HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.195101.6056@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Rob
ert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.203237.13105@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep4.154150.11709@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (
Ro
>>bert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>
>>>If you're saying that ARs fail to appreciate that there is incredible
>>>suffering within the natural world, then you're probably wrong.  ARs do
>>>realize this and they also realize that a certain amount of cruelty is
>>>human-caused and preventable.
>>>
>>>Granted it may not make a difference to the natural world, but don't you
>>>agree that the amount suffering and the method of death make a big
>>>difference to the deer?  ... just like the amount of pain you suffer and
>>>the method by which you die, though irrelevant to the natural world,
>>>are probably very important to you.
>>
>>Yes. I once lived in a place where animals were slaughtered in the presence
>>of other animals.  In particular, one beautiful prize ram was being
>>kept around and fed choice food to be fattened up for his ultimate
>>demise.  He witnessed a succession of smaller and less impressive
>>animals have their throats cut, gasp for breath, twitch and expire--
>>right in front of him.  To the extent that I'm using the right word, the
>>animal clearly went "insane" from his experiences.   I was there when
>>he was killed; he knew it was coming, I felt the animals's panic and
>>sensed its level of comprehension of what was happening to it.
>
>Though I have never personally eyewitnessed such a stirring and stark
>drama as you describe, I have no problem accepting your interpretation
>of what the ram was experiencing.  But how you do answer those who would
>dismiss your words as idle projections of human feelings onto animals,
>that is, as sentimental unscientific anthropomorphizing?
>
>---
>Robert Black
>black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
>These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.


Misinformed.  And we were so damn hungry and starving that he tasted good
when we ate him, and I at least had a profound sense of gratitude for what
he provided us.
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: behaviorism. Was: swan hunting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:48:19 GMT

From article <1992Sep10.210140.3255@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> If my dog acts in a certain way when I return home, I can choose to
mo> say that my dog is "happy to see me" or I can say that the dog's
mo> behavior is a conditioned response to the regular sequence of events
mo> of coming home, letting the dog out, playing with the dog, and feeding
mo> the dog.  

Yep, you can say this, just as Noam Chomsky could have said, and 
did say, that key premises in "behaviorist" arguments about human 
and animal behavior reflect circular reasoning.  For Chomsky's 
scathing critique of behaviorism, see "Review of Skinner's _Verbal 
Behavior_, _Language_ (1959) pp 26-58.  Reprinted in _Readings in
the Psychology of Language_, edited by Leon Jakobovits and Murray
Miron.

Bernard Rollin further disects behaviorism in _The Unheeded Cry: 
Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science_.  Oxford 
University Press: New York, 1989.  Highly recommended.

For a commonsense view of animal intelligence, see Darwin, 
Charles.  "Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower 
Animals", _The Descent of Man_, chapters 3 & 4.  While the text 
is dated, Darwin presents some compelling evidence to support of 
his view that the differences between human and non-human mental 
faculties are a matter of degree, not kind.  Also highly 
recommended, especially for people who've never read Darwin.

Finally, I'd recommend an essay by Donald Griffin, "Animal Thinking"
which was published in the November, 1991 issue of _Scientific
American_. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject:  Re: swan hunting
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:52:13 GMT

smithm@plugflow.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith) writes:

> There is nothing pretty about death
>no matter how it happens, but happen it will, and to everything. When an 
>animal dies it opens up more resources to the rest of kin and competitors.
>Argueing about the way in which that animal will die is a mute point, because
>die it will. It makes no difference if say that deer dies quickly by the 
>bullet from a gun, an arrow, predation, or by more "natural" means of
>starvation, disease, parasitism, or accident.


 black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236) replies:

>>Granted it may not make a difference to the natural world, but don't you
>>agree that the amount suffering and the method of death make a big
>>difference to the deer?  ... just like the amount of pain you suffer and
>>the method by which you die, though irrelevant to the natural world,
>>are probably very important to you.


I think you're missing the point, Bob, but I would certainly agree with
your statement, as well as Matt's.  If a deer (or person) had their choice
of how they must die (for as Matt accurately points out, we all must), I would
surmise that a quick death by bow or bullet would be far preferable to slow
starvation, being slowly consumed by parasites, or being torn to pieces while
still living by a pack of wild canines.  I've personally witnessed the last
one, and it wasn't pretty.  The fawn died hard, bawling piteously for several 
minutes as a pack of coy dogs hamstrung it, then proceeded to eat the tender 
parts between it's haunches without bothering to kill it first.  Unfortunately,
I was about 75 yards away at the time, and since I was hunting with a bow, I
could not intervene to end the fawn's suffering due to the distance (nor was
I willing to get out of the safety of my treestand and wade into a pack of
feeding canines, for obvious reasons). 

Let's face it;  sometimes "Mother Nature" can be a cruel bitch.  (And Russell, 
in case you're lurking around out there; please don't bore me with any of your 
"personification of nature" arguments...)

Glad to see we agree on something, Bob. ;-)
From: w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: RE: Animal Research
Date: 15 SEP 92 11:30:48 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
NNTP-Posting-Host: msnews.wustl.edu

In a previous article, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) wrote:
>  I eat meat regularly, and I love bowhunting, so killing is not what bothers 
>me. Prolonged suffering does. There is, for everyone, a time to die. For some 
>of us it will come sooner than for others. Although modern medical science has
>worked wonders for some, I'm not sure it's worth the price we pay. I think our
>efforts would be far more effective if spent on preventive health care for the 
>poor kids who have never seen a dentist, for example. Medical care has become 
>expensive beyond reach for many people today, and there are limited funds 
>available. I do not subscribe to the belief that human life is priceless. Money
>and effort spent on extraordinary means to extend the lives of individuals is 
>money not available for many other worthy causes. We've gone way too far in
>this regard. Hard choices for sure, but the choices must be made.

I strongly agree with you that we need to place far more emphasis on 
preventative health care in this country.  What you and the animal rights
organizations need to realize is that preventative medicine REQUIRES animal
research.  The development of vaccines to protect against disease REQUIRES
the use of experimental animals.  The rise of AIDS and, more recently,
bacterial strains with multiple resistence to antibiotics, makes these kinds
of research projects all the more imperative.

In addition, you have to realize that as we conquer more and more of the
preventable diseases, we are forced to deal with diseases which cannot be
prevented - especially inborn genetic defects.  

There is also a very strong mean streak in many animal rights groups.  The
attitude I often observe is as follows:  if some guy develops lung cancer
because he smoked for twenty years, it's his own fault - let him die rather
than kill the animals to save his life.  This attitude is profoundly
anti-human, and completely incompatable with the philosophy of medical
practice which has existed for the last 5,000 years!

Yes - prevention is important.  But it's only a part of the whole picture.
Animal research is necessary and will continue to be so for some time to
come.

JC



_______________________________________________________________

Jim Cook
W95_COOK@wums.wustl.edu

_______________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 22:44:32 GMT

In article <Bu4BIu.9K9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>[ re the personification of "Nature" ]
>

[...]

>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.  

	1. No "non-existent authority" was "invoked."  A convenient
		terminology was used to express a thought, with an implied
		personification used as a literary device.  There was no
		intent to show that "Nature" has cognition.  Would you
		have had the man duplicate Darwin's writings simply to
		avoid this use of the word "Nature?"  I suspect that
		everyone else who read the quote in question understood
		the devices used, the reasons for their use, and the
		underlying thought being expressed.

		If you disagree with the underlying thought, then say so;
		your objection here is nothing more than a semantic quibble.

	2. You have made a more serious charge of misrepresentation.  Now,
		keeping the above rules in mind, please show us precisely
		where the misrepresentation was made...and if you come back
		with some complaint about the "personification of Nature,"
		we'll all know that your purpose in this thread was more to
		hear yourself spout quasi-philosophical platitudes than
		to voice any real objection to the original quote.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Man==animal and dog stuff
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 03:56:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.051524.302@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>
>Rob U, Nuke Hillary
>--
>-       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                             -


Wot????
I find Hillary Clinton quite an outstanding woman, and I agree with her views.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:30:29 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <1992Sep07.012507.21825@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
>th> What it all gets down to is the fact that to tell the difference 
>th> between your and linda's posts, I have to look at the headers or 
>th> the signature - you read like the same person.  GET THE POINT?  

>living.  Yet, you think she's a non-existent person because of 
>similarities between the headers and signatures of her postings 
>and my own.  Would you mind explaining the feats of logic that 
>led you to make such a conclusion?  

You're a gas, Russell - I didn't know you were illiterate, too.  Read it again,
and this time, with *Comprehension*.  I said I have to look at the headers and
the signature to tell who's who - thus, I imply that the BODY of the messages
are the parts that mislead me to which of your alter-egos are writing on any
given message.  Headers and signatures don't bother me - they are too easily
forged to pay any attention to.

>mind if I divulge her maiden name to you, Todd, but first, would
>you mind providing us with a list of any other ethnic names that
>would be deserving of a hunter's ridicule? 

Gee, whenever things ain't goin' your way, I'm suddenly the designated 
representative of the hunting population.  This isn't about hunting, this is
about you and your lying and apparent forgeries here on the net.  Do you feel
that you are spokesman for the Animal Rights groups in this thread, thereby
showing us that all ARs are incabable of reading with comprehension?

>th> I'm working on the Wheeler problem in my own way, and so far, it 
>th> looks like it's going to hit pay dirt.  After all, if it 
>th> works for him, it might just work for me.  <BIG GRIN> 

>Bluster, threats, and insults are poor weapons in any arena.  
>Perhaps you would accomplish more for your cause if you would 
>spend more time analyzing your own position critically, and 
>spend less time trying to dismiss the views of other posters.  

Again, no comprehension.  I never Blustered, threatened, or insulted in
the paragraph you referenced.  I merely stated that that I was dealing with
my problem myself, implying that you no longer need worry about it.  As a 
matter of fact, if you're not a reader of the AR-news mailing list, you'll
probably never notice my response to Ferrell's bombing of this newsgroup.

Cheers, and please, for the kid's sake - find yourself a continuing-education
course in reading.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:16:03 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>I totally agree with this last statement.  Would you agree with 
>me that your belief that some action is "good" doesn't make it 
>so.  As an example, if a powerful body of men believe that rape is 
>wonderful, should we accept their beliefs at face-value?  Or, 
>should we give dig deeper into the underlying facts and reasons 
>by giving due consideration to the pain and suffering of their 
>victims?  

Russell, we agree completely that the thought that an action is right
or that an action is wrong does not make it so.  I also agree that
unnecessary (my favorite old caveat) pain and suffering is a bad
thing.  But we seem to be going in circles again, since we both knew
of this agreement long ago. :-)


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"--
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Animal Testing
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:36:10 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>`Christopher Morton writes:
>`>Who defines "needless"?  Ingrid Newkirk would consider a cure for AIDS 
>`>developed using animals as needless.  An AIDS patient would probably 
>`>disagree.

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>` To use an animal
>`that is unable to develop full-blown AIDS also appears to be needless.  How 
>`many potentially life-saving drugs have been discarded as useless because the
>`animal "model" didn't work?

Scott Wood writes:
>How many haven't?  If one out of a hundred works, it is still worth countless
>animals lifes if one human life is saved as a result.  That is the point.
>You (and most AR followers) equate human life as equal or lower than that
>of animals.  I feel that is sick and unlogical regardless of morals or
>ethics.
>swood

According to Ciba-Geigy "of every 20 chemical compounds found safe and
therapeutically effective in animals tests, only one ever becomes a pre-
scription drug."  That's 1/20 found safe.  How many were unsafe and never
tried on humans.  Imuran, myambutol, catapress, moban, meclazine, and coumarin
all fail the animal tests but work in humans.  How many other drugs get 
rejected without human trials?  And what of the drugs that are safe in
animals but are unsafe for humans?  Most don't put humans lower than animals,
but rank them as equal.  Aren't we animals?  It is sick and illogical to
think of animals as anything but living, breathing, feeling beings.

Is it ethical to infect an animal with the AIDS virus, even though it can't
develop the disease, and keep it locked up for the rest of its life?

Rob U, the GAO found that more than half of FDA approved drugs had to be
       withdrawn or relabelled
--
-       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: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:15:07 GMT

(a bunch of stuff deleted)

>mo> Nothing in my experiences with
>mo> a great number of animals has ever led me to believe that they
>mo> have those types of characteristics. 
>
>Have you ever lived with any non-human animals in close 
>proximity?  If so, did you truly failed to notice that mammals and 
>birds have their own unique personalities?  
>
>mo> Russell, dogs don't have contemplations and emotions. 
>mo> Humans wrongly project their own emotional and philosophical 
>mo> interpretations of the actions of dogs and label them as the 
>mo> thoughts and feelings of dogs.  The same for other animals.  
>

Much as I hate to do it, I'm going to have to side with Russell on this one. 
I've spent far too much of my life around dogs to think they don't experience
joy and sadness. What do you call it when Philbert (my chow) leaps up down,
barking and tail wagging, every time I come home from work? What is it that 
makes him stare out the window for hours and refuse to eat when I'm away
overnight? Why does he mope around when a family member is sick? I suppose one
could say he's merely reflecting our own feelings, but I don't get particularly
excited when the neighbors Labs come out to play. I don't expect he lays around
contemplating the nature of the universe, but emotions? Hell yes!

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:31:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <1992Sep14.095148.26696@cs.uow.edu.au> by u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling):

> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
> 
> > Human life is more valuable than animal life!
> 
> This statement is false.

Really?  By what means do you arrive at that conclusion?

> 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.

He hasn't.  He has neither insisted that you hunt, eat meat, nor use drugs
tested on animals.  I think merely that he doesn't want you to deny these 
things to him.  Of course such tolerance is generally beyond the ability of the
AR industry.



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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:16:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.130631.11041@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (R
obert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>"Misinformed" is a very uninformative answer, which could serve as a
>universal generic response to any statement.  How do your answer
>statements like the following lifted out of context from
>motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com.  These statements appear to conflict
>directly with your own observations and interpretations:
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> From what I have read, personification of animals is common in the
>> Animal Rights movement literature.
>
>[...]
>
>... to ascribe a personality to an animal would require that
>I consider an animal to have the mental characteristics and emotional
>characteristics of a human being.  Nothing in my experiences with
>a great number of animals has ever led me to believe that they
>have those types of characteristics. ...
>
>[...]
>
>... dogs don't have contemplations and emotions.  Humans wrongly
>project their own emotional and philosophical interpretations of the actions
>of dogs and label them as the thoughts and feelings of dogs.  The same
>for other animals.
>
>[...]
>
>.... Humans project their own emotions
>about the suffering onto the animal because it is an instinctive
>behavior that has enabled us to live in societal groups.  When we
>have little or no interaction with animals in the wild, we have
>all our interactions with humans.  It affects our behavior.  It
>causes us to react to the animal as if it were human, simply because
>there is no other pattern of behavior.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>(Note: There is no intention to alter the original meaning or intent of
>any of these statements by extracting them from the original posting to
>save bandwidth.  These were selected because they were some of the best
>articulations of this particular viewpoint.)
>
>---
>Robert Black
>black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
>These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.


I'm on record that I disagree with Ms. Otto's statements above.  I think
she is "misinformed" in that she overlooks quite a bit of scientific literature
in forming her viewpoint.  Maybe "malinformed" would have been a better choice
of word.  Psychologists have been running rats and mice through mazes for much
of this century in attempts to document their cognitive abilities.  On dicier
ground, more advanced mammals do have an emotional makeup.  If I'm
misunderstanding Ms. Otto I wish she's explain more.  As for the final
quotation you copy from her, I didn't understand it.  I'd invite her to
clarify.