HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:00:43 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>In article <dwxx8vc@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>The key word is individual.  Hunters help the population, not the
>>individual that is taken.  Until you AR folk can understand where we
>>are coming from in thinking about "all the *other* individuals," our
>>arguments shall fall on deaf ears.  Sacrifice by the individual for
>>the good of the many.  That's a concept that comes easy for me, but
>>apparently others don't like it.  The word "selfless" does not come to
>>mind when thinking about such people.  They are rarely blood donors
>>(eww -- those needles *hurt*). :-(
>
>John, what are you trying to say here?  That AR supporters and
>sympathizers are not blood donors?  Where do you guys get some 
>of these crazy ideas?

Now, Bob, you know that wasn't what I meant to imply.  Admittedly my
grammar wasn't that great in making the transition, but the word
"others" meant people other than myself in general (not neccessarily
AR folk) that don't believe in making sacrifices to help others.
Sorry for the confusion.  I guess I should refrain from waxing
philosophical tangents, eh? :-)


>---
>Robert Black (5 gallon donor)
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Damn, you got me beat.  I just got started on my second card a little
while ago.  I think the count's at 4 gallons 3 pints.  Keep up the
good work. :-)


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: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: Farm Sanctuary
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:59:18 GMT

In article <9207271615.AA28555@super.super.org> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

>Volunteers are need for our special SANCTUARY FOR FARM ANIMALS. As
>a volunteer-based shelter, we depend on caring, committed people ... people
>who also want to do everything possible to help factory farm victims.
>Your active participation will litteraly keep our doors open for
>needy animals, so please get involved today!  For further information, please
>call Farm Sanctuary at 607-583-2225.

In case anybody is wondering where in the world this place is, (like I
was) I wrote Ferrell and got the address:

  Farm Sanctuary
  P.O. Box 150
  Watkins Glen, NY  14891
  (607) 583-2225

Beyond that, you all know as much as I do about it...I have no connection
with the Sanctuary, and make no claims as to the merits (or lack thereof)
of their work.

Roberta
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:55:27 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

John V. Etten:

> The key word is individual.  Hunters help the population, not the
> individual that is taken.  Until you AR folk can understand where we
> are coming from in thinking about "all the *other* individuals," our
> arguments shall fall on deaf ears.  Sacrifice by the individual for
> the good of the many.  That's a concept that comes easy for me, but
> apparently others don't like it.  The word "selfless" does not come to
> mind when thinking about such people.  They are rarely blood donors
> (eww -- those needles *hurt*). :-(

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Star 
Trek II.
--
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunter's legitimate concern
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:29:26 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Is Ducks Unlimited an organization whose credits belong to hunters
rl> and hunters alone?  Or, is it an organization whose credits also
rl> belong to AR advocates like myself?   Do you think Todd was mistaken
rl> when he intimated that Ducks Unlimited was a testimonial to persons
rl> like himself, as opposed to persons like me?

From article <1541k7INN6ga@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> But apparantly you represent yourself as a person like Todd in at 
ml> least one aspect.  That being that you both claim to be 
ml> legitimately concerned for the welfare of wildlife.  I was under 
ml> the impression that that is what DU is all about.  Apparantly you 
ml> feel they are a hunting club.  

Not exactly.  Like you, I was also under the impression that DU was
a society of conservationists.  I never expected that my donations 
might be viewed erroneously as a credit to the goodwill of hunters.

ml> My understanding is that they are a conservation group that are 
ml> dedicated to the enhancement of wildlife.  Isn't that what you 
ml> want?  

Yes.

ml> Or is it simply intolerable for you to be associated with 
ml> hunters in doing good deeds for wildlife?  

No.

I work and play with hunters every day, Mike.  Personally, I'm 
convinced that most ethical disagreements are easily explained by 
variations in different people's access to, and appreciation of, 
the basic facts.  I'm disinclined to believe, as superstitious 
people might believe, that hunters engage in their sport because 
they are tainted by evil spirits or some such silliness.  As 
such, I have no qualms about working with hunters to achieve 
shared, ethical goals... provided that my participation isn't
misinterpreted as a sign of approval for the activity that I
consider unethical.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Homeless Animal Day
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:03:08 GMT


 Homeless Animals' Day

>From the International Society for Animal Report, Summer 1992 Newsletter,
International Society for Animal Rights, Inc., 421 S. State St., Clarks
Summit, PA  18411, (717) 586-2200:
 
    "Homeless Animals Day" to be Observed Across the Country
       by Susan Regan, ISAR Public Information Associate
 
                         SHED LIGHT ON
                      An American Tragedy
                   Dog and Cat Overpopulation
                   On "Homeless Animals' Day"
                   Saturday, August 22, 1992
 
Kenosha, Wisconsin; Arlington, Virginia; Lynnwood, Washington; Middletown,
Rhode Island; Forestville and Hughesville, Maryland; Cincinnati and
Kettering, Ohio; Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Walnut Creek, California; Naples,
Orlando, Jacksonville and Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Indianapolis, Indiana;
Macon, Georgia; Falls Village, Connecticut; Little Falls, New Jersey;
Denver, Colorado; St. Louis Park, Minnesota; Memphis, Tennessee; Pittsburgh
and Frazer, Pennsylvania; Las Vegas and Carson City, Nevada; New York, New
York and Washington, DC ... the list continues.
 
On Saturday, August 22, 1992, in these and dozens of other cities across the
country, animal shelter workers and other animal advocates will come
together to shed light on an American tragedy - - dog and cat
overpopulation.  ISAR is coordinating the nation's first Candlelight Vigil
to commemorate the millions of dogs and cats who are killed each year in the
United States.
 
Helen Jones, President of ISAR, says:  "This coast-to-coast vigil will
dramatically illuminate the magnitude of the dog and cat homelessness crisis
in America.  It will generate national concern about the issue so that the
public will recommit to solving the tragedy of dog and cat overpopulation."
 
Materials to assist vigil coordinators are available from ISAR. Brochures
are available on the tragedy of purebreds, the medical benefits of spaying
and neutering, the operation of a successful low-cost spay and neuter
clinic, and how to help the public respond to the crisis. Candlelight Vigil
flyers and posters, press information and suggested vigil activities are
also available.
 
You still have time to get involved.  Write or call me today at 1515
Monterey Street, Pittsburgh, PA  15212.  Telephone: (412) 322-1422. I will
send your materials immediately.  If you would like to attend a vigil in
your area, call ISAR at (717) 586-2200 for a complete listing of vigil
sites.
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:13:29 GMT

In article <BrpHIr.AtA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you think it might 
rl> be perfectly ok for you to kill a billion individuals that you've 
rl> classed together in a group, but a great moral offense against 
rl> the "species" if you were to kill the last living pair belonging 
rl> to that particular group.  

From article <RIGG.92Jul22122740@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Killing a number of animals from a non-endangered species, no harm is
tr> done to the species as a whole.  In fact, such culling often helps the
tr> species.  The result is that everyone that enjoys seeing those animals
tr> and the habitat that supports those animals is better off.  In
tr> contrast, killing enough to cause extinction does irreversible harm to
tr> the ecosystem that depended on that species.  
tr> 
tr> Perhaps I am missing something.  But the above distinction seems quite
tr> obvious. 

As I mentioned to Sue Bishop the other day, much of our society's 
difficulty in dealing with environmental problems stems from our 
tendency to conjure up personhood where it does not exist while 
ignoring personhood where it clearly does exist.  

You seem to be assuming that a "Species-as-a-Whole" is a person 
of sorts, and therefore entitled to better treatment than we 
would provide for individuals.  Why is it ok to kill a billion 
thinking/feeling individuals, but not ok to kill the last few 
examples of a mindless class construct like an "whale species"
or "owl species" or whatever?  

You're a woodsman, or so you claim.  As such, you must realize
that "eco-systems" must be measured with yardsticks... not thousand
mile markers.    If wolves are non-existent in the forest where
you hunt, are they not "extinct" for all practical purposes?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: HABITAT; WETLANDS; EUROPEAN FORESTS
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:51:53 GMT


HABITAT; WETLANDS; EUROPEAN FORESTS
 
 
HABITAT NEWS
 
     * Actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot is among
73 recipients of the U.N. Environmental Program's Global 500 Award,
to be presented at the "Earth Summit."
 
     * Wetlands on nonfederal rural land were converted to other
uses at the rate of 110,000 acres a year from 1987 through early
1991, according to the USDA's Soil Conservation Service--a decrease
of 21,000 acres per year from the 1982-1987 rate.  In total,
however, 1.1  million acres of wetlands were lost over the past
decade.
 
     * The Power Authority of New York and three other public
utilities have agreed to limit use of Hudson River water during the
spring and summer spawning seasons of striped bass and shad. The
agreement ended a lawsuit filed by the Natl. Resources Defense
Council, Scenic Hudson, and the Hudson River Fishermen's Assn.
 
     * Biologist Salvador Flores Guido, of the Yucatan Autonomous
Univ., estimates that 3,000 of the 60,000 plant species native to
tropical Mexico have gone extinct recently as a result of
rainforest logging.
 
     * The Nature Conservancy is trying to protect the Texas hill
country, including the fast-expanding cities of San Antonio and
Austin, by promoting a system of regional ecological planning that
would protect core reserves for wildlife, surrounded by buffer
zones of ranchlands and undeveloped military property.  The idea is
to minimize conflicts between ecological and economic
considerations.  The region includes 70 endangered or threatened
species.
 
     * California farmers have begun selling their federal water
rights to drought-stricken cities.  As much as 25% of the Palo
Verde Valley is expected to lie fallow this summer, instead of
being planted with alfalfa and cotton.  The reduced feed supply
could drive up the cost of raising animals for meat--and water
sales could offer farmers whose incomes are now tied to meat
production an alternative way to make a living.
 
     * A Finnish Forest Research Institute team reported in early
April that despite air pollution, the rate of tree growth in Europe
increased 30% from 1971 to 1990, and the total volume of tree
biomass increased 25%.  However, the study omitted data from the
parts of central Europe hardest hit by acid rain, and also didn't
take into account the effect of massive tree planting programs
begun in the 1960s to replace forests devastated by World War II,
then neglected as governments concentrated upon rebuilding urban
infrastructure.
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 5/92
 
 *  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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:41:07 GMT


   russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   >I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you think it might 
   >be perfectly ok for you to kill a billion individuals that you've 
   >classed together in a group, but a great moral offense against 
   >the "species" if you were to kill the last living pair belonging 
   >to that particular group.  

Because we recognize that diversity, in and of itself, is a good
thing.  Consequently:

-- killing animals belonging to overpopulated species is morally good,
as it improves conditions for the remainder.

-- killing animals belonging to a species which is neither over- nor
underpopupated is, in and of itself, neutral.  Other circumstances
must be accounted for to say whether the act is morally good or bad;
is the animal used appropriately?  Did the animal pose an unreasonable
threat to people?

-- killing animals belonging to a species which is underpopulated is
morally bad.  The species must be allowed to repopulate.

-- killing the last pair of a species is worse, as it prevents that
species ever repopulating.

You're right that a ``species'' is merely a human convenience, and
there is no good definition of what constitutes a species.  So we find
the ``endangered northern spotted owl,'' when nobody can adequately
explain how it differs significantly from the ``southern spotted
owl,'' which is not endangered (never mind that spotted owl nests have
been sighted in second growth forests...).  Down here, a lawsuit was
filed to try to block construction of an observatory, based on a
population of squirrels living on top of the hill.  The suit failed
when it wasn't possible to distinguish them from the squirrels at the
bottom of the hill.  We do need to have a better mechanism for
distinguishing species from one another...

Hope this clears things up,

-Joe.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: haralds@ifi.unit.no
Subject: Re: Norwegian Whaling
Organization: Ifi, University of Trondheim / AVH
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 08:04:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.160623.7682@vax.oxford.ac.uk> gms@vax.oxford.ac.uk
writes:

>> ... (etc.. deleted for readability...)

>>>
>> Research on "warm harpoons" (exploding harpoon) has been
>> taken good care of in a special research project run by
>> vetrenarians at The Norwegian Agricultural College (at Aas)
>> in cooperation with the norwegian amnunition company
>> "Raufoss" over the last 10 years. The type used in todays 
>> hunting works (if my information is right) like a 
>> shock-grenade, it explodes in the chest (the normal place
>> to shoot for) and tears apart the heart and lungs, as You can
>> imagine - this causes a very quick death.
>> 
>
>I hardly dare ask...how and on what was this research carried out?
>
>Michele
>
I heard that they run som small-scale experiments: 
killing baby-whales.....  (please don't  take this seriously!!!)

Actually, when developing  things like this I don't  think testing 
it on a whale is required. Suficcient mathematical models are
awailable to calculate the impact situation - you can also test
it on "dead" material (wood/steel etc.).

Harald 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:44:10 GMT

In article <viking.712039653@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

[...]

Russell Lawrence writes:
>>If you have any questions about AR philosophical positions, why 
>>don't you ask someone like Robert Black or Ted Altar or myself, 
>>instead of posting comments aimed at another individual who shares 
>>your particular set of (mis)understandings?  

Dan Sorenson writes:
>	For the same reason I don't ask Sarah Brady for an interpretation
>on the second amendment -- I don't think I'll get a neutral response.

Say what?  Russ has suggested that you ask AR people if you wish to
know more about their philosophical positions and you demur.  Who will
you then ask to learn about AR philosophical positions?  Anti-AR
people?  So to learn more about hunters' philosophical positions, I
should ask anti-hunters?

[...]

Russell Lawrence writes:
>>1) why you think it would be morally ok for super-intelligent aliens
>>   to hunt humans for sport, but not morally ok for humans to hunt
>>   humans.

Dan Sorenson writes:
>	If they can do it, it's doesn't matter a whole lot what I think,
>does it?  If their morals show it's fine, it's fine.  Morals go to those 
>who can enforce them.

Right and Jeffrey Dahlmer was perfectly moral until he got caught, at
which time he could no longer enforce his morals so he suddenly and 
magically became immoral at the instant of his arrest?

[...]

Dan Sorenson writes:
>I think many people could be killed and nothing but good come from it.
>Murders, rapists, and child molesters come to mind, but I digress...

Why? As long as these murderers, rapists, and child molesters can get
away with their behavior and don't see that they're doing something
wrong, then according to your ethics they are perfectly moral.  How can
it be "good" to kill a moral person?

Dan, you must be pulling our leg with this pseudo-ethical pap.  Tell me
you're just joking and meant to put a big smilie down here at the end. 

>
><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. >

---
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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:15:49 GMT

From article <1992Jul24.225456.10764@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, by ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway):
mh> No, sorry.  Experiments using animals are already regulated six 
mh> ways from Sunday and hoppled even more in every conceivable manner.
mh> The question should be rather: "Is there a compromise that can be 
mh> made between the truth and "animal rights" disinformation 
mh> designed to destroy vital biomedical research?" 

Since you're obviously committed to digging away at the truth, would
you mind telling me what agency, if any, was responsible for regulating
the infamous LSU "cat shooting" experiments that were conducted here
in New Orleans?  Those experiments were halted just a couple of years
ago after a congressional investigation resulted in a cutoff of funding.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re;Texas AR Conference
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:40:26 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


Kenneth Whitehead writes, to Russell:

>No, I wasn't talking about disrupting a public forum, but simply having a 
>few hunters present so that various viewpoints WOULD be heard.  Hey, this
>thing IS open to the public, isn't it?

nope.  just to conference attendees.

>what I'm talking about is not disruption, but merely the presence
>of enough people of an opposing viewpoint at this conference in order to make 
>sure that the deck isn't stacked TOO badly against your opponents;  peaceful, 

I'm sure the Fund for Animals would be glad to take your registration fee.

>The days of easy victories are over for you guys.

One thing we've *never* had is an easy victory.  But, while the number
of registered hunters declines every year, our (ARFs) numbers are 
increasing, so we can expect easier victories, which is something you'll 
eventually get used to, Kenneth.

-- 
Jennifer L. Johnson | "If beef is your idea of `real food for real people,'
		    |  you'd better live real close to a real good hospital."
jjohnson@convex.com |			-Neal D. Barnard, President, PCRM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals