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
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 09:15 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 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.


  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 09:28 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'


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


  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 09:35 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Default 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.


  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 09:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

On 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.
  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 10:41 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 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.



  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 10:43 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:

I'll have to defer to your experience.


It's about time.

  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 10:47 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:
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.

  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 10:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'


Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 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.

  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 11:35 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 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.
  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 11:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

On 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.


  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-08-2006, 11:43 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'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.
  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-08-2006, 03:13 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default 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
  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-08-2006, 04:21 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default Karen Winter warmly 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.
  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-08-2006, 01:57 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Glorfindel warmly 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.

  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-08-2006, 07:49 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default 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?


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 05:34 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