HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Putting People First
Date: 15 Apr 1992 00:35:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Putting People First

PEOPLES RIGHTS ORGANIZATION propounds that:

>  Some of these extremists say that the termites have as much 
> "right" to eat your house as you do to live in it.

In the first place, the "peoples right's" types probably made
this up.  Secondly, these anti-animal types so frequently rely
on this "reducto ad absurdium" argument that you wonder if their
brains produce any substantial thought.  ("Do minerals have rights
too?  what about squashing a mosquito? etc.)  One can always make
up an absurd situation, then knock it down.  Rather than argue
directly against the animal advocates, who are making some very 
substantial points, they choose to create their own strawman.  A
good sign that they don't have a case to begin with, and aren't
to be taken seriously.  

>     "Obviously I believe that when our side is heard very few
> people would choose to become an animal "rights" proponent.  Common
> sense shows it's people who have rights, not animals.

Which is why those of us who favor better, more humane
treatment of animals should not talk in terms of animals 
having "rights", and instead debate how humans should treat
animals.  Any concept of "rights" is purely a product of
of human thought, society, and culture.  Whereas whether a
mink is suffering horribly in a mink farm is objective.  Does
the mink have to have "rights" before we decide to not make
it suffer??  Society has long ago accepted the idea that animals 
should not be mistreated, and there are plenty of laws 
mandating that they not be.  All us animal advocates want
to do is close a few silly loopholes that allow fur farms,
wanton animal testing, badger baiting, and other cruelties.

The thing I wonder is, who is the money behind these
"people's rights" phonies?  I'll bet that would be illuminating.
Could be the fur farmers.  Most of them are, as I understand it, 
pretty unsavory sorts.  One article I read alleged that a
disproportionate number of people who own or operate fur farms are 
convicted murderers, child molesters, and others with a history
of antisocial violence.  Not unexpected.  (Of course, since the 
article was penned by animal activists it might have been a tad 
slanted.)

-- steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Putting People First (PPF)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:37:36
In-reply-to: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk's message of 10 Apr 92 12:35:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.123510.29390@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
   In article <1992Apr8.143029.4893@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
   >For those interested, there is an article on an organization called Putting 
   >People First in talk.politics.guns.  It is part of a series of postings 
   >from the PROponent.

   Leave your PROpoganda out of here.

But AR propoganda is okay??

What exactly is this group for if the PRO information is not allowed?

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:02:02 GMT

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>As for hunting injuries and deaths, I fail to see that it is any kind
>of a serious problem, especiallly in our state.  Hunters are required
>to undergo a several hour class in safety.  I dont think there have
>been more than a total of five deaths over several year span.  Not
>a significant number, considering how many people die overall.

If you numbers are correct, that is indeed a pretty good record.
What about injuries?  Anyway, you might want to read my note
to Joe about how we are all very poor at estimating real
world risks.



>Don't know what state you live in, but here in Ohio, no lack of hunters.
>Lots of deer still, hundreds of them, thousands of them.  They get 
>killed on the highways in numbers almost larger than the number shot
>by hunters.

Do you have the exact numbers?  Just because lots of deer
die on the highway hardly seem like a good reason to reduce
their numbers.  What this may simply suggest is that the 
habitat of deer is being more and more hemmed in by our
encroachments and network of roads everywhere.  Paving
across natural deer paths, expecting deer to adjust to
fast cars and trucks, inadvertenly luring them to roadsides
via the grass that grows on the road shoulders, etc., are
hardly the fault of there being too many deer.  I'm not
ruling out your claim, just the kind of evidence you've
given for supporting that claim that you have "lots of
deer".  

I don't know what you mean by lots of deer?  Lots to go 
around for hunters?  I do know that there are lots of 
people on this crowded planet, and this will double to
11 billion in a mere 20 to 30 years given present birth
rates.  Every year populations of wild animals are 
decreasing at alarming rates; some 1000 to 20,000
species of living things are made extinct every year.
What kind of future world do we really want?  Just people
and a few game farms?  Is there no room, no care and interest
in preserving just a few real wildlife "refuges" where
nature can be allowed to run riot without human "management"
pandering to hunter interests?
                                        ted
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:55:51 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <72729@netnews.upenn.edu>, barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.154717.4678@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>Pop quiz:  how many deer, expressed as a percentage of total 
>>population, need to die in a given year for the population to remain about 
>>the same?
> 
> 	The question has little relevance to reality: The proportion
> of population wich must die to maintain a constant popoulation depends
> on many things not the least of which is what population level is
> desired, what the growth rate is...!  Are you saying that there is one
> and only one percentage which if removed from any deer population will
> result in a constant population?

I'm saying that on average roughly 40% of the herd has to die for the 
population to maintain a particular level.  Now, in any one year that might 
not hold true, but it does seem to hold true overall.  If you like I will 
see if I can dig out my source for this.  It was either a report published 
by the N.S. Dept. of Lands and Forests (now the Dept. of Nat. Resources) or 
in one of my books.


> 
> Edwin Barkdoll
> barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu
> eb3@world.std.com
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:01:41 GMT
	<1992Apr13.075839.19524@rtf.bt.co.uk>
	<1992Apr14.162152.12092@NCoast.ORG>
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1992Apr14.162152.12092@NCoast.ORG>, Christopher Morton (cm) writes:

cm> Not surprising that you'd force your animal slave into becoming a
cm> participant in the murder of another living being....

You ever _tried_ to force a cat to eat something it didn't want to
eat?

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk	And as for murdering living beings...
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: hunting myth #3
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:34:41 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Apr6.071845.76@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.095415.4769@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Apr1.093808.18725@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>> In article <1992Mar31.111202.4667@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>In article <1992Mar28.090948.9740@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>>>> In article <1992Mar27.091440.4572@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>>>A sense of security and a sense of satisfaction are both large parts of 
>>>>>>hunting.  But the biggest reason for hunting is because it is *FUN*. :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I seem to remember I found squashing snails was fun when I was eight
>>>>> years old. I grew out of it.
>>>>
>>>>Interesting.  I wonder if one could argue that the AR faction is motivated 
>>>>by feelings of regret and guilt at their own past actions of cruelty.  I 
>>>>wonder if investigating some of them along these lines might turn up 
>>>>anything interesting.....
>>>>
>>> I didn't mention regret or guilt and it was not my reason for giving up
>>> animal produce.
>>
>>No you didn't, but given your statement above I think it is fair to point 
>>out that your stated motivations are probably nothing more than an attempt 
>>at rationalisation of *your* actions, which kinda leaves you hoisted by 
>>your own petard, so to speak.
>>
> 
> I'm confused as to how your childish enjoyement of killing creatures
> represents a rationalisation of my actions.
> 

I'm not surprised you're confused.  But *my* enjoyment is not a 
rationalizaton of *your* actions.  Your past enjoyment makes it seem as 
though your current stated motivations for your current actions are nothing 
more than a rationalzation.  If you still don't get it, don't bother asking 
how so. :-)

Additionally, my enjoyment comes not from the killing, but from the 
hunting.  The kill is the culmination and is final proof that the hunt was 
a success.  So your alteration of my statements (I said I enjoy hunting, 
you translated that to I enjoy killing) is patently false, but is a 
distortion of fact that is typical of you and your ilk so I am not 
surprised.

As to the matter of childishness, I feel your remarks have left little 
doubt as to who in this forum is prime candidate for a charge of 
childishness, at least in its pejorative sense.

> 
> -- 
> Michael Traub
> BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:43:07 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <10zt2!d@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.164107.4780@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>
>>Interesting huh?  I wonder.  Maybe we should come up with a quiz to test 
>>the knowledge of those in the AR camp wrt deer.....mind you, they could 
>>always go look up the answers so it might not be terribly useful....
>>
> And just who would you get to produce the definitive answers to those
> questions?  I suspect they will all be generated from common "hunting
> lore", not from established principles of cervine ecology or facts
> of deer anatomy and physiology.  Much of what hunters know about deer
> is correct.  However, very little of it is ever verified in factual
> studies.  Much is correct, but I'm sure some is incorrect, and I wouldn't
> be at all surprised if some of it were baldface, self-serving lies, or
> at least started out that way, even though it is commonly believed now.

It could be a mixture of 'common hunting lore' and scientifically 
established fact.

Some lore may well have begun as 'baldface, self-serving lies'.  The 
difficulty with this is that it is quite easy to put a 'twist' on 
perception and view a simple misunderstanding in a sinister light.  Given 
that hunting has produced a large and by all accounts healthy deer herd 
where there was before only a decimated reminant and that hunters have 
participated actively in this, I think it is more reasonable to assume the 
former rather than the latter.

Indeed, in closely examining pro-gun and pro-hunting arguments and anti-gun 
and anti-hunting arguments, I have to personally say that I've seen far 
more self-serving lies in the latter than in the former.
> 
> E.S. 
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Putting People First (PPF)
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:30:28 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

For those interested, there is an article on an organization called Putting 
People First in talk.politics.guns.  It is part of a series of postings 
from the PROponent.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ac@apmaths.uwo.ca (alka chandna)
Subject: Re: A.V day and rights demo 
Organization: Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 04:54:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.084021.13622@rdg.dec.com> johnson@hero.enet.dec.com () writes:

>I was surprised, yesterday evening, to hear that next Friday is Anti
>Vivisection day in U.K.

... In the U.K., in the U.S., in Canada, and all over the world!!!
Next Friday (April 24th) is World Day for Laboratory Animals, a time to 
reflect on what happens to animals behind high security lab doors, but 
much more than that, it is a DAY OF ACTION.  The idea is that for the other 
364 days of the year, the animal experimenters (Marjorie Cramer, a plastic 
surgeon with the anti-animal-experimentation group, Medical Modernization 
Research Committee, says that it's more appropriate to say "animal 
experimentation" rather than "animal research", since the latter would 
excessively flatter what actually happens) make life for the animals hell.  
World Day for Laboratory Animals is when concerned people make life for the 
researchers hell.  We have some (legal) activities planned for London, 
Ontario.  There's an anti-dissection rally planned for Toronto, and 
Kitchener/Waterloo is having a lab animal march through the downtown area.  
A HUGE demo is being planned for Pennsylvania, with the infamous head crash 
laboratory having its funding restored ... any details on that?  

I don't have any details about the London, England demo (where & when), but 
I do know that a fantastic Canadian poet named James Strecker will be 
reading at the rally following the march.  

alka
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling Lobsters
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:06:47 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr5.201319.15102@sol.UVic.CA> mnowosel@ernie.UVic.CA (Michael  Nowoselski) writes:
>I apologize if this has been mentioned already, but....
>
>   ...aren't lobsters canibalistic(sp?)?
>
As I remember yes.

>
>Who will protect smaller lobsters from the cruelty of
>being eaten alive by larger lobsters?
>     
No one, why should they? As long as we don't eat them as well their population
levels will remain stable (which they certainly aren't now).

>Just a question.
>
Was there a point in your question?

>Sometimes nature can be so darn cruel.

So that's a reason to join in with the cruelty?


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:05:09 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <AWERLING.92Apr2110726@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.110813.4666@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>In all seriousness, we got into this because as a part of the boiling 
>>lobsters discussion you claimed, more or less, to value all life equally 
>>be it animal, crustatcean or human. I was merely pointing out that you do 
>>compromise on this to some degree and inquiring as to where you stop and 
>>why.  It seems you haven't thought about this much either.
> 
> Actually, I have thought quite a bit about this topic and others,
> John.  I *do* believe all life is equal.  That does *not* imply that I
> would necessarily risk my own life to save another.  I admit to having
> instincts and desires to self-preservation, though I honestly do not
> know why they are there.

Either it is equal or it isn't equal.  It can't only be equal when it 
doesn't involve you personally.

If you honestly don't know why your instincts and desires for 
self-preservation are there, I shan't try to enlighten you.
> 
> I feel that I often take a risk on this newsgroup by being honest.  My
> goal, thankfully, has nothing to do with popularity points, or to
> prove my points incessantly, or any of that.  My point is to learn
> about myself and about other.  I'm being honest by saying that for me,
> all the ideals in the world have the *potential* of being thrown to
> the wayside in an extreme situation.

That is honest, but then what is the use of the ideals?  An ideal, by 
definition, is something one strives for.  Would it not be better to cast 
our ideals asside and live in the world as we find it?

> 
> When you can step down from your superiority complex, John, let me
> know.  Until then, please keep your condescending attitudes to
> yourself.

Now *I* have a superiority complex....interesting.  I really do think you 
could do with some more *re-examination*, but then I probably could too.  I 
said what I said because I feel most of your statements are highly 
idealistic ones which bear little if any resemblance to reality.  
> 
> --
> Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: hunting myth #3 (references)
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:12:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: osnome.RIGG.92Apr13111252
	<1992Apr8.163442.4896@ac.dal.ca> <1992Apr10.073042.21306@rtf.bt.co.uk>
	<1992Apr13.114754.5008@ac.dal.ca>
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: robinson@ac.dal.ca's message of 13 Apr 92 14:47:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.114754.5008@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
   In article <1992Apr10.073042.21306@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
   > In article <1992Apr8.163442.4896@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
   >>In article <1992Apr6.071845.76@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
   >>> In article <1992Apr3.095415.4769@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
   >>>>In article <1992Apr1.093808.18725@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
   >>>>> In article <1992Mar31.111202.4667@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
   >>>>>>In article <1992Mar28.090948.9740@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
   >>>>>>> In article <1992Mar27.091440.4572@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:


Come on guys.  Are all these references really needed?

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll)
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.121437.5011@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <BMIH43.BFr@world.std.com>, eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr8.091640.4884@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>In article <72734@netnews.upenn.edu>, barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>> 	That said, you posted the original claim that deer, at least
>> bucks, become "almost totally nocturnal".  Please post some sort of
>> citation which supports this.
>
>That statement was based on 'hunting lore' and conversations I've had with 
>local wildlife departments.  My original statement, I believe, was that 
>they become almost totally nocturnal *until* the onset of the rut.  Perhaps 
>I clarified that later on.  Perhaps my information is in error.

	Your original statement follows  and contains nothing about
deer being "almost totally nocturnal *until* the onset of teh rut."

From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Date: 26 Mar 92 14:11:19 GMT

>Hint #3: It is a well known fact among hunters that deer who have 
>survived prior hunting seasons catch on to the begining of one very quickly 
>and become almost totally nocturnal.  Those who refuse to learn, and adapt, 
>end up on the supper table.

	Further more unlike hunting seasons which begin abruptly on a
certain  day, the rut follows no such  schedule -- it begins and ends
rather gradually  with a peak  in between.

-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
eb3@world.std.com
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Putting People First
Keywords: Putting People First
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:05:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>Robert Black writes:
>Interesting points here.  There are those within the AR movement who
>believe that they shot themselves in the foot (or worse) by selecting 
>a word like "rights" to characterize their movement.  Rights are a
>fuzzy concept to some people, a strictly human construct to others,
>and almost a mystical thing to yet others.  That third approach even
>seems to be embodied within the founding documents of this nation ("We 
>hold these truths to be self-evident ... endowed with certain 
>inalienable rights...").

Rather than abridge the words of the founding fathers, why not
give a direct quotation without the "..."?

>What do these words REALLY mean?  Do we
>REALLY believe them literally?

Given that that founding fathers said that "all men are created
equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"
(could be a few words off, my memory never was too good), if
we DID take literally these words, animal "rights" would be
without foundation.  Besides, I doubt if everyone wants to
take the word of slaveowners on "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness".  It seems passing strange to me that
the founding fathers would be invoked as AR prototypes.
Of course, if you become a Supreme Court Justice you can
read whatever you like into the preamble :)

Toby Bradshaw
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:27:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr1.075655.14842@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>
>If  wolves  were  capable of growing crops and generally not having to rely
>on hunting animals then cruelty would be the issue.
>
>A  wolf  hunts  to  survive,  but  humans  can  easily  survive without any
>hunting  or  consumption of any animal products, hence the word cruelty can
>be  used.  If  we  *needed*  to  hunt  to  survive  then I would agree that
>cruelty would not be such an issue.
>
I'd deny "easily."  Nor is simple survival enough.
I still believe that good health requires meat.  And chickens raised
in a factory farm "survive" well enough until the powers that be
decide it is their time, though not under pleasant conditions.  

E.S.