HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: UPC on Turkeys
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:16:15 GMT

>Robert M. Straubinger wrote:
>>>   Out of curiosity, what is it that makes artificial insemination
>>>"obscene"? It is a widespread procedure practiced on human and
>>>non-human animals alike.

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>What makes it obscene?  How about.... doing it without the consent of the
>>victim.  How many cases have you heard of where humans were artificially
>>inseminated without consent? ...
>   [deleted analogy of human female & males grabbed off the street
>     and employed in 'insemination']
>> ... Would this be obscene?
>>Is this typical of "a widespread procedure practiced on humans"?  
>>I guess that would depend on your idea of a normal sexual act........

Robert M. Straubinger writes:
>I see your point.
>
>Seems there's a couple of sides to this; from the male point of
>view, what you describe might constitute an assault on one's dignity,
>and, if male turkeys have a sense of dignity, it might well be wounded.
>Of course, if we could explain to male turkeys what was wanted of them,
>they might in fact participate willingly, extrapolating (perhaps
>wildly) from the fact that human males participate willingly.

IF, in fact, we could convince the male turkeys that people do it all the
time, are YOU going to be the one to tell them what their ultimate fate
is along with their syringe off-spring?     :-)

>  From the female turkey point of view, (here we run quickly into 
>a minefield that will blow us far from tpa) just one question --
>Out of curiosity, in species where insemination seems to to occur
>more out of the aggressivness of the male than the willingness of
>the female, do you think that insemination managed by humans is
>'more' or 'less' wrong? 

Well, is the action considered normal for the species?  I don't think
a mostly hairless ape forcing the procreation of an imprisoned, genetically 
manipulated, mostly flightless, self-basting, fowl is too normal.....

>I would assume that you'd hold any intervention
>by humans, no matter how similar to the actions of the animals themselves,
>to be ethically inappropriate, but assumptions, particularly in this
>newsgroup, have a habit of being wrong.

I'm not sure what other animals force insemination on another species
purely for their own gain.  I admit it probably happens in some weird
cases or if you really go out on a limb, but...... no, I don't agree with
this use of insemination.

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)  -
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Followup-To: alt.someone.that.cares
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:33:25 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

(Paul "The Witmeister" Roberts) writes:
>I write:
>>                 ... oops, I'm probably too pig-ignorant to make that
>>observation.

>All your bluster about how Might Makes Right does tend to suggest that, yes.

Yuck, yuck.  I laughing up a storm.

Y'know, Paul, if you could have used my self-denigrating comment in
context and still made your flaccid rebuttal, it might have actually
warranted a snicker from someone.

But no, you insist on feeding us classic Peewee Herman.  The stuff
that third-graders got tired of quickly.

If you had slightly less moose chowder sloshing around inside your
skull, you might realize that it's time to go back to your tub of
Shedd's Spread and last month's Cosmopolitan. Unfortunately, I'm fully
expecting an encore, where we get to hear you fire your tinny riposte
of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Tell it to someone that cares.

drwe
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: UPC on Turkeys
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:41:38 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>I'm not sure what other animals force insemination on another species
>>purely for their own gain.  I admit it probably happens in some weird
>>cases or if you really go out on a limb, but...... no, I don't agree with
>>this use of insemination.

Don Baldwin writes:
>What weird cases?  My Uncle Ernie does it all the time.  The rabbits don't
>like it so much but the sheep go nuts for it!

So Don, what species IS your uncle?  Bovine, porcine, ursine, etc?  The point
of what I said is what "other" animals.... in reply to an earlier post.
Look before you leap, eh.  Also, the sex life of your uncle is probably
better suited to alt.sex.bestiality rather than talk.politics.animals   :-)

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)  -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11010 alt.peeves:19006
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Date: 6 Jan 93 03:15:11 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Dec31.170323.10465@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.194026.13658@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.170617.16865@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>>
>GP>>Which will be approx. 20 yrs later thanks to medical research.
>>>
>>
>>Wrong. Increases in life expectancy are due almost entirely to public
>>health and civil engineering (clean water supplies, sewerage treatment,
>>etc). Statistically speaking, medicine has done little to increase
>>life expectancy.
>
>Paul, were did you get this from?
>
>My estimate of 20 yrs is from a U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services report.
>

Greg:

  I'll post my source within the next few days (just want to make sure
I get it verbatim).

Paul

PS Glad to read that you do recognise that lab animals may indeed
   suffer pain, and that you endevour to keep this to a minimum.
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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:36:42 GMT

In article <C0EJun.Gw5@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-050193105134@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>[...]
> As I pointed out previously, I've discussed this particular incident for 
> weeks-on-end on two separate occasions and I truly do not wish to dive
> into it without giving the topic a greater "rest".

Yes, you have discussed this topic for months-on-end without providing any
references to support your claims.  Before you "give the topic a rest," you
should provide these references, or retract your claim.  These are the same
standards that you and Bob Black set forth for me in a previous exchange.

> > 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.
> 
> The article that I posted is by no means complete.  When I have a chance,
> I'll post additional materials.  I'd suggest that you reserve judgment
> until then.

I'm trying to be "nice" to encourage you to provide more evidence.

> > 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.  
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  HHS is a part of the government, and it's
> HHS funding procedures that were most heavily affected by the AWA.

I said it was typical.  I did not say that it made sense.

> > 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.
> 
> I can understand this argument, but it falls apart when the researcher
> turns around and argues that his work is driven, not by military objectives,
> but altruistic ones.

Did the PI in the cat-shooting experiemnt make altruistic claims about
his/her objectives?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:41:32 GMT

From article <C0I2L3.GJG@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> In <C0Gytp.9Iy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> Giving birth hurts too, but surely you wouldn't say that it is wrong.
>>> Sometimes pain is acceptable, sometimes it's not. What is acceptable
>>> is determined by convention.
> 
>>Acceptability and convention are equivalent terms.
>>Would torture be "good" if it were acceptable/conventional?
> 
> Is drinking unacceptable because a small interest group considers it "bad"?

Don't you think this would depend on the circumstances?  As an example,
I can't imagine that it would cause much harm if you and I were to have
a beer some afternoon.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that I would 
approve if the local school bus drivers decided to meet every morning
at 6:00 AM to down three or four bloody mary's apiece.

> Isn't the AR issue about what is acceptable and what is not, rather than
> about the semantics of what is "good" or "bad"?

No, the issue isn't about what is acceptable.  It's still acceptable
in many parts of Louisiana for humans to sponsor dog fights and cock
fights for sporting purposes.  It's the goodness or badness of such 
actions that's under debate, not their acceptability.  

>>(Yes, I realize that pain isn't always bad).
> 
> So you need another example of how facts and arguments tell you 
> what is wrong and what is right.

Not really.  Would it be "good" or "bad" if I were to torture you,
without your consent, of course?   Or, would you say that the goodness
or badness of such an action would depend upon conventions?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:09:03 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan6.155025.11029@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.215833.969@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Rober
>ts) writes:
>
>>>According to your understanding of the facts of this case, why didn't
>>>Alex notify authorities at the first moment (ie., his first day on the job)
>>>he observed the substandard and unlawful conditions?
>>
>>Perhaps because this would have one single result: he loses his job, and
>>thereby loses any chance of getting the conditions for the monkeys improved.
>>
>>The "authorities" are hardly going to act based on undocumented claims
>>made by an employee who lasted exactly one day on the job.
>>
>>This seems almost to obvious to be worth saying.
>>
>>Paul
>
>
>How long then should Alex have let the monkeys suffer?
>
The minimum time consistent with gathering sufficient evidence
to get the authorities to investigate, obviously.

>Your assumption is that nobody would take seriously the concerns
>of a neophyte lab employee who observes unethical behaviour toward
>lab animals.  At my university, any accusation from any source
>indicating lab animal abuse would be taken extremely seriously.

I am glad about that, though I am very sceptical that it is the
case everywhere.
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: UPC on Turkeys
Summary: Nearly to the inane but still a little curious
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:52:27 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

>Ferrell S. Wheeler wrote:
>>    [26 lines deleted]
>>>Modern turkeys are so heavy and misshapen they must be
>>>artificially inseminated to reproduce.  Obscenely, the males
>>>are "milked" of their semen by phallus manipulating teams who
    [more deletions]

Robert M. Straubinger wrote:
>>   Out of curiosity, what is it that makes artificial insemination
>>"obscene"? It is a widespread procedure practiced on human and
>>non-human animals alike.
>
In article <1993Jan6.054652.15963@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>What makes it obscene?  How about.... doing it without the consent of the
>victim.  How many cases have you heard of where humans were artificially
>inseminated without consent? ...
   [deleted analogy of human female & males grabbed off the street
     and employed in 'insemination']
> ... Would this be obscene?
>Is this typical of "a widespread procedure practiced on humans"?  
>I guess that would depend on your idea of a normal sexual act........

I see your point.

Seems there's a couple of sides to this; from the male point of
view, what you describe might constitute an assault on one's dignity,
and, if male turkeys have a sense of dignity, it might well be wounded.
Of course, if we could explain to male turkeys what was wanted of them,
they might in fact participate willingly, extrapolating (perhaps
wildly) from the fact that human males participate willingly.
And if we really could talk Turkey (sorry, unable to resist) we
might well be able to excuse from duty any male turkeys that 
objected. In this case, the only obscenity might be the fact that the
act happened in public; it'd take a Supreme Court to decide.
  From the female turkey point of view, (here we run quickly into 
a minefield that will blow us far from tpa) just one question --
Out of curiosity, in species where insemination seems to to occur
more out of the aggressivness of the male than the willingness of
the female, do you think that insemination managed by humans is
'more' or 'less' wrong? I would assume that you'd hold any intervention
by humans, no matter how similar to the actions of the animals themselves,
to be ethically inappropriate, but assumptions, particularly in this
newsgroup, have a habit of being wrong.

--Bob
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:25:15 GMT

In <1ifgchINNngm@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:

>You people just aren't *listening* are you?  Hello??  Anybody there?
>First - my point was NOT that hunting as a means of sustenance was unethical -
>in fact if you took the trouble to read a few postings back you will
>realize I specifically stated that hunting as a means of putting food on
>the table is easily justified.  I made NO claim to man being herbivores -
>I have no CLUE as to why you chose to jump to such ridiculous conclusions 
[...]

Here's a clue. According to your twisted logic:

>>>To justify killing [animals] out of recreation is to justify any 
>>>serial murderer who gets off on watching people die.  

Applying this to meat-eating would indicate you also believe:

"To justify killing animals to eat their meat is to justify killing
people to eat their meat."

If you apply logic consistently, you either consider cannibalism OK or
hunting for food unethical. That someone assumed the latter was giving you
the benefit of the doubt.

But now you tell us hunting for food _is_ justified. Then, unless you
really are a cannibal, you must believe (just like everyone else) that
human life is more important (to us) than other animal life.  A lot
more important.  So what's with the preposterous serial murderer line?

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rick Gordon)
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Followup-To: alt.peeves
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 19:33:36 GMT

In article <ll39d9INNt58@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 242 lbs before cooking writes:

>In article <C0ntB3.260@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>]You seem to be suggesting that an individual must have a concept of
>]rights, in order to be treated in a rightful manner by individuals
>]who do, indeed, fit within our legal system?   
>
>By the way, Russ, you seem to be suffering the same affliction beast
>apologists the world over suffer from.  A couple things you seem to
>have glossed over in the testbook of life are 1) A logical argument
>can't have an emotional basis and 2) semantic nitpicking is not a
>valid form of logical argument.

The problem, see, is that we have here a misunderstanding about what
"rights" are.  I'll go through this slowly.

1. Human beings are granted rights by the society or the government or
the culture or what-have-you.

2. Anybody who qualifies as a human gets 'em. 

3. Humans are granted these rights for a very simple reason.  It ain't
because it's the nice thing to do, it ain't because God wants it that
way.  It's a case of self interest purely, because:

4. If you deny humans these rights, eventually they will take away your
toys and kill you.

Any other explication is handwaving and self-congratulatory bilge.

There may be a tribe of self-aware orangutans who are at this moment
organizing and planning a Confrontation with the dominant species, but
if they exist the news hasn't reached me yet.  Were it to happen, we'd
have to deal with them.  Until that time the idea that animals have
rights analogous to those humans spent generations spilling blood over
is silly.

>banta@abingdon.sun.com

--
Rick Gordon           | "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly
rgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu |  and I did.  I said I didn't know."  M. Twain
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:04:07 GMT

In article <C0EJD4.Gtw@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> Did you notice the quotation marks around the phrase, "animal rights"
> philosophy in the passage above?

Yes.  If you had done your homework, you would realize that Singer objects
to the term animal "rights" being applied to him with or without quotes.

Face it pal, you screwed up.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:56:19 GMT

Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>Obviously if we could marry only people with whom we agreed on everything, no
>one would ever get married.  But to me it is important to agree on the big
>issues, which for me include but are not limited to animal rights, atheism,
>feminism, masculinism, ...

	That's a lot of ism's to agree upon.  Are they worth your marriage,
or can you agree to disagree on some of these things?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 14:53:51 GMT

In article <C0oEAy.BAB@ccu.umanitoba.ca> chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (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?

[...]

	Before you get deeply embroiled in debate, it seems that you should
	agree on a definition of "sentient."  Unless this occurs, you're
	destined to fight with your opponent over what is mostly a semantic
	issue.

	I return you now to your regularly scheduled "discussion."


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:25:22 GMT

In article <mhulsey-301292105232@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

[...]

>[ In February, Gary Francione will come to Athens to give a lecture on
>animal "rights"  (yes, Russell, he would leave the quotes off).  Gary
>Francione was formerly a lawyer for PETA, but he has since disavowed the
>organization.  He has become a prominent critic because of what he regards
>as PETA's "three stooges" approach to animal protection.  I hope to get the
>opportunity to discuss this and other issues with Mr. Francione.  For
>better or worse, I will post his opinion on this and other matters. ]

I hadn't heard about this.  So is Gary Francione an example of a "good"
AR advocate while PETA leaders are examples of "bad" ones?  That would
be interesting since last year, an issue of Animals' Agenda featured a
point-counterpoint discussion on the topic of animal rights vs. animal
welfare.  Francione took the AR position while Newkirk took the AW
position.

In any event, Mr. Francione can access this newsgroup from Rutgers and
did post here last year after I sent him a copy of a post containing
some lies about his statements made in a debate.  It's too bad he is
unable to participate more often.  If you do attend his lecture, be
sure to post a report.

[...]

P.S.  Martin, I have emailed you a number of time since mid-December and
never received either a response from you or a bounced messasge.  Is
your email address valid? In the most recent attempt, I specifically
asked that you answer, and since you haven't I assume that none of my
attempts were successful.  One point I made in each mail message is that
I never received the document which you faxed.  I have no idea where it
went.  If you wish to try again, feel free to - but wait until I give you
a valid number. 

---
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