FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/98508-question-karen-winter-other.html)

Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 09:15 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 
On 17 Aug 2006 13:02:15 -0700, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:

>>
>> <restore>
>> >> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
>> >> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?
>> >>
>> >> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,

>> <end restore>
>>
>> >> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
>> >> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
>> >> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.
>> >>
>> >> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
>> >> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.
>> >
>> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.

>>
>> No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an
>> animal or bird should never include debasing it

>
>...nor the pet owner himself...


Of course, but I don't believe the animal fiddlers here
appreciate that aspect very well. A little further down
this page I wrote, "She availed herself as his sexual
partner, thereby debasing him and herself."

de·base
To lower in character, quality, or value; degrade.
See Synonyms at adulterate. See Synonyms at corrupt.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debased

>> by availing
>> yourself as its sexual partner.
>>
>> >> >It makes them "better pets"
>> >>
>> >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
>> >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.
>> >
>> >Well, yeah.

>>
>> Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
>> animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets"
>> for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
>> animal.
>>
>> >> <restore>
>> >> >> or,
>> >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
>> >> <end restore>
>> >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
>> >> >
>> >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
>> >>
>> >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
>> >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,
>> >
>> >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
>> >sexual arousal.

>>
>> I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way,
>> you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
>> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
>> yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
>> is being sought.
>> .
>> >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
>> >> >
>> >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate
>> >>
>> >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
>> >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
>> >> hand.
>> >
>> >No, it sees Karen as its mate.

>>
>> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
>> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
>> hand.
>>
>> >> >and many birds are strictly
>> >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
>> >>
>> >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
>> >> a person's hand.

>>
>> Well?
>>
>> >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you can.
>> >
>> >Not if you care about the health of the bird.

>>
>> A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
>> as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.
>>
>> >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
>> >> > causing serious intestinal problems.
>> >>
>> >> Then give it a soft rubber one.
>> >
>> >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
>> >flexibility.

>>
>> No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.
>>
>> >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
>> >> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
>> >> >
>> >> >What a prude!
>> >>
>> >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
>> >> masturbate on I would be a prude?
>> >
>> >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
>> >him some means of sexual release.

>>
>> Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing
>> him and yourself.
>>
>> >> If he continually tried
>> >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
>> >> be a prude?
>> >
>> >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
>> >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
>> >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
>> >advances.

>>
>> Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he
>> continually tried to mount your face, according to your
>> perverted standards you would have no option but to
>> oblige him.
>>
>> >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
>> >>
>> >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
>> >> as its sexual partner.
>> >
>> >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.

>>
>> She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing
>> him and herself.
>>
>> >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,
>> >
>> >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
>> >shovel has any value?

>>
>> From the same source which made that accusation;
>>
>> 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
>> a fake you stupid ******s.
>> http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o
>>
>> tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary.
>>
>> >> because like Karen you're willing to
>> >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
>> >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.
>> >
>> >You thick-headed junkie,

>>
>> That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even
>> smoke cigarettes these days.
>>
>> >neither Karen nor I are interested in making
>> >any animals "better pets".

>>
>> Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you
>> dirty little animal-fiddler.


[email protected][_1_] 17-08-2006 09:28 PM

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:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:


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

> >
> > There is certainly no sexual gratification for the female.

>
> So what? What an inane comment!


I gave you more credit than is due. The point is clear within the
context of my post. The process of artificial insemination, including
the harvesting of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and
is gratifying for the male.

If sexual release for an animal is the basis used to determine whether
the human participant in sexual manipulation of an animal is a
"diddler", ranchers are clearly "diddlers".

> Why would anyone care about sexual gratification in livestock?


Indeed, your kind cares nothing about the gratification of any
instinctual needs for non-human animals. (That's why you keep
nocturnal animals like your cats cruelly confined in carriers
throughout the night.)

> > > > 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." Period. Be
careful what you write, your true colors are showing.
>
> > Making money by
> > appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral.

>
> It most certainly is.


No, it isn't. It's morally reprehensible and, like many morally
reprehensible activities, it's done all the time in the name of profit.

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.
>
> > > Animal agriculture is moral.

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

>
> Not necessarily.


