HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: The Neglected Sheep in Marin
Date: 25 Jan 1993 07:01:35 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>If I read it correctly, I believe you're saying the ends justfies the means.
>If you agree that it's wrong to allow the sheep to suffer in the manner that
>they did, is this wrong only because the suffering had "no good end"?  I agree
>with Robert; we have to stop viewing other beings, human and non-human, as
>means to an end.  We could be close to that, because as the sheep story illu-
>strates, most people are appalled by the suffering of animals.  The job of
>AR activists is to put the face back on the product - on the meat, on the fur
>coat, on the L'oreal eyeshadow, etc.

Here's a hypothetical.  What would you do in the following situation?

	You are kidnapped by Evil Psychologist.  E.P. puts you in a sealed
	room.  You can see through a thick, unbreakable, transparent
	partition into the sealed room next to yours.

	There is a vent in the ceiling of both rooms, and a button on
	one of the walls of your room.

	There is a mouse in the other room.

	E.P. says to you, over a loudspeaker, that in 1 minute, poisonous
	gas will be released through the vent in your room, unless you press
	the button, which will redirect the gas to the room with the mouse.
	The gas is deadly to mice and humans.

	You recall reading about this guy in the paper.  E.P. really does
	this.  He is wanted for murder in several states, and animal abuse
	in several others, so you have no doubt that one of you and the
	mouse will be dead soon.  It is also well known that he lets the
	survivor of his experiments go free, so one of you and the mouse
	will go free five minutes from now.

	Do you press the button?

If the answer is not "no," then how about if there are *two* mice in the next
room?

--Tim Smith
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Cattle Issue
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:57:26 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Alex L. Pace writes:
>I know that some people feel that artificial
>insemination, branding and the lot are inhumane, I did not intend to argue
>that...the observation was made in a purely environmental sense.  I know it
>is impossilbe to change someone's opinion about such a sensitive issue as
>diet via newspost.  I respect your concern for the cows' well being.  
>What I do not respect is the use of such scare tactics, terrorism if you will,
>that distort water and environmental figures to try to "prove" damage.

And I also do not approve of "whitewashing" of environmental data to show
that no damage is occuring.  Now do you see the problem?  Both sides seem
to see the data in two different ways, but that is always the nature of
interpreting data...

>You shouldn't need such doomsday science to convince yourself of your vegan
>ways, if you are comfortable with it in your own moral world then fine,
>just dont accuse omnivores of ruining the planet, especially where there
>are plenty of legitimate causes of environmental damage.

The "doomsday" science I use is not to convince me to stay my vegan ways,
but is just icing on the cake.  I have a strong moral dough with a bit of
health concerns mixed in.  And I really don't accuse omnivores of ruining
the planet, but really with maintaining the status quo.  To me, the status
quo is the problem.

While on the buffalo thing, I caught part of PBS show where a gentleman
was advocating returning the western states back to buffalo herds and
open range for environmental and economic reasons.  Does anybody reading
know the show and/or the man I'm writing about?

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Hunting is Ethical
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:46:47 GMT

In <C18wAF.1x7@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>The lions mentioned in Will's previous post, for example, are 
>undeniably "sentient", but they may lack the "sapience" and 
>knowledge to fully understand the consequences of their actions 
>and to alter them in some way.  Mature, mentally healthy human 
>beings, by contrast, are capable of understanding the impact that 
>their actions have on other individuals, in spite of their 
>ability to "get away" with a particular action.  

My problem came from the fact that I didn't consider the lion sapient and
by transitive property neither the deer.  Ergo we could hunt them with
impunity.  

It appears that your definition of sentience differs from mine.  This
however raises a question:  do you agree that sentient beings should
avoid killing each other?  If so then do you consider what the lion does
to the deer as wrong?  Or is sapience also necessary to make the
distinction (personally I lump sapience as an integral part of sentient),
sort of not guilty by ignorance?

Will Christie
chrstie@ccu.UManitoba.CA

-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:48:20 GMT

From article <C1I8CH.G81@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> In <C1FDAA.Dxq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>I'm amazed that so many people on your side of the fence will 
>>recognize the inputs of fossil fuel energy required to produce 
>>grain and grass, yet turn around and ignore those same inputs 
>>when the grain and grass are consumed by livestock.  
> 
> They're not being ignored. It's simply that they all boil down
> to the 5:1 ratio. That point's been made. But you try to exaggerate
> it by using big numbers.

A friend of mine has a one foot head, a two foot chest, a one 
foot abdomen, and three foot legs.  Would I be exaggerating the 
numbers if I were to say that he's seven feet tall?  The truth of 
the matter is that it takes lots of energy to produce meat, eggs, 
and dairy products in this country: 

         Energy Requirements 
  (in thousands of kilocalories)

Pork          30
Beef          17
Chicken       13
Cheese        10
Eggs          10

Source: Durning, Alan and Brough, Holly. "Taking Stock: Animal Farming
and the Environment", WorldWatch Institute: Washington, 1991.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:45:58 GMT

In <1993Jan26.101343.2117@netcom.com> loca@netcom.com (John Hoag) writes:

>alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:

>>...PeTA zealots.  
>>...wacky special intrest group 
>>...these PeTA freaks 
>>...publication put out by these goons 

>>...all-star team of research doctors 
>>...the good doctor's work 
>>...the good doctor's district 

>Classic characterizations.  The wackos vs. the all-star researchers.

I agree, the semantic tactics are pretty cheap, but I've seen a lot
of terms like

'animal murderers', 'animal terrorist', 'unspeakable suffering',
'torture', 'meat-habit'....

from the other side.

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
Subject: Re: LSU Cat Shooting
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:56:32 GMT

mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

>In article <C1H7H5.2AM@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>>[...]
>> Getting back to the LSU cat shooting experiments, you seem to think
>> that these two-million dollar experiments would have been justifiable 
>> if they had saved just one human life.   Just a block away from the 
>> LSU complex is a large, publicly supported institution called
>> Charity Hospital where poor men and women and children from the
>> inner-city housing projects of New Orleans typically go when they
>> require (substandard) medical care.  If it could be established that 
>> a two million dollar investment would have saved the lives of one
>> hundred of these people, would you be in favor of the expenditure?
>> Or opposed?

>Animal "rights" activists frequently argue that money spent on animal
>research could be more effectively spent elsewhere.  In fact, we Americans
>spend only 40 cent on biomedical research (animal and non-animal) for every
>100 dollars spent on health care (FASEB J. 6:2492; 1992).  If all of the
>money spent on animal research were diverted to any other aspect of health
>care, including prevention, it would scarcely be noticed.

>So please refrain from suggesting that animal research is depriving
>indigent citizens of health care.  It is simply not true.

You didn't answer the question, Martin.  Regardless of the national ratio
of expenditures, the question was (read it again), "If it could be
established that a two million dollar investment would have saved the
lives of one hundred of these people, would you be in favor of the
expenditure?  Or opposed?"

	John Hoag (loca@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:42:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.071145.13602@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>Robert J Unglenieks writes:

>>You did all that nice research work, and then threw away all of your
>>figures.  You've just come to the same general conclusion that Rich
>>and Russell have been fighting about for months.
>>Livestock use of water runs roughly one third.  Why is that
>>wastefull?
>
>Because the amount of water saved by going to a non-meat centered diet
>could go into replenishing water levels in lakes and reservoirs.
>
>Rob U

Are you assuming all lakes and reservoirs need replenishing? Here in North
Texas (where there's a few cattle raised) we've been having flooding for
nigh on to three years. We've had (according to today's paper) 278 minutes
of sunshine this month. Most of our reservoirs are for flood control. Drawing
them down is the problem. Farming in California, or for that matter encouraging
more people to live there, is just plain stupid. The same for the Front Range
of Colorado. Water is scarce in those areas. Yet there are huge concentrations
of humans. Brings me back to my pet peeve, which is overpopulation.

Jeff Achenbach                                                             
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:39:31 GMT

In article <C184tI.JC3@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-210193083122@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> > The decision of the HHS Departmental Grant Appeals Board contains a clear
> > exhonoration of Taub and the treatment that his monkeys received.  The
> > Board upheld the NIH's decision on very narrow grounds constituting one
> > tenth of the NIH's original criticisms.  These grounds were characterized
> > as being "administrative grounds only and not substantive" (NIH Week,
> > 4(23):1-3; 1984).  Among these grounds were complaints regarding the
> > ventilation system at IBR, which was beyond Taub's control.
> 
> In a small way, this supports Gerone's claim, don't you think?

No.  My objections to Gerones claim were that he falsely implied that Taub
mistreated his monkeys.

> Apparently, the problems with the ventilation system weren't
> heeded prior to the controversy.

If Gerone was suggesting that the AWA has resulted in improvements in the
physical facilities at laboratories, he would be correct.  I don't recall
any such suggestion.

> Taub moved on to a different institution, if memory serves.  Was 
> his funding reinstated when he moved?

The funding for the monkey work was never reinstated, but some of the work
was completed by others anyway.  PETA lost its years-long court battle for
custody of the monkeys.

Taub and associates are now applying what he discovered with the Silver
Spring monkeys to benefit humans in a clinical setting.

> I vaguely recall that Taub was quite successful in winning grants 
> prior to the charges.  Has HHS given him any funds to do animal 
> research (of any type) since his "exoneration"?  

I don't believe that he has applied for any such support.

BTW, Taub was fully exhonorated, not "exhonorated."

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: California/Desert
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:35:04 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

`From article <1jsl07INNkd0@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):

`You're apparently unfamiliar with vegan and vegetarian diets
`doing some arithmetic, you'd see that 189 million metric tons of 
`grain would support roughly 945 million vegans for a full year.  

`and let's assume that a human carnivore 
`would require just 100 kilos of meat a year with no cereals or 
`beans to boot.
`12.6 million metric tons would feed 126 million carnivores vs 
`the 945 million vegans discussed previously.
`an 8:1 ratio, but in actual practice, I believe the actual
`ratio is closer to 16:1.  Why?  Even "carnivores" don't live
`on meat --- they consume lots and lots of cereals.

Exactly, no human is a true carnivore, but I don't see how that makes
your numbers go up.  If in fact people eat cereals, the amount of meat
that they need to survive will fall greatly.  This means that your figure
of 100 kilos would be much much smaller and your end figures would probably
seem much more acceptable to those reading them.  Anyone can manipulate
statistics.

My suggestion would be to re-vamp your numbers to reflect a balanced meal of
meats, vegetables AND meat-raising by products - such as eggs and dairy
products which you so ambly have snowed over.  I would also suggest a more
heartening support of personal harvesting of the resources available in the
natural environment.  Wild meat is proven healthier.  And perhaps additional
game management or population culling would prevent needless rotting
carcasses on road-sides or in spring thaws (due to car collisions, disease
and starvation).

Your working of the figures I find very topical and non-satisfactory to
pull in the whole picture.  I am not sure for other peoples experience, but
ALL the people I have met and personally known that were strictly and
'religiously' vegetarian looked paler and less healthy than my omnivorian
friends.

swood
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:26:01 GMT

In article <C18554.JnI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan21.142045.29209@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>> In article <C16EwE.50p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>Have you eaten any cotton lately, Rich?  Or chowed down on some
>>>tasty rose buds?   Do you wear potato skins on your back?  Or
>>>send grains to your loved ones on holidays?   
>> 
>> I've been sort of following this thread, and I've got a question 
>> for those involved, particularly Russell.  What's your point?  
>> This argument has strayed so far from the original, which was 
>> something to do, I think, with the rights of cattle, or the 
>> ethics of hunting, that it's no longer apparent what the original 
>> topic of debate was.  
>
>The arguments against animal agriculture involve three separate 
>concerns:
>
>1) ethical arguments regarding the rights and/or suffering of 
>   animals;
>2) public health issues stemming from the role of animal fats and
>   proteins in fostering disease; and
>3) environmental arguments.
>
>Vis-a-vis the last issue, opponents of reform often muddy the water
>by arguing that water and energy conservationists should focus
>on non-livestock use of water and energy rather than livestock use.
>The problem with this allegation is that there's no unifying theme
>that ties together these diverse areas of agriculture... apart from
>the fact that they don't involve animals.
>
>-- 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

Thanks for the clarification. That's approximately how the argument has 
proceeded, I think. #1 would seem to be the purpose of this newsgroup.

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:50:41 GMT

From article <C16xEC.Kyx@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>Good example.  Let's suppose that I had uncovered ample 
>>scientific evidence to prove that hat-wearing causes terminal 
>>brain tumors in 20% of all wearers.  To demonstrate the 
>>wrongfulness of hat wearing, I'd point to the suffering of the 
>>victims, their family members, and friends;  the cost of hospital 
>>and/or hospice care;  the lost productivity in our hypothetical 
>>society;  etc.  If my ideas about the link between hat wearing and 
>>brain tumors are accurate reflections of reality, these "wrongs" 
>>won't simply go away simply because my fellow citizens refuse to 
>>acknowledge the facts.  
> 
> In the proposed hypothetical society, the people examined your data
> and disagreed with your conclusions. (People could be forgiven for
> disbelieving you even without looking at the data, if they had seen
> some of your usenet posts.)  Now either you are wrong, or you are
> superior to everyone else. 

My superiority is irrelevant to the issue, namely whether or not
hatwearers would suffer brain tumors.

> Either way, you are the only one to believe
> that hat-wearing causes brain tumors. 

This, too, is irrelevant.  It's hat-wearing that causes the brain
tumors --- not my beliefs.

> If this makes hat-wearing wrong,
> then the definition of wrong must contain your name in it. 

Not at all.  If my understanding of the facts were accurate, the
reality of the situation would be unaffected by my existence.

> And a
> society in which you are not available to espouse ethics would have
> absolutely no notion of what is right or wrong. 

Yet, they would still suffer from the tumors, would they not?

> And a society in which
> you are available would ignore ethics completely. Such an idea of
> ethics, having no bearing on our behaviour strikes me as completely
> useless.

So you say.

> ...  If your
> opinion that hat-wearing is ethically wrong, makes it universally
> wrong, then nearly every activity known is wrong, because every
> activity causes some pain, and someone somewhere must consider the
> pain unjustified by the benefit. 

This makes no sense to me.  What is the term "universal wrong"
supposed to mean, and why have you introduced it into the discussion?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: You just dont get it...
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:58:14 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <C1H6LM.27E@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>If you have reason to believe that my figures aren't correct, 
>please tell the figures that are correct.  And be sure to specify 
>your sources.  

	I sent the letter for the government research grant off today.
You don't wish to subsidize my research, do you?  It will cost you
millions (I asked for ten million, just to play it safe).

>Again, anaerobic decay produces methane... not aerobic decay.  There's
>quite a difference between 10,000 cow patties that are distributed
>over ten acres and 10,000 cow patties in a sewage pond.  Uh, I'm
>sure you realize that oxygen can be readily depleted in such an
>environment.

	Uh, I'm sure you realize that a town of less than a thousand
people will have settling ponds of greater than ten acres in size, and
that furthermore those 10,000 cow patties emit the same methane, no
matter if it's on a field or in the water.  Of course, if they're in
the water it's injected into the soil later (what, did you think it
stayed in the tank forever?), but you get the idea.

>You're making a factual claim here.  I've cited my sources.  Would
>you kindly do the same?

	Care to look up how methane compares to CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, and then see what replacing all coal and oil-fired power plants
with nuclear plants would do to these levels?  I'm sure the World
Watch Institute has something on it, but alas they seem to not
care about greenhouse cases when it's power plants and not cattle.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
Subject: Re: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:40:07 GMT

itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:

> Using fully anesthetized cats (a point not mentioned by the AR movement)...

You know, I love all this horseshit about "fully anesthetized cats."  The
point being made is that the cats did not suffer, and therefore the
research was ok.  Greg, do you seriously give half a shit if the cats
sufferred?  If so, is it within your keenly calipered mental powers to
imagine what it must have felt like when the anesthesia wore off (or even
wore down)?  

Or is the "fully anesthetized cats" argument just a rationalization to
cover the fact that you really don't care if suffering is inflicted on
animals?

	- John Hoag (loca@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals