HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: An Amazing Revelation?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:21:57 GMT

dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) has the following
 conversation with a customer:

>	"Is there deer-hunting in Lawrence?" the man asked.
>	I didn't pause before I replied, "I don't know ... I'm not much into
>hunting." I proceeded to treat him like any other customer, with some level
>of respect and a positive attitude.

	My compliments!

>	Hey, avid hunters, can you believe it?  Ol' "Dreamer" didn't even
>poison his food or "rant" or "rave" about the rights of deer!  Maybe ol'
>"Dreamer" isn't such a bad guy, after all. 

	Maybe you're just not as obnoxious as some, and perhaps moreso than
others?  I won't judge, not having known you.  What were you thinking?

>	I do, however, hope that someday this man sees the light.
	
	Could this be the only thing?

>	... And he even gave me a nice tip.

	Ah, from the mouths of babes comes the truth (just kidding!).

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: korpela@rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Policy of Peace.
Date: 18 Aug 1992 21:29:04 GMT
Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab
Distribution: world
Reply-To: korpela@rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela)
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu


In article <Bt5Cn5.KJA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <16ou05INNnqo@agate.berkeley.edu>, by korpela@rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela):
>ek> A hunter understands the death he is causing.  He is there to 
>ek> experience it.  And maybe the hunter comes away with a larger 
>ek> understanding of the death and the life that is going on around 
>ek> him.  And a chance at understanding is much better than 
>ek> self-imposed ignorance any day.  
>
>This doesn't make much sense to me.  Are you saying that any action
>is ethically justifiable if it results in a greater sense of 
>understanding on the part of the perpetrator? 
>

I certainly did not mean to give that impression, and find it difficult
to believe that anyone would get that impression from my posts.  

The point of my posts was that we should accept personal responsibility
for the damage we do.  And to do this, one must understand the role
that he plays in nature.  In so many posts I see people describing
a world that is either man against nature, or man apart from nature.
It's not that way at all.  Man is quite intertwined with nature;
a part of it.  We must understand how our actions affect the global
ecosystem and take responsibility for the consequences, both personally 
and as a species.

A hunter is present at the killing, and can directly see the consequences
of his actions.  The person drinking out of a styrofoam cup does not
see the consequences of his actions, and thereby ignores the damage.
Which of these actions is morally repulsive to you?

Eric Korpela                                    |  The two most common things
korpela@cea.berkeley.edu              Internet  |  in the universe are
BKYAST::KORPELA    42215::KORPELA     DecNet    |  Hydrogen and stupidity.
korpela%bkyast@ucbjade                Bitnet    |       -Harlan Ellison
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Fantasy vs. Ethics.  Was: Closure on sport hunting
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:44:59 GMT

>ml> agree with the family's actions.  Can you PROVE with any
>ml> empirical facts that such an act would be absolutely "wrong" or
>ml> "bad" Russell?

>
>As I've pointed out repeatedly, I have no need to prove that an action
>is "absolutely" wrong.  To the contrary, all I need to prove is that
>the class of actions have consequences that cause more harm than good.

>Incidently, you've made it clear that you don't respect the
>concept of animal rights, but you've been rather secretive in
>addressing my allegation that you don't have much respect for
>human rights either, but instead pay consistent hommage to
>"god's rights", as interpreted by Mike Linan.  If you have the
>courage to do so, please address the question that I've posed
>several times previously:

Ooops, I deleted the question.  At any rate, it is clear that Mike Linan does
not respect your concept of animal rights.  It's interesting in the paragraph
above how quickly your concept of animal rights quickly becomes "THE concept of
animal rights," your "absolute." He has a concept of animal rights that he has
articulated on numerous occasions; including a belief in his obligation to the
animal for a quick kill; a belief that in killing deer he limits the suffering
of a non-controled herd; his statement that the meat he kills and consumes is
better for his health than that which he would buy at the grocery store; a
belief that being in nature focuses for him his awareness and concern for the
natural environment; a belief that killing animals for food is not wrong and as
a group of actions does not constitute a greater harm than good.  I guess I
understand him to be making these points, demons and goblins aside...You or I
may not like certain elements of his belief structure, however, to feign a lack
of understanding of it seem disingenuous to me.


**
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Spirits vs. Animal Rights.  Was: Texas AR Conference
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:19:35 GMT
Organization: WP Group


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> If you don't believe in demons, please say so, and I'll be happy
rl> to apologize.  

From article <16ovknINNo95@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Apparantly you can not understand.  You either must have some 
ml> sort of mental block or you are just simply an idiot.  I'm sorry, 
ml> I've tried to make you understand that WHAT I believe in is not 
ml> the issue but rather what you CLAIM I told you I believe in.  
ml> You have not presented the proof that I ever told you I believe in 
ml> goddesses, goblins, demons or ghosts.  I will let this issue now 
ml> rest with most critical thinkers concluding that you are both a 
ml> liar and an idiot.  

You stated just the other day that you believe in the literal 
truth of the bible, and the bible says that such entities as 
ghosts and demons and other spirits do, indeed, exist.  Is it 
really "idiotic", as you claim, for someone to conclude that you 
believe in spirits?  In all honesty, I don't see how someone like 
yourself could believe in the literal truth of the bible 
_without_ believing in demons, goblins, ghosts, etc, etc.  

In view of your own testimony, it seems rather farfetched for
you to pretend that I'm a liar simply because I've pointed out that
you apparently believe in spirits.  

rl> Alternatively, if you think it's logically possible to believe in the 
rl> literal truth of the bible while not believing in the existence 
rl> of "demons", I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd explain the how's
rl> and why's.  In such a case, I think it'd be obvious to everyone
rl> that one of us has a lot to learn about clear thinking.

ml> Yeah, well it's not my job to explain anything to you Russell and 
ml> I am not inclined to do so.  

Suit yourself.  

> ...
rl> In pointing out that you believe in the literal truth of the 
rl> bible, aren't you implying that you also believe in the existence 
rl> of demons (aka goblins), not to mention a sizeable number of 
rl> other spirit-forms?  

ml> I don't imply.  I come out and speak my mind.  You should have 
ml> known that and probably did from our prior discussions...

Then tell us whether or not you believe in demons, Mike.

> ...  
ml> I owe you nothing Russell.  I need not expose my beliefs to an arrogant 
ml> person such as yourself for ridicule.  Go away.

You're contradicting yourself.  You've stated repeatedly that
you're not ashamed of your beliefs and that you're in the habit
of speaking your mind, yet now you say that you don't want to
"expose" your beliefs.  Are you ashamed of them?  Are they a
"secret" of some sort?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: 2 questions for the AR types
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 22:17:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


Just out of curiosity, I would like to know the AR position (or
at least the position of an AR reading this) on two things:

1) North American native culture.
2) rats (the rodent).
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Spirits vs. Animal Rights.  Was: Texas AR Conference
Date: 19 Aug 1992 19:56:13 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Bt7p08.A39@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <16r3ccINN4d9@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):



Ok.  Let's end this thread.  I know everybody has long since grown tired
of it.

For the record.  Russell Lawrence has never shown proof that I said I told
him I believe in "goblins, ghosts, demons and goddesses" as he claimed I did.

He must obviously be a liar then because whenever he has the empirical facts
that he so loves, he presents them.  He has been caught in a lie and continues
to evade my requests for this proof with childish games.  

I consider this subject to be dead and the final analysis of Russell's 
character to be completed.

Let's get back to t.p.a. Russell.  See if you can avoid lying in the future.
Maybe you've learned you lesson.

Mike Linan



>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: WOOLWORTHS; PETS
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:07:23 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <94Jt02eh1dI301@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.050908.10258@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul 
>Roberts) writes:
>> I think he posts some interesting stuff, it is at least a change
>> from the name-calling that is otherwise so prevalent here.
>
>I agree.  Ferrell's articles are the primary source of new and interesting 
>material on this newsgroup - most of the other threads just rehash the same 
>stuff over and over. 
>

I suspect that what some people find annoying about Ferrell is that they can't
draw him into a flame war.

Also curious is the idea (which is at leastly partly his own) that he should
accept some kind of majority vote about whether to shut up or not. Is there
anything in the netnews charter about this? Can we ask anyone to shut up if
we can muster 51% votes in favour? 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Subject: Re: My dog
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:07:35 GMT

 
Note the cross-posting.....left that way on purpose.
 
 
In article <1992Aug19.182759.13603@clpd.kodak.com>
    black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
 
>>BTW fencing him in is the same
>>as tying him to a post.
>
>Why do you say that fencing is the same as tying to a post? If the
>fenced-in area is large enough, then this may be a solution for times
>when the dog is not in the house and can not be monitored outside.
 
 
I too am baffled why you say fencing the dog is ("as cruel" implied)
as tying the dog to a post.  As long as the area provides for the
dog to
 
1) get enough exercise when you're not doing it with him
2) relieve himself in a place that does not require that he live in it
3) has appropriate places for him to get sunshine, shade, and water
 
then it's not cruel.
 
      ----------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |
x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |  Only 12 more days until the start of
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |           hunting season (in Texas)
(409) 845-8454 (work)   |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Fantasies vs. Ethics
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:15:57 GMT


Russell Lawrence (not Mike Linan) writes:
rl> In particular, read Mark 5 in which Jesus casts out the "Legion" 
rl> of demons and sends it/them into a nearby herd of swine, thereby 
rl> curing a "possessed" human individual of physical and mental disease.  
rl> The passage is significant, imho, because it clearly treats 
rl> souls/spirits/demons (aka minds) as extrinsic properties, rather than 
rl> intrinsic properties, of human and animal beings.  

From article <viking.714178827@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> I see a minor point that needs to be addressed.  Demons, spirits,
ds> and souls are different, and do not equate to minds in all cases.  For
ds> example, the human soul is not the thinking part, but it is the spiritual
ds> part, or the essence of the person.  The brain is the thinking part.
ds> Thus, demons and spirits can inhabit the body of anything living, but
ds> this does not mean the living thing need have a soul.  This is only
ds> relevant if you believe it, of course.

You've obviously adopted the revisionist concept of souls, ie the 
one that developed after humans figured out the function of the 
organ now known as the "brain".  

The ancients didn't understand how "brains" worked, and 
attributed the existence of apparently "incorporeal" sensations 
and thoughts to the presence of incorporeal "souls".  Bad 
thoughts and/or bad behavior, logically enough, were attributed 
to "bad spirits" or demons.   Good thoughts and behavior were 
attributed to such things as "gods", "angels", "muses", etc.

It's interesting that the gods and goddesses which allegedly 
caused inexplicable phenomena like fire, seasonal changes, and so 
on, have all been laid to rest by scientific progress.  Yet the 
notion of "souls" lingers on, perhaps because mortality is a 
difficult and painful concept for many of us.  

I'm looking forward to Mike's response to several of your points,
in particular the discussion of the persecution of Joseph Smith's 
in the name of "god".

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My dog
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:39:18 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <lxgyafl@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) 
writes:
> So it's OK for this dog to munch on rabbits and such despite the fact
> that the owner is feeding it.

What do you mean by "it's OK"? If you're asking whether or not the dog is 
behaving ethically, I'd say the question is nonsensical - ethics apply to 
humans and not to dogs. A dog can be neither ethical nor unethical. 

> Is it OK for this dog to munch on
> children as well, under this clause that it is exempt from human
> ethics?  

I covered this in my section on obligations to society. Briefly, ethics don't 
apply to the dog, but the human has an ethical obligation to society to 
prevent such attacks from occurring.

> So it's a Bad Thing (tm) ...

Your words, not mine. See above.

>...for this dog to munch on other cats and dogs
> that are "members of society."  Two questions.  Is it OK for this dog
> to munch on a stray cat or dog that isn't a "member of society?" 

Interesting question. Stray dogs and cats are often real grey areas for me 
when discussing ethical issues. I'd have to think about this some more, 
though I'd rephrase it to "is the human ethically obligated to try to prevent 
his/her dog from attacking strays?"
 
>Why
> are "non members of society," if you'll permit me to coin the phrase,
> such as rabbits and such, allowed to be killed but not eaten?   

This is variation on your earlier theme. If you understand my above answers, 
then you'll know the answer to this. 
 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Olympics and Animal rights
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:42:01 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>> Jim B. Powlesland writes:
>>>>xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>>>In modern olympic games, equestrian is also very popular, but the
>>>>human got medal and money, what did horse get?  --Zhigan
>>>
>>>The best feed, medical attention, etc. that money can buy. And,
>>>if a stallion, going to stud full-time in his retirement.
>> 
>> ..... potentially crippling injuries ......
>
>The same can be said for the human athletes, any one that is involved in any
>sport.

Except that humans are hardly ever "put down" after sustaining one.  Plus I 
can't seem to find the human event that requires the athlete to carry 150 to
200 pounds on its back and jump over obstacles while taking "orders" from its
cargo......   :-)

Rob U, maybe the biathalon???? (Honest, the gun TOLD me to)
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: hunting phenomenology
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:17:55 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:

>linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:

[munch]

>>  What about the marvelous beauty of wheat fields that
>>will be reaped from the ground so that man can eat?  The wheat becomes no
>>more. 

>Here, I do think you have a good point.  To wantonly and senselessly
>destroy a mountain meadow or even a wheat field is a kind of disregard
>and voiced profanity.

Isn't the wheat field a profanity to what would be there but for man's
agricultural activities?  My point?  Where do you draw the line?
 
--JOnathan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:26:45 GMT

Dreamer...  I saw your posting.  I don't have time to reply right
now because I have bigger fish to fry, but dip yourself in beaten
egg and roll yourself in bread crumbs, because your time is coming
very soon.

Ken
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Olympics and Animal rights
Date: 17 Aug 92 05:29:00 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug16.183210.3513@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>Strange to say, horses aren't very often 'put down' after sustaining serious
>injuries.  I have friends who have spent literally thousands of dollars on
>a mare, trying to save her life after serious injuries.  She currently is
>semi-sound, a family pet who is greatly loved.  I also spent several months
>and quite a lot of money on a horse I was GIVEN who had been very badly 
>injured.  My vet made me promise that if I could not save him I would accept
>the fact that he must be put to sleep due to the constant pain and suffering
>he was having.  We all gave it our best shot but he had to be put down after
>five months, we just couldn't fix his leg so that he wasn't in pain.  

Have you seen the sometimes staggering numbers of race horses put down at
some tracks across the country?  (One to me is staggering)  Being around
the rodeos over the past few years, I've seen too many animals put down
because of the "expense" to the owner.  It always seems that it most often
happens with owners who treat the animal as part of a business.  The 
dabblers and pleasure riders are much more hesitant to do it.

>So,
>don't 'put down' horse owners unless you have spent a few months in freezing
>cold weather, pumping shots into horses, coaxing an ill one to eat, and also
>spent sometime laying on a stall floor assisting a mare to foal.  

Do years count?  I can't begin to total the hours I've spent mending fences,
moving horses into/out of the barns and into the different fields, loading and
unloading feed and bedding into the loft, helping the vet with minor surgery,
birthing (not the vet, the horse :-)), hauling equipment and horses to 
competitions, etc......

>Horses are BUILT to jump over obstacles carrying 150 to 200 plus pounds.  And
>as for doing it under orders, I have an old gelding here that jumps for the
>fun of it, that's why all my fences are five feet tall!  Otherwise he would
>be visiting the neighbors every chance he got.
>Sue

BUILT to jump over obstacles with that kind of weight?!  I'm not even sure how
to approach that one.....  We've got a stallion and two geldings that will do 
just about anything with some persuasion, but wouldn't even think about doing
them on their own.  Sometimes I wonder who the smart ones are.  Of course, we 
have this mare that will do absolutely nothing with and without coaxing.  I
suspect that she is part mule (though the bloodline says no) ....  :-)

Rob U, ask me about my run-in with the wire, neighbors cattle, and Bud sometime
       (not a pretty sight)

--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: They're coming for Ronald.
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:47:34 GMT

Hey, I just had a GREAT idea.  Let's put Ronald McD. in touch with
Dreamer the Dog Killer.  Between the two of them I bet they could
come up with some great recipes for Puppy McNuggets.  

 B;->

Ken
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals