HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: red_trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Short Env. Tips still availalbe!
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:16:46 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

I have available to those who are interested a file called "Short
Environmental Tips" [if this announcment seems familiar, it's cuz
I announced it a few weeks ago]; this file is 300 lines long (40
blocks) and contains tips on how *you* can save the earth.  A few
of the tips overlap with animal rights concerns (e.g. a vegetarian
diet, as most of you probably already know, is kind to the earth
as well as to the environment).

This file is heavily, but not exclusively, based on "50 Simple Things
You Can do to Save the Earth" available at bookstores, or from
EarthWorks Press #25, 1400 Shattuck Ave, Berkeley CA 94709, United 
States of America.

If interested in obtaining a copy of "Short Environmental tips",
you may contact me at:

Red_Trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu



Note:  "Short Environmental tips" is expressly *NOT* copyrighted!
Please *DO* distribute in any way you can!  Pass on to people
you know, on and off the net; crosspost in newsgroups, mailing 
lists and bulletin board services; print out and donate a copy
to your local or school library, and/or share with your classmates,
workmates, students or employees; use tips as fillers in a 
publication you maintain (newsletter, magazine, etc etc, or even
any book you publish in the future!); or distribute in any
other way you can!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:40:15 GMT


From the Conference schedule, posted by Ferrell Wheeler:
fw> 8:45 - 9:45 "Beyond Beef" - Jeremy Rifkin

Mark Pleis writes:
mp> What is beyond beef is, more beef

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
ru> Hopefully not in the future....but for now, sadly, you are right......

In article <1992Sep3.213529.29257@news.iastate.edu>, Mark Pleis writes:
mp> I know  I'm Right the beef markets are expnding and so are the beef 
mp> producters.

In article <1992Sep4.232503.6329@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, by unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks):
ru> Well, yes and no.  Isn't it true that per capita consumption of 
ru> beef is down 11% from 1981?  While it is true that "production" 
ru> is up, this is more than likely due to an increase in the number 
ru> of meat eaters, although the number of vegetarians in the US has 
ru> tripled since 1981.  Another thing to consider is that 20% of 
ru> Americans are trying vegetarian meals.  

A Gallup Poll commissioned by the National Restaurant Association
last year reported that a third of those interviewed said they
were likely to order vegetarian restaurant dishes where available.

According to the American Meat Institute, US beef consumption was 
94.5 pounds per capita in 1976.  It was 68 pounds per capita in 
1990.  

According to NPD Group, a private firm that tracks changes in 
eating habits, 96% of US households ate red meat at least once 
every two weeks in 1980.  By 1991, the figure had declined to 
92%.  

According to researchers Shida Henneberry of Oklahoma State 
University and Barbara Charlet of Iowa State University, "The 
most recognizable pattern in food consumption behavior the last 
20 years has been the shift away from animal products".  (quoted 
from the Journal of Food Products Marketing).  

Source: "Going Vegetarian" from the _New Orleans Times-Picayune_
         September 3, 1992. pp F1-F3.

ru> Rob U, feel strong as a bull?  well, bulls are vegetarians.......

:-)  True.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Animal rights...again
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:21:51 GMT

    Allow me to reiterate myself: Animals have NO rights. It appears that there
has been some confusion as to what I mean.  I first used the term "animals" in
the ordinary sense, meaning non-humans.  Let me rephrase my position so that 
even an animal activist can understand it.  Only human beings have rights.
    In a broader sense, no animals, not even humans, have inherent rights.  We
only have rights given to us by our governments.  The Declaration of
Independence states that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable
rights.  "Men" refers to male and female humans, not to animals.  Likewise our
Constitution grants rights to the citizens of the United States.  Again, not to
animals.  No law that I am aware of has ever given animals rights.  Therefore
it is a blatant lie to say otherwise.  Until such a law is passed, I will
continue to say that animals have no rights, and I will continue to be right.
     Has anyone noticed that the animal rights activists also tend to be in
favor of abortion (the slaughter of human beings) on demand? However that's
another question...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:22:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep9.232943.8908@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>  The bottom line is still that it's hard (I would say impossible) to 
>>  come up with an intellectually credible defense for the existence of
>>  absolute rights.
>
>It seems to me that we accept the existence of things if we can't do
>without those things when we try to understand the world and human
>conduct.  It seems to me impossible to think about human conduct
>sensibly without assuming that there is objective right and wrong.

  All it takes to disprove an assertion is a single counter-example.
  *I* don't believe in objective rights but I have no trouble
  thinking about the world and human conduct.  That is, model that
  says that rights are socially defined and granted has at least 
  as much explanatory power as one which assumes absolute rights.


> Try to discuss politics, for example, or think about how to treat your
> wife or bring up your children, without the assumption that it really is
>better -- regardless of what one's own purposes or inclinations may be
>-- to do some things rather than others. 

  But "better" could be defined in terms of practical consequences.
  And that doesn't support absolute rights since I can conceive of 
  situatioons where it would be better in a practical sense to kill
  or rob someone and other where it would not

  
---peter






Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Transcendent values  (was: human rights...)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:08:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <exukjb.157.716510077@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <BuKn5B.1qq@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
>>Subject: Re: Transcendent values  (was: human rights...)
>>Date: 14 Sep 92 14:05:35 GMT
>
>
>
>
>>    More Randian gobbledygook.  What does "if life is
>>    justifiable" even mean?   What does it mean for 
>>    life to be "justifiable"?   
>
>>   
>
>Pete, Why "operational" definitions?

  In the interest of objectivity.  Operational definitions allow us to 
  all agree when we are seeing an instance of e.g., "rational behavior".


>  	Those who hold that life is valuable,  hold, *by implication*,
>	that no man ought to be prevented from carrying on life-sustaining
> 	activities. If life is justifiable, there must be a justification
>	for performance of those acts essential to its preservation; and
>	therefore a justification for those liberties and claims which
>	make such acts possible.
>
>Now, I wouldn't for a moment think of resting my views in political 
>philosophy on authority, but I thought it best to clear myself of any charge 
>of randiodism.

  But you still haven't addressed my criticisms.  And Spencer's comments
  above are open to the same criticism as Rand's.  What do we mean by
  "valuable"?.  "Valuable" is a relative term.  And who's life are we
  referring to?   It does not follow that if I value my own life I'm
  logically required to value that of others, although that may be the
  deal I have to strike with other members of my community.


---peter
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Transcendent values  (was: human rights...)
Date: 12 Sep 1992 12:56:42 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

-*----
I concur with Ken Bell that immediate interests often conflict
with long-term interests, and that reflective, critical, and
rational thought is required to analyze this and balance various
kinds of interest.  But then he starts to wax irrational:

In article <exukjb.147.716246181@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
> If life is justifiable at all, then it must be possible 
> to justify the means to necessary to sustain life.  And if
> life cannot be sustained without leaving persons the
> unrestrained freedom to pursue those means to sustain 
> themselves under the objective conditions of existence, 
> then it is this necessity which justifies us in saying that
> people have a right, a human or natural right, to things
> like life and property, etc. ...

It is hard for me to understand the above, except as some sort of
Randian double-speak.  Clearly life *can* "be sustained without
leaving persons the unrestrained freedom to pursue those means to
sustain themselves."  Ask anyone who has been in prison.  And why
does life need to be justified?  And what is an "objective
condition of existence"?  And how does any of this justify talk
about transcendent rights?

Russell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Competition  (was: Jobs)
Date: 10 Sep 1992 12:00:30 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Is there a point here?

-*----
In article <dliebman.1e26@terapin.com> dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes
>>> of all the time-energy that is expended in this country Competing, 
>>> how much for Innovation? ...

I wrote:
>> Undoubtedly, only a small percentage of competitive effort
>> results in something truly innovative.  Similarly, only a small
>> portion of the sunlight that falls on a garden is used to produce
>> tomatoes. ... If there is a creative process that produces only 
>> -- or even mostly -- gems, I have yet to hear of it.

In article <dliebman.1g46@terapin.com> dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
> ... how many different brands of toilet paper are there in
> the united states?  how much effort is expended by the 
> companies that produce toilet paper to convince people that
> _their_ toilet paper is better than everyone else's? ...

We are going in circles here.  You asked how much competitive
effort is wasted or only marginally useful.  I said a lot.
(Did you expect a different answer?  Did you read a different
answer?)  You come back and say ... a lot.

If you say this again, I won't respond, for fear that my
agreement will generate yet another emphatic restatement.

Russell
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Jobs
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:28:57 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| In article <1992Sep4.234434.20437@auto-trol.com>, johore@auto-trol.com (John
| Orendt) writes:
| >
| >It's competition that makes the world interesting.
| >
 dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
| 
| perhaps not everyone feels this way.


I certainly don't.  Competition makes everything boring.  The
original, which is what is interesting, is outside of 
ccompetition precisely because there's
nothing like it.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Competition  (was: Jobs)
Date: 9 Sep 1992 17:37:47 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

-*----
In article <dliebman.1e26@terapin.com> dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
> of all the time-energy that is expended in this country Competing, 
> how much for Innovation?  and how much for Manipulation?

I will ignore the false dichotomy.

Undoubtedly, only a small percentage of competitive effort
results in something truly innovative.  Similarly, only a small
portion of the sunlight that falls on a garden is used to produce
tomatoes.  If you believe Pournelle, 95% of everything is crap. 
If there is a creative process that produces only -- or even
mostly -- gems, I have yet to hear of it.

Russell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:23:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


In article <1992Sep6.021415.10802@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>One advantage to holding that moral principles are absolute is that it
>makes it possible for people who disagree about which moral principles
>are the correct ones to believe that they are talking about the same
>things (correct moral principles), even though they disagree about
>them, and that discussion may lead to agreement.

  But this isn't an argument for the existence of absolute rights, only
  an argument for why we should *believe* in such things.  A bit like the
  old claim that if God didn't exist we would have to invent Him.
                                                                 
  The bottom line is still that it's hard (I would say impossible) to 
  come up with an intellectually credible defense for the existence of
  absolute rights.


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: If a President resigns (or No-Confidence in Quayle)
Summary: we DO have to put up with the vice-president, unless...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 03:40:00 GMT

In article <11SEP199218483779@utkvx2.utk.edu>, 
dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug) writes...
>In article <9SEP199214590887@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes...
> 
>>More curious a question -- If a sitting president resigns, do we have
>>to put up with his VEEP, or is there a way to force a general election,
>>through recall?
> 
>	According to the Constitution, when a President resigns, the
>Vice-President becomes President for the remainder of the term.  The only way
>to remove the new President "before his time" is to go through the impeachment
>process; there is no provision for a recall election.

You're right. Quite clear too in the 25th amendment. Also found there,
that the VEEP and a majority of the heads of the executive departments
can get together and oust the President, if he's unable to perform his
duties, (item 4 same amendment). Then if contested, congress has to
follow it up with a 2/3 vote to confirm the change. So I reckon there
is a way (though unlikely) to oust an incompetent. 

Interesting also that there is a proviso that another body designated 
by Congress could call for removal instead of the heads of the dept.

In my opinion, Dan Quayle would be unable to discharge the powers and
duties of the office of the president, largely because most of America
considers him "not-presidential-material." Just an opinion mind you.

In the event that Bush resigns in '94 for whatever reason, (or sooner),
-- Would anyone else be willing to sign a statement of No-Confidence
knowing that it has no legal ramification?

 /                                                                  \
(  Stephen D. Tice     |     Human science is based on the writings  )
 >                  -- S --  of 300 generations, the view from one  < 
(  Arlington Texas     |     small planet and a very short lifetime. )
 \                                                                  /          
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:53:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep11.010753.5550@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>  *I* don't believe in objective rights but I have no trouble
>>  thinking about the world and human conduct.  That is, model that
>>  says that rights are socially defined and granted has at least 
>>  as much explanatory power as one which assumes absolute rights.
>
>To gain my point I would have to discuss the world and human conduct
>with you and show that the things you say implicitly assume
>transcendental standards of conduct (I prefer that phrase to "absolute
>rights" because it's more general).  Maybe you could consider the
>example I just presented to Russell Turpin.  In dealing with your son
>would you consider your obligations to him to be reducible without
>remainder to whatever they are socially defined to be?

  I don't know what the example you used with Mr. Turpin was, so
  I can only answer in a general way:  Since I and my thinking and
  my langauge are a product of (or at least strongly influenced by)
  society, I can't distinguish what is socially definable and what
  is not.  But even if I could it doesn't follow that what is not
  is "absolute".  It could be totally arbitrary or the product of 
  some other neurological or experiential circumstance.


>>  But "better" could be defined in terms of practical consequences.
>>  And that doesn't support absolute rights since I can conceive of 
>>  situatioons where it would be better in a practical sense to kill
>>  or rob someone and other where it would not
>
>I don't think this gets to the heart of the matter.  Possibly, what is
>absolutely right could be to promote the best possible practical
>consequences.

  This is not what is commonly meant by absolute values,  If you define
  them this way then there is no way to distinguish this from moral
  relativism.  

  I wish whoever it was (Phil Ronzone?  I don't recall) who introduced 
  this topic originally would come back and defend it.  Hit-and-run
  posters are such intellectual wimps!.



---peter




Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4089 soc.women:16305 misc.legal:16987 alt.sex.bondage:17102
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Censorship is never safe
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.sex.bondage
Date: 8 Sep 1992 17:19:48 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Lesbian magazine censored in Canada; 
	 Ms. magazine applauds legal decision.

-*----
In recent years there has been a spate of censorship attempts
from the left, in particular, attempts to forbid "hate" speech,
and to curtail pornography, which from the left is viewed as
media that "oppresses" women.  Libertarians -- both civil and
general -- oppose all such censorship, urging that liberal views
must be defended in a liberal fashion, and warning that laws
giving the government the power to censor are inevitably turned
to the purpose of those in power, whose views change with the
wind.  The blurb below is one example of this. 

Begin excerpt from On Our Backs, Sept/Oct 1992:

   Canada's largest lesbian/gay bookstore, Glad Day in Toronto,
   has been raided and charged with selling obscene material --
   namely, an issue of the lesbian erotic magazine Bad Attitude.
   The magazine, which depicted penetration and bondage, was the
   first casualty of a Canadian Supreme Court decision redefining
   obscenity to include materials that are "degrading and
   dehumanizing," primarily to women or children.  The decision
   had been applauded by Canadian and American anti-porn
   feminists: Ms.  called it "a stunning victory" in a country
   "where the free-speech tradition is not as dominant as it is
   in the U.S." (!!)  These misguided "feminists" have never
   understood that when the "free speech tradition" is not
   upheld, the first to be gagged are minorities.  That means
   lesbians.  That means feminists.  That means women. 

End excerpt.

If the Canadian Government thinks that Bad Attitude deserves
censorship, then I think the magazine deserves support.  Does
anyone know what a subscription costs, and where I send the
check? 

Russell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: wshi@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Weiping Shi)
Subject: Remember me?
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:57:59 GMT

Three years ago, I post many articles here about things
happening in China.   In particular, the necessity to have
a strong central control in order to perform economical reform.
Today,  considering what happened in former
U.S.S.R,  do you agree with me now ?
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:48:41 GMT
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

Permit me to intrude a little in this debate.  I think that we create 
rights and responsibilities in our society based on their
relationships with our collective desires (long or short term) ONLY WHEN we
can easily deduce these rules from those desires.

However, there are times when we don't know the exact dynamics of how our
actions affect outcomes, although we do know that if we make a CHOICE
on some fundamental pattern of behavior, we'll keep things understandable
for ourselves and hence under control and arrive at an ACCEPTIBLE condition.
We end up adopting this kind of solutions (like honesty) because we'd rather
do down an acceptible path (but not necessarily best in the sense that no
one can prove it is best by any definition) which is under our control
than throw ourselves to the whims of chance.

Some people choose to call these fundamental choices trancendental rights,
natural rights, etc.  I don't but agree with them in the sense that just
because we can't justify them with our current understanding of human nature
and our interests we should still keep these rights.

The key to this debate, IMHO, is understanding the limits of human
understanding.
~
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Jobs
Date: 6 Sep 92 21:35:06 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Sep4.234434.20437@auto-trol.com>, johore@auto-trol.com (John
Orendt) writes:
>
>It's competition that makes the world interesting.
>

perhaps not everyone feels this way.
From: dale@dale.CAM.ORG (Dale Wharton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Is Ross Perot sandbagging?
Date: 6 Sep 92 01:33:16 GMT
Organization: private

Friday, 4 Sep, Terry Gross interviewed Gore Vidal, the writer, on
National Public Radio.  Vidal grew up in the home of his grandpa,
a senator from OK.  He predicts Ross Perot will reenter the race
once Bush and Clinton have shredded each other with negative campaigns.

Vidal says Perot, at great expense, has now gotten his name on the
ballot in CA as well as (all?) other states.  Vidal parted with a
bon mot:  while a writer must always tell the truth as s/he sees it,
"A politician must never give the game away."
--
dale@dale.cam.org          M O N T R E A L          Te souviens-tu?