HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:18:54 GMT

In article <BxvqAu.DuD@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-171192125101@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> mh> Rosemary, appearances can be deceiving.  You should be aware that 
> mh> there are *no* standards or guidelines in force for labeling a 
> mh> product "cruelty-free." What usually happens is that unscrupulous 
> mh> manufacturers buy formulations or materials that are 
> mh> animal-tested elsewhere.  
> 
> Avon and Revlon are among the many dozens of companies that no longer 
> do animal testing.  Are they "unscrupulous"?  If so, please explain why.

I have no proof, but I understand that they contract such work out to other
firms now.  I would be appreciative if you could clairify this.  How do you
verify that companies aren't really surreptitiously testing their products
or ingredients elsewhere?

Do you disagree that there are no existing standards for applying the label
"cruelty-free?"

According to "Partners in Discovery," a propaganda organ of the NIH,
"...federal regulations generally require information that can only be
obtained from animals, to determine the safety and efficacy of a new
medicine, medical procedure, or consumer product... It is important to
recognize that most products advertised as 'not tested on animals' contain
ingredients that in fact _have_ (emphasis theirs) been tested on animals-or
a company could not label a product as safe for human use."
 
> mh> If you watch TV, please note that Paul Mitchell's commercials 
> mh> with Mariel Hemingway originally touted his products as 
> mh> "cruelty-free," but no longer make this claim.  Why do you 
> mh> suppose that they would discontinue this claim?  
> 
> I saw a Paul Mitchell advertisement just a few days ago, and it very
> definitely used the expression "cruelty-free".  What's the scoop?

I'm not sure.  They might have two versions of the ads- one for New Orleans
and one for Atlanta.  I'm sure about them discontinuing the claim in the
Atlanta market;  I saw the "cruelty-free" version only once, and I've seen
the "cruelty-free-free" version many times.  I cannot suggest why they
would run different ads in different markets - seems "unscrupulous" to me. 
What do you think?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: hiebeler@santafe.edu (Dave Hiebeler)
Subject: pointer to review articles
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 20:08:54 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation
Distribution: talk


  I would like some suggestion for a few good review articles in
animal rights.  Specifically, I am interested in general discussions
about how an animal's complexity affects its rights, as opposed to
discussions of specific animals, or of AR activist tactics, and so on.
Basically, I am really after "that philosophical crap" as I think one
person here recently put it.  Any suggestions?

--
Dave Hiebeler
Thinking Machines Corporation, and Santa Fe Institute
hiebeler@think.com, hiebeler@santafe.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:52:02 GMT

In article <1ebv3uINNqb0@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve
Pope) writes:

>
>The answer is I am willing to kill the rats.
>
>This is not because deer are prettier than rats.
>(I'm rather fond of rats, in fact.)
>
>This is because protecting the public health is
>more important than creating a recreational facility
>(park, golf course, etc).


I wish solutions to all our problems were as simple as sloganering "deer
are more important than parks" or "world mandated programs of forced
sterilization." (!)

The park with the deer problem has been in the area for years and years.
It was a fine looking nature preserve--today it is stripped of
vegetation up to the point the deer can reach.  The herd is diseased
and starving.  The problem was created by rapid suburbanization in the
immediate area, forcing the deer to take refuge in one of the last
tranquil areas.  I agree Steve that the issues are not easy when
the problems faced by the animals are due to human encroachment.
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Robodoc and animal testing
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:18:54 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <1992Nov20.152434.14988@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
 >In article <BxxzwE.BFF.2@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
 kk>Here's an interesting example of animal testing "with a heart". Many of
 kk>you have probably heard about Robodoc, the robot that drills the hole
 kk>for the femur part of a hip replacement. ....
          [deletions]
 kk>   ....    Does the fact that the
 kk>procedure benefited the test animals make a difference to those who 
 kk>object to the use of animals in medical experimentation?

>Yes, I think it does make a difference. ...
          [deletions]
>(Of course there are still the problems of how applicable results obtained
>in non-humans will be to humans, if treating humans is the ultimate goal.)

What, specifically, do you envisage as the problems in applying these
experimental results to humans?

Bob Straubinger
Dept of Pharmaceutics
SUNY/Buffalo          "Above are my opinions, not those of SUNY"
rms@acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: throw it on the floor - it's happier there.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:47:45 GMT

Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>_Animals'_Agenda_ has been known to criticize AR groups who do stupid things,
>e.g. in the July/August 1992 issue is an article criticizing NAVS for their
>investment in US Surgical and other companies which contradict their ethical
>positions.  Given that they are willing to criticize NAVS, why would they
>go to the bother of inventing an elaborate story about the Fran Trutt case?
>Possible, but how likely?

You're not paying attention - I never said that Animals Agenda made up the
'spooks made me do it' story the Fran Trutt told, Fran Trutt made it up to
try and keep her hiney out of the slammer.  The press (both AR and mainstream)
just told it like she did, but the AR folks treated it as gospel.

>>What I believe is this: Fran Trutt and Pricilla Feral blame it on Anti-AR
>>folks because they think it's thier only defense.  The bug that Feral showed
>>a picture of in the FOA newsletter was bogus, nobody in this country need
>>enter your office to bug your phone system - it's much easier done from down
>>the street.  All in all, the 'blame them for making us do it' line is weak,
>>and sometimes hilarious.

>Well, yes, regardless of the provocation Trutt shouldn't have done it, but if
>the anti-AR people were infiltrating the AR movement in this way it just shows
>that they aren't all as nice as they claim to be.

First off, there's no evidence (other than the ravings of a terrorist) that
there has been any 'anti-AR infiltration' program in operation.  On the other
hand, PETA has unmasked several of their 'moles', people they had get jobs
in labs just to see if they could dig up some dirt.  Oddly enough, these same
people who were supposed to be digging up the dirt were the ones responsible
for the sorryass conditions to begin with, as it was their job to clean the
cages, but they were too busy videotaping them to alleviate the suffering.

If you've got any evidence that the EvilDarkForcesOfBambiKillingAndThumper-
VivisectingMadScientists have infiltrated the LilyWhiteNothingButConcerned-
ForTheGentleCreaturesGodCaresForMoreThanUs groups, I'd sure like to see it.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:18:39 GMT

A recent press release about a public park which I believe was in Ohio
had stated something similar.  Seems that the park supports a growing
population of deer, and the park staff has decided to thin out the
heard.  Since information of this thinning has gone public, the park
officials have received numerous death threats and thus find it necessary
to keep the scheduled period(s) of thinning as confidential information.

I see no reason to let the public know of such things, nor do I really
see any reason to restrict hunters from taking part in population control...

swood

-- 
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Bird season in Michigan and pheasant in zones 2 & 3
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Goose season (U.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 14   Closing day of early Archery Deer season in Michigan
  Nov. 15   Opening day of Rifle Deer season in Michigan (YES!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:49:39 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You seem to have a "black or white" viewpoint that excludes various
rl> shades of grey.   Has it occurred to you that it's possible for us
rl> to raise questions about the ethical goodness or badness of an
rl> action without "condemning" the people who are engaged in such
rl> actions?   Is it possible for you to love "sinners"?

From article <1992Nov16.235333.24352@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Assuming that we all agree with Ted's universal ethic that "the 
jh> less [unwanted] pain I inflict, the better" and furthermore 
jh> assuming that we all agreed that advocacy toward eliminating 
jh> certain actions to which beef cattle are subjected was necessary, 
jh> then I believe that Russell Lawrence--who consumes "meat from 
jh> time to time"--would be far better placed to sit down, enjoy a 
jh> steak with the cattle operators, highlight to them his concerns, 
jh> and perhaps decrease suffering in the world than would Ted.  
jh> Russell is no hypocrite for eating and wearing animals while 
jh> holding the beliefs he does.  

I'm not sure that I understand your point.   It's not likely that
I would consume meat under such circumstances.  On the other hand,
I wouldn't hurl a steak back into the face of a "cattle operator"
who's offered it to me with kind intentions.  I would thank him 
kindly but explain that I prefer vegetables to meat.

The sort of "fundamentalism" that you may perceive among some 
animal rights advocates is primarily found among folks who've 
just recently become aware of the problems caused by animal 
(mis)use.  Activists with experience dating over decades, however, 
understand that true social change takes a lot of time and a lot 
of understanding and is unlikely to be enhanced by rigid conformance
to a set of absolutist rules.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Please give me more information on Animal Rights Groups
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:09:14 GMT

Whoops.  I meant to retrieve a file off a floopy and email to Cathy.
Instead in haste I accidentally posted it.  My apologies for the waste 
of bandwidth, as most people here probably already have the info or
could easily get it or don't want it.  Sorry. I've got to get more
control over my schedule.

Bob
---
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: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: research and medicine
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:16:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.193707.6535@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
> (The researcher can't be *certain* that the results obtained
>in non-human animals will apply to humans anyway, can (s)he?)

No your right nothing in science is certain.  If we already know how
things will turn out we wouldn't need to do the research.  But, in the
vast majority of cases the information gathered from animals studies is
applicable to humans.

					Greg
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:51:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.203226.3140@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.065325.26510@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> 
>>The Persident choses Justices, not the Senate. The Senate offers
>>their "advice and consent." I take that to mean a veto over
>>completely unqualified nominees, or those who are _aboslutely_
>>and totally in conflict with senatorial opinion (e.g. to the 
>>extent that the Senate doesn't think the Constitution could
>>survive the appointment.) Simply disagreeing on debatable political
>>issues does not, in my opinion, fall within the Senate's "advice
>>and consent" powers.
> 
> Can you give us a reason of why you attribute this particular meaning
> (which certainly is not obvious from the text of the Constitution)?

Actually there was some debate as to what that meant during the 1st
session of Congress.  Several methods were tried, such as passing
resolutions where the Senate advised the President who to appoint.  I
think that once, the Senate sent some choices to the President to
appoint.

The present system where the President nominates appointees and the
Senate either confirms or rejects his choice is the method that
survived all the different attempts to define the meaning of "advise
and consent".  Nowadays it's intepreted to mean that the President is
supposed to informally ask Senators what they think.  Something that
was a lot easier to do when there were only 26 Senators versus the 100
we have today.  === Al Sparks
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5093 alt.activism:19111 alt.society.civil-liberty:6690
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 23 Nov 92 09:15:07 GMT
Organization: Chalmers Tekniska Lekskola, G|teborg, G|taland

In article <1992Nov19.142530.10323@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.180705.7050@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

  Could somebody enlightenme what the flying fuck this thread is doing in
soc.history?

-bertil-
--
"Ack! Phht!" - Bill the Prez
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:13:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bxz4Eq.D02@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>Peter Nelson writes:
>>  Logic does not represent a set of scientific *conclusions* so it doesn't
>>  HAVE to be.   The "rules" that we call logic (i.e., the axioms and
>>  methods of deriving theorems) are (to be tautological) "axiomatic".
>>  I.e., we have already agreed upon them as a practical matter.  You'll
>>  notice that even Rand hardly ever violates them (except with "a=a"
>>  which is unabashedly tautological and which any decent optimizing
>>  compiler would optimize out of existence).   We are not discussing
>>  whether logic is valid, we are discussing whether Rand is logical.
>
>I think that we should all interpret this last sentence as a
>description of intension on the part of Peter Nelson.  We can
>reasonably assume that he _intends_ to be talking about whether
>or not Rand is logical.
>
>Unfortunately, his words tell a different story.  I find the previous
>paragraph to be, for the most part, a telling confession on Peter's
>part that he understands neither Rand nor logic nor the foundations
>of scientific knowledge nor...  I could go on and on.
>
>What Peter winds up discussing, ad infinitum, is his own ignorance.


  I notice this as a recurring theme of both Mr. Starr and Mr. Wales:
  they attack posters who criticize their views but make no attempt to 
  defend Rand's positions.    They have had ample opportunity here
  to try to construct a cogent defense of her ideas, methods, or even
  any one particular term or definition.  Note, for instance, that both
  have completely retreated from any effort to define "rational" or
  "reason" in any terms that can de measured or even detected.

  Both have also retreated from any effort to defend Rand's utter
  *leap* to the conclusion that removing what is central to one's 
  survival (reason, freedom, oxygen, whatever) has any moral
  significance at all in an absolute or transcendent sense.

  I've argued with religionists (Christians, Moslems, etc) about
  contradictions, silliness and so forth in their religions who 
  would claim that my arguments meant I "didn't understand"
  their religions, either.   Because to a follower of a True
  Faith to "understand" something is to have internalized their
  belief.   It has nothing to do with being able to mount a cogent
  defense of it.


---peter


  



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:04:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <By05Mt.AsF@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
>Ayn Rand's view of rationality is evidently diametrically opposed to
>emotionally-based approaches to philosophy.
>
>However, in this context I think that "rational" refers to the method
>one uses to derive one's morality.  One begins with a set of axioms that define
>basic realities about life (a person's right to their own existence, etc.),

  From there there **IS** no "etc" since if that's what you assume
  then the conclusion that removing your life or your means to 
  sustain it is a violation of your rights is trivial!   "A person's
  right to their own existence" as an axiom would be a bit like 
  taking "e=mc^2" as an axiom.


>This is hardly a formal definition, it's a working one. Accepted?

  Of course not.  It's a set of axioms that assumes it's conclusions.


---peter



Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4937 alt.politics.libertarian:1898
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:39:37
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1992Nov14.092637.9286@epas.toronto.edu>
	<BxrBDG.20B@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us's message of Sun, 15 Nov 1992 12:15:14 GMT

In article <BxrBDG.20B@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>She follows that it is therefore
>>"immoral" to prevent man from being capable of using this faculty (she
>>doesn't seem to care how one uses it unless it intereferes with
>>another's capability to use it) as she believes this is what makes man
>>happy, and therefore anything that makes man unhappy is immoral.

>That is not at all what she wrote.  There ARE people out there (such as
>George Smith) who agree with that statement, but Rand had a completely
>different view.  She said that the good is that which promotes one's
>life while the evil is that which detracts from it.

Then why isn't it moral to initiate the use of force in order to save
your life?  Suppose you are suffering from a potentially lethal, but
treatable, disease and you can no longer afford the treatment.
Wouldn't it then be rational to steal the money to pay for the
treatment, assuming you were confident that you wouldn't be caught?
Wouldn't it also be rational to lobby the government to provide
funding to pay for your treatment?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm no fan of socialized medicine; it causes
more problems than it solves.  On the other hand, I think it's
perfectly rational for people suffering from disease X to lobby for
additional funding for research and treatment of disease X.  Of
course, that doesn't necessarily imply that it's rational for everyone
else to provide all that the victims ask for...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4960 talk.philosophy.misc:2509 rec.arts.books:20264
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:54:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Nov13.004519.22065@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>investigation in politics.  Suppose the sociobiologists
>are at least partly right, and we have coding for
>altruism and also less pleasant forms of communal
>behavior in our genes:  a politics which does not
>deal with this coding, which will express itself
>most likely as very powerful, irrational emotions,
>like those associated with sex, is doomed to
>failure -- to disaster.
>
>I suspect it is the intuitive apprehension of such
>emotions which leads people to believe that theories
>based on rational self-interest are naive or 
>irrelevant.
>-- 
>
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

Seems to me that a society based on rational self-interest would take
any "coding" into account *if* such coding exists. In other words, if
this is "coded" genetically into people's personalities, then it will be
in their rational self-interest to help others. Whether it is coded or not
is beside the point. If it is coded, however, then enforcing it at the
point of a gun is unnecessary.

Some people seem to think that a society based on rational self-interest
would remove compassion. Not even close. A society based on allowing
each individual to lead his life according to his rational self-interest
would simply remove compassion *forced* upon others at the point of a
gun. People would be free to help others if they so desired, but they 
would not be *forced* to.

Many people on the net say something to the effect that living by the
principles of individual rights is to "simple" for such a complex world.
But it seems to me that this is the best way to handle such a complex 
world. Each person is different, and should be left free to decide what
is best for him, rather than letting others do it for him, or having others
do it for him regardless of his will.

So, a politics based on rational self-interest would certainly deal with
any individual`s need to help others, and as far as I am concerned, would
eventually be relatively free from violent actions based on irrational
emotions.


Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory