment of animals.


That's because animal hoarders neglect their animals' welfare, and
livestock owners don't: it reduces the profits of the latter but does
no harm to the interests of the former.


Most hoarders sell puppies and kittens. Young animals that survive are
sold and often don't show any immediate signs of neglect. Problems
come later. There is no "later" for farmed animals.

Animal agriculture is moral.

Husbandry pratices which prevent an animal from engaging in instinctual
behaviors are not moral.

Not necessarily.


Without exception.


With many exceptions.


Please list these exceptions.

(snip)

It's simple respect and humility.


Wrong. Your view is based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism
and your absurdly, childishly sentimental view of animals.

I'll not apologize for emotions in the face of injustice and
mistreatment of other beings. In fact, a lack of emotional response
to the sad state of most farmed animals is sinister and demonstrates a
lack of empathy that is downright dangerous.

(snip)

Natural breeding schedules evolved to balance the needs of the species
with the bodily integrity of females.


Natural breeding schedules may successfully be tampered with by humans,
and they are, leading to cheaper meat than otherwise would be the case.

Are you implying that the standard of morailty is that which is
possible?

(snip)

  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2017, 07:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 1
Default Chico/Leif cuts and runs...again

On 8/19/2006 6:22 PM, Glorfindel wrote:
chico chupacabra wrote:

The usual drivel of those who don't understand
animals


Still trying to ignore the fact that you and Leif
don't understand animals, and don't know about
animals.


False.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The astonishing lunacy of Karen Winter Leif Erikson Vegan 3 30-12-2005 12:10 AM
Karen Winter, the crown princess of smear Jonathan Ball Vegan 48 20-12-2003 12:34 AM
Karen Winter, the crown princess of smear Jonathan Ball Vegan 0 12-12-2003 07:52 AM
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v. Bill Vegan 133 18-11-2003 09:10 PM
Karen Winter's evil hypocrisy and evasion Bill Vegan 16 01-11-2003 07:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017