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
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

mikejames wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>> defended bestiality advocate Karen Winter:
>>
>>> chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Archie Bunker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small
>>>>>>>>> animals is included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul
>>>>>>>>> tells the church in Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior
>>>>>>>>> okay now since the Holy Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline
>>>>>>>>> Epistles? Would your parish object if she brought one of her
>>>>>>>>> little "friends" with her to church the same way she has her
>>>>>>>>> FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got its jollies
>>>>>>>>> with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly reasonable
>>>>>>>>> for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
>>>>>>>>> spirits by diddling with critters?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Discuss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
>>>>>>> ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference"
>>>>>> for sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
>>>>>> preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
>>>>>> foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on
>>>>>> occasion. If your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with
>>>>>> you, then she thinks it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle
>>>>>> up with it on the couch" and alienate your human companionship for
>>>>>> a little animal sex:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species,
>>>>>> just as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
>>>>>> get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner.
>>>>>> But some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
>>>>>> with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
>>>>>> such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being
>>>>>> done to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
>>>>>> non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
>>>>>>
http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
>>>>>> don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's
>>>>>> to be expected from someone who feels special and that it was
>>>>>> "sweet" that a bird got off in her hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on
>>>>>>> your hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think
>>>>>> it's a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly"
>>>>>> having sexual relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in
>>>>>> general?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If what you say about her is true,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is. Click on the links and you can read her posts that I
>>>> quoted yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> she needs prayer not personal attacks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To paraphrase St James,
>>>> If one of you says to her, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and
>>>> stop molesting animals," but does nothing about her *real*
>>>> [mental health] needs, what good is it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Joh 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and
>>>>> said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
>>>>> stone at her.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn
>>>> thee: GO, AND *SIN NO MORE*.
>>>> John 8:11
>>>>
>>>> She needs more than prayer, and she's the least bit embarrassed by
>>>> jacking off a little bird.
>>>>
>>>> ...I think we made his last years as happy as was possible for
>>>> him... If he wanted to use my hand as a sex toy, I wasn't going
>>>> to forbid him.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/p4vrc
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was rather sweet, in fact. He certainly was a
>>>> happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/rvyua
>>>>
>>>> Look up her old posts when she used her "rat" pseudonym on the issue of
>>>> zoophilia and you'll find she's an impenitent apologist for the
>>>> practice of animal molestation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Glad you are without sin. Can you walk
>>> on water also?

>>
>>
>>
>> I haven't tried lately.
>>
>>> Mt 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

>>
>>
>>
>> How can you avoid that which you don't judge?
>> Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
>> offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and
>> avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus
>> Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches
>> deceive the hearts of the simple.
>> Romans 16:17-18
>>
>> How can you separate from those involved in outwardly sinful
>> lifestyles if you ignore their sin?
>> Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord
>> 2 Corinthians 6:17
>>
>> Why would you ignore the darkness and have fellowship with it?
>> And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
>> but rather reprove them.
>> Ephesians 5:1 1
>>
>> Etc.

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


I'm not the one diddling small animals. You approve of that kind of thing?
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

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


You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.




  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

pearl, violent skinhead diddler, wrote:

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

>
> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.


I approve of agriculture; I disapprove of humans getting their jollies
by sexually abusing animals (or even blaming it on animals like Karen does).
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

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

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

> >
> > You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.

>
> I approve of agriculture;


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



  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

pearl, who regularly diddled a violent skinhead til he left her, wrote:

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

>>
>>I approve of agriculture;

>
> You approve of


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


  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

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

> pearl wrote:
>
> >>>>I'm not the one diddling small animals. You approve of that kind of thing?
> >>>
> >>>You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.
> >>
> >>I approve of agriculture;

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

>
> agriculture.


People 'diddling' large animals.

Glorfindel wrote:

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

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

I agree.

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


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

chico chupacabra wrote:

<snip>

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

'witch-hunt also witch hunt (wich'hunt')
n.
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians


mikejames wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> > defended bestiality advocate Karen Winter:
> >
> >> chico chupacabra wrote:
> >>
> >>>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> chico chupacabra wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Archie Bunker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small
> >>>>>>>> animals is included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul
> >>>>>>>> tells the church in Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior
> >>>>>>>> okay now since the Holy Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline
> >>>>>>>> Epistles? Would your parish object if she brought one of her
> >>>>>>>> little "friends" with her to church the same way she has her
> >>>>>>>> FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got its jollies
> >>>>>>>> with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly reasonable
> >>>>>>>> for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
> >>>>>>>> spirits by diddling with critters?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Discuss.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
> >>>>>> ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference"
> >>>>> for sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
> >>>>> preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
> >>>>> foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on
> >>>>> occasion. If your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with
> >>>>> you, then she thinks it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle
> >>>>> up with it on the couch" and alienate your human companionship for
> >>>>> a little animal sex:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species,
> >>>>> just as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
> >>>>> get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner.
> >>>>> But some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
> >>>>> with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
> >>>>> such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being
> >>>>> done to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
> >>>>> non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
> >>>>>
http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
> >>>>> don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's
> >>>>> to be expected from someone who feels special and that it was
> >>>>> "sweet" that a bird got off in her hand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on
> >>>>>> your hand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think
> >>>>> it's a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly"
> >>>>> having sexual relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in
> >>>>> general?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If what you say about her is true,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It is. Click on the links and you can read her posts that I
> >>> quoted yourself.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> she needs prayer not personal attacks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To paraphrase St James,
> >>> If one of you says to her, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and
> >>> stop molesting animals," but does nothing about her *real*
> >>> [mental health] needs, what good is it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Joh 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and
> >>>> said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
> >>>> stone at her.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ...Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn
> >>> thee: GO, AND *SIN NO MORE*.
> >>> John 8:11
> >>>
> >>> She needs more than prayer, and she's the least bit embarrassed by
> >>> jacking off a little bird.
> >>>
> >>> ...I think we made his last years as happy as was possible for
> >>> him... If he wanted to use my hand as a sex toy, I wasn't going
> >>> to forbid him.
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/p4vrc
> >>>
> >>> I thought it was rather sweet, in fact. He certainly was a
> >>> happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/rvyua
> >>>
> >>> Look up her old posts when she used her "rat" pseudonym on the issue of
> >>> zoophilia and you'll find she's an impenitent apologist for the
> >>> practice of animal molestation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Glad you are without sin. Can you walk
> >> on water also?

> >
> >
> > I haven't tried lately.
> >
> >> Mt 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

> >
> >
> > How can you avoid that which you don't judge?
> > Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
> > offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and
> > avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus
> > Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches
> > deceive the hearts of the simple.
> > Romans 16:17-18
> >
> > How can you separate from those involved in outwardly sinful lifestyles
> > if you ignore their sin?
> > Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord
> > 2 Corinthians 6:17
> >
> > Why would you ignore the darkness and have fellowship with it?
> > And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
> > but rather reprove them.
> > Ephesians 5:1 1
> >
> > Etc.

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


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

Jim

  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Question for Glorfindel

chico chupacabra wrote:

> pearl wrote:


>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.


> I approve of agriculture;


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

> I disapprove of humans getting their jollies
> by sexually abusing animals


Which does not include me.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Question for Chumpo

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>> Like most conservatives, Leif


> I'm not a conservative.


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

<snip>

>> I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,


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


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

chico chupacabra wrote:
> pearl wrote:


>>>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.


>>> I approve of agriculture;


>> You approve of


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

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


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

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

>
>
>>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.

>
>
>> I approve of agriculture;

>
>
> You approve of people "diddling" animals


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


> as long as people can make money doing it.


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


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


Yes, he does.


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


The concern is for humans.


>> I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals

>
>
> Which does not include me.


It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

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

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
>
>>> Like most conservatives, Leif

>
>
>> I'm not a conservative.

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


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


>
>>> I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,

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

>
>
> Of course I can,


You can't. I've been watching you try for over seven
years, Karen, and you can't do it. You even *admitted*
you couldn't do it in your teary February 2001
whiff-off, but you enjoyed fighting with people too
much, so you came back.
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

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

> >
> >
> >>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.

> >
> >
> >> I approve of agriculture;

> >
> >
> > You approve of people "diddling" animals

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


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

> >> I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals

> >
> >
> > Which does not include me.

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


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

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

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

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts
>>as <bleagh> 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
>>
>>>chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I approve of agriculture;
>>>
>>>
>>>You approve of people "diddling" animals

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

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


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


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


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



>>>>I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals
>>>
>>>
>>>Which does not include me.

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

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


She clearly was enjoying it.
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

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


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

> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts
> >>as <bleagh> 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
> >>
> >>>chico chupacabra wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>pearl wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I approve of agriculture;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You approve of people "diddling" animals
> >>
> >>No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
> >>artificial insemination.

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


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

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


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

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

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


It is for the bull being 'milked'.

> >>>>I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Which does not include me.
> >>
> >>It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.

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

>
> She clearly was enjoying it.


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



  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians

chico chupacabra wrote:
> mikejames wrote:
>
>> chico chupacabra wrote:
>>
>>> defended bestiality advocate Karen Winter:
>>>
>>>> chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Archie Bunker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small
>>>>>>>>>> animals is included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul
>>>>>>>>>> tells the church in Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior
>>>>>>>>>> okay now since the Holy Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline
>>>>>>>>>> Epistles? Would your parish object if she brought one of her
>>>>>>>>>> little "friends" with her to church the same way she has her
>>>>>>>>>> FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got its jollies
>>>>>>>>>> with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly reasonable
>>>>>>>>>> for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
>>>>>>>>>> spirits by diddling with critters?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Discuss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
>>>>>>>> ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference"
>>>>>>> for sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
>>>>>>> preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
>>>>>>> foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on
>>>>>>> occasion. If your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with
>>>>>>> you, then she thinks it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle
>>>>>>> up with it on the couch" and alienate your human companionship for
>>>>>>> a little animal sex:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species,
>>>>>>> just as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
>>>>>>> get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner.
>>>>>>> But some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
>>>>>>> with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
>>>>>>> such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being
>>>>>>> done to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
>>>>>>> non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
>>>>>>>
http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
>>>>>>> don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's
>>>>>>> to be expected from someone who feels special and that it was
>>>>>>> "sweet" that a bird got off in her hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on
>>>>>>>> your hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think
>>>>>>> it's a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly"
>>>>>>> having sexual relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in
>>>>>>> general?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If what you say about her is true,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is. Click on the links and you can read her posts that I
>>>>> quoted yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> she needs prayer not personal attacks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To paraphrase St James,
>>>>> If one of you says to her, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and
>>>>> stop molesting animals," but does nothing about her *real*
>>>>> [mental health] needs, what good is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joh 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first
>>>>>> cast a
>>>>>> stone at her.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn
>>>>> thee: GO, AND *SIN NO MORE*.
>>>>> John 8:11
>>>>>
>>>>> She needs more than prayer, and she's the least bit embarrassed by
>>>>> jacking off a little bird.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...I think we made his last years as happy as was possible for
>>>>> him... If he wanted to use my hand as a sex toy, I wasn't going
>>>>> to forbid him.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/p4vrc
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was rather sweet, in fact. He certainly was a
>>>>> happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/rvyua
>>>>>
>>>>> Look up her old posts when she used her "rat" pseudonym on the
>>>>> issue of
>>>>> zoophilia and you'll find she's an impenitent apologist for the
>>>>> practice of animal molestation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Glad you are without sin. Can you walk
>>>> on water also?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't tried lately.
>>>
>>>> Mt 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How can you avoid that which you don't judge?
>>> Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
>>> offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and
>>> avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus
>>> Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches
>>> deceive the hearts of the simple.
>>> Romans 16:17-18
>>>
>>> How can you separate from those involved in outwardly sinful
>>> lifestyles if you ignore their sin?
>>> Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord
>>> 2 Corinthians 6:17
>>>
>>> Why would you ignore the darkness and have fellowship with it?
>>> And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
>>> but rather reprove them.
>>> Ephesians 5:1 1
>>>
>>> Etc.

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

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

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

PLONK!
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Question for Chumpo

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

> >> Like most conservatives, Leif

>
> > I'm not a conservative.

>
> Well, let's say I was being polite


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

> <snip>
>
> >> I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,

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

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


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

> Animals have a
> right to form their own social groups


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

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


Which is antithetical to you jacking it off.

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


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

Karen Winter, bird diddler ordinaire, wrote:

> >>>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.

>
> >>> I approve of agriculture;

>
> >> You approve of

>
> "diddling" animals


No, I object to your "regular" diddling of small animals. You weren't
engaged in agriculture or any pursuit other than jacking off a little
animal. It's applesranges to compare legitimate farming activities
with your sexual deviance.
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

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

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


The description is accurate.


> > > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > >
> > >>Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts
> > >>as <bleagh> 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
> > >>
> > >>>chico chupacabra wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>pearl wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I approve of agriculture;
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>You approve of people "diddling" animals
> > >>
> > >>No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
> > >>artificial insemination.
> > >
> > >
> > > There was also no sexual gratification for Karen Winter when she allowed
> > > the bird to do its thing.

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


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


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

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


No.


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


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


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

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

>
> It is for the bull being 'milked'.


No.

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


> > >>>>I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Which does not include me.
> > >>
> > >>It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.
> > >
> > >
> > > At no point did Karen Winter indicate that she got jollies from it,

> >
> > She clearly was enjoying it.

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


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

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

46 year-old pot-smoking wastrel Skanky wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts
> > as <bleagh> 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
> > > chico chupacabra wrote:
> > >
> > >> pearl wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.
> > >
> > >
> > >> I approve of agriculture;
> > >
> > >
> > > You approve of people "diddling" animals

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

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


She "regularly" jacked it off.

> She only said that she thought it was sweet


Do you, Skanky?

> Since she did not get sexual gratification


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

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


It's not milk.

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


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

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


Ha! Not.

> Her motive was for the bird to be happy


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

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


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

> > >> I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing
> > >> animals
> > >
> > >
> > > Which does not include me.

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

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


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

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


  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

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

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


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

> I don't see a difference here.


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

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

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

>
> It is for the bull being 'milked'.


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

> > >>>>I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually
> > >>>>abusing animals
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Which does not include me.
> > >>
> > >>It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.
> > >
> > >
> > > At no point did Karen Winter indicate that she got jollies from
> > > it,

> >
> > She clearly was enjoying it.

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


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

> Morally, she is not lower than the ranchers.


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

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


No, you mustn't because it's applesranges.
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Question forGlorfindel '

Scented Nectar wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:


>>>>pearl wrote:


>>>You approve of people "diddling" animals


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


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



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

It is, simply, morally evil and wrong.



  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

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

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


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

> > I don't see a difference here.

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


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

> It was very sexual for
> her.


Prove this. She has not said so.

> > Morally, she is not lower than the ranchers.

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


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

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

  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Question for Chumpo

chico chupacabra wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>>>I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,

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


> So would neutering or forcing abortion,


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

> both of which you would
> impose YOUR will over the animal in question


>>Animals have a
>>right to form their own social groups


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


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

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

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


> Which is antithetical to you jacking it off.


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

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

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


> You would project your Malthusian sentiments and your knowing better
> and let your sentiments override what an animal might actually "want"
> in such circumstances. You're an authoritarian blowhard.


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

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

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

  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default Question forGlorfindel '

Glorfindel wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>> Leif Erikson wrote:

>
>
>>>>> pearl wrote:

>
>
>>>> You approve of people "diddling" animals

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

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

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


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


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


Exactly!


> only that the bull produces. That is wrong.


No, it isn't.


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


Not an issue.


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


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


> It is rape for her,


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


> and she gets no more moral consideration than
> the bull.


Doesn't deserve any on this issue.


> She is an economic tool for the farmer.


Right. Your point is...?


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


No.


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


Nonsense.


>
> It is, simply, morally evil and wrong.


False.


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '


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

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

<snip>
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '

Glorfindel

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

Rather pity the poor fool.


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, Leif -- just as I expected, you totally
> don't get it. You are morally "tone-deaf"
> when it comes to real abuse of animals.
> You have lost all credibility on this issue,
> on either science or ethics.
>
> Run along, little boy, while all of us laugh
> at you again.
>
> <snip>



  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '

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

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


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

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

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


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

Misterina wrote:

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


You only wish.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

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

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


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


> You only wish.


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


  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

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


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


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '

Misterina wrote:
>>You only wish.

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


Not a chance. People who believe in wish fulfillment
are brain damaged.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Raspberry for Leif/ was ' Question forGlorfindel '

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


You are the funniest person I know!




  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Kick in the teeth for shitbag 'misterina'/ was ' Question forGlorfindel'

Misterina wrote:

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

>
>
> You are the funniest person I know!


You're a dope; just dumber than a bucket of rocks.
  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Question for KAREN WINTER

Karen Winter, sectarian bird diddler, wrote:

> Skanky wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:

>
> >>>>pearl wrote:

>
> >>>You approve of people "diddling" animals

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

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

>
>
> That is why I feel artificial insemination is wrong at both
> (bad pun ) ends of the process.


But you thought it was "sweet" when you "regularly" jacked off the
fleabag cockatiel.

> The bull does not choose
> to be forced into this process. He may get some gratification,
> but that is not the purpose of the activity. The purpose
> is to *USE* an animal, make the animal a thing, a slave,


Animals aren't slaves. Your ancestors had some, though. And they also
****ed the Indians out of water rights. For all your do-gooder liberal
wastoid sentiments, how have you made amends, Karen? By jacking off
small animals?

> a tool. The person doing it doesn't *care* if the bull enjoys
> it,


Correct, and this is the difference between what they do to bulls and
what YOU do to small animals.

> only that the bull produces. That is wrong.


No, it isn't.

> The same is
> true of the cow: she gets no enjoyment from the insemination


Irrelevant.

> at all. That's why the restraint used is called a "rape rack."
> It is rape for her, and she gets no more moral consideration than
> the bull.


Cows don't deserve more consideration than what animal welfare
laws already afford them.

> She is an economic tool for the farmer.


Correct. So...?

> He gets
> milk (by taking the calf away and turning him into veal
> and her into another milk-machine slave) and eventually sells the
> spent cow for meat.


Because consumers demand milk, veal, beef.

> It is a thoroughly evil system


No, there's nothing evil about it.

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


*playing mock violin... mockingly*

> It is, simply, morally evil and wrong.


No, but you are for diddling that bird. WWJD?
  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

Skanky wrote:

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

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

>
> How do I say this to you delicately?


You could start by learning that there's no E in masturbation, dumbass.

> I referred to the human-assisted masterbation


Which you find acceptable when Karen does it to a bird, even if you
can't spell it. At 46, no less.

> > > I don't see a difference here.

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

>
> I still think it's gross, but the bird was definitely not abused.


Definitely? You can't speak for the bird because you weren't a witness
to it. You have Karen's self-serving account.

> Don't portray it that way.


Why not?

> What is The Side?


The Confederacy of Dunces who support AR at AAEV, TPA, and AFV.

> > It was very sexual for
> > her.

>
> Prove this. She has not said so.


She said it was "sweet." She's so happy the bird liked her more than
other birds. Etc. Everything she's said, in toto, indicates prurient
interest in what happened.

> > > Morally, she is not lower than the ranchers.

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

>
> I don't believe in any sexual abuse of animals.


Except when you know of Karen's experience with it, then it's okay.
  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Question for Chumpo

Karen Winter, sectarian bird-diddling "anglo catholic," wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> Karen Winter, sectarian bird-diddling "anglo catholic," wrote:
>
> >>>>I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,
> >>It violates an animal's right to autonomy, to own his own life.

>
> > So would neutering or forcing abortion,

>
> Yes, that is true.


You would impose your will as YOU see fit, but the animals could
impose their own wills when you're not around to do it for them.

> As I said, sterilizing would
> be more ethical than either.


On your utilitarian or their moral grounds?

> > both of which you would
> > impose YOUR will over the animal in question

>
> >>Animals have a
> >>right to form their own social groups

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

>
> That is the ultimate goal of animal rights.


Then stop keeping pets, hypocrite.

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

>
> > Which is antithetical to you jacking it off.

>
> I didn't "jack him off."


You sure did.

> Everything he did was his own idea, not mine --
> I did nothing but provide a surface.


How quickly did you wash off his jizz?

> In this case, he chose me as his mate


Which made you feel "special" because it was "sweet" and you let it
occur "regularly." Yuck.
  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'

Derek wrote:

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



Thanks, Derek. You're too late, Bubbe. We haven't attended Holy Faith
for some time.

God forgive you. I do. I know you just don't have the ability
to understand what freedom means in a diverse society.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The astonishing lunacy of Karen Winter Leif Erikson Vegan 3 30-12-2005 01:10 AM
Karen Winter, the crown princess of smear Jonathan Ball Vegan 48 20-12-2003 01:34 AM
Karen Winter, the crown princess of smear Jonathan Ball Vegan 0 12-12-2003 08:52 AM
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v. Bill Vegan 133 18-11-2003 10:10 PM
Karen Winter's evil hypocrisy and evasion Bill Vegan 16 01-11-2003 08:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"