HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:44:44 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ...  What I'm saying is that it's silly to pretend that
rl> a class-construct is sentient, while overlooking the very real
rl> sentience of individuals.

From article <Bs2s2J.C0v@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
rs> I would agree with this. But I'm not sure this explains why some
rs> argue that extinctions are something different.
rs> 
rs> Suffer, if you will, one more question on the subject;  I think 
rs> there has been an implicit assumption on the part of some 
rs> (certainly on my part) that in many cases, humans are responsible 
rs> contributors to extinctions.  If we are responsible, it would be 
rs> our responsibility to make an effort to reverse, to the extent we 
rs> can, threatened extinctions.  Human-made extinctions would be 
rs> distinct from the 'natural' extinctions in your example above;  
rs> the former 'bad';  the latter 'just nature.' 

I'm not sure that I understand your statement.  It's all "just 
nature", IMHO, including those extinctions wrought by human animals 
using human-made tools.  After all, we're all part of nature.
To the extent that we view humans as super-natural entities that 
are above nature, we'll be inclined to continue making the same 
mistakes that have brought us to the current brink.  

rs> Do you think that existence of such an implicit assumption could
rs> explain why some have tried to draw a distinction between the death of
rs> an individual and extinction of a species, without necessarily 
rs> "... treat[ing] non-human animals as mindless entities ...
rs>  ... and treat[ing] a "species-as-a-whole" as though the "species 
rs> is a person with some sort of collective mind." ??

The mistake that I've been pointing out (personification) is the 
product of superstition, not logical analysis, and it's not 
confined to the treatment of animals.  In recent years, we've 
witnessed wholesale examples of personification involving gods, 
american flags, and embryos...  to name a few of the more popular 
candidates.  At first glance, one might imagine that 
personification isn't harmful, but the fact of the matter is that 
it's often used as a pretext for depriving thinking and feeling 
individuals of their freedom, ie "god says don't do this" or
"god says it's ok to kill that".

With respect to animals, it seems silly to me when such people 
invoke the cartesian notion that non-human animals don't have 
minds (aka souls) as justification for mistreatment and cruelty.  
Yet, when they realize that a given set of genes are doomed to 
extinction, they'll express their deepest sorrow and compassion 
for the species.  Go figure.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My Column On Hunting.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:23:17 GMT

 proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>
>>Strangely enough, turkeys are only taken in a "sporting" manner if they are
>>on the ground.  Once they fly, it's unsportsmanlike to shoot them. 

>Strangely indeed. Do you know what is the rationale behind this notion
>of "sporting"? Is it that they are just too easy to hit once they are
>in the air, is the idea that they should `have a chance' to get away?

	I suspect it is from two reasons: first, a turkey is not a bird that
is truly suited to the air.  It's slow to fly, can't launch very well, and
a rather large target.  Second, they have quite nearly 360 degree vision.  I
think the actual number is about 355 degrees, which makes them a very good
opponent on the ground.  Traditionally, it's been too easy to get them in
the air, and especially with repeating shotguns.  When our forefathers
hunted them with rifles, their only chance was a ground shot.  Hence, a bit
of tradition and a bit of the sportsman make this idea.

	For comparison, I've shot at pigeons on the farm with the shotgun,
and seen the birds actually swerve out of the shot pattern while flying
away from me!  A pheasant isn't quite so agile, and it is considered a bit
unsportsmanlike to shoot them on the ground.  A turkey?  Shooting it in the
air, while not incredibly easy, does take the "sport" away in many eyes.

<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. >
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:13:12 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.155549.6609@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.053749.9571@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul20.112736.6595@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> 
>>>don't know of any hunters that revel in the kill.  And that, Paul, is the 
>>>point that sailed oh so effortlessly over your head.
>>>
>> 
>> Oh John, just when there seems some hope of actually discussing stuff, you
>> decide that it's time to start spinkling more abuse about. Guess I was
>> naive to think that we could do better than that ...
>
>No.  But when I get seriously annoyed I do get just a tad sarcastic. :-)

Yes, and I probably over-react when I feel I am being patronised. I've got all
these certificates attesting to how smart I am; so I really *shouldn't* care
when people seem to suggest that I can't follow the argument, should I?

>
>It annoys me to see AR folx fixated on the kill I guess.

You can hardly be surprised that they regard it as the focal point, the
defining event, of the whole activity - certainly from the animal's point
of view. I agree that it is just one element among many from the hunters
ppoint of view.

>	  I regard killing 
>an animal for food as a natural, normal, healthy activity.  But then, I'm 
>an omnivour with a well developed taste for venison.... :-)
>
>I don't have to hunt for food.  I *want* to.  I think it is somewhat 
>hypocritical to eat meat and look down on people who kill their own.

I am with you there. 

>                                                                        I
>like to eat meat, and I enjoy collecting it myself.  I think it is an added 
>extra bonus that I can help reduce the winter kill (by starvation) in the 
>process.
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters legitimate concern
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:19:26 GMT

From article <9v-mmjk@dixie.com>, by refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom):
th> I invite you to call Ducks Unlimited, and ask them for last year's financial
th> report.  So far, Ducks has raised over 600 MILLION dollars of which over 
th> 85% has gone to habitat protection and restoration.  How much money has
th> PETA put into the environment?

In article <BrKKBn.7LG@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> I didn't realize that Ducks Unlimited was an organization whose credits
rl> belong to hunters and hunters alone.   If that's the case, I'll make a 
rl> note to throw future solicitations from them in the trash can.

From article <14kc6aINNco3@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Do you feel this is an appropriate move?  Are you willing to stop 
ml> donating to an organization that does much good just because it's 
ml> members are mostly hunters?  Sounds to me like your political 
ml> agenda means more to you than the welfare of the wildlife 
ml> Russell.  

Is Ducks Unlimited the only organization that's concerned about 
the welfare of wildlife?  If not, why would any reasonable person 
assume that my willingness to discontinue donations to Ducks 
Unlimited represents a lack of concern for wildlife?  

Is Ducks Unlimited an organization whose credits belong to hunters
and hunters alone?  Or, is it an organization whose credits also
belong to AR advocates like myself?   Do you think Todd was mistaken
when he intimated that Ducks Unlimited was a testimonial to persons
like himself, as opposed to persons like me?

rl> Would you please list any other environmental organizations that 
rl> you consider to be dedicated to the glory of hunters rather than 
rl> to environmental and animal concerns.  I wouldn't want anyone to 
rl> misconstrue my donations as an endorsement of hunting.  

ml> Couldn't have that now could we Russell.  Even if your donations 
ml> are doing a world of good right along with the millions of 
ml> hunters.  It's seems it's much more important to you to make sure 
ml> you are not affiliated with hunters than it is to actually help 
ml> wildlife.  Even if it were for the common good of wildlife.  

Todd intimated that he had attended a Ducks Unlimited banquet where
shotguns were raffled-off to hunters.   Do you think that banquets
and shotgun raffles are a good way to spend money in support of
wildlife?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: gimme a break!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:53:54 GMT

robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:


>Check out the headers on this one!  Comes from Dreamer's node.  File it 
>under the list of things that make one go Hmmmm! :-)

>In article <1992Jul29.0045115.32153@heavenly.forest>, Jake writes:

John, you might in turn file your own reply under the rubric,
`ad hominems' and other devices that help one NOT to go Hmmmm!  ;-)


                                                   ted
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 10:20:14 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> 1) why you think it would be morally ok for super-intelligent aliens
rl>    to hunt humans for sport, but not morally ok for humans to hunt
rl>    humans.

From article <viking.712039653@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> If they can do it, it's doesn't matter a whole lot what I think, 
ds> does it?  If their morals show it's fine, it's fine.  Morals go 
ds> to those who can enforce them.  I'm sure the blacks we enslaved 
ds> in years gone by didn't like it, but until popular opinion 
ds> decided it was unethical, it was an ethical thing to do.

Has it occurred to you that an action might be ethical or unethical
regardless of the power of the person performing the action?

Would rape or slavery truly be ethical if a sufficient number of 
persons in power declared such activities to be acceptable?  Would
the victims not suffer just the same?  Or would their suffering
not matter?

ds> Too bad, Russ, but I enjoy hunting, and if aliens ever came down 
ds> are started hunting me I think I'd enjoy the challenge.  In any 
ds> event, my opinions on the matter wouldn't make a difference, and 
ds> I don't think they need to.  For that matter, the shouldn't.  

Why should your opinions not make a difference?  In evaluating 
the consequences of an ethical action, do you really think it's 
inappropriate to stop and consider the thoughts and feelings of 
the victims?

-- 
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: help with posting
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:11:16 GMT


Hello,

  I am unable to read talk.politics.animals and I have a great
deal of trouble posting to netnews even when my sight gets the
feed.  Anyway, I have been trying to post relevant articles to
this newsgroup that are taken from other animal rights newsfeeds.
I post by emailing to the address:

talk-politics-animals@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

I am never sure if the articles get posted and I'm trying to
understand why sometimes they do not.  On July 27 I tried
posting 8 articles with (roughly) the following topics.

alternatives
animal journal
animalearn
circus news
farm sanctuary
farm conference
poem
pain in spain

Assuming this article makes it to t.p.a., could someone email
me to let me know if any or all of these posts made it (and
at what times, if possible).  If someone has a more reliable
method of sending articles to t.p.a., then please let me
know.  I have a backlog of relevant articles for this group.

Take care,

Ferrell Wheeler
wheeler@super.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: LEGAL ACTION NEWS; LITIGATION
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:03:57 GMT


 LEGAL ACTION NEWS; LITIGATION
 
     * The Animal Protective League of Cleveland, Ohio, cited cat
collector Mary Jane Richards for cruelty on March 26, after APL and
Network for Ohio Animal Action volunteers caught more than 75 cats
in and around the wreckage of her former home.  Several other cats
were apparently killed when D&S Demolition Inc. flattened the
feces-filled house March 20, under orders from the Cleveland
Municipal Court, which ruled it a health hazard.  At deadline, 62
of the cats were likely to be euthanized because APL had been
unable to find adoptive homes for them.
 
     * Philadelphia Warlock motorcycle gang leader Eric Martinson,
41, wanted by police since 1985, was arrested with Christine
Dickinson, 23, in Allentown, Pa. in early April for allegedly
trafficking in exotic birds and illegal drugs, and laundering an
estimated $650,000, some of it apparently raised for the Irish
Republican Army.
 
     * Irene Marsh, 69, of East Norriton Township, Pa., drew five
years on probation, a $1,000 fine, and was ordered to make $3,300
restitution on April 6 for tampering with public records and
impersonating a federal judge in an unsuccessful effort to collect
a civil judgement of $79,000 against four public officials--whom
she accused of extortion, civil rights violations, and ,"seditious
conspiracy," after she was fined $33.50 in 1990 for letting her dog
run loose.
 
     * The Supreme Court on March 23 agreed to review a ban on
animal sacrifices imposed in 1987 by the city of Hialea, Florida,
and subsequently upheld by two lower courts.  The Church of the
Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc., a Santerian group, claims the ban
interferes with their First Amendment right to free exercise of
religion.
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 6/92
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org
From: catharine.vinson@cccbbs.UUCP (Catharine Vinson) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: AmNet.News.Service
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:59:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS - Cincinnati, OH - 513-752-8248
Reply-To: catharine.vinson@cccbbs.UUCP (Catharine Vinson) 

To: talk.politics.animals
From: cvinson@world.com

    jecome01@vulcan.spd.louisville.edu (Eric Comer) asked:

EC>>Is there any way for me to connect to Amnet.News.Service to read their
EC>>articles, or whatever is there.


    I have the following BBS numbers for AmNet:

    Ft Collins (Hub): 303-223-1297
    Denver/Aurora:    303-364-2257
    NYC:              212-724-6826

    All accessible via FidoNet. Address for Ft. Collins is 1:306/12.
    James Cherry's Internet address is james.cherry@f12.n306.21.fido.org

    -Catharine Vinson  cvinson@world.com
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re; Texas AR Conference
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:08:23 GMT

jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:

(Much stuff deleted...)

>. Friday evening, Oct. 2: Debate on "sport" hunting.
>   Ingrid Newkirk and Wayne Pacelle vs. two hunters.
>   Tentative hunting spokespersons: rock star/bowhunting
>   cult leader, Ted Nugent, and a representative of the
>   Lone Star Bowhunters Association.

Boy, this should be interesting.  These ARFs went out and got Ted Nugent
to argue for the hunting side.  I wish he'd get laryngitis, he's got to
be one of the worst spokesmen for hunters there is, although that's
undoubtedly the reason they invited him.  He acts and talks like the
bloodthirsty yahoo that they always try to portray hunters as .... :-( 
   
(Ted, on behalf of all bowhunters;  I know you're trying to help, but 
having you serve as our spokesman is like having Marion Barry speak  
about ethics in local government.  Please sit down and shut up!)

Oh well, at least the only people in the audience will be committed ARFs 
and their running dogs, so it probably doesn't matter anyway.   

I wonder who the two "hunters" debating Ingrid Nutburger and Pretty Boy 
Pacelle are;  I bet *THEY* were well chosen.  I imagine they'll be *REAL* 
articulate spokesmen for the hunting side.  (Shit, I wouldn't be surprised 
to find out they're really card-carrying ALF members in hunter drag...)

Oh well, thanks for letting us all know about this, Jennifer.  

Hope all you Lone Start hunters take a special interest in this conference;  
maybe you need to pay them a visit and give these people a taste of the kind 
of "opening day antics" they've been subjecting hunters to for years.  



Ken
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 08:32:08 GMT


In article <viking.712035221@vincent1.iastate.edu>, Dan Sorenson:
ds> A "varmint" is a "a person or animal regarded as objectionable." 
ds> What's the matter, your dictionary catch fire?  Since many of us 
ds> don't particularly care as much about killing as you do, we 
ds> consider some animals (and people) to be objectionable enough to 
ds> kill.  Pigeons, rabbits in the garden, burgulars, rapists, 
ds> murderers, and others of that ilk.  A rabbit may be a treasure to 
ds> behold in your neighborhood, but up here they're pests.  In 
ds> Pennsylvania, the same may be said of deer.  

I wonder if Tim Rigg had your definition in mind when he stated that 
it's morally acceptable to kill "varmints".   

ds> Perhaps you will soon realize that many of us don't consider life 
ds> itself so sacred that killing is morally abhorrent in all cases.  

Do you ever consider killing to be morally abhorrent?  Would it 
be ethically acceptable for one being to kill another being for 
purely selfish reasons, eg to increase one's own wealth, power, or 
prestige?  

With regard to your comments about sanctity, be advised that I 
don't hold chemical reactions in reverence, not even a complex 
set of chemical reactions like life.  On the other hand, I do 
have quite a bit of respect for the mental capabilities that make 
life meaningful.

If a "varmint" were as mindless as a cabbage, I don't see how we 
could deprive it in any meaningful way by ending its life or by 
using it in any manner of our choosing.  On the other hand, if an 
organism has the ability to construct meaning in his own life, it 
seems to me that we should take that ability into consideration 
in our subsequent interactions with him/her/it.   If you disagree, 
I'd appreciate hearing how you go about distinguishing between 
ethical behavior and unethical behavior in your own life.

ds> Then again, I've sparred with you long enough to know you'll 
ds> never get this.  

Ah, who knows?  Perhaps if you were to present your views with 
greater clarity, you might be able to convince people like myself 
that it'd be a good thing, and not a bad thing, for us to use and 
abuse other beings to suit our own selfish purposes.  Give it 
your best shot.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Re; Texas AR Conference
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:18:05 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I wonder if the audience will be impressed when you refer to your 
rl> opponents as "Nutburger", "Pretty Boy", and "running dogs".

From article <1992Jul30.191027.17698@icd.ab.com>, by kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead):
kw> Probably about as much as the hunters on this net were impressed by
kw> Caruso calling us scum that should be eliminated.  Hey, let's face
kw> it;  we don't like each other.  Your ideas are diametrically opposed 
kw> to mine (not talking about you personally, but hunters vs. AR people)
kw> and we sometimes engage in rhetoric.  

Perhaps hunters dislike AR activists, but most of the AR 
activists that I know aren't inclined to deal with the issue on 
an emotional level, the way some hunters seem inclined to do.  
An emotional response may be an acceptable problem solving tool for 
lizards, but it won't be particularly useful in resolving the sort 
of complex problem that presently confronts us.  

In claiming that prohunting positions and antihunting positions 
are diametrically opposed, were you speaking of the superficial
differences?  Or, do you believe the differences are deeply rooted?

kw> And as I've indicated before, 
kw> I treat Ingrid and Wayne with disrespect because I really, truly
kw> disrespect them.  And I can pretty much do that with impunity, since
kw> they're "public persons".

You're entitled to your opinions, but do you really believe that 
you'll win converts among undecided listeners by ridiculing the names of 
your opponents?  Do you think AR folks would win points by referring
to you as "Kenneth Blankhead"?  [probably not]

kw> Hope all you Lone Start hunters take a special interest in this 
kw> conference;  maybe you need to pay them a visit and give these 
kw> people a taste of the kind of "opening day antics" they've been 
kw> subjecting hunters to for years. 

rl> Another interesting idea.  Do you think such a demonstration would
rl> give Ted Nugent a chance to see how hunters who aren't "yahoos"
rl> can present the issues in a rational manner?

kw> Well, gosh, all I'm talking about is peaceful protest, nothing else.
kw> You guys do it to us, and I love seeing it done back to you, because
kw> turnabout is certainly fair play.  What's the matter, don't you believe
kw> in the First Amendment?  

Of course.  I'd love to debate the issues with you in a public forum.
Was that what you had in mind?   Or were you interested in disrupting
a public forum, so that various viewpoints might not be heard?

kw> You certainly fall back on it enough when it
kw> serves your purposes (once again, talking about the AR movement in 
kw> general, not you specifically).  If you don't want hunters showing
kw> up to protest your AR conference, then tell your cohorts not to bother
kw> us at the NRA Whitetail Clinic, etc., and out in the woods.  What goes 
kw> around comes around.

I'm not sure that the two situations are analogous.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals