HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: My dog
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:14:11 GMT

Ted Robinson writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.190515.19496@pellns.alleg.edu>, frisinv@alleg.edu 
>(Vincent Frisina) writes:
>
>>  So now we have a lot of animals with equal right to live free but no 
>solution.
> 
>As I read it you're asking a question about ethics, not about what will make 
>the dog happiest. Here's the way I see it:
>
>On the one hand, these beings are non-humans and as such aren't bound by the 
>same ethical considerations as humans. Ethics provide guidance for human 
>behavior, not for non-human behavior. From this point of view you needn't 
>worry about what the dog does. 

So it's OK for this dog to munch on rabbits and such despite the fact
that the owner is feeding it.  Is it OK for this dog to munch on
children as well, under this clause that it is exempt from human
ethics?  After all, you folk have told me that a human and an animal
should have the same rights in matters such as life, pain, etc. (e.g.,
the opinions expressed that it was a Bad Thing (tm) for the man to be
recently given the primate liver -- a one-for-one trade, don't you
know).


>On the other hand, as a member of society you incur certain obligations to 
>other members of society, such as not to keep them up at night with noise and 
>not to kill their dogs/cats. If you bring a dog or cat into your home and 
>he/she keeps the neighbors up at night or kills their non-human companions, 
>you have a conflict: between your obligations to society and your companion's 
>right to live life as he/she wishes. This conflict may manifest itself in a 
>variety of ways, some of which are decided in favor of the non-human and some 
>in favor of society.

So it's a Bad Thing (tm) for this dog to munch on other cats and dogs
that are "members of society."  Two questions.  Is it OK for this dog
to munch on a stray cat or dog that isn't a "member of society?"  Why
are "non members of society," if you'll permit me to coin the phrase,
such as rabbits and such, allowed to be killed but not eaten?  Is this
more of the typical "we are the animals' friends and do good for them"
AR argument?  Forgive me if I'm a wee bit skeptical, as ever.  In
fact, it's becoming increasingly hard to supress a smile -- even
though this is nowhere near funny.


>In the situation you posed, however, your obligation to society doesn't seem 
>to be threatened. As a result, I can see no ethical problem in allowing the 
>dog to roam as it wishes.

Fence it in or put it on a leash where it belongs.  You've [general]
domesticated it, now it's your obligation to deal with it.


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: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 15:24:09 GMT

In article <acag02I21eIA01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.134351.21837@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, 
>keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd) writes:
>
>> This is a bit like an
>> earlier post I made about the "hunters are/arenot macho" thread and stated 
>> that there were alot of female hunters. You immediately asked for numbers
>> of female hunters. I don't have time to call every state and ask them 
>> for the male/female breakdown of hunting licenses sold.  Do you??
> 
>You must be confusing me with someone else. I asked no such question re. 
>female hunters. I didn't even participate in that discussion.
>
>Ted Robinson
>tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
>These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.

I beg your pardon, then Ted. I was going by memory as I had lost that 
response to my post and attributed it to the wrong person. I apologize.

Keith

-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |   GO BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Ferris' Postings
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:46:39 GMT

From article <zb=y7+j@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> However, since I am alone (other than Todd, whom I currently 
jve> can't reach on e-mail -- any other addresses?) in my thoughts 
jve> that the group's bandwidth can be better spent on other things, 
jve> then I shall henceforth remain silent on the issue and forever 
jve> hold my peace.  I've expressed my view and others feel 
jve> differently -- so be it, the majority shall rule (as it should 
jve> be).  

The truth or falsity of an idea cannot be established by polling,
nor should the flow of information be restricted in accordance with
popular opinion.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: What would make hunters stop hunting?
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:30:42 GMT

In article <BsqBFJ.H7x@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> farm@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (B. Munroe) writes:
>
>It seems that most pro-hunting arguments are based on either:
>
>	1. Game is food, humans eat food, therefore hunting is OK.
>	2. Animal populations must be controlled, weapons help control
>	   animal populations, therefore hunting is OK.
>
>Let's suppose for a second that game all of a sudden became unpalatable and
>had no nutritional value.  Let's also suppose that animal populations began
>to self-regulate without human intervention.  Question:  would hunters
>continue to hunt?.  My gut feeling on this is that hunters would indeed
>continue to hunt, mainly because I get the sense (through postings in this
>group) that the act of killing is actually the predominant factor as to
>why people hunt.  Social pressure keeps most hunters from going out
>and blowing everything away, therefore hunters bag a couple of animals,
>justify the act as food gathering or conservation, and still have
>their desire to kill satiated.  Maybe I'm way off base here, but that's
>what I've observed in the postings in the group.  In addition, I used
>to hunt (game fowl - nothing bigger) and have a number of friends who
>still hunt.  There definitely is a desire to kill inherent in the
>hunter psyche.  Any hunters care to comment?
>

Sadly, there are "slob hunters" who are no better than you make them out to
be. However, the majority are not so callous. Most trips afield, especially
for big game, such as deer, are unsuccessful in terms of animals harvested. 
Success lies in the hunting, not the killing. Hunting is the only time in 
my life when my mind is clearly focused and not buzzing with competing
thoughts. Slipping through the woods, I may pause to watch a young raccoon
at the waters edge searching for crawfish or frogs. A coyote in a woodland
meadow chasing mice is a thrill. Cardinals courting, bluejays harassing an
owl, grouse drumming. All are part of the hunting experience. All may be 
experienced without hunting, and are. Hunting just brings greater intensity.
   The kill causes mixed emotions. There is satisfaction in cooking and eating
game you've outwitted. Don't think it's easy to slip within 20-30 yards of a
deer in the wild. It's not a petting zoo. Getting into position for a clean
shot and drawing a bow on an alert animal without being spotted is 
excruciatingly difficult. However, seeing a beautiful animal such as a white-
tailed deer lying cold and lifeless is tremendously saddening. Yes, there is
some guilt. But this is real. This is life, and death. It is the way of the
wild, and I wish to be as much a part of it as possible. The hunter must accept
the fact that he kills to eat. Others simply pay people to do what they can't
and buy their meat at restaurants and supermarkets. 

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My dog
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:55:44 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Aug18.190515.19496@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@alleg.edu (Vincent Frisina) writes:
>
>  I have a question that may seem a little odd. I'm NOT trying to justify  
>some assinine conclusion like "animal rights activists really support  
>sport hunting", I'm just curious. My brother's girlfriend's mother's  
>neighbor noticed a dog hanging around on her farm. The dog looked like he  
>had beed abandoned by his owner (he liked people and knew commands like  
>sit and lay down as opposed to being a wild dog) so she fed him. For some  
>reason she couldn't keep the dog and was going to shoot him, so my brother  
>adopted him. Now here is the problem: should we tie it up? If we let he  
>loose he hunts in the woods by our house even though we feed him and the  
>animals just rot (he leaves carcases). If we tie him up, he'll be  
>miserable because a dog should be able to roam free. We can't "let him  
>return to his natural habitat" because the last time he was on his own, he  
>nearly starved to death (for some reason, probably training, he won't eat  
>whast he kills) and almost got shot. So now we have a lot of animals with  
>equal right to live free but no solution. BTW fencing him in is the same  
>as tying him to a post. 
>Thanks for any answers. 

A domestic dog has no "right to roam free". His natural habitat is a home 
where he's loved, respected, and has a master. Dogs are pack animals. You 
must take on the role of pack leader. It can be a rewarding relationship for
both of you. Confinement in a fenced yard is hardly cruel. It is also for 
his own protection. Getting hit by a car is cruel. Spend time with him a few
times a day. Put him on a leash and go for walks. Teach him to behave properly
on a leash, and he'll look forward to these excursions. In my experience, at
least, dogs are happiest when well trained (they know what is expected) and 
part of a family.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: WOOLWORTHS; PETS
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:07:34 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BszKGx.Dt6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> I've sent my comments to Farrell, but I didn't send you a carbon 
>rl> copy.  Farrell's free to decide for himself whether to keep my 
>rl> message private or to share it with others, including you.  He's 
>rl> also free to decide for himself what he will or won't post, just 
>rl> as the rest of us are entitled to decide, as individuals, what we 
>rl> will or won't read.   

>From article <16epk2INNedk@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Let's not forget what we will or won't eat, what we will or won't 
>ml> hunt, what is or isn't ethical, what we will or won't believe in, 
>ml> who we feel is or isn't honest.  That is the whole point, that we 
>ml> have the freedom to choose what we will eat and whether we will 
>ml> hunt.  Ain't nobody got the right to take that away from us.  

>You don't have such a freedom.  Try barbequing Barbara Bush for 
>lunch and see how far you get.  

>Let's try to maintain the distinction between personal rights and 
>property rights, shall we?  The fact that Linan's mind may have a 
>rightful claim to control Linan's body as it sees fit, doesn't 
>mean that Linan's body has a right to seize or control the bodies 
>of other feeling/thinking beings.  


Oh that's disgusting.  Barbara Bush?  

But, I see the problem here.  Russell sees fuzzy animals as feeling/think-
ing beings and equates them with humans.  Doesn't work Russell.  I think
I pretty much eat just about any damned animal I wish so long as it isn't
anyones property or endangered and so long as it's in season.  This fact
is true regardless if you agree or not.  So you see, I DO have such a 
freedom.


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



Mike Linan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: WOOLWORTHS; PETS
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:18:55 GMT

In <BszKGx.Dt6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>You don't have such a freedom.  Try barbequing Barbara Bush for 
>lunch and see how far you get.  

	You'll probably get to within ten feet of the first secret
service agent (pity the initials SS have such negative connotations;
and we were using them fifty hears before Hitler had his first beer!)
and then you will be room temperature.  Be that as it may, there
is still the freedom to _try_ it, which is one I freely give away.

>Let's try to maintain the distinction between personal rights and 
>property rights, shall we?  The fact that Linan's mind may have a 
>rightful claim to control Linan's body as it sees fit, doesn't 
>mean that Linan's body has a right to seize or control the bodies 
>of other feeling/thinking beings.  

	Animals are legally property at this time, Russ.  Don't
forget that (I'm certain you have not).  That you don't believe
this to be true doesn't necessarially mask the fact that it is
true right now.  Animals are property.  Fight it if you wish, but
for now you must either live with it or face the consequences.
This reality check brought to you by:

<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: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Rover stares down my barrel.
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:46:18 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <RIGG.92Aug15234929@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>
>Give folks a bit more credit.  If it was that simple, why wouldn't a
>quick trip to a farm stop all (nonhunting) meat eating?
>
>tim
>--

I suspect that a quick trip to the slaughterhouse would stop quite a bit
of it.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Ferris' Postings
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:22:49 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

>care to get it).  However, since I am alone (other than Todd, whom I
>currently can't reach on e-mail -- any other addresses?) in my

I'm having a hell of a time with my software lately - I fought the disk,
and the disk won.  Try me at: todd@refrig.dixie.com, refrig@dixie.com, and
if all else fails, 73447.116@compuserve.com.

If I don't get cnews and nn untangled soon, I'm gonna be hunting Unix boxes
this season. :-)

>As I've said before, for me the problem is more in losing other
>people's information due to the clutter.  But the point is now moot. 

No, the point is that some of us are paying for our feeds, and would rather
get a DISCUSSION, even one from Russell Lawrence, quoting every message in
it's entirety since the invention of the microprocessor, rather than Ferrell's
SIMPLE PROPAGANDA DISTRIBUTION.  If I want propaganda, I'll subscribe to
AR-News-Request@Think.Com, or AR-Talk-Request@Think.Com.

There's a place for everything, and the net isn't the place for someone to
spit stuff to, just to get it out there and not come back and defend it.  My
post to Ferrell, the FIRST day he massive-posted, was to quit it until he
got access to the net.  Period.  I didn't, and won't, say that he should
never post such stuff.  What I'm having a bit of trouble understanding is why
anyone in thier right mind would set up a mail-based posting system to let
blind posters do such stuff.

-- 
Todd++;
refrig@dixie.com

"Others may hate you ... but they cannot beat you ... unless you hate them.
 Then you destroy yourself."     ----  Richard M. Nixon
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Question and Explanation.
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:49:50 GMT
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC

In article <1992Aug18.214921.42427@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>I pose a question for all those who advocate the right to kill animals
>(hunters):
>						 
>Do you believe it is ethical to kill an animal primarily for its fur?
>

Personally, I don't think it is ethical. But then I don't wear fur either. 
This is just my opinion. If any hunter I know wanted to trap minks or 
whatever, it would be ok by me, but I definitely would not try to force
my opinions on him. Not trying to sidestep the issue, but isn't this
what the whole AR movement comes down too? 

>Please don't be afraid of this question.  Although, if I was pro-hunting, and
>argued as such, I would be.
>

Why should I be afraid to state my opinion?


>---
>
>I'd also like to take this opportunity to explain something about myself.  
>When I post a "ranting" and "raving" post in this forum, I do so, not primarily 
>because I'm sitting there ranting and raving, but because I want my posts to 
>stand out and catch attention.  It would appear I have succeeded.
>
>
>For example, please notice the last sentence written in the first part of this 
>post, and how it is designed to elicit responses.
>
>My posts are not always literal ... sometimes you have to read between the
>lines.  So, please, don't take me so literally when it is not my intention to
>be literal.  I've read many responses published here that offer critiques of
>what my post says literally, and then proceed to offer a critique of me,
>personally.  This is incorrect thinking.
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>David Caruso II                       "Great minds are the most misunderstood."
>dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu						-- DAC2

Let me see if I have this straight....When your Great Mind (tm) posts 
"rantings" and "ravings", we are not to take you literally because
this is incorrect thinking, but to read between the lines since you
are so misunderstood??
  
So this is how you like to get attention?

Keith
 

-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |   GO BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Olympics and Animal rights
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:43:16 GMT
Reply-To: xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In modern olympic games, equestrian is also very popular, but the human
got medal and money, what did horse get?
--Zhigang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Question and Explanation.
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:49:21 CDT
Organization: <><><><><><><><><><><>

I pose a question for all those who advocate the right to kill animals
(hunters):
						 
Do you believe it is ethical to kill an animal primarily for its fur?

Please don't be afraid of this question.  Although, if I was pro-hunting, and
argued as such, I would be.

---

I'd also like to take this opportunity to explain something about myself.  
When I post a "ranting" and "raving" post in this forum, I do so, not primarily 
because I'm sitting there ranting and raving, but because I want my posts to 
stand out and catch attention.  It would appear I have succeeded.

Naturally, in my posting, "Rover stares down my barrel," where I stated I had
the right to shoot someone's pet, I did so facetiously and to emphasize my 
point ... not because I believe I actually have such a right.  I definitely do 
not.  (Hello, Kenneth.)

For example, please notice the last sentence written in the first part of this 
post, and how it is designed to elicit responses.

My posts are not always literal ... sometimes you have to read between the
lines.  So, please, don't take me so literally when it is not my intention to
be literal.  I've read many responses published here that offer critiques of
what my post says literally, and then proceed to offer a critique of me,
personally.  This is incorrect thinking.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Caruso II                       "Great minds are the most misunderstood."
dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu						-- DAC2
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: They're coming for Ronald.
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:27:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.203526.2304@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

   In article <_h-y3_+@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
   >
   >         [drivel deleted]
   >
   >                      - Ronald McDonald, clown
   >
   >It seems to me I've seen scary words like these somewhere before....
   >
   >John

   Here's one for you John.  From Realities 1989 By Earthsave:

   Original actor to play Ronald McDonald:  Jeff Juliano
   Diet now followed by Jeff Juliano:  Vegetarian

   Not so scary...... The original clown has become a vegetarian and note that
   he is no longer a clown.!?

For some reason, I thought I read that the original Ronald was Wilbur
Scott, on a local station somewhere...

-Joe.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals