HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:35:14 GMT


Mary Otto writes:
mo> Udo, you completely misunderstand.  Hunting is not a release for 
mo> violence or aggression.  Hunting is a means of returning to the 
mo> role of a predator and being part of the cycle of life and death 
mo> in nature.  What defines a hunter is the acceptance of the fact 
mo> that humans are a predatory species of those instinctive 
mo> behaviors which are part of the definitive characteristics of our 
mo> species as predators.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> So you say.  I'd recommend that you read the following article:
rl> 
rl> Blumenschine, Robert J. and Cavallo, John A.  "Scavenging and Human
rl> Evolution", _Scientific American_, V264:4, October, 1992. p 90-96.

From article <1992Sep29.205112.3203@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> Russell tactic 115:  Divert opponent to an unexplained reference which
mo>                      may only be of tangeantial interest.

The editors of _Scientific American_ offered these prefatory comments:

   "Should we identify with the lion or the hyena?  The skills of
    hunting, so the theory runs, were a major factor in our evolution
    into hand-using, toolmaking lords of creation.  The authors argue
    that the same course could have resulted from competing with
    hyenas and other scavengers for carcasses left by predators such
    as lions."

If you're going to argue that hunting is a "definitive" characteristic
of our species, don't you think you have an obligation to evaluate
contrary evidence?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Meat eating and hunting
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:51:28 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Sep30.045021.6608@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>
>Let's take a look at your hypothetical case of 49 deer.  What happened to
>decrease the population to that level?  More than likely a harsh winter,
>or poor summer, causing starvation along with a population held as closely
>to 1000 as the DNR specified.  We are now down to 49.  Suppose the harsh
>conditions prevail for a second year?  How many of the 49 are left now?
>And if the droughts continue through a third year?
>
>Perhaps an overpopulation of animals during years of abundant vegetation
>guarantees plenty of the healthiest animals will survive the lean years.
>I don't know for sure.  
>

An overpopulation is defined by the carrying capacity of the habitat. If 
there is an abundance of edible vegetation, there is no overpopulation. 
Assuming there is overpopulation, it is likely the forage base will be 
depleted, and the animals must migrate or die.

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:56:23 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I'm still waiting for to to explain why it's ok for you to kill a 
rl> brain-dead man, but not ok for you to kill a kidney-dead man.   

From article <1992Sep29.004722.3946@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> And I'm waiting for you to provide any evidence whatsoever that I
ry> have made this claim.
ry> 
ry> In fact, in <1992Aug22.175923.25363@pixel.kodak.com>, I made it
ry> specifically clear that this was NOT my position.  That was back
ry> in AUGUST, Russell...were you hoping I'd forget?  I told you before,
ry> if you're going to pull this kind of intellectual chicanery, take it
ry> to e-mail.

Why is it "ok" for Rich Young to kill a brain-dead comatose human?

Here are some revealing responses from the keyboard of Rich Young:

In article <1992Aug15.171902.25559@pixel.kodak.com>, you wrote:
======================================================================
The phrase "brain-DEAD" [emphasis added] sums it up quite nicely:
he's not really "alive".  His major sensory processing center has
ceased to function.   
======================================================================

In article <1992Aug18.114943.27150@pixel.kodak.com>, you wrote:
======================================================================
As for the imagined contradiction you wish to clarify, the loss of
the "sensory processing center" precludes the unaided existence of the
organism, as would failure of liver, kidneys, or heart.  
======================================================================

In article <1992Aug22.175923.25363@pixel.kodak.com>, you wrote:
======================================================================
Let me say it another way: a brain-dead human is a fatally flawed 
organism, the carrot is a functional organism removed to a 
hostile environment.  
======================================================================

In article <1992Aug24.231123.4519@pixel.kodak.com>, you wrote:
======================================================================
Let me try to explain this once again.  To the cosmos, a brain-dead,
or kidney deficient, or liver-failed, etc., human is effectively
dead.  It is a non-functional organism.  It doesn't matter what
that person might mean to you or me: in the "Big Picture" of things,
the organism in question no longer exists.  It is, therefore,
irrelevant to my point.  There is, however, a cosmic difference
between "alive" and "not-alive", and sapience/sentience is merely
an arbitrary sub-set of that distinction.
======================================================================

I'm still waiting for to to explain why it's ok for you to kill a 
brain-dead man, but not ok for you to kill a kidney-dead man.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:41:59 GMT

In article <BvB6F2.BFq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1a7ndjINNk4u@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (M
ike Linan):

>ml> I don't know about all of you (out in t.p.a.  netland) but, to my
>ml> knowledge not one single hunter has associated the word "manly"
>ml> with hunting.  I am a hunter and have no insecurities with my
>ml> "manhood".  Although if I didn't hunt I still wouldn't have any
>ml> insecurities concerning my manhood.  I think you will find that
>ml> our old friend Russell is the one who labeled hunter as
>ml> considering themselves "manly" for hunting and it is HIS label
>ml> not ours.  Perhaps Russell is the one who doubts his manhood and
>ml> therefore has some sort of problems with hunters that HE
>ml> perceives threaten his manhood.
>
>You're fantasizing again, Mike.  Why don't you tell us again how
>"manly" you feel knowing that your hunting skills allow you to
>provide food for your family?
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Explain a bit more if you wish Russell, but wouldn't this "manly"
feeling you intuit to Mike in his capacity of bringing home deer
meat to his family be about the same feeling you or I might get
redeeming triple coupons for bananas at the local supermarket?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:20:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.000234.29469@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
>
>Jeff Achenbach writes:
>
>(quoting me)
>>>My guess is that the hunters will prove
>>>themselves to be the cowards we AR folks suspect they are.
>
>>Well, dammit, woman, you've insulted my manhood! I'm so offended I should
>>just cancel my plans for the weekend and ride to Austin. 
>
>Great!  My intent, of course, was to get some 'nad-brained good ole boy so
>fired up he'd just have to show up and participate.
>

Surely you can recognize sarcasm?

>>  Is this the kind of crap the AR leaders are feeding you? That hunters are
>>cowardly weasels taking out their fears of inadequacy on poor helpless little
>>fuzzy cute animals? Get a grip, lady.
>
>I hated hunters long before there _was_ an AR movement.  Nobody convinced me
>to view hunters as cowardly scum, and no hunter has ever given me reason to
>doubt that assessment.
>

Hate is a pretty strong word. Can't recall having experienced it more than 
once or twice in my life. Amazing to me that you can have such an opinion 
of such a large group of people. Personally, I tend to like/dislike people
as individuals, not as a group. Given your stated view here, which I gather
is not atypical, do you wonder why hunters would chose to avoid you? 

>
>You hunters keep talking about how this debate is stacked against you, how
>we want subhuman debris to represent the pro-hunting side, etc., but evidently
>not one hunter has the fortitude to just show up and make sure their side is
>fairly represented.  If you're unwilling to even try to make this a fair
>debate, you forfeit the right to bitch about its unfairness.

If no hunters show up, there will be no debate, therefore no victory either
real or perceived by your radical friends. 

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:28:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <BvpxH4.4sv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.045404.9699@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>mo> Russell has also commented that hunting is supposed to be perceived as
>mo> "manly" and "macho" and necessary to some men to foster development of
>mo> lagging self-concepts.
>mo> 
>mo> Russell, how does this apply to me?

Seems like a pretty direct question to me.
Russell's evasive answer:
>Here's my 09/30/92 response, from Message-ID: <BvFF67.8E3@wpg.com>:
>
>=======================================================================
>I'm not saying that all hunters are drawn to the activity because 
>of wannabe "macho" cravings, but many of the hunters that I've 
>known over the years appeared to have that goal in mind.  It 
>seems to me that those individuals, as well as hunters as a 
>whole, would benefit greatly if the insecure guys would muster up 
>the courage to come to terms with whatever forces are driving 
>them emotionally.  I'm sure you'll agree with me that no amount 
>of bodybuilding, "manly" hunting, and "pervert" name-calling is 
>going to truly coverup a man's private fears.
>=======================================================================
Russell, I, Mary Otto, am not a man.  (Just in case that was
another thing you didn't "understand" I wanted to clear it up for you.)

So what does reposting the prose that prompted my question do in terms
of answering that question?

As you are so fond of saying, "You haven't answered my question."

Or is it true that I have found a hole in your logic?

Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:54:31 GMT

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Did the comment, "What an idiot", address the issue?
>
>From article <1ad03iINNhtq@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (M
ike Linan):
>ml> Did it need to?  Wouldn't any reasonable person have immediately
>ml> identified the comment as an opinion and not an argument.  You
>ml> want to see what you want to see so bad that it blinds you to the
>ml> obvious.
>
>What purpose was served by your comment?     Did the label, "idiot",
>have any meaning?  Or, was it just a thoughtless insult?
>
>rl> I realize that's his opinion.  What I don't understand is how/why
>rl> a man who considers the killing of witches to be perfectly
>rl> reasonable would turn around and declare the hunting of hunters to
>rl> be "idiotic".
>
>ml> Perhaps Russell will be nice and honest enough to explain why he feels I
>ml> consider the killing of witches reasonable and why he is so hung up on
>ml> this.
>
>In a previous thread, you mentioned that you consider every
>statement in the bible to be the literal word of god.  Doesn't
>the bible say, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?  Is it
>ethically ok for you to kill someone if you think "god" has told
>you to do so?
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
********************
In article <BvHI83.3ou@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct2.034448.1724@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, Mary Rita Otto writes:
>mo> This post also deals with the Russell vs. Mike "witch" issue.
>mo> Russell tactic 120: Double standard.  (Example:
>mo> opponents have an obligation to evaluate contrary evidence
>mo> but Russell can maintain from reading 8 words of the Bible
>mo> that Christians have an obligation to kill witches.)
>
>Not at all.  In posing questions about the statement, "Thou shalt
>not suffer a witch to live", I was hoping that Mike would explain
>the apparent lack of harmony between his frequent use of the word
>"idiot", as a perjorative label for his opponents, and his own
>mindless acceptance of the King James bible as the literal word
>of his "god".  Given his penchant for labeling non-christians as
>"fools", without regard to the reasons for their non-belief, it
>seems to me that his definition of the word "idiot" must differ
>substantially from the normal english connotation of the word,
>ie., as a stupid individual who can't think clearly.
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000

Russell, why so insulting?  How do you know that Mike's
religious belief is "mindless acceptance."  Sure, he may be
what's termed a "literalist" but, nevertheless, there is something
going on in his mind that has made him choose his faith.  You
may not like fundamentalism any more than me; I however do not
ridicule his belief just as I do not ridicule your point-of-view and
the intense energy and countless hours you devote of your life to your
concern for animals.
*******************
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: The ethics of wool vs synthetics
Keywords: wool synthetics animal rights environment
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:14:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep28.122034.5073@cm.cf.ac.uk> gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk (Geraint A Edwards) writes:
>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>} gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk (Geraint A Edwards) writes:
>} >viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>} >} Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>} >} >Fur and leather
>} >} >are both obviously out of the question, which leaves us choosing between
>} >} >wool (probably harmful to animals) or synthetics (probably harmful to the
>} >} >environment, which harms animals).

Tired debate deleted.

Alternatives:

In the September issue of "Threads" magazine, a publication for the
practitioners of the needlearts, sewing, weaving, and spinning, there
is an article by a woman who spins yarn and makes sweaters from the
hair of her Samoyed dog.  The hair is obtained from gathering shed
hair and by combing.


Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:53:18 GMT

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	It's interesting to note you make the high claim of being Right, a
>>knower of the Truth, standing outside of fur stores (do that when I enter
>>and I'll buy one just to spite you --

>That's a mightly lot of hate you are labouring under, Dan. I wonder what
>Jennifer has done to provoke such "spite"? Incidentally, where did she
>ever claim to be "Right", or have the "Truth", any more than anyone does
>just by stating an opinion?

	Did you read her postings?  You know, the one where she mentioned
protesting fur stores and where she inserted the glib comments concerning
being Right on the issue.  As for hate, I only hate a very select few
individuals.  Who they are and what they did to garner this is nobody
else's business but mine, but not one of them is an AR.  No, what
provokes my spite is zealotry in moral issues.  After meeting numerous
eco-nazi's and rabid vegans who felt it their duty to condemn my
venison sandwich or leather jacket or farming practices, and then
proceed on to how much better their choice is, that raises my
hackles.  I reserve the same treatment for anybody accosting me in
order to further their pet cause, be it a Jehova's Witness on my
doorstep at 8:00am Saturday or a Kare Krishna in the airport or a
picketer at "The Last Temptation of Christ."  My favorite thing to
do is just become their worst stereotypical vision, perhaps even
moreso, and give a maniacle laugh at their stunned faces.  When they
come out of their self-rightous astonishment, they'll recognize it
as sarcasm.  If they don't, they're too clueless to be credible.

>Reading this group, I get the strong impression that your side is
>motivated mainly by a personal dislike of AR people. e.g. John E, still
>grumbling about the failings of his numerous AR ex-girlfriends :-)

	Not at all.  All the AR's I know of are fine people, but have
learned to tolerate the views of others as I tolerate theirs.  Those
that don't I no longer associate with by choice.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:06:29 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <1992Sep29.180519.7853@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.223431.4626@convex.com>, jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:
>> 
>> 
>I suspect it has a lot more to do with the fact that not one respectable 
>hunter I know would willing give even a fraction of a cent to an 
>organization such as FoA, ...

Just to set the record straight, this conference was sponsored by FfA (Fund
for Animals) not FoA (Friends of Animals).  They're two separate and distinct
groups.  

FoA is based in Norwalk, Connecticut and headed by Priscilla Feral.

FfA, with main offices in New York City and Silver Spring, is an older 
group started by Cleveland Amory and currently has Wayne Pacelle as the
National Director.

... just doing my small part to help the unwashed keep these arf groups
straight :-).

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:39:31 GMT


Mike Linan writes:
ml> This may be true to some degree in some people but, you could 
ml> just as easily say that the only way little insecure wimps can 
ml> attack those "macho" men is to question their motives.  It's 
ml> pretty sad I think.  Obviously many of you ARFs don't really have 
ml> a clear understanding of what being a man is all about and feel 
ml> threatened by those who look and do what men have traditionally 
ml> done...  

In article <BvGq1s.Jww@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> You're definitely making progress, Mike.  A few months ago you would have 
rl> used the label, "perverts", rather than "little insecure wimps". 

From article <1aiacfINNlk1@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> I am *so* glad I am meeting your approval Russell.  I just can't wait
ml> for your praise much like the dogs that live with you and love you so.
ml> I do wonder though, why you are the one most bothered by this "macho"
ml> "manly" label that you view as some sort of stigma.  You should be more
ml> at ease with yourself.  If you feel you are not quite as "manly" as you 
ml> perceive hunters to be, don't let it bother you.  Admit your limitations
ml> and accept yourself for who and what you are.

Your advice is excellent, but it's tough for some guys to accept 
themselves for what they are.  Surely it would be quite an ordeal 
for a pervert-name-calling, "manly" guy to wake up one day and 
realize that he's been covering up his biggest fears.  

PS.  Don't forget to renew your subscription to those 
body-building magazines, Mike.  You wouldn't want to miss any of 
the photos.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:40:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.133810.23474@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>
Udo wrote:
>>Try to reduce your aggressions with sports like free climbing.
>>
Jeff wrote:
>And I think here we finally get to your particular misconception, that 
>hunting is used to vent aggression. Although it can be argued that the 
>final outcome (killing) is aggressive in the extreme, I honestly don't 
>have a clue how to convince you just how wrong you are. To work off 
>frustration (aggression) I'll take weight lifting or wood splitting, running,
>or a good drunk. Hunting while in such an emotional state could be dangerous
>and most certainly unsuccessful. I go hunting to relax and clear my mind.
>Deer hunting is literally the only time I have one thing only on my mind.
>The focus allows problems to be forgotten for the day.
>

I agree wholeheartedly with Jeff:

Udo, you completely misunderstand.  Hunting is not a release for
violence or aggression.  Hunting is a means of returning to the
role of a predator and being part of the cycle of life and death
in nature.  What defines a hunter is the acceptance of the fact that
humans are a predatory species, and an understanding and acceptance
of those instinctive behaviors which are part of the definitive characteristics
of our species as predators.  Hunting is a means of overcoming the
distance that urbanization put between humans and the process of
life and death, and the fact that when we eat meat, a creature died
to provide that meat for us.

Hunting is the process of going into the wild and locating animals
on their own turf.  Harvesting the animal and enjoying it's meat and
utilizing it's other bodily assets (fur, leather, antlers) is one
reward that a hunter can choose for a successful hunt.  Another reward
commonly chosen by hunters is photographs or video footage of the animals
in the wild.  As those who have tried hunting can attest, even being
able to see animals in the wild, even getting close enough to take
a recognizable photograph, is a major achievement.  And it is the process
that is the most enjoyable aspect, that really defines the sport and
causes people to continue in it despite a lack of "success" in harvesting
an animal.

On the other hand, inflamatory comments about killing human hunters for
sport has a lot to do with aggression, in my opinion.  Aggression between
humans may well be aggravated by the dissociation from nature caused by
the urbanization process.

Mary Otto




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals