HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Cancer (was Re: Ingrid's lies.)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:10:22 GMT

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

`In article <1993Jan14.181859.16381@cs.mun.ca>, ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka
`Chandna) wrote:

`In <1993Jan14.181859.16381@cs.mun.ca>, ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka
`Chandna) wrote:

`>This means that in *98%* of the cancers that are contracted, the 
`>situation has gotten worse, and not better, for the human patients.  

`You point to diseases such as cancer, and imply that animal research is a
`failure.  The flaw in this argument is that cancer, heart disease, etc. are
`the major killers today *only* because the major killers of yesterday have
`been conquered.  Have you considered once-common diseases such as smallpox,
`rickets, tuberculosis, pellagra, polio, beriberi, diphtheria and rabies? 
`Animal research played a major role in combatting these diseases, which
`formerly killed many people.

I saw some enemic looking dark haired lady (cute but very very pale looking)
trying to claim that proper diet (ie vegan) training at an early age will
"prevent" cancer.  Can anyone lay claim to validate this?  Sounds like a
bunch of hog-wash to me.

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!!! >>>>>>
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: I was born to eat meat.
Date: 26 Jan 1993 04:46:55 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

I was born to eat meat and so were you.  Take a look at your own 
dentistry!  These nice sharp "canine" teeth I have are just great for
ripping the tasty flesh of my animal meal.  My teeth don't look anything
like that of a horse or other herbavore, neither do yours.  Come to think
of it my digestive system agrees with a hamburger a lot more than it does
with a bowl of beans.

alex the omnivore

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: thmiley@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Tim Miley)
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:57:27 GMT

banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking) writes:

>(Alka Chandna) writes:
>>I'm not a writer, but I very much enjoyed this book by Newkirk & thought I'd
>>take a shot at writing a review.  

>A worship service.  It wasn't a review, Alka, it was a little prayer to
>your diety.  An unbiased review might bne much more informative.

>drew
>banta@abingdon.sun.com
>--
>"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

>						--Ernest Hemingway

I found the book enlightening.  I had never really understood the motivations
of ALF until I read the book.  I do, however, have serious reservations about
the use of vandalism and incendiary devices to destroy labs.  If they go into
a lab with camera and bear witness to the abuses of the vivisectors and show
their "science" to be the fraud that it is, then I am much less hesitant.

Willful destruction of property, however, makes the vivisectors look like the
victims rather than the perpetrators of violence.

PS.  To whomever that made a reply to Aika's article (You're on my kill file
now ]:^) ), I recommend reading the book before burning it.

Tim
:wq

-- 
thmiley@cs.wmich.edu      (Timothy H Miley)
Computer Science Major
Western Michigan University
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:18:46 GMT

From article <C1710v.LsJ@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> In <C14GGz.L0B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>I'm going to continue to use the word "wrong" to designate activities
>>that I consider unethical, Rich. 
> 
> You're conforming gradually. I believe this is the common usage of the
> terms. We all use 'wrong' for _what_we_consider_ unethical, not for
> _what_is_ unethical by some universal independent standard.

There's quite a gap between "what_you_consider_unethical" and 
"some universal independent standard".  Personally, I'm not fond 
of the idea of "universal standards" because the rightness or 
wrongness of a given activity usually depends on facts that could
alter our judgment one way or the other.  

Your views, on the other hand, have quite a bit in common with
ethical absolutism since you insist that it's your beliefs, as
beliefs, that count, rather than the facts of a particular 
situation.

>>[...]  The fact that 
>>you and I can't point to a "cosmic" law that outlaws slavery 
>>won't diminish our realization that the embrace of slavery, as an 
>>institution, depended on some "facts" that were erroneous (ie 
>>wrong), as well as some arguments that were irrational (ie 
>>wrong).  
> 
> Assuming by wrong facts you mean inferiority of some race, I would
> point out that not all slavery involved different races. And that even
> the bible condoned slavery while maintaining all humans are created
> equal. (Whether or not one is religious, it must be admitted that the
> biblical authors were attempting to prescribe behaviour that they
> considered ethically right.)  Our society has gradually evolved to a
> more and more egalitarian society, but in the process, many other
> social structures have existed. Slavery is an extreme example of
> inequality of opportunity, but feudalism wasn't very different, and
> even now there is a hierarchy (largely economic) in society and
> factory workers (especially as they get old) are in a sense
> economically subject to the factory owners. And children born into
> poverty do not have equal opportunity, or if they do, the statistics
> suggest they are significantly inferior.  The degree of inequality
> that society considers unethical has been changing in time; perhaps in
> the future, humans working in a coal mine will be considered
> unethical, just as children working as chimney sweeps is now.  Perhaps
> not.

What's your point, Werner?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Retractions on 60 Minutes
Date: 25 Jan 1993 21:59:46 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: foghorn.cc.utexas.edu


Russ tries to discredit 60 minutes by mentioning that they once, in over a
decade of journalist excellence, distorted the dangers associated with a
common dental procedure.  The difference between 60 Minutes and the AFR
propaganda is that at the end of each broadcast, 60 Minutes airs letters
regarding their programming and admit to mistakes or oversights...I dont
think you'd find such candidness in your PeTA letter...

alex the omnivore

Oh, BTW, You tried to discredit the information on cattle methane release
and atmopheric concentrations because they came from the journal science,
your exact reason for this was the Science once published an article about
cold fusion.  I'm not sure if you realize what this does to your
argument...

If _Science_ is indeed bunk, then you must remember that that magazine was
the one that semiseriously broke the news on cattle flatulence in the first
place so if they are wrong then so are you...

But your insistance on cold fusion as proof doesnt hold water because
_Science_ didnt say that cold fusion worked, they reported that a couple of
aTm researchers claimed that it did.  They published the researchers'
method which allowed scientists all over the world to reproduce the
experiment and show that it was flawed.  I hope you can see the difference
between merely reporting a method and endorsing it...And besides, all of us
in Texas know that the aggies couldnt be trusted.
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: You just dont get it...
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:55:11 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu

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

>doing just fine now.  Would we truly continue to do "just fine" 
>if the global temperature increased by ten degrees?  

Well we are still alive today and the world has been warmer previously.
Man is more adaptive today than ever.
We can refrigerate spoilables.
Many areas, just on the edge, would be able to have a second growing
  season, it ust so happens that this edge runs through the US and Europe
  where growing techniques are most productive.
Worst case scenerios only call for a 5-7 degree increase anyway.
There would be more fresh water available due to a slight melt in the polar
  ice caps.
Shorelines change because of plate movement and erosion anyway.  We are
  quite adebt at building seawalls.  We prolly wouldnt need it because
  ocean levels wouldnt even go up an inch but just in case you were about to
  say something about flooding...
People are already crazy enough to live where its really really hot,
  Pheonix had phenominal growth in the last decade.

You havent given any reason that a slight warming would be bad, we arnt
talking about the world becoming a ball of molten rock here...

>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.

How many times do I have to remind you that microbes that break down the
cowshit dont have oxygen in their bellies.  Your ascertation that the
cowpatties end up in a sewage pond is ludicrous, its your shit that ends up
in a sewage pond.

>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000

alex the omnivore
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Cancer (was Re: Ingrid's lies.)
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 15:59:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.015720.20704@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <swood.727729822@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>>
>>I saw some enemic looking dark haired lady (cute but very very pale looking)
>>trying to claim that proper diet (ie vegan) training at an early age will
>>"prevent" cancer.  Can anyone lay claim to validate this?  Sounds like a
>>bunch of hog-wash to me.
>>
>>swood
>
>Can anyone on r.f.v give Scott a pointer toward the evidence
>that a vegan diet reduces the risk of cancer? I am sure I've
>seen it discussed here in the past ...

	Just a small semantic observation: "prevent" and "reduces the risk"
	are not the same thing at all.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Retraction Honesty?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:52:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.151602.21502@netcom.com> loca@netcom.com (John Hoag) writes:
>alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:
>
>>Although some of you AR people 
>
>Gosh, some of you AT (Animal Torture) people are so good at laying
>labels on people. 

It seems we *"AT"* people aren't the only one's.


Greg Popken
-- 
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.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Christians Not Sapient ???
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:02:56 GMT

From article <1k0b3gINNlap@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> In article 1642 Russ quotes himself saying:
> 
>>>>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...
> 
> He then goes on to add:
> 
>>.......Christians 
>>who burned other human beings during the middle ages, for 
>>instance, made some very bad choices, but it would be unwise for 
>>us to hold them "guilty" of their actions.   
> 
> He is obviously suggesting that the Christians were not capable to fully
> understand the consequences of their actions.  Is this because he feels
> that anyone who is willing to follow a doctrine to such extremes as to kill
> someone must not have a sapient bone in their bodies?  

Not really.  Heretic-burning christians were obviously sapient 
beings (ie, thinking beings) but some of their assumptions were 
faulty.  Can we blame them for their ignorance?  

Let's suppose that Alex Pace were King of the World and obliged 
to make a decision about the goodness or badness of global 
warming.   And let's suppose that the evidence available to Alex
shows that an increase of 10 degrees in global temperatures would
be a "good" thing;  hence, King Alex enacts a set of policies to
accelerate warming trends.  Would Alex be guilty of mass murder
if/when his actions lead, not to an improvement in human life,
but chaos and destruction?

> ..
> I think that the middle aged christians know damned well what 
> they were doing and if there was a place called hell they'd be 
> rotting there, releasing methane of course.  

You're entitled to speculate, but it seems to me that you should
have figured out by now that methane is produced by anaerobic
decay.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 19:14:29 GMT

In article <C1BBt5.5F9@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>In <1993Jan21.212732.19869@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young) writes:
>>	If some
>>	animal research is to be allowed, then certainly there must be a
>>	past example which illustrates this: please name it.  Give us an
>>	example of an animal research project which was beneficial to humans.
>>	If you cannot, you're waffling.
>
>Insulin.

   The AR types do not consider insulin to be an example of animal research
   which has resulted in a benefit to humans.  In fact, there was quite a
   long discussion of that very issue not so long ago in this newsgroup, in
   which the AR position was made very clear: the animal experiments which
   were conducted in insulin research were unnecessary, useless, or both.
   Ted Robinson, Bob Black, and (if memory serves) Russell Lawrence concurred
   on this point.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:39:46 GMT

From article <C1EpHI.z3@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> In <C1876H.KqE@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>From article <lltj2lINN43b@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
>>> 
>>> 17,000 kcalories of *WHAT*, Russell?  Not fossil fuel.  OF GRAIN and
>>> grass!  That gives us the 8.47 ratio that probably boils down to the
>>> 4.8 pounds of grain to 1 pound of beef that hasn't been disputed,
>>> pinhead.
> 
>>According to Cornell University's David Pimentel, it take 17000
>>kilocalories of fossil fuel to produce one kilo of trimmed beef.
>>Got it straight now, banta?
> 
> That includes the fossil fuel used to produce the grain. It takes
> 3400 kcal to produce a nutritionally equivalent amt of grain . That's
> 5:1. Isn't that what he said?   ...

No, that's not what he said.  Take another look at the phrase,

            "Not fossil fuel. OF GRAIN and grass."

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.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Pollution and Cows
Date: 25 Jan 1993 09:41:42 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1DsLr.46q@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>How about methane emissions, nitrate pollution, acid rain, etc, 
>etc?  And, how about water shortages, desertification, use of 
>(non-renewable) petrochemicals in livestock agriculture, etc, 
>etc...

Its amazing that you continue to harp about methane when that has already
been proven a worthless point for you.  And to mention Nitrate Pollution?
Why where do you think most of the nitrates on this country's soil come
from?  Ever heard of ammonia nitrate?  The fertilizer sprayed in mass
quantity to grow your prescious grains.  And acid rain, oh i'd like to see
you link that to cattle, blame industry for that one, just look at where
most of the acid rain is coming from...the industrialized northeast!
Desertification has been occuring cyclically for eons as I stated
previously and you seemed to concur with.  As far as petrochemicals are
concerned, you surely realize that driving tractors around a field to first
plow it, then plant seed, then harvest it, not to mention the cropduster
that flys overhead spraying pesticide and nitrate fertilizer...dont you see
petrochemicals at work here as well?  Note that cattle are often rounded up
either on horseback or with a single jeep that gets much better gas mileage
than a tractor, combine, or airplane.  Also cattle dont have to be
replanted each year, free grazing ones dont require their food be replanted
every year, not to mention the fact that they release their own natural
fertilizer, but it seems that Russ already knows all about bullshit.


>...If you don't wish to discuss these issues, why don't you simply 
>bow-out of the conversation instead of preaching to us about what 
>we need to discuss or don't need to discuss at the present time.  

Just the contrary Russ, it seems as if it is you that constantly comes up
with the substancless flames.

alex the omnivore

To paraphrase the Frenchman taunting King Arther in Monty Python's Quest
for the Holy Grail:
"I (release methane) in your general direction."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Thomas A. Dennis)
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:14:01 GMT

In <1993Jan23.010028.15583@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) 
writes:

>Actually, that may be the key to our getting rid of them.  I read somewhere
>that an AR leader was encouraging her people to go off into the woods in
>brown coats, so that hunters would get bad press for shooting people.
>Surely, Father Darwin will be relieving us of some of these people soon.

Stop teasing.  I can't afford a decent hunting rifle right now.

>     don "red of tooth and claw" baldwin
--
>---<

Tom Dennis                  | "Every normal man must be tempted at times to 
dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu  |    spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
(217)384-2504               |      begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:52:56 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <C16IM6.79L@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>I say:
>> ingest to get the 4 grams of protein you got from the beef calorie?
>> If you want to be fair, it would take an infinite number of calories
>> because you *can't get* the 26 essential amino acids from soy alone,
>> like you can from beef. 
>
>26 essential amino acids? 
>
>Why don't you try reading a book once in a while instead of wasting

Sorry.  I had just heard about this nifty book you scored, which talked
about the 26 essential letters of the alphabet.

There are 7 essential amino acids, and you *still* can't get them all
from soy, alone.  The argument never lost a drop of water.

andy
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Hypothetical case (was Re: Silver Spring monkeys)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:59:03 GMT

In article <C171Lo.D9B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <C16suE.DDn@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
>>    With that clarification, would it be your contention that
>> LACC's are rubber-stamp committees, and that professional veterinary
>> care, by individuals not beholden to the project investigators,
>> does not add some level of confidence that the researcher "who enjoys
>> inflicting pain on animals just for the hell of it" would be greatly
>> restricted in the kinds of gratification (s)he could derive?
>
>Again, I could introduce you to dozens of physicians 
>and dentists who would tell you privately, but not publicly, 
>about doctors who are grossly incompetent and/or sadistic, yet 
>serving as clinicians on the staffs of major institutions. 

Shouldn't you take this to alt.med.flame.  I know alot (and I mean Alot)
of lawyers that are incompetent.  But, that doesn't reflect on the
regulation of biomedical research either.

> If 
>academicians...

How did we get from practicing physicians to academicians?

>... and licensed professionals are reluctant to blow the 
>whistle on malefactors who harm human animals, I don't understand 
>ho w/why they'd be willing to blow the whistle on individuals who 
>harm non-human individuals.

Its their job to regulate this activity (blow the whistle).

>   As I mentioned previously, I've
>seen no evidence to support the notion that biomed researchers
>have a higher standard of ethics than physicians and dentists;
>to the contrary, some of the normative arguments that we see
>here on a regular basis (ie, "It's right if we think it's right)
>are precisely the sort of commentary that I typically hear from
>doctors who're involved in the provision or condonement of dubious 
>and/or fraudulent care.

Oh, I see.  You have no evidence one one hand, and you have seen
"normative commentary" on the other.  I didn't realize that this was a
basis for a valid conclusion.
And  again, why are you comparing health care to research? >


Greg Popken
-- 
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.animals