HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:36:04 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

`In article <viking.721038632@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

`>>The bottom line, folks, is that  poachers *are* hunters.

`I find your defensiveness on this point quite telling.  Rather
`then admit to one basic, incontrovertable  fact, that hunters have 
`damaged wildlife populations, you will to great lengths to dance 
`around things.

No, personally I find it offensive and very incorrect for some do-gooder
who wishes to cast far to much emotion and personification on a non-sentient
animal to group me and my hunting in with the actions of those that do so
illegally, unethically and irresponsibly.

Few personal facts:

	1) I love the taste of meat.
	2) Venison is one of my favorite forms of meat.
	3) I choose when possible to take responsibility for harvesting
	   my own food - be it meat or vegetable.
	4) I behave very responsibly in the woods regardless of whether
	   or not I am visiting, hunting or harvesting.
	5) I try whenever possible to patrol the areas I frequent and
	   pick up trash whenever I see it.
	6) Though I have gotten plenty of small game animals, I still
	   have as of yet to get a deer.
	7) If I should never get a deer, I will still hunt as long as it
	   is legal.
	8) If you make hunting illegal, only poachers will hunt....

swood
-- 
  Nov. 08   Closing day of Duck/Waterfowl season (upper L.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 11   Closing day of Michigan Quail hunting
  Nov. 12   Closing day of early Waterfowl season (lower L.P.)
 Currently  Rabbit, squirrel and bird season are still alive and well!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:00:46 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Is it dishonest for a man or woman who's concerned about animal testing
rl> to use a manufacturer's customer service line to explain his/her reasons
rl> for not buying a particular product?   

From article <1dothfINNk71@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Perhaps.  Didn't you say the "manufacturer's customer service line" ?
ml> 
ml> Do you view people who won't buy a manufacturer's product as customers?
ml> Anyway, I don't believe the people who use these tactics as having as 
ml> innocent intentions as you pretend.

I suppose my family and I formerly purchased roughly $250 worth 
of Proctor and Gamble products each year.  For the past few years 
or so, however, we've been making conscious decisions to buy 
competitors' products instead.  If you were the CEO of P&G would 
you want to hear our reasons for defecting to the competition via
your toll-free customer service line?  Or, would you prefer to simply 
have us "go away"?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:25:07 GMT

In article <swood.721335013@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
`Poachers and hunters are similar in that both kill animals.
>
>Big deal, your gas guzzling auto-mobiles kill animals - both by running
>them down inadvertantly and by taking away wild-life land for plants and
>dealerships and houses for auto-workers.

I agree, and there are many other problems with cars too.  As long as we
are able-bodied, my husband and I will not even get driver's licenses, let
alone own a car. 

>  The steak or pound of hamburger
>most people buy at the supermarket is killing animals. 

Yes, it's very sad.

> And the plastic,
>metal and other synthetic or otherwise man made/modified materials that
>we all buy, use or manipulate in our day to day lives are causing the
>deaths of animals - the loss of habitat for animals - the loss of resources
>for animals.
Hey, we agree on a lot of things :-).
>
>The thing that bothers me is, that the AR-heads are not going after the
>everyday meat-eaters 

Sure we are.  To me this is the most important issue in animal rights
today.  I would not be content if people stopped hunting and substitued
farmed meat.  If anything, I think that that causes more animal suffering.

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:31:06 GMT

From article <swood.721056858@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
sw> Gee, I don't think I see the word "hunt" or "hunting" anywhere in 
sw> the Webster definition.  Remind me not to buy American Heritage 
sw> dictionaries.  They must have AR-heads working on the 
sw> definitions.....  

from the New World Webster's dictionary in front of me:

     "poach: ... 3b) to hunt or catch (game or fish) illegally, 
      especially by trespassing".

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 22:41:04 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BxILyy.2Ex@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Greg Popken writes to Rosemary Waigh:
>gp> I must say your stance on the issue sounds to be based on a absolute
>gp> ethical basis.  I admire your conviction.  Though I disagree with your
>gp> conclusions.  At least someone here will stand be their beleifs instead of
>gp> wavering back and for "depending on the situation" (This means you
>gp> Russell).
>
>Russell Lawrence responds:
>rl> I can't help wondering if your views "waver" back and forth in 
>rl> accordance with the situation.  For example, is it always wrong
>rl> to kill human beings?  Or would the rightness or wrongness of
>rl> such an activity depend on the situation?
>
>From article <1992Nov10.170129.25288@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>etc?  

>gp> Animals have no rights!  

>Do dogs and cats have a right not to be tortured?

No!  They don't enjoy such a right.  Will a pack of coyotes never torture
a cat or dog?  Is there some right that will prevent any predator from 
torturing a cat or dog if given the opportunity and if inclined to do so?
What "right" will have been violated other than in your own mind?  You may
say that a human can be lawfully prosecuted for torturing a cat or dog but,
is that because of some "right" for the animal or that the powers that be
have determined that humans do not have the "right" to do so?  You would be
prosecuted for destroying Mount Rushmore.  Does that mean you don't have 
the "right" to do that or that rocks have "rights"?


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


Mike Linan




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:49:53 GMT

In <BxKt7t.I5s@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>In <BxGzK0.Enp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> Ho Chi Minh dedicated his whole life to the resolution of 
>rl> vietnamese social problems caused by centuries of colonial rule.  

>From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> By armed revolution, backed by communist countries that
>ds> will require a communist government when the revolution was over...

>By "armed revolution", were you thinking of something like the 
>War of Independence that initially established the sovereignty of 
>the United States as a democratic republic?

	Yes, it is very similar, though our revolution has been painted
with a more patriotic and freedom-loving brush.

>  If so, what role (if 
>any) did communist governments play in the activities that 
>culminated in the viet minh's defeat of the French colonial forces 
>at Dien Bien Phu?  

	Not a whole lot, actually.  Once the US got into the act,
however, communist aid was necessary.  To go back to the American
revolution, we were helped by the French in much the same way.  Had
it taken place in modern times, you can bet our government would be
quite different due to French influence.

	In any event, you appear to be dancing around the point that
this was not the popular revolution you attempted to paint.  Ghandi
might have had one, but Ho Chi Mihn was certainly no Ghandi.  The
moral implications are yours to ponder.

>Perhaps.  I have no objection to an individual who buys a ticket
>in good faith, but demands his money back if/when he discovers that
>the film depicts material that he finds objectionable.   It seems
>dishonest, however, to stage what Scott called "intentional
>exodus trips" to protest the "animal rights propaganda" that Scott
>and his friends apparently perceived in Lethal Weapon.

	I agree with the latter sentiment, but I would disagree with
the former in many instances.  What the film depicts is not the
responsibility nor under the control of the theatre.  As they cannot
control it, they should not be held responsible for it.  This is not
the same as demanding money because of a loud audience, gum on your
chair, or something of that nature.

< 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.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Date: 10 Nov 1992 18:03:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BxHAvJ.Gv4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Is it proper etiquette for you to buy a ticket to a showing of a film 
>rl> when you're deliberately planning to demand your money back later on?

>From article <1dmuqqINNapp@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Scott, you might want to point out to Russell that buying a 
>ml> ticket while deliberately planning to demand your money back is 
>ml> no less etiquette than tying up an honest businessman's toll free 
>ml> lines with no intentions of conducting business with the company 
>ml> but rather just to disrupt a business that such people do not 
>ml> agree with.  

>Perhaps.

>Is it dishonest for a man or woman who's concerned about animal testing
>to use a manufacturer's customer service line to explain his/her reasons
>for not buying a particular product?   

Perhaps.  Didn't you say the "manufacturer's customer service line" ?
				             ^^^^^^^^

Do you view people who won't buy a manufacturer's product as customers?
Anyway, I don't believe the people who use these tactics as having as 
innocent intentions as you pretend.


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


Mike 




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:05:26 GMT

In article <BxILyy.2Ex@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence responds:
>rl> I can't help wondering if your views "waver" back and forth in 
>rl> accordance with the situation.  For example, is it always wrong
>rl> to kill human beings?  Or would the rightness or wrongness of
>rl> such an activity depend on the situation?
>
>From article <1992Nov10.170129.25288@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>gp> Russell let's stick to the issue shall we.  If you want to 
>gp> talk ethics of the death penalty take it somewhere else.  You 
>gp> believe animals have rights...  
>
RL>The issue is your concept of ethical absolutism and how you think
RL>it ought to apply to people like myself who don't share your views.
>
RL>Yes, I believe that both human and non-human animals should have 
RL>some rights, but it seems kinda farfetched to argue that rights 
RL>are somehow absolute in scope.

No its not far fetched.  You claim animals have rights.  But, only in some
circumstances.  I see this as inconsistant.  How can you claim animals
have the right not to be used in research, for fur coats,or entertainment?
And then claim that they don't have rights when it comes to leather shoes
and food.  All are instances of exploiting animals for "personal "reasons.
Where do you draw the line.
Again I'll use the example of the woman who offerred the man $1,000,000 to
have sex with her. (roles changed this time as not to appear sexist.) The
man excepts. The woman offers $5 dollars for the same services.  He
replies "What kind of man do you think I am?"  To which she replies,
"we've already established that.  We're just bartering price now."
I posted this earlier but was out of town afterwards and did not see the
replies.  Please forgive the redundance.) 

Russell :
>Now please answer my previous 
>question: Is it always wrong to kill human beings?  Or, should we 
>entertain exceptions in cases involving self-defense, medical 
>treatment, criminal punishment, punishment for religious heresy, 
>etc?  
 
 
 Not if the killing is justified.  (I'm ahead of you on this). Justified
 based on the norms and rules of society.

Russell:
>gp> Animals have no rights!  
>
>Do dogs and cats have a right not to be tortured?
>

No.  But we don't have the right to intentional infic pain on them without
justification.

>gp> Rights are a human contraption and should only be applied to humans.

Russell:>
>Why?

Why should we impose or beliefs on other speies?

					      Greg Poken
					     


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expessed here are my own.   *   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       *   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  *   end of the page. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:36:45 GMT

From article <1992Nov6.173836.29214@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> I too am interested in your comments on the nature of your eating 
jh> choices as they relate to your ethics.  I could write about my 
jh> world-view when I was a vegan, but that would be much less 
jh> interesting than hearing how you frame the world.  Would your use 
jh> as a starting off point of the following examples help you: Isn't 
jh> the Louisiana Coast known for crawfish or crayfishes or 
jh> something?  What goes through your mind when you are out kayaking 
jh> in the bayou and come upon a cajun who invites you to sample some 
jh> crawfish jambalaya or whatever it's called?  

... the likely prospect of diarrhea, coupled with concerns about
the impact that thromboxane has on heart muscle.

I do, occasionally, consume animal flesh under such 
circumstances, largely because I acknowledge the fact that my 
ability to reduce suffering in the world is enhanced by social 
involvement, and reduced by social isolation.  By and large, 
however, I would explain to the person making such an offer that 
I would prefer plain rice and plain greens to crawfish that have 
been boiled alive.  

If he asked for an explanation, I would voice my ethical concerns 
but I would do so in a way that depicts veganism or vegetarianism 
as a set of daily alternatives rather than a set of absolutist 
standards. 

jh> I sometimes sprinkle roasted termites from a large glass jar with
jh> nail holes in the metal lid over spaghetti sauce I make, for purposes
jh> of protein, texture and flavor.  What would go through your mind,
jh> ethically, in turning down the meal I would offer you.

My response would depend on the alternatives.  If the foods that 
I typically consume were truly in short supply, I'd have no 
qualms about accepting your offering.  As it is, plain spaghetti 
would provide ample protein to meet my needs, and a plain sauce 
would provide more than enough flavor.  [I've been weaned from 
oils and fats.] 

Still, the prospect of termite consumption warrants consideration.  I
would begin the exploration by asking the following questions:

1) Are we harming or depriving termites in some meaningful way by 
   consuming them?
2) Would termite consumption be healthy for us in a particular instance?
3) Would termite production and/or termite "harvesting" have harmful
   effects vis-a-vis environmental pollution, our usuage of expendable 
   water and petrochemicals, etc?

One more question comes to mind:  Are termites economical?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:13:38 GMT

In article <viking.719907076@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>black@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

[...]

>>Yes, you've mentioned this before and I didn't have time to answer.  An
>>important danger of gut hits stems from the release of foodwaste and
>>bacteria into the abdominal cavity.  When you stab a cow to relieve
>>bloat-like symptoms, I presume you aim for the rumen where fermentation
>>activity would most likely lead to the conditions you described.  What's
>>the bacterial environment there compared with that for a deer? 
>
>	I have no idea.  I just aimed for the point of greatest swelling
>and hoped for the best.  For a human, the medical concensus is that septic
>shock will kill within six hours without treatment.  It is highly
>treatable, in part due to seat belts that keep you from hitting the
>steering wheel and windshield but rupture your bladder and colon giving
>us much practice in irrigating abdominal cavities.
>
>>Also did
>>you use a trocare (sp?) type needle, which would be specifically
>>designed for the purpose? 
>
>	Sears Craftsman folding buck-knife.  Get that fancy stuff away!

Fancy stuff? It's a hollow needle which allows gas to escape through the
inside while minimizing the perforation in and damage to the stomach. 
Don't you believe in using the right tool for the job? I thought this
was an area of your expertise.  How many times have you done this?

[...]

---
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: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-hunters issue death threats in Ohio
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:10:22 GMT
Reply-To: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <1992Nov11.135844.963@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd) writes:
|> Ditto in SC. I have hit 1, my parents have hit 2. This is a very common
|> occurence all over the southeast, in general. As long as we have deer,
|> there will be accidents so there really is no solution to this problem.
|> (My parents tried the little ultrasonic deer whistles, but they don't
|> really seem to work as advertised.)
|> 

FYI:

The Minnesota DNR has gone on record as saying that the deer whistles do
not work and are worthless.  Less than worthless, probably, because they
might lead drivers to have a false sense of security.  See the letters to the
editor section of the latest Minnesota Volunteer Magazine (the official 
publication of the Mn DNR) for info about why they don't work.

Joe
all opinions mine, etc.
-- 
================================================================
= C. Joseph Semrad                  =   Phone: 612-553-4758    =
= EMPOWER Development               =   FAX:   612-553-4018    =
= Empros Systems International      =   jsemrad@ems.cdc.com    =
================================================================
=    "My basic view on tackle and equipment costs is that      =
=     fly fishers as a group spend too much and spin           =
=     fishers spend too little" - Stream Smallmouth Fishing    =
================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and HUNTING
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:14:17 CST
In-reply-to: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com's message of 10 Nov 92 03:20:52 GMT

In article <67RN02Hq2a8B01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

   I still haven't seen any ethics in support of hunting. Let's try again:

okay...

   Though some might question the precise wording, most people seem to be in 
   basic agreement with the following ethic:

     The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.

I have some problems with this ethic.  For example, how is it
overridden when I need to kill mice in my house?  As another example,
driving at night in my area leads to a nonzero risk of hitting deer
and other animals.  How can driving at night be justified?

Hunting can be seen quite similarly to driving at night.  I derive
some benefits from hunting just like I do from driving.  However, I
could survive without hunting or driving.  A balance must be made
between man desires and the desires of other animals.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Date: 12 Nov 1992 15:52:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BxKtDA.I7x@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Is it dishonest for a man or woman who's concerned about animal testing
>rl> to use a manufacturer's customer service line to explain his/her reasons
>rl> for not buying a particular product?   

>From article <1dothfINNk71@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Perhaps.  Didn't you say the "manufacturer's customer service line" ?
 
>ml> Do you view people who won't buy a manufacturer's product as customers?
>ml> Anyway, I don't believe the people who use these tactics as having as 
>ml> innocent intentions as you pretend.

>I suppose my family and I formerly purchased roughly $250 worth 
>of Proctor and Gamble products each year.  For the past few years 
>or so, however, we've been making conscious decisions to buy 
>competitors' products instead.  If you were the CEO of P&G would 
>you want to hear our reasons for defecting to the competition via
>your toll-free customer service line?  Or, would you prefer to simply 
>have us "go away"?  


This example seems honest and pretty harmless however, that is not the
impression of the message I got when another poster suggested calling the
800 numbers repetatively by large numbers of ARFs that were probably not
customers.  I read the message as a form of running the objectionable 
companies out of business and I think that was the message.


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



Mike Linan




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals