HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thmiley@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Tim Miley)
Subject: Re: Terrorism and Imagery
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:08:55 GMT

alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:


>In article <1993Jan25.145803.26460@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka
>Chandna) writes:

>>...I define
>>"terrorism" in a slightly different manner than you do.  You see, I think 
>>that animal experimenters are terrorists,

>A terrorist uses extreme tactics to intimidate other people in similar
>situations.  The goal is to strike fear in the opposition's populace thus
>creating internal pressure that may lead to policy changes. There is no way
>that a cat in surburbia is intimidated by what goes on in the lab down the
>road, that cat doesnt live its life in fear of being katnapped or hijacked
>and taken to the lab for torture; that cat doesnt have problems sleeping at
>night.  You may think that animal research is cruel but it is far from
>terroristic.  

Good point, Alex.

However, the animals that are IN the labs are possibly a terrified populace
living in perpetual fear of the men in white coats.

>>                                          nothing more than the sort of
>>people that set their dog on fire or put their cat in the microwave oven to
>>see what will happen .. except they get published & paid for doing that.

>It's this sort of imagery that Animal Rights Fanatics are using to
>infiltrate middle america.  By comparing useful scientific research to
>grotesque mutilations of household pets, they are the true terrorists using
>fear for intimidation.  Not only fear in the pet owning public but fear
>among those that hope to do meaningful research.  Researchers such as
>Dr.Carey face terroristic threats at 2am and a loss of funding if they
>choose to pursue more accurate and applicable results that are obtained
>from animal testing.  

Alex, I would like to know what your stand is on useless and painful animal
research, such as Dr. Robert White's brain transplant nonsense of the 1970's,
or Dr. Thomas Nicholson's so-called "sex life of cats" experiment, where
healthy cats were restrained with a stereotaxic device and painful electric
charges were applied to the cat's penis until "termination."

ALF has exposed some pretty sadistic and scientifically indefensible uses of
animals in experimentation.  Although I do not approve of vandalism and arson,
I would like to get a better glimpse of what goes on in the animal labs.

Do this one time.  Make contact with an animal researcher and see if you can
get a guided tour of the lab.  See if you can get in.

My point being: if the researchers are so confident that their research is
helpful to mankind, why are they not proud of showing it off?

>alex the omnivore


Tim
-- 
thmiley@cs.wmich.edu      (Timothy H Miley)
Computer Science Major
Western Michigan University
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Scabies experiments at Wright State University
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:12:14 GMT

From a new PETA pamphlet, entitled "Where, Oh Where Did This Little Dog Come
From?"

"Fourteen states prohibit seizing animals from pounds for experiments.  Ohio
still permits 'pound seizue,' although public opinion is against it.

"*Many dogs from the Greene County Pound end up at Wright State University
(WSU) laboratories, in scabies experiments conducted by Larry G. Arlian.* 
Arlian infects dogs with scabies mites scraped from the ears of severely
infested rabbits.  Scabies spreads over their entire bodies, causing intense,
prolonged itching, open wounds and crusting of the skin; death follows if the
dogs are not treated - often the case in Arlian's lab.

"A WSU lab worker told PETA of a dog they nicknamed Genesee whose scabies
infection was so severe that she kept moving in circles, cried almost
constantly, could not eat or drink, and kept falling over.  One night, Genesee
was left hanging in a restraining sling with an I.V. in her back.  She was
found dead the next morning.

"Workers tell of other dogs dying slowly and in pain, of rabbits screaming
when their scabies scabs were routinely pulled off, and of cats strapped into
a ferris wheel device until they vomited.

"A PETA investigator found employment in the Wright State University animal
laboratory and documented the treatment of animals there.  The dogs pictured
here were all killed at WSU; the cats are still undergoing motion sickness
experiments.

"In fiscal year 1992 alone, Arlian received $216,791 in tax funds for his
cruel scabies experiments on animals.  He claims to be researching a vaccine
to prevent scabies in humans, but effective scabies treatments already exist;
scabies is also largely preventable through improved sanitation conditions and
basic health care.

"Here is what experts say:

"'This work is duplicative and capable of inflicting constant, unrelieved
suffereing on the animals involved.'
Veterinarian Eric K. Dunayer

"'Parasites cause species-specific reactions in their hosts, so it is
impossible to extrapolate rabbit or dog data to the human scabies mite.'
Veterinarian Wendy Thacher

"'Scabies in humans is ... disagreable but ... does not result in death. 
Research in vaccines has been limited to death-precipitating organisms.'
Aurora F. Alberti, M.D.

"'The goal to develop a vaccine against scabies mites getting into the skin in
humans is no different from trying to develop a vaccine to keep flies from
landing on human skin.'
William M. George, M.D."

Comments?
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Russel Lawrence Disputes Himself
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:03:08 GMT
Organization: WP Group

From article <1993Jan26.204259.3067@novell.com>, by jpoller@novell.com (Contents may have settled during Shipping):
> (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>      According to USDA data (cited in the WorldWatch paper mentioned 
>      previously), 70% of the 1990 US grain crop was consumed by 
>      livestock.
> 
> (242 lbs before cooking) writes:
>      This is the flip side of your "single use" argument.  What Dan
>      Sorenson pointed out is that 30% of the grain produced is suitable for
>      human consumption.
> 
> (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>    Are you sure it's not 30% or 40% or 50% or 60%???   Let's see
>    some data.
> 
> Need We Say More?

The figure I posted specified the percentage of US grain 
production that was fed to livestock in 1990.  It didn't specify 
the percentage of grain that was suitable for human consumption.  
It's fallacious to conclude, as you and Dan and Andy have done, 
that the 70% share fed to livestock was unfit for human use, and 
hence, that just 30% was suitable for humans.  If you disagree,
let's hear your reasons.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:14:34 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu


I wrote:
>ap> hurting poor little fluffy.  The fact is that these animals are 
>ap> usually raised in the lab with the sole purpose of being 
>ap> experimented on.  

It may be true that a bill was proposed for pet siezure but that doesnt
change the fact that most lab animals are raised in the lab.

Russell Lawrence:
>privatedly funded ones.  Would it be reasonable for a privately 
>funded shelter, perhaps a shelter with a no-kill policy, to be 
>forced by law to surrender lost or abandoned pets to men like 
>Carey?  

I generally disagree with the government or anyone else that wants to
interfer with private matters.  I do however think it is foolish to waste
an animal that is going to be euthanized anyway.

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

alex the omnivore
From: jpoller@novell.com (Contents may have settled during Shipping)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:03:21 GMT
Organization: The Electoral Collage

(Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
=> And we also use corn for more than food or feed.  So what's the point?

Your mother must by crying.  It is so pitifully obvious that you're a
"slow learner".  I'll spell it out for ya, son.  Just cause you get
600 lbs of beef from a 1000 lb steer doesn't mean that you've got a
60% effiecient cow.

=> Because the amount of water saved by going to a non-meat centered diet
=> could go into replenishing water levels in lakes and reservoirs.

What a fucking hoot.  I'm sure the California Draught Boards would be
willing to listen to a college boy from Purdue tell them how to
control the water.

So now, the reason not to eat meat is to save water.  So all of
California should go to a Vegetarian Diet.  So we'll have to increase
our non-meat agriculture in order to feed all these hungry people.
So all of your wonderful savigns of water will not got to the lakes,
but to the  stomachs.

---
Jack Noze -- jpoller@novell.com

	"Its not the size, its the sensitivity that counts" -- JennyG
	
	"Your battery is dead.  I couldn't have come up with a more suitable
	    analogy, myself." -- andy banta@abingdon.sun.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:39:36 GMT

In <C171K5.M03@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	As if tomatoes are worth eating for all their nutritional
>>value.  Again, all the beef take is roughly five to ten gallons
>>per head per day.  That means, over a year, 3650/650 = ~5.6 gallons
>>per pound for a 1000 pound steer dressing out to 650lbs.  At
>>650*5 pounds of grain, that's 3250 lbs of grain.  Thus, the grain
>>took (5214-6)= 5208 gallons, or 5208/3250 = 1.6 gallons/lbs to grow
>>in California, yet the tomatoes take 23?  Somebody is lying, Russ.

>A quibble about your math. Taking your 5.6 gal/lb-beef consumed
>directly, and assuming 5 lb-grain/lb-beef. Then if it takes 5214
>gal/lb-beef total, nearly all of the water (5208 gal)is needed to grow
>the 5 lb of grain. That comes to about 1000 gal/lb-grain. If tomatoes
>take only 23, it seems highly unethical to eat grain.

	By my math above, it's 5.6+1.6*5 = 5.6+8 = 13.6lbs of water
per pound of beef, compared to 23lbs of water per pound of tomato.
I think you're mixing up what I computed and what Russell posted.
I was merely showing that the facts given aren't right, at least not
here in Iowa.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Hunting is Ethical
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:54:09 GMT

In article <C18u6F.1o2@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Was the "golden rule" based on such a consensus among dominant
>individuals... "to be used on the dominated", as you say?   Was
>the author a rich and powerful person?  Or by contrast, would
>you say that he and his followers were confident but humble
>individuals who truly cared about other beings?
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ




Suffer not a witch to live.






:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: freeman@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Kevin Freeman)
Subject: Re: I was born to eat meat.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:37:29 GMT


  Bullshit... look at how long your intestine is. Besides that is second.
We have the ability now to eat healthy now by killing less (ie lowest
trophic level plants) we should do it to prove we are the "enlightened"
species instead of giving senseless arguements like look at my teeth,
look at my teeth... Fuck reminds me of ERASERHEAD "look at my knees, look
at my knees..." I love animals and I don't like to kill them. 

  Besides they changed the four food groups now and everybody knows the
bullshit about the meat and dairy industries paying the politcians to keep
them omn the list for as long as they have been.

  I'm happy because I know when I'm 40 I won't have a rubber glove up my
butt looking for colon cancer because I ate meat all my life.


  lotsa love
    Kev
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Cattle Issue
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:26:01 GMT

From article <1k2ff1INNdnf@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> Did it ever occur to any of you cattle doomsdayers that this country was
> once blanketed in cattle, buffalo!  Hundreds of millions of buffalo, which
> are bigger than modern cows, ate, drank, and farted all over this land for
> thousands and thousands of years!  Boom!
> 
> We have nothing to fear from the cattle industry.

Did those buffalo live in feedlots?  And hence, did their manure 
collect in oxygen-free ponds where it might decay anaerobically?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: La Cat Shooting Experiments
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:23:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad) writes:

>Another thing that struck me was a picture of a parading protester
>carrying a large drawing of a cat and a mouse.  In real life, if the cat and
>mouse were that close together the cat would be trying to kill the mouse,
>and perhaps playing with it a bit first.

Are you saying, then, that it's ok for humans to be cruel to cats because
cats are cruel to mice?  

	John Hoag (loca@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Food chain (was Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted))
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:31:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.145039.4451@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Ro
semary Waigh) writes:
[...]

>In the states, for each acre of forest cleared for parking lots, roads,
>houses, shopping centres, etc., *seven* are cleared for meat production
>(land for grazing or growing feed).  I don't have the stats for Canada,
>but I see little reason to suspect it's much different.  If everyone
>became vegetarian, a great deal of this land could be returned to its
>natural state.
>
>--
>Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
>g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
> "You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is
>  concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity." - Emerson


Rosemary, How about if everyone didn't become vegetarian, but reduced
cattle consumption.  What effect would this have?  My point is that I
think there is validity to your argument, it just doesn't need your
veganism to stand on its own.





:
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11794 alt.activism:21475 rec.food.veg:12631
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:52:11 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <1993Jan25.143544.26101@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>>>Are you unbiased because you directly or indirectly require that
>>>animals be made to suffer unspeakably (& killed) just so that you can
>>> eat their muscle tissue?

>> The pheasants were run over or sucked into
>>the guts of the combine, the deer were killed by the sickle blades of the
>>bean head as it rolled over the field while they lay, motionless, hoping
>>to escape predation by hiding.  Doesn't work on a John Deere.  Now then,
>>do you suddenly feel remorse at eating that tofu, or are you somehow
>>morally superior because you can point at Banta?

>[...]  I don't
>claim to know all the answers (maybe part of the reason you post such bizarre
>messages is because you think that I think that I know all the answers).  I'm
>simply trying to live by some principles that make sense to me, i.e., mini-
>mizing the amount of violence that one perpetrates.

Do you distinguish plant foods on the basis of the suffering they cause or
is the line drawn arbitrarily between animals and plants. Do clams suffer?
If you killed one deer in the wild that would be a lot of food for the
loss of one sentient being. How many rats, pheasants, grasshoppers
have to die to give the same amount of grain?

BTW what do vegans feed their pet dogs?

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: nfs@volkl.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Reply-To: nfs@volkl.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:57:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.183148.213@cs.mun.ca>, ac@riemann.math.mun.ca
(Alka Chandna) writes:
|> 
|> I don't necessarily agree that the *choice* that one makes when one chooses
|> to eat animal tissue (or wear animal pieces or clean one's floor with juices
|> extracted from animals) is the result of laziness per se.
|> [followed by one sentence describing friends finding nothing veggie
for lunch]
|> I do think that the
|> choice not to cut out animal products from the diet of these
particular people
|> is a matter of laziness, and a downright cop-out.

Well, what's it going to be then?

I, for one, assure you that I like the taste of meat.  Eating it is a matter of
both laziness and pleasure.  Is there a section of the Criminal Code in Canada
that makes either or both a punishable offense?  Woe betide the country
if there
were - I assure you that civilization is entirely a product of man's inherent
laziness and search for pleasure.

|> I think the jury is still out on this one, but I believe that there is alot
|> of evidence which suggests that physiologically speaking, humans are much 
|> closer to confirmed herbivores than to confirmed omnivores.

Who cares?  Physiologically speaking, humans have no trouble whatsoever
digesting the flesh of animals.

|> Really, I don't care about those issues.

Really, you shouldn't have mentioned it then.

|> My major focus is the fact that
|> I can enjoy my life, be healthy & well-satisfied without having to kill 
|> beings that demonstratably experience pain. 

Good for you.  Try not to think about what a microscope might show about the
wee fellows that live all over the tomatoes you eat.

Norbert
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:24:44 GMT

In <C1FH70.FD1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Of course.  Still, California is the largest dairy state in the US.
>And, it falls just behind Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa as a major
>cattle-producing state.   Speaking of Kansas and Nebraska, BTW,
>what will happen to the midwest feedlots when the Ogallala aquifer
>is finally depleted?

	We don't worry about it -- we can get all the water we need
from normal rainfall.  Did you happen to look for Texas and Colorado
in your study?  American Cattleman magazine reported them as far ahead
of Iowa and Nebraska for raising cattle just a couple years ago, and
the trend seems to be continuing.

	BTW: it takes roughly 40 liters of water pumped and normal
rainfall to produce whatever the cow will gain each day.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:37:27 GMT

In <C16EwE.50p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>I think most people have figured out by now that meat,
>dairy, and egg production is more tightly bound (category-wise) 
>than the production of fibers, flowers, potatoes, leafy vegetables 
>fruits, etc.  

You left out footwear and belts among others in the first
category.

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Books review- "Free the Animals" By Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:27:48 GMT

In <1993Jan25.151140.26696@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:

>>In article Alka Chandna  writes:

>>>	To keep readers from dismissing Valerie's efforts 
>>>as being "irrelevant",Newkirk has weaved a crash course 
>>>in the philosophy of animal rights into the
>>>storyline.  In an incredibly believable manner, Newkirk slips in quotations 
>>>by everyone from Mahatma Gandhi ("The greatness of a nation and its moral 
>>>progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals") to Jeremy Bentham
>>>("The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they speak? But, can they
>>>suffer?") to Leonardo daVinci ("The day will come when we will look upon the
>>>murder of beasts as we now look upon the murder of men") to Martin Luther 
>>>King ("An unjust law is no law at all").  Peter Singer's utilitarian 
>>>argument
>>>finds its way into the pages of the novel, as does Tom Regan's rights and
>>>responsibilities spiel.

>>Did she mention Hitler?  The Nazis introduced some sweeping
>>antivivisection laws in the 30's.

>Let's try to remember some basic principles of logic.  If the Nazis introduced
>some "sweeping antivivisections laws", does it follow that antivivisectionists
>in general are Nazis?  

What was her point of quoting Ghandi and daVinci and King if not to suggest
that vegans were good guys. This logic works both ways.

[...]

>The sort of thinking that allows for the existence of exploiters and 
>populations to be exploited is exactly what Nazism is all about, exactly 
>what the notion of a Master Race is all about, exactly what the notion of
>a Master Species (or "crown of creation") is all about. 

The fact that one could be a Nazi and yet have unusual compassion
for animals indicates the connection between animal and human
compassion or exploitation is not simple.

Werner


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg