HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:08:27 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <viking.715663729@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>In <Bu2EHM.4Mv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>
>	Quite the contrary, I don't require deer be able to even see
>to justify my shooting them in my mind, let alone have superior
>eyesight.  It merely makes it a greater challenge for me to do so.
>However, the fact remains that deer have quite good eyesight, excellent
>hearing, and a refined sense of smell.  Coupled together, they make for
>a formidable sensory array that I cannot hope to match without tools
>such as telescopic sights, buck scent, and camoflauge clothing.
>

You can with practice. Try bowhunting. Getting within 30 yards, raising and
drawing a bow, and placing a shot through brush and trees is quite a challenge,
but not impossible.

>	As for what makes me think deer can witness this, I've seen deer
>bolt at a mile distance (two sections of field) when I stepped from the
>tractor to <ahem> answer the call of nature.  The tractor they let within
>about forty feet, but they ran back into the woods at a mile range.  It
>is possible they did not know what I was, but they weren't sticking around
>to find out, either.  I know this by seeing white flags bounding into the
>woods, as at that distance I couldn't make out individual deer too easily.
>
>>ds> Again, you assume a need for verbal communication and a language.  
>>ds> This is unnecessary.  Police cars do not hail you over a 
>>ds> loudspeaker and tell you to get off the road, and likewise deer 
>>ds> need no such distinct verbage to communicate.  Why else do game 
>>ds> calls work?  
>
>>The only game calls that I'm familiar with mimic mating sounds that
>>are characteristically engrained in the behavior of the species.  For
>>you to cite their effectiveness as evidence of the ability of deer
>>to communicate abstract notions seems rather flimsy to me.   You need
>>to give the example of police sirens more critical thought, Dan.
>

There are many other calls available. Grunts and snorts (using deer as an 
example) serve as warnings of danger and are also used to locate one another
for purposes other than mating. Does "talk" to one another as well as to their
young. 
  Predator calls typically imitate a dying rabbit, and thereby attract coyotes
and other predators looking for an easy meal.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:25:03 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Wheeler writes:
>>>>  8:45 - 9:45 "Beyond Beef" - Jeremy Rifkin

Cowboy (?) writes:
>>>What is beyond beef is, more beef

Robert Unglenieks writes:
>>Hopefully not in the future....but for now, sadly, you are right......

Cowboy quips:
>I know  I'm Right the beef markets are expnding and so are the beef producters.

Well, yes and no.  Isn't it true that per capita consumption of beef is down
11% from 1981?  While it is true that "production" is up, this is more than
likely due to an increase in the number of meat eaters, although the number
of vegetarians in the US has tripled since 1981.
Another thing to consider is that 20% of Americans are trying vegetarian meals.

>>>>  9:45 -10:15 Break
>>>For Hot Dogs?
>>Sure, why not.  Not Dogs are great.....Soybeans and all that you know....
>
>No. 100% Iowa corn fed beef.

There is no beef in a Not Dog.  It's mostly tofu.  Which may or may not be
100% Iowa soybeans......

>>>>  1:45 - 2:30 "Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture" - Terry Gips
>>>Sorry people animal production is a key point here you need the waste to 
>>>replace the chemicals.
>>What exactly are you trying to say?  It doesn't seem to make any sense....
>
>The Defintion of Sustainable Ag. is to increase the out of a farm by lowering
>the inputs.  Since shit is cheaper than NPK, it fits.

What do the cows eat?  I am sure they graze (unless you're a feedlot type)
but you probably also give them supplemental feed.  What went into production
of the feed?
 
>Beef is my life.
>mpleis@iastate.edu     Mark L. Pleis 

I'm sorry.......

Rob U, feel strong as a bull?  well, bulls are vegetarians.......
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:21:16 GMT

u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:

`swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:

`> Human life is more valuable than animal life!

`This statement is false.

`Don't even think about trying to impose your own value system on me. I'll
`make up my own mind on what is valuable, thanks very much.

My opinion on this comes from the fact that the intelligence of a human
is capable of more good than any 1000 animals combined.  Whether that be
for mankind, animal kind or the environment.  And whether or not the human
intelligence has the wisdom to act for good.

swood

-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:32:52 GMT


[ re the personification of "Nature" ]

In article <Bu2Fxw.5AM@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> ...  It wasn't all that long ago that Agni the Fire God was still 
rl> alive and well.  Even today, I meet people who scratch their 
rl> heads when I ask them where fires go when the fuel is fully 
rl> consumed.  "To heaven?", was the response I got from a young 
rl> teenager a few weeks ago.  

From article <1992Sep5.134528.4713@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> OK, Russell, point well taken.  Rather than simply calling Matt's
ry> views "misrepresentations," how about supplying some EVIDENCE of
ry> that fact?  Or are you simply going to assert that he's lying and
ry> leave it at that?

I do not consider Matt to be a liar for telling us what "Nature" 
does or doesn't believe.  Still, it's important for us to divest 
ourselves of the habit of invoking non-existent authorities as 
convenient props for our own personal opinions.  The use of such 
authorities may not be lies, but they are misrepresentations.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Serial Killer Stalking Sportsmen II
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 20:54:06 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


From your two reports (which are very interesting by the way), I
get the impression this murderer is simply going out to rural
areas and shooting anyone who is ALONE. It just so happens that
many of them were hunters but you also mentioned anglers and a
hiker(?) were shot as well.
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Animal have no rights
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:21:07 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>`Scott Wood writes:
>`>I am not afraid to say it, that I do not believe animals have rights.

>unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>`You are an animal.  Do you have rights?

Scott Wood writes:
>I am a reasoning being.  I can honor rights as well as understand them.
>Thus I have rights.  Without such a reasoning being walking the face of
>the earth, this discussion would not even exist.  Thus the concept of
>rights would not even exist.  I say it again, animals have no rights.

Do you know that animals are incapable of reasoning?  As was said by the
French philosopher Montaigne:

  The defect that hinders communication betwixt them and us, 
  why may it not be on our part as well as theirs?

Could your dog be looking at you know and be thinking,"Too bad that human
can't reason....I have him trained pretty well...."?

>Sharing anything with a human (even when I have helped my ex work with
>retarded adults) tends to be much more stimulating then interacting with
>an animal.  The only things that can be "learned" from animals is by
>observing their behavior, whether instinctual or conditioned.  Humans,
>unlike animals strive to learn.

And I have spent many non-stimulating animals with very intelligent people....
I have spent many "stimulating" hours with animals.  From playing or running
with the dogs to just walking around with the horses, I find many things about
the way they think fascinating.  Several times I have been mystified while
teaching a trick to one, that another will try to do it too.  It doesn't
have to, it wants to.  I do not use food rewards......

>Even if you argue that some chimps in labs have been taught basic speach,
>there are still valid arguements to support the fact that it is just
>advanced conditioning.  

As part of the Gardners research with chimps, Boyce Rensberger, a reporter
remarked after meeting with the chimps:
  
    Suddenly I realized I was conversing with a member of another
    species in my native tongue.

Many times the chimps created new words for a new object and they corresponded
to the actual word.  Beasts abstract not?

>And usually they are not willing to learn what
>they are taught, however, they are more interested in getting a treat.
>swood

One chimp in particular, thought it her duty to teach a cat sign language.
She reasoned that the cat was stupid.  There was no motivation for Washoe
to speak to the cat, except to converse with another animal.  And, what
motivation does a chimp have to say "Cry me.  Me cry." when its foster mother
is removed?

Rob U, I am not able to "prove" that I exist, so why do I have rights?
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal rights...again
Date: 14 Sep 1992 17:47:50 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu


cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

> In a broader sense, no animals, not even humans, have inherent rights.

Absolutely true.  The concept of rights is totally man-made.  

> We only have rights given to us by our governments.  

I would say that not only governements, but other institutions,
as well as the less formal effects of culture and social 
philosophy, confer rights upon men and women.  These same
mechanisms could -- and some would argue have -- confer rights
upon animals.

> The Declaration of
> Independence states that all men are created equal, with certain 
> inalienable rights.  "Men" refers to male and female humans, not 
> to animals.  

Actually, at the time they were only refering to male 
humans.  And only to freemen at that.  So the class of
beings with rights has already broadened, a bit.

Although I do not myself believe that animals have rights,
and believe even more strongly that it is useless to debate
the point, I do not rule out that they could have rights,
eventually, if enough people are willing to believe they do.
It is not inconceivable that public opinion will eventually
shift to the point that animals start having rights.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: RE: Animal rights...again
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:22:55 GMT

From article <15SEP92.12475137@wums.wustl.edu>, by w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu:
jc> Certainly, no rational being supports torturing an animal to 
jc> death.  

In the 60's and 70's, pain-avoidance experiments were quite 
popular in psychological departments around the country, and were 
defended on the grounds that they yielded insights into human 
learning abilities, human phobias, etc.  Are you suggesting that 
the men and women who supported such experiments were irrational?  

jc> In that sense, yes, every living creature is entitled to 
jc> certain "rights." However, this is generally not what is meant by 
jc> the phrase "animal rights".  Most AR groups are advancing the 
jc> position that humans and animals are morally equivalent and that 
jc> all animals are therefore entitled to all rights enjoyed by 
jc> humans.  This is an important distinction.  

In light of your statements concerning the wrongfulness of
"torture", I'm not sure what you mean by "moral equivalence".
What's the basis for "moral equivalence" and "moral distinctions".

-- 
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: Animal Research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:04:08 GMT

From article <14SEP92.12510596@wums.wustl.edu>, by w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu:
> Here at Washington University in St.  Louis, I have been a part 
> of organizing a group of medical and graduate students into a 
> group called "Animal Research in Science and Education", or 
> ARISE.  We aim to teach the public about the true nature of animal 
> research - how and why it is carried out, and why we feel animal 
> research must be allowed to continue.  We also devote 
> considerable effort to address the half-truths and outright lies 
> concerning animal research which groups like PETA and PCRM spread 
> on a daily basis.  

Would you mind posting a few of these "outright lies"/

> Animal Research Saves Lives!!!!!

-- How much money is spent on animal research in the US each year?
-- How many americans receive little or no health care because of 
   financial disabilities?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: What Animal Rights people are really saying.
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:03:34 GMT
Summary: complete quote from Vicki Miller, ARK II
Keywords: animal rights violence 


A while back, someone posted a list of quotes intended to discredit
the animal rights movement.  One of the quotes was attributed to Vicki
Miller, of ARK II, a Toronto based group.  The quote might have given the
impression that Ms Miller advocates violence.

Since I live in Toronto, I contacted ARK II and asked them for more inform-
ation.  They told me that the quote was given out of context; in fact it was
a prediction by Ms Miller, not what she would like to happen but what she
thought might happen.

_The_Animals'_Agenda_ asked AR leaders, "Assuming the movement can maintain
the momentum it has established, what goals do you think could be achieved
in the next ten years?"

Ms Miller's reply, as quoted in the Jan/Feb 1986 issue of _The_Animals'_
_Agenda_:


	As it becomes increasingly clear to the public that present
	exploitational practices are devastating in their destructive
	impact on the planet, on the nonhuman beings, and on ourselves,
	we will likely see an increased consciousness and a greater 
	receptivity to what the animal rights movement has to say. As
	awareness grows over the next decade, I expect that the term
	'animal rights' will be replaced by the less esoteric one,
	'animal liberation', and that the animal liberation movement
	will become more closely aligned with the environmental
	movements.  (There must also develop, eventually, a recognition
	of the need to curtail the burgeoning growth of the human
	population.)

	The next decade will see a greater degree of sophistication on
	both sides of the issues creating a practical need for greater 
	cooperation between animal groups.  Those who wish to perpetuate
	petty grievances will likely find themselves left standing out in
	the cold, while human and financial resources will be more
	frequently pooled to fight the increased resources and energy of
	the animal exploiters.

	While a greater centralization may occur with larger groups,
	many decentralized smaller groups will spring up causing an
	increase in direct action tactics, both legal and illegal.

	I believe that this decade will see the first acts of true
	violence.  Some may be accidental--like a bystander killed
	in a bomb blast; some will be deliberate--like a vivisector
	shot in the street.  The violence will confuse and divide us,
	but it will be a temporary adjustment and then we will learn

Rosemary Waigh
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org	

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:41:47 GMT

>Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the eyesight of
>a deer is "quite good", as you say?  Or, is this another one of those
>assumptive "facts"?
>

How about seeing a camouflaged hunter, 15 feet up a tree, blink from a distance
of 40 yards? Questions like these really make me wonder if you've ever spent 
time around deer. I saw a reference once that you used to hunt. Not very well
would be my guess if you have so little esteem for a deer's senses.

>ds> 	As for what makes me think deer can witness this, I've seen deer
>ds> bolt at a mile distance (two sections of field) when I stepped from the
>ds> tractor to <ahem> answer the call of nature.  The tractor they let within
>ds> about forty feet, but they ran back into the woods at a mile range.  It
>ds> is possible they did not know what I was...
>
>Precisely.
>

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:15:39 GMT

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
tr> Read this description again, especially the part about screaming 
tr> loudly that they were PETA members.  Also, the part about being 
tr> interested in causing *obvious* trouble.  Which does it sound 
tr> more like, people working to help animals, or people working to 
tr> discredit the AR movement?  I think you've been bamboozled.  

From article <swood.716185837@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
sw> Aw, come on now.  And you say that I am fabricating?  I suppose 
sw> that you are going to tell me now that the attacks on local 
sw> animal research clinics were actually just people working to 
sw> discredit The Animal Liberation Front?  I suppose that we are 
sw> going to have to issue ID's to Animal Rights and Anti`s so that 
sw> we can truely identify them as real or not.  

PETA's offered a $500 reward, I believe, for information leading 
to the arrest and conviction of any "PETA" individuals involved 
in the release or poisoning of show animals.  If these events are 
unfolding the way you describe, it seems to me that it'd be easy 
to claim a lot of $500 rewards.  Do us all a favor and go for it.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:11:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <Bu10nt.GsB@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):

> Russell Lawrence writes:
> rl> From "The Glossary of Logical Terms: Fallacies", _The Encyclopedia
> rl> of Philosophy_, McMillen and Company.
> rl> 
> rl>    11) begging the question (circular reasoning), an argument 
> rl>        that assumes as part of the premises the conclusion that 
> rl>        it supposed to be proved. 
> rl>
> rl> I'm going to save this quotation and repost it everytime you tell
> rl> us that humans have rights because they're human.
> 
> From article <Bu0uxC.1I5@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
> cm> Repetition does not equate to correctness.  If it did, "The 
> cm> Protocols of the Elders of Zion" would be true...  you DON'T 
> cm> believe it's true...  DO you?  
> 
> Do you agree with the editors of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> that circular arguments are fallacious?

You DO believe that the "Protocols" are false, don't you...?

> Instead of repetitiously telling us that humans have rights 
> because they're human (ie a circular argument), why don't you 
> explain why you think humans have rights?  

Instead of repetitiously equating Blacks with non-human animals, why don't 
you explain why animals have rights for some OTHER reason than that you consider
them equivalent to people of color...?


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: CAL THOMAS AND INGRED NEWKIRK??
Date: 8 SEP 92 08:58:39 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
NNTP-Posting-Host: msnews.wustl.edu

I read an article by arch-conservative Cal Thomas about two weeks ago.  In it,
he argued against increasing funding for AIDS research, largely because those
who suffer from the disease "could have avoided it by not engaging in certain
immoral behaviors." (not an exact quote).

The article was very bitter, filled with not one word of sympathy for the
victims of this disease.  It also seemed very familiar, somehow.

It occured to me today that this article reminded me of Ingred Newkirk 
(PETA's directory) and her position that AIDS research should be halted. She 
also argues that the victims of the disease could have avoided it, and that
therefore we should not use the chimps and macaques necessary to find a 
vaccine.

I've always heard that if you go far enough to the political right, you start
bumping into people on the far left.  I've never really realized until now
how true that can be



_______________________________________________________________

Jim Cook
W95_COOK@wums.wustl.edu

_______________________________________________________________


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals