HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw 
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:48:10 GMT

In <1993Jan12.061843.14038@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

[sentience stuff deleted]

After reading a previous posting it was pointed out that until an
agreement on the definition of sentience was reached we'd be babbling.  So
for the most part I will forgo that discussion.

>>I would say that humans are dependent upon animals as a reliable food
>>source (ie. they do provide us with necessary matter/vitamins/etc.) and
>>that as a hunter prefers to kill their own meat instead of paying someone
>>else to do it then hunting is ethical based upon your criteria above.

>I say man relies on animals because man tends to be lazy.

Please clarify what you are implying here, I don't wish to put words into
your mouth.  I don't think that employing another species to provide your
species with a food source is indicative of laziness.


Will Christie

-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Date: 10 Jan 93 01:33:05 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <mhulsey-090193170716@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>
>If Bob can find an example of a species that sacrifices itself to promote
>the survival of another species, as animal activists suggests that we
>humans do, it will no doubt be an example from the fossil record.  In other
>words, an extinct species.
>
>So, let us continue on our merry, speciesist, way, and (hopefully) survive.


Come on Martin, are you seriously suggesting that if we stopped
doing experiments on animals, the human race would become extinct?

I think it is entirely possible that the human species may not
survive for geological time spans; but if it doesn't, it won't
be because we gave up the Draize eye test.

Paul
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10980 alt.peeves:18961
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:33:36 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide oozes indignation, writing:
>I think the main problem with the animal rights movement is that the people
>in it, those "vegetarians" and "vegans" have blood on their hands, and thus 
>have no moral authority to speak to this issue at all! 
>
>I am a committed Fruitarian; I only eat things that can be taken 
>without killing the plant. You senseless and vicious slaughterers of 
>carrots, onions, and rutabagas have the juice of innocent plants 
>on your hands!!
>  
>How you can face yourself when you contribute DAILY to the death 
>of innocent celluloid-americans is beyond me!
>
>Sugar Beets Have Rights, Too!
>
>More Righteous Than You,

There!  In the one line conclusion to his post, Jeff Zurshmeid summarizes
the whole problem with animal rights activists, some vegetarians, vegans
and those of that same ilk:  the whole point of their existence has become
a desire to be more righteous than thou!  They're not content with living
out their philosophy quietly.  No, like the Temperance freaks who did so
much to improve the quality of life in this country, and like today's
Fundamentalist Christians, their whole existence is based on shaming people
into being like them.

Feh.

    don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: why hunting is unethical
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:53:25 GMT

In <1993Jan11.062609.12319@beaver.cs.washington.edu> nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:

>An outline of my rationale is given above.  To repeat the central
>claim: it in not ethical for one sentient being to kill another just
>for the entertainment of the first.  Hunters tell me they hunt for
>three reasons: for fun, for survival (they need the meat to avoid
>starvation), and for the animals sake (stop overpopulation, etc).
>[...] The
>last two don't apply; if you hunt for those reasons I don't care. 

In your view, hunting for entertainment alone is unethical, but hunting
to avoid starvation is OK.

The problem is, neither extreme describes reality. You have not
expressed an opinion on hunting for entertainment _and_ as a supplementary
food or clothing supply.

It is as if we were debating whether the drinking age should be 18 or
21 and you contributed your view that alcohol for children under 6 is
wrong, but if you're over 40 it's OK.

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:19:54 GMT

In article <C0DC1w.8pz@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>
> > [Greg wrote]
> > BTW, Russ old buddy, its been almost three months since I requested info
> > on the alleged cat shooting experiments.
> 
> Sure it has, Greg.   Here's an article that I reposted just a few 
> days ago when someone asked for the "gist" of the LSU cat shooting
> incident.  It had previously been posted to tpa on May 25, 1992. 
> ===================================================================

>[article deleted]

Thanks for finally providing this information Russell.  However, this is a
small fraction of the references that you originally "cited" (though
incompletely).  I see absolutely no reason why it should have taken three
months to grab this article from your archive and repost it.

If this article provides an accurate account of the methods and findings of
the LSU researchers, then I would go on record as opposing this particular
"experiment" also.  If other facts are later brought to light, I might
waffle.

Please do not interpret this as a condemnation of wound trauma research
using animals in general.

The comment that you made in an earlier post about DOD animal research
being exempt from the AWA also disturbs me.  However, it is typical for the
government to pass laws for us, then exempt themselves.  I see no reason
why military researchers should not also be obliged to justify their
projects to a review committee composed of military researchers, although I
could see reasons for keeping the information therein from the press &
public (for some time) for the sake of national security.

Since you have put part of this obligation behind you (though, perhaps, not
to Greg's satisfaction), could you now provide chronological evidence to
support your two-month-old (IMS) claim that the "beagle-drowning"
experiment proposed in the "early 80's" was subsequent to the 1981
publication by Heimlich that you cited?

After that, could you indicate, in your opinion, what implications these
two examples have for the thousands of other animal experiments that are
performed annually?  Thanks in advance.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: analogy: hunting and sex [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:25:15 GMT

In article <C0I3I2.GwC@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>(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

Yes, Werner, I think he meant it.  He said hunting WAS ETHICAL if
it was done for the use of the meat.  He said that hunting 
WAS UNETHICAL to the extent that it was done for fun.  When he
made both of these statements, he had no explicit or implicit
reference to the suffering  -- in fact, he hasn't added that
"suffering" bit as a clarification; only you did.

Mary Otto



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Martin's unanswered questions.  Was Russell's unanswered questions
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:11:26 GMT

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.

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.

If you consider any of my unanswered questions to be "irrelevant" or
"uninteresting," please indicate why.

> Incidently, I think we should make a distinction between an "answer"
> and a "response".

You are the one having trouble in this area, not me.

>You've responded to some of my "unanswered questions"
> without answering them.  Rest assured that I'll repost them from
> time to time when it suits my convenience.  

Because the question above has no relevance to animal issues, I would
prefer that you do this by e-mail.  If you insist on continuing your
present course in TPA, I will reply as promptly as I can.

If you have any other "unanswered questions" that are relevant to animal
issues, I welcome them.  I again beseech you to answer my unanswered
questions that you continue to evade.

If you have time for this nonsense, I again ask you to provide the evidence
to support your months-old claim regarding the "beagle-drowning"
experiment.

It would also be nice to see more information on the "cat-shooting"
experiment.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:31:15 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan6.155640.11284@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

>                                                          you seem
>to be saying that the proper end result of Alex's four month stay
>in Taub's lab was the complete discontinuation of the research program,
>rather than immediate amelioration of the monkeys' suffering.

From what I have read about the case, I don't believe there was any
action that Alex could have taken that would have resulted in the
"immediate amelioration of the monkeys' suffering". 

Again, you seem to be implying another false choice; that Alex could
have acted so as to produce:

(a) complete discontinuation of the research program

or

(b) immediate amelioration of the monkeys' suffering

and chose (a).

His actual choice was:

(1) Stay in place, do his job quietly, gather evidence, and turn
    that evidence over to the authorities when he had enough.

or

(2) Complain about the animals' condition on day one.

I believe that the consequence of (2) would be that he loses his job,
and the monkey's condition remains unchanged.

He chose (1), at which point "the authorities" (the courts, the 
administration, the public) gets to choose whether to do (a), or (b)
or nothing at all.

This still all seems too obvious to need saying.

I am intriuged by the notion which seems to have been presented that,
had Alex complained on day one, the authorities would have swung into
action to amelioration the monkeys' suffering. Does anyone really
believe this?

Paul
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: sentience [was Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)]
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:59:15 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

(Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:
>|> I would say that humans are dependent upon animals as a reliable food
>|> source (ie. they do provide us with necessary matter/vitamins/etc.)
>
>a vegan diet provides perfectly adequate nutrition.

... entirely devoid of flavour.

So, Nick, where did you say those fat-soluble vitamins came from?

drew
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"I remember a few years ago watching a docu-drama about Nazi atrocities;
at one point, a stormtrooper grabbed a cowering old man, and slapped the
yellow Star of David onto his coat.  The guy I was watching the show with
remarked, 'Guess he's the sherriff now.'"               -- Brian Scearce
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw 
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:18:43 GMT

john tillinghast writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>>Jesus Mary, are you really this thick or do you just like to shoot at straw 
>>men when the animals are shy?
>>The essential fact that you seem to need to have explicitly stated (and 
>>everybody else here got past
>>long ago) is that hunting *always* involves the death and suffering of 
>>sentient beings (often ones on
>>which other beings are dependent) so that some kind of excuse is necessary 
>>for it to be considered
>>ethical. This is why Sherwin points out that it is not necessary for survival 
>>and this is why the
>>other hunters here are actively defending what they do instead of mindlessly 
>>repeating the same irrelevant
>>theme ad nauseam.

William John M. Christie writes:
>Always involves the death/suffering of a _sentient_ being?  By my
>reckoning only humans are sentient; some marine mammals (dolphins/whales)
>and primates may approach sentience but the general public doesn't really
>hunt them.  If you're going to base your (anti-hunting) argument on non-human
>animal's supposed sentience then could you please illustrate/prove your basis?

Well, first you have to prove that man is sentient.  This in itself isn't
easy.  We'll not even get into the philosopher thing if you even exist, i.e.,
I think therefore I am, I think.

I can make some assumptions to infer that you are sentient, but my criteria
also points to sentience of other creatures as well.

Mark Twain wrote an interesting set of papers entitled "What is Man?" in
February of 1905.  It chronicles a conversation between an old man and a
young man.  The old man claims man is only a machine and nothing more.
The young man demands proof.  Many pages of the conversation follow and
in the end the young man is puzzled by the old man's arguments and cannot
find fault with the old man's arguments.  So is man merely a machine?
I can't say.....

>I would say that humans are dependent upon animals as a reliable food
>source (ie. they do provide us with necessary matter/vitamins/etc.) and
>that as a hunter prefers to kill their own meat instead of paying someone
>else to do it then hunting is ethical based upon your criteria above.

I say man relies on animals because man tends to be lazy.

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:24:46 GMT

From article <lkrj4rINNj35@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> The simple fact of the matter is that animals don't have rights.  To
> have a concept of rights, one must have a concept of legal discourse
> to secure those rights.  Regardless of how hard you try, you can't
> make animals live within your legal system, just as I can't make them
> live within mine.
> 
> In short, you can run around assigning rights of all manner to me,
> your dog, the vermin that infest your house, and the animals in a
> field.  That these examples can't or won't consent to your legal 
> system delineates your rights-brokering with your article: entirely 
> specious.

Do you understand why our legal system makes a distinction between
"major" and "minor" persons?

> andy
> banta@abingdon.sun.com
> --
> "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
>  by those who have not got it."
>                                 -- George Bernard Shaw

"Animals are my friends; I don't eat my friends." 
                                  -- George Bernard Shaw

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanya@leland.Stanford.EDU (john tillinghast)
Subject: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 07:56:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.073650.7746@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>In article <1icvvlINN9l5@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>>In article <viking.726218466@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

[The already quoted, edited exchange is confusing and beside the (current) point. Here's the good part...]


>
>I would like to demonstrate a philosophical fallacy by using the example
>of "*gardening*" which is recreational, as opposed to "farming" which is
>for survival.
>
>Examine this substitution, and see if the philosphy still makes sense:
>There is a "*gardening* heritage", but rather that this heritage 
>from the standpoint
>of *gardening* being a recreational (vs. survival) activity deserves preservation
>no more than burning large tracts of English and Irish villages and enslaving
>those who lived there, in addition to being a philosophical
>fallacy.
>
>Mr. Sherwin, you certainly have an interesting view of recreation.
>Or is it just the Irish?
>
>Mary Otto


Jesus Mary, are you really this thick or do you just like to shoot at straw men when the animals are shy?
The essential fact that you seem to need to have explicitly stated (and everybody else here got past
long ago) is that hunting *always* involves the death and suffering of sentient beings (often ones on
which other beings are dependent) so that some kind of excuse is necessary for it to be considered
ethical. This is why Sherwin points out that it is not necessary for survival and this is why the
other hunters here are actively defending what they do instead of mindlessly repeating the same irrelevant
theme ad nauseam.

John Tillinghast


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Eating killed animals (was Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 10:21:16 GMT

In <1993Jan1.014823.248@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:

>And even if the meat industry switched to painless methods of castration etc
>I would still oppose the killing inherent in it.

It figures. But it's not really relevant. Cruelty is the main issue used
to win support for AR causes. Philosophical objections to killing animals
would raise little cash.

As I read the discussion, it has not been to try to persuade you to eat
meat, but to counter your verbose (quoted) claims that the meat industry
is cruel. To this extent it has demonstrated (imo) that most of your claims
are exaggerated or false. 

In your retreat from the issue of pain you come close to admitting as
much.

Werner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:11:31 GMT

From article <1993Jan7.152834.1316@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C0H0AD.9py@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>I provided the full text of a reference just the other day, Martin.  When
>>do you think you'll get around to posting some references, apart from
>>Taub's own claims published in an opinionated newsletter, to support your 
>>claims in the Silver Spring Monkey business?
> 
> The full text of A REF.  Get off it Russell. One ref. using uncited
> "professional" critiques of the project is hardly fair.  Would you except
> such a ref?

Probably not, but then again, I'm not expecting you to accept the 
reference I provided.  The truth of the matter, as I pointed out 
previously, is that I've beaten this topic to death on several 
occasions and don't particularly want to get embroiled in another 
round of discussion with a group of apologists who seem to think 
that they're waging some sort of primordial battle between good 
and evil forces, with the pro-hunting, pro-fur, and 
pro-unrestrained-animal-research faction on one side and everybody 
else on the other.  

However, if there's some particular aspect of the controversy 
that you'd care to address briefly --- without turning the 
discussion into a typing contest, please let me know.  

>>Incidently, I'm also waiting for answers to my questions concerning your
>>claims re: the nazis.
> 
> Russell, I have given you at least three ref, including a book written by
> a German historian in 1939.  

Would you be satisfied with two more references, Greg?

As for the quality of your references versus the ones that I may be
presenting, I still don't understand why you'd pay much heed to a series
of poorly documented historical claims that were presented in a group 
of journals that have nothing to do with historical scholarship.   By
way of comparison, I don't think it requires much technical expertise 
in neurosurgery to address many of the flaws in the LSU cat shooting 
experiments, and hence, criticism was well-within the range of abilities 
of James Gill, the investigative reporter whom I cited previously.

In any case, I don't recall your citation of a work published in 1939
by a "german historian".   If you'd care to, why don't you repost
the title and the author's name?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10996 alt.peeves:18985