HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:13:32 GMT

In article <C1F7Kq.Lxr@math.uwaterloo.ca> rbutterw@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth [MFCF]) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.142223.20600@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>    To kill
>>    them is to go against their wishes.  Killing non-human animals is wrong 
>>    for the same reasons that killing human animals is wrong.
>
>Does this apply to all animals?  I think Einstein said something like
>"I gave up gardening after I realized I was cutting worms in two."
>
>So, do you refuse to eat any vegetables that might have been grown
>in soil that might contain worms?  If so you must be a big supporter
>of hydroponics and other chemical-intensive gardening methods.

As I mentioned in another post (written after you wrote this) I do realize
that sometimes killing animals is unavoidable, e.g. the tragic deaths of
animals who harm food crops.  However, these unavoidable deaths I think
cannot be taken as justification to wantonly kill or injure animals when we
could avoid it.  Farming is a dangerous occupation and we can be certain
that people too have been injured in growing our food; but this does not
mean that we condone injuring people or that it is okay to injure people
even when we can avoid it.

I do not, however, patronize florists (aside from the animal-killing problem
is the serious issue that in some South and Central American countries
precious fertile land is wasted growing flowers while less affluent people
go short of food, according to my high school geography teacher).  Currently
I live in an apartment; however, if I did have a house with a back yard I 
would not harm any animals merely to provide an ornamental garden or lawn.

>There are people that
>have chosen even more strictly than you have.  If we are wrong in
>your eyes, then you are wrong in theirs using exactly the same
>reasoning and logic.  And if they were to accuse you of being a
>cruel person for making the choice where you did, I don't think
>that would be an effective way of convincing you to make a different
>choice.

On the contrary, I would welcome any new information, and would change
my lifestyle accordingly, as I did in the past.
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
 "You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is
  concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity." - Emerson
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: rbutterw@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth [MFCF])
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:46:11 GMT

In article <C1H6Jq.13M@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.014334.6490@cdf.toronto.edu> g0ack@cdf.toronto.edu (Andy Brownbill) writes:
>>Actually, I'm not sure about this, but I think if you cut a worm in
>>half, both ends will still live and become active, productive, members
>>of worm society. You have to cut the worm up into a few pieces before
>>you start doing damage.
>
>  First worms aren't animals, and then they live after you cut them in half.
>Where do you people get your information?  Worms -- at least earthworms, which
>is what we're talking about -- sure are classified as animals.  And the 
>two halfs might crawl away after you cut the thing in half, but they die soon
>afterwards.  A chicken runs around after you cut its head off, but it's dead 
>soon...

I think we were arguing about cruelty to animals, not about whether
the animal is actually killed or not.  So, even if it did work as
advertised, given a choice of being cut into two or having sex,
which would your preferred means of reproduction be?
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada,misc.taxes
From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re: Common-law spouses and income tax law
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:37:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.003542.19473@sq.sq.com> dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> Didn't the rules used to be "more than 3 years" if no children were involved?
>> 
>
>There are no joint tax returns in Canada, but yes, when it comes
>to your 1992 return you need to indicate that you're living common law,
>and when it comes to your 1993 return (filed in April 1994) you will
>be treated as spouses.  

>
>The 3 year rule is for Ontario family law purposes.  This rule is
>for federal income tax purposes.
>
I've been wondering about this one . . ., despite the federal
1 year congual relationship stuff in the legislation, the tax
guide simply says   "common-law spouse", no definition of common-law
spouse, no mention that Revenue Canada's definition of common-law
spouse is any different the normal 3-year definition . . . ., so what
do they want us to do . . . . . .

And then such questions arise, as what if you have been engaged in 
a one-year plus conjugal relationship, with someone who is still legally
married to some-one else?  What if you living in some kind of relationship
with two members of the opposite sex!  And when it comes down to the
audit, how will Revenue Canada prove that is a conjugal relationship
if there are no children, will the auditor be accompanied by a
gynocologist?  I mean if someone is telling their family that there
is "nothing going on", how does Revenue Canada expect to find out . . .

Nicholas Fitzpatrick



Xref: sparky can.general:6409 can.politics:11721 soc.culture.canada:10421
From: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:47:23 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:

>  I see your point, but it doesn't credit your argument to accuse me
>of lying with stats (I don't see any statistics in my argument).  As you
>admit, it is possible for a sales tax to be regresive.  I know what a 
>regressive tax is.  And I contend that, in general, a sales tax will consume
>a greater percentage of a poorer person's income.  In general, people
>with lower incomes spend a greater percentage of it in the marketplace, while
>people with higher incomes tend to invest and save more.  This means that 
>the poorer person is spending a greater portion of his/her income on 
>taxable goods and services.  And this, in turn, means that a greater percentage
>of the poorer person's income will be spent on taxes on these goods and 
>services.  Obviously, the person with a greater income spends more in absolute
>terms on a GST.  But the person with a lower income spends more in relative
>terms -- a greater percentage.

   Of course, a poor person spends the vast majority of their income on
groceries and rent, both of which are GST-exempt.  Also, of course, you need
to take into account the fact that low-income individuals receive a quarterly
GST rebate from the government (paid in ADVANCE).  I suspect that when these
factors are taken into account, the GST will work out to be progressive, except
for the very rich.

				     ---Steven Leffler
					leffler@physics.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: can.general
From: dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: submitting federal tax returns via modem
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 03:30:25 GMT

In <C184vC.KKJ@mach1.wlu.ca> scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper) writes:
> I may not bother with
> CashBack because they take a 15% discount!

Call it a discount if you like.  I think of it as one of
the few legalized forms of loansharking.

The Tax Rebate Discounting Act allows tax discounters to keep 15%
of the first $300 of refund and 5% after that.  If you value highly
the work of doing your return, which under the Act must be built
into the price, maybe it's worthwhile.  Otherwise, figure out the
annual equivalent interest rate of the "discount" for a period of, say,
8 weeks, and ask yourself if you'd really go to the bank and borrow
money at those kinds of interest rates in exchange for getting your
tax return done.

David Sherman
Author, "Income Tax Research" (De Boo, 1989)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: jstrickl@cs.sfu.ca (James Strickland)
Subject: Re: Vancouver area weather
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:44:09 GMT

In article <1jmv7mINNdq4@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
< an accurate and entertaining account of the weather in Vancouver
over the last three weeks >

Well, I'm originally from Ottawa and this is my first winter here.
(Although the first time I visited Vancouver was late Dec '90 - the
day after arriving it snowed 30cm !)

Obviously, the lack of snow removal around these parts is a foreign concept
to me - I laughed quite a bit when I read that Vancouver had already
blown its $50 000 snow removal budget just after Christmas.
(I think places such as Ottawa spend on the order of tens of millions of
dollars removing snow every year).

I found the weather over the last three weeks to be great - it was calm
and clear.  You could see the mountains every day.  So what if you
actually had to wear a warm jacket?  Maybe even gloves and a scarf..
The downside, of course, was that it was difficult to walk or drive
anywhere which hadn't been plowed.

The part I don't understand is that a lot of people are rejoicing at
the return of the rain - I don't know what the percentage is, but I
know at least a few people that feel this way.

And now for some soc.culture.canada content:
Isn't it funny the way Canadians keep talking about the weather? :-)

Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: rbutterw@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth [MFCF])
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:36:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.142223.20600@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>2.  Animals are sentient.  They care whether they live or die.

Is that true?  I know many animals fear and avoid pain,
but are any actually aware of or in fear of death itself?


>    To kill
>    them is to go against their wishes.  Killing non-human animals is wrong 
>    for the same reasons that killing human animals is wrong.

Does this apply to all animals?  I think Einstein said something like
"I gave up gardening after I realized I was cutting worms in two."

So, do you refuse to eat any vegetables that might have been grown
in soil that might contain worms?  If so you must be a big supporter
of hydroponics and other chemical-intensive gardening methods.


