HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:41:04 GMT

liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley) writes:

>In article <altar.703358542@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>>Please, no need to speculate.  Collect some data, or look up some 
>>in the J. of Leisure, etc.   Tell me, why should your opinion count more
>>than that of 296 respondents randomly selected from a larger population
>>of 16,021, and collected by trained interviewers under the direction
>>of trained and published researchers?  No doubt, you are probably
>>correct with respect to yourself, but I assume that you are not
>>an "ex-hunter".  Why, then, do you presume to speak on their
>>behalf and so readily discount their collective polled opinion?

>Sorry ted, but I don't quite agree with your quick dismissal here. You
>are (based on what you've said here) arguing based on the results of
>a single study. This is not exactly what I'd call the 'scientific

>method'. How can you dismiss another persons information when you
>are yourself are not using a full deck?

True, I cited the results from only one publication, but that publication 
is in effect a summary of MORE than one study and collection of data.
Indeed, the current trend in research publications in the better 
journals is towards the single  publication of a series of studies undertaken 
by the author(s), so as to more readily achieve generalizability and/or
ecological validity (i.e., applies in the real world).

No doubt, my deck is not full, no scientific deck ever is.  But being
half full is certainly a lot better than the single coloured half-card of
one's one anecdotal evidence.  Also, keep in mind that the deck is possibly
stacked against me since the researchers of this study adopt a pro-hunting
assumption.  They see this attrition of hunters as "desertion", maybe
like rats deserting a sinking ship.  ;-)

                                ted
.
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Animal slaves (was Re; Boiling lobsters)
Keywords: PETA Idiocyy
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:11:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.221202.21278@u.washington.edu>  
toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
>> 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....
>> >
>Animal slave? What'd I miss? 
>I'm a bit new to this group;  it seems to me I'm not up on all the  
<terminology used. To what (or whom) are you referring?

Nah, Chris is just poking fun at Ingrid ("a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy")
Nutburger (oops, Newkirk) , head of PETA, and her infamous pronouncement 
that pet ownership is a form of slavery.  (Surprised?  I think most people 
are when they hear that one.)

In my house it's certainly the other way around;  I don't own my cats,
they own ME.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:58:53 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <AWERLING.92Apr2104417@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.105111.4665@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>It would seem to me from your answer that you haven't really thought this 
>>out.  Perhaps you should do so.
> 
> Thanks for the advice.  One of the benefits of the net, as I see it,
> is to bounce ideas back and forth and hopefully learn a bit about
> ourselves, and even something about the human creature.
> 
> I'm always re-examining myself, John.  At least I'm realistic about my
> limitations.  

Always re-examining yourself?  You mean you can never make up your mind?  
You're always in doubt?  Frankly you're one of the least realistic people 
I've seen here.

> 
> --
> Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu
-- 
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: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Speciesism and vegetarianism
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:55:33 GMT

In article <4-4tnml@rpi.edu> schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.154723.21929@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>
>>In human society, rape is a power play, a violent crime that does not
>>usually relate to the desire to reproduce.  "Mating habits" of untamed
>>animals (rape, in some cases), may or may not be considered analogous
>>to human rape.  Do other animals realize that offspring results from
>>mating?  The typical answer would be no, but I am not prepared to
>>assume this in all cases.  This reminds me of one aspect of the book,
>>Clan of the Cave Bear, that I found very hard to believe, that the
>>people did not realize that intercourse leads to pregnancy.
>>
>Actually, the records are fairly clear that this was not realized 
>until the dawn of the Greek civilization.  So I'd say it is almost
>definite that most animals can't make the connection between mating
>and babies.  I still wouldn't be sure in all cases, but it is a safe
>assumption, IMO.  The exceptions could be hamsters, since gestation
>is so fast, or kangaroos, which seem able to control gestation
>based on available resources.  Even those would be doubtful, though.
>  
>E.S.

Although my European history isn't the best, I think the dawn of Greek
civilization was around 1500-1000 BC. Are you implying that the
mesopotamian civilizations didn't make this connection?  And the Chinese?
What about native American societies?  I would be interested in what
records you refer to.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Subject: Re: A Musing About Death
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: talk
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 92 16:46:56 GMT

awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

[...]

>The snails last night had no reason to feel trust.  It rained.  Snails
>come out when it rains.  I felt it tragic that others failed to see
>tha magic that I saw.
>
>Death, to no end.  No purpose.  No benefit.  It is to this I am
>opposed.  


	A touching, almost poetic, story, Andrew, and I mean that sincerely,
	not as flame bait.

	As humans, we tend to forget that death is simply the last stage
	of life, i. e., if you live, you WILL die.  Death, in and of itself,
	is not the heinous thing it's often made out to be: it's simply the
	last thing in your life, and Nature uses it often to keep excess
	from destroying its balance, but there is NO death which does not
	benefit some creature, even if said creature is but a maggot which
	gains sustenance from the corpse.  From the maggot's standpoint, the
	snails are an unexpected bounty.

	Killing.  Now THERE is something over which we might exercise some
	control, and it is killing, I suspect, to which you are really
	opposed.  It is, after all, not the fact that a creature dies which
	upsets so much as the untimeliness of its demise.  If the snails
	on the sidewalk had died of old age, perhaps you would not have
	felt the melancholy brought on by the realization that they might
	have lived longer had they not been inconveniently located.

	I do not mean to make light of your musings, such things are
	necessary from time to time so that we may understand the world
	in our own terms and in our own way.  Thank you for posting such
	a thoughtful piece.


-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: ref. on wildlife pop. controls
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:56:34 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <RIGG.92Apr1175122@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
> In article <72287@netnews.upenn.edu> barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>    In article <1992Apr1.104056.4697@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>    >1) What was the estimated population of deer in what is now the 
>    >continental U.S. prior to establishment of the British colonies?
> 	   15-40 million animals.
>    >2) What happened to the deer population when exposed to unchecked market 
>    >hunting?
> 	   300-500 thounsand animals just before the 1900.
>    >3) What is the current deer population?
> 	   12-20 million.
> 
> I have never seen numbers like this.  I have read in numerous places
> that there are far  more deer now than when the Colonists landed.
> What are your sources for those numbers?

The numbers in 2 are at least close I think.  Last I heard current reports 
place the population size in 3 around 25 million.  Where the numbers in 1 
are coming from I have no idea.

> 
> tim
> --
>     ...  Then they came for me,
> 	   and by that time there was no one
> 	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
-- 
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: Speciesism and vegetarianism
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:34:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.155533.11359@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <4-4tnml@rpi.edu> schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.154723.21929@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>>
>>>In human society, rape is a power play, a violent crime that does not
>>>usually relate to the desire to reproduce.  "Mating habits" of untamed
>>>animals (rape, in some cases), may or may not be considered analogous
>>>to human rape.  Do other animals realize that offspring results from
>>>mating?  The typical answer would be no, but I am not prepared to
>>>assume this in all cases.  This reminds me of one aspect of the book,
>>>Clan of the Cave Bear, that I found very hard to believe, that the
>>>people did not realize that intercourse leads to pregnancy.
>>>
>>Actually, the records are fairly clear that this was not realized 
>>until the dawn of the Greek civilization.  So I'd say it is almost
>>definite that most animals can't make the connection between mating
>>and babies.  I still wouldn't be sure in all cases, but it is a safe
>>assumption, IMO.  The exceptions could be hamsters, since gestation
>>is so fast, or kangaroos, which seem able to control gestation
>>based on available resources.  Even those would be doubtful, though.
>
>Although my European history isn't the best, I think the dawn of Greek
>civilization was around 1500-1000 BC. Are you implying that the
>mesopotamian civilizations didn't make this connection?  And the Chinese?
>What about native American societies?  I would be interested in what
>records you refer to.

Hmmmm.  I haven't thought about this since high school.  I think one
of the places I read it was in the book, "The Origin of Consciousness
in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind."  I can't remember the author.
However, I have read and heard it several other places, though I can't
remember exactly where.  Maybe some text on Greek literature.  They often
put in cultural notes.  I distinctly remember one English teacher who
said so.  Overall, I thought "The Origin..." was nonsense, but that one
bit of evidence was fairly well supported.  

E.S.
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Putting People First (PPF)
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:56:16 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <RIGG.92Apr10153736@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.123510.29390@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>    In article <1992Apr8.143029.4893@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>    >For those interested, there is an article on an organization called Putting 
>    >People First in talk.politics.guns.  It is part of a series of postings 
>    >from the PROponent.
> 
>    Leave your PROpoganda out of here.
> 
> But AR propoganda is okay??

Yeah of course it is.  Sheesh haven't you caught on yet Tim?  Friends of 
Animals is GOOD, hunting is BAD.  A big adult like Mikey doesn't want the 
rest of us little children exposed to this BAD human type stuff...warps our 
little minds it does. :-)

> 
> What exactly is this group for if the PRO information is not allowed?
> 
> tim
> --
>     ...  Then they came for me,
> 	   and by that time there was no one
> 	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
> 
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Musing About Death
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:18:41 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <AWERLING.92Apr2110147@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

[...stuff deleted...]

> Death, to no end.  No purpose.  No benefit.  It is to this I am
> opposed.  

Then you shouldn't be oppossed to hunting, for which there is tremendous 
purpose and benefit.

> 
> --
> Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:42:18 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Apr15.125804.5080@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <altar.703144584@sfu.ca>, altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>It is interesting to note that many other activities suffer from a high 
>turnover rate of potentially new enthusiasts.  Fencing is one such 
>activity.  Usually, when people discover that it isn't like the pirate 
>movies they used to watch, and it isn't like Star Wars lightsaber battles, 
>they lose interest and quit.  This does not mean that there is something 
>intrinsically wrong with fencing.  It does mean that many people, for one 
>reason or another, lose interest in it.  Some are disillusioned to discover 
>that it isn't what they thought it was, some find it much harder than they 
>thought it would be, some just find it boring.  The list goes on.  The 
>point is that this says more about the potential enthusiasts than it does 
>about the activity itself.

I agree whole-heartedly. I have taught martial-arts for about 10 years
and find that between 60 and 70 percent of new students drop out
within the first six months. Does this reflect anything "wrong" with
martial arts? I think not. As a matter of fact, the drop out rate in
all of martial arts is about 15% higher that the average for my classes.
Does that mean that other instructers are less ethical than I? Again I
say no. The most often given reasons for martial arts burn out are
that other activities are more fun/interesting, and that the 
participants didn't know how much work was involved! I'd bet the latter
has an impact on new hunters as well!

jerry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Speciesism and vegetarianism
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:14:50 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Apr7.230305.7120@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) 
writes:

> life).  The animal liberationists are still guilty of speciesism in a
> paternalistic way.  This speciesism manifests itself most obviously
> in the call to vegetariansim.
> 
> The implication of the word speciesism is that we view our species above
> others in value, when we shouldn't.  Fine.  The problem is that in nature
> animals "take" other animals for their needs and for self defense.  When
> animal liberationists call for vegetarianism, they are essentially
> claiming a moral superiority to the "wild" animal kingdom, and therefore
> placing themselves above it.  Although very different from those who
> view nonhuman animals as existing for our pleasure and enjoyment, this is
> still a form of speciesism, or anthropocentrism.
 
I agree that there is some amount of speciesism in a call for vegetarianism, 
but find it to be quite narrow in form. The point of the AR movement is to 
focus on the similarities between the species, specifically the ability to 
feel pain and to enjoy life. This perspective is applied in a very broad 
context and doesn't strike me as being at all speciesist.  
 
As you observed, the speciesism comes in when we try to generate an ethical 
system, which we then only apply to humans. I believe this selective 
application of our ethics is due to two observations: 
 
1. Non-human animals don't seem to be able to understand/follow the ethical 
system(s) we come up with. 
 
2. We don't want to adopt theirs. Murder, rape, infacticide, theft, etc. are 
all standard parts of the non-human world, we choose not to condone these in 
our ethical system(s).  
 
Because of these two observations, we choose to adopt an ethical system that 
only applies to humans. If you want to label this as speciesist, so be it. 
Mea culpa. If people point their fingers at me and say "there's the guy who 
thinks human ethics should be different than animal ethics", I think I can 
deal with it. But please keep in mind that the label is appropriate only in a 
very specific context.

>The views above follow those of a movement known as deep ecology.  Deep
> ecologists see the use of animals for vital needs as acceptable since
> it is a part of nature.  No ecosystem without predators can be
> considered natural or healthy.

 
I have a couple of questions about this:

1. How do deep ecologists define "vital", as in vital needs? 
2. Do deep ecologists accept all actions that are part of nature (murder, 
rape, etc.)? 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:33:07 GMT

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:
>
><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.
>
So it is perfectly fine to modify lifestyles.  

>>>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.
>
As do you.  You say it is ok to modify animal lifestyles, and by
taxicabs, human lifestyles, too.  

So, other than to avoid modifying your own precious lifestyle (since
you said modification of human lifestyles is ok), what is your
justification for hunting?

E.S.
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Putting People First
Keywords: Putting People First
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:25:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

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?  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.

Rob U, prefers the original draft of the Declaration to the final draft

--
-  Rob Unglenieks           |   "Half of us are dumb,                  -
-  unglenie@ecn.purdue.edu  |    the other half are just stupid."      -
-  (too busy grad student)  |                            - Rob U       -
Hi! I'm a .signature virus vaccine!  Add me to your .signature and be cured!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: sk@irons.Colorado.EDU ()
Subject: DEBATE 
Reply-To: sk@irons.Colorado.EDU ()
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:13:08 GMT

For all who may be interested:

Donald Barnes from NAVS will debate with a researcher from
Denver University on Animal Testing/Research(?).  The debate
will take place in Duane Physics rm. G-030, on the University
of Colorado at Boulder campus, Wednesday, April 29, 1992, 7:30 pm.

NAVS = National AntiVivisection Society

All Welcome!

PS.  Why can't the FDA prove that the DRAIZE test really works????
     Could it be that big business is involved (B&L)?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals