HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Human motivation and true altruism (was Re: animals in research)
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 16:18:35 GMT

##############################################################################
THIS IS A RE-POST; OUR NEWS HAS BEEN UNRELIABLE LATELY AND I HAVE REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT THIS POSTING NEVER MADE IT TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD.  IF I AM IN 
ERROR, PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES FOR THE DUPLICATION.
##############################################################################

In <BxA2By.20A@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>Martin Hulsey writes:
>mh> Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that there 
>mh> is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to save 
>mh> members of another species.

[...]

>.... to the best of my 
>knowledge, no one's presented any evidence to show that all 
>behavior is selfishly motivated.

[...]

	Trust me, Russell, you REALLY don't want to get into this, but since
	you asked.......

	Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
	these:

	   1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
		one performing the activity, or,

	   2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
		in the one performing the activity.



-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Date: 6 Nov 1992 18:06:38 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <viking.721038632@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>>The bottom line, folks, is that  poachers *are* hunters.  According
>>to the "American Heritage" dictionary, that is, which is
>>right here in front of me:
>
>>      "Poacher: one who hunts or fishes illegally".  
>
>	Fine, Steve.  Let's go with the dictionary definition and
>make damn sure we stick to the facts here.  I hereby charge you with
>drunk driving and negligent homicide...

I find your defensiveness on this point quite telling.  Rather
then admit to one basic, incontrovertable  fact, that hunters have 
damaged wildlife populations, you will to great lengths to dance 
around things.

You're in the same mold as holocaust revisionists.

If you don't like "dictionary definitions", fine but
don't expect everybody to instantly adobt your obscure
jargon definitions of things.  

> Furthermore, let it be known that the native
>prarie grass of the Midwest is near extinction.  The reason, obviously,
>is the farming of former grassland for the express purpose of producing
>grain.  

Now you're talking more sensibly, even though you're off
subject.  I've long argued that farming is a major cause of
loss of habitat and open space (as opposed to my vegetarian
acquaintances, who go to lengths to paint ranchers as
the only major villians in habitat loss).

Steve
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:24:00 GMT
Organization: WP Group


In <BxD8q8.JM1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Along these same lines, was it ok for a people like Jane Fonda 
rl> and Bill Clinton to protest US involvement in the Vietnam War?  
rl> Or, would you agree with Scott that such actions constitute 
rl> treason?  

From article <viking.721288948@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Jane Fonda crossed the line from protesting to "providing aid
ds> and comfort to the enemy," which is treasonous.  There are, of course,
ds> some rigorous guidelines necessary for conviction.

Ho Chi Minh dedicated his whole life to the resolution of 
vietnamese social problems caused by centuries of colonial rule.  
You're probably right that he was comforted by the fact that many 
americans did not support their government's efforts to maintain 
a pro-US dictatorship in South Vietnam.  However, I'm not sure if 
your notion that critics were guilty of "treason".  It seems to
me that citizens like Fonda were supporting the very principles upon 
which our country was founded.

Speaking of free speech, were Scott's friends exercising their
constitutional rights when they bought tickets to Lethal Weapon
with the express intention of demanding their money back?  Or,
would you say that they were violating their implicit contract 
with the owner of the theater?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.200449.1917@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>
GP>>By the way how do you feel about animal research?*  (* Loaded question.)
>
Rosemary:>
>I will admit that emotionally this has been a very difficult issue for
>me, because before I was born my mom worked as a medical laboratory
>technologist, which sometimes included animal research.  As a result I
>just avoided thinking about the whole issue until very recently.  However,
>I can see no rational argument for painful/fatal experiments on animals
>which could not be used to also justify the same experiments on humans who
>did not consent.  Therefore I must condemn these experiments.

I'm not sure what you concider painfull experiments.  Less that 1% of
animals experiments reqire the animals be consious aand therefor feeling
some kind of pain. (Those experiments are directed at the study of pain.)
Hpwever, a majority of the other experiments do result in the death of the
subject.
But surely you see that the ultimate goal of all studies are to answer
questions concerning biological systems, which will inturn help to prevent
painful/fatal deseases in humans and animals?  (I know!  I promise not to
call you surely again.)

					     Greg Popken

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expessed 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. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:02:28 GMT

In <BxD8q8.JM1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Along these same lines, was it ok for a people like Jane Fonda 
>and Bill Clinton to protest US involvement in the Vietnam War?  
>Or, would you agree with Scott that such actions constitute 
>treason?  

	Jane Fonda crossed the line from protesting to "providing aid
and comfort to the enemy," which is treasonous.  There are, of course,
some rigorous guidelines necessary for conviction.

	Frankly, I didn't mind the stuff in Lethal Weapon II -- the
main character apparently being dumfounded about what all the hoopla
was about more than made up for the apparent zeal of the kids.

< 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.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:09:43 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <BxB08F.7rH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <swood.721018223@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
Scott's interesting account of non-violent activism against AR-propaganda
editted down to the following paraphrase:

	A proven effective tactic for movies with AR propaganda and
	messages (like Doc Hollywood and Lethal Weapon 3) is to
	demand a refund of ticket price from the manager while
	complaining of the offensive AR propaganda, offensive
	anti-hunter propaganda, as appropriate.

Russell "responds":
>Why don't you write a letter to the producers of such films and let
>them know where you stand?  Be sure to give them a complete whiff of 
>your aroma by letting them know your opinion:
>
>-- that Jane Fonda was a "traitor" in the fight against world communism
>-- that you disapprove of government support for health care
>-- that you consider anyone who voted for Bill Clinton to be a "loonie" 
>
Russell tactic 104:  Bait with sarcasm to lead discussion off the issue.
Russell tactic 107:  Discredit opponent's opinion on animal rights area
                     because of opponent's political opinions (real or not).
Russell tactic 109:  Falsely generalize opponents position
                     to the point of absurdity.
Russell tactic 111:  Divert discussion onto other controversy (politics).
Russell tactic 114:  Confusing the issue (the issue being non-violent protest
                     of AR propaganda in films, not the OTHER political
                     affiliations of those participating in the protest)


Scott has reported on a non-violent form of protest.  This same method
could be used by both sides.  But instead of pointing that out, Russell
comes out ranting with veiled warnings about political opinions.

Another attempt to disqualify an opponent.  This time, Russell is
demonstrating political bigotry rather than religious bigotry, but
it is bigotry just the same.  He is inferring that Scott's account
of non-violent protest should be dismissed based on Scott's political
views on communism, health care, and the president-elect.

So, Russell, just what are the qualifications someone must have in
order for them to be able to have a valid opinion about something?
Is it okay for them just to agree with you?  Or must they actually
*be* you, and only you?

Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 16:11:47 GMT

##############################################################################
THIS IS A RE-POSTING; OUR NEWS HAS BEEN UNPREDICTABLE LATELY AND I HAVE
REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS POSTING NEVER MADE IT TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD.  IF
I AM IN ERROR, PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES FOR THE DUPLICATION.
##############################################################################

In <BxA2ts.253@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence backpedals desperately:

>From article <1992Nov5.204603.1998@pixel.kodak.com>:
>
>ry> Please, in a series of numbered statements, present your position 
>ry> regarding the ethics of non-human food choices and the process by 
>ry> which you implement those ethics in making those dietary choices.
>
>I don't understand your question, Rich.   In particular, I'm baffled
>by your demand for a "series of numbered statements".

[...]

	We'll give you the benefit of the doubt...although, for the life of
	me, I can't think of a good reason why we should at this point.

	A series of numbered statements (PLEASE NOTE - the words used here
	are for illustrative purposes only; actual word choice is at the
	discretion of Russell):

	   1. I [Russell Lawrence] believe that killing animals for food
		is morally [acceptable/not acceptable/right/wrong] for the 
		following reasons:

		a. [......]

		b. [......]

		.
		.
		.

		n. [......]

	   2. I [Russell Lawrence] believe that .......

	   .
	   .
	   .

	   X. I [Russell Lawrence] implement these beliefs in the following
		manner:

		a. [......]

		b. [......]

		.
		.
		.

		n. [......]

	Is this sufficiently clear, or do you need a more detailed
	explanation of "a series of numbered statements," Russell?

	Actually, ANY format will do, as long as your beliefs in this area
	are clearly and concisely stated, and the process by which you apply
	these beliefs to your everyday life is described step-by-step so
	that those of us who may not understand can follow it and learn.

	The request has been reproduced for your convenience, and thank you
	in advance for your answer(s).


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:30:32 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>The bottom line, folks, is that  poachers *are* hunters.  According
>to the "American Heritage" dictionary, that is, which is
>right here in front of me:

>      "Poacher: one who hunts or fishes illegally".  

	Fine, Steve.  Let's go with the dictionary definition and
make damn sure we stick to the facts here.  I hereby charge you with
drunk driving and negligent homicide.  See, a drunk driver is one who
drives illegally while intoxicated.  Negligent homicide is just thrown
in, as we all know drunk drivers are capable of killing due to their
impaired state.  Thus, since various court cases have shown you can be
charged with drunk driving even while riding a horse or bicycle,
since laws also exist that prevent public intoxication, and since the
brain naturally makes chemicals little different in effect to morphine,
you are guilty of drunk driving no matter what you drive or what
drugs you have injested.  Furthermore, let it be known that the native
prarie grass of the Midwest is near extinction.  The reason, obviously,
is the farming of former grassland for the express purpose of producing
grain.  As a human dependent upon agriculture for food, you are guilty
of contributing to this extinction against Federal laws.

	When you can understand the differences, e-mail me and we'll
have a great debate.  Until then, I'm merely pointing out how your
argument fails when taken to its logical conclusion.  If you can't
take it that far without help, remind me to demonstrate how my gun
is safer than Ted Kennedy's car over the course of history.

< 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.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:31:13 GMT


From article <1992Nov11.155721.18401@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
th> Actually, the 'possibility' that comes to my mind is the natural 
th> 'cover your ass' bit that the ARs have done in the past.  I can't 
th> count the times that I've been told that "Nobody ever threw red 
th> paint on a fur coat - that's a lie made up by the fur people to 
th> discredit the AR movement".  Now, explain the red paint on my 
th> mother's rabbit jacket.  Oh, right!!  The thrower MUST have been 
th> an ANTI-AR, just out to discredit the movement.  How silly of me 
th> not to have figured it out by myself.  Give me a break.  

We'll give you a break.

You're claiming that someone threw red paint on your mother's fur 
jacket, but then again, you've also claimed in the past that one 
of my coworkers, Linda Guidry, is a non-existent character that I 
personally invented.   Are you a credible person, Todd?

Did your mother report this event to the police?  If so, when and
where?

-- 
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: animals in research.  Was Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:59:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.170011.23692@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct27.215622.23702@pixel.kodak.com> black@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com
>>
>Tim>>However, they realize that the general public is primarly
>Tim>>concerned with helping humans.
>>
>RB>Then, as such, the general public should be very interested in the harm
>RB>to humans caused by some animal research. 
>
>
>Don't you think the general public should be more concernered about the
>potential for harm to humans if medical treatments were use on them first
>without animal testing?

You seem to be assuming that if a treatment has a certain effect on
animals, then it will have the same effect on humans ... and that if
a treatment does not harm animals, then it will not harm humans.  I
don't see that this is the case.

---
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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:11:47 GMT

In <BxA2ts.253@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>I don't understand your question, Rich.   In particular, I'm baffled
>by your demand for a "series of numbered statements".    

>If you want me to discuss the reasons for my own dietary choices, 
>I'd be pleased to do so, but I see no reason to confine myself to 
>a particular mental architecture that would suit folks whose minds 
>are bound by linear thinking. 

	Draw us a flowchart, Russ.  You're rather known for logical
and empirical analysis when it suits you -- do it here.  Simple.
I'll even be so bold as to state that we'll accept it in any form
of psuedo-language, be it C, xBase, Prolog, Fortran, or English
in the familiar boxes showing conditionals.  Frankly, I'm interested.

< 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.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research.  Was Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:08:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.185920.10467@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.170011.23692@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct27.215622.23702@pixel.kodak.com> black@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com
>>>
>>Tim>>However, they realize that the general public is primarly
>>Tim>>concerned with helping humans.
>>>
>>RB>Then, as such, the general public should be very interested in the harm
>>RB>to humans caused by some animal research. 
>>
>>
GP>>Don't you think the general public should be more concernered about the
GP>>potential for harm to humans if medical treatments were use on them first
GP>>without animal testing?
>
RB>You seem to be assuming that if a treatment has a certain effect on
RB>animals, then it will have the same effect on humans ... and that if
RB>a treatment does not harm animals, then it will not harm humans.  I
RB>don't see that this is the case.

There are very few things in science and medicine that are absolutes.  We
deal with probability.  Often times published data contains a 95% or
better probability of being accurate (P<=0.05).  This also holds true for
the applicability of animals experiments in human systems.  Applications
of data obtained in animal experiments to humans systems offers a great
degree of variability, depending on the subect being studied.  Surely you can not argue that experiments
addressing the success of surgical proceedures or monitoring the cellular
response induced by various pathenogens has a very high degree of applicability to humans.  I will admit that the response of some animals to some
pharmaceuticals is not indicative of human response to the same compounds.
However, the similarities by far at weigh the differences particularly if
the right animal system is choosen.  The number of instances were animal
research has lead to positive results and the application of those reults
to humans has been detrimental are minuscule compared to the number of
times animal models have correctly predicted human responses.  
not a good indicatio

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjozwiak@shearson.com (Jenny Jozwiak)
Subject: ALF
Reply-To: jjozwiak@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:44:42 GMT

I am trying to get in touch with the Animal Liberation Front.  I live in New York,
and I do not know where they are located.  Please email me if you have any info as
I would like to join them.

Thanks,

Radical Animal Lover and Vegitarian,

Jenny

:  )

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:31:38 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Nov3.183309.6300@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, 
jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

Ted Robinson writes:

>>No, humans have their own ethical structure that differ from those of a
>>spider, if a spider even has any (probably doesn't). This difference is
>>fundamental. It's also one-sided in that it protects other animals from us,
>>but not vice-versa. Sorry if this feels unfair - one of the prices we pay 
>>for seeking to be ethical.
 

James Hoskins writes: 
> Now I really am confused.  "Seeking to be ethical," according to what?
> Your universal ethic which states that the less unwanted pain I inflict
> the better? Forgive me if I'm wrong but there did not seem to be unanimity 
>on the ethic. 

We seek to be ethical according to our ethical system. How do we decide what 
that ethical system is? I can't give a crisp answer. Somehow, over time, 
concensus emerges. How did we decide the world is round? Over time a 
concensus emerged, but unanimity is still elusive. My feeling is that, 
indeed, there is concensus in our society that it's better not to inflict 
pain. But there will always be someone who disagrees. Within this newsgroup a 
concensus emerged on the basics of the ethic, though some disagreement 
persisted on the specifics of the wording. While this disagreement was 
interesting, I believe it applied to fairly special cases and that for the 
bulk of real cases, everyone agreed with the ethic (with possibly one 
exception).
 
 
>  Although you know that I have respect for
> your position, the magnitude of your personal divorce from nature and
> your place in it--irrespective of the decision to eat or not eat animals--
> strikes me.
 
Unlike anti-AR types, I believe there are differences between humans and non-
humans.  

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals