HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: The Moment of The Kill
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 17:23:32 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


"All this leads up to that final scene of the hunt in which the
fine skin of the animal appears stained with blood, and that
body, once pure agility, lies transformed into the absolute
paralysis that is death. Was it all only for this, we ask
ourselves. More than once, the sportsman, within shooting range
of a splendid animal, hesitates in pulling the trigger. The idea
that such a slender life is going to be annulled surprises him
for an instant.EVERY GOOD HUNTER IS UNEASY IN THE DEPTHS OF HIS
CONSCIENCE WHEN FACED WITH THE DEATH HE IS ABOUT TO INFLICT ON
THE ENCHANTING ANIMAL. He does not have the final and firm
conviction that his conduct is correct. But neither, it should be
understood, is he certain of the opposite. Finding himself in an
ambivalent situation which he has often wanted to clear up, he
thinks about this issue without ever obtaining the sought-after
evidence. I believe that this has always happened to man, with
varying degrees of intensity according to the nature of the
prey-ferocious or harmless-and with one or another variation in
the aspect of uneasiness. This says nothing against hunting, but
only that the generally problematic, equivocal nature of man's
relationship with animals shines through that uneasiness. Nor can
it be otherwise, because man has never really known exactly what
an animal is. Before and beyond all science, humanity sees itself
as something emerging from animality, but it cannot be sure of
having transcended that state completely. The animal remains too
close for us not to feel mysterious communication with it."


Jose Ortega y Gasset. 1985. "Meditations on Hunting". Charles
Scribner's Sons. New York. p.88.

[Originally written in Lisbon in 1942, as a prologue to Venite
anos de caza mayor (Twenty years a big-game hunter) by Count
Yebes Edward]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: They're coming for Ronald and you too...
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:40:20 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

John S. Van Etten writes:
>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>
>>     First they came for the deer,
>>           and I did not speak up, for I am not a deer.
>>     Then they came for the black bears,
>>           and I did not speak up, for I am not a black bear.
>>     Then they came for the cattle,
>>           and I did not speak up, for I am not a cow.
>>     Then they came for the hogs,
>>           and I did not speak up, for I am not a pig. 
>>     And then they came for me,
>>           and there was no one left to speak up.
>>
>>                      - A humane human
>>
>>"It seems to me I've seen scary words like these somewhere before...."
>>               -  John S. Van Etten     

>Now Rob, you wouldn't be trying to quote me out of context here, would
>you? ;-)
>
>John

You decide .......  :-)  :-)

Rob U, not a Hostile, Unenlightened, Neanderthalic, Treacherous, Earth Raider*
       any longer

* seen on a t-shirt

--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
From: frisinv@alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina)
Subject: My dog
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:05:15 GMT

  I have a question that may seem a little odd. I'm NOT trying to justify  
some assinine conclusion like "animal rights activists really support  
sport hunting", I'm just curious. My brother's girlfriend's mother's  
neighbor noticed a dog hanging around on her farm. The dog looked like he  
had beed abandoned by his owner (he liked people and knew commands like  
sit and lay down as opposed to being a wild dog) so she fed him. For some  
reason she couldn't keep the dog and was going to shoot him, so my brother  
adopted him. Now here is the problem: should we tie it up? If we let he  
loose he hunts in the woods by our house even though we feed him and the  
animals just rot (he leaves carcases). If we tie him up, he'll be  
miserable because a dog should be able to roam free. We can't "let him  
return to his natural habitat" because the last time he was on his own, he  
nearly starved to death (for some reason, probably training, he won't eat  
whast he kills) and almost got shot. So now we have a lot of animals with  
equal right to live free but no solution. BTW fencing him in is the same  
as tying him to a post. 
Thanks for any answers. 
-----
Vince
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Olympics and Animal rights
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 15 Aug 92 20:54:25 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug13.234620.1345@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
> Jim B. Powlesland writes:
>>
>>>xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>
>>>In modern olympic games, equestrian is also very popular, but the
>>>human got medal and money, what did horse get?  --Zhigan
>>
>>The best feed, medical attention, etc. that money can buy. And,
>>if a stallion, going to stud full-time in his retirement.
> 
> ..... potentially crippling injuries ......
> 

The same can be said for the human athletes, any one that is involved in any
sport.

> Rob U, family raises quarter horses
> 
> --
> -       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
> -     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
> -      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
> -                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Blatant lies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:44:37 GMT


re: the belief in demons and spirits and their bearing on "rights"

Mike Linan writes:
ml> You are mistaken so please, why don't you tell us why you lied?

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I may be mistaken, but I surely didn't lie.  To illustrate the 
rl> difference, a man like yourself who believes in demons may be 
rl> mistaken in his assumption that his beliefs are accurate 
rl> representations of reality, but this doesn't mean that his false 
rl> beliefs are deliberate misrepresentations.  After all, he may 
rl> have been mislead by preachers, or he may have misinterpreted the 
rl> evidence, or he might be too stupid to think clearly.  

From article <16p7koINNpoq@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Once again we see the sad example of how poor Russell cannot see 
ml> that by his saying I said something to him that I did not, he was 
ml> lying.  Or, could it be that this wiley rascal is just playing 
ml> dumb and innocent to get out of this lie he has been caught in?  

Would you mind posting the precise statement where I made this 
allegedly "blatant lie"?  In addition, would you kindly give me
permission to post a passage or two from some of your email so that
other readers may see for themselves where you really stand on
the relationship between "spirits" and "rights"?    [Thanks in advance 
for your courage and honesty.]

ml> Hopefully they will be wary enough not to allow someone like you 
ml> define what is good or bad and which animals deserve to live or 
ml> not for them as I'm oh so sure you would like to do.  

How about humans, Mike?  If you decided to kill a few witches, 
heretics, non-believers, etc, in accordance with the instructions 
of your "god", would it be wrong of me to intervene?  Or would 
you insist that you have a "right" to kill in such cases?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: red_trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Short Environmental Tips available (inc cruelty free info)
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:07:36 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

I have available to interested parties a  300 line (40 blocks?) file
called "Short Environmental tips".  This list is heavily, though not
exclusively, based on "50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth"
(published by EarthWorks Press #25, 1400 Shattuck Ave., Berkeley 
CA 94709).  A couple of these tips also happen to relate to a 
cruelty-free lifestyle.

"Short Environmental Tips" is expressly *NOT* copyrighted.  It may
be reproduced, redistributed, crossposted or even published at will,
in whole or in part.

Contact me by e-mail at:

Red_Trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu

if interested.  I greatly prefer to send the file through e-mail,
as I often have difficulty sending files to many sites.
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: My dog
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:29:16 GMT

If we 
>vf> tie him up, he'll be miserable because a dog should be able to 
>vf> roam free.  
>
>Why would fencing him in be the same as tying him to a post?  In a
>large fenced yard, he would surely have more opportunities to amuse
>himself and occupy his mind than he would have on the end of a short 
>tether, especially if there are other animals around.   The two dogs
>that live with me occupy a small range, consisting of a three 
>bedroom house and a suburban yard, but they rarely show signs of 
>boredom as they move from room to room and game to game.  Granted,
>a twenty acre site would be nicer, and a 20,000 acre site would be 
>nicer still, but practically speaking, they're happy with the
>status quo.  If they were tied up on the otherhand, I'm sure they'd 
>be miserable.  
>
>If fences aren't practical, is it possible that training might help
>the dog learn to stick around.
>

Has the breed of dog been mentioned? The reason I ask is that my last dog was
a Doberman/Malamute cross. He couldn't tolerate fences, but enjoyed sitting 
out on a long chain. I later read in a book on malamutes that this is 
characteristic of the breed. Apparently they don't like having their vision
obstructed, although that may not be the real reason. Fred would tear up a 
chain link fence just to lie on the other side of it, but he seemed content 
to sit on his doghouse and observe the neighborhood for hours on end.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:12:26 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> When the population of a herd reaches the maximum sustainable 
rl> population level, what happens to adipose tissue in females as 
rl> the caloric intake/capita begins to drop, and, what effect would 
rl> this have on additional population growth?  

From article <1992Aug18.152242.10237@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> Stop it already.  There's a large difference between reading 
ja> about nature and getting out and experiencing and taking part in 
ja> it.  I can read a book about art, doesn't make me da Vinci.  

I'm going to continue asking relevant questions, Jeff. 

> ...
rl> Is it true that natural predators, wolves for instance, prey on
rl> diseased and sick animals rather than healthy ones?

ja> Absolutely not.  They are opportunistic, and will prey on 
ja> whatever they can get their fangs on.  Do you really think they 
ja> stop and say "Wait a minute!  That's a healthy animal!  Let's go 
ja> find a sick one!" 

Why do wolves "test" their prey, instead of just diving in 
willy-nilly?  Why do wolves ignore animals that appear to be fit 
and/or pass the "tests" instead of simply attacking, as humans 
with guns might do? 

Human hunters are just as likely to bring down healthy deer
as sick ones...  perhaps even more likely, since humans are sight 
hunters and sick deer often remain immobile in secluded, 
hidden spots.  Would you say that wolves are just as likely to 
bring down healthy caribou as sick caribou?  Would the hooves of 
a healthy caribou present the same hazard to humans as they might 
present to wolves?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: My dog
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:27:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.190515.19496@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina) writes:
>  I have a question that may seem a little odd. I'm NOT trying to justify  
>some assinine conclusion like "animal rights activists really support  
>sport hunting", I'm just curious. My brother's girlfriend's mother's  
>neighbor noticed a dog hanging around on her farm. The dog looked like he  
>had beed abandoned by his owner (he liked people and knew commands like  
>sit and lay down as opposed to being a wild dog) so she fed him. For some  
>reason she couldn't keep the dog and was going to shoot him, so my brother  
>adopted him. Now here is the problem: should we tie it up? If we let he  
>loose he hunts in the woods by our house even though we feed him and the  
>animals just rot (he leaves carcases). If we tie him up, he'll be  
>miserable because a dog should be able to roam free. We can't "let him  
>return to his natural habitat" because the last time he was on his own, he  
>nearly starved to death (for some reason, probably training, he won't eat  
>whast he kills) and almost got shot. So now we have a lot of animals with  
>equal right to live free but no solution. BTW fencing him in is the same  
>as tying him to a post. 

Why do you say that fencing is the same as tying to a post? If the
fenced-in area is large enough, then this may be a solution for times
when the dog is not in the house and can not be monitored outside.

Ten years ago we fenced in (with 6 foot high chain link) about 3/4 of an
acre directly behind our house.  We used the back of our house and the
side of our barn as parts of the fence, thereby gaining a greater area
for a given amount of fencing and providing direct access into the area
from the house.  The dogs have a great time out there and the chances
are very slim of their getting out and bounding into the road (about 800
feet away).  It also keeps trespassing raccoon hunters from getting too
close to the back of the house, since we keep all gates to the fenced-in
area locked most of the time, though it doesn't keep these trespassers
completely off our property which extends farther back. 

>Thanks for any answers. 

You're welcome.  Notice that I'm crossposting to rec.pets.dogs, where
I think this fits in better.

>-----
>Vince

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:45:18 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

>In article <BtA3pn.JG4@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk 
>(Jonathan Spencer) writes:

>More to the point: lacking an enclosure to contain the deer (which would've 
>forced them to live off their "own" land), Russell's self-regulation 
>mechanism wouldn't have been invoked, so the situation provides no insight as 
>to the validity of this mechanism.   

Yes, that's a fair point. But what about Scotland?

--JOnathan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: 2 questions for the AR types
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:02:49 GMT

powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:


>Just out of curiosity, I would like to know the AR position (or
>at least the position of an AR reading this) on two things:

	Do I have to be an AR type to comment?

>1) North American native culture.

	Another culture that we would do well to learn about, but it
is highly diverse as there is no one culture.  Still, it is interesting
and no better or worse than others.

>2) rats (the rodent).

	Food for predators, target practice for me.  They either get
fed to the boa, the hogs, or the coyotes.  Personally, I can't stand
them being in my house, but I can't stand lots of things in my house.

<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.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:02:03 GMT

Jim B. Powlesland writes:

>>In article <1992Aug13.212521.42344@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
>>dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.e du (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>
>>If ever you get over your basic cowardice and foolishly decide
>>to challenge me just give me a call.  My number is in the book.
>>If would give me something to do besides sit here trying to find
>>a way to penetrate into the iota of brain tissue inside the
>>sponge that must fill your skull.
>
>>jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) replies:
>
>>I've been hooked up to this network for about 6 months now, and
>>this is the first time I've seen offered a challenge to another
>>to a physical fight!
>
>
>Yup. A typical AR type - prone to violence. It's no wonder they
>blow experimental labs, etc.

But Jim, you're forgetting that violence against mean-old-nasty
hunters and blowing up labs is *ethical*.  Just ask our pillar of
ethics in the community, PETA.  Hell they've even got the word
*ethical* right there in their name.  It's OK for them to not give
information about upcoming ALF destruction and killing of people
(oops, I almost said *innocent* people, and we all know that the child
over in England that was killed wasn't innocent, so I shouldn't use
that word) to the cops.  Because it's OK for them to "not volunteer"
such info.  It's *ethical*.
     *No* chance of a smiley, kids.  Absolute zero.


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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Olympics and Animal rights
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:17:42 GMT

 unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

>Except that humans are hardly ever "put down" after sustaining one.  Plus I 
>can't seem to find the human event that requires the athlete to carry 150 to
>200 pounds on its back and jump over obstacles while taking "orders" from its
>cargo......   :-)

	I suggest joining one of our Armed Forces.  You will experience this,
and much more, and not be treated in a "humane" manner during basic training.
As for the horses this references, most people who work a horse give that
horse better treatment than the humans they interact with.  You can take
that as a measure of horses, humans, or horse owners.  I don't care.

<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.animals
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My dog
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:44:52 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Aug18.190515.19496@pellns.alleg.edu>, frisinv@alleg.edu 
(Vincent Frisina) writes:

>  So now we have a lot of animals with equal right to live free but no 
solution.
 
As I read it you're asking a question about ethics, not about what will make 
the dog happiest. Here's the way I see it:

On the one hand, these beings are non-humans and as such aren't bound by the 
same ethical considerations as humans. Ethics provide guidance for human 
behavior, not for non-human behavior. From this point of view you needn't 
worry about what the dog does. 

On the other hand, as a member of society you incur certain obligations to 
other members of society, such as not to keep them up at night with noise and 
not to kill their dogs/cats. If you bring a dog or cat into your home and 
he/she keeps the neighbors up at night or kills their non-human companions, 
you have a conflict: between your obligations to society and your companion's 
right to live life as he/she wishes. This conflict may manifest itself in a 
variety of ways, some of which are decided in favor of the non-human and some 
in favor of society.
 
In the situation you posed, however, your obligation to society doesn't seem 
to be threatened. As a result, I can see no ethical problem in allowing the 
dog to roam as it wishes.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals