HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:58:39 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <a87th3j@rpi.edu> schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.234836.746@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>>to women and minorities.  I value MYSELF over a lobster, whether you do or not.
>>
>I also value him over a lobster.  I don't much care for seafood, so
>I think he'd taste much better boiled. :-)  More meat on him, too,
>I'd wager.
>
>E.S. (just joking-humans are too high in cholesterol. :-)

But should be suitable for a cat or dog no doubt.


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:04:04 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr6.125250.4820@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.075832.28489@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>> It  is  obvious  that you have very small lobsters in your area. Probably a
>> result  of  overfishing.  I  recall the Australian lobster catch had strict
>> quotas  imposed  on it to try and prevent this from happening. I'm not sure
>> how  successful  it  was.  As I recall many Australian lobsters are sold to
>> the US.
>
>The lobster population, along with the rest of the eastern commercial 
>fishery, is way overfished.
>
Another good reason not to eat them.


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:12:02 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <RJC.92Apr15220141@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.162152.12092@NCoast.ORG>, Christopher Morton (cm) writes:
>
>cm> Not surprising that you'd force your animal slave into becoming a
>cm> participant in the murder of another living being....
>
>You ever _tried_ to force a cat to eat something it didn't want to
>eat?
>
>--
>rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk	And as for murdering living beings...

...it's OK as long as they're plants.

Your .sig looked unfinished.  No charge.

Toby Bradshaw
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:24:43 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr8.165745.24877@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.072053.358@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.174151.9420@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley) writes:
>>>You live in a city, and have altered your lifestyle so that taxi cabs
>>>don't run over you. Is that bad?
>>>
>>I live in a town. The taxis follow a set of rules (e.g. drive on the road).
>>Snipers do not.
>
>You also alter your lifestyle. Instead of walking where you will
>whenever you will, you modify your lifestyle so that you don't walk
>in front of taxis' (all of whom are following their rules, of course).
>Simply modifying your behavior is not bad for you nor for the deer.
>
What rules do you follow when hunting? Are the deer aware of these rules?

>>>Besides, here you are decrying the lifestyle changes that the poor deer
>>>while at the same time espousing modifying the lifestyles of millions
>>>of human animals. I suppose its ok to affect a lifestyle that you simply
>>>don't like, and try to preserve one that you think is ok. Ins't that
>>>just a bit duplicitous?
>>
>>Can you please show me *where* I espoused modifying the lifestyles of
>>millions of human animals?
>
>By working to eliminate hunting (via debate so far as I know) you
>espouse the very thing you are rejecting.
>

Dear jerry,

	Please could you be so kind as to point out to me where I
	have worked to eliminate hunting. If you cannot, you should
	withdraw your remarks about duplicity.




-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Problems with "Animal Liberation", a review
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 07:04:07 GMT

>>Chapter 5 tracks the
>>historical roots of "speciesist" thought from the biblical
>>creation story, in which God grants Adam and Eve dominion over
>>the animals, to Darwin's theory of evolution.  But Singer then
>>side-steps an obvious incongruity of animal liberation theology
>>when concludes that Darwin's theory negates speciesism.  Since
>>species in Darwin's world mercilessly exploit one another for 
>>survival, any species foolish enough to grant equal consideration
>>to another won't be long for that world.
> 
>The olde `nature is red in tooth and claw' argument.  Whatever
>might be the ways of nature or evolution, such is hardly relevant
>to human ethics.  Orangutans rape, therefore should humans rape?
>Some sociobiologists in fact think we share this evolutionary
>strategy of the gene propagation, but hardly would they be so
>foolish as to then suggest that rape is morally justified.
> 
Darwin's arguments are often oversimplified.  The ability to
cooperate harmoniously has more often been part of being
"fittest" than the abilty to exploit.  The main point of
Darwin's work wasn't the "struggle to survive" but the inter-
relatedness of all life.  He personally believed that sexual
selection was more prevalent than natural selection. (Stephen
J. Gould(sp?), numerous publications)


E.S.
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:17:25 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

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.
>>
>>This comment alone speaks volumes.  It is clear that your understanding of 
>>hunting is *extreemly* limited, or you would realize that hunters do change 
>>the living habits of the animal.
>>
> I'm not a hunter if that's what you mean.
> 
>>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?
>>
> I should think so.
> 
>>As one might expect, their habits return to some semblance of 'normalcy' 
>>after the hunting season concludes.
>>
> "Some semblance".
> 
>>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.

> 
> -- 
> 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: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 7 Apr 92 11:31:23 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

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???????

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?

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

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


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:52:50 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Apr2.075832.28489@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.101825.4693@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>Most lobsters I've seen could probably reach at least part of your hand if 
>>you held them by the feelers on top of their head, so I have great 
>>difficulty believing this.  
>>
> The feelers I remember were approximately 18 inches long.
> 
>>All that aside, please explain to us poor witless ones how a lobster tail 
>>of any size could remove a finger....I'm dying to hear this one.
>>
> The  tail  snaps  quite  violently  and  is  the  lobsters  main  source of
> propulsion.  As  the  lobster has a exoskeleton this snapping action can be
> rather dangerous for anything that gets caught in the way.

Not dangerous enough to remove a finger.....

> 
>>> I have never seen anyone tie the claws shut on a lobster. It sounds
>>> like a two person job to me. Are we talking about the same animal?
>>
>>I'm really beginning to wonder.  Around here, on the Eastern seaboard, all 
>>lobsters sold are sold with their claws held closed with wide rubber bands. 
>> They are kept in tanks like this.  When you are wish to cook one, you 
>>reach down and pick it up, usually by the rear body or tail portion and 
>>drop it in the water, head first.
>>
> I  am  talking  about  lobsters  pulled  directly  out of the cage which is
> taken  off  the sea bed. These are then thrown into hessian bags. My father
> then  took  the  bag back to our beach house and carefully took them out of
> the  bag  by  the  feelers  and placed them in the boiling water. Death was
> far   from  instantaneous.  My  father  wore  gloves  as  an  extra  safety
> precaution  and  always warned us to keep away from the tail (it was pretty
> obvious that the pincers were dangerous, but not so for the tail).

Methinks his warnings, while well meaning, were spurious.

> 
>>> Whaa! I know damn well where the creature's pincers are!
>>
>>Well then *how* on EARTH is a lobster tail going to remove a finger?
>>
> Do you know what the difference between a tail and a pincer is?
> 
>>Yes, it is.  But I also stated that my observations indicate that that pain 
>>is minimal.  Mind you, I haven't been boiling any two foot long lobsters 
>>either. :-)
> 
> It  is  obvious  that you have very small lobsters in your area. Probably a
> result  of  overfishing.  I  recall the Australian lobster catch had strict
> quotas  imposed  on it to try and prevent this from happening. I'm not sure
> how  successful  it  was.  As I recall many Australian lobsters are sold to
> the US.

The lobster population, along with the rest of the eastern commercial 
fishery, is way overfished.

> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:49:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.234836.746@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>to women and minorities.  I value MYSELF over a lobster, whether you do or not.
>
I also value him over a lobster.  I don't much care for seafood, so
I think he'd taste much better boiled. :-)  More meat on him, too,
I'd wager.

E.S. (just joking-humans are too high in cholesterol. :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:57:45 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Apr6.072053.358@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.174151.9420@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley) writes:

<stuff deleted>

>>You live in a city, and have altered your lifestyle so that taxi cabs
>>don't run over you. Is that bad?
>>
>I live in a town. The taxis follow a set of rules (e.g. drive on the road).
>Snipers do not.

You also alter your lifestyle. Instead of walking where you will
whenever you will, you modify your lifestyle so that you don't walk
in front of taxis' (all of whom are following their rules, of course).
Simply modifying your behavior is not bad for you nor for the deer.

>
>>Besides, here you are decrying the lifestyle changes that the poor deer
>>while at the same time espousing modifying the lifestyles of millions
>>of human animals. I suppose its ok to affect a lifestyle that you simply
>>don't like, and try to preserve one that you think is ok. Ins't that
>>just a bit duplicitous?
>>
>
>Can you please show me *where* I espoused modifying the lifestyles of
>millions of human animals?

By working to eliminate hunting (via debate so far as I know) you
espouse the very thing you are rejecting.

jerry
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:21:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: NCoast.1992Apr14.162152.12092
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <1992Apr13.075839.19524@rtf.bt.co.uk> by traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub):

> >E.S. (just joking-humans are too high in cholesterol. :-)
> 
> But should be suitable for a cat or dog no doubt.

Not surprising that you'd force your animal slave into becoming a participant
in the murder of another living being....

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:05:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.121136.4815@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <#=xtkg=@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
	[...]
>> No, overbreeding gets them in trouble.  They will breed no matter how 
>> weak the breeding instinct is.  Population is not a function of breeding
>> just of breeding attempts.  All that weakening the breeding instinct will
>> do is make for sick deer.  If all that was left on the planet were wimps,
>> we'd breed wimps.  I don't think we'd go extinct.
>
>A strong mating instinct is what I would call a significant contributing 
>factor to over population.  You still didn't answer my question.

	And you didn't answer my criticism of your "pop quiz".
>The 
>answer is 40% or thereabouts.

	40% plus a fudge factor.  Lets consider 3 real situations and
two imaginary ones:
Mid '50's michigan deer herd - 35% male
1989/1990 PA deer herd - ~45% male
1989/1990 CA deer herd - 20-25% male
Imaginary case #1 - 10% male
Imaginary case #2 - 95% male

Pop quiz for John: Imagine that each herd is on the same habitat with
the same carrying capacity, K, and the total herd populations are the
same.  Why will a fixed mortality rate across the herds, i.e.
(#animals killed)/(total herd population) NOT result in no population
change for some of the herds?

>John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have

-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
eb3@world.std.com
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: Re: Putting People First
Keywords: Putting People First
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:51:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.232533.19565@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.220549.20583@u.washington.edu> toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
>>>Robert Black writes:
>>>Interesting points here.  There are those within the AR movement who
>>>believe that they shot themselves in the foot (or worse) by selecting 
>>>a word like "rights" to characterize their movement.  Rights are a
>>>fuzzy concept to some people, a strictly human construct to others,
>>>and almost a mystical thing to yet others.  That third approach even
>>>seems to be embodied within the founding documents of this nation ("We 
>>>hold these truths to be self-evident ... endowed with certain 
>>>inalienable rights...").
>>
>>Rather than abridge the words of the founding fathers, why not
>>give a direct quotation without the "..."?
>>
>>>What do these words REALLY mean?  Do we
>>>REALLY believe them literally?
>>
>>Given that that founding fathers said that "all men are created
>>equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"
>>(could be a few words off, my memory never was too good), if
>>we DID take literally these words, animal "rights" would be
>>without foundation.  Besides, I doubt if everyone wants to
>>take the word of slaveowners on "life, liberty, and the
>>pursuit of happiness".  It seems passing strange to me that
>>the founding fathers would be invoked as AR prototypes.
>>Of course, if you become a Supreme Court Justice you can
>>read whatever you like into the preamble :)
>>
>>Toby Bradshaw
>
>Do you really mean the preamble?

It looks like I don't.  Thanks for the pointer.

>The above pseudo-quotes are from the
>Declaration of Independence.  The context of Mr. Jefferson's quotes
>are really for the rights denied the colonists by "the present King of
>Great Britain".  It's not really all that strange that the "founding
>fathers" are taken as AW prototypes (AW - Animal Welfare) since their
>aim was to do away with a governing body imposing its will on another
>without mutual consent.

The language the FFs used may be taken for current AW jargon,
but I still question that the FFs themselves could be construed
as AR activists (or even HR activists) as a group.  Jefferson
imposed his will on human animals, after all, and to my knowledge
kept mockingbirds as cage pets.  However, you can see that my
history is a little weak :)

Toby Bradshaw
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Musing About Death
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:22:39 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <AWERLING.92Apr4163543@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.074004.7371@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>In article <AWERLING.92Apr2110147@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>>>Death, to no end.  No purpose.  No benefit.  It is to this I am opposed.  
> 
>>We  have  a  problem  of definition again here Andrew. In all the cases you
>>site  there  was  a  benefit.  The benefit was that the person perpetrating
>>the  act  had  "fun".  This  is  still  the  justification  for  a  lot  of
>>unnecessary killing.
>
>Then I guess "fun" is where I draw the line.
>
So do, but in another thread a Mr Robinson claims that as some sort
of justification for his childish behaviour.

>>What  can  you  say  when  someone  says  the animal's death was worthwhile
>>because they enjoyed themselves while killing it?
>
>I'd say I disagreed completely with their concept of "enjoyment."
>
I'd say they needed therapy.->


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
From: eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll)
Subject: Re: ref. on wildlife pop. controls
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:43:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.144420.4916@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <BMAnMx.5CD@world.std.com>, eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>>>We've 
>>>established, I think, from the above numbers that modern sport hunting 
>>>promotes sustainable, stable populations.
>> 
>> 	We have?  15-40 million, <500 thousand and 12-20 million are
>> the only "above numbers" I see that you could possibly be referring
>> to.  The downward trend in western US in mule deer was not stable,
>> nor apparently was the peak population of mule deer in the early
>> 1960's "sustainable".
>
>The drop to < 500 K was *NOT* due to sport hunting.  It was due to *MARKET* 
>hunting.  They are not the same thing.

	I've never said they were teh same thing.  You referred to the
"above numbers" in reference to sport hunting.  The *only* "above
numbers" were those I've quoted above.



-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
eb3@world.std.com
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:01:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: NCoast.1992Apr16.130131.4180
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <altar.703266920@sfu.ca> by altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar):

> city folk idly trying out another recreational activity.  In New
> Jersey, there is a hunter-education program that is mandatory.
> People enrolled in a program like this are much more committed
> than simply someone off the street buying a hunting licence.  How

Anything you sent regarding our previous conversation in the past couple of
days was lost due to a mail and news problem.  If it's important enough to you,
resend.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals