HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Terrorism and Imagery
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:36:01 GMT

From article <1993Jan28.144707.25630@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <1993Jan28.030855.4018@sol.cs.wmich.edu> thmiley@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Tim Miley) writes:
> 
>>I would like to get a better glimpse of what goes on in the animal labs.
>>
>>Do this one time.  Make contact with an animal researcher and see if you can
>>get a guided tour of the lab.  See if you can get in.
>>
>>My point being: if the researchers are so confident that their research is
>>helpful to mankind, why are they not proud of showing it off?
> 
> 
> Tim, excuse me for butting in, I just wanted to comment on this last
> issue.  I'll leave the rest to you folks (I have enough on my hands as it is)
> But as  researcher, I can tell you why we are reluctant to let others in
> the labs.  VIOLENCE.  Plain and simple.  

The other day you told us that Carey had censored major sections of his
proposals in order to stay competitive.  Now you're saying that someone
like Carey is merely afraid of violence (plain and simple).  Which
is it: violence or fear of competition?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: LSU Cat Shooting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:16:27 GMT

From article <1993Jan25.205138.15583@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
> Russell, I hope that you will place discussion
> of the LSU Cat Shooting research back on your
> t.p.a agenda.

It certainly opens a new round of discussion.  At the moment, I'm
waiting for responses from Congressman Livingston, two reporters
from the Times-Picayune, and the local attorney who launched the
local protest against the experiments.   

> The brief newspaper summary you posted a few weeks ago was at 
> odds with the general tone and conclusions of the 60 minutes 
> report.  

It's obvious that somebody's mistaken. 

> If possible, could you provide your feelings about why Dr.  
> Carey's research would be unnecessary and unjustifiable.  The 
> report left me with the opposite impression.  

My "feelings" aren't relevant here.  What counts are the facts
and reasons, pro and con.  Be that as it may, it was Greg Popken
and Martin Hulsey who invoked the "necessary" and "justifiable"
argument on behalf of animal research.  I'd appreciate it if
you would challenge them to qualify their use of these terms
by explaining whether or not:

 -- sport hunting is "necessary" and "justifiable", and hence,
    not cruel.

 -- mink coats are "necessary" and "justifiable", and hence,
    not cruel.

I'd appreciate your answers, as well, so that we can develop
a fuller appreciation of your support for Carey's research.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: abulsari@abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT)
Subject: Re: Terrorism and Imagery
Organization: Abo Akademi University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:42:39 GMT

In article <1k2j3cINNeki@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:
>
>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.  

Not necessarily. There are different kinds of terrorists.

Animal experimenters are more vicious because they attack targets
which are softer - the victims hardly have a chance to defend
themselves.

Animal eaters ... extrapolate for yourselves.

Abhay
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 06:20:08 GMT

russel:
> ens:
>> russel:

>>>Yes, I realize that an idea is
>>>"acceptable" if nearly everyone accepts it.   As an example, the
>>>concept of a flat earth was "acceptable" just a few centuries ago.

>> The flatness of the earth is independent of social consensus. 

>So is the pain of a torture victim.   

The existence of pain, yes. Is it not possible for you to remember
from one sentence to the next that we're discussing the ethics of
pain, not its existence.

>> Fashion is defined by social consensus. So? Neither fashion nor flatness
>> are ethics. Try again.

>You've been accepting ethical ideas at face value, without examining
>the underlying facts.

We have reached an impasse, I think.

You believe that needless pain and suffering are wrong for facts and
reasons that you refuse (or are unable) to disclose.

I believe that needless pain and suffering are wrong because this is
the consensus of society. (As I have said there is probably 
an evolutionary explanation for the consensus, but the ethics
are defined by society nonetheless.)

But suppose we accept the idea that needless pain and suffering is wrong
as an axiom (since, for whatever reason we are in agreement on that),
and try to go beyond reductio ad absurdum scenarios.

Most real human activities involve both pain and benefit. You have
already agreed that childbirth and dentistry justify the pain they
cause. What about taking a drive with your significant other in a 57
Chevy convertible on a Sunday afternoon. Cars cause much pain and
suffering, not to mention polution. On the other hand courtship is
important for the general disposition of society. Is it unethical?
Are cars in general unethical? After all, we could certainly survive
without them. Is going to the beach unethical in view of the
new data on skin cancer? Skiing? Is wearing leather unethical? Fur? 
Eating meat? Eating certain vegetables that require more irrigation
or more land than others?

In deciding one should certainly identify and enumerate the negatives
(pain etc) based on the above axiom, and also consider the benefits.
But what objective facts and arguments do you use to apply a value on
one side of the equation or the other?  Surely these values are
influenced by our social environment and in the end the decision is
simply a matter of opinion.

Werner



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:02:35 GMT

From article <C16z25.LDr@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> (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. 

Would you volunteer to pay the medical and recovery bills of a woman 
who was raped in New Orleans a week or so ago?

> 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.

Skiing and pain are not synonomous concepts.  Have you ever known
a skiier who skied because he enjoyed pain?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11891 alt.activism:21515 rec.food.veg:12675
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Respect for Yeast  (this is gross, skip if humor impaired)
Date: 28 Jan 1993 07:28:50 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


If yeasts are deamed sentinent beings, does that mean women wishing to get
rid of their yeast infections are senseless killers?  Would the yeast
rights activists sneak into the house of a woman attempting to kill her
yeast and film the process in all its glory?  Would the women in the yeast
rights movements allow their own yeast to fester?  How about head and body
lice?  How about trichinosis or tape worms?

This isnt even funny is it...

Sorry if i offened you.

alex
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:41:25 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <C1FCw8.Dwq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <C1Ep5H.vw@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
>> In <C18554.JnI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> 
>>>The arguments against animal agriculture involve three separate 
>>>concerns:
>> 
>>>1) ethical arguments regarding the rights and/or suffering of 
>>>   animals;
>>>2) public health issues stemming from the role of animal fats and
>>>   proteins in fostering disease; and
>>>3) environmental arguments.
>> 
>> 1)
>> The only believable reason for dogmatic rejection of all animal
>> agriculture is (1). The other two are rationalizations.
>> I doubt that any vegans would change their view if it were shown
>> than a diet including animal products were as healthy and as 
>> environmentally benign as a vegan diet.

>If it could be demonstrated that:

>1) animals are mindless automata, as Descartes claimed, and hence,
>   devoid of thoughts and feelings; and
>2) animal fats promote health, rather than disease; and
>3) animal agriculture helps the environment;

>then, I'd be happy to eat steaks and hamburgers and chickens all
>day long.   However, there's a substantial body of evidence to 
>demonstrate that:

Obviously, but you didn't disagree with my claim that concern about
animal welfare is both necessary and sufficient to be vegan.

Werner
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:37:57 GMT
Organization: WP Group

From article <1993Jan26.161308.14418@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>> Your problem is that you insist upon equating "Truth" with 
>>> "Ethically Acceptable," and they are not the same thing at all.
>>
>>Not exactly.  Let's clarify a few points:
>>
>>First, truth is an ethical good in the realm of ideas, just
>>as pleasure is an ethical good in the realm of feelings.  By
>>contrast, falsity and pain are "bad".
> 
> And I thought we were getting somewhere...I should have known
> better.  Your examples of "truth" and "pleasure" are patently
> false as stated: neither is necessarily a determining factor
> in whether an action is "ethically correct" in a society.  They
> may be determining factors for YOU, but you're not a "society."

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?

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

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: La Cat Shooting Experiments
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:59:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <C1FG81.EyF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <31863@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, by jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad):
>> I am continually amazed about the differences in coverage of an issue or
>> event by the mainstream press and what little I see of the AR press 
>> (including what I read from the AR folks here in t.p.a).  When a little
>> digging is done, many times it seems that the AR press leaves out some
>> essential, but damaging, facts.

>As I pointed out previously, many members and employees of the 
>American Dental Association were flabbergasted when Sixty Minutes 
>did a report on the alleged relationship between multiple 
>sclerosis and amalgam fillings two years ago.  On the surface, 
>the report aired "some essential but damaging facts", as you 
>would say, that were allegedly being hidden from the american 
>public by the dental profession.  In truth, however, the 
>the report was a one-sided and distorted commentary that grossly 
>misinformed the american public.  

To coin one of your favorite phrases, So you say.  

Is there any reason you can think of why anyone should believe what you
are saying is truth considering what you "track record" has been up to
this point?  I mean you certainly have displayed your deceitful tactics,
and you obviously didn't give us the whole story on the cat shooting
research.  On your behalf however, you may have been horn-swaggled by
your good buddies at PETA as well. 

>I'm hoping the Times-Picayune will get involved at this point,
>and pressure some of the "anonymous" folks at LSUMC to make
>public statements.

 
If such people do in fact exist.  It wouldn't surprise me if they did not.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan





Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson -- Cereal Killer)
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Organization: John Deere Product Development and Pathology Lab
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:41:54 GMT

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

	{note that viking@iastate.edu and z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu are one
and the same.  I wouldn't want this to get confusing.  It so happens that
I'm doing some work, exnet is my work machine, and I have a bit of time}

>Santa Cleopatra - I didn't realize this was being cross-posted alt.peeves!
>So sue me, why don't you?  I was referring to t.p.a. .  Okay?

	Sue you?  Why would I do that when harsh language is cheaper?

>Should I be flattered that you've taken time away from all your important 
>things to post a fairly lengthy response to mine?  Well, I am.

	If this flatters you, what would be the reaction if I told you
that I thought you sentence structures were fairly good?  The mind
boggles at the possibilities...

>Try again, Dan.  (a) I didn't realize that this stuff was cross-posted to
>alt.peeves - so, again, fuck me gently with a chainsaw for being so ignorant,

	That can be arranged.  One Husquevarna, <heh> coming up!

>	         (b) As for the Hoosier/Iowa stuff being posted on t.p.a,
>                I stand by what I originally said.  I didn't "bitch about
>opposing opinions", I just tried to communicate an inappropriate use of
>bandwidth.  Comprendez vous?

	You said it was inappropriate, and additionally said that you felt
stopping your attempts to justify your choices and get everybody else to
follow were equally inappropriate.  The opinions voiced were directly
opposed to you, liberally laced with sarcasm, and you bitched about it.
Fact of the matter is that you were inappropriately cross-posting to
alt.peeves, which may be considered hostile territory.  That you left
with only a few bruises is something you should be thankful for.

	Now then, if you wish to do some rational arguing, I'll respond
as viking@iastate.edu on t.p.a; alt.peeves is my PORV at work, and one 
I fully intend to keep using in the grand tradition of rightous peevers.

--
< 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.                   >
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 28 Jan 1993 06:36:21 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


Rich:
>>First, I said "nearly as much"; second, does the WorldWatch number
>>include swimming pools, fountains, lawns, and commercial car washes,
>>or is it more like just the water each individual uses for washing,
>>cooking, flushing, and drinking?  

Russ:
>It covers "at home" use.  This would include residential pools and
>fountains, residential lawns, washing, cooking, and flushing, but
>it wouldn't include commercial car washes.   [Sorry if this explanation
>sounds condescending, but you seemed to be having some trouble figuring
>out the data].

I'd be interested in knowing if your figures were calculated by added
everyone's water bill up and dividing by the number of people, or by some
other method such as a random sampling of "a day in the life" of various
families.

If everyones water bill was used, which I doubt, pools and fountains would
be included.  If another method was used, it is quite obvious that they
would not be included.

Also remember that the pool question is in regard to California, a place
with many more pools, fountains, and large yards that the rest of the
nation and the world.

BTW I recall hearing the 380liters figure as well, if I remember correctly
it referred to drinking, washing, and cooking but not watering the lawn.
At the time it was explained that many people dont have lawns and those
that do use even more.

>In view of the fact that agriculture has been heavily subsidized 
>for years, especially the dairy industry, I don't understand why 

Our society has made a value judgement about this sort of subsidy, the same
sort of judgement we are about to make regarding healthcare.  Since food is
something that everyone must have every day, the food producers have a sort
of monopoly on our lives, we make the judgement that even poor people
should be able to afford to feed themselves so we subsidize food.  I doubt
such subsidies will ever be cut, the country is far too liberal to impose
such a "regressive" policy.

>One thing we can't do so easily is find cures for colon cancer and
>heart disease.  [non surgical method deleted]

Perhaps the cures to these and other diseases will come through animal
reserch?  I couldnt resist ;-)

I predict that now that people better understand the risks of a high fat
diet, omnivores will take more caution and choose meat and dairy products
with less fat.

But, according to todays journal of the AMA, the amount of fat may be less
important that your body shape, apple or pear.  It seems like we still dont
know the final word on nutrition and health.
   
>Russell Lawrence

alex the omnivore



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: gregb@owl.us.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown)
Subject: Re: Trapping
Organization: University Of Idaho.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:21:40 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

: In article <1993Jan17.204907.3513@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
: >Well I just finished up another successful trapping season.  As someone  
: >who actually sees what happens first hand I would like to state for the  
: >record that I believe the animals do not experienced prolonged suffering.  
: >
: >Just thought I'd bring an actual report from the field.  I am a licensed
: >trapper and nuisance control agent.  I wonder if any AR people out there  
: >can share their views, while backing them up with hands on field  
: >experience?
: >
: >Karl Rominger
: >romingk@alleg.edu

So what is the point here?  That if animals do not "experience prolonged
suffering" that trapping is okay?  What is the moral basis for
engaging in unneccessary killing?  Death is death whether painful or
not.  And what of the non-target species?  What is their particular
crime...oops...wrong place at the wrong time...sorry! Clamp!
--
-----------
Greg Brown
gregb@owl.us.uidaho.edu  (University of Idaho)

"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse
is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."
   	Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hypothetical case (was Re: Silver Spring monkeys)
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:01:42 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <C1FI3I.FG2@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan25.175235.13426@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> In article <C184F5.JAv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>I agree that lawyers aren't involved in biomed research.   On the
>>>other hand, the folks who belong to the animal use committees at
>>>our local medical and dental schools work side by side, day in and
>>>day out, with individuals who're charged with the protection of
>>>human patients.
>> 
>> No they don't.  where do you get your information?
>
>Yes they do.  What sort of individuals do you think serve on the 
>animal use committees at LSU Medical School or LSU Dental school?  

There are no practicing M.D.s on the committee here.

>And, do you think they would report negative information, such as 
>the allegations of sub-standard anesthesia in the "cat shooting" 
>experiments?  

I can't believe you are still pushing this cat shooting thing.  Give it up
Russell!  There is no evidence that substandard aneshesia was used.
 >
>> ...
>> The sole function of this group is to assure that the animal care
>> facilities meet with gov. standards.  If they do not, then the director of
>> the facility is held responsible.  If they neglect their duties and the
>> federal agents that visit the facility note violations they are also
>> held responsible.  
>
>How often do these visits occur?  And, can we assume that they're
>conducted with greater diligence than the USDA's daily, on-site 
>inspections of US packing plants?
>
The facilities recieved an unanounced visit from the feds once a year. 
The review committee visits the facilities any number of times a year, as
they are on the premisis.  Committees that review particular grants often
request to see the facilities when they are here.  This does not mention
workers and vets that are on the premisis daily.

What's with the packing plants.  Another ploy to divert the topic?

>> This committee, composed of scientist vets and laymen
>> have no reason not to report violations.
>
>Yes, they do.  If you were an employee of LSU Medical School, your
>butt would be in a sling if you caused waves that might inconvenience
>a researcher with political connections.
>
Well LSU has problems, if it is as you say.  Though I find that hard to
believe.  And am curious were you get the information.

>Incidently, can a single member of such committees report violations?
>Or do such reports require committee approval?
>
I'm not sure.  I'll find out.
Just because I feel the way I do about you.
Greg Popken


-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals