HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:59:21 GMT

In <1993Jan6.234445.13795@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>In article <C0G62G.9I8@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca 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 weird is when I decide that your pain is acceptable
>for my benefit.

I'm about to mug you. You deck me with a right hook. My pain, your
gain. Weird? I dunno. Justified? Certainly.

Werner
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Date: 8 Jan 93 03:49:36 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

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

>>	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?
>>
>Since in Canada one can only marry one person at a time, and I would rather
>not go through a divorce, I was quite picky about who I married.
>This is way off topic by now, though, isn't it?

	Not if one understands that others feel differently on many issues,
and that a bit of respect for their views, if not understanding and
acceptance, go a long ways towards keeping civility among people.

	Or we could kill them all.  Personally, I've found that arguments
on such moral topics have a way of only being resolved by an agreement to
disagree.  I merely used you as a springboard for this idea.

< 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: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: A real head-scratcher (was Re: News Blurbs 8)
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:09:43 GMT

In article <C09MBI.A06@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
[snip]
>Here's a real head-scratcher:
>
>Does it take an animal crash-and-burn test to figure out that the 
>gas tank in a pickup truck belongs on the inside of the frame?

Are you implying that live animals were used in "animal crash-and-burn"
tests?  Here, I'll make it easy for you:

Check One: [ ] Yes.  I am implying that live animals were used in
               "animal crash-and-burn" tests.
           [ ] No.  I am not implying that live animals were used in
               "animal crash-and-burn" tests.
           [ ] Neither.  I choose to evade this question.

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      | "Americans have a right and advantage of being  |
| NRA               ILA | armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com | whose governments are afraid to trust the       |
|                       | people with arms."      - James Madison,        |
|                       | The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.        |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10979 alt.peeves:18960
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Date: 11 Jan 1993 23:03:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan9.021436.28926@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>Incidentally, did anyone else read that article in the WSJ recently
>about the rangers (game wardens?) in Louisiana (sp?) using a "robot
>deer" to catch poachers?

>The statistic that stuck in my mind was this: they set up the deer
>by a stretch of road, and 18% of the drivers that went by took a
>shot at the deer from their vehicles (which is a massive no-no).

>Now, I don't necessarily believe everything I read in the papers,
>and I accept that none of "our" hunters are of this type, but it
>certainly seems that there are places out there where there an
>awful lot of hunters of the worst sort, who are argubaly giving
>the rest of you a bad name.

You could be right Paul.  I'm sure there are many who live in the "woods"
or rural parts of the country where sighting deer is more common that do
indeed take shots at deer and drag them home.  I would sure be alot easier
for them than for me since I drive 4-5 hours to get where I hunt.  I'd have
to drive at least an hour from my home just to get to a place where a gun
shot wouldn't be heard.  I'll bet that many of those who took illegal shots
at deer aren't even what you would call "sport" hunters but, rather view
hunting purely as a way of putting meat on the table cheaply.  They prob-
ably don't look forward to the upcoming deer season months in advance the
way my friends and I do.  They probably don't even view their poaching as
a wrongful deed.  Too bad.

>Paul

Mike Linan


Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10848 alt.peeves:18866
From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 8 Jan 1993 22:30:00 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan7.233537.19065@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>Well Greg, it's not that I have a burning desire to discuss "Animal Rights"
>(Bwahaha), I'm posting here to point out how utterly absurd such an idea
>really is.  Animals are animals, Greg, and the fact is that they are under-
>neath us in the food chain (usually).  Their importance can't possibly
>compare with ours, so I have to wonder:  why exactly are you engaging in
>this mental masturbation???

Let me explain it this way - you have people who volunteer at places like
the California Marine Mammal Center who do so because they believe that
man has given pinnepeds the short end of the stick.  Many of these people
*believe* that every creature on this planet has an equal right to life
and the threat of being consumed.  What is their complaint?: that humanity
hasn't respected the fact that we should coexist with animals in nature
rather than dump our shit in their proverbial living rooms, thus interfering
with their lives.  In effect, they ARE comparing their importance with ours -
and whether you or I think that such a comparison can be made makes no
difference, as these people are the subject here and not us.  Now on the
one hand you have a group of people who believe that human interference in
the lives of these pinnepeds is wrong and does not give due respect to
them as somewhat equal co-residents within the ecosystem, but on the other
hand they also see fit to impose their whims and ideas on them (ie. another
form of human interference) as if they were house pets.  Do you
see the obvious inconsistency here?  It is a form of hypocrisy.

You can tell me animals are animals and ignore simple biological facts that
humans are also animals who have developed an intelligence to experience
a self-proclamation to superiority and a touch of megalomania, as that is
simply your opinion.  We can't argue opinions, we can only argue facts.
If you can prove that humans are superior to animals on some universal and not
an ethnocentric (or make that 'species-centric') reference level, then I
will accept your word as fact.  Until then it is purely conjecture and
has no more basis in truth than does the Serbian who claims he is ethnically
superior to the Bosnian Muslim.

Please - your arrogant attitude reflects a lack of maturity and an
inability to discuss issues thoughtfully without resorting to childish
self-amusement.

greg
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11000 alt.peeves:18988
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:12:17 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


I think the main problem with the animal rights movement is that the people
in it, those "vegetarians" and "vegans" have blood on their hands, and thus 
have no moral authority to speak to this issue at all! 

I am a committed Fruitarian; I only eat things that can be taken 
without killing the plant. You senseless and vicious slaughterers of 
carrots, onions, and rutabagas have the juice of innocent plants 
on your hands!!
  
How you can face yourself when you contribute DAILY to the death 
of innocent celluloid-americans is beyond me!

Sugar Beets Have Rights, Too!

More Righteous Than You,

JZ
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Be Prepared
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:36:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T



Happy New Year.

Having read with interest the discussion of the Colorado anti-hunting
movement, I would like to offer ADVICE to the hunters and the people
who believe that hunting is acceptable in the scheme of wildlife
management.

Be Prepared

Be prepared for the actions of anti-hunter groups who would like to
abridge your rights and priveledges.  Recognize that they will employ
tactics like filing right at the deadline for anti-hunting ballot
initiatives.

Be prepared with counter-measures for the things they would like to
do to you.  Have your "disaster plan" ready.  Organize NOW.  Seek
volunteers or paid assistance from the legal community.  Collect funds
for a legal defense fund.  Be ready with public relations material
to counter theirs.

Be prepared to defend yourself in public.  Have your facts and opinions
ready.  Carry cards in your wallet with the information on how other
supporters can join your cause.  Carry a fact card with references
which can debunk the AR myths used against hunting, so that you can
back up your statements and disprove theirs when you encounter them.

Be prepared for their possible responses.  Mentally rehearse, or
practice with someone else so that you can do further damage to your
opponents credibility instead of being caught off guard by a response
designed to put you in a bad light.  (Rehearsal can make the difference
between being stunned by a personal attack and turning it into a
'victory' by pointing out that the attacker is diverting attention
away from the truth of your rebuttal.)

Be prepared to do the research to make your case, and to "unmake" the
case of your opponents.

Be prepared to seek help for the cause from wherever you can find it.

Be prepared to open your checkbook.

Be prepared to see it through to the finish.

Mary Otto
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A real head-scratcher (was Re: News Blurbs 8)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 15:54:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <C0Cyt5.6rt@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1iaeaiINNic2@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>> In article <C09MBI.A06@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>Does it take an animal crash-and-burn test to figure out that the 
>>>gas tank in a pickup truck belongs on the inside of the frame?
 
>> I find it very hard to believe that GM uses animals in their truck 
>> gas tank safety testing.  In fact when the issue was addressed not too
>> long ago on network news, copies of the film taken during at least a 
>> few tests were shown and I did not see any people, dummies or animals
>> in the trucks.  What purpose would it serve to place an animal in such
>> a situation?  Either the tank ruptures or it doesn't.  If it does, it
>> doesn't take a genius to realize that occupants are going to die or at
>> least receive severe burns.  

>> So, are you claiming that GM actually *did* strap animals in their trucks
>> while testing their gas tanks?

>No.

>I'm claiming that the safety record of GM cars and trucks casts doubt 
>on their fundamental premise that animal testing is indispensable to 
>product safety.

This may very well be true.  I have no idea as I have no expertise in
this field and cannot say but, given the technology of today I would 
probably agree that animals aren't needed in crash tests.  Perhaps it's
more a matter of economics.  I would imagine that animals for testing 
don't cost as much as highly technical alternatives.

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


Mike Linan























Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:44:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.013132.23825@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>
>[...]
Extensive argument with Russell Lawrence deleted:

>
>>>         Monkeys and cats are up for grabs...unless, of course, you're
>>>         limiting your discussion to the Western society in which we live.
>>
>>If a group of entrepreneurs publicized its intention to establish a new
>>venture in your community that would raise monkeys and cats for human
>>consumption, what would your reaction be?
>
>   I, personally, wouldn't object to their enterprise any more than I object
>   to the idea of slaughterhouses for cattle; on the other hand, I wouldn't
>   patronize their shop, either.  I don't eat cats and monkeys any more than
>   I eat beetles and slugs, but that's merely a cultural bias.  If I had
>   been born into another society, I might feel differently.
>
>
>-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)


Rich is exactly right.  For the record, monkey is acceptable if adequately
cooked, cat tends to be too sinewy.  And to quote Mr. Young: "no, I'm not
advocating this as a behavior."



:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre,rec.humor,rec.pets.birds,alt.sex
From: tjg01@thdhub.HomeDepot.COM (Terry J. Gardner)
Subject: Re: Turkey sex
	<1993Jan9.011944.6211@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Home Depot USA, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:45:23 GMT

   Newsgroups:

   In article <GLEASON.93Jan8165158@scf16.scf.loral.com> gleason@scf16.scf.loral.c


   so stop, this is alt.sex, not alt.turkey.sex



No, it's not, it is:
    talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre,rec.humor,rec.pets.birds,alt.sex


--
terry@HomeDepot.COM (404) 433-8211x5124 or (404) 941-8304
	Home Depot, USA Corporate Office, Atlanta, GA
		"Overtime Reader for Air"
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: UPC on Turkeys
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:03:33 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1993Jan8.051615.16321@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (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.

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!

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Cat Court Case - personal to JH
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:44:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.154647.599@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Robe
rts) writes:

>Tried to send you mail but it bounced back. What e-mail address do you
>recommend that people use to reach you from "outside"? Maybe I can try
>something other than what my news program calculates your address to be.
>
>Paul

The only address I know that I have is:  jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu



I have received verdicts to date from:


Greg Popken
Robert E. Schmeig
Bob Unglenieks
M. Hulsey
Tim Rigg
Bob Munroe
Rich Young
Mike Linan
Jeff Achenbach
Dan Sorensen




:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:42:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.215136.11377@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
(Paul Roberts) wrote:
> 
> In article <mhulsey-060193102102@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> >
> >                     Pacheco obtained employment in Taub's
> >laboratory under false pretenses.  In other words, he lied.  
> 
> Naughty naughty Alex. This was an undercover investigation, Martin.
> Yes, that involves not telling the person you are investigating
> what your motives are. What is so bad about that? How do you feel
> about the police doing undercover investigations to counter crime?
> Do you condemn them for "lying" too? Or are you just looking around
> for things to accuse Pacheco of?

Bogus analogy.  Pacheco was not an agent of law enforcement acting with
probable cause that a crime was being or to be committed.

> >Furthermore, the fact that escapes you and others is that Taub was
> >completely exhonorated of all cruelty charges in this matter. 
> 
> So you keep saying, but it isn't true. He got off on a technicality.

If you read the actual Appeals Court opinion, rather than PETA's account of
events, you will see why it is misleading to say that the Appeals Court's
decision was based on a technicality.  The opinion noted the potential
value of Taub's research for rehabilitating movement in human stroke
victims.

The opinion also detailed the chronological development of the Maryland
anti-cruelty statute.  Contrary to Pacheco's assertion, there was no change
in section 59 during his tenure in Taub's lab that would make animal
researchers subject to this law.  The version of section 59 in effect at
that time was instituted in 1975.

The 1975 version of section 59 reads as follows:

"... It is the intention of the General Assembly that all animals shall be
protected from intentional cruelty, but that no person shall be liable for
criminal prosecution for normal human activities to which the infliction of
pain to an animal is purely incidental and unavoidable."

Irrespective of how or why Taub "got off," he should never have been
convicted in the first place.  Taub's *sole* conviction was based on a
presumed case of osteomyelitis in Nero that did not exist.  Nero's arm was
needlessly amputated because Taub's advice was not followed.  The
prosecuting attorney, Roger Galvin withheld a pathology report, concerning
the amputated arm, that clearly indicates that there was no evidence of
osteomyelitis.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:29:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.052754.7046@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
(Paul Roberts) wrote:
> 
> [...]
> Evidence for that "many more"? What I have seen of public opinion surveys
> on this subject (e.g. Gallup Youth Survey, 1992) suggests that my side
> has a lot of support, and it is increasing.

Just how much is "a lot?"  If you have the reference in hand, why don't you
give us a figure?

Your claim seems reminiscent of others I have heard before:

For example, the "thousands" of medical doctors who support PCRM sound
impressive until we realize that there are some 500,000 doctors in America.
 Thus, for every doctor that supports PCRM, there are hundreds who do not.

Likewise, vegetarians point proudly to the some 1,000 dieticians in the
ADA's "vegetarian practice group."  This also seems impressive until one
realizes that the total membership in ADA is over 64,000.  Thus, for every
dietician who enthusiastically recommends vegetarianism, there are over 60
who do not.

A "youth survey" would not indicate trends in the population as a whole. 
Young people are being targeted by organizations such as PETA, so I would
expect increasing support there.

>Can you document that
> "many more", or are you just claiming a silent and invisible army of
> supporters?

I haven't seen any evidence that supporters of animal "rights" are a
majority.  Do you have any?  I really don't have any polls, etc. that give
hard numbers.  My claim was based on a recollection of a previous exchange:

I haven't consulted my archives for the tidbit, but when I previously
stated that PETA, etc. were "powerful interest groups," another participant
corrected me, and said that animal "rights" activists comprise less than
.01 percent of the population, or some other miniscule figure.  I don't
recall if he gave a reference, but I will see if I can locate the exchange.

> >In my home town, _Bambiphilus obnoxious_ is, thankfully, near extinction. 
> 
> Your case would be more convincing if you didn't so often feel the need
> to stoop to sophomoric ridicule.

Engaging you and your comrades would be much more enjoyable if you were not
humor-impaired.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals