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
  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 01:54 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: 353
Default Question for chico, supporter of animal diddling and mass murder

Lesley, who flunked out of engineering school, wrote:

So what went wrong, 'chico'?


The terrorists you and other anti-semites support hijacked commercial
aircraft fully-laden with fuel for transcontinental flights, flew them
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.
This caused undue stress on the remaining structure, which gave way
floor by floor as it pancaked down. It went down instead of up because
of gravity, a natural force you irrationally reject out of hand.

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.

You've given us a load of BS from crackpot conspiracy theory sites. Your
"experts" consist of an elderly economist who was put out to pasture
some time ago by the administration, a "cold fusion" proponent whose
fellow faculty members have disowned him and his loony beliefs about
9/11 (tenure is not a good thing), and a cast of assorted nutjobs who
have no experience in metals science, engineering, or any relevant field
-- just like you.

  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 02:06 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: 353
Default Question for Karen Winter

Leif Erikson wrote:

correction

chico chupacabra wrote:

IOW, you're too weary to start what you finished.




Dang, chico is too weary to write tonight. It should read:

You're too weary to FINISH what you STARTED.



But she's just dumb enough to start what she can't possibly finish.


I've noticed that. She backs down and turns tail every time she asks me
questions like she has in this thread. When I see she's replied, I can
safely guess before I look at it that the most salient points I've made
have been snipped and all that remains are questions about my
motivations, e.g., "What denomination are you and why are you here?"

For someone who thinks she cares more than anyone else, she sure is
disingenuous.
  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 04:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians


chico chupacabra wrote:
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.


Companion birds often grow to identify with their human caregivers.
That's the whole point of hand-rearing young birds and individually
housing them. It's a damn shame the way we purposely distort the
behavior of other creatures for our own benefit, but that's
domstication for you.

Isolated, intact adult birds perceive caretakers as their mates and
exhibit typical adult behaviors towards them. The birds become
possessive, protective, nurturing and sexual. These are instinctual
needs of adult birds and good caretakers make sure these needs are
safely met.

Birds can die from sexual-related stress. Permanently caged adults
will rub themselves on perches or water containers causing feather loss
and hard to heal sikn abrasions. Others will over-groom until they are
featherless. Birds lucky enough to be regularly handled by their
people and not treated as mere sunroom ornaments will rub on the
hands, arms or head of their human "mates". It's as normal as the
behavior of these poor creatures gets. Karen's fortunate she's the
love object of a cockatiel and not a macaw. That can get pretty
intense.

What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?
Do you have any comapssion at all for the animals we have appropriated?

Like so many who oppose giving other cretures the respect and care they
deserve, you suffer from one-dimensional, profit motivated experience
of animals. In other words, you were too long down on the farm, dude.

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.

  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 05:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " wrote:

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, or,
failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
or do what it wants to do on a soft toy. What she shouldn't
do is debase it or herself by allowing it to masturbate on her
hand.
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 06:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians


Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " wrote:

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,


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. It makes them "better
pets", since birds who grow up in a flock aren't too keen on humans
reaching in and grabbing at them.

If you put a strange bird into a cage with a bird unaccusomed to
members of its own species, one of them is going to get hurt and very
possibly killed.

It would be difficult and probably impossible to undo the damage that
has already been done to this old cockatiel. Karen is making the best
of a heartbreaking situation.

gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down


Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.

or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.


The bird sees Karen as it's mate and many birds are strictly
monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.

Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys". They would immediately rip
it apart and eat the fibers causing serious intestinal problems. Birds
only get hard toys, either hard wood which simulate tree branches and
are wholly digestible or plastic toys which most birds ignore.

What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing it to masturbate on her
hand.


What a prude! Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing". Someone
else destroyed this cockatiel's ability to relate to his own kind,
that's debasing. If Karen is willing to offer this poor creature an
outlet for his frustration, more power to her. Anyone who cares about
her animal companion would do the same.



  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 06:38 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

chico chupacabra wrote:

snip

questions about my
motivations, e.g., "What denomination are you and why are you here?"


That's reasonable. I don't know why you are so hostile to
*** people in the church unless I know what religious
group you came from. A lot of it is cultural ignorance
or literalist Biblical interpretation. People who come
from denominations with a different approach to studying
the Bible, like classical Anglicans/Episcopalians, are
often more open to other interpretations.

And a lot of it comes from *** people being more visible.
Derek couldn't have done what he did to us while we were
in California, because people in the church there knew us.
We had friends, I'd been involved in altar guild and
licensed by the bishop as a Lay Eucharistic Minister,
been sponsored for Cursillo and attended, given altar
vessels and other things to my parish, and so on. People
would have known what Derek claimed was ridiculous.
But here, no one knew us very well, and they were willing
to accept Derek's wild accusations at face value. I think
that was why he waited to attack us until we moved.

The same is true of *** people in general. When ***
people can come out in the church and be involved
openly in congregations and ministries, even be
clergy, people see they are just people, fellow
Christians, sinners like all of us, but no more so
than other Christians. That has happened over the
last several decades in places like California and New
Hampshire In places like Africa, where gays are still
invisible in many places, people believe whatever
the anti-*** people claim about them. It's always
an uphill battle for minorities.

  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 07:30 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

Karen Winter, 60-ish career wastrel and bird-diddlier and schismatic,
whined:
chico chupacabra wrote:

snip

questions about my
motivations, e.g., "What denomination are you and why are you here?"


That's reasonable. I don't know why you are so hostile to
*** people in the church unless I know what religious
group you came from. A lot of it is cultural ignorance
or literalist Biblical interpretation. People who come
from denominations with a different approach to studying
the Bible, like classical Anglicans/Episcopalians, are
often more open to other interpretations.

And a lot of it comes from *** people being more visible.
Derek couldn't have done what he did to us


What did Derek "do" to you, Karen?


while we were in California,


Thanks for the indirect acknowledgment you are Karen Winter.


because people in the church there knew us.


Did the people in the churches you attended in California *or* New
Mexico know of your advocacy of pedophilia and your championing the
interests of [retch] "responsible pedophiles"? Did they know about
Sylvia's dangerous hatred for all children?


We had friends, I'd been involved in altar guild and
licensed by the bishop as a Lay Eucharistic Minister,
been sponsored for Cursillo and attended, given altar
vessels and other things to my parish, and so on. People
would have known what Derek claimed was ridiculous.


What did Derek claim, Karen? He didn't claim anything. He forwarded
your uncoerced writings, your blurting out of your loathsome values, to
the rector of St. Bede's Episcopal church, and now, apparently, to the
rector of the Holy Faith Episcopal church. If he had noticed that you
lived in Antioch in Northern California and had looked up a list of
Episcopal churches in that area, he might well have sent the same
material to any church officials' e-mail addresses he could find for
that area, too.


But here, no one knew us very well, and they were willing
to accept Derek's wild accusations at face value. I think
that was why he waited to attack us until we moved.


You really are losing your grip. It's simply astonishing that you
don't seem to understand *at all* that the the legally responsible
people at an institution like a church have both a moral and a legal
obligation to take information like that contained in Derek's e-mails
very seriously. You can blabber until you're blue in the face that
laws concerning pedophilia are wrong, but your society is vehemently
against your position.

Derek made *no* accusations against you at all, based on the material
he said he sent to two church rectors. Rather, he provided them with
written statements you have freely made, statements which clearly place
you far outside the community standards of morality and protection of
children. People at St. Bede's, at least, take their responsbilities
seriously enough that they apparently initiated discussions with you
that led to your _de facto_ expulsion from that church. We'd all be
very curious to know what discussions you might have with the rector of
Holy Faith if you have any at all.


The same is true of *** people in general. When ***
people can come out in the church and be involved
openly in congregations and ministries, even be
clergy, people see they are just people, fellow
Christians, sinners like all of us, but no more so
than other Christians.


There are doctrinal reasons why many people in the Episcopal and other
churches believe that to be wrong. You don't get to revise the
doctrine merely for your convenience, and you don't get to take a
cafeteria approach to church doctrine.


That has happened over the
last several decades in places like California and New
Hampshire In places like Africa, where gays are still
invisible in many places,


Here we go again: white liberal westerners disparaging third world
people of color.

  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 07:32 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " wrote:

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,


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 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.

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, 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.

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.

Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".


Yes, you can.

They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
causing serious intestinal problems.


Then give it a soft rubber one.

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 he continually tried
to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
be a prude?

Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".


It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
as its sexual partner. Clearly, you are not fit to keep
animals either, 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.
  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 07:39 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: 11
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 is certainly no sexual gratification for the female. I'm sure
you and wifey-poo know all about lack of female sexual gratification.

as long as people can make money doing it.


Making money is moral.


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

Animal agriculture is moral.


Husbandry pratices which prevent an animal from engaging in instinctual
behaviors are 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. This is
profoundly immoral and the surge of consumers seeking humanely farmed
animal products is testament to the fact that a growing number of
humans recognize it as such.

You're lagging behind again, Ball. But then, that's the story of your
life, no?

Artificial insemination of livestock animals is not
"diddling" them, and has no sexual gratification
dimension to it.


A bull's sperm cannot be harvested without sexual release. Ejaculation
IS sexual gratification, Bum****. Are you going to pretend you are not
"gratified" when you jerk-off into a scented Puff?.

You know this - you are choosing to
misrepresent the facts.


Back atcha.

Deliberate misrepresentation
is unethical.


Who knows this better than you?

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


Yes, he does.


The act of forcible sexual manipulation of animals is the same whether
the pleasure experienced by the human participant is borne of profit or
sex.

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


The concern is for humans.


For an extremely limited number of humans, those that make their living
by raising and killing animals.

It's not as if animals will not breed on their own. 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.

I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals


Which does not include me.


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


Are you blaming the cockatiel for initiating the activity?

  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 07:49 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 at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber 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 is certainly no sexual gratification for the female.


So what? What an inane comment! Why would anyone care about sexual
gratification in livestock?


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.


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


It most certainly is.



Animal agriculture is moral.


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


Not necessarily.


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.


This is profoundly immoral


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


Artificial insemination of livestock animals is not
"diddling" them, and has no sexual gratification
dimension to it.


A bull's sperm cannot be harvested without sexual release. Ejaculation
IS sexual gratification, Bum****.


No.


You know this - you are choosing to
misrepresent the facts.


Back atcha.


You missed, as usual.


Deliberate misrepresentation
is unethical.


Who knows this


Right thinking people like me.


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


Yes, he does.


The act of forcible sexual manipulation of animals is the same whether


false


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


The concern is for humans.


For an extremely limited number of humans,


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


It's not as if animals will not breed on their own.


They don't breed enough. There is nothing immoral about humans
exercising control over livestock animals' breeding. In fact, that's
pretty much the definition of modern livestock.


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.


I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals

Which does not include me.


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


Are you blaming the cockatiel for initiating the activity?


No, I'm blaming Karen for indecently engaging in it at all.



  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 08:17 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians


Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " wrote:


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. An animal that has
been prevented from sociializing with members of its own species sees
its human caregiver as one its own. In this context, sexual overtures
towards the caregiver is understandable and predictable.

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. That's why hand-rearing young birds. along with a
multitude of other things we force upon "pets" of all species, is
morally repugnant.

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. The bird is self-aroused because of an innate sexual
drive in mature birds. Any handling will prompt sexual activity. This
behavior usually waxes and wanes seasonally. Do you have any personal
experience with birds? Because you act as if you don't know the first
thing about bird behavior.

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.

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.


Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".


Yes, you can.


Not if you care about the health of the bird. Clearly, you consider a
companion bird's physical and mental health of no importance.

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.

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. I would hope you aren't stupid
enough to be actively breeding him.

If you did allow him to ejaculate on your leg, I wouldn't say you were
sexually abusing him.

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.

If the cockatiel was biting Karen's arm while he rubbed on her hand, I
imagine she would put an end to the session.

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.

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?

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, neither Karen nor I are interested in making
any animals "better pets". I am opposed to the very existence of pets
as a category of animals without domain over their own lives.

  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 08:27 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: 353
Default Question for Karen Winter

Right on cue, Karen Winter snipped to focus on the least relevant
point and to whine about being ***:

snip


Why did you snip everything of importance, Karen?

questions about my
motivations, e.g., "What denomination are you and why are you here?"


That's reasonable. I don't know why you are so hostile to
*** people in the church


I'm not hostile to anyone who wants to go to church. I have suspicions
about, concern for, and a bit of antipathy for those who demand the
church accept and embrace them on their own terms. It's not radical to
think that men should only marry women instead of each other -- that's
pretty conventional. It IS radical to suggest 2000+ years of history
and tradition are wrong, that sin isn't sin, and that your alternative
lifestyle -- YOURS OF ALL PEOPLE! -- is the moral equivalent of anyone
else's. It's not.

unless I know what religious group you came from.


You needn't know which particular one because you've already made up
your mind:

A lot of it is cultural ignorance
or literalist Biblical interpretation.


Is that the case at St Bede's and Church of the Holy Faith? Are they
literalists? Cultural ignorants? Or are they just simple Christians
trying to make sense of church-wreckers like you?

People who come
from denominations with a different approach to studying
the Bible, like classical Anglicans/Episcopalians, are
often more open to other interpretations.


How many interpretations can you put on Romans 16:17? How many for any
of the other passages that tell the church how to handle schismatics
and heretics?

And a lot of it comes from *** people being more visible.


How the hell would I know if someone sitting next to me at church is
a homosexual unless he told me? How would I know that he wants to cause
schism and harm by forcing a radical agenda over and against the
established order in the church?

You made yourself visible, Karen, and it wasn't because you're ***.

Derek couldn't have done what he did to us while we were
in California, because people in the church there knew us.


He could've, and I'm willing to bet the members of your congregation in
Antioch would've been every bit as concerned about your posts as the
people in Santa Fe have been. People are funny like that, especially
about their children. You may think their children are old enough to
decide with whom to have sex; they likely disagree and don't want your
influence anywhere near them.

You say they "knew" you in Antioch, but did they really? Did they know
you were an open advocate of bestiality and pedophilia? Did they know
Sylvia wrote such vile stuff about children?

I doubt they knew you at all.

We had friends


You had them in Santa Fe, too. They now know what kind of person you
are. They'd prefer not to have you around their kids. And it has
nothing to do with your being ***. It has to do with your being an
apologist for things that harm children, and with Sylvia's public
displays of hatred for children and those who have them.

I'd been involved in altar guild and
licensed by the bishop as a Lay Eucharistic Minister,
been sponsored for Cursillo and attended, given altar
vessels and other things to my parish, and so on.


Did they know that you'd introduce your son to your pedophile
*FRIENDS*? Did they know you were attending NAMBLA meetings and
receiving their newsletter? Did they know you were an advocate for
those who have sex with animals?

People would have known what Derek claimed was ridiculous.


Derek, as far as I know, didn't make claims. He merely made your vicar
aware of your posts in defense of things that most people will not
accept. It wasn't a list of posts about your homosexuality, it was
about your ARDENT defense of pedophilia and bestiality in YOUR own
words.

But here, no one knew us very well


They read your and Sylvia's posts and now they indeed know you well.

and they were willing
to accept Derek's wild accusations at face value.


It's not a "wild accusation" to forward your posts, or links to them,
to show what matters most to you.

I think
that was why he waited to attack us until we moved.


He didn't attack you. He informed the clergy and staff at the
congregations where you and Sylvia were attending of your posting
history and the kinds of things you support and defend.

The same is true of *** people in general.


Derek, to my knowledge, didn't make a deal of your homosexuality, but
rather your chronic defense of pedophilia and bestiality. Most
congregations -- even in the "fundamentalist" literalist churches you
(and *I*) have a problem with -- can deal with the homosexuality issue;
even far out liberal ones will have issues with pedophiles and those
who embrace that subject the way you have, particularly when they have
children in the congregation.

...

I dealt with your whining. Now deal with the more salient points I
raised:

---------- RESTORE -----------
If you are
Episcopalian, then you know there are people of
good will and learning on both sides of the
issues.


I know that you're not one of them. I've read your posts and observed
your contentious spirit regarding the division in your church. You've
admitted to being part of it for a long time. You've disrespectfully
likened your depraved cause to other more noble causes. You've been
very "in-your-face" about it in our discussions. You're not a person of
good will, Karen.

If you are not, why should those issues
concern you?


Because the issues transcend all of Christianity. Episcopal Christians
shouldn't fear the onslaught of radical change you schismatics have
been pushing. But it's not enough for you to screw up your own
denomination -- the radicals want to hijack other ones, too. You see it
in PCUSA and UMC. Those church bodies are almost as divided as yours is
now, and I hope they can deal with it more peaceably than people like
you have in yours.

Yes, I have strong opinions on some
of the issues,


Strong enough to cause all this division in the first place.

but I am tired of the fighting,


Hint: the traditionalists didn't go looking for one. YOU did.

and I don't want to be involved in it any more


Then why did you start it? Why did you get involved? Why are you on
written record with various groups on the side of radical change? You
made yourself part of the division. You've done nothing to heal it,
only to exacerbate it.

until the whole thing is settled one way or the
other. I want to focus on God.


IOW, you're too weary to start what you finished. Maybe you need to
take another look at yourself, your church, and the whole nature of the
controversy. I admit I'm on the outside of it. I can see from where I
am that it's not doing anyone any good, not even the radicals when they
"win," because it divides your church even further -- past the point of
no return.

You've been a very willing party to the alienation of simple
Christians, Karen -- people with a simple faith who only want to go to
church to worship their God. You say that's what you want, but you
wouldn't allow them the same comfort in their pews that you seek for
yourself. They weren't asking YOU to change. You were demanding THEY
change. They didn't go looking for fights. You brought it to them. When
you brought it to them, you brought it to the global fellowship of
Anglicans. And when you did that, you brought it to the wider body of
believers.

Is it worth it, Karen? Is it worth telling people just a couple months
ago "don't let the door hit you on the way out" when traditionalists
said they couldn't support this travesty? Is it worth being chastised
by the African bishops yours have repeatedly alienated? Is it worth
watching congregations leave your fold? Is it worth the grief and
confusion you've caused little old ladies who wonder just what their
church really stands for anymore?

You got what you wanted. Go ahead and enjoy it. Nobody else is.
------ END RESTORE -----------
  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 08:30 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

Contrary Mary wrote:

chico chupacabra wrote:
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.


Companion birds often grow to identify with their human caregivers.


Does that give Karen the right to diddle it?

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.
  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 08:57 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

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 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.
  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 09:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 86
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

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...

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.




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 04:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017