HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Universal Ethic?
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:51:23 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <viking.718226753@vincent2.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan 
Sorenson) writes:

Ted Robinson writes:
 
>> Putting "unwarranted" in here would basically say "pain is bad unless 
>>something else makes it good". I think this is implicit in ethics - that 
>>any ethic may, in certain scenarios, be overridden by other ethics.
  
Dan Sorenson writes:

> 	Isn't the purpose of a definition to define and not imply?

Yes, to some extent. But assumptions are inevitable. For example, a 
dictionary definition uses words other than the subject word, yet doesn't 
immediately define them. Similarly, it assumes an alphabet, without defining 
it. Both these definitions may be found elsewhere in the dictionary, just as 
the "unwarranted" can be found elsewhere in my description of ethics. 

My goal here is to define the salient portions of the ethic, not all possible 
characteristics of it. As the "unwarranted" applies to any ethic, not just 
this one, it belongs in a description of the infrastructure of ethics, not in 
the description of any one ethic. Twice on this thread I've pointed out that 
other ethics may conflict with the ethic under discussion, and that the 
latter may lose out. This provides the infrastructure definition needed.  

Ted Robinson writes:

>> Adding this 
>>term into our ethic adds no new meaning, and is potentially ambigious, so I 
>>think we need to steer clear of it. I think I'd like to stick with 
>>"unwanted". This is more fundamental to this particular ethic.

Dan Sorenson writes:
 
> Wait a minute, stating what is implied provides no new meaning 
>and is potentially ambiguous? 

Yes and no. Stating what is already implied (i.e. what is already stated 
elsewhere) adds no new meaning, but is not necessarily ambigious *if stated 
unambiguously* (he said tautologically :-)). However, in this case I find 
"unwarranted" to be quite ambiguous; it begs for  further definition.  

>Tell me, do you often have these delusions?
 
What delusions? Those snakes are real, I tell you! Get away, leave me alone! 
Aaaaagggghhhhhh ...


Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:34:49 GMT


Rich Young writes:
ry> You can argue this all day long, Russell, [and HAVE], but it is
ry> no more true than it was when we started.  You have claimed that
ry> it is OK to eat carrots but not cattle, although perhaps not in
ry> those exact words.  Such a determination is an assignment of
ry> relative rank, or "status."  

Russell Lawrence writes: 
rl> Not really.

From article <1992Sep29.004722.3946@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> If not assignment of "relative rank in a hierarchy of prestige,"
ry> then what?  Clearly, the cow is more valuable to you than the carrot:
ry> you are willing to protect the cow, but not the carrot.  You have
ry> assigned an ethical value, or status, to both carrot and cow and,
ry> not incidentally, to yourself, since you've usurped the right to
ry> make such a determination at all...

Usurped from whom, Rich?  You perhaps?   Who gave you the right to
ignore the thoughts and feelings of cows while shedding crocodile 
tears for the "suffering" of carrots?

To the extent that I recognize the sentience/sapience of other 
beings, I'm not "assigning" values at all.  Rather, I'm recognizing 
values that are inherent within those beings.  

ry> Even those other creatures which,
ry> you claim, are ALSO endowed with sentience and sapience (birds and
ry> mammals, wasn't it?), don't presume to assign ethical value to other
ry> species.

You've implied in the past that I can't presume to know what goes on
in the "mind" of a carrot.  Are you qualified to issue pronouncements
about the ethical values of other animals?

In any case, what makes you think that the legitimacy of my judgments
can be verified or repudiated by appealing to the testimony of birds?

> ...
rl> You have it backwards, once again.  If anyone's engaged in a "fit 
rl> of ego" in this discussion, it's that subset of hypocritical 
rl> thinking/feeling individuals who've claimed that their personal 
rl> mental abilities have granted them exclusive rights to use and 
rl> abuse others of "lesser rank".  

ry> And what of the tiger?  There's an individual which "uses and abuses"
ry> (to use your colorful, but rather melodramatic, language).  Is the
ry> tiger a hypocrite?

Do tigers engage in self-serving moral pretense to justify their own
selfish conduct while condemning forms of behavior that don't serve
their own personal needs?

ry> Food is food, Russell, not an ethical dilemma.  

Is this a quote from Jeffrey Dahmer?

ry> Why should I be more concerned with the putative "thoughts" of my 
ry> lunch than the tiger?  

You have the intellectual capacity to make choices.

ry> Am I not simply another creature with an atavistic instinct
ry> to survive?  ...

Not really.  You don't need to eat cows to survive.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:18:36 GMT

In article <BvKMw5.1JM@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>

>I've personally studied enough history to realize that the notion
>of hunters hunting hunters isn't without precedent, although it's
>a rapidly diminishing prospect in this day and age (and happily
>so).  I suspect that non-human-animal hunting will be also be a
>diminishing prospect in another fifty years.  Perhaps sooner.

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


Not having studied the issue, I would nonetheless guess that already
today the number of North American people who hunt is diminishing as
measured by the percentage of hunters within of the total population.
Thus, the reality you hope for in fifty years may be occurring today.

What percentage of the population do you think will be vegetarian
in 50 years?

Can you envision a time where public opinion would be so strongly 
anti-hunting that the notion that hunters have a constitutional
right to hunt would not be supported?
Would you support local citizen ballot initiatives to ban hunting in the
states, and if such an initiative was passed--say, on the state level--
would it be upheld in the federal judiciary as constitutional?
Or, are you for an ethical transformation of the way people think?
In 50 or 100 years will people just not want to hunt?
(sorry to non-USA people for specific questions re USA law)
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: MAN TV Premiere
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:34:45 GMT



M.A.N. - TV
Modern Animal News Television
Post Office Box 477219
Chicago, Illinois  60647-7219
Phone (312) 278-9011
Fax (708) 393-2941
 
ANNOUNCEMENT
 
The Artists' Auction for the Animals will be held Saturday, October 10th,
1992 at the Backburner Clearinghouse, an art gallery located at 167 North
Racine Avenue, Chicago, IL and will coincide with the premiere of Modern
Animal News Television which airs on Chicago station WGBO, Channel 66 at
7:00 am that morning.
 
The first episode of MAN TV will feature extended coverage of the recent
deaths of the two beluga whales at the Shedd.  The proceeds from the art
works  submitted from all over the country will benefit Animal Rights
Mobilization in Chicago.
 
Five dollar donation at the door.  General public welcome.  For more
information contact MAN TV at (312) 278-9011.
 
 
Additionally....

Modern Animal News TV reports the two beluga whales that died Tuesday at the
Shedd reportedly received ten times the normal dosage of levamisole.  Dr.
Boehm, the veterinarian who administered the medication, has very minimal
experience working with marine mammals. Dr. Boehm reportedly has been out of
college for two years. More details as they became available.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:11:53 GMT

From article <1992Sep29.174553.8118@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
> 	Oh, please, Russell.  "Shedding crocodile tears for carrots?"  Cut
> 	the histrionics.  As for "whom," I point out that I've been asking
> 	YOU to supply the identity of who- or what-ever gave you the authority
> 	to make judgements of the worth of non-human species for weeks.
> 	I can only assume that, since you've not answered, such authority
> 	was not bestowed upon you but was taken by you.  You've appointed
> 	yourself the Indisputable Judge of Ethical Worth.

So you say.

-- 
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
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:13:36 GMT


Rich Young writes:
ry> What do these questions, which have already been addressed way
ry> back in August, have to do with the assigning of status to non-
ry> human species by humans?

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Your answers will highlight the hypocrisy in your former arguments
rl> about the importance of sentience and sapience in ethical decision
rl> making.

From article <1992Oct1.223411.23793@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> In that case, you should derive great glee in the reposting of the
ry> statements I've already made while addressing these questions.
ry> This is all in past postings, go look it up if you've forgotten
ry> so soon.  Try searching on the words brain-dead and kidney-dead.

You stated previously that it was ok to kill brain-dead humans 
because their "major sensory processing center has ceased to 
function".  You later amended your position by stating that it's
ok to kill such entities because they're not "functional 
organisms".  You still haven't explained why it is or isn't ok to 
kill a kidney-dead human.  Both Craig Boeker and I are awaiting 
your answer.   

-- 
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: Hunters Needed
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:58:53 GMT

From article <1992Sep30.201717.9152@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, by keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd):
kb> Let's see....Russell Lawrence contends that hunters like to hunt 
kb> because it makes us feel "macho" and adds to our "manliness". 
kb> 
kb> Jennifer Johnson contends that AR folks suspect that we (hunters) are
kb> all a bunch of cowards.
kb>  
kb> Can't you people get your opinions together??

I'm not saying that all hunters are drawn to the activity because 
of wannabe "macho" cravings, but many of the hunters that I've 
known over the years appeared to have that goal in mind.  It 
seems to me that those individuals, as well as hunters as a 
whole, would benefit greatly if the insecure guys would muster up 
the courage to come to terms with whatever forces are driving 
them emotionally.  I'm sure you'll agree with me that no amount 
of bodybuilding, "manly" hunting, and "pervert" name-calling is 
going to truly coverup a man's private fears.

kb> No wonder no noble, level-headed hunter would want to get up and 
kb> debate AR fanatics.  At least most hunters are of the opinion 
kb> that AR folks are a bunch of gullible, Bambi-worshipping 
kb> vegetarians.  ;-) 

I was surprised that no one rose to the challenge, but I suppose
it would be a terrifying experience for some individuals to 
present their views in front of a large audience. 

-- 
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: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:59:59 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> If you're going to argue that hunting is a "definitive" characteristic
rl> of our species, don't you think you have an obligation to evaluate
rl> contrary evidence?

In article <1992Oct2.034448.1724@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, Mary Rita Otto writes:
mo> This post also deals with the Russell vs. Mike "witch" issue.
mo> Russell tactic 120: Double standard.  (Example: 
mo> opponents have an obligation to evaluate contrary evidence 
mo> but Russell can maintain from reading 8 words of the Bible 
mo> that Christians have an obligation to kill witches.) 

Not at all.  In posing questions about the statement, "Thou shalt 
not suffer a witch to live", I was hoping that Mike would explain 
the apparent lack of harmony between his frequent use of the word 
"idiot", as a perjorative label for his opponents, and his own 
mindless acceptance of the King James bible as the literal word 
of his "god".  Given his penchant for labeling non-christians as 
"fools", without regard to the reasons for their non-belief, it 
seems to me that his definition of the word "idiot" must differ 
substantially from the normal english connotation of the word, 
ie., as a stupid individual who can't think clearly.  

mo> Challenge for Russell:  Show evidence that a witch is human.

Why don't you post this challenge in alt.pagan?  I don't know 
whether any of the remains of the witches burned by the "Holy" 
Inquisition have been discovered and analyzed, but I'm sure the 
readers of alt.pagan would be happy to share their opinions about 
the humanity of witches that are alive today.   

-- 
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: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:57:16 GMT

In article <BvF2F0.54H@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> It seems to me that your distinction between "INTER-species ethics"
rl> and "INTRA-species ethics" is a transparent attempt to define-away 
rl> the inconsistencies in your argument.  

From article <1992Oct1.165048.12496@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> Then you've missed the point yet again.  It is a disticntion which
ry> illustrates the fact that the existence of sentience and sapience
ry> in other animals is ethically important only to a sub-set of only
ry> one species: our own.  The ethical importance of sentience and
ry> sapience stems entirely from your own opinion, not from any
ry> universal absolute.

The existence or non-existence of universal absolutes has no bearing
on the discussion.   It's a cop-out, Rich.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:09:32 GMT

In article <BvGL8E.ICs@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>You're confused.   I'd be quite happy to hear about the hunting
>activities of Jeff's sisters-in-law.  I certainly wouldn't pretend
>that they don't exist... as you might do if you were on my side
>of the fence.  Nor would I dismiss their opinions because of their
>positions as "wives or girlfriends".
>

Well, since you asked. Rita is a high school English teacher. Born and 
raised in the suburbs of Philadelphia, she met my older brother at Temple
University. He took her trout fishing and later small game hunting. She
then expressed an interest in deer hunting, and the rest, shall we say,
is history. She's an excellent marksman and outstanding deer hunter. She
minored in biology by the way. She also raises two kids and directs all
the school's plays. 
  My younger brother's wife, Melanie, is much the same. Raised in Reading,
you would never guess by looking at her that she puts on camouflage and 
hunts with a compound bow. Neither of these women had ever spent time in 
the outdoors till they met my brothers. Both have since become avid hunters
and fishermen. 

Jeff Achenbach
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Summary: Just let your fingers do the walking ,,,
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:22:03 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <19d3uuINN22b@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
         [much deleted]
>I have never seen a supporter of animal testing stand up
>and say that they are willing to let the public (who's
>paying for it after all) review whether their research
>is necessary or not.  To me this proves they are phonies
>who don't have the public interest in mind.  Okay?

You don't need them to stand up and invite you to review their work!
If you are really interested in evaluating the value or necessity
of work done with public funding, just get yourself access to a database
like that of the National Library of Medicine - Medlars or medline or
the variants that exist. There is a MeSH term (categorization key) describing
the source of funding. Check out 'USPHS' to find out what NIH supported.
Granted, you will not find out about all of the contract work, and you will
not find everything funded by every (other) public agency. But you will
be able to find out exactly what those of us supported by NIH research
grants have been doing. And I don't think you need worry about whether
the experimenters have left out key details about animal experiments;
first, experiments are supposed to be repeatable. Second, if you find
that the experiments are _not_ repeatable as published, you could make
a fortune bringing a 'scientific fraud' suit, if you did it right. So
there is at least some impetus for publications to contain the details.

Remember that those who receive these grants must renew them every 3-5 years.
And grants without publications don't get renewed. You won't be able to
find out what's planned, but you *will* be able to evaluate what has been
done as recently as the last year. 

I realize this falls short of total access to all publically-supported
research, but you should realize that there is an immense amount of 
very current animal experimentation that you can evaluate, even without
the trouble of a FOIA (Freedom of Information) suit.

Bob Straubinger
Dept of Pharmaceutics
SUNY/Buffalo          "Above are my opinions, not those of SUNY"
rms@acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Truth about Ted (was Re: Hunters Needed)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:04:26 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

`jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:

`> Included in those 700 are Ted Nugent, self-proclaimed hunting 
`> advocate [who will do a ] 30-minute mini-concert to attract 
`> attention to his anti-drug, pro-hunting message directed at kids, 
`> and quoted Nugent as saying, "The kids listen to me because I play 
`> rock n' roll, and I speak the truth with great passion.  It works 
`> like magic."

`Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Nugent was
`among those rock musicians who would, while up on stage,
`stomp small animals to death.  I may be mistaken about this;
`a number of rock stars engaged in this practice, and I
`*think* Nugent was one, but I could be wrong.  (Can anybody
`confirm this?)

`Steve

You are wrong.  There you have been corrected.  Ted has done a great
many things on stage (including shooting a flaming arrow at the private
parts of a larger than life effigy of Saddam Hussein during his first
Damn Yankees tour at the suggestion of his wife Shemain) but he has
never killed an animal on stage.

He is quite infamous for being against animal abuse, drug abuse,
alcohol abuse and being a died-in-the-wool hunter.  He has many times
whipped out a bow on stage and shot many a thing (including speakers and
amps and stuffed animals of all types), I have seen him throw smoke
venison (he personally shot with his bow and smoked) into the crowd,
and has oft worn his loin cloth in his early days which he of course
"whacked" all by himself.

But never would he kill an animal without need or use (if for wantan waste).
To paraphrase a quote from his last years WRIF broadcast in Detroit prior
to Michigan bow season, "If I was 'Blood Thirsty' I would just go down to
the local farm market and buy a bunch of goats and chicken, lock them up
in a barn and get out the chainsaw..."  He is not blood thirsty.  He
uses everything he gets just like the rest of the "workin' hard, playin'
hard" hunters out there in the real world....

He speaks of real values from a platform that would normally be held by
party-hardy, drug induced social misfits, and I personally think he is
doing a damn good job of it.

swood

died-in-the-wool Ted fan and Nuge wanna-be-like
-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer or not, the sunrise
   will still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Short note on reducing kill aggressions
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:29:47 GMT

For those of you that may have not discovered it yet category....

Try mud or lpmud for reducing those extra kill aggressions.  After
reading a long list of AR Crap in t.p.a I relax by hacking up a
good batch of synthetic chickens or deer or panthers, etc. in the
world of batmud.

check with rec.games.mud - I don't know much about it yet.  I just
got on there myself.  If I reach wizard status though, I plan on
creating a new monster - the liberal activist - fights with the use
of heresay and bad rhetoric ;-)

swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Illinois Pigeon Shoots
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:38:40 GMT



According to Steve Hindi of the Chicago Animal Rights Coalition,
the Illinois Attorney General has filed an unofficial opinion that
live pigeon shoots are illegal under the Illinois Humane Care for
Animals Act.  Participants of any further pigeon shoots held in the
State of Illinois are subject to arrest and prosecution.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:09:57 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.144003.9175@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>How did he know he made lung shots if the deer was lost? 
>
>He knew from the initial trail of bright crimson frothy blood.

Jeff, I'll back Bob up on this.  It's very easy to tell a lung shot
from the blood trail, which will contain small flecks of pink lung
tissue and will be sprayed widely in very tiny drops that will
sometimes contain air bubbles (as air blows out of the wound as the
deer breathes).  I've had the misfortune of following a couple of lung
shot trails over the years (none mine) and they are different from
other trails (again, none mine -- and may it forever stay that way).

Appologies for the graphic description, folks.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals