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: Fri, 6 Nov 92 16:20:26 GMT

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.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: animals in research. 
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:51:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.210634.755@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org   
(Udo_Meyer) writes:
> 
> Animals died without any reason again. And many humans died also. :-(
> 

Oh Oh. Bad news again. Just seen a TV-report about a new scandal
with medical drugs:-( The drug injected to immunize against
allergic reactions due to normal (home) dust IS normal (home) dust
out of normal (home) vacuum cleaners! They inject that directly in the vein!
They spoke (if I remember correct) of about 20 known deaths due to a shock
after injection of that drug(???) and a estimated number that is three
times higher. Again: what for are animals dying in research ?
And how much can you believe any medical treatment ?

Udo.

-- 
Angel dust
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:51:14 GMT

In article <1dqg7eINN3jq@agate.berkeley.edu> timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda) writes:
>
>General note: (not to Ted or any specific person)
>I'm not particularly interested in trapping people in small points
>of semantics or issues of style (ie. "never" vs. "practically never").
>Nor do I want to waste my or anyone else's time bickering
>over minor details (ie. "Poachers" are a subset of the superset of
>"hunters."  Therefore, not all hunters are poachers.  End of story).
>A lot of talk seems to get wasted and a lot of otherwise interesting
>discussion seems to muddled in t.p.a. because of petty arguments
>over the "small stuff."  Baiting and selective editing are also
>rampant - none of which contributes one iota to a thread.  This
>is just a forewarning that I'm not going to descend to that level
>in my responses and I'm not going to tolerate it in posts directed
>towards me.
>
>One last favor I'd like to ask:
>When making a reply to one of my points, I'd appreciate
>having entire paragraph reposted.  This reduces the chance for
>later misinterpretation. I try to write in bite-sized segments to
>make this easier to do.
>

Here, Here!
			  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.
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:07:43 GMT

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

>From article <1992Nov7.060943.3816@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.
com (mary.rita.otto):
>... [ad hominems deleted]
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

Russell, Let me reinsert the "ad hominems" you have "deleted."


In article <1992Nov7.060943.3816@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (ma
ry.rita.otto) writes:

>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)
>


You would have an ad hominem argument if mary called you an idiot or a
witch in an unwarranted and undisciplined attempt to slander your person.
Here, as elsewhere, she comments (offers her opinion) on elements of your
writing that she finds misleading, untruthful, and disingenuous--without
name-calling.  That you would replace objections she makes to your manner of
discourse with your phrase "[ad hominems deleted]" shows either a paranoid
tendency, a misunderstanding of ad hominem argument, or a new [as yet
unnumbered] tactic in which people who illuminate disagreement with your
argument are falsely accused of slandering your person in a context which
you have destroyed through editing.

**
From: rigg@valeron.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunting
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:42:09 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu's message of 12 Nov 1992 13:49:30 -0600

In article <9211121952.AA01833@service> gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown) writes:

   But I think a stronger case against hunting can be made on the grounds of
   morals and ethics.  Hunting today amounts to "killing for fun."  Less than
   2% of hunting qualifies as subsistence hunting.  

The resulting meat is of no value?  Is it better to pay someone to do
my killing for me?

   Survey research consistently supports the finding that killing of the
   animal is only one part of the total hunting experience.  Being
   outdoors, being with friends, enjoying the scenery, etc.
   consistently rank above or on par with
   the killing experience.  In other words, there are alternative activities
   that can replace hunting.

Those components are indeed a major part of hunting.  However, they
will not fill my freezer. 

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:51:43 GMT

From article <1992Nov7.060943.3816@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
... [ad hominems deleted]
mo> So, Russell, just what are the qualifications someone must have in
mo> order for them to be able to have a valid opinion about something?
mo> Is it okay for them just to agree with you?  Or must they actually
mo> *be* you, and only you?

Good question.  What sort of animal rights viewpoints can a film 
producer express without causing folks like Scott to buy a ticket 
to a performance with the deliberate intention of demanding his 
money back later on?  

Is a script-writer obliged to represent Scott's viewpoints or 
Mary Otto's viewpoints alone?   Or can he express his own views
as well?

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?  

-- 
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: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:51:25 GMT

From article <1992Nov5.204603.1998@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
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".    

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. 

-- 
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: Violent protest
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:36:17 GMT

From article <fmh1!yj@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> I'm afraid I disagree with you guys on this one.  Let's look at the
jve> case of arson, for instance.  Innocent firemen are put at risk and get
jve> injured and killed while fighting fires.  I would never consider
jve> arson, which involves innocent people at risk, to be somehow good
jve> because it was directed at some AR headquarters, instead of at animal
jve> research labs.  Arson is inherently wrong, period.  You guys just
jve> don't get it, do you...

