HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:30:13 GMT

In <C0I9p8.Iw5@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <C0I2L3.GJG@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
>> Is drinking unacceptable because a small interest group considers it "bad"?

>Don't you think this would depend on the circumstances? 

No. Read the question again. Drinking is unacceptable in some circumstances,
but not because a small group considers drinking itself bad.

>> Isn't the AR issue about what is acceptable and what is not, rather than
>> about the semantics of what is "good" or "bad"?

>No, the issue isn't about what is acceptable.  It's still acceptable
>in many parts of Louisiana for humans to sponsor dog fights and cock
>fights for sporting purposes.  It's the goodness or badness of such 
>actions that's under debate, not their acceptability.  

This is silly semantics. Some people in Louisiana probably think dog
fights are good too. It's a sure bet many people used to think slavery
was good.  I didn't mean the debate was about what is acceptable to
some people somewhere. I meant it is about what should be acceptable
by society as a whole.  When you argue something is bad, don't you
mean it shouldn't be done; i.e. you find it unacceptable, and you are
trying to persuade the rest of the community not to accept it too.

AR issues are about value judgements. Is animal suffering justified
by the human benefits? We probably agree that shooting a sabre-toothe
to save a child is justified. We probably agree that dog-fights
aren't. But I'm sure we differ as to where in the continuum
in between we draw the line. There is no absolute standard we
can appeal to to determine the relative value of the benefits and
the suffering. Our values are determined by our social environment
(convention) and I suppose by evolutionary instinct.

This doesn't mean everyone has the same values and we should
simply do as we always have done. Conventions change as a result
of debate which enumerates or exposes the 
positives and negatives
involved. Thus oral sex is now acceptable where it used to be
illegal.

>>>(Yes, I realize that pain isn't always bad).
>> 
>> So you need another example of how facts and arguments tell you 
>> what is wrong and what is right.

>Not really.  Would it be "good" or "bad" if I were to torture you,
>without your consent, of course?   Or, would you say that the goodness
>or badness of such an action would depend upon conventions?

>-- 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick)
Subject: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 00:10:17 GMT

In article <C0qGp2.JsF@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
|> In your view, hunting for entertainment alone is unethical, but hunting
|> to avoid starvation is OK.
|> 
|> The problem is, neither extreme describes reality. You have not
|> expressed an opinion on hunting for entertainment _and_ as a supplementary
|> food or clothing supply.
|> 
|> It is as if we were debating whether the drinking age should be 18 or
|> 21 and you contributed your view that alcohol for children under 6 is
|> wrong, but if you're over 40 it's OK.

I think your anaology is flawed.  A particular person is 6 or 18 or 21 or 40 or
whatever.  So whatever drinking age we decide on, there most certainly won't be
any ambiguity.

But you do hint at a (different) real problem with what I've said: As was
suggested by another poster, if a hunter gets X% of his benefit from hunting in
the form of entertainment, Y% from survival, and Z% from preventing animal
overpopulation, So What?  The only thing I've argued so far is that this action
is (Y+Z)% moral.

I think this is a good start, because I think that many hunters insist that
hunting is 100% moral no matter what.  Do we all agree that if we knew X, Y and
Z we could determine the extent to which hunting is unethical?  If you agree
then you must be admitting that hunting can be unethical at times.  (Aplogies to
thosse hunters who've been saying this all along.  This paragraph is directed to
the more fanatical hunters who don't say this.)

Now things get tricky.  First, the easy hard stuff: how can we measure X, Y and
Z?  Don't know -- I'm not a sociologist or a psychologist or a statistician. 
But I can't imagine anyone claiming on theoretical grounds that these numbers
are unmeasurable.  So all we can say is that they are hard to obtain.

But now the hard hard stuff: What do we do with a X% unethical person?  Clearly
if X is above, say, 90% then we insist that he stop, and below 10% it hardly
seems worth it to try to prevent the hunting.  If you insist, then I'll go
with 50%,as the cutoff, and claim:

   anybody doing something that is more than 50% unethical must stop

When a drunking age of 18 was set, we also passed laws to enable sthe state to
actively stop underage drinking.  Do I propose the same thing for hunting?
Absolutely not, not least because of the difficulties in measure X, Y and Z
hinted at above (whereas it is comparatively easy to measure someones age.) For
now, I'd be happy for hunters just to agree with me that if they ever feel like
their hunting is more than 50% unethical they'll just fire blanks for the rest
of the day.  (And of course 50% is arbitrary.  For those of you who can't quit
cold turkey, you can start at 75%....)

I think that even this would be a success because it would be the beginning of
the process of recongnizing that all animals have interests, not just members of
one particular species.

-- Nick
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: NRA-ILA 1993 Calendar
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:41:13 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

List of monthly quotes taken from the 1993 NRA-ILA Calendar
-----------------------------------------------------------

In 1991, nearly 20 million licensed hunters contributed over $430
million to state fish and wildlife agencies.

Since 1923, sales of state hunting licenses, tags and permits have
provided more than $6 billion for wildlife management, habitat
acquisition and enhancement, among other projects.

Currently, the economic impact directly associated to hunting is
estimated to be more than $12 billion annually.

Since the 1920's, as a result of hunters' dollars and efforts,
wildlife populations have risen from historical lows to today's
notable highs:  White-tailed deer from 300,000 to 20 million, wild
turkey from 30,000 to 4 million, wood duck from nearly extinct to 3
million and north american elk from 25,000 to 1 million.

Every year, more than 50,000 hunters donate $25 million worth of
services as volunteer instructors to hunter education programs.

Since its enactment, the Pittman-Robertson (P-R) Act has made more
than $2.4 billion available to state wildlife agencies for wildlife
management, hunter education programs, and shooting range
development.

In 1990 alone, Pittman-Robertson (P-R) funds allowed for the purchase
of over 47,000 acres and easements for 20,000 acres to benefit both
game and non-games species.

Sound hunter-supported wildlife management practices continue to
ensure sustainable, healthy, huntable American Black Bear populations
in over 25 of the 35 or more states where bears are known to exist.

Pittman-Robertson (P-R) funds have assisted 46 of 50 states in
providing hunter safety and education reaching over 21 million
hunters.

In the last 25 years, the national hunting accident rate has decreased
steadily with 1990 listing only 8.0 accidents per 100,00 hunters.
Hunting may now be the safest of all outdoor recreational sports.

Fighting for your rights, NRA-ILA supported hunter protection
legislation that is now in effect in 45 states and federal anti-hunter
harassment legislation is pending in the U.S. Congress.

Retail purchases by hunters stimulate more than more than $26 billion
per year in economic benefits and more than 360,000 U.S. jobs are
directly dependent on hunting-related expenditures.


Since 1979, more than $255 million has been appropriated for hunter
safety training and education with nearly $30 million apportioned in
1992 alone.

At a cost of $254 million, Pittman-Robertson (P-R) funds returned to
the states have been used to purchase almost 5 million acres of
valuable wildlife habitat.

(Taken from the NRA-ILA 1993 Conservation Calendar)
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Jan. 09   Opening of Michigan Canada Goose special late season
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:10:14 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan7.233537.19065@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>
>Well Greg, it's not that I have a burning desire to discuss "Animal Rights"
>(Bwahaha), I'm posting here to point out how utterly absurd such an idea
>really is.  Animals are animals, Greg, and the fact is that they are under-
>neath us in the food chain (usually).  Their importance can't possibly
>compare with ours ...

Seems to me that all you are pointing out is some deep-seated
insecurity when you make assertions like this. What is this
"importance" that you are so keen to assert?

Yes, animals are animals. Blacks are blacks, Jews are Jews, and
trees are trees. So what? 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Humans on the food chain
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:47:22 GMT

In article <C0qwws.LBL@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> farm@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (B. Munroe) writes:
>
>I posted an article similar to this several months back but did not
>receive any answers from the anti-AR faction (maybe everyone thought
>I was joking?).  So here goes again:
>
>It seems a common argument for justifying the eating of meat is that
>the animals we eat are lower than us on the food chain and we (humans)
>therefore have the right to eat them.  From what I can tell, we share the
>upper echelon of the food chain with other large carnivores, such as
>lions, tigers, sharks, bears, etc.  Why is it that, when we eat other
>animals on the food chain, it is OK, but when other animals eat humans
>we are shocked and outraged (e.g. "Man Eating Shark Kills Surfer" 
>"Blood Thirsty Bear Ravages Campers").  If we are to accept our place
>on the food chain, doesn't that mean we sometimes have to be food?

I'm not shocked. I consider it perfectly normal behavior for the large 
carnivores to prey on humans. I suspect it is much more common than we
realize in more remote parts of the world. 

>
>I certainly agree that humans must do what they can to keep from getting
>eaten, but if one of us does perish in the jaws of a large carnivore,
>well, hey, that's just nature and we certainly shouldn't track down
>and exact revenge on a beast that is just practicing natural law.
>

I agree in principle. In practice, this is generally done because the animal
is a perceived (often real) threat to other humans. It is a simple matter of
survival to eliminate the offending animal before it eliminates more of us.

Jeff Achenbach
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:32:01 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <mhulsey-110193164303@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

>1) the ALF is a terrorist organization according to the FBI and Scotland
>Yard.

There's certainly no shame in being on the FBI's hit list. Every
social change / civil rights group in recent history has been there.

Can you give me some examples of people killed or injured by
"animal rights" actions, so that I can get a sense of just how
bad this "terrorism" is?  And these bombings that we sometimes
hear talked about - how many of those in the last twelve months, 
say?

Sometimes I wonder if someone isn't trying to promote something
that is little more than an urban legend. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:21:22 GMT
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms

In article <1993Jan4.192332.8773@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>
>A farmer's "love and concern" is different.  And you're right to point
>out that this love varies from the love your husband has for you. (!)
>One question:  can you imagine loving your husband if he were a farmer?
>
Hmm, it's hard to say.  He would be a very different person, then.  

I think it would put a very big strain on our marriage, if he raised animals
and not just plants.  In real life, it was bad enough when he was still eating 
meat.  (We both were meat-eaters when we got married, but I became a vegetarian 
2 years before he did).

Obviously if we could marry only people with whom we agreed on everything, no
one would ever get married.  But to me it is important to agree on the big
issues, which for me include but are not limited to animal rights, atheism,
feminism, masculinism, ...

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org

Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10912 alt.peeves:18913
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:20:09 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

(Tim Rigg) writes:
>   ...   A Norwich hunter who fatally shot a man he mistook for a deer
>   in 1988 was sentenced this summer to six years in prison after
>   being convicted of second-degree manslaughter.
>
>This is what should happen to all "hunters" who make such a stupid error! 

Oh, bravo, Tim.  Your succinct affirmation of United States justice
strikes fear into the hearts of hunters everywhere.

I'm quivering in my boots right now.

Sod off.

drew
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
 by those who have not got it."
                                -- George Bernard Shaw
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:08:01 GMT
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms

In article <1993Jan8.191555.2781@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>indignant people, who are trying to force you to respect their exceedingly
>arbitrary demands.  You are capable of hunting without trying to foist your
>views off on them, whereas they lack the maturity and clear-headedness to
>understand and extend the same respect to you.
>
It is impossible to hunt without foisting ones views on the victims of the
hunt.

>Basically, I don't understand how one can "live and let live" with a group
>of petulant buffoons, when their objective is to eliminate some of your
>freedom.  

The objective is to eliminate unnecessary suffering.  Just as people should
not to be free to kill other people, so they should not be free to kill other
animals.

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:00:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.220615.24876@clpd.kodak.com>,
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:
> 
> He explains how difficult the decision was for him in the book
> _In_Defense_Of_ Animals_ edited by Regan and Singer.  He was
> elated when he discovered two months into the period that the law
> would apply.

He was wrong.  The 1975 version of Section 59 was and is clearly intended
to exempt animal researchers.

> >Anyway, there's a larger issue here than why he didn't notify authorities.
> >According to Russell, this Taub monkey business has become something of a
> >cause celebre and served to clean-up the acts of numerous animal research
> >laboratories during the past 10 years.  In your opinion, Bob, was the
> >unnecessary and unethical suffering of the monkeys during this four month
> >period, their individual suffering, worth it given the net result?
> 
> I'm not sure.  Peter Gerone, head of Delta Regional Primate Center,
> implied yes in the statement posted by Russell.  And Gerone is
> pro-research anti-PETA.

Bob, it seems that the same logic you used against me in the Banting & Best
exchange would apply here.  You cannot attribute "exclusive causation" to
the Silver Spring incident with respect to improved conditions in animal
laboratories.

I would suggest that the antics that people associate (perhaps unfairly)
with the animal "rights" movement (bombings, arson, vandalism, etc.) has
had a negative effect on animal welfare, because many people have become
polarized against the idea.

> >Also, I asked Russell whether he would have permitted this monkey
> >research given proper treatment of the research subjects.  Were the
> >goals of the research, I assume mitigation of human suffering, worth
> >the sacrifice of these animals.  He answered "Perhaps."  What's your
> >esteemed opinion?
> 
> Based on what I've read, probably not.  The NIH, which funded the
> research, apparently felt the same way.  

You should not suggest wrongdoing on Taub's part based on this decision.

The decision of the HHS Departmental Grant Appeals Board contains a clear
exhonoration of Taub and the treatment that his monkeys received.  The
Board upheld the NIH's decision on very narrow grounds constituting one
tenth of the NIH's original criticisms.  These grounds were characterized
as being "administrative grounds only and not substantive" (NIH Week,
4(23):1-3; 1984).  Among these grounds were complaints regarding the
ventilation system at IBR, which was beyond Taub's control.

In opposing Taub's work, animal activists are saying that the discomfort
and impairment of 17 monkeys is more important than the discomfort and
impairment of millions of human stroke victims.  You do not truly feel this
way, do you?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: why hunting is unethical
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:33:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.062609.12319@beaver.cs.washington.edu> nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:
>Some comments to the comments on my recent posts.  (I didn't bother to
>keep track of all the references.)
>
>
>If hunting is more than just a kill, then by definition if we subtract
>out the kill then there will still be something left.  I guess
>something about the fun of sneaking up on the animal, the smell of gun
>powder, feeling self-reliant, whatever.  Why can't you get all that
>with blanks, or better yet just a walk in the woods??  Presumably you
>agree; if not then we won't get much farther.  Now to the killing part
>of your satisfaction.  To make it easy to quote and respond:
>

Many of us do at times. Wildlife observing, photographing, and just plain
walking in the woods are enjoyed by many hunters in the off season. And 
sometimes during the season, we simply choose not to shoot. For instance,
this past archery season I managed to sneak withing easy range of a coyote
who was busy hunting a squirrel. I raised my bow and drew it, simply to 
see if I could. A coyote is generally considered one of the most difficult
bowhunting quarries. Would have given me some serious bragging rights. I
chose to let him go. He was doing no harm, and I didn't care to eat him.
I certainly enjoyed watching him though.
   Had he been a legal deer, I most certainly would have shot him. I happen
to greatly prefer venison to soybeans and rice, or even beef or domestic
pork and chicken.

>   my fundamental claim: it is unethical to kill sentient beings
>   just for the satisfaction of killing them
>
>(Notes. (1): It is also unethical if done for lots of other reasons,
>and there's lots of other unethical things we can do to each other,
>but we don't need to go into that now.  (2): To make it clear, we are
>now no longer talking about the smell of gunpowder or whatever; that
>was a few sentences ago.  So it does no good to say "But killing is
>only PART of my I enjoy hunting.")
>
>So tell me why you disagree with this statement, and how this meshes
>with your belief that, say, humans shouldn't murder one another.
>

The only reason humans shouldn't murder one another is the uncertainty it
would introduce into society, which would most likely cease to function as
such. We have formed a societal pact that enables us to work together to 
our mutual benefit. Prohibiting murder is the most basic part of this pact.

I also find it
>difficult to believe that there are very many people in danger of
>starvation if they don't hunt.  Could those who make this claim help
>this discussion out with some statistics?
>

Do you consider meat eating unethical, or only hunting? 


Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:35:08 GMT

From article <1993Jan9.182813.4751@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C0ELtn.HnD@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>From article <1993Jan5.172233.635@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>>>>I truly don't understand why you think an individual must be capable 
>>>>of making moral distinctions in order to be deserving of just treatment.
>>>>Are your ideas based on some sort of arguments that you'd be willing
>>>>to share with people who are skeptical of your position?
>>> 
>>> Share?  Of course. For you Russell, the world.
>>> 
>>> I believe that in order to have rights beings (not individuals) must be
>>> capable of fully understanding those right, and the concequences of thier
>>> actions.
>>
>>Greg, I've understood for quite some time that this is your belief.  I'm
>>asking you to explain its factual and rational basis.
> 
> Russell, rights carry with them certain responsibilities.  Animals are
> incapable of accepting these responsibilities.  Furthermore animals are
> incapable of making a distiction between morally correct and incorrect
> behavior.  Therefore the are incapable of possesing rights.

Is this true?

What are the responsibilities of infants, severely retarded and 
mentally ill persons, etc, etc?

> ...

I'll respond to the rest of your post after you answer the question
above.


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