We all have some image of a hierarchy of life, and we all choose
to draw the line somewhere.  Above it we don't consider killing and
below it we allow killing for our own preservation or pleasure.

You choose to draw the line a little lower than most people.
But where the line is drawn isn't an absolute handed down from
the heavens (or if it is, most of us don't know it).  You can
get pleasure knowing you have chosen more wisely than the rest
of us, but don't be smug in that knowlege.  There are people that
have chosen even more strictly than you have.  If we are wrong in
your eyes, then you are wrong in theirs using exactly the same
reasoning and logic.  And if they were to accuse you of being a
cruel person for making the choice where you did, I don't think
that would be an effective way of convincing you to make a different
choice.
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Vancouver area weather
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf, Sietec Open Systems, Toronto, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:27:36 GMT

In article <1k254qINNk82@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
> After a few days of not very much happening except for almost
> imperceptible thawing, we had what was supposed to be moderate
> rain, but turned out to be snow.
> 
> Then last night it _rained_.
>
>[horrible experiences with pool cover and rainwater deleted]

> The above submitted for the entertainment of Easterners who
> have probably never engaged in just these activities.

Ha!  Here in Southern Ontario (especially in Toronto) we get this kind
of weather *all the time*, as the temperature tends to oscillate
between above freezing and below freezing.

I sympathize with your various predicaments, and hope everything worked
out all right.  I must confess, however, that a tiny and very uncharitable
part of my brain is chortling:  you guys in B.C. are the ones who usually
have spring in March while we here are still bundling up and/or
scraping the salt marks off our boots.  (No wonder our country is so
divided.  We're all suffering from weather envy.  :-))

--Dave "cheer up, only twelve more weeks of winter" Till
Xref: sparky can.general:6467 talk.politics.animals:11855
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:10:18 GMT
Followup-To: can.general,talk.politics.animals
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Paul Jackson (paul@sco.COM) wrote:
: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
: >  Then there's the question of whether animals are aware (really a synonym
: >for conscious).  It's fundamentally impossible to know that, and we'll never
: >resolve that, especially not here.

: It is pretty damn obvious to me that at least some of the higher animals are
: "aware" of themselves. I can't prove this, but then I can't prove that I
: have awareness either.

It's fairly obvious that you just proved that you have self awareness.
The problem is how do you tell if an animal that can't communicate is.
What is 'pretty damn obvious' to you is sort of immaterial to the question.

: Thought experiment - how would you determine whether or not an entity is
: "aware"? If your answer is that it can't be done then the concept of
: "awareness" is fundamentally meaningless. When you give your answer, make
: sure that it works with deaf/dumb/illiterate humans from a different culture
: and for an artificially intelligent computer program.

This is interesting turn-about.  You want me to give up meat,  you want
me to stop deer hunting, how about you prove that deer are sentient.
How about you just raise reasonable doubt.

Why do I have to justify behaviour that is thousands of years old because
you say,  without any evidence other than 'pretty damn obvious to me',
that my behaviour is unethical.

How about this.  I won't kill and eat chimps or any other animal that
has shown significant evidence that it, as a species MAY be self-aware.
If you can prove that all animals are self-aware, I'll become a Vegan.

: I think that you're just using "aware" the way "soul" was formerly used, as
: a vague concept to differentiate humans from other animals.

No,  most people are trying to find where to draw the line between
"Ok to kill and eat" and  "Not ok to kill and eat".   Since we want
humans on the "Not ok" side and rice on the "Ok" side one sensible place
to draw the line is between bags of DNA and instincts and things that
are something more than that,  things that are self-aware.

: Personally, I
: don't think that humans are qualitatively different than other animals in
: ANY way, we are just quantitatively better in some areas.

The problem is you're not drawing any lines:  there is a continum
between rice and humans without any of your 'qualitative' differences
between the species along this continum.  For this reason you should
let yourself starve to death;   if you think you have no right to kill
a cow to eat than you also have no right to kill a rice plant.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Xref: sparky can.general:6429 can.politics:11742 soc.culture.canada:10469
From: ddjohnson@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:57:21 -0800
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <61TVXB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
> I was challenged by Melvin Klassen, Gerald Olchowy and Peter McCorquade(sp)
> about LPC tax policy.  Here it is!!
>
> 3) review of the tax system with the purpose of abolishing the GST and
> redistributing the tax burden on the PRINCIPLE of fairness, equity ad ability
> to pay.

I too read about this reversal of policy when the Liberal leader 
recently swung through western Canada. Once again... great 
pre-election rhetoric by the Liberals... Once again (assuming 
they win) another neo-conservative government. I've even read 
that Mssr. Chretien is now talking about "renegotiating" the FTA.
Fat Chance. Vote Liberal = Vote PC. Again.

DDJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Johnson			"Injustice anywhere is a threat
Smithers, British Columbia	 to justice everywhere."
CANADA				 Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-68
This Account: DDJOHNSON@GALAXY.GOV.BC.CA
Direct Mail:  DJOHNSON@SMITHERS.ENV.GOV.BC.CA
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: g0ack@cdf.toronto.edu (Andy Brownbill)
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:43:34 GMT

In article <C1F7Kq.Lxr@math.uwaterloo.ca> rbutterw@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth [MFCF]) writes:
>
>Does this apply to all animals?  I think Einstein said something like
>"I gave up gardening after I realized I was cutting worms in two."
>
>So, do you refuse to eat any vegetables that might have been grown
>in soil that might contain worms?  If so you must be a big supporter
>of hydroponics and other chemical-intensive gardening methods.
>

Actually, I'm not sure about this, but I think if you cut a worm in
half, both ends will still live and become active, productive, members
of worm society. You have to cut the worm up into a few pieces before
you start doing damage.



Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:01:28 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

I was challenged by Melvin Klassen, Gerald Olchowy and Peter McCorquade(sp)
about LPC tax policy.  Here it is!!

1) Review the Single Tax alternative as porposed by Dennis Mills to  the
   Liberal Platform Committee

2) high priority given to th development of a simplified, more equitable
   system

3) review of the tax system with the purpose of abolishing the GST and
redistributing the tax burden on the PRINCIPLE of fairness, equity ad ability
to pay.

There you have it.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969, Redhill, Surrey, England, UK
Newsgroups: can.general
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The Recession is Over
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:00:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.184027.12204@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER) writes:
>
>StatsCan has announced that the recession is over. Everybody can now go
>back to their jobs.
>
>
>What fools!
>

Employment is always a lagging indicator...and times are still tough because
employment growth is the last thing to recover after a recession,
especially one where there has been such massive restructuring of
the economy...but we should not fixate always on the negative.

The economy is growing steadily albeit slowly again...that is good news.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: GST Deferral
Keywords: GST, Money, economics
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 02:05:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.213106.22902@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.210453.21985@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>>Aside:
>>If _as a rule_ individuals could earn a higher rate of interest than
>>their own and the government's discount rate for NPV purposes,
>>things would be rather odd.
>
>That's what I get for putting in an aside:  now I have to clarify.
>I'm doing my analysis around the margin where the interest the
>individual can earn is around the individual's discount rate.
>Were that not the case, they'd either be investing everything
>or nothing (under simple utility formulae, ignoring Stone-Geary
>et al).

Taking it from theory into the "real world," it IS possible for the
investment rate (and I carefully do NOT say "interest rate", since
loans are not the only possible form of investment) to exceed the
discount rate.

This does not result in investing "everything", because people can't
actually afford to do THAT.  If you try to invest your entire
paycheck, I'm sure that some combination of landlord/grocer/car
dealer/whatever would come knocking on your door :-).  People cannot
save 100% of their earnings, which puts a cap on investment.

However, if you can get a "good rate of return," you'll try to save as
much as you practically can.  No big problem.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,mtl.general