HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:37:26 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

From Ted's post (<b3jc02vV2aTr01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl....>)
>What would you say about violent non-political actions (where attracting
>public awareness is secondary to a more immediate effect)? For example,
>spiking trees is not designed for political purposes, but is designed to
>protect a forest.

Very bad. Tree spikes maim and kill. The stupid part is that the 
actual owners of the tree do not get hurt but their factory workers
or lumberjacks. This happens whenever tree spikers do not inform
foresters of their actions or when lumber companies are not vigilant
in detecting the spikes. Both scenarios are too common and both 
result in hurt to the innocent "little people."  I guess that I hold 
tree spiking at about the same level as scattering land mines along 
the forest floor.  Another unfortunate thing about tree spiking is that
is really does not prevent foresting -- actually, it can result in the
waste of even more trees.  Any tree with metal detected inside is more
likely to be cut down (carefully) and trashed rather than being used
for lumber.

Overall, I think it fails on two counts: It doesn't protect the forest.
It does hurt people.  I'm also not sure that such actions are
inherently non-political.  Rather, it seems that they've chosen to
abandon political means to achieve their ends.

Perhaps a better, non-violent, apolitical example would be the spraying
of evergreens in national forests with noxious concoctions (or paint)
to discourage X-mas tree poachers. (I'm for it.)

What is your assessment of tree spiking?

Regards,
Tim Ikeda

PS - I think an example of a violent non-political action you might
have been searching for is the "painting" of captive minks to prevent
their use in garments.  Unfortunately, I think this one's got problems
too. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 16:04:47 GMT

Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>In article <1992Nov02.162408.827@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>Kk>
>>Please give evidence that non-animal rights folks are more inclinded to be
>>violent, as you have suggested.

>Non-animal rights folks have a strong (though not universal) tendency to
>participate in inherently violent activities such as meat-eating, leather-
>wearing, etc.  Some of them even are so insensitive to the sufferings of their
>fellow beings that they can enjoy killing them for "sport".

>On the other hand, by definition AR supporters abhor these violent activities.

But if the definition was true, then I wouldn't see an AR whacko beating the
hell out of a hunter on TV, and I wouldn't see messages on the Usenet asking
me to send a 'get out of jail soon' card to an arsonist to cheer him up.  I
wouldn't see Fran Trutt planting bombs at US Surgical, and mostly, I wouldn't
be getting threating Email, telling me how I'm going to be killed in the woods
instead of the defenseless animals I'm supposedly slaughtering by the basket-
full. (Ask me sometime how successful I consider a *good* hunt - you'll be
surprised).

>>Give me an example of this type of personal violence by the 'anti' side.

>The 'anti' side so far is not very active solely because cruelty to animals
>is the norm, so they have nothing to fight for.

>There is however the case of Fran Trutt, who was encouraged to violence
>by an anti-AR person trying to discredit the AR movement (I'll go to the
>library and get references if you're interested).

I've seen the references, and they're all AR propaganda.  She *claims* that
she was pushed into it by these people, when in actuality, Pricilla Feral
and the group known as Friends of Animals FUNDED the bombing.  If your above
definition was indeed a definition, then there's a few groups labelling 
themselves as AR who don't quite fit.

Hey, while we're at it, perhaps you can explain why the National Anti-
Viviseciton Society is investing so heavily in US Surgical and several other
"animal abusing" companies?  If it's to be able to get a measure onto the
agenda in a stockholder's meeting, then you're wrong, because they've bought
QUITE a bit more than they'd need to to get that done.  Actually, it looks to
me like savvy investing, because so far they've really cleaned up from the
rise in the "abusers" stock prices rising.  So much for that definition -
even the LEADERS in your movement are lying to you.


>Ro
>rwaigh@zooid.guild.org


-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:28:30 GMT


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

From article <1dmuqqINNapp@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Scott, you might want to point out to Russell that buying a 
ml> ticket while deliberately planning to demand your money back is 
ml> no less etiquette than tying up an honest businessman's toll free 
ml> lines with no intentions of conducting business with the company 
ml> but rather just to disrupt a business that such people do not 
ml> agree with.  

Perhaps.

Is it dishonest for a man or woman who's concerned about animal testing
to use a manufacturer's customer service line to explain his/her reasons
for not buying a particular product?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:50:13 GMT

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

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

`>I find your defensiveness on this point quite telling.  Rather
`>then admit to one basic, incontrovertable  fact, that hunters have 
`>damaged wildlife populations, you will to great lengths to dance 
`>around things.

`	Basic and incontrovertable fact?  No, you still don't understand
`the fundamental concept here.  That concept is that killing is not the
`bottom line, but rather that the bottom line is legality and morality.
`Poachers and hunters are similar in that both kill animals.

Big deal, your gas guzzling auto-mobiles kill animals - both by running
them down inadvertantly and by taking away wild-life land for plants and
dealerships and houses for auto-workers.  The steak or pound of hamburger
most people buy at the supermarket is killing animals.  And the plastic,
metal and other synthetic or otherwise man made/modified materials that
we all buy, use or manipulate in our day to day lives are causing the
deaths of animals - the loss of habitat for animals - the loss of resources
for animals.

The thing that bothers me is, that the AR-heads are not going after the
everyday meat-eaters because if they did they would get shot down in a
minute.  They instead go after periphrial groups like hunters that are
actively involved in taking the responsibility for themselves, their
environment and the lives of those creatures they use to feed their
families.

Why don't some of you AR-head tear jerkers go pick on the average american
(ie the real enemies of your philosophy) and show a little of your own
testicular fortitude (as JJ put so nicely) instead of accusing the responsible
american hunter of the lack thereof or for being the direct cause for all
the travesties of nature you find so personally abhorid.

swood
-- 
  Nov. 08   Closing day of Duck/Waterfowl season (upper L.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 11   Closing day of Michigan Quail hunting
  Nov. 12   Closing day of early Waterfowl season (lower L.P.)
 Currently  Rabbit, squirrel and bird season are still alive and well!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:41:31 GMT

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

>> 	Strangely enough, you're right I am a libertarian.  However,
>> the stabilizing hand of government isn't what I'm resisting, it is the
>> vlosing of a known system that works for one that I am unsure of. ..

>So as a good libertarian, are you campaigning to abolish the NIH and
>thus eliminate this source of funding for animal research?

	No, I'm not, but for reasons other than my generally libertarian
views.  BTW: I'm not a "good" libertarian.

>> The former?  Many.  The latter?  A couple.  A few times we stuffed a
>> section of hydraulic hose down the throat of the calf and had enough gas
>> escape to avoid killing the critter, but I suspect hydraulic hose would
>> not be sconsidered the right tool for the job by you.  Too bad.

>Why would you suspect that?  I have no problem with the hose; it's the tool
>of first choice unless torsion has closed off access to the stomach via
>the esophagus, in which the needle (or knife) is your only choice.

	A hydraulic hose generally has steel fittings on each end, these
being threaded and have a few sharp edges.  Not at all surgical equipment,
no matter how you look at it.  In addition, the residual hydraulic fluid
couldn't have been good for the calf.  The point, however, is that the
proper tool for the job often times isn't available, and that one must
make do with what is.  As this applies to bowhunting, a broadhead with
SSC for a rabbit doesn't help you when a feral dog is growling at you.
Personally, I have no vested interest as I hunt with firearms, but it
seemed that versatility was quite limited with the SSC arrow.

< 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                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:11:52 GMT

In article <BxB7qn.928@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Is Jesus ever seen to eat meat in the Bible?

>Would you mind answering the question?

Luke 24:41-43:

   And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto
   them, Have ye here anything to eat?

   And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and an honeycomb.

   And he took it, and did eat before them.

And don't forget John 21:6-13, where Jesus commanded his disciples to catch
fish and eat them.  (As opposed to allowing the starving masses to eat
"magical" fish.)

   And he said unto them, cast the net on the right side of the boat, and
   ye shall find.  They cast, therefore, and now they were not able to draw
   it for the multitude of fish.

   Therefore, that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, it is the
   Lord.  Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his
   fisher's coat unto him (for he was naked), and did cast himself into
   the sea.

   And the other disciples came in a little boat (for they were not far
   from land, but as it were two hundred cubits), dragging the net with
   fish.

   As soon, then, as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there,
   and fish laid on it, and bread.

   Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.

   Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fish, an
   hundred and fifty and three;  and although there were so many, yet was
   not the net broken.

   Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine.  And none of the disciples dared
   ask him, Who art thou?  knowing that it was the Lord.

   Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: ALF
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:05:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.214442.20251@shearson.com> jjozwiak@shearson.com writes:
>I am trying to get in touch with the Animal Liberation Front.  I live in New York,
>and I do not know where they are located.  Please email me if you have any info as
>I would like to join them.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Radical Animal Lover and Vegitarian,
>
>Jenny
>

You can't be serious!  These people are terrorist!

>:  )
>


-- 
The opinions expressed 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.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Date: 9 Nov 1992 20:14:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Bx5qvw.KJw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Karleenus Schwartz Davis writes:
>ksd> Is Jesus ever seen to eat meat in the Bible?
>
>From article <1992Nov02.160759.12777@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, by keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd):
>kb> Remember the one instance in the Bible where Jesus took two fish 
>kb> and three loaves of bread from a little boy and fed an entire 
>kb> multitude of people?  Surely this would show that Jesus approved 
>kb> of meat eating, Right?  

>Let me repeat the still-unanswered question:

>Is Jesus ever seen to eat meat in the Bible?


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


First let me say that whether the Bible indicates Jesus ate meat or 
not has no real relevance to whether hunting and/or eating animals is
moral to Christians since it has already been proven it is according to
the Christian faith.

With that said, let me provide the passages that *do* indicate Jesus ate
meat.  In paticular, the passages indicate he ate lamb.

In Exodus, chapter 12 (read the whole thing), the passover is descibed
and what is eaten during the passover.  The meal includes lamb.

Then, in Matthew, chapter 26 Jesus is quoted when instructing the disciples
to prepare the passover and that he and they would eat the passover (lamb).

Read the chapters and you will see that according to the Bible, Jesus ate
the flesh of animals (as if his eating fish was not enough to prove the 
point).


Mike Linan









Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:16:52 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <30132@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad) 
writes:
 
I'm going to do a bunch of paraphrasing to save bandwidth. I'll do my best to 
capture the original meaning, sorry if I fail.

<Joe points out various scenarios wherein arson leads to death and injuries>
 
Yes, there are scenarios that lead to death and injuries. There are also 
scenarios that, with any reasonable probability, don't. Since you've staked 
out the position that arson is NEVER acceptable, I only need to come up with 
one counter-example, which I can tailor as I wish to make sure the attendant 
probabilities for death/injury fall below the threshold of "reasonable". It's 
really not that hard to construct a scenario in which a building is burnt 
with extremely low probabilities for human casualties. Admittedly, non-human 
casualities would probably be harder (e.g. mice). This would tend to 
complicate the equation.

<Joe wants to keep the discussion in AR terms>

There are 2 questions here:

1. Is it ever reasonable to use violence in the pursuit of social change? 
2. Are AR goals "right" enough as to justify the use of violence, per #1.

I'm trying to keep the horse in front of the cart and discuss #1 first. 
Bringing AR scenarios into the picture is fruitless, since I'm sure we 
disagree on #2. 
  
 
> Would you feel more, less,
>or the same anger against the bombers if just a butcher shop was burned or the
>butcher shop was burned and damage was caused to your home/family as well.

 I'd feel more anger if damage was caused to my home/family.  

Your turn: if I watched someone close to you suffocate in a restaurant, but 
didn't intervene to save them as it would require breaking through a window, 
what would you think of my respect for property? 

 
>I'm just trying to find out if you would feel any
>different about violence in the name of "right" causes if you became a
>victim of such violence even though you agree with the cause.
 
Of course my feelings would change. I don't know what they'd change to, though.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:01:00 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

>black@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes in
response to me:

[...]

> 	Strangely enough, you're right I am a libertarian.  However,
> the stabilizing hand of government isn't what I'm resisting, it is the
> vlosing of a known system that works for one that I am unsure of. ..

So as a good libertarian, are you campaigning to abolish the NIH and
thus eliminate this source of funding for animal research?


In Message-ID: <viking.721130823@vincent2.iastate.edu>
> 
> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
> 
> >>	I have no idea.  I just aimed for the point of greatest swelling
> >>and hoped for the best.
> 
> >>>Also did
> >>>you use a trocare (sp?) type needle, which would be specifically
> >>>designed for the purpose? 
> >>
> >>	Sears Craftsman folding buck-knife.  Get that fancy stuff away!
> 
> >Fancy stuff? It's a hollow needle which allows gas to escape through the
> >inside while minimizing the perforation in and damage to the stomach. 
> >Don't you believe in using the right tool for the job? I thought this
> >was an area of your expertise.  How many times have you done this?
> 
> 	Use the right tool for the job or stab a cow with a buck-knife?
> The former?  Many.  The latter?  A couple.  A few times we stuffed a
> section of hydraulic hose down the throat of the calf and had enough gas
> escape to avoid killing the critter, but I suspect hydraulic hose would
> not be sconsidered the right tool for the job by you.  Too bad.

Why would you suspect that?  I have no problem with the hose; it's the tool
of first choice unless torsion has closed off access to the stomach via
the esophagus, in which the needle (or knife) is your only choice.

[...]

> ---
> Robert Black 
> black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
> These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:19:08 GMT

 Todd H. writes:

>Apparently we agree - poacher's aren't hunters, and arsonists are ARs.

OOPS!  I was rereading some of this after posting, and see I screwed up.
The line above *should* read "arsonists AREN'T ARs."  Freudian slip, I guess.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Date: 6 Nov 1992 06:07:19 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

I've deleted rec.food.veg.

The bottom line, folks, is that  poachers *are* hunters.  According
to the "American Heritage" dictionary, that is, which is
right here in front of me:

      "Poacher: one who hunts or fishes illegally".  

Jeff Achenbach writes:

>>>>"poaching" is also a form of HUNTING. (spp)
>>>
>>>Do you honestly believe this? (Van Etten)
>> 
>>Yes -- it's obvious isn't it? (spp)
>
>No. In fact it's incredibly ignorant and insulting. So I'd better stop
>this response right here before I get equally insulting.

Achenbach, would it ever occur to you to check your
facts before spewing drivel about someone being "ignorant"?
I didn't think so.  

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:18:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov09.160447.12222@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>
>But if the definition was true, then I wouldn't see an AR whacko beating the
>hell out of a hunter on TV, and I wouldn't see messages on the Usenet asking
>me to send a 'get out of jail soon' card to an arsonist to cheer him up.  I
>wouldn't see Fran Trutt planting bombs at US Surgical, and mostly, I wouldn't
>be getting threating Email, telling me how I'm going to be killed in the woods
>instead of the defenseless animals I'm supposedly slaughtering by the basket-
>full. (Ask me sometime how successful I consider a *good* hunt - you'll be
>surprised).
>
Isn't natural language fun!  By my definition of AR supporter, people who
commit violence are *not* AR supporters in practice.  Their actions violate
the rights of humans, who are animals.
Just as you would distinguish between your philosophies and those of
slob hunters, surely I can distinguish between animal rights, which I support,
and the terrorist actions of a small group of violent hypocrits.


>I've seen the references, and they're all AR propaganda.  She *claims* that
>she was pushed into it by these people, when in actuality, Pricilla Feral
>and the group known as Friends of Animals FUNDED the bombing.  If your above
>definition was indeed a definition, then there's a few groups labelling 
>themselves as AR who don't quite fit.
>
I will post my reference next week, after I've had time to get to the library.
Could very well be that my reference is false; I would appreciate seeing
your references.  Of course whether or not Fran Trutt  is a terrorist has
nothing to do with the question of whether or not animals have rights; the
point was to illustrate that some of the actions attributed to AR groups
may in fact be carried out or incited by anti-AR people seeking to discredit
the AR movement.  You have to admit that this is a possibility.

>Hey, while we're at it, perhaps you can explain why the National Anti-
>Viviseciton Society is investing so heavily in US Surgical and several other
>"animal abusing" companies? 
This is a good question and a lot of animal rights supporters are wondering
too.  NAVS has been condemned for this in the AR media, as you would expect.
I certainly don't support them.

>rise in the "abusers" stock prices rising.  So much for that definition -
>even the LEADERS in your movement are lying to you.
>
I don't follow any "leaders", I think for myself.

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals