HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:05:36 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <C1G3Ht.H36@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>  "Livestock account for 15% to 20% of global methane emissions ---
>   about 3% of global warming from all gases."

>From Durning, Alan and Brough, Holly. "Taking Stock: Animal Farming
>and the Environment", WorldWatch Institute: Washington, 1991.  BTW, 
>the source of info for this statement was a joint report from the Japan
>Environment Agency and the EPA.  

Statistics estimated by an organization philosophically opposed
to farming animals, even when "based" on someone else's legitimate data
fail to impress me. It's much too easy to manipulate statistics with
various assumptions. I've seen creationists "prove" the world is
only 4000 years old based on legitimate data; all you need to assume is
that the speed of light was different in the past. In the case of methane,
the original data are probably couched in carefully expressed assumptions
and the uncertainty is almost certainly much larger than the 25% you quote.
I wouldn't be surprised if WWI then chose upper limits of various
approximations and after a factor of 2 here, an order of magnitude there,
came up with 15-20%.

I could be wrong and the 15-20% may be right, but I remain profoundly
skeptical, not just about the figure but that it's possible to know it
that accurately. Even if it were true, trying to lesson
global warming by eating less meat seems ass-backward:

It is undisputed that greenhouse gases have increased several percent
in the atmosphere over the last century or less. And it is known that
the bulk of this is from industrialized activities that are new to our
time. On the other hand it is reasonable that some equilibrium in the
balance of gases was reached with respect to the natural cycle of life
and death of animals, including bison in the past, cows in the
present. To alter this natural equilibrium to compensate for the
unnatural activities that are the real cause of GH gases seems naive
to me. Of all the human activities it seems reasonable that those that
are most benign are the ones that are most similar to natural
processes that are eons old.  Moreover, the benefit/sacrifice ratio
for eliminating meat and dairy products is undoubtedly miniscule
compared to the ratio from countless other measures; e.g. nuclear
energy, increasing gas prices... Don't worry about the prick in your
finger when your wrist is slashed.

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:55:31 GMT

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

>Maybe that doesn't make
>sense in terms of the bigger agricultural economy.  I DON'T KNOW.  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.

	Hey, that's fine with me.  Frankly, I don't care what you eat or
how it was produced.  I'm just here because I saw too many people
raving about how they had the answer to all of the world's problems when
it was clear they had no clue of what they were talking about.  I figure
you know enough about it to jedge your bets, but many others don't.  Any
time I can poke a hole in a self-rightous shroud I'm happy to do so.

>Okay?  Tell me what you think on the issue of biasedness.  I have a feeling
>that our ideas may well mesh on this one.

	We're all biased, though towards different things.  Some wish
to see others do as they do, while others wish to be left alone to their
own devices.  I fall in the latter camp.  Russell may be right, life may
be rosy and green, and the defecit may be wiped out if we just quite eating
meat.  I doubt this, but I don't care if he thinks that.  What I care about
is his opinion having no rebuttal, and hence being accepted as fact.  Next
thing you know, eating meat, hunting, owning pets, or whatever is against
the law for our own good.  That's my main fear.  A quick look at the rise
of any good propaganda campaign shows that facts aren't required so much
as shrill insistence that the dogma is correct.

	I figure a viewpoint based upon experience rather than an ivory-
tower study is worth a few kilobytes of bandwidth and a minute of thought.

< 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.                   >
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11709 alt.peeves:19637
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Date: 26 Jan 1993 21:09:57 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <C1G6oJ.HLx@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>describe me using perjorative labels like "flaming idiot" or 
>"ignorant fool" or whatever, whereas I typically refrain from such 
>practices?  [except where Banta's concerned, of course]

Well of course you use those on me.  You're wholly incapable of making
a point or engaging in even the mildest of rude rhetoric, so you spout
tinny retorts that make you sound like an acne laden teenager.

To date, your best argument has been "prove to me that what I say
isn't true."  (Note: I'll supply the information I have on amino acids
when I get home, which is where it is.  If there is, in fact, a
vegetable product containing all the essential amino acids, it's news
to me.  It doesn't address any of the other issues I brought up
concerning your soy vs. beef comparison, and regardless, it still
isn't an argument for animal rights).

The only thing you've said that might have a grain of truth is that I
should have read the group a little longer before posting.  I never
realized there were people lining up to demonstrate how chowder-headed
you are.

andy
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Date: 24 Jan 93 02:54:05 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <C19uJ2.857@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <C18I58.Gs9@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
    [discussing how responsive NIH might be to pressure from the AMA or NABR,
     compared to responsiveness to pressure from PETA]
>> In my opinion, PETA's impact would derive from the ability to mobilize 
>> public opinion, ...
     [deletion]
>> *If* the AMA or NABR were able to inspire the
>> public to a similar froth, I would believe those organizations 
>> might have impact on the NIH.

>>
>> Why do you think the AMA or NABR might have some sway?
>
RL:
>Along with the NRA and the National Dairy Board, the AMA has been
>one of the top spenders in congress for several decades.  And the
>pharmaceutical companies also have a good deal of clout. ...
    So far, I follow you; thru congressional pressure (like at
appropriation time) PAC-driven congresspersons could lean on the
National Institutes of Health. But *what* would the AMA (or NABR,
if it has any such clout) want NIH to do, if NIH were 'responsive'
to their wishes?
     NIH is primarily a research organization; the AMA
is primarily an organization of practicing physicians, I presume.
The fraction of the AMA's total membership that are physicians 
involved in biomedical research, I would hazard, is small, so
I can't imagine AMA spending any of their hard-bought favors
by leaning on NIH to fund more physician-originated research
projects. And that's the only thing I could imagine NIH doing
for the AMA. You also added pharmaceutical companies to the list;
I would guess that Industry's R&D dollars are be large, compared
to the small amount they might be able to siphon off NIH. The
organization the pharmaceutical industry would like to have be
'more responsive' is the FDA!
    So what would these various entities press NIH for?

> .... Care to 
>take a guess about PETA's relative rank in terms of PAC contributions?

   I'll bite - what? 

Bob Straubinger
Pharmaceutics
SUNY Buffalo
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11414 alt.activism:21132 rec.food.veg:12353
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Date: 21 Jan 1993 16:28:13 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

(Alka Chandna) writes:
>I'm not a writer, but I very much enjoyed this book by Newkirk & thought I'd
>take a shot at writing a review.  

A worship service.  It wasn't a review, Alka, it was a little prayer to
your diety.  An unbiased review might bne much more informative.

drew
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
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, 26 Jan 1993 12:43:05 GMT

In article <C1G7IM.Hpt@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> Ah, it's nice to see that you're partially awake, Martin.  I 
> previously told you, over and over again, that you were 
> misconstruing Gerone's position.  To wit, consider the following 
> interchange: 

Yeah, I'm awake enough to see what you are trying to do.  As your excerpts
clearly demonstrate, I have consistently argued that Gerone falsely implied
that husbandry conditions in Taub's lab, prior to his 1981 vacation, were
unacceptable.  This has never been proven in any forum.  All charges
related to the husbandry conditions in Taub's lab were dismissed BEFORE the
Appeals Court of Maryland made its controversial ruling.

You have consistently argued that Gerone was not condemning Taub, but was
merely making a statement about the "benefits" of the animal "rights"
movement for lab animals.

The Gerone letter indicates that he objected to the implications
surrounding the quote "Today, you'd never see conditions like the Silver
Spring Monkeys..."  Gerone and others were deceived into thinking that the
husbandry conditions in Taub's lab were poor based on Pacheco's video. 
That was Pacheco's intention when he made the video.  
 
>[...]
> 
> > Therefore, it is obvious that Gerone was one of many reasonable people who
> > was falsely convinced of Taub's guilt by PETA's hyperbolic propaganda.  How
> > many others are out there?   
> 
> Read the letter again, Martin.   

If YOU read the letter again, slowly, and with someone to help explain the
"big" words, you will realize that you were wrong in this instance.

--
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: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:45:43 GMT

From article <1993Jan26.144455.11418@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>>>Would you care to tell us roughly how much water is used to stock 
>>>>fountains and swimming pools, Rich?  After you've supplied the 
>>>>facts, we'll find out whether or not your finger-pointing is just 
>>>>another evasive maneuver?  
>>> 
>>> Already asked and answered.
>>
>>In other words, you don't know.
>
>Nor, apparently, do you.

Evidently, you didn't have any facts to support your claim that
Californians could save as much water by cutting back on swimming 
pools as they could save by cutting back on meat and dairy
consumption.  

According to WorldWatch:

   "... the water used to supply each american with meat, milk
    and eggs each day probably matches a typical american's
    daily water use at home, about 380 liters".


-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11668 alt.activism:21367 rec.food.veg:12559
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Terrorism and Imagery
Date: 26 Jan 1993 05:44:11 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


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.  

>                                          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 the omnivore


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:27:44 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

`From article <C1I852.G4F@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca:
`> Obviously, but you didn't disagree with my claim that concern about
`> animal welfare is both necessary and sufficient to be vegan.

`Why should I agree with such a claim?  It's not too difficult to find 
`environmentalists who abstain from meat and dairy products. 

How true.  I can spot one a mile away.  If it is not the depressing
mix of doomsday colors they wear, then perhaps it is their pale complexion
from hiding away from the toxic sun's rays and eating tofu.  If you still
haven't spotted them yet, their lack or respect for fellow human beings
easily gives them away!

swood
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:21:49 GMT

In article <C1Hu3B.8Cn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Almost everyone I know prefers truth to falsity and pleasure to
>pain.   Do you know many individuals who persistently prefer pain
>to pleasure and lies to truths?

	Only you and a couple of others like you.

>Question: Would you say that it's ethically good for you, yourself,
>          to present lies in this forum if/when it suits your 
>          convenience? 

	Would you say that it's ethically justifiable for you to make
	unsubstantiated implications like that?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Protect the Rights of Plants!
Date: 23 Jan 1993 20:26:46 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


Dont you think that we are assuming too much if we assume that only animals
can have feelings?!?  I've dealt with my share of tempermental plants and
am convinced that the senseless slaughter of plants is a great crime
against nature and humanity.  What sort of ego do we have to assume that
because a plants nervous system doesnt look like ours, they cant have
intense emotions including great sorrow at the harvest of a loved one!

The only solution is to refuse to eat anything made from animals or plants!
Stick to pure synthetic food but make sure no plants were destroyed to
extract chemicals etc...Humankind should direct all research to attempting
to infuse people with there own clorophyll so we can just sit around in the
sun when we need to eat.


Alex
alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  3am
 
A "fact" cant be proven to be correct because the rest of society concurs
with you but it can help you convince yourself you're not crazy if others
feel the same.  After all, our concepts of normal and abnormal are based on
the actions of everyone else...you'll find this hold true even for the
(pseudo)science of psycology.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:43:39 GMT

In <C16Gz0.66o@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>What sort of legal investment are you talking about?  What makes you
>think that public prosecutions are funded by private organizations?

	Who brought the charges against Taub?  They paid the charges,
so it should be easy to find out who paid for the prosecution.  Who
paid for the defense is likely to be Taub.  Was he re-imbursed once
he was exonerated?  Evidence of a seriously screwed legal system.

< 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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:02:43 GMT

From article <1993Jan25.192154.24723@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In <C1DvCC.4Mw@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>>
>>From article <1993Jan24.065052.3877@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>Would you care to tell us roughly how much water is used to stock 
>>fountains and swimming pools, Rich?  After you've supplied the 
>>facts, we'll find out whether or not your finger-pointing is just 
>>another evasive maneuver?  
> 
> 	Already asked and answered.

In other words, you don't know.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:51:40 GMT

(Russell Lawrence) writes:
>(Rich Young):

>>This shows that hat-wearing is stupid and expensive, but it's not
>>morally "wrong" until you have a consensus.

>If you're going to reserve the word "wrong" to designate actions 
>that violate widely-held opinions about proper conduct, which in 
>themselves may be fallacious, please tell me the adjective that 
>you'll allow me to use to specify actions that are stupid, 
>costly, painful, etc, etc.  

Does something have to be all three to be wrong? Rape is not expensive,
but certainly wrong. Then if 2 out of 3 is enough, skiing is costly
and painful (at least the way I do it). So is hiring a personal
trainer to help you get in shape. Matter of fact, that's stupid too.
But wrong? Nah. Face it. The correlation is pretty weak.

>To illustrate, if slavery wasn't
>"wrong" in the 17th century, what word would you use to describe
>a practice that caused unfathomable suffering and set the stage for
>injust discrimination that continues to this very day?

Well if slavery was wrong, but everyone thought it was right because
of ignorance, then (assuming you believe smoking is wrong) was it
wrong for native american indians to smoke a peace pipe in ignorance
of the consequences.  If so, no society really knows what is right or
wrong because we can never know all the consequences of an action.
What's the use of such a concept?

>While you're at it, I'd like to know the word that you'll allow
>me to use to specify actions that are intelligent, inexpensive to
>implement, pleasurable, etc, albeit not in accordance with widely
>held social conventions concerning "right" behavior.

Does the action have to be all 3 to be good? Giving to charity is
expensive but it is certainly good. Then if 2 out of 3 is enough, a
teacher having sex with his student could be inexpensive and
pleasurable, but by most standards, unethical. Some people enjoy
shoplifting and that's certainly inexpensive. Matter of fact, to do it
well requires intelligence too. But it's not ethically right.

Werner


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals