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

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

It goes byond a bond, it is total identification. An animal that has
been prevented from sociializing with members of its own species sees
its human caregiver as one its own. In this context, sexual overtures
towards the caregiver is understandable and predictable.
>
> >It makes them "better pets"
>
> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.

Well, yeah. That's why hand-rearing young birds. along with a
multitude of other things we force upon "pets" of all species, is
morally repugnant.
>
> <restore>
> >> or,
> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
> <end restore>
> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
> >
> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
>
> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,

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

> yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
> is being sought.
>
> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
> >
> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate
>
> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> hand.

No, it sees Karen as its mate.

> >and many birds are strictly
> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
>
> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
> a person's hand.

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

Not if you care about the health of the bird. Clearly, you consider a
companion bird's physical and mental health of no importance.
>
> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> > causing serious intestinal problems.
>
> Then give it a soft rubber one.

Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
flexibility.
>
> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
> >
> >What a prude!
>
> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
> masturbate on I would be a prude?

If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
him some means of sexual release. I would hope you aren't stupid
enough to be actively breeding him.

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

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

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

If the cockatiel was biting Karen's arm while he rubbed on her hand, I
imagine she would put an end to the session.
>
> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
>
> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
> as its sexual partner.

According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.

> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,

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

> because like Karen you're willing to
> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.

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

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

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

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

No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an
animal or bird should never include debasing it by availing
yourself as its sexual partner.

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

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

>> <restore>
>> >> or,
>> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
>> <end restore>
>> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
>> >
>> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
>>
>> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
>> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,
>
>I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
>sexual arousal.

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

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

>> >and many birds are strictly
>> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
>>
>> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
>> a person's hand.

Well?

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

A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.

>> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
>> > causing serious intestinal problems.
>>
>> Then give it a soft rubber one.
>
>Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
>flexibility.

No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.

>> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
>> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
>> >
>> >What a prude!
>>
>> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
>> masturbate on I would be a prude?
>
>If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
>him some means of sexual release.

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

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

Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he
continually tried to mount your face, according to your
perverted standards you would have no option but to
oblige him.

>> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
>>
>> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
>> as its sexual partner.
>
>According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.

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

>> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,
>
>Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
>shovel has any value?

From the same source which made that accusation;

9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
a fake you stupid ******s.
http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o

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

>> because like Karen you're willing to
>> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
>> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.
>
>You thick-headed junkie,

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

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

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

Derek wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:
>
> <restore>
> >> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
> >> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?
> >>
> >> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,
> <end restore>
>
> >> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
> >> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
> >> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.
> >>
> >> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
> >> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.
> >
> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.
>
> No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an
> animal or bird should never include debasing it

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

> by availing
> yourself as its sexual partner.
>
> >> >It makes them "better pets"
> >>
> >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
> >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.
> >
> >Well, yeah.
>
> Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
> animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets"
> for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
> animal.
>
> >> <restore>
> >> >> or,
> >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
> >> <end restore>
> >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
> >> >
> >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
> >>
> >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,
> >
> >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
> >sexual arousal.
>
> I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way,
> you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
> yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
> is being sought.
> .
> >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
> >> >
> >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate
> >>
> >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> >> hand.
> >
> >No, it sees Karen as its mate.
>
> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> hand.
>
> >> >and many birds are strictly
> >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
> >>
> >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
> >> a person's hand.
>
> Well?
>
> >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".
> >>
> >> Yes, you can.
> >
> >Not if you care about the health of the bird.
>
> A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
> as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.
>
> >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> >> > causing serious intestinal problems.
> >>
> >> Then give it a soft rubber one.
> >
> >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
> >flexibility.
>
> No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.
>
> >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
> >> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
> >> >
> >> >What a prude!
> >>
> >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
> >> masturbate on I would be a prude?
> >
> >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
> >him some means of sexual release.
>
> Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing
> him and yourself.
>
> >> If he continually tried
> >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
> >> be a prude?
> >
> >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
> >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
> >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
> >advances.
>
> Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he
> continually tried to mount your face, according to your
> perverted standards you would have no option but to
> oblige him.
>
> >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
> >>
> >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
> >> as its sexual partner.
> >
> >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.
>
> She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing
> him and herself.
>
> >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,
> >
> >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
> >shovel has any value?
>
> From the same source which made that accusation;
>
> 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
> a fake you stupid ******s.
> http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o
>
> tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary.
>
> >> because like Karen you're willing to
> >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
> >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.
> >
> >You thick-headed junkie,
>
> That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even
> smoke cigarettes these days.
>
> >neither Karen nor I are interested in making
> >any animals "better pets".
>
> Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you
> dirty little animal-fiddler.

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.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Derek wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
> > >Derek wrote:
> > >> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
> > >> >Derek wrote:
> > >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:
> >
> > <restore>
> > >> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
> > >> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?
> > >>
> > >> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,
> > <end restore>
> >
> > >> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
> > >> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
> > >> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.
> > >>
> > >> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
> > >> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.
> > >
> > >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.
> >
> > No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an
> > animal or bird should never include debasing it
>
> ...nor the pet owner himself...




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





>
> > by availing
> > yourself as its sexual partner.
> >
> > >> >It makes them "better pets"
> > >>
> > >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
> > >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.
> > >
> > >Well, yeah.
> >
> > Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
> > animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets"
> > for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
> > animal.
> >
> > >> <restore>
> > >> >> or,
> > >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
> > >> <end restore>
> > >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
> > >> >
> > >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
> > >>
> > >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> > >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,
> > >
> > >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
> > >sexual arousal.
> >
> > I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way,
> > you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> > about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
> > yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
> > is being sought.
> > .
> > >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
> > >> >
> > >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate
> > >>
> > >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> > >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> > >> hand.
> > >
> > >No, it sees Karen as its mate.
> >
> > No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> > on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> > hand.
> >
> > >> >and many birds are strictly
> > >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
> > >>
> > >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
> > >> a person's hand.
> >
> > Well?
> >
> > >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".
> > >>
> > >> Yes, you can.
> > >
> > >Not if you care about the health of the bird.
> >
> > A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
> > as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.
> >
> > >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> > >> > causing serious intestinal problems.
> > >>
> > >> Then give it a soft rubber one.
> > >
> > >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
> > >flexibility.
> >
> > No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.
> >
> > >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
> > >> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
> > >> >
> > >> >What a prude!
> > >>
> > >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
> > >> masturbate on I would be a prude?
> > >
> > >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
> > >him some means of sexual release.
> >
> > Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing
> > him and yourself.
> >
> > >> If he continually tried
> > >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
> > >> be a prude?
> > >
> > >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
> > >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
> > >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
> > >advances.
> >
> > Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he
> > continually tried to mount your face, according to your
> > perverted standards you would have no option but to
> > oblige him.
> >
> > >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
> > >>
> > >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
> > >> as its sexual partner.
> > >
> > >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.
> >
> > She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing
> > him and herself.
> >
> > >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,
> > >
> > >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
> > >shovel has any value?
> >
> > From the same source which made that accusation;
> >
> > 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
> > a fake you stupid ******s.
> > http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o
> >
> > tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary.
> >
> > >> because like Karen you're willing to
> > >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
> > >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.
> > >
> > >You thick-headed junkie,
> >
> > That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even
> > smoke cigarettes these days.
> >
> > >neither Karen nor I are interested in making
> > >any animals "better pets".
> >
> > Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you
> > dirty little animal-fiddler.

Derek 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.

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.

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>

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.

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.

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?