On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " > wrote:

>The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting
>of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is
>gratifying for the male.

Then, according to your view where gratifying animals
sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the
harvesting of animal semen. Way to go, you dirty little
animal-fiddler.

Derek wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " > wrote:
>
> >The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting
> >of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is
> >gratifying for the male.
>
> Then, according to your view where gratifying animals
> sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the
> harvesting of animal semen.

I object on the grounds of animal commodification. If Karen was
marketing the cockatiel ejaculate, I would object, too.

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

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

On 17 Aug 2006 14:56:16 -0700, " > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " > wrote:
>>
>> >The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting
>> >of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is
>> >gratifying for the male.
>>
>> Then, according to your view where gratifying animals
>> sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the
>> harvesting of animal semen.
>
>I object on the grounds of animal commodification.

No, you don't object at all. You believe humans should
sexually gratify animals.

>> Way to go, you dirty little animal-fiddler.
>
>I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling".

You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper to
sexually gratify animals by being their sexual partner.
You endorse and promote zoophilia.

Derek wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 14:56:16 -0700, " > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " > wrote:
> >>
> >> >The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting
> >> >of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is
> >> >gratifying for the male.
> >>
> >> Then, according to your view where gratifying animals
> >> sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the
> >> harvesting of animal semen.
> >
> >I object on the grounds of animal commodification.
>
> No, you don't object at all.

I believe my objection is crystal clear. If Karen sold cockatiel
ejaculate to bird breeders, I would vigorously oppose it. You believe
humans should

(snip)

> >I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling".
>
> You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper to
> sexually gratify animals by being their sexual partner.
> You endorse and promote zoophilia.

I believe zoophilia requires a pleasure-seeking human. I don't think
Karen qualifies.

On 23 Aug 2006 11:35:17 -0700, " > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2006 14:56:16 -0700, " > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting
>> >> >of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is
>> >> >gratifying for the male.
>> >>
>> >> Then, according to your view where gratifying animals
>> >> sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the
>> >> harvesting of animal semen.
>> >
>> >I object on the grounds of animal commodification.
>>
>> No, you don't object at all.
>
>I believe my objection is crystal clear.

You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper
to sexually gratify animals, and so you have no valid
objection to the harvesting of animal semen.

>> >I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling".
>>
>> You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper to
>> sexually gratify animals by being their sexual partner.
>> You endorse and promote zoophilia.
>
>I believe zoophilia requires a pleasure-seeking human.

No, it only requires that a human has sex with an animal.
Karen regularly availed herself as a sexual partner to her
pet, and you condone it. You endorse zoophilia.

>I don't think Karen qualifies.

She regularly availed herself as a sexual partner to her pet.
Ergo, she's a zoophile.

wrote:

<snip>

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

Now that's a horrible thought....

> I would vigorously oppose it.

Me, too.

<snip>

> I believe zoophilia requires a pleasure-seeking human.

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

> I don't think
> Karen qualifies.

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

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