HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:47:58 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> As I mentioned to Sue Bishop the other day, much of our society's 
rl> difficulty in dealing with environmental problems stems from our 
rl> tendency to conjure up personhood where it does not exist while 
rl> ignoring personhood where it clearly does exist.  
rl> 
rl> You seem to be assuming that a "Species-as-a-Whole" is a person 
rl> of sorts, and therefore entitled to better treatment than we 
rl> would provide for individuals.  Why is it ok to kill a billion 
rl> thinking/feeling individuals, but not ok to kill the last few 
rl> examples of a mindless class construct like an "whale species"
rl> or "owl species" or whatever?  

From article <RIGG.92Jul23131353@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> I do not understand why I "seem" to be making this assumption.  If I
tr> kill a deer (especially a doe) in Wisconsin, the herd is healthier,
tr> there may be fewer car deaths, and the habitat will be in better
tr> shape.  The only short-term effects will be beneficial.  There will be
tr> no long term effects.  In 5 (or 50) years, there will be little impact
tr> of my hunting.  

So you say.

tr> However, if I were to kill enough of a species to
tr> cause extinction, there is the obvious long-term effect that the
tr> extinct species will not be around to fill its niche in the ecosystem.
tr> Why do you keep ignoring this distinction?

Again, you seem to be treating the "herd" as though it's a 
thinking/feeling person while ignoring the thoughts and feelings 
of individual members.  Is it tough for you to comprehend that 
"herds" have no thoughts and feelings whatsoever, apart from 
those of their individual members?  

Or perhaps you're saying that your actions are good for the "herd",
in the same way that a mechanic might say that oil is good for a 
car engine or a painter might say that coatings are good for 
steel fixtures.  If that's the case, your motives on behalf of 
the herd aren't altruistic at all, but purely selfish.  After 
all, car engines and steel fixtures don't really give a damn 
whether they fall apart or no.  

The assumption that your killing of a deer has no detrimental 
side-effects seems to be predicated on the assumption that 
non-human organisms are totally devoid of sensory and cognitive 
abilities, like car engines and steel fixtures.

Would it be reasonable to treat "society" as a person, while ignoring
the minds and thoughts of individual citizens?    For example, would
it be reasonable to say that "society" would be happier and healthier
if we were to kill excess members of the population?  

Vis-a-vis niches in the ecosystem, nature is everchanging.  Why do you 
think you're qualified to decide that one particular man-made 
configuration is preferable to another?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: gimme a break!
From: Jake
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:15:09 CDT

	Come one, folks! I've hunted all kind of animals in my day and I
would never have considered to be TOO damned hard! Not just anybody can do
it, but it doesn't take a genius! Just a thirst for killing, and all that!
Not like you need a Phd or anything! Enough of the tripe!
From: dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: RE: Soft Headed Thinking Disgusts Me
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:42:33 CDT
Organization: <><><><><><><><><><><>

George Dibos writes:
> No?  Then please defend the rationalization that killing less complex
> life-forms (vegetables) to sustain yourselves is more justifiable than
> killing higher life forms.

	Basically, I hold a fundamental respect for ALL life.  Of course, it is 
a part of a normal ecosystem that life consume other life.  However, technology 
has now made eating meat *unnecessary*.  Therefore, I do not eat meat, because 
I respect all life and it is not necessary to eat meat.  There are many 
important nutrients and other necessary items that I must have to survive that 
can only be found in plants.  Therefore, I must eat plants.  As soon as I can 
acquire the necessary nutrition without killing a plant, I will do so.
	I could eat meat, like it has been natural for man to do in the past.  
But I believe it is time for society and the human race as a whole to take 
another step of advancement in their evolution and become more independent, and 
also more respectful, of their environment and other life forms.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Caruso II                       "Great minds are the most misunderstood."
dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu						-- DAC2
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:27:54 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <Bs1Eox.16u@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
      [much deleted]
>
>From article <Bs15Bv.AtJ@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
    [more deleted]
>rs> 
>rs> I understand better your point of view, which is (I think) that it is the 
>rs> experience of the individual (member of a species) that is most important
>rs> to the individual; ......

RL >Not exactly.  
>
>rs> It would seem then that the 'biodiversity' argument is completely distinct
>rs> from [your] point of view.
       [deleted above for brevity; should become clear below]
>rs> Many people would argue that when a species 
>rs> becomes extinct, something irreplaceable is lost -- the genetic heritage
>rs> of that species and its function in the ecological system it occupies.
>rs> Also lost, possibly, is any other life that may have evolved an
>rs> interdependence with that species. In this respect, extinction
>rs> would be something that could be a disaster to many life forms,
>rs> not just to the humans who have the sentience to worry about such things.
>
RL >You say that a particular extinction might be a disaster to many life
   >forms, but if such disasters are not perceived in any way, they would
   >be neither good nor bad.  To illustrate, if Mars were inhabited by
   >zillions of totally mindless life forms, and Mars were to explode 
   >tomorrow, would it be reasonable to say that the explosion of Mars
   >was a "bad" thing for these mindless entities?   Without some sort
   >of sentient ability, such events would have no meaning.  Mental 
   >ability is a ground-of-being, so to speak, without which "goodness"
   >and "badness" would be meaningless terms.
>
     [deleted]
>
RL > ...  What I'm saying is that it's silly to pretend that
   >a class-construct is sentient, while overlooking the very real
   >sentience of individuals.
I would agree with this. But I'm not sure this explains why some
argue that extinctions are something different.

Suffer, if you will, one more question on the subject; I think there has
been an implicit assumption on the part of some (certainly on my part)
that in many cases, humans are responsible contributors to extinctions.
If we are responsible, it would be our responsibility to make an effort
to reverse, to the extent we can, threatened extinctions. Human-made
extinctions would be distinct from the 'natural' extinctions in your example
above; the former 'bad'; the latter 'just nature.'
   Do you think that existence of such an implicit assumption could
explain why some have tried to draw a distinction between the death of
an individual and extinction of a species, without necessarily 
>rl> treat[ing] non-human animals as mindless entities ...
>rl> ... and treat[ing] a "species-as-a-whole" as though the "species" 
>rl> is a person with some sort of collective mind.  
   ??


Bob Straubinger
Dept. Pharmaceutics
University at Buffalo   "Opinions above are mine, not SUNY's"
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Cat Intubation at MetroHealth
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:12:31 GMT



Reprinted with permission from another service:
 
OHIO HEALTH CENTER REFUSES TO STOP CAT INTUBATION TRAINING
 
During a two-day seminar at the MetroHealth Medical Center  in Cleveland, as
many as 700 nurses practice intubation on live, anesthetized cats (5 to 10
students per cat) to learn how to insert flexible breathing tubes into the
throats of newborn babies. The cats are killed with a shot of phenobarbital
before they awaken from the procedure.
 
According to Susan Brebner, president of the National Association of Nurses
Against Vivisection, most U.S. hospitals no longer use this outdated
training method, recognizing that animals differ substantially from humans.
Brebner explains, "Cats have sharp teeth, a proportionately larger tongue
than an infant.  Cats have a small anterior larynx and dome-shaped arytenoid
cartilages, which a child does not. A cat's epiglottis is larger and broader
than a human infant's and is much easier to expose. These reasons make cats
useless for this kind of  training."
 
Instead of cats, hospitals like Duke University Medical Center and Columbia
University use lifelike -- and reusable --  intubation mannequins. Unlike
mannequins, cats cannot be  intubated repeatedly; and repetition, after all,
is the key to  becoming proficient at the technique.
 
To encourage use of a humane alternative, representatives of the Network for
Ohio Animal Action (NOAA) last year presented MetroHealth Medical Center
with a lifelike infant mannequin, but hospital spokeswoman Susan Miller said
the hospital would  continue using cats for training.
 
Dr. John Miller, who directs the intubation training program  at Metro,
maintains that cats are the closest animal models to  human babies.
According to Miller, "We need to have them  [nurses] trained on reflexes,
gag movements and the feel of real  tissue that you cannot get from a
mannequin."
 
But NOAA's Sherry Hamilton disagrees, "Experts all over the country have
said it's better to use an anatomically correct model to learn the procedure
than a cat.  Killing these cats is not helping anyone."
 
Please write and ask that MetroHealth Medical Center immediately stop the
fatal cat intubation procedures and adopt more progressive and humane
training methods.  Address your letters to:
 
Mr. Harry Manning, President
MetroHealth Medical Center
250 MetroHealth Drive
Cleveland, OH  44109-1998
(216) 459-5704
 
Mayor Michael R. White
601 Lakeside Avenue #227
Cleveland, OH 44114-1079
(216) 664-2220
 
This information, provided by the Animal Protection Institute, appeared in
the Summer issue of Mainstream magazine, the Institute's quarterly
membership publication.  For more information, write to the Institute at:
P.O. Box 22505, Sacramento, CA 95822.
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Skill as defined by Caruso II
Date: 22 Jul 1992 19:54:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


In article <1992Jul19.162130.41723@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

>	I would like to make a clarification concerning my statement that 
>hunting requires little skill.

>	I should have supposed that "skill" is a relative term.  From my
>viewpoint, an activity that demands a good deal of skill is a complex one.
>Hunting certainly does take certain skill, but this skill is less is than what
>I would deem as true skill.  An activity that requires a higher, complex
>thought process requires more skill than hunting.  For instance, piloting an
>airplane to safety in foul weather would require much skill.  Scoring high on
>an IQ test would require true skill. 


I guess scoring high on an IQ test doesn't really have anything to do with a
God given gift in your view then.  If that is the case, you obviously have lit-
tle skill in this department.


>	Hunting seems simply a matter of dressing appropriately, attaining and 
>utilizing the right weapon for maximum effectiveness, being able to determine 
>the location of game by various indications or knowledge, being able to remain 
>quiet enough while assuming a position that allows for a clear shot, and being 
>able to protect oneself against accidents or attacks from animals.  Perhaps 
>there is something keenly intellectual that I am missing here.  The above 
>criterion, in my opinion, does not require high levels of true skill or 
>cunning.


All this wonderful insight from one who has never engaged the sport of hunt-
ing.  Everyone should stop what they are doing and listen to this person of
such vast knowledge.  It must be obvious that he is gifted to be able to make
such commentary without ever actually "experiencing" what he is talking about.


>	Hunting a human being who is armed ... that would require true skill.


No one would stand a chance against such a knowledgable and skilled adversary 
as you.   HA!


>|  David Caruso II                           "To simply exist is not enough."



Mike Linan
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:12:50 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul29.144422.25659@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd) writes:
>In article <af7R02Sr1b8b01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>> 
>>Note: I realize you disagree with my feelings re. the "ethicality" of 
>>hunting. My point here was not to try to argue for my version, but to suggest 
>>alternate ways of discussing ethics (i.e. the two points above).
>> 
>
>Ethics is sort of like being pregnant. Either you are or you're not. Likewise,
>a person is either ethical or they're not. IMHONESTO. In my book, there is no 
>in between. How many ways can you debate ethics??  
> 

Oh rubbish. Are torturers and people who cheat on their taxes equally
"unethical"? How about our friend Dahmer and someone who exceeds the
posted speed limit? Both "unethical"?

And as for "hypocrisy", how about someone who campaigns to raise a lot
of money for some "good cause", but nevertheless doesn't sell everything
they own and give it to that cause? Would they be a "hypocrit"? It would
seem so, by your standards.

I suspect that you only apply your ultra-stringent standards of integrity
to those whoe views you don't like.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:11:44 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you think it might 
rl> be perfectly ok for you to kill a billion individuals that you've 
rl> classed together in a group, but a great moral offense against 
rl> the "species" if you were to kill the last living pair belonging 
rl> to that particular group.  

From article <xtdmraf@dixie.com>, by refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom):
th> It's not a great moral offense against the species that you're 
th> killing, it's a great moral offense against all the OTHER species 
th> (including man) that benefit from or are in some way reliant on 
th> the extincted species.  

Apart from man, which "OTHER" species would be offended by such 
extinctions?  If you can't offend an animal by using him in a 
medical experiment or by killing his companions prematurely, I 
don't understand how you could offend him by killing the last 
remaining members of a different species.  

As an example, you seem to be saying that it's not a moral 
offense against deer in Louisiana for sport hunters to shoot them 
down, but it might be a moral offense against such deer if wolves 
were rendered totally extinct.  If deer are so mindless that a 
shooting or killing would have no impact on them whatsoever, what 
would make us believe that they'd be affected in any meaningful 
way by the extinction of wolves?  

th> You seem to be forgetting (as seems common amoung AR folk) that 
th> not only aren't men the only species on earth, but that you can't 
th> just separate each species into it's own little Zip-Lock baggie.  

Have you ever in your life met an animal-rights advocate who had
forgotten, as you claim, that mankind is not the only species on 
earth?   

th> If I were to kill a duck come hunting season, it's no moral 
th> crime.  If it were the last duck of it's kind anywhere, and I was 
th> the reason for the species' extinction, then yes, it'd be a 
th> crime, but a crime against the world, not that duck.  Killing one 
th> animals does NOT equal extinction.  

Do you have any evidence to show that the "world" has thoughts and
feelings?   If not, then it seems to me that it couldn't make much
difference to the "world" whether dinosaurs, wolves, ducks, or
whatever might be extinct or not.  

Whereas the "world" may be as mindless as a cabbage, it seems to me
that ducks might have some thoughts and feelings that you're all
too willing to ignore.    

-- 
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: Hegins Pigeon Shoot Protest
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:50:18 GMT



                  THE FUND FOR ANIMALS PRESENTS:
 
  OUR 1992 CONFERENCE FOR THE ANIMALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
                   HEGINS PIGEON SHOOT PROTEST
 
 The Fund for Animals has united with over 40 grassroots and
 national groups to ban the pigeon shoot.  Last year's rally drew
 over 1,500 people.  This year we want 10,000 pigeon shoot
 protestors to descend on Hegins!  Please join us and help make this
 the biggest animal rights event this decade.  Spread the word!
 
 
                   WEEKEND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:
 
 Saturday, September 5 - Civil disobedience training sponsored by
 PETA, 9:00 am to 3:00 pm.  Registration $10.00.  Contact Jenny
 Woods at PETA for details. (301) 770-7444.
 
 Saturday, September 5 - Cash-bar reception, dancing.  7:30 pm-12:00
 pm, Harrisburg, Marriott.
 
 Sunday, September 6 - Conference, Harrisburg, 9:00 am-8:30 pm (see
 preliminary schedule below).
 
 Monday, September 7 - Pigeon shoot protest, Hegins, PA.  Chartered
 buses will leave from the Harrisburg Marriott at 7 am.
 
 
 CONFERENCE LOCATION:
 
 Harrisburg Marriott Hotel                    Free parking and free
 4650 Lindle Road                       transportation from airport
 Harrisburg, PA  17111 (800) 343-5982
 
 
                   PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE SCHEDULE
 
  8:00 am - Registration and continental breakfast
  9:00 am - Welcome and announcements
  9:15 am - Speakers
 12:00 pm - Our famous tex-mex buffet
  1:00 pm - Featured speakers and workshops
  5:00 pm - Cash bar, social hour, dinner buffet, keynote speakers
 
 Merchandise and literature from dozens of groups will be available
 throughout the day.
 
 Registration fee includes Saturday night reception, three vegan
 meals, the conference, and a one year membership with The Fund.
 The Marriott Hotel will offer conference attendees a discounted
 rate of $54.00 per room, each of which has two double beds.
 
 Make checks payable to:  The Fund for Animals (301) 585-2591
                          850 Sligo Avenue
                          Suite L.L. 2
                          Silver Spring, MD  20910
 
   -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
 
 I enclose $_______ for _______ registration(s) (1 day)
 early fee (postmarked by August 1) $60.00
 late fee (postmarked after August 1) $80.00
 senior citizens/students $45.00
 
 Extra donation of $_______ to help sponsor a student/poor activist.
 
 I would like a bus ticket to Hegins.  I've included $11.00 payable
 to The Fund for Animals.
 
 I can't believe I am not a member of The Fund!  My membership fee
 of $20.00 is enclosed.
 
 Name: ___________________________________________________________
 Address: ________________________________________________________
 City: ______________________________   State: ___  Zip: _________
 Day phone: ________________    Evening phone: ___________________
 
 Sorry, absolutely NO REFUNDS after August 20th -- we are
 financially obligated to the hotel.
From: v070qg5d@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric M Chmiel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:48:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>(John S. Van Etten) writes:
>> I
>>find it quite hypocritical for people that eat meat to say I'm some
>>sort of Bad Person (tm) for hunting while they're sitting there
>>munching on a burger or a steak.  


   Just to play the devil's advocate, isn't there a diference between killing
an animal to eat and killing one just because you enjoy killing them?  After
all, a lion or a wolf or a shark or a snake kills animals too, but only to
eat them.  You don't see lions hunting just for the sake of killing something.
In this sense, killing to eat is natural, killing for the fun of it isn't.  
That's why I sometimes wonder if that argument (that to eat meat and be opposed
to hunting is hypocritial) isn't just a red herring.
   And take it easy.  I'm just playing the devil's advocate, remember?  I
could never rationally oppose hunting for sport, but whenever I ask a hunter
this question they fly off into a blind rage and I never end up getting a
wortwhile answer.
                                                 Just wondering,
                                                       EMC
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:32:58 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.090702@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>
>            [the deep >>> have been edited to save space]
>In article <1992Jul25.203927.24083@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul
>Roberts) writes:
>>>> how do you feel about the topic?  is there
>>>> a compromise that can be made between no experimentation and unregulated
>>>> experimentation?
>>>
>>>   Yes, and it's already in place.  Here at Iowa State University 
>>>any experiment using vertebrates has to be approved by a 
>>>comittee that checks for cruelty, funding for care etc.  I thought
>>>this was the case most places.
>>>
>>>   What on earth made you think experimentation is unregulated?
>> 
>>What make you think that he thinks it is unregulated? Unless my newsreader
>>skipped some lines, he said "Is there a compromise between <extreme position
>>A> and <extreme position B>?".
>
>   Asking if a compromise exists when it is in place already indicates the
>poster is unaware of the compromise.  Since "no experimentation" is clearly not
>taking place the poster clearly believes something like unregulated
>experimentation is taking place. 

"any/all experimentation" is clearly not taking place, either. 

By your reasoning we might equally well conclude that he "clearly believes"
that there is "something like" a total prohibition on animal experimentation
in place already. According to someone who posted recently, there almost is
("is already regulated six ways from Sunday" - neat phrase), so this might
be the *more* likely conclusion.

It just seems kind of interesting to me that when somoene posts a couple
of highly judgement-neutral/content-symmetric sentences:

 "I like to discuss <subject/activity C>. Is there a compromise
  between <extremely pro-C position> and <extremely anti-C postion>?"

you (general "you") immediately conclude that he is some sort of fanatic, or
has been "got at" by "black proganda".

Or is it that you are so far off to one side, so set in your views, that
the mere suggestion that there is something to discuss here is anathema
to you? That anyone who thinks there is even anything to talk about is
thereby a "fanatic"?

It's the anti-AR people who display all the fervour of Torquemada in
pursuit of heretics.

But there's too many threads runnig here already without starting a
meta-thread on which side is being more unreasonable.