HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:08:12 GMT

In article <C03yJ5.KqJ@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:


>From article <1992Dec30.233605.20882@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@m
agnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>> I am interested in your reactions to three questions I have.
>>
>
[...]

>-- Is there a relationship between the conventions that tolerate
>   the (mis)treatment of animals in research and the conventions
>   that condone or tolerate the mistreatment of humans.  As an
>   example, consider the real-life case of a prominent medical
>   researcher who supports the use of dogs in extremely painful,
>   long-term experiments aimed at the development of a (lucrative) method
>   of treating hopeless endodontic cases.   Yet, this same researcher
>   also condones the widespread use of the dubious Sargenti endo method
>   which is more or less guaranteed to cause tooth loss, if not
>   a host of facial pain problems.  It seems clear to me that self-
>   interest, rather than altruistic motives, explains his apparent
>   ambivalence.  And it also seems clear that his (mis)use of dogs
>   may have produced mental callouses that have desensitized his
>   feelings about fellow human beings.
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Russell,  There's an article in the December 3, 1992 Wall Street
Journal which might interest you (p.B.9):  "'Gene Therapy' for Gaucher's
Disease Shows Promising Results in Test on Mice."


"University of Pittsburgh researchers reported promising results in mice
with a potential "gene therapy" for Gaucher's disease that eventually
may replace Ceredase, a Genzyme Corp. drug whose high cost has sparked
controversy."


The article notes (no time to type it in now) that annual cost of the
Ceredase product can run $500,000 annually.  A motivating factor of these
Pittsburgh researchers is to develop an affordable alternative to Ceredase.

You should know, or you will mature into knowing, that venality, greed
and avarice as potential human traits are not restricted to nor perhaps
even more highly concentrated within that group of people whose operative
paradigm you spend your life to counter.




:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:50:17 GMT

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>Incidentally, did anyone else read that article in the WSJ recently
>about the rangers (game wardens?) in Louisiana (sp?) using a "robot
>deer" to catch poachers?

	This has been going on all over the nation.  BTW: bowhunters
groups have donated the decoys here in Iowa.

>The statistic that stuck in my mind was this: they set up the deer
>by a stretch of road, and 18% of the drivers that went by took a
>shot at the deer from their vehicles (which is a massive no-no).

	I strongly doubt 18% of the vehicles in that state have
firearms in them!  Something smells bogus here to me.

	Of course, we could be catching idiots too.  Having seen
the decoys being used, their idea of "life-like motion" is for the
ears to twitch a bit and the head to bob about a little.  Anybody
looking for more than ten seconds can see it's machinery, not live.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: picou@convex.com (Michael Picou)
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:05:29 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.

banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking) writes:

>(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! 

I'm an avid hunter, and I agree with this post.  Anyone who shoots before
knowing what they are shooting at has no business in the woods with a gun.
That is just like me sitting on my back porch and firing a round or two out
towards the street or something.  It is careless and stupid.

>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


I take it you are the type of person who shoots at sounds in the brush....

MJP


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:42:45 GMT

From article <C0LpHL.2r1@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca:
> In <C0KuyM.BKp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>Perhaps your values are determined by convention, but I make an
>>effort to base my values on my observations of facts.  
> 
> I'm glad you're softening; now you only make an effort to use facts.
> 
>>To repeat
>>my prior example, if you were to ask me why torture is wrong, I
>>would point at the pain and suffering of the victim and not at 
>>social conventions.
> 
> And what facts tell you that inflicting pain and suffering is bad.
> The golden rule is a social convention, after all.

Is it merely a social convention?  

As an example, would it be a "good" thing for my friends and I to torture 
you for our own personal pleasure if all of us (except you, of course) 
agreed that it's socially acceptable to do so?

> And you've already admitted that pain is not always bad. These particular
> 'facts' make dentists evil and childbirth bad. 

Not really.  

> What facts do you use
> to decide how much pain justifies how much benefit?

I don't think you could find many dentists and pregnant women who would
disagree with my statement that "pain is bad".  The fact that pregnant
women and dental patients tolerate pain stems from their realization
that the painful procedure is the "lesser of the evils", as it were.

> You need a better example.

I'll stick with the one I've got.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Date: 12 Jan 93 03:09:46 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <mhulsey-090193141925@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, 
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> Second, the "jurisdictional technicality" was an issue in the Appeals Court
> Opinion, but it was not the entire issue.  Although the court noted that
> Taub was already covered by Federal regulation, it also noted that Taub's
> research fell under "certain human activities" which are exempt from
> Article 59, the Maryland Anti-Cruelty statute.  Thus, the animal research
> of Taub or anyone else would be exempt from this law *regardless* of the
> source of funding.  This is *not* a "jurisdictional technicality."  This
> was an important legal precedent.  In addition, the Appeals Court Opinion
> duly noted the potential value of Taub's research in treating human victims
> of stroke.
> 
> Therefore PETA's claim that Taub's conviction was overturned on a
> technicality that did not address the cruelty charges against Taub is a
> distortion of the truth that is typical of the animal "rights" movement. 
 
It sounds like PETA's basic point is that the overturning of the conviction 
dealt with the legal structure surrounding the case, and not with the any 
cruelty Taub might've been guilty of. The point being that Taub shouldn't be 
regarded as innocent so much as not guilty of violating the law. 

Your first paragraph supports this conclusion. Indeed, you say any research, 
no matter how heinously cruel, would've gone unpunished. So where's the 
distortion you accuse PETA of? I certainly don't see it in the quoted test, 
perhaps there's more I've missed on this thread.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:33:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.233605.20882@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>In article <C03BxC.H6w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>3)  As I understand what Alex of PETA did, he went into Taub's lab and
>worked there for four months.  His court testimony indicates his belief
>that from day one he observed monkeys living in substandard and unlawful
>conditions.  

Some clarification is needed here.  It's not correct to say that Alex
Pacheco believed from day one that the monkeys were living in "unlawful"
conditions.  Initially Pacheco did not believe that laws were being
broken.  Several months later he discovered that a Maryland statute
against cruelty was meant to include animal experimenters.  Until then
he believed that the treatment of the monkeys was unethical - but not
covered under any statute and therefore not unlawful.

[...]

>...  Thus, presumably and evidently Alex allowed the monkeys to suffer
>under unlawful conditions during his tenure at the lab.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See above.

>a)  According to your understanding of the facts of this case, why didn't
>Alex notify authorities at the first moment (ie., his first day on the job)
>he observed the substandard and unlawful conditions?
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See above.
---
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: farm@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (B. Munroe)
Subject: Humans on the food chain
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:43:40 GMT


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 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.

Bob Munroe
farm@utcs.utoronto.ca


-- 
.............................................................
Bob Munroe		: Internet>	farm@utcs.utoronto.ca
The Farm		: CompuServe>	71160,3455
From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Think about it!
Date: 4 Jan 1993 20:17:03 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan1.192601.6444@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>Now, go back and read the quotes from the leaflet.  Ask yourself,
>honestly, "Is this leaflet misleading?" and if so "Why does this
>organization need to rely on such tactics, if infact its cause
>is so correct already?"

Agreed - I would call myself a supporter of a certain level of 'animal rights',
but find organizations like PETA to be self-defeating when they pull stuff
like this.  Sure - they only do so to maximaze the worst reaction out
of you by manipulating the facts, but the act of manipulating the facts so
that they only support your own agenda and ignoring those that don't fit
them is to deny themselves credibility.  Anytime I read something that
PETA touched I am always thinking "OK - now what is the REAL story going on
here".  I trust their reporting of facts less than I do those on TV shows
like "Hard Copy" or "A Current Affair".

In essence, PETA has lost credibility with me because they selectively
manipulate facts in such a way to conceal the WHOLE truth from me -- ie.
"white lies".  Grant it - if they were to be completely objective (if that
were possible) they would likely lose some donations and support here and
there, but by losing their credibility they have lost support or donations
from people like me.  I don't need propoganda and somebody to patronize my
values and emotions - I don't need a lot of what PETA and other groups
report.

Of course - this is not to deny that there are some basic truths in what 
PETA reports either - or that they aren't doing a lot of things I support
and admire - but it is the propoganda they send out that really makes me
feel suspicious of them...which detriments any animal rights movement in
the long run.

greg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: analogy: hunting and sex [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:03:49 GMT

In <1993Jan6.200018.12928@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

>So, Nick, which is it?  Is it ridiculous to say that something is unethical
>because it is enjoyable or not?  You say that hunting is unethical to the
>extent that it is done for fun  -- then why should the fun aspects of sex
>and drinking beer not make them unethical as well?

It seems to me one would have to be deliberately obtuse to take
what anyone has said to mean that hunting is unethical _just_
because it is recreational. It's possible to find sentences that
seem to say that, but in context the argument always goes: the
suffering and death of animals are not justified by fun alone.

It's not inconsistent to hold that view and consider the pleasure of a
beer to justify the negatives associated with beer drinking (are there
any?).

I don't object to hunting, but the sex and beer analagies ignore
half the 'recreation' argument, i.e. the suffering.

Werner
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: analogy: hunting and sex [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:00:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Jan5.235340.7158@beaver.cs.washington.edu> nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.170206.29823@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
>(mary.rita.otto) writes:
>|> In article <1iaid3INNjkd@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
I wrote:
>|> You certainly have an interesting sense of the ethical.  If I may take your
>|> ethical example, and summarize it, I would say that it states, in short,
>|> that hunting is not ethical since it is enjoyable and not necessary for
>|> survival.
>|> 
[my analogies to sex and beer drinking as also enjoyable and not necessary
for survival deleted to save space]


Interestingly, Nick wrote:

>this is ridiculuous.
>
[cut to the chase ...]
>-- Nick
>
>(**) yes, yes, the folks who need to hunt in order to survive are chiming in
>now.  There are two purposes for hunting: to survive, and for fun.  to the
>extent that you hunt only for survival then I agree with Greg Sherwin: it is
>OK with me (although its hard to imagine that in today's society there could
>possibly be very many of you out there); but to the extent that you hunt for
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>fun then you are being unethical.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


So, Nick, which is it?  Is it ridiculous to say that something is unethical
because it is enjoyable or not?  You say that hunting is unethical to the
extent that it is done for fun  -- then why should the fun aspects of sex
and drinking beer not make them unethical as well?


Would you please post what you think the real basis of your ethical
evaluation of hunting is?

Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:22:10 GMT

In article <C0I8E0.IqM@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-070193090629@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> > In article <C0EJD4.Gtw@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> >> 
> >> Did you notice the quotation marks around the phrase, "animal rights"
> >> philosophy in the passage above?
> > 
> > Yes.  If you had done your homework, you would realize that Singer objects
> > to the term animal "rights" being applied to him with or without quotes.
> 
> Proof?   

You are the one who claimed that Singer supported animal "rights." Rather
than offering evidence to prove your claim, you now attempt to shift the
burden of proof to me.  I did you the courtesy of providing a reference, by
Singer, that you could use to determine Singer's true position on animal
"rights," yet you chose to ignore it.

I am very weary of your tactics, and I will be reluctant to engage you in
the future.

You will, no doubt, claim that I am evading your questions, but consider
the possibility that I consider you a "waste of time" or "uninteresting." 
After all, it is impossible for you to determine my "inner motives."

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Martin's unanswered questions.  Was Russell's unanswered questions
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:29:03 GMT

From article <mhulsey-070193094849@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C0H0Gn.9rA@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>>[...]
>> -- Is it reasonable for a man to conclude that his opponents are
>>    "evading" his questions when, after all, it may well be the
>>    case that his opponents consider his questions to be foolish
>>    or irrelevant or uninteresting?
> 
> Yes.  You are, as in your exchange with Rich, intentionally confusing
> motivation with action.  You simply don't get it, do you?  I correctly
> concluded that you evaded my questions (an action), but made no reference
> to your *motive* for doing so.

Why don't you look up the word "evade" in the dictionary, Martin?

> I'm not at all sure of your motivation for evading my questions, but I
> would suspect that it conforms to one of Rich's two tenets regarding human
> motivation.  In either case, it is selfish rather than altruistic.

So you say.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: analogy: hunting and sex [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:27:38 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

(mary.rita.otto) writes:
>ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:

>>It seems to me one would have to be deliberately obtuse to take
>>what anyone has said to mean that hunting is unethical _just_
>>because it is recreational. It's possible to find sentences that
>>seem to say that, but in context the argument always goes: the
>>suffering and death of animals are not justified by fun alone.

>*Wrong!*  Sherwin really did say that he found it objectionable because
>it was not necessary for survival and was recreational.

Do you think he meant that?

He also said he objected to the suffering. Does he have to put that
into every sentence for you to connect the two?

If someone states: dog fights are unacceptable because they are purely
for entertainment, it is implicit (to me at least) that they mean the
entertainment does not justify the suffering? Especially if they have
already made it clear that they object to animal suffering?

Werner
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:15:55 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <viking.726464976@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:
>	Not if one understands that others feel differently on many issues,
>and that a bit of respect for their views, if not understanding and
>acceptance, go a long ways towards keeping civility among people.
>
>	Or we could kill them all.  Personally, I've found that arguments
>on such moral topics have a way of only being resolved by an agreement to
>disagree.  I merely used you as a springboard for this idea.

Hmmm.  An agreement to disagree works better in some cases than in others.
For example, if you have flaming liberal views on economic theory and I
am an arch-conservative but we respect each other's intelligence, we
can probably get along OK.

However, in this case we're talking about a group of bozos who want to tell
you that something you enjoy very much, and which doesn't hurt other
people, is wrong.  While I myself do not hunt, I can understand that it
is an activity you enjoy and appreciate your resentment at these perpetually
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.

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.  To me, that's the equivalent of an unhappily  pregnant woman
trying to respect the narrow-minded asses blocking her entrance to an
abortion clinic.

   don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
        -- Will Rogers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals