HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:32:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.212522.24197@clpd.kodak.com>,
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:
> 
> In article <mhulsey-301292105232@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >[ In February, Gary Francione will come to Athens to give a lecture on
> >animal "rights"  (yes, Russell, he would leave the quotes off).  Gary
> >Francione was formerly a lawyer for PETA, but he has since disavowed the
> >organization.  He has become a prominent critic because of what he regards
> >as PETA's "three stooges" approach to animal protection.  I hope to get the
> >opportunity to discuss this and other issues with Mr. Francione.  For
> >better or worse, I will post his opinion on this and other matters. ]
> 
> I hadn't heard about this.  So is Gary Francione an example of a "good"
> AR advocate while PETA leaders are examples of "bad" ones?

No, they are all bad IMO.  The ones at PETA are particularly bad because of
their support for ALF.  By "three stooges approach," I think that Mr.
Francione was referring to the pie-in-the-face antics for which PETA has
recently developed a reputation.

I am anxious to hear Mr. Francione's defense of animal "rights."

>That would
> be interesting since last year, an issue of Animals' Agenda featured a
> point-counterpoint discussion on the topic of animal rights vs. animal
> welfare.  Francione took the AR position while Newkirk took the AW
> position.

Wow! I've got to read that one.  Can you give me a full ref?

BTW, I used to regularly purchase and read the AA, but it is no longer
available on newsstands in Athens, and I haven't bothered to subscribe. 
Although I rarely agreed with what they said, they always said it well.  It
is a fine publication.
 
> In any event, Mr. Francione can access this newsgroup from Rutgers and
> did post here last year after I sent him a copy of a post containing
> some lies about his statements made in a debate.  It's too bad he is
> unable to participate more often.  If you do attend his lecture, be
> sure to post a report.

I will.
 
> [...]
> 
> P.S.  Martin, I have emailed you a number of time since mid-December and
> never received either a response from you or a bounced messasge.  Is
> your email address valid? In the most recent attempt, I specifically
> asked that you answer, and since you haven't I assume that none of my
> attempts were successful.  One point I made in each mail message is that
> I never received the document which you faxed.  I have no idea where it
> went.  If you wish to try again, feel free to - but wait until I give you
> a valid number. 

My last attempt to contact you (1/6/93) failed because I used an improper
address "nobody@kodak.com," as suggested by my mailer.  I hope everything
is corrected now.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
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: 11 Jan 93 19:07:15 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1993Jan11.020801.166@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP
(Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>indignant people, who are trying to force you to respect their exceedingly
>>arbitrary demands.  You are capable of hunting without trying to foist your
>>views off on them, whereas they lack the maturity and clear-headedness to
>>understand and extend the same respect to you.
>>
>It is impossible to hunt without foisting ones views on the victims of the
>hunt.

That's life in the food chain, babe.  Either get used to it or stick your
head in an oven 'cause it'll be a fact of life long after you and I are
worm food.

Or are you planning to convince worms to be vegetarians as well??

>>Basically, I don't understand how one can "live and let live" with a group
>>of petulant buffoons, when their objective is to eliminate some of your
>>freedom.  
>
>The objective is to eliminate unnecessary suffering.  Just as people should
>not to be free to kill other people, so they should not be free to kill other
>animals.

Heh heh heh.

Is it true that some AR loonies are purposely dressing in brown coats, in the
hope that hunters would nadvertently shoot them, furthering anti-hunting
sentiments?  Well, if you keep thinking like that you'll all be gone from
failing Father Darwin's litte test.  And good riddance, too.

    don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Americans stand firm behind democratic reform as long as it occurs
somewhere else.  As soon as it gets close to home people begin complaining
about government by committee, and how you can't stop to take votes when
you're trying to get a job done.
   But democracy is not just a matter of taking votes or forming committees,
any more than major league baseball is just a matter of scratching one's
testicles and spitting..."
	- Philip Slater
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre,rec.humor,rec.pets.birds,alt.sex
From: stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller)
Subject: Re: Turkey sex 
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:23:59 GMT

I would just like to point out, on behalf of mammels everywhere, that
turkeys do not, repeat DO NOT have phalli.  No Turkey Dicks, period.
Cloaca, that's it.


-- 

__________________________________________________________
Steve Miller				stcmille@panix.com
		A Famous Rock Star!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:15:56 GMT

From article <C0J0yD.2z1@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> AR issues are about value judgements. Is animal suffering justified
> by the human benefits? We probably agree that shooting a sabre-toothe
> to save a child is justified. We probably agree that dog-fights
> aren't. But I'm sure we differ as to where in the continuum
> in between we draw the line. There is no absolute standard we
> can appeal to to determine the relative value of the benefits and
> the suffering. Our values are determined by our social environment
> (convention) and I suppose by evolutionary instinct.

Perhaps your values are determined by convention, but I make an
effort to base my values on my observations of facts.  To repeat
my prior example, if you were to ask me why torture is wrong, I
would point at the pain and suffering of the victim and not at 
social conventions.

> This doesn't mean everyone has the same values and we should
> simply do as we always have done. Conventions change as a result
> of debate which enumerates or exposes the 
> positives and negatives
> involved. Thus oral sex is now acceptable where it used to be
> illegal.

Then I suppose we would agree that conventions are relevant in 
political discussions but not in arguments about the goodness or 
badness of a given act.

-- 
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: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:01:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.011625.26956@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
(Paul Roberts) wrote:
> 
> In article <mhulsey-090193153805@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> >
> >I would suggest that the antics that people associate (perhaps unfairly)
> >with the animal "rights" movement (bombings, arson, vandalism, etc.) has
> >had a negative effect on animal welfare, because many people have become
> >polarized against the idea.
> >
> 
> I would suggest that you are mistaken. I don't believe that any
> significant number of people do associate these things with the
> AR movement, despite the best efforts of a few individuals to
> promote the idea.

It is difficult for many to avoid the fact that:

1) the ALF is a terrorist organization according to the FBI and Scotland
Yard.

2) PETA has acted as media apologist for ALF terrorism on numerous
occasions, and provided legal support for an ALF member who was ultimately
convicted for a laboratory invasion.

> Many people have become polarised against the idea? Seems to be
> that by any conceivable measure, the Animal Rights movement has
> gained tremedously in strength and numbers over the last decade,
> say.

You might be confusing supporters of animal "rights" with supporters of
animal welfare.  There is a *big* difference.

Your point and mine are not mutually exclusive.  Even if the animal
"rights" movement has gained some support, many more have been convinced
that it is an anathema to humankind.  You folks shouldn't claim supporters
that you don't have.

I have seen no evidence that animal "rights" activists constitute more than
a pitiful minority of the population in the U.S.

In my home town, _Bambiphilus obnoxious_ is, thankfully, near extinction. 
A few were spotted recently at a local vegetarian restaurant, but there was
a reluctance by officials to exterminate a baited field.

Prominent ecologists suggest that _B. obnoxious_ can be controlled
biologically without toxic bambicides through the introduction of
_Advocatus welfarii var. reasonablis_, a variety of animal lover less
threatening to humankind.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10803 talk.bizarre:43849 rec.humor:37539 rec.pets.birds:3120 alt.sex:41223
From: jwu@cs.ubc.ca (Joseph Wu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre,rec.humor,rec.pets.birds,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Turkey sex
Date: 7 Jan 1993 08:55:46 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: pacific.cs.ubc.ca

stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller) writes:

:I would just like to point out, on behalf of mammels everywhere, that
                                              ^^^^^^^
:turkeys do not, repeat DO NOT have phalli.  No Turkey Dicks, period.
:Cloaca, that's it.

I take it then, that "mammels" are "Famous Rock Stars" who know 
that there are "No Turkey Dicks, period." 8)

:__________________________________________________________
:Steve Miller				stcmille@panix.com
:		A Famous Rock Star!
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph Wu    <jwu@cs.ubc.ca>   | Witty quote is now back to the
Master's Candidate             |   drawing board due to squeamish
University of British Columbia |   readers. Any suggestions?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:06:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.013305.27180@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
(Paul Roberts) wrote:
> 
> In article <mhulsey-090193170716@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> >
> >If Bob can find an example of a species that sacrifices itself to promote
> >the survival of another species, as animal activists suggests that we
> >humans do, it will no doubt be an example from the fossil record.  In other
> >words, an extinct species.
> >
> >So, let us continue on our merry, speciesist, way, and (hopefully) survive.
> 
> 
> Come on Martin, are you seriously suggesting that if we stopped
> doing experiments on animals, the human race would become extinct?

I said that all successful species are speciesist.
 
> I think it is entirely possible that the human species may not
> survive for geological time spans; but if it doesn't, it won't
> be because we gave up the Draize eye test.

Like many animal advocates, you apparently do not know or purposefully blur
the distinction between animal research and animal testing.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: analogy: hunting and sex [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:53:11 GMT

In <1993Jan8.212515.6877@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

>In article <C0I3I2.GwC@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>>(mary.rita.otto) writes:
>>>ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>>
>>>>It seems to me one would have to be deliberately obtuse to take
>>>>what anyone has said to mean that hunting is unethical _just_
>>>>because it is recreational. It's possible to find sentences that
>>>>seem to say that, but in context the argument always goes: the
>>>>suffering and death of animals are not justified by fun alone.
>>
>>>*Wrong!*  Sherwin really did say that he found it objectionable because
>>>it was not necessary for survival and was recreational.
>>
>>Do you think he meant that?
>>
>>He also said he objected to the suffering. Does he have to put that
>>into every sentence for you to connect the two?
>>
>>If someone states: dog fights are unacceptable because they are purely
>>for entertainment, it is implicit (to me at least) that they mean the
>>entertainment does not justify the suffering? Especially if they have
>>already made it clear that they object to animal suffering?
>>
>>Werner

>Yes, Werner, I think he meant it.  He said hunting WAS ETHICAL if
>it was done for the use of the meat.  He said that hunting 
>WAS UNETHICAL to the extent that it was done for fun.  When he
>made both of these statements, he had no explicit or implicit
>reference to the suffering  -- in fact, he hasn't added that
>"suffering" bit as a clarification; only you did.

OK, I'll stop telling you what someone else said. Judging by
his other arguments, anything is possible.

Still, the whole AR debate revolves around animal suffering and death.
To me it is self-evident when people argue about the various benefits,
they are to be balanced against the pain and death. Now maybe Sherwin
was making the puritan philosophical argument that something done
for recreation alone is wrong, but I still doubt it.

Werner




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: A real head-scratcher (was Re: News Blurbs 8)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:58:17 GMT

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.

-- 
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: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:58:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.200855.18296@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
(Paul Roberts) wrote:
> 
> In article <mhulsey-090193170716@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> >
> >If Bob can find an example of a species that sacrifices itself to promote
> >the survival of another species, as animal activists suggests that we
> >humans do, it will no doubt be an example from the fossil record.  In other
> >words, an extinct species.
> 
> Do you mean that not doing painful experiments on animals would
> amount to humans "sacrificing themselves" for those animals?

I said nothing about "painful" experiments.  It is your side that always
associates animal research with pain and cruelty.  In fact, animals feel
pain in only a small fraction of experiments that investigate pain itself. 
Animals and humans benefit from this research.

The sacrifice to which I refer is the sacrifice that victims of human
disease would be forced to make if we could not seek cures for them using
animals.
 
> This seems a bit like justifying mugging by saying ``I'll never
> be rich if I sacrifice my financial well-being to that of some
> stranger on the street''.

Not really.  Mugging is a crime and animal research is not.
 
> Animals activists don't suggest that we "sacrifice ourselves"
> for animals, they suggest that we treat them with respect and
> not cruelly exploit them.

The very problem is that what you and your comrades regard as "cruel
exploitation" saves human lives.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:50:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.215833.969@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Rober
ts) writes:

>>According to your understanding of the facts of this case, why didn't
>>Alex notify authorities at the first moment (ie., his first day on the job)
>>he observed the substandard and unlawful conditions?
>
>Perhaps because this would have one single result: he loses his job, and
>thereby loses any chance of getting the conditions for the monkeys improved.
>
>The "authorities" are hardly going to act based on undocumented claims
>made by an employee who lasted exactly one day on the job.
>
>This seems almost to obvious to be worth saying.
>
>Paul


How long then should Alex have let the monkeys suffer?

Your assumption is that nobody would take seriously the concerns
of a neophyte lab employee who observes unethical behaviour toward
lab animals.  At my university, any accusation from any source
indicating lab animal abuse would be taken extremely seriously.




:
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Cat Court Case - personal to JH
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:46:47 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10989 alt.peeves:18978
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:47:52 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Gregory Sherwin writes:
> -- I am game.

Well, that statement pretty much sums up the animal rights perspective
into a neat little body bag, don't it? 

Someone loan me a varmint gun....

JZ

Peeve: This is too easy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:19:36 GMT

From article <1993Jan7.192910.4341@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, by mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie):
> While with instinct there is no conscious choice of actions involved, with
> reason there is.  Therefore there must be courses of action based on reason
> that are geared to human survival, and these are known as ethics.  Rights
> are simply inate properties that humans possess to allow them to use their
> reason to survive.  In this way, a being that does not use reason does not
> have rights.

If rights are "innate", as you say, please explain why the concept
of personal rights, as we know them today, was unheard of in western
civilization prior to the late 17th century.

BTW, I think you're overplaying the role of "instinct" here.  I think
you'd be hardpressed to explain the behavior of the dogs that live
with me without acknowledging the fact that they're capable of thinking
and learning.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:36:50 GMT

In article <1icvvlINN9l5@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>In article <viking.726218466@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

(Excuse me, Dan, for butting in ...)

Mr. Sherwin wrote:
>There is a "hunting heritage", but rather that this heritage from the standpoint
>of hunting being a recreational (vs. survival) activity deserves preservation
>no more than burning large tracts of English and Irish villages and enslaving
>those who lived there, in addition to being a philosophical
>fallacy.

I would like to demonstrate a philosophical fallacy by using the example
of "*gardening*" which is recreational, as opposed to "farming" which is
for survival.

Examine this substitution, and see if the philosphy still makes sense:
There is a "*gardening* heritage", but rather that this heritage 
from the standpoint
of *gardening* being a recreational (vs. survival) activity deserves preservation
no more than burning large tracts of English and Irish villages and enslaving
those who lived there, in addition to being a philosophical
fallacy.

Mr. Sherwin, you certainly have an interesting view of recreation.
Or is it just the Irish?

Mary Otto
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:14:36 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <RIGG.93Jan8154959@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>
>Perhaps I should have elaborated a little bit for some folks.  Here is
>that elaboration.  I am an avid deer hunter and I am very tired of
>folks thinking that "typical" hunters shoot at anything that moves and
>all other hunters accept and support such actions.  I can imagine
>shooting at something running through the woods without properly
>identifying it and the background behind the animal.  Anyne who shoots
>without checking first should considered to be analogous to someone
>who speeds through a parkig lot with his eyes closed because he
>thought he saw a parking space at the other end.
>
>tim
>--

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.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals