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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 12:07 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 as 'rat' and nowposts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

Skanky, 46 year-old stoned bus rider, wrote:

There is definite sexual gratification for a 'milked' bull


Bulls aren't milked, dumb ass. And you want a five-acre farm and a
pickup...

I don't see a difference here.


You did when you first learned that it was true; you said it was gross.
Now you and Lesley feel compelled to once again circle the wagons and
protect The Side. This time, though, that circle is a circle jerk with
a small abused cockatiel in the middle.

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'.


Bulls don't give milk, you lazy sack of shit.

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.


She says she did it "regularly." She said it was "sweet." She said she
liked how it liked her more than other birds. It was very sexual for
her.

Morally, she is not lower than the ranchers.


So you're taking the side that it's better and moral to **** animals so
long as you don't eat them.

If you think she is immoral with regards to the bird, then you must
say the same about ranchers.


No, you mustn't because it's applesranges.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 02:01 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Question forGlorfindel '

Scented Nectar wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:


pearl wrote:


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.



That is why I feel artificial insemination is wrong at both
(bad pun ) ends of the process. The bull does not choose
to be forced into this process. He may get some gratification,
but that is not the purpose of the activity. The purpose
is to *USE* an animal, make the animal a thing, a slave, a
tool. The person doing it doesn't *care* if the bull enjoys
it, only that the bull produces. That is wrong. The same is
true of the cow: she gets no enjoyment from the insemination
at all. That's why the restraint used is called a "rape rack."
It is rape for her, and she gets no more moral consideration than
the bull. She is an economic tool for the farmer. He gets
milk (by taking the calf away and turning him into veal
and her into another milk-machine slave) and eventually sells the
spent cow for meat. It is a thoroughly evil system and
both inhumane and harmful to all the animals involved -- bull,
cow, and calf.

It is, simply, morally evil and wrong.



  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 02:48 AM 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'

chico chupacabra wrote:
There is definite sexual gratification for a 'milked' bull


Bulls aren't milked, dumb ass. And you want a five-acre farm and a
pickup...


How do I say this to you delicately? Notice that the word 'milked' is
in little quote marks. It's obvious I'm referring to something else.
I referred to the human-assisted masterbation of bulls in order to
collect the semen for sale. If it's any easier for you to understand,
try substituting 'wanked' where I wrote 'milked'.

I don't see a difference here.


You did when you first learned that it was true; you said it was gross.
Now you and Lesley feel compelled to once again circle the wagons and
protect The Side. This time, though, that circle is a circle jerk with
a small abused cockatiel in the middle.


I still think it's gross, but the bird was definitely not abused.
Don't portray it that way. What is The Side?

It was very sexual for
her.


Prove this. She has not said so.

Morally, she is not lower than the ranchers.


So you're taking the side that it's better and moral to **** animals so
long as you don't eat them.


I don't believe in any sexual abuse of animals. In Glorfindel's case
no abuse took place, just something I consider gross. Just like
letting a dog hump your leg is not abuse - the dog is not hurt or made
into a sexual object for a human. Yeah, it's gross, but when you look
at it from a moral viewpoint, there's no harm being done. When a human
****s an animal, that's a violation of that animal.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 05:14 AM 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

chico chupacabra wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,

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


So would neutering or forcing abortion,


Yes, that is true. As I said, sterilizing would
be more ethical than either.

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.


That is the ultimate goal of animal rights. As long
as domestic animals exist because of human actions,
we have an obligation to take care of the existing
companion animals and other domestic animals whom
we have caused or allowed to be born. We must take
responsibility for their welfare now. Simply to free
them, without providing the habitat and training
they would need to survive and prosper in the wild,
would be a sentence of slow and painful death for
many, if not most, of them. Certainly for a
16-year-old crippled cockatiel.

The first cockatiel I adopted was a good example.
I found her, very hungry and cold, hopping around
trying to pick up food from the pavement around a
trash dumpster in a parking lot. I went inside,
bought a millet spray from the animal supply store,
and she climbed right on to my finger and went
inside with me to buy supplies for her and take
her home. I will note she never tried to mate with
my hand. I put "lost" notices all over,
but never heard from her former human, so I kept
her.

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


Which is antithetical to you jacking it off.


I didn't "jack him off." I did nothing active,
simply allowed him to do what he wanted on my hand.
Everything he did was his own idea, not mine --
I did nothing but provide a surface.

In this case, he chose me as his mate, because his
natural attraction to others of his species had
already been warped by imprinting on humans before
he came to live with me.

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.


An animal would *want* to engage in mating behavior. Animals,
as far as we can possibly know, cannot understand that
offspring will result from mating. So, allowing mating
behavior by animals who are sterilized but not neutered
allows them all the social interactions and satisfactions of
normal mating behavior ( unless the animals are imprinted
on humans as mates ) without producing puppies, kittens,
or chicks for whom no proper homes exist. In an animal
rights society, this issue wouldn't arise, because the
animals would limit their population in other ways,
without human interference.

In the case of the cockatiel, like most companion birds he
was not neutered or sterilized, and, since he was imprinted
on humans as his preferred mate, there was no issue of
offspring in his case.

Are you suggesting that you would let the companion
animals living with you breed unchecked? That is
the behavior of an irresponsible hoarder, and
completely unfair to the animals. Obviously, you
don't believe "livestock" should be allowed to mate
as they wish, since you support artificial
insemination. I don't see how you can logically
criticize my position -- but that's never stopped
you before.

  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 07:08 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Question forGlorfindel '

Glorfindel wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:



pearl wrote:



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.




That is why I feel artificial insemination is wrong at both
(bad pun ) ends of the process. The bull does not choose
to be forced into this process. He may get some gratification,
but that is not the purpose of the activity. The purpose
is to *USE* an animal, make the animal a thing, a slave, a
tool.


Nothing wrong with that. I'll point out that only
humans have been slaves.


The person doing it doesn't *care* if the bull enjoys
it,


Exactly!


only that the bull produces. That is wrong.


No, it isn't.


The same is
true of the cow: she gets no enjoyment from the insemination
at all.


Not an issue.


That's why the restraint used is called a "rape rack."


Figure of speech. This term does not appear outside
quotes indicating it is a forced slang expression. As
always, Karen, being a militant dyke "feminist", you
put your buttons right out there to be pushed.


It is rape for her,


No. There is no concept of consensual sex for animals.


and she gets no more moral consideration than
the bull.


Doesn't deserve any on this issue.


She is an economic tool for the farmer.


Right. Your point is...?


He gets
milk (by taking the calf away and turning him into veal
and her into another milk-machine slave) and eventually sells the
spent cow for meat. It is a thoroughly evil system


No.


and both inhumane and harmful to all the animals involved -- bull,
cow, and calf.


Nonsense.



It is, simply, morally evil and wrong.


False.


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 01:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '


Well, Leif -- just as I expected, you totally
don't get it. You are morally "tone-deaf"
when it comes to real abuse of animals.
You have lost all credibility on this issue,
on either science or ethics.

Run along, little boy, while all of us laugh
at you again.

snip
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 02:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 21
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '

Glorfindel

It is useless - Leif does not posses the intellectual, spiritual or moral IQ
to understand that s/he/it is the laughing stock of this group.

Rather pity the poor fool.


"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...

Well, Leif -- just as I expected, you totally
don't get it. You are morally "tone-deaf"
when it comes to real abuse of animals.
You have lost all credibility on this issue,
on either science or ethics.

Run along, little boy, while all of us laugh
at you again.

snip



  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 02:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:42:48 -0600, Glorfindel wrote:


Well, Leif -- just as I expected, you totally
don't get it.


No, Karen, it's you that doesn't 'get it', but you will when
Fr. Dale next sees you if you ever dare showing your
face at his church again- I've seen to that. You've got
a lot of explaining to do.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 03:10 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Kick in the ass for Karen Winter/ was ' Question forGlorfindel'

Karen Winter, schismatic ex-congregant at Holy Faith
Episcopal Church in Santa Fe, lied:


Well, Leif -- just as I expected, you totally
don't get it.


I get it, Karen. I get that you are a
self-marginalized overly sentimental **** who doesn't
really give a **** about animals, but merely uses
animals as an issue to create a sense of identity for
yourself. I get it.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 03:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '

Misterina wrote:

Karen Winter

It is useless - Leif does not posses the intellectual, spiritual or moral IQ
to understand


You only wish.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 03:14 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 as 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

On 14 Aug 2006 15:59:08 -0700, "Leif Erikson" wrote:

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.


Yes, that's correct. I saw to it that Karen and Sylvia were removed
from St. Bede's Episcopal Church, 1601 South St. Francis Drive, Santa
Fe, NM after The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Murphy looked into the
evidence I provided him concerning their hatred of children and the
potential threat they posed to young children there, and now Fr. Dale
is looking at that same evidence. Hopefully, he will reach the same
conclusion and remove them from their new parish, The Church of the
Holy Faith just around the corner from where they live.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 03:17 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 21
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '


You only wish.


Be careful, we all know my wishes might just come true...THEN what will you
do?! *gasp*


  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 03:20 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: 21
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

Yes, that's correct. I saw to it that Karen and Sylvia were removed
from St. Bede's Episcopal Church, 1601 South St. Francis Drive, Santa
Fe, NM after The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Murphy looked into the
evidence I provided him concerning their hatred of children and the
potential threat they posed to young children there, and now Fr. Dale
is looking at that same evidence. Hopefully, he will reach the same
conclusion and remove them from their new parish, The Church of the
Holy Faith just around the corner from where they live.


I thank God every day I am not a Christian....


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 04:38 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '

Misterina wrote:
You only wish.



Be careful, we all know my wishes might just come true.


Not a chance. People who believe in wish fulfillment
are brain damaged.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-08-2006, 04:46 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 21
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '


Not a chance. People who believe in wish fulfillment
are brain damaged.


You are the funniest person I know!




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 11:23 PM.

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