HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 7 Oct 1992 14:51:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BvpvBM.4Iv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> What's the difference between "mindless acceptance" and "faith", Mike?

>From article <1aq37pINNr7@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> What's the difference between you and a fool Russell?   You obviously 
>ml> feel that any type of faith is mindless acceptance.  I obviously feel
>ml> that is foolish but, that doesn't make either true.  I also never
>ml> described my faith as mindless acceptance as you I admire mindless ac-
>ml> ceptance as you say I did.  You have a habit of saying people said 
>ml> things to you that they never did.  Would this be enough to label you
>ml> a liar?  Or just deceitful?

>Let's get back to one of the statements made by your "god" that I
>cited previously:  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."   


No, lets *not* get back to that statement.  Sorry to inform you that you
don't call the shots around here Russell.  If you have questions about the
Bible or Christian faith, I suggest you take them to your local church or
find a news group that will accomodate you.  


>Is this the sort of command that ought to be taken on faith?  Or, 
>would it not be wise for us to ask ourselves if a "god" really 
>gave such a command, and if so, should we obey.   Would you be inclined
>to say that a person who mindlessly accepts such a commandment is
>an "idiot"?    


Find your own answers Russell.  This line of questioning has no bearing on
animal issues and really is a waste of my time.  Sorry old bud.

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



Mike Linan
From: timi@chloroplast.Berkeley.EDU ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Date: 14 Oct 1992 19:07:38 GMT
Organization: Plant Pathology Dept., UC Berkeley.
NNTP-Posting-Host: chloroplast.berkeley.edu

Just two cents worth...
(I lost the orginal post so bear with me.)

I do tend to agree with the ethic that "the less pain inflicted,
the better."
I do not, however, accept it universally.  Being an omnivore, I believe
there are additional ethical considerations (as alluded to in the original
article).  I accept that these other considerations are arbitrary.

An extension of the ethic Ted first posted would be that "actions leading
to the prevention of pain are desirable."  Ergo, in the absence of other,
arbitrary considerations, it would be better to act to prevent uneccessary
suffering of all the world's creatures.  We could start be putting all
other omnivorous and carnivorous animals on a strict vegetarian
regime (the technology to formulate vegetarian-derived diets compatible
with the needs of strict carnivores does exist). How could we justify
such a major disruption in the life cycles of the affected animals?
Well, even if they (the affected animals), do not understand the
ethic proposed, we do: And, for further justification, the animals that
were once hunted and painfully slaughtered (more painfully than most
cattle, incidently), would be freed from the tyranny of the food chain.
If the resulting population explosion could be controlled through
aggressive birth-control measures, a better world could be ours.

Sounds ridiculous?  Of course.  This is the pitfall of "one ethic
mentality."  There are additional (mitigating) considerations that
must always be considered.

What limits are there to the ethic that "pain prevention is preferred"?

Regards - Tim Ikeda

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@valeron.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:56:21
	<RIGG.92Oct9101830@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct14.174508.943@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:45:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.174508.943@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

   Then how do you address questions like:

    1. How can a gut shot which cuts through digestive organs possibly not
       lead to gangrene.  How could the spillage of all sorts of foodwaste 
       and bacteria into the abdominal cavity occur and yet still permit 
       recovery without any medical treatment whatsoever?

Gut shot deer will likely die.  Howewver, they can often be retrieved
by not trailing them for 4-6 hours (overnight works well).  The deer
will often lie down when it feels safe.  If not pushed, it will often
die in that bed.

    2. For other shots, how can bacterial infections which thrive with 
       notorious ease in puncture wounds not lead to septicemia.

Do you also think that every time an animal gets a gash from a fence
wire, or a sharp stick that it also dies?  This month's Deer and Deer
Hunting describes several deer that survived nasty gashes from antler
fights. 

   >A gut shot deer will almost certainly die.

   Of course.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is how long will it
   take?  As the Boydston and Gore Texas study says, "... almost all
   abdominally shot deer will die a slow death due to peritonitis."

How do they define slow?  I have heard several articles say 4-6 hours
(admittedly they were articles in hunting magazines but I have not
read anything that refutes these claims).

   >Shots that just cut the skin or just cut muscle are not likely to be
   >fatal.  There is an article in this months Deer and Deer Hunting about
   >wounds inflicted while bucks are fighting.  Numberous photos
   >illustrate that these can be quite serious wounds.  However, most of
   >these deer recovered.  Now a shot from a bow may not be sterile but it
   >is certainly cleaner and easier to heal than a ripped gash from an
   >antler.

   Are you comparing a gash type wound with a puncture wound?  The chances
   for bacterial infection for the latter are much greater than for the former.

This is quite intriquing.   Why are these wounds so different?  I made
the same claim above so you can just reply to it once.

   >Please elaborate on what is meant by "The relatively small number of
   >studies" and "a very high percent".

   There are a lot of studies showing 50% wound rates.  There are much
   fewer (i.e. "relatively small number of") studies which evaluate
   whether wounded animals recover or die.  In Benke's experiments, all
   died. 

Okay, what are the numbers?  twenty that cite a 50% wound rate and 3
that show a high fatality rate?  Did any studies show a low fatality
rate?

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:49:43 GMT

In article <Bvrq9w.LM9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> This reminds me of the crock about AR activists allegedly 
rl> throwing blood on women who wear fur coats.  Have there been any 
rl> arrests?  Any convictions?  If not, it seems rather silly for 
rl> anyone to blame the threats and the blown-up mailbox on an 
rl> unknown group of animal rights "terrorists".

From article <1992Oct8.230614.12386@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> HEY!  This sounds like a new version of Schrodinger's Cat!  To
ry> wit: the protesters aren't really there unless one of them is
ry> arrested.  I wasn't aware that quantum physics applied on a macro
ry> scale!  Think of the possibilities...the mailbox isn't really
ry> blown up unless it's been photographed and scanned into Usenet,
ry> the newspaper article doesn't really exist until it's been presented
ry> in full to Russell...........

I don't doubt that a mailbox was blown up.  However, it doesn't
make much sense to convict AR activists in abstentia without any
evidence linking them to the crime.   As I said previously, I
can understand their willingness to circulate petitions and I can
understand their willingness to apply political and social pressure
to end activities that they view as unethical, but blowing up
mailboxes is not something that the AR activists I know would 
ever consider doing.

I heard the story about the "AR radicals" who'd thrown paint on 
women wearing fur coats in NYC so many times that I was tempted 
to believe it myself.  And why not?  Every political movement has 
it's share of people who aren't fully committed to the major 
goals at hand.  However, Tom Regan claims that one of the AR
organizations asked the NYC police department to check their
records to see how commonplace these paint/blood throwing incidents
might be.  It turned out they weren't very commonplace at all.  The
NYC police department didn't have a single record of such an
event in their files.  

ry> P.S. I'm being sarcastic, Russell, not scientifically accurate.

I'm being truthful, not sarcastic.   If the case against animal
rights is as strong as some folks on your side of the fence apparently
believe, there shouldn't be any need to manufacture evidence.

-- 
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: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:06:11 GMT

In article <Bw5spw.33G@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Isn't it possible...  just possible, in another hundred years
rl> from now, that your great-grandchildren will be wondering how/why
rl> so many christians in our day and age could turn their backs on
rl> the suffering of non-human animals, while pretending to have
rl> God's approval?

From article <1992Oct15.172322.13723@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> You seem to be assuming that "approval from God" is the paramount
jh> reason that Christians eat animals.  

Not at all.  It seems to me that "approval from God" is merely an 
excuse for mindlessly committing actions that ought to be 
questioned and analysed on their own factual and rational merits, 
rather than accepted (by faith) on the presumptuous grounds that 
a "god" has conveniently dished out his approval.  I'm _not_ 
suggesting that a genuine deity is the motivating factor behind 
the activities.  

jh> For some Christians, when asked
jh> by Russell Lawrence about it, they'll tell you God's scriptures do
jh> confirm the acceptability--(of something that they would do anyway).
jh> For example, the bible says that it's OK for men and women to marry;
jh> independent of the biblical basis of this sanction, for thousands
jh> of years men and women have been forming family and marriage
jh> partnerships.  Fundamentally, your argument that the bible is
jh> responsible for animal abuse doesn't hold water, it's a gross
jh> exaggeration of the real situation.  

Living humans are moral agents;  bibles and dead prophets aren't.  :-)

For some strange reason, selfish actions that harm other 
individuals seem far more dubious to me when they're committed in 
the name of "god" (or rationalized by selective quotations from a 
religious text) than they might otherwise appear if/when they're 
performed by ordinary mortals without any divine pretense.  If 
there is a "god", and he views witchburning or slavery or animal 
misuse as cruel and unkind, then I'm sure he's not too fond of 
the rationales that we've been addressing in this thread.  

jh> It's possible that 100 years
jh> from now people will be wondering how animals could be eaten--they
jh> won't be singling out Christians however.

I don't disagree.  I'm unwilling to point my fingers at anyone 
(christian or otherwise) and proclaim that "So-and-so deserves to 
burn in hell".  On the other hand, I'm not going to hesitate to 
remind people who claim to have God's approval to misuse 
thinking/feeling animals that their vision of God may be just as 
shortsighted as the church fathers who believed that their "god" 
truly approved of witch-burning and slavery.  In short, it seems 
to me that all of us have an obligation to re-examine the 
arguments about our animals cousins from the ground up, rather 
than using "god" as a convenient excuse for selfishness and 
apathy.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:47:37 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <RIGG.92Oct8111323@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <mhtzdnp@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

[...]

>   I'm confused as to what you mean by this, Tim.  I would think that gun
>   hunting would be better than bow hunting at *defending* RKBA, since it
>   seems to be one of the few "sporting purposes" that remains PC enough
>   to preserve what little freedom we have left.  ...
>
>That is my point.  Nearly all of the AR folks that I have met are also
>anti-gun folks.  

How many AR people have you met?  Of those, how many expressed "anti-gun"
sentiments?  Exactly what did they say?  

Even though you don't know me, you can add me to the column of pro-AR
and NOT anti-gun.  Thank you. 

>By eliminating hunting with guns, their is one less
>reason to allow guns; 

This is BS.  My concerns about hunting have absolutely nothing to do
with guns per se.  My suspicion is that you've been taken in by NRA
propaganda.  In order to appeal to wider groups, they seem to be
promoting this idea of linkage.

The NRA should stick to 2nd amendment concerns.  The 2nd amendment has
nothing to do with hunting.  It was derived from Provision 7 of the
Anti-Federalists' call for a Bill of Rights which DID support the right
to bear arms for (among other things) the purpose of killing game.  When
the 2nd amendment was drafted, the words about killing game (i.e. 
hunting) were specifically LEFT OUT.  If the framers of the 2nd
amendment wanted the words left in, they would have left them in.  Again
the NRA should stick to 2nd amendment issues. 

>something most AR folks would like.

Prove it.

>
>tim

---
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: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Reply-To: me@halfab.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:23:40 GMT

In article <1aigfaINNn1n@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike  
Linan) writes:
> In article <BvIDvo.A0s@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> >Russell Lawrence writes:
> 
...
> The question asked was why don't hunters hunt other hunters.  Number one,
> this is against the law.  Number two, this is immoral in the eyes of most
> societies.  These two factors combined with the overall tone of the poster,
> led me to conclude that the poster and her comments were idiotic.  
> 
...
Hunters hunting hunters are murderers because they are killing life.
It is against law. It is immoral under most societies and religions.
BUT sometimes just these societies go crazy and are making war.
None of the above statements is remembered. Nobody stands upright
(even christians) to say that killing any life is immoral anytime.
What a untruthful society. Not killing is tougher than killing.
No step forward. On the contrary, only steps backward.
Why so down? Just seen a report about Ireland. These people are
making 'war' since 800 years against each other (as one of them told).
Luzy (if this is the name of the oldest known link to mankind) will
feel ashamed for her descendants.

Udo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 19:21:32 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.




Scott Woods writes:

quoting me (this time):
`Near the end of last week, Scott posted a response in which he "quoted" me
`as saying that hunters are murderers, etc.  I took exception to that response
`(and to this one), because

`  2) The lines he attributed to me were his own--poorly-paraphrased from
`     email correspondence between us.  

>Oh come on now.  You sent me a mail message with those lines in it.  I
>will have to hunt to see if a copy of such still exists.  I am not going to
>get a quander over this, but the message was sent - by you.  If you don't 
>have the 'testicular fortitude' to admit it, then that is your problem.

I _did not_ write the words you posted.  People have unique writing styles;
anyone who has read much of what I've posted could've discerned that the
"quotes" you posted were not my writing style.  

>I do not usually practice in posting things from mail on news, but I needed
>to make a point on that and I felt you had nothing to hide.  If you do,
>let us know.  I am sure that might cast an interesting slant on our perception
>of your views.

You've already slanted my views.  That's the issue here.  Webster's 9th
includes in its definition of "slant": to maliciously or dishonestly distort
or falsify."  When you inaccurately paraphrased me, you slanted the tone of my
email.  It could have been a malicious and deliberate act intended to give my
words a much more negative tone and thereby discredit me, or it could have
been unintentional.  I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and
accept that it was unintentional, but either way, you did, indeed, slant my
words, and it was very unsportsmanlike.
-- 
 Jennifer L. Johnson | "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our
 jjohnson@convex.com |  circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures." 
		     |				--Albert Einstein
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:16:28 GMT
Organization: WP Group


William John M. Christie writes:
wc> Show me how God disproves of the way humans treat animals.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Show me that your "god" really and truly disapproved of the
rl> mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of witches, heretics, and
rl> unbelievers during the late middle ages.  After all, your "god"
rl> did say: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

From article <1992Oct14.153747.19235@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Did you ever consider that '"god"' may neither approve nor 
jh> disapprove of the burning of witches during the middle ages?  

Yes.  I've also considered the possibility that all proclamations 
about the desires of gods and goddesses are mere speculation and 
that it ill-behooves us, both logically and emotionally, to 
misuse such conjectures as a rationale for our unjust treatment 
of other beings.  

If gods and/or goddesses do exist, somewhere in the universe, I'm
not so sure they would appreciate our willingness to use them as 
convenient crutches for arguments that would otherwise fall down.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:51:52 GMT

In <BvuBCF.8D0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>I agree that rights are a fairly new concept for us humans, but this
>limitation would hardly apply to Mike Linan's omniscient "god".  Yet,
>the philosophers who pioneered the development of the concept of
>rights (ie Locke, Jefferson, Paine, etc) from the late 17th century
>onward faced stiff opposition from clerics who claimed to represent 
>the christian deity.  How come?

>Isn't it a shame that "god" said:

>   "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

>Instead of saying something like:

>   "Thou shalt respect the thoughts and feelings of other beings."


He did.  He said 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'.

Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:41:36 GMT

Mike Linan writes:
ml> You don't read or listen very well Russell.  I've told you that 
ml> God doesn't ask that witchs be killed.  You can hope for whatever 
ml> rights you wish.  That doesn't mean they will be so or that I or 
ml> anyone else will agree.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're contradicting yourself.  When I asked you how you knew 
rl> that hunting was acceptable, you explained that the bible told 
rl> you so and that the bible is the literal word of god.  Yet the 
rl> bible also says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  I've 
rl> read the bible and I don't recall a passage that says: "Forget 
rl> about killing witches.  I've changed my mind".  

From article <1b534hINN6o6@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Hey Russell.  Drop dead.  No really, I know it's not a Christian 
ml> thing to say but, I'm sick of your shit...

Uh, huh.   

ml> End of discussion with 
ml> you.  You haven't got a clue and because your are so stupid and 
ml> ignorant of the word of God you expect me to clean up your act in 
ml> regards to what litte you know.  Respond to this so you can get 
ml> the last word in and then forget it because you aren't worth 
ml> wasting my time on!  

Suit yourself, Mike.  Perhaps it would be easier for you to teach
people like myself about the "word of god" if you would exercise
a little patience and humility and refrain from labeling folks
as "idiots" and "fools" simply because they don't share your own
beliefs and superstitions.

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