HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:41:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <BtxMH1.9Hp@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):

> Russell Lawrence writes:
> rl> Why is it wrong to hunt retarded humans, but ok to hunt chimps?
> 
> In article <Btx4pn.903@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
> cm> Because they're human, but you already knew that.  
> 
> I already knew that such arguments were fallacious.

No, you BELIEVE it.  You cannot know that which is not true.

> From "The Glossary of Logical Terms: Fallacies", _The Encyclopedia
> of Philosophy_, McMillen and Company.
> 
>    11) begging the question (circular reasoning), an argument 
>        that assumes as part of the premises the conclusion that 
>        it supposed to be proved. 
> 
> I'm going to save this quotation and repost it everytime you tell
> us that humans have rights because they're human.

Repetition does not equate to correctness.  If it did, "The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion" would be true... you DON'T believe it's true... DO you?


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:13:52 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Without any further hand-waving and finger-pointing, please explain:
rl> 
rl> -- How large is the LACS property?

From article <RIGG.92Aug31162942@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> It doesn't matter.  They could have enclosed a 1000 acre plot to test
tr> your idea.  

Perhaps.  Had they done so, they would have been obliged to adjust their 
spending in other areas.  Would you mind explaining the impact that such
adjustments would have had on overall LACS objectives?

rl> -- How much would it cost to fence the LACS property using materials
rl>    that the LACS officials would regard as ethically acceptable?

tr> Around $100,000 (US).

Please specify the linear dimensions of the LACS property, Ted.  
Also, please tell us what fence material the LACS officials would 
regard as ethically acceptable?  

rl> -- Without studying the books, how were you able to determine that
rl>    LACS could easily afford a fence?

tr> Jonathon spencer has read published information about the LACS 
tr> budget.  In one year alone, they gave $150,000 (US) in political 
tr> contributions.  Therefore, they had at least $150,000 to spend on 
tr> causes it deemed appropriate.  Obviously, they did not think a 
tr> fence was appropriate.  

Is this a reasonable assumption?  Right off hand, I can name 
several dozen charitable expenditures that I might consider 
appropriate for my own company.  The fact that our limited 
resources would restrict us to one or two items doesn't mean that 
the rest are inappropriate.  

Since you're unfamiliar with the organization's resources as well 
as their specific financial objectives, what makes you think your
original claim was valid?  

tr> Now, "without any further hand-waving and finger-pointing", please
tr> provide some documented proof that prey animals can regulate their
tr> poplations.

Frisch, Rose. "Fatness and Fertility".  _Scientific American_,
March, 1988.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: POINT OF VIEW (Poem)
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:56:51 GMT



POINT OF VIEW    by Shel Silverstein

Thanksgiving dinner's sad and thankless
Christmas dinner's dark and blue
When you stop and try to see it
   From the turkey's point of view.

Sunday dinner isn't sunny
Easter feasts are just bad luck
When you see it from the viewpoint
Of a chicken or a duck

Oh how I once loved tuna salad
Pork and lobsters, lamb chops too
Till I stopped and looked at dinner
   From the dinner's point of view.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:05:17 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>Do you have any evidence to prove your conjecture that wolves are capable
>of taking perfectly healthy deer?

Russell, even a coyote pack can take down a healthy deer.  Please
write to:

     NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
     50 Wolf Road
     Albany, New York  12233-4790

and ask them for a copy of their recent study on coyotes and deer.
Unless of course you're going to start that familiar "oh, hunters own
the game departments so that's a bad source" AR bullsh--. ;-)


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 13:47:44 GMT

In article <Bu0o7D.D0x@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <1992Sep2.205525.7049@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, by smithm@furnace.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith):
>ms> - Nature is a butcher, she only descriminates between the fit
>ms>   and the unfit. Mercy is a human idea, one that nature does not know.
>ms>   Matt Smith

>What purpose does it serve when a writer attempts to gain 
>credibility for his own opinions by casting them into the minds 
>and mouths of non-existent beings?  Consider the difference 
>between the quoted text, and a more honest expression of the same 
>thoughts: 
>
>    "I am a butcher.  I only discriminate between the fit and the
>     unfit.  Mercy is a human idea, but it's an idea that I do not
>     know".   -- Matt Smith

I fail to see how this is a "more honest expression of the same thought."
It's certainly different, but whether the "honesty level" has increased is
a claim of questionable merit.

>Matt's entitled to his views, but when he pretends that they're the
>product of the mind of "nature" or some make-shift god, I reserve
>the right to point out the inherent misrepresentation.

Well, I'm glad to see you've given Matt permission to have his own views, :-)
but whether or not they are misrepresentations of reality is not, I'm afraid,
quite as clear as you'd make it out to be...others have made similar
observations throughout the history of Man.

In any case, I'm not going to spend further time arguing about some ELSE'S
.sig; I'm sure Matt is quite capable of mounting his own defense should he
choose to do so.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:43:57 GMT

In <BtsAuy.A98@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>rl> It seems to me that it takes a lot of courage for an animal to 
>rl> stand and kick rather than turn tail and run away.  Yet this same 
>rl> courage not to run away is regarded as a sign of stupidity among 
>rl> human hunters.  Why is it "courageous" for a deer to stay-put in 
>rl> confrontations with wolves, but "stupid" for a deer to stay-put 
>rl> in confrontations with humans?  

	I suggest you pick a fight with a drunken sailor.  If he's just
a new guy with little training, you're brave.  If he's a SeAL, you're
stupid.  The judgement depends on probable outcome more than anything
else, and hindsight is always 20/20.

>>achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>ja> Because he may win in a confrontation with a wolf.  He will most 
>ja> likely lose to a hunter.  This is probably learned behavior.  In 
>ja> a park with no hunting, a deer may walk right into your camp.  
>ja> They don't do that where I hunt.  

>In an area where hunting is allowed, any deer that would have 
>walked into a human camp would have been killed at the outset.  
>Would you mind explaining the mechanism whereby survivors could 
>have learned vicariously from such experiences?  

	I must not have parsed this one correctly, Russ.  By what
you've asked, it seems you're indicating that only death at the
weapons of a predator will provide a learning experience for a
prey animal.  Granted, visual evidence may provide some warning,
but in Jeff's example it is plausible that the deer were afraid
of people and the learning experience was that they have nothing
to fear.  In hunting, the former is never learned against.  This
also need not require any sort of learning on the part of the deer.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:55:39 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug25.120216.9806@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>One of the problems in our society (which Britain does not have) is that
>litigation can be taken on with little cost to the person starting the
>action.  If you slip and fall in a major store--you can get a lawyer to
>file suit on your behalf with the promise of being paid by the corporation
>when they settle.  If they know they'll at least get paid for their time,
>they have little to lose.  As litigant, you have nothing to lose but your
>time, and may come out fairly well financially.  The British system (which
>requires the loser to pay legal costs--including lawyer's fees) alleviates
>this problem.

The American system fines those who bring frivolous suits.

>Another situation is the case where the litigant is a government agency.
>There have been over the last decade, increasingly large amounts of litigation
>against major corporations against alleged violation of some regulatory rule.
>If the government agency loses the case (which they quite frequently do), the
>corporation had all those legal fees, even though they won.

Not completely true.  Under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USC $ 2412, an 
individual with a net worth less than $2 million or a corporation with a net
worth less than $7 million or a 501(c)(3) non-profit group can recover
attorney's fees if they prevail against the government in a suit.

>In a recent book by the president of Boston University, the author mentions
>being sued by Federal government for discriminating against a female in a
>hiring situation.  Although they eventually won, they had over $500,000 in 
>legal fees to prove they were right.  They even offered to settle at one
>point, knowing they couldn't win the "legal" battle, but the government agency
>had nothing to lose by continuing (and the lawyers kept getting paid--even
>though the government eventually lost).

42 USC $ 1988 allows the court discretion to award attorney's fees to the
prevailing party in a civil rights suit.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:27:26 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Aug27.181423.14551@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.144529.13477@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
write
>s:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>| >| In this USA, that dollar is extracted under threat of JAIL.  Even if
>>| >| we accept Fitch's strawman, the two are the SAME.  Jail is jail.
>>
>>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>| >No, it isn't.  You won't go to jail for owing the IRS one dollar.
>>
>>af:
>>| Really?  The IRS boys don't care as long as you pay something, even if
>>| it isn't everything they think they're owed?  The war-tax protestors
>>| will love to hear that.  That principle can be applied in general;
>>| everyone just send in 10% less because Fitch says that the IRS won't
>>| care.
>>
>>Look, this is silly.  There is no comparison between having IRS
>>charge you $0.60 per year, or whatever it is, and having the
>>government break in your house and send you to jail for years,
>>except in the most tortured formalism.
>
>In this reality, failing to pay in full does result in the govt
>breaking "into your house and send you to jail for years".  Maybe
>reality is a "most tortured formalism" to Fitch, but ....

why is this comparison being made?  if someone wins the snide match, will
anything useful have been established?

shame on you.

dave
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:26:50 GMT
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
Originator: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi

>In article <1992Aug27.181423.14551@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>>In this reality, failing to pay in full does result in the govt
>>breaking "into your house and send you to jail for years".

Hmm.  You might be amused to know that in Finland (and Sweden and
probably other Scandinavian countries as well) you cannot be jailed
for failing to pay taxes (unless fraud is involved).  Your property
will be confiscated, if you have any they can get at, and the tax may
be doubled as a punishment, but no other punishment is possible.

(Of course, if you try to defend your property against the tax
collector with guns that's another matter.)
--
Tapani Tarvainen    (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Time to Get Rid of the Nation-State? (was:  Re: THE NEW BULLY OF THE BALKANS [ Part 4 from 4 ])
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:52:46 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Sep2.170113.24965@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
writes:
>When I read of the innumerable small ethnic groups killing each
>other in the Balkans, it becomes clear to me that the idea of the
>nation-state, which appeared so attractive to liberals in the
>early 20th Century, has simply failed.  It no longer appears to
>be anything but an excuse for people to kill one another, and
>for what?  So they can be oppressed by thugs who speak their own
>language instead of thugs who speak some other language.
>
>As it appears that we are not ready for anarchy yet, and must
>have some form of government, how about utilizing the United
>Nations to take over some of the work? Surely Bosnia, Somalia,
>Afghanistan and Cambodia would be better off under a neutral 
>U.N. administration of military and police functions than they
>are subjected to competing warlords and religious fanatics.

it seems to me more useful to discuss not how we could create such a
global administration, but how we might cause one to create itself.

benedict anderson's _imagined communities_ has been of interest to me
lately, particularly what he has to say about the role of the
newspaper in defining the nation-state.  without bothering to
describe all that right now, i'd say that we might want to play with
systems of information propagation.

there are questions:  for instance, common grand unification theories
hold that it is essential that the world learn to dig its mutual
interdependance.  but reading about politics has been firmly established
as reading about the Other, and as reading about a somewhat arbitrary
system in which we reluctantly and cynically reside.  not quite outstanding
qualities of a community.  must the inception of a global community
begin with the 'human interest story'?

etc,
dave
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3940 misc.legal:16701
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:51:26 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <8832@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, 
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) said:

> > The American system fines those who bring frivolous suits.  [Ted Frank]

> How often are these fines applied.  A right that is not used is of
> no use.  Make the fine mandatory, payable to the winning party, give
> a fairly loose definition of frivolous and you just might have a
> winner here.

...and, later:

> Once again, how often are such awards made.  Allowing the judges to
> decide, judges are lawyers after all, is a mistake.  Make the awards
> mandatory, and make it so that if the client can't pay, then the
> lawyer is responsible for the tab.

Okay, you've called for (a) mandatory fines which are (b) based on
rules which contain "fairly loose definitions" of what comprises the
finable offense and in the application of which (c) judges are given
no discretion.

I'd like to think that this sort of thing would scare me even if I
wasn't anticipating a career in the law.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: big government conservatives
Date: 27 Aug 92 04:39:25 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>Liberals generally favor big government in economics. They believe that
>government should promote economic equality and justice. Conservatives do not.
>They subscribe to the "Survival of the fittest" theory. This is what
>conservatives base their "big govt" attacks on.

There are conservatives who actually believe in being conservative;
i.e. looking to the past to see what worked, and trying to hold
on to those things in the face of inevitable change.

>In reality, conservatives also promote big government but in a much more
>offensive way. Conservatives believe in telling grown adults what
>is right and wrong.

Far too strong a generalization.  *Some* conservatives believe
in defining moral standards for others; as do *some* liberals
(and even *some* libertarians :-).  Such intrusive attitudes
are not, however, inherent in the political systems.

>Their distaste for homosexuality is another example.

This varies from country to country.  There is a theory in the UK
that everyone who went to a public (i.e. private) school was subjected
to gay rape as a child, so some detest and some embrace.  I wouldn't
know. :-)

>The conservatives believe in less govt in economics but more govt in personal
>decisions. So the next time you here a conservative rambling on about the big
>government policies of the liberals, just remember that a) it's the pot
>calling the kettle black and b) at least liberals trust the individual adult
>to make his or her own decision.

Again, there are liberals who believe in such things, and liberals
who like to decide things for others.  There are conservatives on
either side.  This suggests that the labelling system is inadequate
(and the 2D libertarian approach isn't really much better).

>When two people CHOOSE to have sex, they CHOOSE to accept the consequences
>of their actions. (yes, there is such a thing as a pro-life liberal. Please
>send flames to the above address)

Unfortunately, people who chose not to have sex didn't have many
children, so there is an inherent genetic bias in favour of people
who have sex whether they CHOOSE to or not.  Humanity is not best
modelled in terms of rational decision makers...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:16:42 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

Charles Thorne writes that there is a problem in American society, that 
litigation can be commenced so cheaply, and praises the English system,
where the winner's costs are paid by the loser.

Don't praise too highly.  People who are flat broke do all right-- the're
judgement-proof anyway (although how they pay their lawyer until trial
is always an interesting question).  And the rich do fine.  The people
who get skewered on this system are people with some, but not lots, of 
assets.  Consider a case which the plaintiff's lawyer thinks has a 
reasonable chance of success.  If the plaintiff loses (and plenty of those
cases do lose), the plaintiff pays two sets of legal bills.  They thus lose
their house for an action that had a reasonable chance of success.  They
risk of this means that they can be strong-armed into accepting a settlement
for less than their case is worth.  Some justice.

peter bartlett
[of bar of Ontario, which has same system, but now living in England]