HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:40:04 GMT

 black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>But what Paul was pointing out is that in the case of killing an individual
>animal, it's not "others" who decide.  The juror, judge, and executioner
>are one and the same.  And those who enjoy the execution are not the ones
>who should be the judges.  I don't think there's a great disagreement here,
>since all hunters in this forum allegedly don't enjoy killing.

	I don't enjoy killing, but I get some satisfaction from it.  In
the same way I got some satisfaction upon knowing that David Jones (of
the Jonestown Massacre fame) died.  Civic improvement, I called it.

>However if I know of a hunter who enjoyed killing animals (and I have
>met some), I would not want that individual to be doing hunting any more
>than I would want the rabid executioner to be a judge or juror.  Of
>course most hunters aren't likely to admit it these days, given the
>attention focused on their activities.  So one needs to watch for more
>subtle (and granted, less reliable) indications ...  possible candidates
>might be hunters who advocate techniques that cause greater crippling
>rates or methods likely to cause more pain and suffering, e.g.  hunters
>who would support legalization of, say, use of spears on wild hogs or
>who would support shooting at deer 2/3 of a mile away.  There are some
>of these types, as you know. 

	If I could afford a Beretta .50 I'd advocate this, since I know
I can use it effectively.  I've a buddy who was a Marine sniper.  He
made *actual*, not simulated, headshots at over two miles.  Tell me he
couldn't use that same gun to down a deer at 2/3 mile.  I've another
friend who went on safari in Africa with a 7mm Rem. Mag, and had the
scope (a three-reticle job) signted at .5, 1.0, and 1.5 miles range.  I
saw him pick off a squirrel, headshot, at 1.0 miles -- tell me the same
of him.  Competence in the individual need not be over-ridden by laws
based on some incompetent jerk who takes his gun to a gunsmith for its
annual cleaning before deer season.  In addition, one Ted Nugent killed
a wild hog with nothing more than a large hunting knife in a fairly short
amount of time.

	The competence of these individuals shows that laws based upon
a percieved incompetence of a given individual have no reason to exist,
and only restrict the best instead of stopping the worst.  Is that
what you want?  I'll leave the range of the kennedy assassination to
pay homage to your point.  It was a headshot, remember.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:41:51 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

[stuff deleted]
>In article <rxpx+0p@rpi.edu>, John S. Van Etten writes:
>jve> Cute.  I said we should save *endangered* whales and that the abundant
>jve> ones were "just food."  I trust the bio people to tell me which ones
>jve> are endangered and which ones aren't.  I have no problem with our
>jve> friends across the Pacific killing non-endangered ones for food.
>
>Your position still doesn't make much sense to me.
>
>You seem to be admitting that you're not a friend of whales that 
>belong to species with high populations, but you are a friend of 
>whales that belong to endangered species.  If that's the case, 
>please answer the question that I posed previously:  Do whales 
>that are endangered feel more fear, more pain, more social deprivation, 
>etc, etc, when they're hunted down by human beings than whales
>that are not endangered might feel in similar circumstances?  

No.  But I thought that you knew that none of these criteria bother me
if a human needs food.  Unless the animal is endangered (in which case
they still don't bother me) where my decision to save them is based on
entirely different criteria which I've painfully detailed before. :-)


>jve> I'm a friend of the *environment* and all of its components
>jve> (including deer)...
>
>Yet you're quick to summarize the total existence of a whale with 
>the label: "just food".  Has it occurred to you that life might 
>have many values for whales and deer that you've simply failed 
>to consider?   Has it occurred to you that we might be depriving
>them in some way in killing them?

Has it ever occurred to you that people might be just as deprived of
something as these animals are, if you take away their food?  Not
everyone can afford to just go to the grocery store and buy all the
veggies they want.  Some people are in need.


>Incidently, when you get some time, I'd appreciate it if you'd
>explain why it would be ok/notok for members of a vastly "superior" 
>species to hunt humans for sport.

Patience, old friend.  We will resume our extremely relevant Space
Invaders debate later in the week, barring anything unforseen.


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"--
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My Column On Hunting.
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:40:57 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul20.120745.6598@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:

>brain shots.  On other game, such shots are usually considered to risky.  
>From what I've read a wounded elephant is something to be avoided at *all* 
>costs, for the obvious reasons. :-)
>
>Hope this helps some.
>
>
>
>> 
>> Paul
>-- 
>John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
>robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
>DOD #0069

And there you go being reasonable again. Are there two different people
posting from your account John, or am I just not reading the attribution
lines carefully enough?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:04:28 GMT

Paul Roberts writes:

[stuff deleted]
>>John Van Etten writes:
>>Hate is admittedly too strong a word, although my comments were not
>>directed at you in specific.  Would it be better for me to say that
>>you guys hate hunting or hate killing instead?  If it's the latter,
>>I'm not sure you'll find many hunters that don't feel the same.
>>
>>
>>John
>
>I guess that what I hate is the infliction of pain, distress, violence
>and death on unwilling participants. Now, it is possible that I am
>wrong in thinking that significant amounts of these occur to the
>animals that are hunted. 

The amount is "significant," although not "great" and anyone that
claims otherwise is either confused or lying.  I don't like to see it
any more than you do.


>I can't help wondering: if hunters hate killing as much as you say, then
>why do they do it? Why not get into, say, wildlife photography instead?
>I don't
>pretend to understand the pyschology of hunting, but it would seem to me
>that you could have much the same experience but culminating in pressing
>a camera shutter instead of pulling a trigger? - The stalking is still 
>there, the elements of skill and patience, the time spent in nature, etc.
>Presumably this would not be a comparable experience for you; I am curious
>as to why not.

I actually do shoot animals (especially non-game species) with a 35mm
on occasion.  However, I am an omnivore and will never become a
vegetarian.  As such, I don't see any difference between killing a
wild animal or a domestic one (actually, I think wild ones are treated
better and are at least allowed to run free -- they also have a chance
to beat me at the game and escape unscathed, which often happens).  I
find it quite hypocritical for people that eat meat to say I'm some
sort of Bad Person (tm) for hunting while they're sitting there
munching on a burger or a steak.  "Is there no blood on my hands?"  If
I were a veggie (and didn't need to donate any meat to the Wild Game
Dinners at my local Constervation Club, i.e., *no-one* needed the
meat) then I would gladly opt for the 35mm instead of the 7mm (deer
rifle) when pursuing deer and such.


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"--
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: NIH; CANCER; FRAUD; SURVEY
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:07:28 GMT


NIH; CANCER; FRAUD; SURVEY
 
     * James D. Watson resigned as head of the NIH human genome
mapping project on April 10, after a Dept. of Health and Human
Services review found that Watson and members of his immediate
family hold financial interests in at least four biotechnology
firms that stand to gain by the research.  The genome mapping
project has been heavily criticized by other branches of the NIH
for allegedly diverting funds away from basic research, usually
involving animals.
 
     * A survey of 1,300 health professionals by the Institute for
Regulatory Policy found that 87% agreed, "It's impossible to
accurately calculate human cancer deaths based solely on
extrapolations from animal data."
 
     * Among the 469 respondents to an American Association for the
Advancement of Science survey on scientific fraud, 27% said they
had personally run into fabrication, falsification, or theft of
research within the past decade--and on average, they had witnessed
2.5 instances of scientific fraud apiece.
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 6/92
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: White Hats vs. Black Hats. Was: DIET AND HEALTH NEWS
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:18:14 GMT

In <Bs0sLu.28z@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> It's truly sad that many people in our society still consider 
rl> ignorance to be preferable to truth.

From article <viking.712216838@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Watch it, Russ -- the idiot thinks the master to be stupid, the 
ds> master thinks he knows the idiot is stupid.  Ignorance and truth 
ds> are terms used to describe others when we can't believe they 
ds> disagree...

Sometimes.  On the other hand, there are quite a few people in
our society who prefer ignorance to truth.   Do you think the
folks at 1-900-PSYCHIC would welcome a national initiative aimed
at improving the level of critical thinking in our society? :-)

rl> According to _PCRM Update_ (V8, N1), the _National Cattlemen_ 
rl> magazine recently awarded Harvard physician and researcher, 
rl> Walter Willett, with a "Black Hat" designation as punishment for 
rl> the findings of the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study, which 
rl> established a strong correlation between dietary meat-intake and 
rl> colon cancer.  By contrast, the magazine awarded "White Hats" to 
rl> McDonald's and Hardee's restaurant chains.  I suppose we can 
rl> conclude from this that it's a "good thing" to promote 
rl> hamburgers, and a "bad thing" to carry on research that uncovers 
rl> some nasty side-effects of meat consumption.  

ds> There's got to be something wrong with this;  at least that it's 
ds> over-simplified.  Hardee's and McDonalds tend to use beef from the 
ds> cheapest bidder, often other countries in South America.  
ds> Argentina comes to mind.  This is hardly in line with the NCA's 
ds> aim of promoting the domestic beef market.  Something else is 
ds> afoot.  

Possibly.  On the other hand, they may envision medical research
as a more significant threat than foreign beef producers.  Just
out of curiosity, are there any stats on the percentages of foreign
beef used by such chains?

ds> BTW: I'm not a member of the NCA, nor do I particularly care
ds> what they say.  I just find their choices strange.  It would be more
ds> likely that they chose the "lesser of two evils" and hope Hardees
ds> and McDonalds choose to use this award in their advertising, which
ds> makes it a political problem and not one of facts.  <sigh!> Politics...

:-)  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:24:50 GMT

Todd Hedenstrom writes:

[stuff deleted]
>Some hunters have noted that a MARSH project funded by DU in eastern Georgia
>has actually made the hunting worse, because the ducks have no reason to leave
>the protected, food-filled sanctuary on the project. 

 >Well, them's the breaks,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and if the biologists have determined that a project that makes it tougher to
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>down a limit of mallards in Georgia is what it'll take to save the species,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>then that's the way it'll be, and you'll get no bitching from me.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Mega-dittoes, Todd.


Ken Whitehead

>>>>>>---------------->  "One shot, quick and clean"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul24.173326.1658@clpd.kodak.com> <mpvxd+m@rpi.edu>
	<1992Jul28.203008.23107@clpd.kodak.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:45:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.203008.23107@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

   In article <mpvxd+m@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

   >  It seems to be a pretty popular
   >misconception by you AR folk that hunters just go out into the woods
   >and shoot anything they want, completely unchecked.

   I don't think anyone here has said that.

   >  I don't mean to
   >be sarcastic, but aren't you guys aware of seasons and limits and all
   >that?

   Of course we are.  What makes you think otherwise?

In my case, I've been reading David Caruso's posts.

-Joe.
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:17:46 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <jecome01.711842559@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
jecome01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Eric Comer) writes:
> just wanted to start a conversation on the ethics of using animals
> in biomedical research.  how do you feel about the topic?  is there
> a compromise that can be made between no experimentation and unregulated
> experimentation?

   Yes, and it's already in place.  Here at Iowa State University 
any experiment using vertebrates has to be approved by a 
comittee that checks for cruelty, funding for care etc.  I thought
this was the case most places.

   What on earth made you think experimentation is unregulated?


> 	Thanks 
> 		Eric

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: USDA; VEGETARIANISM
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:17:35 GMT


USDA; VEGETARIANISM; ETHICS
 
 
     * Rabbi Merle Singer, spiritual leader of Temple Beth El in
Boca Raton, Fla., recently told his congregation that eating veal
violates the Torah.  "Buying veal from a kosher market does not
solve the problem," he added.  "The process of raising veal calves
is the same for kosher veal as it is for non-kosher veal."
 
     * "It is unjust to kill a living creature to consume its
flesh," according to Dr. Hagop Yacoubian, chairman of surgery for
the health ministry in the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain. 
"Vegetable matter is fully adequate for human nutritional
requirements."
 
     * Under pressure from farm groups, the Burlington FREE PRESS
on March 29 retracted an "Earth Saver" column tip suggesting that
readers should "eat less meat" to conserve "precious grasslands and
resources that would otherwise be consumed or destroyed by cattle."
Protest to the Free Press at 191 College Ave., Burlington, VT
05402.
 
     * The USDA announced March 19 that it will delay requiring
meat and poultry processors to provide accurate nutritional
labeling until May 1994--saving the meat industry an estimated $210
million.
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 6/92
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!306!12!Amnet.News.Service
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 24 Jul 1992 14:55:25 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BrvMoG.7Jt@acsu.buffalo.edu> v070qg5d@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric M Chmiel) writes:
>>(John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>> I
>>>find it quite hypocritical for people that eat meat to say I'm some
>>>sort of Bad Person (tm) for hunting while they're sitting there
>>>munching on a burger or a steak.  


>   Just to play the devil's advocate, isn't there a diference between killing
>an animal to eat and killing one just because you enjoy killing them?  After
>all, a lion or a wolf or a shark or a snake kills animals too, but only to
>eat them.  You don't see lions hunting just for the sake of killing something.
>In this sense, killing to eat is natural, killing for the fun of it isn't.  


Are you saying that when dingos in Australia kill dozens of sheep, moving from
the one they just killed to kill another and another that they are somehow act-
ing unnatural?  What about the single fox who gets into a chicken coop and 
kills nearly all it can, far more than it can or will eat.  Is the fox acting
unnatural?  What about the feline, the coyote and many other animals that will
in fact quite naturally kill far more than they can eat.  

I'll bet you will find that nearly all the hunters you ask will tell you that 
they do not kill for the sake of killing and that they do not agree with this
practice.  I know I don't but, there are many animals that can act no other 
way than naturally that DO kill for the sake of killing.



>That's why I sometimes wonder if that argument (that to eat meat and be opposed
>to hunting is hypocritial) isn't just a red herring.
>   And take it easy.  I'm just playing the devil's advocate, remember?  I
>could never rationally oppose hunting for sport, but whenever I ask a hunter
>this question they fly off into a blind rage and I never end up getting a
wortwhile answer.
>                                                 Just wondering,
>                                                       EMC


Perhaps they are a little touchy because they may not understand why people
can't understand what hunters are all about or why it's so popular to view
them as Bad Guys (tm).  I know that I for one am irritated by the arrogant
positions of many ARs who feel that their view is so superior to those that
do not see it their way, i.e. hunters.   I'm not saying all ARs are this way
as I've seen a few on this forum that are willing to educate themselves on
the hunters views and values with an honestly open mind.  However, my exper-
ience has been that most are not even close to being open minded and have 
educated themselves with one sided propaganda from their radical, fanatical
leaders and will not accept anyone else's truths.  


Mike Linan
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 25 Jul 92 20:43:36 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <xqvxh5m@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:
>
>[lots of stuff deleted]
>
>>There's nothing inherently bad about fanaticism if the cause is just and
>>the tactics are ethical.
>
>OK, Bob, I'll bite.  What tactics do you consider ethical?  In
>specific, do you consider PETA's tactics ethical?
>
>

I'd just love to know what "PETA's tactics" are, that you apparently
object to. Their chief tactic seems to me to be asking people to
write to their Congresscritters in support of this or that bill,
write to corporations urging them to give up one form of product
testing in favour of another, etc.

Just what "tactics" do you object to?

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Skill as defined by Caruso II
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.162130.41723@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.
edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

>	Hunting seems simply a matter of dressing appropriately, attaining and 
>utilizing the right weapon for maximum effectiveness, being able to determine 
>the location of game by various indications or knowledge, being able to remain 
>quiet enough while assuming a position that allows for a clear shot, and being 
>able to protect oneself against accidents or attacks from animals.  Perhaps 
>there is something keenly intellectual that I am missing here.  The above 
>criterion, in my opinion, does not require high levels of true skill or 
>cunning


Well, geez, how could ANYBODY argue with such simple logic?  This got me to
thinking, though;  there are LOTS of things that I've never thought that
I could do before, although after reading dreamer's posting, now I understand
that I could do, even with my rudimentary knowledge.

I've always wanted to try surgery, although I've refrained since I'm not
a surgeon;  but gosh, when ya think about it...

Surgery seems simply to be a matter of dressing appropriately (white gown, etc.)
and utilizing the right surgical tools for maximum effectiveness, being able to
determine the location of the physical problem by various indications and
knowledge, being able to concentrate while performing the operation, etc., and 
being able to make sure no accidents happen and the patient dies or something.

Gosh.  And here most of us thought performing surgery was hard.  Nothing too
keenly intellectual there, see for yourself.  The above criterion, in my opinion. 
does not require high levels of skill, ability, or intelligence, after all.  I
think I'll quit my day job and become a free-lance surgeon.

On second thought, I think I'll take the "dreamer" approach;  I won't try it,
but I'll still pretend to be an expert and tell everybody else how easy it is.  
And people will respect me for my opinion, just like they do dreamer.   

_NOT!_


Ken Whitehead


>>>--->  "One shot, quick and clean"