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
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 01:10 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 Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

"chico chupacabra" insane liar and traitor wrote in message ...

pearl wrote:

I'm not the one diddling small animals. You approve of that kind of thing?

You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.

I approve of agriculture;


You approve of people 'diddling' large animals. You're sunk.


agriculture.


People 'diddling' large animals.

Glorfindel wrote:

"Like most conservatives, Leif and Chico condone anything which brings
in money. They have no objection if billions of beings live in boredom
and misery, and die in agony. They have no objection to "bestiality"
at all as long as somebody makes a profit on it. But allow a crippled
little creatures a bit of harmless pleasure in his old age, and, if it
involves genitalia, they go off into hysterical bellows of hypocritical
and pretended outrage.

I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,
perverse, unnatural, and depraved. It is only done for the
greed or vanity of humans who have no concern for the animals
involved as individuals at all. "

I agree.

You defend Karen Winter, who diddles small, defenseless
animals for *her* and (so she claims) *their* *pleasure*. Stop comparing
applesranges and stop taking up for The Side.


You're a dirty liar. I'm reposting what Glorfindel wrote:

chico chupacabra wrote:

snip

Glorfindel's allowing "her" bird to please himself wasn't for any
commercial or reproductive purpose.


That's absolutely true. It was for him, and completely his
own idea, not mine. I got nothing out of it except the
satisfaction of letting him do what he wanted to do, in a
way which harmed neither of us.

She saw it as "sweet" and gets off
on the idea that the bird liked her more than it liked other birds.


I think it is very sad that the experiences in his earlier
life had crippled him emotionally and psychologically as well
as physically. He was damaged in his mind as well as in his
body by what had been done to him by others before he came to
live with me. I wanted to do the best I could for him, given
his disabilities, and I think I succeeded.

And you do realize that you have just reversed yourself on
your original claim on this subject, and admitted you were
wrong. You now agree with what I said at the beginning.
What an idiot. You have no real knowledge of animal
behavior, you reversed your false scientific claim without
even admitting you were wrong, and, as usual, you invented
phony charges cloaked in equally phony spasms of fake moral
disapproval.

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

This is what you're REALLY at, traitor chico:

'witch-hunt also witch hunt (wich'hunt')
n.

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 03:39 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: 4
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians


mikejames wrote:
chico chupacabra wrote:

defended bestiality advocate Karen Winter:

chico chupacabra wrote:

wrote:


chico chupacabra wrote:

Archie Bunker wrote:


Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small
animals is included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul
tells the church in Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior
okay now since the Holy Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline
Epistles? Would your parish object if she brought one of her
little "friends" with her to church the same way she has her
FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got its jollies
with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly reasonable
for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
spirits by diddling with critters?

Discuss.


I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA


The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference"
for sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on
occasion. If your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with
you, then she thinks it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle
up with it on the couch" and alienate your human companionship for
a little animal sex:

...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species,
just as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner.
But some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being
done to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8

BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's
to be expected from someone who feels special and that it was
"sweet" that a bird got off in her hand.


just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on
your hand.


*Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think
it's a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly"
having sexual relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in
general?


If what you say about her is true,


It is. Click on the links and you can read her posts that I
quoted yourself.


she needs prayer not personal attacks.


To paraphrase St James,
If one of you says to her, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and
stop molesting animals," but does nothing about her *real*
[mental health] needs, what good is it?


Joh 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and
said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
stone at her.


...Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn
thee: GO, AND *SIN NO MORE*.
John 8:11

She needs more than prayer, and she's the least bit embarrassed by
jacking off a little bird.

...I think we made his last years as happy as was possible for
him... If he wanted to use my hand as a sex toy, I wasn't going
to forbid him.
http://tinyurl.com/p4vrc

I thought it was rather sweet, in fact. He certainly was a
happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.
http://tinyurl.com/rvyua

Look up her old posts when she used her "rat" pseudonym on the issue of
zoophilia and you'll find she's an impenitent apologist for the
practice of animal molestation.



Glad you are without sin. Can you walk
on water also?



I haven't tried lately.

Mt 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.



How can you avoid that which you don't judge?
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and
avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus
Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches
deceive the hearts of the simple.
Romans 16:17-18

How can you separate from those involved in outwardly sinful lifestyles
if you ignore their sin?
Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord
2 Corinthians 6:17

Why would you ignore the darkness and have fellowship with it?
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
but rather reprove them.
Ephesians 5:1 1

Etc.

I have been reading your posts. I do not feel inclined to check out the
leads to your madness.

Get help.


Hey, we can agree on something,
he does need help. When someone
resorts to personal attacks instead
of debating ideas, INMOHO they
fail to understand reasoned debate.

Jim

  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 04:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Question for Glorfindel

chico chupacabra wrote:

pearl wrote:


You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.


I approve of agriculture;


You approve of people "diddling" animals as long as
people can make money doing it. You have no moral
objection to what you are calling "bestiality".
This is because you have no concern for the animals
themselves.

I disapprove of humans getting their jollies
by sexually abusing animals


Which does not include me.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 04:55 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Question for Chumpo

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Like most conservatives, Leif


I'm not a conservative.


Well, let's say I was being polite in describing
your evil political philosophy. You make
Adam Smith look like a bleeding-heart liberal.

snip

I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,


You can't make a coherent case why it is.


Of course I can, and so could you, since you understand
perfectly why it violates AR ethics. It violates an animal's
right to autonomy, to own his own life. Animals have a
right to form their own social groups and choose their own
mate(s) according to the biological methods of their
particular species. That is why *conditioning* an animal
to prefer a human mate is immoral, and why it is more
ethical to sterilize an animal than neuter/spay
when it is necessary to prevent the birth of unwanted
puppies or kittens.
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 05:12 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

chico chupacabra wrote:
pearl wrote:


You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.


I approve of agriculture;


You approve of


"diddling" animals when the diddler can make money off of it,
no matter how unjust it is toward the animal.

You are shown, once again, to be a complete hypocrite.


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 06:40 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and nowposts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts
as bleagh 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
chico chupacabra wrote:

pearl wrote:



You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.



I approve of agriculture;



You approve of people "diddling" animals


No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
artificial insemination.


as long as people can make money doing it.


Making money is moral. Animal agriculture is moral.
Artificial insemination of livestock animals is not
"diddling" them, and has no sexual gratification
dimension to it. You know this - you are choosing to
misrepresent the facts. Deliberate misrepresentation
is unethical.


You have no moral
objection to what you are calling "bestiality".


Yes, he does.


This is because you have no concern for the animals
themselves.


The concern is for humans.


I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals



Which does not include me.


It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 06:43 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and nowposts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts
as bleagh 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:

Leif Erikson wrote:

Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:

Like most conservatives, Leif



I'm not a conservative.



Well, let's say I was being polite in describing
your evil political philosophy.


My political philosophy is libertarianism. Yours is
totalitarian statism, from a communist starting point.



I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,



You can't make a coherent case why it is.



Of course I can,


You can't. I've been watching you try for over seven
years, Karen, and you can't do it. You even *admitted*
you couldn't do it in your teary February 2001
whiff-off, but you enjoyed fighting with people too
much, so you came back.
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 07:00 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: 105
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

Leif Erikson wrote:
Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts
as bleagh 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
chico chupacabra wrote:

pearl wrote:



You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.



I approve of agriculture;



You approve of people "diddling" animals


No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
artificial insemination.


There was also no sexual gratification for Glorfindel when she allowed
the bird to do its thing. She only said that she thought it was sweet
that the bird was getting some enjoyment in its difficult life. Since
she did not get sexual gratification, and since the cattle ranchers
who, um, 'milk' the sperm from the bulls do not get gratification, they
are on the same moral level. Possibly Glorfindel's morals are even
better than the ranchers. Her motive was for the bird to be happy, and
their motive was to sell the sperm for money and then impregnate the
females without regard to letting the animals do it their own way.

I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals



Which does not include me.


It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.


At no point did Glorfindel indicate that she got jollies from it, at
least not in the sexual meaning that you are implying.

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 07:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

Skanky the low-paid scut-work high-absenteeism "worker"
blabbered:

Leif Erikson wrote:

Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts
as bleagh 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:

chico chupacabra wrote:


pearl wrote:


You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.


I approve of agriculture;


You approve of people "diddling" animals


No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
artificial insemination.



There was also no sexual gratification for Karen Winter when she allowed
the bird to do its thing.


There was apparent sexual gratification for the bird,
and Karen was making herself a part of the bird's sex life.


She only said that she thought it was sweet
that the bird was getting some enjoyment


Karen was an active and willing participant in
trans-species sexual gratification. Artificial
insemination of livestock isn't about sexual
gratification at all.



I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals


Which does not include me.


It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.



At no point did Karen Winter indicate that she got jollies from it,


She clearly was enjoying it.
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 07:59 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: 105
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

Leif Erikson wrote:
Skanky the low-paid scut-work high-absenteeism "worker"
blabbered:


I see you can't go more than a minute without resorting to insults and
false claims. You should really stop this.

Leif Erikson wrote:

Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts
as bleagh 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:

chico chupacabra wrote:


pearl wrote:


You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.


I approve of agriculture;


You approve of people "diddling" animals

No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
artificial insemination.



There was also no sexual gratification for Karen Winter when she allowed
the bird to do its thing.


You've edited my quote. I actually said "...for Glorfindel..." Don't
make me part of your ongoing argument with her about what her name is.
I don't want to get involved.

There was apparent sexual gratification for the bird,
and Karen was making herself a part of the bird's sex life.


There is definite sexual gratification for a 'milked' bull, and the
ranchers make themselves a part of the bull's sex life. I don't see a
difference here. If you are against what she let her bird do, then by
all rights you should be against the ranchers too.

She only said that she thought it was sweet
that the bird was getting some enjoyment


Karen was an active and willing participant in
trans-species sexual gratification. Artificial
insemination of livestock isn't about sexual
gratification at all.


It is for the bull being 'milked'.

I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals


Which does not include me.

It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.



At no point did Karen Winter indicate that she got jollies from it,


She clearly was enjoying it.


Only in a non-sexual (for her) way. Concede on this cockateil issue
please. It's obvious that logic is showing the point you're trying to
make is incorrect. Morally, she is not lower than the ranchers. If
you think she is immoral with regards to the bird, then you must say
the same about ranchers.



  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 09:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

chico chupacabra wrote:
mikejames wrote:

chico chupacabra wrote:

defended bestiality advocate Karen Winter:

chico chupacabra wrote:

wrote:


chico chupacabra wrote:

Archie Bunker wrote:


Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small
animals is included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul
tells the church in Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior
okay now since the Holy Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline
Epistles? Would your parish object if she brought one of her
little "friends" with her to church the same way she has her
FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got its jollies
with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly reasonable
for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
spirits by diddling with critters?

Discuss.




I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA




The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference"
for sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on
occasion. If your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with
you, then she thinks it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle
up with it on the couch" and alienate your human companionship for
a little animal sex:

...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species,
just as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner.
But some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being
done to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8

BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's
to be expected from someone who feels special and that it was
"sweet" that a bird got off in her hand.


just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on
your hand.




*Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think
it's a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly"
having sexual relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in
general?




If what you say about her is true,




It is. Click on the links and you can read her posts that I
quoted yourself.


she needs prayer not personal attacks.




To paraphrase St James,
If one of you says to her, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and
stop molesting animals," but does nothing about her *real*
[mental health] needs, what good is it?


Joh 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself,
and
said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first
cast a
stone at her.




...Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn
thee: GO, AND *SIN NO MORE*.
John 8:11

She needs more than prayer, and she's the least bit embarrassed by
jacking off a little bird.

...I think we made his last years as happy as was possible for
him... If he wanted to use my hand as a sex toy, I wasn't going
to forbid him.
http://tinyurl.com/p4vrc

I thought it was rather sweet, in fact. He certainly was a
happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.
http://tinyurl.com/rvyua

Look up her old posts when she used her "rat" pseudonym on the
issue of
zoophilia and you'll find she's an impenitent apologist for the
practice of animal molestation.





Glad you are without sin. Can you walk
on water also?




I haven't tried lately.

Mt 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.




How can you avoid that which you don't judge?
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and
avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus
Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches
deceive the hearts of the simple.
Romans 16:17-18

How can you separate from those involved in outwardly sinful
lifestyles if you ignore their sin?
Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord
2 Corinthians 6:17

Why would you ignore the darkness and have fellowship with it?
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
but rather reprove them.
Ephesians 5:1 1

Etc.



I have been reading your posts. I do not feel inclined to check out
the leads to your madness.

Get help.



I'm not the one diddling small animals. You approve of that kind of thing?

If she is doing something illegal, contact the police.
If you come on episcopal, just to stir up shit, or continue some
personal vendetta then that is what I find perturbing.
Furthermore, I am not interested in following a list of ancient news
posting just to join in with your war against her.

PLONK!
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 11:47 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default Question for Chumpo

Karen Winter, molestor of small animals and abandoner of her child,
wrote:

Like most conservatives, Leif


I'm not a conservative.


Well, let's say I was being polite


You're being a horse's ass. As usual.

snip

I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,


You can't make a coherent case why it is.


It violates an animal's
right to autonomy, to own his own life.


So would neutering or forcing abortion, both of which you would
impose YOUR will over the animal in question.

Animals have a
right to form their own social groups


Then set them free, don't bring them into your trailer.

and choose their own
mate(s) according to the biological methods of their
particular species.


Which is antithetical to you jacking it off.

That is why *conditioning* an animal
to prefer a human mate is immoral, and why it is more
ethical to sterilize an animal than neuter/spay
when it is necessary to prevent the birth of unwanted
puppies or kittens.


You would project your Malthusian sentiments and your knowing better
and let your sentiments override what an animal might actually "want"
in such circumstances. You're an authoritarian blowhard.
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 11:50 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

Karen Winter, bird diddler ordinaire, wrote:

You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.


I approve of agriculture;


You approve of


"diddling" animals


No, I object to your "regular" diddling of small animals. You weren't
engaged in agriculture or any pursuit other than jacking off a little
animal. It's applesranges to compare legitimate farming activities
with your sexual deviance.
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2006, 11:59 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: 86
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

Skanky the low-paid scut-work high-absenteeism "worker" blabbered:
Leif Erikson wrote:
Skanky the low-paid scut-work high-absenteeism "worker"
blabbered:


I see you can't go more than a minute without resorting to insults and
false claims.


The description is accurate.


Leif Erikson wrote:

Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts
as bleagh 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:

chico chupacabra wrote:


pearl wrote:


You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.


I approve of agriculture;


You approve of people "diddling" animals

No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
artificial insemination.


There was also no sexual gratification for Karen Winter when she allowed
the bird to do its thing.


You've edited my quote. I actually said "...for Glorfindel..."


Her name is Karen Winter. She's a near-sociopath living in an unholy
union with another even worse slag named Sylvia Stevens. They live in
a trailer park on Calle Mejia in Santa Fe, NM. I'm not sure, but I
believe they are in the process of shopping for a new church.


There was apparent sexual gratification for the bird,
and Karen was making herself a part of the bird's sex life.


There is definite sexual gratification for a 'milked' bull,


No.


and the ranchers make themselves a part of the bull's sex life.


No. The bull doesn't have a sex life, and the bull's sexual
gratification is of no concern to the ranchers at all.


She only said that she thought it was sweet
that the bird was getting some enjoyment


Karen was an active and willing participant in
trans-species sexual gratification. Artificial
insemination of livestock isn't about sexual
gratification at all.


It is for the bull being 'milked'.


No.

Didn't you ever watch "A Boy and His Dog"?


I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals


Which does not include me.

It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.


At no point did Karen Winter indicate that she got jollies from it,


She clearly was enjoying it.


Only in a non-sexual (for her) way.


False. Karen's prurient interest was very much in play.

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 12:00 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and nowposts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

46 year-old pot-smoking wastrel Skanky wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:
Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts
as bleagh 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
chico chupacabra wrote:

pearl wrote:


You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.


I approve of agriculture;


You approve of people "diddling" animals


No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
artificial insemination.


There was also no sexual gratification for Karen Winter when she
allowed the bird to do its thing.


She "regularly" jacked it off.

She only said that she thought it was sweet


Do you, Skanky?

Since she did not get sexual gratification


You don't know this. She did it regularly. Why would she do it
regularly if it gave her, pun intended, the willies?

and since the
cattle ranchers who, um, 'milk' the sperm from the bulls


It's not milk.

do not get
gratification, they are on the same moral level.


Wrong. Karen was a willing partner on a "regular" basis for sexual
gratification. Farmers aren't in it for sexual pleasure.

Possibly Karen Winter's morals are even better than the ranchers.


Ha! Not.

Her motive was for the bird to be happy


It wouldn't be happy if it knew the difference between an old piece of
distempered tuna like Karen and someone like Jessica Alba.

...without regard to letting the animals do it their own way.


That sounds a lot like Karen and her "regular" bird hand jobs.

I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing
animals


Which does not include me.


It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.


At no point did Karen Winter indicate that she got jollies from it


She did it on a regular basis. She thought it was sweet. She took
satisfaction that it paid more attention to her than to other birds.

She didn't even care that it didn't write... didn't call...


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 01:10 AM
Karen Winter, the crown princess of smear Jonathan Ball Vegan 48 20-12-2003 01:34 AM
Karen Winter, the crown princess of smear Jonathan Ball Vegan 0 12-12-2003 08:52 AM
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v. Bill Vegan 133 18-11-2003 10:10 PM
Karen Winter's evil hypocrisy and evasion Bill Vegan 16 01-11-2003 08:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017