Yep, we get it.  For some strange reason, however, you've 
continued to "paraphrase" the position of your opponents in order 
to twist their meaning.   For example, you stated several days ago
that I considered arson to be "ok", yet you've failed to produce
a genuine quotation (as opposed to a "paraphrase") to support
such a claim.

I agree with you that arson is an "evil".  However, you seem to be
unable or unwilling to admit that arson may be the lesser of 
evils in a particular instance.  I don't condone lab burning, but 
I can understand how some well-meaning, but misguided folks might 
consider it to be acceptable...  just as I can understand (albeit 
not condone) the mentality of folks who firebombed Dresden and
dropped napalm on kids in vietnam.  

Isn't it also wrong to harm policemen who are charged with the 
responsibility of upholding the law?  Let's suppose, once again, 
that legislation were eventually passed that would outlaw private 
ownership of guns.  Would you surrender your guns in such a case?  
Or, are you going to tell us, once again, that the cops would 
have to "pry them from your cold, dead fingers"?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Date: 10 Nov 1992 00:13:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BxGz18.ELK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Scott Wood writes:
>sw> My brother made an interesting point to me the other day.  I was talking
>sw> to him about how I was bothered about the Animal Rights propaganda that is
>sw> occasionally slipped in movies like "Doc Hollywood" and "Lethal Weapon 3".
 
>sw> He told me that when he went to see LW3 and saw the animal rights bumper
>sw> stickers, he got up from his seat and walked to the lobby to ask for his
>sw> money back claiming, "I came to see a comedy, not an AR propaganda movie"
 
>sw> He supposedly has encouraged his friends to do so as well, and he commented
>sw> on another file (forget the title) that they did this enough on that the
>sw> manager removed it from the theater.  (ie I guess some of his friends made
>sw> intential exodus trips to see the film)

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Why don't you write a letter to the producers of such films and let
>rl> them know where you stand?  Be sure to give them a complete whiff of 
>rl> your aroma by letting them know your opinion:
 
>rl> -- that Jane Fonda was a "traitor" in the fight against world communism
>rl> -- that you disapprove of government support for health care
>rl> -- that you consider anyone who voted for Bill Clinton to be a "loonie" 

>From article <swood.721336235@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
>sw> don't ever let me hear you yell netiquette....

>Two questions:

>Does etiquette preclude your opponents from commenting on your ideas?

>Is it proper etiquette for you to buy a ticket to a showing of a film 
>when you're deliberately planning to demand your money back later on?


Scott, you might want to point out to Russell that buying a ticket while
deliberately planning to demand your money back is no less etiquette than
tying up an honest businessman's toll free lines with no intentions of 
conducting business with the company but rather just to disrupt a business
that such people do not agree with.


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


Mike Linan



















Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:41:48 GMT

In <BxBoGI.CuC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Isn't it also wrong to harm policemen who are charged with the 
>responsibility of upholding the law?  Let's suppose, once again, 
>that legislation were eventually passed that would outlaw private 
>ownership of guns.  Would you surrender your guns in such a case?  

	Are you kidding?  For me, the succinct word is "never."

>Or, are you going to tell us, once again, that the cops would 
>have to "pry them from your cold, dead fingers"?  

	As I, as a law-abiding citizen and, inherent in that claim,
a hunter and not a poacher, see it, there is no reason to disarm me.  
The query is loaded, as I could claim that only those who have passed
a background check and a waiting period should be allowed access to
matches and flammables.  Rather, we are talking about intentional
misuse versus proper and lawful use.  Cop killers deserve to die.
AR arsonists merely deserve to suffer a long, lingering death at the
hands of a fellow inmate in the state pen.  I consider this sort of
thing "justice," if not "societal evolution."

< 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: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Date: 9 Nov 1992 20:23:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BxAz7v.7KK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <swood.721056858@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
>sw> Gee, I don't think I see the word "hunt" or "hunting" anywhere in 
>sw> the Webster definition.  Remind me not to buy American Heritage 
>sw> dictionaries.  They must have AR-heads working on the 
>sw> definitions.....  

>from the New World Webster's dictionary in front of me:

>     "poach: ... 3b) to hunt or catch (game or fish) illegally, 
>      especially by trespassing".

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


Really!  This group is getting so boring.  Now we are playing spelling
and definition games.  Like the fact that a few dictionaries define poach-
ing as illegal hunting is going to shine bad on all hunters.  If that is
true we might as well define all males who live in New Orleans that are 
sexually active as rapists simply because of those in New Orleans that 
truely *are* rapists.


Mike Linan










Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:47:05 GMT

From article <1992Nov9.165551.25953@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> I must say your stance on the issue sounds to be based on a absolute
gp> ethical basis.  I admire your conviction.  Though I disagree with your
gp> conclusions.  At least someone here will stand be their beleifs instead of
gp> wavering back and for "depending on the situation" (This means you
gp> Russell).

I can't help wondering if your views "waver" back and forth in 
accordance with the situation.  For example, is it always wrong
to kill human beings?  Or would the rightness or wrongness of
such an activity depend on the situation?

-- 
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: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:08:56 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I don't understand your question, Rich.   In particular, I'm baffled
rl> by your demand for a "series of numbered statements".    
rl>
rl> If you want me to discuss the reasons for my own dietary choices, 
rl> I'd be pleased to do so, but I see no reason to confine myself to 
rl> a particular mental architecture that would suit folks whose minds 
rl> are bound by linear thinking. 

From article <viking.721037507@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Draw us a flowchart, Russ.  You're rather known for logical
ds> and empirical analysis when it suits you -- do it here.  Simple.
ds> I'll even be so bold as to state that we'll accept it in any form
ds> of psuedo-language, be it C, xBase, Prolog, Fortran, or English
ds> in the familiar boxes showing conditionals.  Frankly, I'm interested.

So am I, but I don't understand why you think that a discussion 
of ethical choices ought to take the form of a "flow chart".  
Would you mind explaining your rationale?  As a demonstration of 
your good faith, it would also be helpful if you'd provide an 
illustration of such a flow chart by mapping out your analysis of 
human animal rights versus non-human animal rights as extensively 
as possible.  Be sure to use the "familiar boxes showing 
conditionals", lest someone accuse you of setting hypocritical 
standards.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Anti-hunters issue death threats in Ohio
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:25:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.161534.2327@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whiteh
ead) writes:

>From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, 11/10/92
>
>WILDLIFE OFFICIALS RECEIVE DEATH THREATS OVER DEER-KILL PLAN
>
>Wildlife officials faced with shooting whitetailed deer that have overpopulate
d
>Sharon Woods MetroPark in Columbus have received death threats if they carry o
ut
>the plan this winter.
>
>"Killing those deer is something we certainly don't want to do" said Pat Ruble
,
>head of game management for the Ohio Division of Wildlife, who confirmed the
>death threats.  "Because of the threats I really can't talk about the manageme
nt
>plan, such as when and how it will be done, only that it will be sometime this
>winter.


Interesting article retyped by Kenneth.  I can comment some on the public
reaction because I live only a few miles from the park.  At least as
expressed in the major media outlets which I read or see, the reaction
to the deer kill has been varied, with the dominant position being that
the wildlife officials are doing what has to be done.

The people who are set against the deer kill offer some of the following
arguments:

1)  The deer should be relocated.  A man from a rural county offered his
    acreage for the deer to be removed to.  Apparently there are problems
    with expense and about 50% deer mortality during relocation.

2)  All the bucks should be removed from the park--no more should be allowed
    to enter.

3)  The wildlife officials should recognize that the Sharon Woods Park has
    become a big petting zoo.  Feed the deer, continue birth control
    attempts on the females, and get the population in check that way.

4)  The killing of any non-human animal species by a human is ethically
    and absolutely wrong.


As to the article's statement on the booming deer population in Ohio,
especially in the newly suburbanizing counties surrounding major cities--
very true.  Ask any neighbor who lives around where I do:  deer coming
through windshields, deer causing accidents or near accidents, deer
bouncing off cars and trucks.   My own car encounter with a doe was a
1,400 dollar collision which, fortunately I lived through, but
unfortunately brought the doe an excruciatingly painful injury and death.

**
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:12:43 GMT
Organization: WP Group


Scott Wood writes:
sw> My brother made an interesting point to me the other day.  I was talking
sw> to him about how I was bothered about the Animal Rights propaganda that is
sw> occasionally slipped in movies like "Doc Hollywood" and "Lethal Weapon 3".
sw> 
sw> He told me that when he went to see LW3 and saw the animal rights bumper
sw> stickers, he got up from his seat and walked to the lobby to ask for his
sw> money back claiming, "I came to see a comedy, not an AR propaganda movie"
sw> 
sw> He supposedly has encouraged his friends to do so as well, and he commented
sw> on another file (forget the title) that they did this enough on that the
sw> manager removed it from the theater.  (ie I guess some of his friends made
sw> intential exodus trips to see the film)

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Why don't you write a letter to the producers of such films and let
rl> them know where you stand?  Be sure to give them a complete whiff of 
rl> your aroma by letting them know your opinion:
rl> 
rl> -- that Jane Fonda was a "traitor" in the fight against world communism
rl> -- that you disapprove of government support for health care
rl> -- that you consider anyone who voted for Bill Clinton to be a "loonie" 

From article <swood.721336235@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
sw> don't ever let me hear you yell netiquette....

Two questions:

Does etiquette preclude your opponents from commenting on your ideas?

Is it proper etiquette for you to buy a ticket to a showing of a film 
when you're deliberately planning to demand your money back later on?

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