Without exception. Animal insticnts evolved with a purpose, to serve
the individual animal and its species as a whole. When we thwart these
instincts we do so at great cost to the quality of life for individual
animals. Such disregard for animals wholly dependent on our care is
not moral.
>
> > Chickens can't scratch, ducks can't preen,
> > mink can't swim, pigs can't build nests, cows can't nurse their young
> > and on and on. Thousands of years of domestication have not destroyed
> > these animals instincts, so we must prevent them by restraint.

>
> Which is not inherently immoral.
>
> For the most part, it isn't by restraint; it's by removal.


Worthless semantics. Okay, we "remove" the ground from the reach of
chickens when we restrain them in cages. We "remove" water from the
reach of ducks and mink when we restrain them in cages. We "remove"
the ability of highly intelligent and very social pigs to nest when we
restrain them in concrete-floored, indoor pens or, worse yet, farrowing
crates.. We "remove" bawling calves from lactating mothers when we
restrain the females in milking pens.

Does that make you feel better?
>
> > This is profoundly immoral

>
> ipse dixit; also based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism.


It's simple respect and humility.
>

(snip)
> >
> > For an extremely limited number of humans,

>
> No - for consumers who have greater access to more nutrition at lower
> cost.
>

The only reason meat is cheap is because taxpayers prop up the meat
industry
through grain subsidies, over-generous water allocations, give-away
leases on public ranges and passes on soil, air, water pollution
violations. If prices included the real costs of meat production, only
the rich could afford to eat animal products. You know this, but
you'll say anything to create an "us" vs. "them" scenario.

> It's not as if animals will not breed on their own.
>
> They don't breed enough.


Natural breeding schedules evolved to balance the needs of the species
with the bodily integrity of females. Humans commandeer the bodies of
female animals, over breed them until they are exhausted at an early
age, then slaughter them and sell them as cheap meat cuts. This crass
utilization of one of the most intimate of physical processes is cruel
and immoral.

> There is nothing immoral about humans
> exercising control over livestock animals' breeding. In fact, that's
> pretty much the definition of modern livestock.


That's why modern animal agriculture is a moral outrage.
>
> > What they won't do
> > is birth offspring in rapid succession. What they won't do is select
> > mates according to characteristics more uselful to man than to the
> > species.

>
> We are morally justified in promoting our interests by selectively
> breeding livestock.


No, we are rendering animals more and more useless to themselves as
they become more useful to us. This is among the worse exercises of
raw power. It's a disgrace.
>



El Guapo 17-08-2006 09:35 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Derek wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
> > >Derek wrote:
> > >> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
> > >> >Derek wrote:
> > >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:

> >
> > <restore>
> > >> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
> > >> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?
> > >>
> > >> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,

> > <end restore>
> >
> > >> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
> > >> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
> > >> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.
> > >>
> > >> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
> > >> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.
> > >
> > >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.

> >
> > No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an
> > animal or bird should never include debasing it

>
> ...nor the pet owner himself...





Then why are you trying to "hook up" with farm animals Goo?





>
> > by availing
> > yourself as its sexual partner.
> >
> > >> >It makes them "better pets"
> > >>
> > >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
> > >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.
> > >
> > >Well, yeah.

> >
> > Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
> > animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets"
> > for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
> > animal.
> >
> > >> <restore>
> > >> >> or,
> > >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
> > >> <end restore>
> > >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
> > >> >
> > >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
> > >>
> > >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> > >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,
> > >
> > >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
> > >sexual arousal.

> >
> > I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way,
> > you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> > about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
> > yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
> > is being sought.
> > .
> > >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
> > >> >
> > >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate
> > >>
> > >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> > >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> > >> hand.
> > >
> > >No, it sees Karen as its mate.

> >
> > No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> > on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> > hand.
> >
> > >> >and many birds are strictly
> > >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
> > >>
> > >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
> > >> a person's hand.

> >
> > Well?
> >
> > >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".
> > >>
> > >> Yes, you can.
> > >
> > >Not if you care about the health of the bird.

> >
> > A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
> > as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.
> >
> > >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> > >> > causing serious intestinal problems.
> > >>
> > >> Then give it a soft rubber one.
> > >
> > >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
> > >flexibility.

> >
> > No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.
> >
> > >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
> > >> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
> > >> >
> > >> >What a prude!
> > >>
> > >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
> > >> masturbate on I would be a prude?
> > >
> > >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
> > >him some means of sexual release.

> >
> > Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing
> > him and yourself.
> >
> > >> If he continually tried
> > >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
> > >> be a prude?
> > >
> > >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
> > >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
> > >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
> > >advances.

> >
> > Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he
> > continually tried to mount your face, according to your
> > perverted standards you would have no option but to
> > oblige him.
> >
> > >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
> > >>
> > >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
> > >> as its sexual partner.
> > >
> > >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.

> >
> > She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing
> > him and herself.
> >
> > >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,
> > >
> > >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
> > >shovel has any value?

> >
> > From the same source which made that accusation;
> >
> > 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
> > a fake you stupid ******s.
> > http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o
> >
> > tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary.
> >
> > >> because like Karen you're willing to
> > >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
> > >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.
> > >
> > >You thick-headed junkie,

> >
> > That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even
> > smoke cigarettes these days.
> >
> > >neither Karen nor I are interested in making
> > >any animals "better pets".

> >
> > Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you
> > dirty little animal-fiddler.



Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 09:39 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
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. Way to go, you dirty little
animal-fiddler.

[email protected][_1_] 17-08-2006 10:41 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 

Derek wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:


(snip) >
> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.

>
> No, you have no way of knowing that,


The effects of human imprinting on birds is well established.

> and bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing it by availing
> yourself as its sexual partner.
>

How should a responsible owner of an human-identified bird procure
sexual release for her avian friend? So far, you've come up with
putting it back in its cage until its desire subsides. Not really a
solution for the bird, though. Is it? Giving it a dangerous toy and
hoping it will miraculously come to see an inanimate object as a
suitable mate. Got anything else?

> >> >It makes them "better pets"
> >>
> >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
> >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.

> >
> >Well, yeah.

>
> Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
> animals' interests.


Would "Duh" been easier for you to understand?

> You want to make them "better pets"
> for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
> animal.


I don't want there to be _any_ pet birds. (I can't remember, have
you always been this dense? )

But, since pet birds already exist, responsible bird caregivers have an
obligation to meet their charge's needs, _all_ their needs including
the often inconvenient sexual and possessive ones.
>
> >> <restore>
> >> >> or,
> >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
> >> <end restore>
> >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
> >> >
> >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
> >>
> >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,

> >
> >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
> >sexual arousal.

>
> I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way,
> you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
> yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
> is being sought.


Sexual instincts lead to sexual arousal. You have a bird that sees its
caretaker as its mate. The caretaker takes the bird out of its cage
daily, at the very least. Since most uncaged birds have their flight
wings clipped to avoid injury from walls and windows, (Flight is
another instinct we must prevent in pet birds.), the bird hops around
and usually winds up on the arm, head, leg or shoe of its human
companion. Birds seek physical contact of all kinds with their
caregiver. Sometimes, this contact turns sexual based on the mood of
the bird. It is an unconscious impulse of the bird and I don't think
they should be "punished" for it by being stuffed back into a cage.
It's not as if you can train a bird or any other living being not to
have sexual impulses.

Maybe your next suggestion will be chemical castration?
> .
> >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
> >> >
> >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate
> >>
> >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> >> hand.

> >
> >No, it sees Karen as its mate.

>
> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> hand.


How many times do I have to explain it to you? Birds are not given
soft toys. Any toy suitable for a bird is hard enough to injure the
bird with prolonged rubbing.
>
> >> >and many birds are strictly
> >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
> >>
> >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
> >> a person's hand.

>
> Well?


Well, what? Soft toys are dangerous for birds.
>
> >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".
> >>
> >> Yes, you can.

> >
> >Not if you care about the health of the bird.

>
> A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
> as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.
>
> >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> >> > causing serious intestinal problems.
> >>
> >> Then give it a soft rubber one.

> >
> >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
> >flexibility.

>
> No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.


Crikey! A rubber toy hard enough to withstand the beak of a cockatiel
is hard enough to injure the bird if it rubs against it, just as a
wooden toy or perch or water container will.
>
> >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
> >> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
> >> >
> >> >What a prude!
> >>
> >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
> >> masturbate on I would be a prude?

> >
> >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
> >him some means of sexual release.

>
> Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing
> him and yourself.


I alter all animals in my care because I want to end the breeding of
domestic animals. Masturbation in altered animals is a non-issue.
>
> >> If he continually tried
> >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
> >> be a prude?

> >
> >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
> >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
> >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
> >advances.

>
> Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him,


Dangerous for the catcher, not the pitcher. Again, crikey!

> and if he continually tried to mount your face, according to your
> perverted standards you would have no option but to
> oblige him.


No, I would have the poor, confused and sexually frustrated animal
altered. Let's face it, a human sexual partner for a dog is a distant
second choice. If the dog is not allowed to mate within its species,
it should be altered. It's the kindest thing to do.

Unfortunately, cockatiels, like most birds, do not withstand anesthesia
and surgery well. Unlike male mammals, removal of testicles in birds
is an invasive procedure and not one done unless its a matter of life
or death.

> >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
> >>
> >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
> >> as its sexual partner.

> >
> >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.

>
> She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing
> him and herself.


That's not how I see it.
>
> >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,

> >
> >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
> >shovel has any value?

>
> From the same source which made that accusation;
>
> 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
> a fake you stupid ******s.
> http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o


Since one of the statements is clearly a lie, I think it's the second
one. This choice is not based on personal preference alone, but
follows from the general lack of empathy you have demonstrated toward
animals in real life situations. (Remember your rabid defense of the
money-minded vet who let a cat die from seizures because its caregiver
could not pay in full before the administration of phenobarbitol, the
cheap anti-seizure drug of choice for felines?)

> tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary.


My point stands. You have said nothing over the years to lead me to
believe you are a competent animal caregiver. Your posts are full of
theoretical wordgames and juvenile tattle-telling. They are undermined
by your continued use of pharmacueticals and a quite probable
meat-based diet.
>
> >> because like Karen you're willing to
> >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
> >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.

> >
> >You thick-headed junkie,

>
> That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even
> smoke cigarettes these days.


Whose talking about cigarettes. Still popping those scripts, aren't
you?

> >neither Karen nor I are interested in making
> >any animals "better pets".

>
> Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you
> dirty little animal-fiddler.


You must be loaded...again.


[email protected][_1_] 17-08-2006 10:43 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

>> I'll have to defer to your experience.


It's about time.


Leif Erikson[_2_] 17-08-2006 10:47 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered:
> > > Leif Erikson wrote:

>
> > > > No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
> > > > artificial insemination.
> > >
> > > There is certainly no sexual gratification for the female.

> >
> > So what? What an inane comment!

>
> I gave you more credit than is due. The point is clear within the
> context of my post.


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


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

>
> If sexual release for an animal


There's none.


> > Why would anyone care about sexual gratification in livestock?

>
> 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. *OUR* wants
take precedence. That's just how it is, and how it always will be.
Learn to live with it, and keep your ****ing pie-hole shut about it.


> (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 and their safety.


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


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

> >
> > It most certainly is.

>
> No, it isn't.


Yes, it most certainly is.

> It's morally reprehensible


No, and you wouldn't even know how to start to show that it is. It's
an irrational and girlish sentiment, part of your overall
hyper-sentimental and unsound view of animals.

> it's done all the time in the name of profit.


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.

Stupid ****.


>
> 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.


> > > > 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.

> > > Chickens can't scratch, ducks can't preen,
> > > mink can't swim, pigs can't build nests, cows can't nurse their young
> > > and on and on. Thousands of years of domestication have not destroyed
> > > these animals instincts, so we must prevent them by restraint.

> >
> > Which is not inherently immoral.
> >
> > For the most part, it isn't by restraint; it's by removal.

>
> Worthless semantics.


No, it's much more.


> > > This is profoundly immoral

> >
> > ipse dixit; also based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism.

>
> 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.


> > > For an extremely limited number of humans,

> >
> > No - for consumers who have greater access to more nutrition at lower
> > cost.
> >

> The only reason meat is cheap is because taxpayers prop up the meat
> industry through grain subsidies, over-generous water allocations, give-away
> leases on public ranges and passes on soil, air, water pollution
> violations.


It is cheaper than it would be than it would be without those subsidies
- subsidies which I have always opposed - but those aren't the only
reasons. It also is cheaper because of artificial breeding leading to
more animals than would be the case if we left breeding to the animals
themselves.


> > It's not as if animals will not breed on their own.
> >
> > They don't breed enough.

>
> 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.


> > There is nothing immoral about humans
> > exercising control over livestock animals' breeding. In fact, that's
> > pretty much the definition of modern livestock.

>
> That's why modern animal agriculture is a moral outrage.


Only in your warped, hyper-emotional, absurdly and childishly
sentimental view. You fundamentally do not understand ethics and
morality.


> > > What they won't do
> > > is birth offspring in rapid succession. What they won't do is select
> > > mates according to characteristics more uselful to man than to the
> > > species.

> >
> > We are morally justified in promoting our interests by selectively
> > breeding livestock.

>
> No,


Yes.


[email protected][_1_] 17-08-2006 10:56 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 

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. If Karen was
marketing the cockatiel ejaculate, I would object, too.

> Way to go, you dirty little
> animal-fiddler.


I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling". When I do,
I'll let you know.


Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 11:35 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 
On 17 Aug 2006 14:41:03 -0700, " > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:

>
>(snip) >
>> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.

>>
>> No, you have no way of knowing that,

>
>The effects of human imprinting on birds is well established.


Human imprinting or not, debasing yourself and animals
by availing yourself as their sexual partner is wrong.
If such imprinting meant giving animals oral sex you
would no doubt oblige, you dirty little animal-fiddler.

>> and bonding with an animal or bird should never include
>>debasing it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.
>>

>How should a responsible owner of an human-identified bird procure
>sexual release for her avian friend?


Responsible pet owners don't debase themselves or
their animals by becoming their sexual partner.

>> >> >It makes them "better pets"
>> >>
>> >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
>> >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.
>> >
>> >Well, yeah.

>>
>> Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
>> animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets"
>> for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
>> animal.

>
>I don't want there to be _any_ pet birds.


Yes, you do, and to make them "better pets" you want
humans to be involved with them as their sexual partners.

>But, since pet birds already exist, responsible bird caregivers have an
>obligation to meet their charge's needs, _all_ their needs including
>the often inconvenient sexual and possessive ones.


Responsible pet-owners do not make animals their sexual
partners, you perverted animal-fiddler. Hope that helps.

Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 11:42 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
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. You believe humans should
sexually gratify animals.

>> Way to go, you dirty little animal-fiddler.

>
>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.

chico chupacabra 17-08-2006 11:43 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 
Contrary Mary wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:


>>> Karen's fortunate she's the love object of a cockatiel and not a
>>> macaw. That can get pretty intense.

>>
>> I'll have to defer to your experience.

>
> It's about time.


Only when it comes to your animal molestation.

Glorfindel 18-08-2006 03:13 AM

The cockatiel
 
wrote:

<massive snip>

Thanks,btw. You know about animals, you care about
them as individuals, and you have a fine grasp of
both animal-related ethics and the bull-pucky
animal abusers present to justify themselves.

But, onward....

> You have a bird that sees its
> caretaker as its mate. The caretaker takes the bird out of its cage
> daily, at the very least. Since most uncaged birds have their flight
> wings clipped to avoid injury from walls and windows, (Flight is
> another instinct we must prevent in pet birds.), the bird hops around
> and usually winds up on the arm, head, leg or shoe of its human
> companion. Birds seek physical contact of all kinds with their
> caregiver. Sometimes, this contact turns sexual based on the mood of
> the bird. It is an unconscious impulse of the bird and I don't think
> they should be "punished" for it by being stuffed back into a cage.
> It's not as if you can train a bird or any other living being not to
> have sexual impulses.


This particular 'tiel was 16-years old and had a deformed wing.
When he was given to me, he couldn't fly at all, just flutter
to the floor. I gave him various kinds of physical therapy,
and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably
well, but never normally. It was a question, but I ended up
not clipping his wings. He spent all day with his cage open,
going into his "sleep cage" in the spare bathroom at dusk.
He was free to move around as he wanted. He spent most of
the time I was home on my shoulder or on the cafe curtain
rod, looking out the window. He had healthy veggies or
starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at
dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That
was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on
the hand on the table at the time, after I'd feed him a
bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green
leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like
gesture of food-sharing.

He was really a sweetheart.

<snip>

chico chupacabra 18-08-2006 04:21 AM

Karen Winter warmly reminisces about diddling her cockatiel... atthe breakfast table!
 
Karen Winter, sectarian bird-diddling "anglo catholic," reminisced:

> I gave him various kinds of physical therapy,


You jacked him off. That's not PT. And the more I read and inquire about
it, that's also not very "anglo catholic."

> and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably
> well, but never normally.


Oversexed?

> He had healthy veggies or
> starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at
> dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That
> was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on
> the hand on the table at the time,


AT THE TABLE WHILE YOU WERE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST AND YOU LET IT GO
ON? Did you at least wash up when he was done? You keep snipping that
question, but I have a feeling you didn't wash. Am I right?

> after I'd feed him a
> bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green
> leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like
> gesture of food-sharing.


Doesn't really matter since YOU still apparently do.

> He was really a sweetheart.


And you're really depraved.

Glorfindel 18-08-2006 01:57 PM

Glorfindel warmly reminisces about her friend
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

> Glorfindel reminisced:


>> I gave him various kinds of physical therapy,


> You jacked him off.


You have a dirty mind and no understanding of bird
psychology or biology.

>That's not PT.


No, indeed. However what I did for him was indeed
physical therapy. I worked on gently stretching his
wing as far as it would go, and helping him build up
his stamina. First, I held him over a soft surface
like the bed and released him to flutter to the bed.
As he got stronger, a friend and I would hold him
above the bed and gently "throw" him to each other,
so he would have to fly a short distance but wouldn't
hurt himself if he fell. Later, we would stand at
opposite sides of the room, later ends of the hall,
and call him, or lure him with a treat, to try to
fly from one of us to the other, gradually
increasing the distance. He eventually could
fly the whole length of the house, but only with
considerable effort. Normal 'tiels are so strong
and fast, many people clip their wings to
prevent injury to them or losing them if they get
out, but he was so crippled I thought it was safe
to leave him unclipped and just watch him carefully.

When we first got him, his keel was like a knife
blade -- no muscle at all. By the time we had
spent several months working with him, he had a
normal well-muscled keel and you could not feel
his keel-bone easily. He had had almost no time
out of the cage or exercise before we got him,
because his former companion had so many birds
she didn't have the time for the therapy he needed.

And the more I read and inquire about
> it, that's also not very "anglo catholic."


Compassion and care for the crippled and needy
"least of these" is very Anglo-Catholic -- or
simply, what someone concerned for animals
would do.

>> and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably
>> well, but never normally.


> Oversexed?


No. In fact, he was rather old and not particularly
highly sexed -- he was just a normal, unaltered bird
imprinted on humans as a chick.

>> He had healthy veggies or
>> starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at
>> dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That
>> was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on
>> the hand on the table at the time,


> AT THE TABLE WHILE YOU WERE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST AND YOU LET IT GO
> ON?


Why not?

> Did you at least wash up when he was done? You keep snipping that
> question,


Because it's stupid and offensive. Yes, I did -- but how much
semen do you think an old 'tiel produces, anyway? You'd
get your hand messier dripping butter off your piece of
toast.

<snip>

>> after I'd feed him a
>> bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green
>> leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like
>> gesture of food-sharing.


> Doesn't really matter since YOU still apparently do.


It's helpful to encourage a bird to eat healthy human
foods if you eat a bite yourself first, to show the
bird it's good, then feed a small amount to the bird.
The tiel wasn't too fond of veggies, but they were good
for him, so I would hold up a leaf like a toy, and get
him to nibble it. It's part of flock behavior, how birds
normally learn to eat things.


>> He was really a sweetheart.


> And you're really depraved.


No, but you are really dirty-minded and ignorant.


chico chupacabra 18-08-2006 07:49 PM

Karen Winter changes the subject but warmly reminisces aboutdiddling her cockatiel
 
Karen Winter, schismatic bird-diddling anglo catholic, whined:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> > Karen Winter, sexual abuser of small animals, reminisced:

>
> >> I gave him various kinds of physical therapy,

>
> > You jacked him off.

>
> You have a dirty mind


WTF do you call it?

> and no understanding of bird
> psychology or biology.


You don't.

> >That's not PT.

>
> No, indeed.


Stop pretending it was.

> > And the more I read and inquire about
> > it, that's also not very "anglo catholic."

>
> Compassion and care


....don't include masturbating a small, defenseless bird.

> >> and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably
> >> well, but never normally.

>
> > Oversexed?

>
> No.


You "regularly" diddled him.

> >> He had healthy veggies or
> >> starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at
> >> dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That
> >> was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on
> >> the hand on the table at the time,

>
> > AT THE TABLE WHILE YOU WERE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST AND YOU LET IT
> > GO ON?

>
> Why not?


Because it's unethical and unsavory. At least we know what your dining
habits include.

> > Did you at least wash up when he was done? You keep snipping that
> > question,

>
> Because it's stupid and offensive.


And jacking it off at the table in the first place ISN'T?

> Yes, I did -- but how much
> semen do you think an old 'tiel produces, anyway?


I'd never know!

> <snip>
>
> >> after I'd feed him a
> >> bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green
> >> leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like
> >> gesture of food-sharing.

>
> > Doesn't really matter since YOU still apparently do.

>
> It's helpful


It's not helpful to jack birds off at the table, Karen. I suspect you
were reared better than that given your father's rank and your
mother's pedigree from a family that screwed the Indians and had slaves.

> >> He was really a sweetheart.

>
> > And you're really depraved.

>
> No


Yes, you are.

> but you are really dirty-minded


I don't diddle animals, you do. And you do it at the table while people
(even if it was Sylvia) are eating. I'm not dirty-minded, you pervert.

> and ignorant.


That's what bestiality practitioners, S&M types, and pedophiles
always say about those who reject their perversions. You think we just
don't get it. If the problem is so widespread, Karen, don't you think
maybe YOU don't get it?

Glorfindel 19-08-2006 12:56 AM

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>

chico chupacabra 19-08-2006 04:58 PM

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.

Glorfindel 19-08-2006 10:45 PM

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>

pearl[_1_] 19-08-2006 11:36 PM

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







Glorfindel 20-08-2006 02:22 AM

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>

dh@. 20-08-2006 07:43 PM

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


[email protected][_1_] 23-08-2006 07:35 PM

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.


Derek[_2_] 23-08-2006 08:36 PM

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.

[email protected][_1_] 23-08-2006 09:48 PM

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)


[email protected][_1_] 23-08-2006 09:56 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 

wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote:


(snip)
> Elsewhere you stated that cattle have all the protection they need
> under state animal welfare laws. Please refer to Texas law Title 9.
> Sec. 42.09 (h) (2) which exempts animal husbandry and farming practices
> from state anti-cruelty statutes. So, by your reasoning, no protection
> is all the protection livestock need.


Still waiting for your reply, chico. How is the welfare of farmed
animals protected in Texas when farmers and ranchers are exempted from
state anti-cruelty statutes?

Note all the episodes of Animal Cops of Houston relating to livestock
are limited to animals that are kept as pets or as exhibit animals, not
animals in livestock operations.


Glorfindel 24-08-2006 03:12 AM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
wrote:

<snip>

> I believe my objection is crystal clear. If Karen sold cockatiel
> ejaculate to bird breeders,


Now that's a horrible thought....

> I would vigorously oppose it.


Me, too.

<snip>

> I believe zoophilia requires a pleasure-seeking human.


And one who is willing to put his own gratification
before the interests of the animal involved. That
is wrong, whether one's victim is human or non-human.

> I don't think
> Karen qualifies.


I don't. I have absolutely no sexual interest in any
non-human animal. Let's get real here -- a cockatiel?
What kind of weird person would imagine someone could
get a sexual thrill from having a 'tiel rub on one's hand?

These guys have seriously perverted imaginations, and, I
have to assume, no experience with small domestic birds.


Norman Rae 29-12-2017 08:54 PM

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.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 PM.

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