HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Speciesism and vegetarianism
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:47:23 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <80HZ02qK0fML01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.230305.7120@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) 
>writes:
>
> 
>I have a couple of questions about this:
>
>1. How do deep ecologists define "vital", as in vital needs? 

Minimum necessities to sustain life: food, shelter, etc.  Emphasis on
minimum.

>2. Do deep ecologists accept all actions that are part of nature (murder, 
>rape, etc.)? 

Good question.  I have been looking into deep ecology recently, but I am
not an expert on it.  If the murder you refer to is for sustenance, then
I imagine they would accept it.  Do "wild" animals kill for other reasons
than food and self-defense?  If I choose to travel in the wilderness and
am devoured by a grizzly (or whatever), I do not believe that animal
should be punished.

In human society, rape is a power play, a violent crime that does not
usually relate to the desire to reproduce.  "Mating habits" of untamed
animals (rape, in some cases), may or may not be considered analogous
to human rape.  Do other animals realize that offspring results from
mating?  The typical answer would be no, but I am not prepared to
assume this in all cases.  This reminds me of one aspect of the book,
Clan of the Cave Bear, that I found very hard to believe, that the
people did not realize that intercourse leads to pregnancy.

Your general point of whether the choosing of a set of values not present
in nature is "speciesist" is an interesting question and I will look into
it.  When does the insistance on a unique culture cross the line to
anthropocentrism.  Maybe the answer is when it deals with relations with other
species.
>
>Ted Robinson
>tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
>These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:56:23 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Apr2.105411.2799@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.102053.4694@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Mar29.182509.7481@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>> In article <1992Mar27.143004.4585@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>In article <1992Mar25.145358.25495@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>>>> In article <1992Mar23.145508.4489@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>>>Then I guess if you saw a cat being run over by a series of cars you'd 
>>>>>>jump in on the off chance that both of you would come out wounded, but 
>>>>>>neither of you would be killed?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Looks like another winner for the Mike Linan idiot of the week award.
>>>>
>>>>Is that so?  Well, given what I've seen of your postings and given what 
>>>>I've seen of Mike Linan's postings, if it is all the same to you I'd rather 
>>>>be associated with him. :-)
>>> 
>>> That figures, your above quote about a cat being run over by a series of
>>> cars shows your level of intelligence off quite nicely.
>>
>>Is that so? :-)  I've always felt that people who hurl personal insults do 
>>so because they have exhausted their supply of non-abusive and more 
>>convincing arguments.  You seem to have a very limited supply.
>>
> 
> So you stand by your comment about a cat being run over by a series of
> cars as a convincing argument??? You might as well have just been abusive.

Any argument is more convincing than abusive behavior.  Its obvious you 
missed the point of that exercise.

> 
> 
> -- 
> Michael Traub
> BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:08:43 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Apr7.113123.9177@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.121726.4816@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Mar31.184455.19990@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>> In article <1992Mar30.115710.4637@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>In article <1992Mar27.082727.5985@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>>>> That  doesn't  sound  particularly nice to me. This implies that hunters do
>>>>> far  more  damage  than  just  kill  a  few  deer, they actually change the
>>>>> living habits of the animal.
>>>>
>>>>Even without an indepth knowledge of hunting, it shouldn't be too hard to 
>>>>see why this is so.  Imagine that the city you live in was 'normal' for 11 
>>>>months of the year, and in the twelfth month it was invaded by large 
>>>>creature who made loud noises and disappered a few of your friends (since 
>>>>you seem to enjoy anthropmorphising animals you should enjoy this analogy). 
>>>> Would not your living habits change?
>>>>How, exactly, is this 'damaging' in any sense of the word?
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that was bleeding obvious. Your own analogy
>>> makes it ever so clear.
>>
>>Hardly.  All my analogy does is show that their habits are temporarily 
>>disrupted.
>>
> 
> You  call  a  few  of  your friends disapearing due to an invasion of large
> creatures one month in twelve a temporary disturbance???????

Yup.  It's temporary alright.  It is predictable only because *we* can 
measure time.

> 
> Are  you  so  stupid  or  callous that you wouldn't alter your lifestyle to
> try and prevent the creatures taking you or your friends in that one month?

It's not about what I would do.  History shows us that people often ignore 
a clear and present danger.  Pompey is proof of that.  As is smoking and 
other activities.

> 
> Would you wait until the month came around or would you plan ahead?

Being human I would plan ahead.  It doesn't appear that deer do plan 
ahead, from which one can deduce that they do not measure time the same way 
we do (which should be obvious).   Nonetheless they recognize the invasion 
when it happens.

> 
> Temporary  disruption,  what  crap.  Maybe  you would like to withdraw your
> analogy, this anthropomorphism is not helping you much.

On the contrary.

-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll)
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.085551.4882@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <72729@netnews.upenn.edu>, barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>> In article <1992Mar31.154717.4678@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>Pop quiz:  how many deer, expressed as a percentage of total 
>>>population, need to die in a given year for the population to remain about 
>>>the same?
>> 
>> 	The question has little relevance to reality: The proportion
>> of population wich must die to maintain a constant popoulation depends
>> on many things not the least of which is what population level is
>> desired, what the growth rate is...!  Are you saying that there is one
>> and only one percentage which if removed from any deer population will
>> result in a constant population?
>
>I'm saying that on average roughly 40% of the herd has to die for the 
>population to maintain a particular level

	What particular level?  Near carrying capacity, near 1/2
carrying capacity so one gets maximum susteined yield...?

> Now, in any one year that might 
>not hold true, but it does seem to hold true overall.

	Overall?  As in various sex ratios as I posted in another
response?  CA has recently had "herds" in the state with nearly 1:9
buck to doe ratios.  Should they be harvested at the same rate as teh
nearly 1:1 of recent PA herds?  How about populations of differing
proximity to carrying capacity...?

>If you like I will 
>see if I can dig out my source for this.  It was either a report published 
>by the N.S. Dept. of Lands and Forests (now the Dept. of Nat. Resources) or 
>in one of my books.

	I would apprecieate that.  Thanks.

>John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
>robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
>DOD #0069


-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
eb3@world.std.com
From: andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: ethics and rec.hunting
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:58:43 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Science, Uni of Sydney, Australia


In article <...>, rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
> Please see my comments today in rec.hunting.  More importantly, please
> see the flood of posts condemning the idea of killing the bird.

I checked, not only didn't you condemn the killing of a protected species
but you posted another article discussing how to kill the woodpecker.

There were 3 articles condemning the killing of a protected species but all
3 posters were birdwatchers, presumably led to rec.hunting by a posting
made in rec.birds. Unless one of these three is also a hunter, no hunter
has posted to rec.hunting condemning the killing of a protected species.

However liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (jerry) did add a telling note to rec.hunting:

> BTW, some of the fanatics on talk.politics.animals have been reading
> this list and have commented about how unethical all of us hunters
> are with regard to woodpecker shooting comments.

I'm the only non-hunter to post and these are my first postings to t.p.a.
Apparently opposing the killing of protected species makes me a fanatic!
I think this expresses the general attitude of rec.hunters well.

Andrew Taylor
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Putting People First (PPF)
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:49:21 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

In article <1992Apr10.123510.29390@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.143029.4893@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>For those interested, there is an article on an organization called Putting 
>>People First in talk.politics.guns.  It is part of a series of postings 
>>from the PROponent.
>>-- 
>>John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
>>robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
>>DOD #0069
>
>Leave your PROpoganda out of here.

No way, not for you or anyone else.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"Have you ever seen a beaver plant a tree" -- me
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:54:48 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr10.100844.4932@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.113123.9177@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>> You  call  a  few  of  your friends disapearing due to an invasion of large
>> creatures one month in twelve a temporary disturbance???????
>
>Yup.  It's temporary alright.  It is predictable only because *we* can 
>measure time.
>
Are you now saying that other animals cannot?

>> Are  you  so  stupid  or  callous that you wouldn't alter your lifestyle to
>> try and prevent the creatures taking you or your friends in that one month?
>
>It's not about what I would do.  History shows us that people often ignore 
>a clear and present danger.  Pompey is proof of that.  As is smoking and 
>other activities.
>
Who is Pompey?

>> Would you wait until the month came around or would you plan ahead?
>
>Being human I would plan ahead.

Thank you for agreeing that the disruption would not be temporary.

>It doesn't appear that deer do plan 
>ahead, from which one can deduce that they do not measure time the same way 
>we do (which should be obvious).   Nonetheless they recognize the invasion 
>when it happens.
>
What would you suggest the dear do, start a petition?

>> Temporary  disruption,  what  crap.  Maybe  you would like to withdraw your
>> analogy, this anthropomorphism is not helping you much.
>
>On the contrary.
>
On the contrary what? You still haven;t shown that your example would not
cause permanent disruption.

>-- 
>John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
>robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
>DOD #0069

The signature of a madman.



-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: ethics and rec.hunting
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:48:35
	<4648@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>
In-reply-to: andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au's message of 11 Apr 92 05:39:23 GMT

In article <4648@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor) writes:
   In article <...>, rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   > What is your point?

   Let me be clearer, you as moderator of rec.hunting post, with out comment,
   a request for information on how to illegally trap a protected, maybe even
   threatened species. You subsequently post, also with comment, a reply
   giving details of how to kill the protected species without being caught.

Please see my comments today in rec.hunting.  More importantly, please
see the flood of posts condemning the idea of killing the bird.  I was
hoping that the rec.hunter would know some nonlethal methods.  They
did, but just the owl decoy trick.

   Now I checked with a lawyer friend, *your* actions would be illegal here
   (aiding and abetting a crime) but I don't know about the US. Regardless,
   your actions make it clear your attitude to the laws regulating hunting.
   Your lack of concern as to the species involved makes it clear why
   threatened species still get shot.

In the US it is quite legal to write anything.  For example, there are
numerous books describing how to grow marijuana.  The books are quite
legal even though they describe an illegal activity.

   Having spent some time picking up dead and injured protected (and threatened)
   species after duck hunters I knew that some hunters ignored the law.
   What surprised me was that not only the moderator but also apparently none
   of the readers of rec.hunting thought the illegality worthy of comment.

You will see that numerous rec.hunting thought it was worthy of
comment.

   As to the comment by liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (jerry) that moral discussion
   is not allowed in rec.hunting. This clearly a legal/ethical matter.
   Discussion of both is allowed in rec.hunting.

I agree, such legal and ethical questions are well within the realm of
rec.hunting.  

As moderator, this is a very difficult area.  Consider the initial
post.  It had nothing to do with hunting except a discussion of
wildlife.  But it did not pertain to the morality of hunting which is
the only forbidden subject.  So I posted it.  Also, none of the
replies mentioned the morality of hunting either, so I let them pass.

I have tentatively decided to stop the thread but I am troubled by
this decision.  This action will definitely save some bandwidth as I
expect a flood of replies condemning the killing of the bird.  I also
feel that the condemning replies posted today are a sufficient
indication of the feelings of the readers (and the moderator).  

I do not know how to treat this thread.  I welcome any suggestions.

tim (and moderator of rec.hunting)
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:41:03 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <=_xt5n-@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
> In article <rcoppINN9fg@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr1.015813.12388@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>From article <r7gvqINNhsv@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
[...stuff removed...]

> It isn't obvious, and there may not even be any such effects yet.  _Yet_
> In fact, before all the hunters started saying deer were forced to be
> nocturnal, I wasn't aware of any species-wide deleterious effects of
> hunting.  In any case, the fact that it may be harmful to deer warrants
> some investigation, and changes to hunting practice if it proves to
> actually be so.

If *you* were a hunter you would have realized that deer are predominantly 
nocturnal as it is.  The become somewhat more so during hunting season.  
The change lasts usually until the mating season hits (the first good cold 
snap usually does it) when their instinct to mate overrides their fear of 
humans to some degree.  As a result of this mating instinct, they rebound 
from the end of hunting season quite quickly (no hunters in the woods).  
Indeed, one could even argue that they become more secretive on the 
weekends, and less on the weekdays (more people hunt on the weekends).  The 
long and short of it is that the impact of hunters on hunted is not likely 
to causes any deliterious effects on a species wide scale.  But then, if 
you knew more about deer (like the hunters here) you'd know that already.

> 
> As for if hunters were getting only strong healthy deer, that woulld
> be clearly bad.  If strong deer die, only weak, sickly (suffering)
> deer would live.  And it would only be a matter of time before deer 
> will cease to be deer, and be a smaller, weaker, nocturnal, infertile
> animal, different from deer.  Even from a selfish point of view, 
> you should realize that would leave you no deer to hunt.

Your arguement sounds good on the surface.  So why, after 60+ years of 
managed hunting hasn't it come about?  The answer is complex, but part of 
it lies in the fact that hunting takes place in the fall, when most of the 
animals except the really old are healthy.  They don't start to get sick 
until they begin to starve.  Killing animals off just before the prime food 
shortage (winter) helps insure that fewer get sick, starve and die.  Thus, 
the health of the entire herd is enhanced.

> 
> E.S.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:29:40 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <altar.703358542@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>Please, no need to speculate.  Collect some data, or look up some 
>in the J. of Leisure, etc.   Tell me, why should your opinion count more
>than that of 296 respondents randomly selected from a larger population
>of 16,021, and collected by trained interviewers under the direction
>of trained and published researchers?  No doubt, you are probably
>correct with respect to yourself, but I assume that you are not
>an "ex-hunter".  Why, then, do you presume to speak on their
>behalf and so readily discount their collective polled opinion?

Sorry ted, but I don't quite agree with your quick dismissal here. You
are (based on what you've said here) arguing based on the results of
a single study. This is not exactly what I'd call the 'scientific
method'. How can you dismiss another persons information when you
are yourself are not using a full deck?

jerry
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Speciesism and vegetarianism
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:16:29 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Apr8.154723.21929@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) 
writes:
 
>>1. How do deep ecologists define "vital", as in vital needs? 
> 
> Minimum necessities to sustain life: food, shelter, etc.  Emphasis on
> minimum.
 
I'm not sure what is meant by minimum. To sustain life I only need to eat 
plants. I would consider this minimal, or at least "less than" eating 
animals. Does a deep ecologist strive to only eat plants?  
 
In your earlier post you said:

> Since the killing of other animals for self defense is a part of nature,
>the use of animals for crucial medical research could be seen as not
> contradicting biocentrism.  
 
Calling such research self-defense seems to be a bit of a stretch. When 
acting in self-defense, non-human animals kill the threat itself, not an 
innocent third party. (Not to mention the accompanying torture of this third 
party.) The deep ecologist perspective seems to selectively focus on that 
aspect of non-human animal behavior that it wishes to emulate, choosing the 
level of similitude to meet his/her own desires.       

> If the murder you refer to is for sustenance, then
> I imagine they would accept it.  Do "wild" animals kill for other reasons
> than food and self-defense? 
 
Many non-human animals kill others of their own species for a variety of 
reasons. Acquisition of power (and the breeding rights that come with it) is 
a common reason. Elimination of future competition is the cause of 
infanticide in some species. I suppose this could be called self-defense, but 
the danger is scarcely imminent. Some animals kill out of clumsiness - 
elephant seals come to mind.

> "Mating habits" of untamed
> animals (rape, in some cases), may or may not be considered analogous
> to human rape.  
 
Again,  it seems to me that deep ecology requires the practicioner to make a 
judgement on these analogies. How similar do the two behaviors - one human 
and one non-human - need to be before we conclude the latter "justifies" the 
former? Do they need to be exact? If not you have to decide which 
characteristics of the behavior are fundamental and which are superfluous. I 
suspect that speciesism, as well as self-interest, will end up influencing 
your judgement.
 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.