HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 15:18:22 GMT

In article <BtsAuy.A98@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>
[Stuff deleted since I do not deem it pertinent to my response.]

rl>In an area where hunting is allowed, any deer that would have 
rl>walked into a human camp would have been killed at the outset.  

Russ, I used to think you were very reasonable and quite intelligent,
but no more. How can you make such a blanket statement as the one above?
Do you have any *empirical* facts to back it up??  I will say that some
hunters might be tempted to shoot a deer unfortunate enough to walk 
right into a hunt camp, but I don't think you can claim *every* deer
will be shot on sight without being able to back it up. You're only
stating what you think would happen and that is just plain wrong. Not
like you to print such a falsehood. I think you should retract the 
above statement unless you can prove it. I don't think you can. 
You should have made it a hypothetical situation and you would have 
avoided this blunder. 



rl>Would you mind explaining the mechanism whereby survivors could 
rl>have learned vicariously from such experiences?  

I will answer this even though the above statement is untrue. If it
were a single deer, there would be no survivors to learn from its
mistake. When deer travel in groups of two or more, they almost 
always travel in single file. This way if something bad happens to
the lead deer, the rest (survivors) know to go away from the lead
deer post haste. They learn this very quick and early in life.
I believe this mechanism is called the "survival instinct".


>-- 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

Keith

-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |   GO BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:50:59 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> In an area where hunting is allowed, any deer that would have 
rl> walked into a human camp would have been killed at the outset.  

From article <1992Sep01.151822.16295@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, by keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd):
kb> Russ, I used to think you were very reasonable and quite intelligent,
kb> but no more. How can you make such a blanket statement as the one above?
kb> Do you have any *empirical* facts to back it up??  I will say that some
kb> hunters might be tempted to shoot a deer unfortunate enough to walk 
kb> right into a hunt camp, but I don't think you can claim *every* deer
kb> will be shot on sight without being able to back it up. You're only
kb> stating what you think would happen and that is just plain wrong. Not
kb> like you to print such a falsehood. I think you should retract the 
kb> above statement unless you can prove it. I don't think you can. 
kb> You should have made it a hypothetical situation and you would have 
kb> avoided this blunder. 

Sooner or later such deer are likely to be shot, Keith.  Perhaps 
not by you, but by someone else who equates lack of fear with 
stupidity.  When the fearless deer have been shot, it would be 
fallacious to assume that the fearful deer had learned from their 
mistakes.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:55:13 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>John S. Van Etten writes:
>jve> I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers or
>jve> whatever) vote in this. :-) :-) Just funnin' ya, Russell.

[Linda's comments about sexism deleted]

>In article <agty-1_@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
>jve> Since Linda incorrectly stated that my words were "sexist" and 
>jve> "demeaning," I think it's safe to assume that there must be a 
>jve> reason why she would make such a patently false statement.  
>jve> "Hatred" was merely one suggestion, hence the "may." If that's 
>jve> not the explanation, perhaps she would like to tell us why she 
>jve> said what she did, since it was untrue.  
>
>If Linda were black, would it have been racist if someone had said,
>
>    "I didn't know we could let our niggers vote in this."

Hell yes, just as it would have been *sexist* and *demeaning* for
someone to have written:

     "I didn't know we could let *women* vote in this."

I implore the two of you to stop and think critically about what I
wrote.  The fact the Linda is female is completely irrelevant to the
implied "relationship" between you two.  If Linda had been Larry
instead, I would have joked about him being your brother or father
(obviously I would not have said "boyfriend").  Can't you see that?
My joke had nothing to do with women, and said absolutely nothing
against them.


>Or, would such a comment be another example of "humor"?  On the 
>whole, it seems pretty obvious that you were hoping to dismiss 
>the significance of Linda's opinions by viewing her in some sort
>of secondary, subservient capacity.

Russell, Russell, Russell.  I said nothing of the sort.  I'm glad she
voiced her opinion.  Do *you* consider girlfriends, wives, and mothers
to be in some sort of "secondary, subservient capacity?"  I doubt it.
So what makes you so quick to think that I do?  Think about that.  My
joke was merely about the fact that both your votes were sent in the
same message, since the similar timestamp caught my eye.  I still
think you two are blowing this whole thing out of proportion.


>  If I'm wrong, please explain 
>why it would have mattered if Linda were a "girlfriend", or a 
>"wife", or a "mother".  

It *doesn't*, Russell.  That's the whole point. :-)


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Rabbi Bans Fur
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:15:31 GMT



ISRAELI RABBI BANS WEARING, MANUFACTURING OF FUR COATS

TEL AVIV (MARCH 15) DPA - The chief rabbi in Tel Aviv has issued a ruling
forbidding the wearing of fur coats or the killing of animals for the
purpose, the Ha'aretz daily reported Sunday.

The ruling followed an argument last week at a religious music recital
between fur-wearing concert-goers and animal rights activists demonstrating
outside.

Called in to adjudicate the dispute, Tel Aviv chief Rabbi Haim David
Halevi said that since Jewish law forbids the causing of pain to animals,
the wearing and manufacture of fur coats is forbidden.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:01:04 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Let's not confuse Dahmer's personal right to control his own mind 
rl> and body with his (non-existent) property right to appropriate 
rl> the bodies of other individuals.  To the extent that we fail to 
rl> make a distinction between freedom of personhood and freedom of 
rl> property, the whole notion of rights would be turned upside down 
rl> and subsequently fall apart.  

Christopher Morton writes:
cm> Other HUMAN individuals.  He in fact had a right to appropriate 
cm> the bodies of nonhuman animals for his eating enjoyment, subject 
cm> of course to applicable game laws.  People are not property.  
cm> Nonhuman animals can be.  

rl> In 1857, Dred Scott asked the Supreme Court of the US to answer a 
rl> question that depended on the distinction between personhood and 
rl> property, and he got a response that was quite similar to your 
rl> comments above.  Presenting the majority opinion of the court, 
rl> Chief Justice Taney pointed out that Dred Scott was the legal 
rl> property of his owner, and that slaves had no inherent right to 
rl> sue for their freedom in the federal courts.  To grant Scott such 
rl> freedom, the court reasoned, would have infringed on the legal 
rl> property rights of his owner.  Would you have agreed with Taney?  
rl> Or would you have argued, as JJ Rousseau had argued nearly a 
rl> century before, that the laws ought to be based on philosophical 
rl> arguments, rather than basing the philosophical arguments on the 
rl> existing laws?  

From article <Btx4xJ.92C@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> Ah yes!  I knew you'd get around to equating Blacks and animals.  
cm> Never fails.  How IS David Duke by the way?  

I'm not equating blacks and animals.  I'm pointing out that 
existing laws and existing standards of social acceptability are 
not, in themselves, a valid determinant of ethical goodness or 
badness.   The fact that Dred Scott was the legal property of
his owner didn't mean that his enslavement was a "good" thing.

Now please answer my questions:  Would you have agreed with Taney
that rights ought to be based on existing laws?  Or, would you have 
agreed with Rousseau that laws ought to be based on philosophical 
arguments?

I'm looking forward to a logical, non-circular response.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 14:52:25 GMT

In <BtvBzr.Br2@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>ry> Morals and ethics are figments of human imagination, nothing
>ry> more...and THAT is why I can say with total impunity that
>ry> MY criteria for "animal rights" are just as valid as yours.

	Let's go back to my original statements.  I am NOT claiming that
	sapience and sentience are arbitrary...indeed, such a statement
	makes no sense.  As I said in <1992Aug15.171902.25559@pixel.kodak.com>,
	it is NOT my belief that these things are arbitrary, rather, it is
	the use of these criteria to assign "status" or "worth" to other
	species that is arbitrary.  I had thought, after two repetitions of
	these words, that this point was understood, and I will admit to a
	certain lapse into laxity in the use of the term based on these
	earlier repetitions; clearly, I was mistaken.  Perhaps this
	correction will prevent further misquoting of my statements...but
	I doubt it.

[...much handwaving based on faulty premise, corrected above, deleted...]

>ry> Who told you that you could arbitrarily decide that a deer is more
>ry> "worthy" or of higher "status" than a garden slug?  Or that a panda
>ry> is somehow worthy of higher "status" than the bamboo it eats?
>
>No one told me that I could arbitrarily decide that a panda has a 
>higher "status" than bamboo.

	At last.  By what authority then, other than your own mind, do you
	presume to assign such "status?"  The statement you are supporting
	reads as follows (in part):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <altar.713493440@sfu.ca>:

>>Insects are not of the same status as birds, repitiles (sic), and mammals...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	More to the point, why is YOUR criterion of "sentience" any more
	valid than a criterion of "life," or "ability to jump sideways," or
	"ability to synthesize glucose?"  Have we not said that similarity
	of structure does not exclude similar, if not congruent, responses
	through dissimilar mechanisms?  The EXISTENCE of sentience/sapience
	is fact; the USE OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS AS A YARDSTICK FOR
	ASSIGNMENT OF "WORTH" OR "STATUS" is arbitrary, since, from the
	standpoint of the natural world, neither of these characteristics
	is any more important than a host of other characteristics.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:08:55 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Would you like to get a feed of t.p.a. from my system?  It'll be
rl> FREE, of course, and won't cost you a penny apart from your long-
rl> distance costs.   If you can't or won't take me up on this, then
rl> in the name of logical consistency as well as simple politeness, 
rl> you should stop trying to dictate net behavior.  

From article <1992Aug31.034741.5967@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
th> You're on - I accept.
th>
th> Now, I accept this on the basis that I will not be hassled and 
th> harrassed by you or your management on any system security 
th> matters.  I have no control over each and every person on my local 
th> system, especially if Wheeler decides to take me up on my offer.  
th> I feel pretty secure with my system integrity, do you?  
th> 
th> In short - I'm not a cracker, but I've no guarantee that someone else 
th> on my box isn't.

Call me and we can set things up.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:01:43 GMT


John S. Van Etten writes:
jve> I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers or
jve> whatever) vote in this. :-) :-) Just funnin' ya, Russell.

Linda Guidry writes:
lg> I've been employed at this site since 1985 and I've been involved 
lg> with usenet in various capacities since 1987, primarily as a 
lg> system administrator.  Do you think it's amusing to "fun" an 
lg> individual by making demeaning, sexist comments about his 
lg> coworkers?  

In article <agty-1_@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> Since Linda incorrectly stated that my words were "sexist" and 
jve> "demeaning," I think it's safe to assume that there must be a 
jve> reason why she would make such a patently false statement.  
jve> "Hatred" was merely one suggestion, hence the "may." If that's 
jve> not the explanation, perhaps she would like to tell us why she 
jve> said what she did, since it was untrue.  

If Linda were black, would it have been racist if someone had said,

    "I didn't know we could let our niggers vote in this."

Or, would such a comment be another example of "humor"?  On the 
whole, it seems pretty obvious that you were hoping to dismiss 
the significance of Linda's opinions by viewing her in some sort
of secondary, subservient capacity.  If I'm wrong, please explain 
why it would have mattered if Linda were a "girlfriend", or a 
"wife", or a "mother".  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My dog
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:57:43 GMT

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>>	Parse it again, Ted.  "The being I grant them to be capable" does
>>not infer a particular age at which this realization happens, but it does
>>require that that realization should be very likely to happen at some
>>individual age.  Thus, the newborn has rights, but other rights are

>That's a red herring Dan. What about the severly mentally disabled, say
>the ones who are never going to recover? They cannot assert their rights,
>nor know that they have any. What's more, they are never going to reach
>a point where they are so able.

	You deleted the relevant part.  You remember, the part that I said
after "other rights are?"  Something about parents being responsible for
the newborn until that child can be held accountable?  In the case of the
mentally retarded, they can never be held accountable, and so the parents
or state assume responsibility for them.  Red herring?  I don't think so.
In addition, the mentally retarded are still granted some rights and their
parents or guardians assume responsibility for asserting and enforcing those
rights, just as in a newborn.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:15:02 GMT

From article <RIGG.92Sep1175056@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> I will be the first to admit there is quite a bit of opinion in the
tr> above comments and that this is a splippery slope that I am balanced
tr> on the side of.
tr> 
tr> For example, I support the many hunting resorts that use some sort of
tr> supplimental feeding to help the deer through the winter.  They use
tr> hunting to kill the deer that the winter did not.  The deer in such
tr> situations have natural, normal lifes and patterns the rest of the
tr> year.

I agree with many of the points in this article, but I have one 
question about a particular point.  You say that some resorts use 
hunting to kill the deer that the winter did not kill.  Wouldn't 
it be more straightforward to say that the hunters on these 
resorts simply kill some deer, without introducing winter as some 
sort of scary figure?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:08:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.235134.4802@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, Mary Rita Otto writes:
mo> I don't believe for a minute that Tim was attempting to personify
mo> winter in any way.  Tim was refering to "the winter" as an elapsed
mo> period of time in the life of the deer herd.
mo> 
mo> From what I have read, personification of animals is common in the
mo> Animal Rights movement literature.  It certainly has been in those
mo> postings by Russell which I have seen.  Perhaps this lead to Russell's
mo> interpretation of Tim's "turn of phrase".

As I point out from time to time, it seems to me that part of our 
societal difficulty in dealing with ethical problems is that many 
of us personify what appear to be mindless/senseless entities 
(such as fertilized human eggs, brain-dead humans, various gods, 
nature, etc) while refusing to recognize personal agency where it 
clearly exists.  

I trust that you agree with me that it's a mistake to validate 
ideas by asking ourselves whether or not mindless entities 
approve of them.  However, you apparently disagree with me that 
animals possess qualities of personhood.  Have you had any 
experience with individual animals?  If so, did you notice that 
most of them clearly have their own unique emotional behavior, 
their own unique responses to stimuli, their own methods of 
problem solving, etc?  In short, most mammals and birds have 
their own unique personalities.  To the extent that we recognize 
the thoughts and feelings of our non-human animal relatives, 
we're not "personifying" them by any means.  To the contrary, 
we're merely recognizing qualities that they clearly possess.  

mo> Personally, I see the practice of winter feeding and subsequent
mo> hunting as a management practice that works.  I also feel that
mo> hunters who are serious enough about it to pay the $$$ to hunt at
mo> a resort are more likely to kill the animal quickly and effectively.
mo> I find that preferable to the animals starving to death over the
mo> winter.

If management programs were available that would reduce the risk 
of starvation by reducing populations, would you be willing to 
adopt them?  Or, would you still favor management programs that 
assure bumper "crops" of fawns, regardless of the likelihood that 
the additional animals could not survive winter without culling 
or supplemental feeding?  

Why would you assume that people with money to spend on resort
fees would be more humane than poorer hunters?

One final question: Do you consider hunting to be a sport that you 
would find personally appealing?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Premium Standard Farms
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:37:38 GMT


[re: the claim that factory farms do not exist]

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I personally visited a poultry production facility that I would 
rl> describe as a factory farm.  Was I dreaming?    An old friend of mine
rl> is a USDA inspector in New England and he visits such farms every
rl> day.  Is he dreaming as well?

From article <1992Aug25.132026.10035@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
th> There's a fine line between 'dreaming' and 'deluding'.  You must have 
th> been deluding yourself, and the fellow from Kansas was 'dreaming'.

How would you know that I was deluded, Todd?  Were you with me at
the time?  

Would you consider a large, prefabricated building filled with 
cramped cages from floor to rooftop and illuminated solely by 
electric lights, regulated by non-24 hour cycles BTW, to be a 
"natural" environment for chickens?  

th> Honestly, Russell, is it really time for another nit-picking 
th> session on the various levels of perception that the AR INDUSTRY 
th> relies on for thier propaganda machine?  Quick, where's my 
th> dictionary so I can look up 'Factory' and find out just what they 
th> and you mean by 'factory farm'.  Get a life.  

Please explain how and why you think critics of factory farms have
been dishonest.   While you're at it, please explain what you mean
by the phrase "propaganda machine".

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Deer Learning.  Was: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:11:36 GMT


In <BtsAuy.A98@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> In an area where hunting is allowed, any deer that would have 
rl> walked into a human camp would have been killed at the outset.  
rl> Would you mind explaining the mechanism whereby survivors could 
rl> have learned vicariously from such experiences?  

From article <viking.715214637@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> I must not have parsed this one correctly, Russ.  By what
ds> you've asked, it seems you're indicating that only death at the
ds> weapons of a predator will provide a learning experience for a
ds> prey animal.  Granted, visual evidence may provide some warning,
ds> but in Jeff's example it is plausible that the deer were afraid
ds> of people and the learning experience was that they have nothing
ds> to fear.  

Jeff had confounded the evidence, Dan.   To pick a crude example, 
let's say that your room is full of cockroaches and that 80% of
these cockroaches enjoy bright sunlight whereas 20% prefer dark
places.  If you were to kill all the cockroaches that appear in the
light, would it be reasonable for a third-party to assume that the
shadow-loving cockroaches had "learned" to hide?

ds> In hunting, the former is never learned against.  This
ds> also need not require any sort of learning on the part of the deer.

Why don't you debate this point with Jeff?   I'll standby and
watch.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals