HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:59:44 GMT


timi@chloroplast.Berkeley.EDU ( Tim Ikeda):
ti> ... We could start be putting all
ti> other omnivorous and carnivorous animals on a strict vegetarian
ti> regime (the technology to formulate vegetarian-derived diets compatible
ti> with the needs of strict carnivores does exist). How could we justify
ti> such a major disruption in the life cycles of the affected animals?
ti> Well, even if they (the affected animals), do not understand the
ti> ethic proposed, we do: And, for further justification, the animals that
ti> were once hunted and painfully slaughtered (more painfully than most
ti> cattle, incidently), would be freed from the tyranny of the food chain.
ti> If the resulting population explosion could be controlled through
ti> aggressive birth-control measures, a better world could be ours.
ti> 
ti> Sounds ridiculous?  Of course.  This is the pitfall of "one ethic
ti> mentality."  

If you're saying that we shouldn't coerce animals living in 
nature to obey codes of conduct based on ideas beyond the scope 
of their understanding, most AR advocates would be in full 
agreement.  On the other hand, your arguments will break down 
quickly if you're suggesting that intelligent humans should be 
excused from their ethical responsibilities, simply because lions 
and tigers are excused.  

-- 
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: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:20:18 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <vqrzjgf@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>James M Hoskins writes:

[...]

>To answer your other question (which I accidentally deleted), the
>second the AR folk can muster 50 + epsilon percent of the vote, they
>will take hunters like Grant took Richmond (if they can).  There is no
>"gee, we should be nice and just let hunting die out" sentiment on the
>part of any that I know (at least the honest ones -- no offense to
>anyone in this forum).  And that's to be expected.  They consider
>owning animals to be slavery, ...

Aw come on, John!  I've got 14 cats and I won't even mention how many
dogs.  I don't view myself as a slaveowner, so why would I view other
pet "owners" as slaveowners.  I can't see how anyone can take this
seriously.  It wouldn't surprise me if well over 90% of animal advocates
likewise share their living quarters with multiple animals covering a
wide assortment of species.  And they don't consider themselves to be
slaveowners.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:53:31 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

In talk.politics.animals you write:


`<It's scheduled for the opening of hunting season.>
`<They're all nuts, I don't want to talk to a bunch of insane people>

I believe these two were ones that I used.  The first is a hell of a lot
more important to me than living up to some AR-heads challenge.  I have
started to challenge AR groups in my area and they have turned down every
one.  (Including a recent challenge to an AR-head group from another state
that had the audacity to come into our state to protest on opening weekend.
Like they could not find enough people in our state to protest, so they
had to recruit them from else-where)

The second I used as a reply to Jennifers comments that all hunters were
murderers and thus she would not like to hang around murderers.  I had
argued that her logic to show that a hunter was a murderer was false (IMHO)
and used as a contrast the arguement that (IMHO) AR-heads were out of
touch with reality (better known in psychiatry as crazy) and that I would
not want to spend my time with crazy people.

As far as the real reason that I did not go.  It came down to poor timing
and money.  There is no way I could have mobilized on a Tuesday to take a
three day drive to get down there on a Friday - nor would I for after such
a loaded challenge.

swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 8 Oct 1992 14:46:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Bvrwn0.r9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

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

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

>Of course, it has a bearing on animal issues.  You've stated in the
>past that your "god" gave animals to humans like yourself to use as
>you see fit.  No offense, but it seems to me that your notion of
>"god" is not only antagonistic to the concept of animal rights, but
>antagonistic to the concept of human rights as well.


So you seem to think.  I disagree with respect to human rights.  I
have given my faith very much thought (something you will no doubt 
find amazing) and while I will on occasion discuss it with those who
will not pass judgement and are open minded, I really don't see that a man
or woman will persuade me to waver on my faith in God.  You do not have to
agree with my faith.


>What rights would humans have, for instance, if it's perfectly ok 
>for you to kill innocent men, women, and children if/when your 
>"god" tells you to do so?  

 
If, if and if.  One of your favorite pastimes is pretending but, my God 
has not told me anything directly other than by his word in the Bible and
nothing in there says to kill innocent men, women or children.  


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


Mike Linan
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics
Date: 7 Oct 1992 16:55:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Bvpwxo.4qv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <1992Oct6.033456.7954@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
>mo> Russell Tactic 121:  Refer to self by full name to increase 
>mo> self-importance.
>mo> [many insults deleted]

>Uh, huh.

>Mary Otto's tactic:  Post an article that makes her opponent the subject
>of the conversation.

>Definition of the "ad-hominem" fallacy:  An argument that attempts to 
>disprove the truth of an opponent's arguments by attacking the opponent.


Geez.  I can't believe it.  Russell, I used to think you were a pretty in-
telligent fellow, although misguided and closed minded.  But, you are just
making more obvious how childish you really can be.  It looks from here 
like you just have got to have the last word or will sink to any grammar
school tricks to make yourself believe you are "winning" the argument.  Sad,
pathetic and boring.  



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



Mike Linan







Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:39:10 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <0avz-cf@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:
>
>>In article <vqrzjgf@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>>[...]  And that's to be expected.  They consider
>>>owning animals to be slavery, ...
>>
>>Aw come on, John!  I've got 14 cats and I won't even mention how many
>>dogs.  I don't view myself as a slaveowner, so why would I view other
>>pet "owners" as slaveowners.  I can't see how anyone can take this
>>seriously.  It wouldn't surprise me if well over 90% of animal advocates
>>likewise share their living quarters with multiple animals covering a
>>wide assortment of species.  And they don't consider themselves to be
>>slaveowners.
>
>Fair enough, Bob.  Only the "people in charge" have publicly stated
>such views, 

I'm curious who you mean here as the "people in charge"? There's only
one that I've seen named as having said this, and I don't regard that
one person or any other single person as "being in charge" of the entire
AR movement, which consists of hundreds of groups having overlapping and
sometimes conflicting focuses, aims, perspectives, and crusades.  

If you wish to make one single statement about the entire AR movement,
IMO it would be that "they" are united in the struggle against the most
egregious and the most unnecessary cruelties on all fronts. 

[...]

---
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: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:42:26 GMT

I've been following this thread on bowhunting with SCC.  I'm not going
to join in since I don't bow hunt (and never plan to), but I'd like to
point out that you folks might be interested in reading Dwight Schuh's
comments about Benke's data in his article "Broadheads Will Do the Job
[sic]," _Guns & Hunting_, Jan 1992, p. 13, 66-67.  It's not a meaty
article by any means (no real stats from studies are provided) but
does give a little insight about the types of gear and such used back
when Benke was gathering his numbers.  It also gives pointers on how
to improve the success ratio.  You might want to check it out, even
though it's not an ideal refutation.

     I realize Bob is unlikely to be able to scrounge a copy of this
article, so I will mail a copy if desired (I need an address, since I
no longer have it).  Tim and Jeff, if either of you can't get a copy,
let me know and I'll send you one, too, if you provide your address.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:52:31 GMT

In article <Bvu62p.59t@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>We have quite a few trappers here in Louisiana, Jim.  In fact,
>the secretary of the National Taxidermists Association lives in
>Slidell, Louisiana, just outside New Orleans.  She wrote a letter
>to the local paper a year or so ago that heaped praise on the fur
>industry, while misinforming readers about the nature of the fur
>trade.  I responded by sending the editor a packet of information
>from the Humane Society of the United States as well as
>bibliographical pointers to additional information.  Several days
>later, he published a rebuttal entitled, "Fur advocate didn't
>reveal the harsh realities".
>
>Incidently, do you support the continued use of the steel leghold
>trap?  Or, do you believe the US should join the 65+ countries
>that have banned its use elsewhere in the world?
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

The trap seems inhumane to me--the intense pain of animals who suffer
and perhaps gnaw their leg off to get out of the trap is troubling.
My first reaction is that a ban would be called for.

Question for Russell:  What's your position regarding the necessity
of the above mentioned Humane Society of the United States to put
down many of the animals coming into shelters who cannot be placed
with people?
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 9 Oct 1992 23:03:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BvvGoF.I4u@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Mike Linan writes: 
>ml> Your confused Russell.  I never asked nor do I expect you or anybody
>ml> to accept my beliefs.  I really for the life of me do not know how
>ml> you can misunderstand what so many others clearly say to you.  

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> In this case, I suppose you won't have any objection if we expand the
>rl> scope of rights to protect the deer that you wish to kill, as well as
>rl> the witches that you might otherwise wish to kill.    

>From article <1b4h6tINN2gt@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>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.  

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


Hey Russell.  Drop dead.  No really, I know it's not a Christian thing
to say but, I'm sick of your shit.  End of discussion with you.  You
haven't got a clue and because your are so stupid and ignorant of the
word of God you expect me to clean up your act in regards to what litte
you know.  Respond to this so you can get the last word in and then for-
get it because you aren't worth wasting my time on!

Mike Linan - Deer hunting opener, 7 days and counting! :-)


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:17:21
	<RIGG.92Oct5151040@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct7.164239.14987@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:42:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.164239.14987@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

   In article <RIGG.92Oct5151040@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >If his arrow passed through the animal (which is very likely), he has
   >no way of knowing which was the entrance wound and which was the exit
   >wound.  Perhaps the arrow hit the inside of the far thigh.

   Interesting point.  So according to that theory, the 180 degree turn
   occurred after the hit?  Nothing in Benke's literal words rule this
   out, yet I don't think that's what he meant.  His style is generally
   too direct, clear, no-nonsense, and to the point.

   Also I find myself questioning the statement about the difficulty of
   distinguishing between entrance and exit wounds.  Assuming one can get a
   close look, is it always impossible to tell? My guess would be that
   sometimes yes, sometimes no - for the hunter in the field.  A vet or
   medical examiner would have a better chance.  There should be clues,
   like angle of the wound channel, direction of skin displacement at both
   ends of the wound channel, etc. 

I agree.  It might be possible to tell.  However, a 180 degree turn
seems so unlikely to me that a "pass through" is a much more probable
explanation.
 
tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:00:31 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>In article <0avz-cf@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

[stuff deleted]
>>Fair enough, Bob.  Only the "people in charge" have publicly stated
>>such views, 
>
>I'm curious who you mean here as the "people in charge"? There's only
>one that I've seen named as having said this, and I don't regard that
>one person or any other single person as "being in charge" of the entire
>AR movement, which consists of hundreds of groups having overlapping and
>sometimes conflicting focuses, aims, perspectives, and crusades.  

That's why I threw the quotation marks around it, Bob.  I'm well aware
that the AR movement is diverse, and that people like Ingrid Newkirk
don't speak for every individual.  It strikes me as odd, however, that
we should be faulted so quickly for thinking that the head of the
largest AR group (PETA) represents more than one person, while you AR
folk (in general, not you specifically) seem to think the NRA speaks
for all hunters (just to refresh our memories, there are over 17
million licensed resident hunters in the U.S., but the NRA is still
hoping to reach the magical 3 million member mark soon).


>If you wish to make one single statement about the entire AR movement,
>IMO it would be that "they" are united in the struggle against the most
>egregious and the most unnecessary cruelties on all fronts. 

I find this statement quite odd, Bob.  I've never seen you folks
picket a McDonald's yet (just an example, no offense to McD's).


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:44:05 GMT


In article <BvvHqF.IMG@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> "... Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell 
rl> fire."

From article <1992Oct12.045952.27288@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> NIV translation:Matthew 5:21 - "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' 
mo> will be in danger of the fire of hell." The context in Matthew 
mo> was the discussion of harboring anger so that the phrase would be 
mo> the equivalent of the modern perjorative "You asshole!".  The use 
mo> of "You fool!" today is much different today, used more 
mo> descriptively than violently.  Therefore, the insult is 
mo> different;  i.e.  disdain rather than anger is conveyed.  Further, 
mo> the preceeding verse clarifies it to "anger without cause".  
mo> Russell, this simply doesn't apply.  

The same person who said, "Idiot" and "You fool" also said, "I'd
like to bust your ribs".  Is this a descriptive expression or 
a violent expression?

rl> Are you in danger of hell fire, Mike?  Or does "god" make a 
rl> special exception for folks like you who use the term fool 
rl> "subjectively"?  

mo> Quite the contrary, Russell.  Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are you when
mo> people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil
mo> against you because of me.  Rejoice and be glad, because great is
mo> your reward in heaven ..."

Did Jesus force Mike to address his opponents as "Fool" and 
"Idiot"?  It seems to me that it was Mike's opponents, rather than 
Mike, who were insulted.  

-- 
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: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:09:38 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> What you're saying is that some people who know how to think 
rl> rationally may be willing to accept some beliefs without 
rl> thinking at all.   This doesn't mean that rational scutiny
rl> and mindless acceptance go hand in hand.   

From article <1992Oct12.164415.15615@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> No.  What I'm saying is "here's proof that many learned, empirical
mo> and rational thinkers were Christians".  Newton, who spent the
mo> years of his life after the age of 45 studying and writing about
mo> scriptural prophesies, obviously did quite a bit of thinking about
mo> his beliefs.  As did Copernicus.
mo> 
mo> So, your initial premise that there aren't many "learned, empirical
mo> and rational" thinkers who have religious faith has been DISPROVEN.

This wasn't my premise.  I asked you to explain how/why you consider
mindless acceptance (ie faith) and empirical/rational thinking to 
be compatible.

The fact that a scientist may demand empirical proof of the claim 
that a particular chemical cures cancer doesn't mean that he 
won't go home and mindlessly accept the notion that Jesus cast 
out demons.  You seem to think that the prestige of a man who 
thinks rationally and empirically some of the time ought to lend 
credence to those beliefs that he accepts without scrutiny at 
some other time.  Why?  

As it pertains to the issue of human and animal rights, what sort 
of scientific evidence can you muster up to prove the claim that 
"god" really wanted our ancestors to kill witches, or, that "god" 
truly approves of the way we mistreat animals?    

-- 
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: an observation
Date: 7 Oct 1992 17:04:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <f85.02l224As01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.142809.8848@refrig.dixie.com>, todd@refrig.dixie.com 
>(Todd H.) writes:
>> Is it just me, or does it look to anyone else like nobody is taking poor
>> Russell Lawrence seriously anymore?
 
>What a silly post!



You think so Ted?  Perhaps you would find many, many more on t.p.a. who 
feel the same way Todd does about Russell.  I know at least a few who feel
the same.  Care to take a poll to find out what others think of Russell?


>Ted Robinson



Mike Linan









Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals