HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:20:45 GMT

In article <C16EwE.50p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan20.145050.10550@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>> Is it reasonable for you to pretend that all non-livestock agriculture 
>>> constitutes a "single" use?
>>
>>OK, call it a "single category of use" if that's what tilts your
>>kilt.  
>
>Have you eaten any cotton lately, Rich?  Or chowed down on some
>tasty rose buds?   Do you wear potato skins on your back?  Or
>send grains to your loved ones on holidays?   
>
>>Quibbling over the semantics won't change the fact that
>>non-livestock agricultural uses constitute more than 50% of the
>>total water use in the state of California.
>

I've been sort of following this thread, and I've got a question for those
involved, particularly Russell. What's your point? This argument has strayed
so far from the original, which was something to do, I think, with the 
rights of cattle, or the ethics of hunting, that it's no longer apparent what
the original topic of debate was.

Jeff Achenbach

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:18:27 GMT

From article <lltllvINN48i@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> Have you just finished a cover-to-cover reading of the Masturbation
> Primer?  Sheesh.  

Nah.  I have a girlfriend.

Be that as it may, I was wondering why you didn't pick a more 
romantic title for that how-to book of yours, such as "Making 
Love with your Hand", perhaps.  Or a friendlier label, 
like "Alan Windbag's Favorite Grips".  

> I didn't think you'd have time, what, with your
> furrowed brow buried in the protein complementarity literature.

You're right.  I didn't have time, but I do plan to read some of
your articles in the future.   In particular, I'm looking forward to
your publication of "Why I'm Still a Virgin" and "How to Avoid Social 
Entanglements".   Let me know when they're scheduled to appear. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Russell's lie
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:29:03 GMT

In article <C186AD.Ko9@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-210193094020@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> > In article <C16K3H.82I@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> > Yes.  After repeated notification, you continue to falsely imply that the
> > entire article was "retracted."  In fact, only a few points were "corrected
> > and clarified."  You are being intentionally deceptive.
> 
> No, I'm not.  If I were to make ten statements about Martin
> Hulsey and retract nine of them, my retraction is still a retraction...
> irregardless of the fact that I didn't retract every single statement.

No, in that case, it would be a partial retraction.  Contrary to your
implication, the Correction and Clarification involved a small fraction of
the claims made in the McCabe article.
 
> >> > Please recheck the reference before persisting in this falsehood.
> >> 
> >> Don't you think it's dishonest for an organization to circulate
> >> the original article without circulating the retraction, Martin?
> > 
> > Yes.  It would be dishonest to circulate the article without also
> > circulating the correction and clarification, provided that one knew of its
> > existence.  It is possible that the agency is unaware of the correction and
> > clarification.
> 
> What can we conclude about the intellectual resources of an organization
> like F.A.C.T.S. if they're unaware of the McCabe retraction?  Worthwhile
> source of solid data, are they?

Never heard of them.
 
> > I think that it is equally dishonest to persist, as you have, in calling
> > the "correction and clarification" a retraction.
> 
> So you say.

Yep, and so you cannot deny.

--
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: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:26:23 GMT

From article <1993Jan24.070801.4442@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>In article <C1Buo8.Jnz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> Let's not confuse truths and opinions.  It's perfectly reasonable
>> to determine opinions by conducting opinion polls.  To determine
>> whether the opinions are truthful, however, we'd have to examine
>> the underlying facts and reasons.
>
>But we're not looking for Truth, we're looking for ethical accep-
>tability...a point you seem to want to avoid.  All that's necessary
>for this is the opinion poll.

Actually, we're trying to evaluate actions in terms of their 
"goodness" or "badness", and we're trying to determine whether or 
not our evaluations ought to be based on facts and reasons or 
mere beliefs (accepted at face value).  

>> The difference between you and I, Rich, is that you accept ethical
>> ideas at face-value whereas I insist on probing them and testing
>> them to determine their degree of soundness.
>
>No, Russell, the difference between us lies in the fact that I
>understand that there is often a difference between what I feel 
>and what is acceptable to the society in which I live. 

I understand that there are always some differences between the
feelings and thoughts of any feeling/thinking entity and 
similar feelings and thoughts of other entities around him.
This doesn't prevent me from trying to understand whether or not
my ideas are accurate representations of the world around me.
You seem to think that your ideas are truthful, simply because 
they're shared by other individuals.  That's not very scientific,
is it, Rich? 

>Your
>persistent efforts are, perhaps, commendable to some, but the
>fact remains that, in our society, killing animals for food is
>ethically acceptable, however emotionally disturbing you might
>find the practice.

It doesn't emotionally disturb me in the least.  I do, however,
think that it reflects a practice that will someday be regarded
as incredibly careless and stupid.

>It is you who apparently cannot separate logic from emotion.

I'm a grown man, Rich.  And I've been around the block, so to
speak, more times than I care to think about.  Please don't make 
assumptions about my emotions.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunting is Ethical
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:01:26 GMT

From article <1993Jan21.221243.18639@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
> Human beings respect the interests of others only when forced.
> 
> So, what does that mean?  It means murder being illegal only matters
> if you can't get away with it.  It means that if the neighbors are
> being terrorized by gangs, but are unwilling to take a stand and
> press charges, then the gang can do as they please.
>
> [Before you charge in with your altruistic testimony, I want you
> to know that even that is forced by religious and philosophical
> conventions of society.  The "forcing" may seem subtle, but it
> is effective in causing a person to make a serious evaluation of the
> consequences -- "If I get caught with 11 items in the express lane,
> the clerk might embarass me in front of the other people in line."]

Since you probably haven't had a chance to dig too deeply into 
Will's psyche, would it be fair for us to assume that you're 
describing your own character here?  

> It relates directly to the consensus that Rich Young talked about.
> If the neighbors have a concensus that it is too dangerous to stand
> up to the gang, then wrong or not, the gang will not be stopped.

"Wrong or not [wrong]"?  What exactly is the negative of "wrong"?  
Right perhaps?  If so, then it seems to me that you're tacitly 
acknowledging an important distinction between "right" and 
"wrong" and the exercise of power.  Are you implying that an 
action can be wrong, irregardless of the fact that the 
perpetrators are more powerful than the victims?   If so, this
certainly casts some doubt on the underlying notion that "might
makes right".

> No non-human species has been able to force humans into doing what
> they want.  The animal rights fanatics (ARFs) are trying to be
> human advocates for the animals to change the societal concensus
> that humans can do as they please with animals.  Various degrees of
> animal welfare and protection laws are the product of that change
> in concensus.  But the reality is that humans are the dominant
> predatory species on the planet, and have the power to wipe out
> any other species as well as ourselves.  That means we get to
> make the rules.
> 
> And that's what ethics are:  rules.  Rules made by the dominant
> to keep the others in line.  Rules based on consensus of the dominant
> to be used on the dominated.  And as justification when the dominant
> turn on each other in the pecking order.

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
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Cattle Issue
Date: 26 Jan 1993 04:42:09 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


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.

alex the omnivore
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:23:48 GMT

In <1993Jan20.183148.213@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>I can enjoy my life, be healthy & well-satisfied without having to kill 
>beings that demonstratably experience pain. 

Me too. I buy my steak at Safeway.

But both grain and livestock agriculture involve killing animals.

Werner
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Another CBS health report.
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:28:55 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu


Ok kiddies, yesterday we learned that pear shaped people are much less at
risk of fat/cholesterol related problems than apple shaped people.

Today it seems as if there is a new drug, carsetizol (i didnt even close to
spell it right) that seems to really reverse heart disease.  Researchers
showed a man's heart pumping at less than half of capacity before treatment
and at full capacity after.  Like cold fusion this will have to be tested
by other independant scientist before we can know for sure.  If however it
really works then there goes one of the reasons not to eat animals.

alex the omnivore



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:31:38 GMT


Rich Young writes:
ry> And I thought we were getting somewhere...I should have known
ry> better.  Your examples of "truth" and "pleasure" are patently
ry> false as stated: neither is necessarily a determining factor
ry> in whether an action is "ethically correct" in a society.  They
ry> may be determining factors for YOU, but you're not a "society."

Russell Lawrence writes: 
rl> Almost everyone I know prefers truth to falsity and pleasure to
rl> pain.   Do you know many individuals who persistently prefer pain
rl> to pleasure and lies to truths?
rl> 
rl> Question: Would you say that it's ethically good for you, yourself,
rl>           to present lies in this forum if/when it suits your 
rl>           convenience? 

Rich Young writes:
ry> Would you say that it's ethically justifiable for you to make
ry> unsubstantiated implications like that?

Russell Lawrence writes: 
rl> If the truth doesn't matter to you, why should you care?

From article <1993Jan28.133939.712@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> Would you say that it's ethically justifiable for you to make
ry> unsubstantiated assumptions like THAT?

I made no assumptions.  I asked you a question that was 
explicitly designed to test your respect for the truth, and 
hence, whether or not you agree with me that truth is one of the 
foundations of ethical decision-making.  Please answer my 
question.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: La Cat Shooting Experiments
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:25:56 GMT

From article <1k3n5i$lcs@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
> In article <C1FG81.EyF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>As I pointed out previously, many members and employees of the 
>>American Dental Association were flabbergasted when Sixty Minutes 
>>did a report on the alleged relationship between multiple 
>>sclerosis and amalgam fillings two years ago.  On the surface, 
>>the report aired "some essential but damaging facts", as you 
>>would say, that were allegedly being hidden from the american 
>>public by the dental profession.  In truth, however, the 
>>the report was a one-sided and distorted commentary that grossly 
>>misinformed the american public.  
> 
> To coin one of your favorite phrases, So you say.  

I was citing a statement from American Dental Association.

Here's an excerpt of a letter from Eugene Truno, who was president of the
American Dental Association when the Sixty Minutes show on "toxic
amalgam" aired on 12/16/90:

====================================================================
Dear Member Dentist:

   Many of you viewed the December 16 report on dental amalgam produced
by CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" news program.  Others may have learned about
the broadcast from colleagues or patients.
...
   Since the broadcast aired last month, your Association has sent a 
detailed letter of protest to the "60 Minutes" crew and CBS network
executives, pinpointing certain glaring errors of fact included in
their report....
====================================================================

> Is there any reason you can think of why anyone should believe what you
> are saying is truth considering what you "track record" has been up to
> this point?  I mean you certainly have displayed your deceitful tactics,
> and you obviously didn't give us the whole story on the cat shooting
> research.  On your behalf however, you may have been horn-swaggled by
> your good buddies at PETA as well. 

The truth usually comes out in the end, Mike.

>>I'm hoping the Times-Picayune will get involved at this point,
>>and pressure some of the "anonymous" folks at LSUMC to make
>>public statements.
> 
>  
> If such people do in fact exist.  It wouldn't surprise me if they did not.

We'll see. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Ingrid's lies.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:07:54 GMT

swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:

>	"My ideal is 'a return to the garden of Eden where even the
>	 animals are vegetarian.'"
>				-Andrea Reed, Louisville Fund for Animals
>				 (_Lexington_Herald_, 1990)

>What do you think?

	I think she forgot all about the serpent in the Garden, and just
what a snake eats.

< 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.                   >
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: this has been bothering me for awhile...
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:35:52
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: 's message of Wednesday, 20 Jan 1993 17:31:33 EST

<RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
|let's say that clinton got sworn in as president, and then died - before
|gore got sworn in as vice-president.  the vice-president assumes the
|office of president when the prez dies.  so quayle becomes president?
|and then gore gets sworn in as vp? quayle-gore '96?

The VP gets sworn in before the Prez (if we can use yesterday as a
guide), so you can rest easy.


--
Peace.
             "California bugs the hell out of me.  An entire state, the largest
              state in the Union, consisting of people who are oblivious to the
              fact that they live in hell."
                                    -Kyle Baker, Why I Hate Saturn
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
Date: Wednesday, 20 Jan 1993 17:31:33 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: this has been bothering me for awhile...

let's say that clinton got sworn in as president, and then died - before
gore got sworn in as vice-president.  the vice-president assumes the
office of president when the prez dies.  so quayle becomes president?
and then gore gets sworn in as vp? quayle-gore '96?

bob vesterman.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.abortion
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal to End Poverty
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Reply-To: dbrown@ai.uga.edu
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:50:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.214526.2365@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>
>You're joking right? "Get sterilized or starve to death" is a choice?
>Threatening people with death is a CHOICE? Well, geez, Doogie, nice to
>know my grandfather's family in Poland had such a _range_ of choices:
>"Get to work or we'll beat you to death!" Oh, and my personal favorite:
>"Get into those showers or we'll shoot you," which at least gave
>them the freedom to choose their own death.

Surely you can tell the difference between killing someone and not providing
him with sustenance.  If you can't, you must feel really guilty about all
those people in Somalia you helped to murder.

Followups directed to talk.politics.theory.

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu, dbrown@ai.uga.edu)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5768 talk.politics.misc:69588
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Date: 25 Jan 1993 00:30:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker) says:

>In article <1993Jan24.032154.26002@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>The risk
>>of this default is already calculated ex ante in the interest rate for
>>the treasury bills, and the low interest rates indicate that investors
>>as a whole don't believe there's a risk.
>
>Which investors would those be?  You don't mean the Fed, do you?
>After all, it only printed $125 billion to pay for the government
>paper it bought last year.  It's a miracle that short term rates
>aren't zero.
>
>Norbert
>nfs@cs.princeton.edu

       Hey, Norbert, don't be a spoilsport.  *I* have seen the 
       light...


    
       Oh, Piece train sounding louder
          Everyone should jump aboard the piece train!
       Oh, Piece train, save this country
          Get on the Piece Train!

   { Come on, everybody.  <CLAP>  <CLAP> }

       
       Now I've been thinking about the economy
           Watching freedom as ends
       Why must we keep on working
           Why can we live on debt?!

    { Come on, HOP ON! }

       Oh, Piece Train sounding LOUDER!
           Everyone should jump aboard the PIECE TRAIN!
       
     oohhh, aaa, ooowheee, oooowhaaaa

       GET ON THE PIECE TRAINNNNAAAAIIIINNNNN!

>
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5752 talk.politics.misc:69517
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal to End Poverty
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.
Keywords: Poverty,Welfare,Abortion,Birth-Control A Modest Proposal
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 23:30:54 GMT

In article <C17tL5.54@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

[Entire article deleted. My stomache couldn't take it]

It was evident from your first post hre in talk.abortion that you were
a bigot. With this further post, you disclose yourself as not merely a
bigot, but a vile, repulsive, disgusting, arrogant piece of
trash. Your suggestion that women be forced into abortion and
sterilization places you on a par with Charles Manson and Jeff Dalhmer
for disgusting asshole of the century.

Dodie, I hope that this latest piece of bilge suffices to demonstrate
that this scum is *not* pro-choice, and that you will retract your
statements that he is. He's not pro-life, he's not pro-choice. He is
scum. I'd like to think it may be the only thing you and I may ever
agree on.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal to End Poverty
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:20:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.004906.298@Princeton.EDU> 
datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>> I hope that this latest piece of bilge suffices to demonstrate
>> that this scum is *not* pro-choice, and that you will retract your
>> statements that he is.

> Sh-yeah... don't you know by now that when [Holtsinger] sinks his 
> little mental claws into a distortion, he's loath to let go of it even
> when proven wrong?

Kolker supports the legal availability of abortion, and contrary
to what you and Mark Cochran have stated, he does not support
forced abortion or forced sterilization:  

   "Frankly I am not in favor of involuntary anything (including
    sterilization), niether am I in favor of being taxed to support these
    discultured primitives.  Let'em starve, a *give* away sterilizations 
    for free."
                    rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
                    <C0ytpq.3CG@world.std.com>


That makes him pro-choice.  I hope I won't have to repeat
myself again.


>Tep


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.