HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My dog
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:57:29 GMT

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes, but screws up the attributes.

>In article <1992Aug26.174534.1250@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul 
>Roberts) writes:

>>	Parse it again, Ted.  "The being I grant them to be capable" does
>>not infer a particular age at which this realization happens, but it does
>>require that that realization should be very likely to happen at some
>>individual age.

	Actually, *I* wrote this, so Paul need not feel persecuted.

>Cut the "parse it again" crap. You wrote it in the present tense, now you're 
>trying to add in the future. It's fine with me if you want to modify your 
>original statement, but I'd respect you a lot more if you were up front about 
>it.

	If you think the obvious cases of newborns had not occurred to me
and would not have been included, you are underestimating me.  You should
know that I don't expect 12 year olds to vote, why should I expect them to
have all rights?  The same goes for deer.  If I grant them a right to vote
at age 20, it's reasonable to grant them other rights earlier.  When any
person or animal can be reasonably thought of as posessing the ability to
recognize and be responsible for the use or abuse of a right, it is generally
granted to them.

	As for respect, when I have ever been anything but up front with
what I think in this or any other newsgroup?  I reserve the right to
modify my opinions as new evidence comes in, but there's no ulterior motive
behind my posts.  I say what I think.  Not always in the best of terms,
mind you, but always truthfully.  Your respect is something I'd like to have,
but that I certainly won't go out of my way to attain.  I suspect and hope
the reverse is true.

<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. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:20:31 GMT

In article <Btv822.B93@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Aug31.183331.8106@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>ja> I guess I've lost track of the question.  What issue am I 
>ja> evading?  I am sure you don't really need to ask my opinion of 
>ja> industrial pollution (should be minimized, but there is a point 
>ja> of diminishing marginal returns.  If people want to live in an 
>ja> industrial society with all it's modern conveniences, some 
>ja> pollution will result) I guess I am appalled by wanton damage to 
>ja> the environment which supports wildlife, but not particularly 
>ja> worried about individuals.  Prey is for eating.  Does this help 
>ja> clear things up?  
>ja> 
>ja> 
>ja> But it seems to me you have not answered my question.  I'll 
>ja> rephrase it.  Is it "unnatural" for any species to use tools or 
>ja> just for man?  Is it unnatural for man to kill and eat other 
>ja> animals regardless of whether tools are used?  
>
>You seem to be suggesting that the test of "naturalness" is 
>whether or not non-human animals also engage in a given practice, 
>but I'm sure you'd agree with me that industrial pollution would 
>be no less "unnatural" if chimps were the offending agents rather 
>than humans.  
>
>We perceive industrial pollution as "unnatural", not because it's 
>the work of human animals rather than non-human animals, but 
>because industrial pollutants have a warping effect on the normal 
>patterns of nature.  We both agree that "killing and eating" is
>perfectly "natural", but the natural simile ends when the nature
>and extent of the killing is grossly modified by technology.  You
>may choose to ignore the differences, but human predation and
>wolf predation are quite dissimilar in terms of the impact which
>they have on the prey.
>

Would you expand on this last sentence? In what way are they dissimilar? Are
you saying wolves only prey on the sick and weak? Evidence supporting this 
difference? Human predation admittedly *may* be different (e.g.large scale
market hunting as with the bison) but I take your statement to mean in all
cases. 

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy)
Subject: Re: New meaning for Peta
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:02:38 GMT

In article <BtzoE0.4GA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep3.023742.13635@news.iastate.edu>, by mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy):
>mp> PETA
>mp> People for the eating of tasty animals.
>mp> 
>mp> On this Iowa Conference thing I think that the State FFAOfficers 
>mp> should make a trip to this (Myself Northeast 
>mp> Vice-President)little event and help you people get your shit 
>mp> straight 
>mp> 
>mp>
>mp> Beef Real food for REAL people
>
>Is it true that the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study found a 
>high correlation between beef consumption and breast cancer?
>
>Is it true that the China Health Project found a high correlation 
>between meat consumption and heart disease, stroke, cancer, and
>diabetes?
>
>
No public health organization has said that eating meat is bad.
















-- 
mpleis@iastate.edu     Mark L. Pleis 
Agricultural Systems Technology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:30:11 GMT


From article <7pwysaj@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> Russell, Russell, Russell.  You truly disappoint me.  This is the
jve> second time you've quoted this completely out of context with the
jve> intent to malign my character.  So let me remind everyone (ad nauseum
jve> -- is anyone getting as tired as I am of this lad's temper tantrum?)
jve> what was truly said:
jve> 
jve>  "I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers
jve>   or whatever) vote in this. :-) :-)  Just funnin' ya, Russell."

Let me remind you that Linda didn't appreciate your attempt to "fun"
me at her expense.

> ...

Russell Lawrence wrote:
rl> Thanks for "letting" one of the female employees of my company 
rl> voice her expressions of gratitude to Ferrell Wheeler for posting 
rl> material that she found useful.  

jve> Two comments.  First, why do you need to say Linda is a *female* 
jve> employee?  A non-sexist person like myself would have merely said 
jve> she was an employee, not a *female* employee.  Why do you draw 
jve> this distinction?  Second, what on Earth are you talking about?  
jve> She's free to do what she wants, and since I've never said or 
jve> implied otherwise, you should take the advise to remain silent, 
jve> rather than remove our doubts.  

As I said, I'm sure that Linda appreciates the fact that you're willing
to let the girlfriends, wives, and mothers who work for companies
like mine participate in usenet.  I hope you extend the same courtesy
to the women at rpi.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My dog
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:53:23 GMT

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>> 	If I am to grant rights, or recognize rights, I require that the
>> being I grant them to be capable of knowing the difference between
>> exercising them and abusing them, for only then can I prosecute for
>> the violation of said rights by the individual.  
> 
>So, for example, a newborn would be bereft of rights and subject to your 
>every whim?

	Parse it again, Ted.  "The being I grant them to be capable" does
not infer a particular age at which this realization happens, but it does
require that that realization should be very likely to happen at some
individual age.  Thus, the newborn has rights, but other rights are
withheld and assumed by the parents until such time as the child is
determined capable of exercising them with judgement and aforethought.
Read that last sentence again too, and note that I cannot prosecute
a minor.  Your example is quite flawed.  If you could prove that deer
can live to an age whereupon they shall be able to know the difference
between exercising and abusing rights, and where they shall be liable
for prosecution for these transgressions, then you'll have a very
convincing argument for my granting them rights.  Until then, you may
try to register deer as voters, or try me for murder if I'm successful
in my deer hunting this fall.  Note that I have a right to face my
accusser, and a deer who says I shot at him won't have much by way of
credibility on the witness stand.  Can he even know the ramifications
of taking the oath, let alone be a convincing witness?

<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. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:07:55 GMT


Jonathan Spencer writes:
js> I do not dispute that
js> an animal in poor condition is less likely to breed. 

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Are you one of the few remaining individuals who still believe 
rl> that added fatness is a requirement for health?  If not, why 
rl> would you assume that the dysfunction of ovulatory cycles because 
rl> of lower body fat is a sign of poor condition?  

From article <Bu01Ht.yr@newcastle.ac.uk>, by J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer):
js> Huh?

The evidence indicates that fertility will drop as adipose tissue
falls below a certain point, typically 17% in humans.  It's a mistake
for anyone to interpret lower fat levels as a sign of degrading 
physical condition.

rl> Frankly, it seems 
rl> to me that an individual with 16% body fat may be just as 
rl> healthy, perhaps more healthy, than an individual with 18% body 
rl> fat, yet one may be fertile and not the other.  If I'm not 
rl> mistaken, thinner individuals are also able to utilize fat more 
rl> effectively in time of famine, and often endure better in time of 
rl> famine.  
rl> 
rl> Our understanding of the role of body fat in regulating fertility 
rl> was aided enormously by studies involving olympic athletes with 
rl> low body fat, notably marathon runners.  [You know what bad 
rl> condition they're in.] There's some evidence to suggest that male 
rl> fertility as well as female fertility is affected when levels of 
rl> body fat are lower.  

js> To which I say: 1) I haven't mentioned fat, I mentioned poor 
js> condition. 

In order to get a better understanding of the role that fat plays
in regulating fertility, kindly read: Frisch, Rose. "Fatness and
Fertility", _Scientific American_, March, 1988.

js> 2) Hang on a moment!  All along you've been argueing 
js> that lower fat levels reduces fertility.  Now you say it 
js> increases it.  Can it be both?  

Either I've written some bad prose or you misread some passage that
I've written.  Would you mind quoting the text where I allegely
said that lower fat levels increase fertility?

BTW, I'd appreciate it if you'd stick with the relevant issues and not
try to make me into the topic of debate.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: What Animal "Rights" People are _Really_ Saying?
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:41:24 GMT

In article <swood.715232608@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>
>
>             What the Animal "Rights" People Are _Really_ Saying?

[...]

>	 A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.
>				-Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical
>				       Treatment of Animals (PETA)
>				 (_Washingtonian_Magazine_, August 1986)
>

Oviously this statement is nonsense, if taken literally. 

Did Ms. Newkirk really say this, as a standalone statement?  Or did she
say this?  

	"When it comes to feelings, like pain, hunger, and thirst, a
	rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

Please check it out and get back to us on it.

[...]

>
>	 Humanity is the cancer of nature.
>				-Dave Foreman, Earth First!
>
>                                  *   *   *
>
>	 Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.
>				-John Muir, Founder of the Sierra Club

[...]


>	 The optimum human population of earth is zero.
>				-Dave Foreman, Earth First!
>
>                                  *   *   *
>
>	 The human race could go extinct and I for one would not shed
>	 any tears.
>				-Dave Foreman, Earth First!
>
>                                  *   *   *

Why is Dave Forman quoted here? Is he an animal rights supporter? A
quick glance at recent issues of the Earth First! Journal will show that
Earth First! is NOT an animal rights organization.  Or are you going to
claim that since Foreman and Earth First! have gone their separate ways,
that Foreman is now an animal rights supporter? Does Foreman himself
know this?

Why is John Muir quoted here?  He predates the modern animal rights
movement by many decades.  Obviously he spent much time in the
wilderness and did not believe in shooting animals (or even carrying
a gun), but was he really a believer in animal rights?  Are you going
to claim that he was, in fact, an animal rights supporter in the mold
of, say, Henry Salt?

It does appear that Michigan_Outdoors is reaching a little in order to
pad their list.

>
>(Republished from the _Michigan_Outdoors_ Fred Trost's Outdoors Club
> _Outdoor_Digest_, pg. 37, August/September 1992 from the _SOS_Bureau_Alert!_)

Can you please post an address for this publication?  ... or at least a
phone number?  Thanks in advance.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:30:57 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of 28 Aug 92 05:53:59 GMT

In article <BtoJ20.GE4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   From article <RIGG.92Aug25113821@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> Okay, given that rounding, the fence would be free!  I just called
   tr> Marc Beem at Beem Fencing.  He just fenced in a 960 acre resort that
   tr> took 5 miles of 10-foot deer-proof fence.  The total cost was $75,000.

   Would you mind describing the fence material that he used? 

Beem fencing often advertises in hunting magazines.  If you browse
through one, you will see a picture of the fencing they install.  It
appears to be 10' chain-link fence.  I saw the ad and the phone number
in Deer and Deer Hunting's 1992 Equipment Guide. I don't have it in
front of me but I think it is around page 13.  There is a list of
advertisers on the last page.

All this is really pointless.  The fact is that a fence capable of
containing deer without problems can be purchased for somewhere on the
order of $100,000.  Since this is at least an order of magnitude lower
than your estimate, please provide documentation or concede this
point.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:13:05 GMT
Organization: WP Group

In article <Bu0o7D.D0x@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Matt's entitled to his views, but when he pretends that they're the
rl> product of the mind of "nature" or some make-shift god, I reserve
rl> the right to point out the inherent misrepresentation.

From article <1992Sep4.134744.16443@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> Well, I'm glad to see you've given Matt permission to have his 
ry> own views, :-) but whether or not they are misrepresentations of 
ry> reality is not, I'm afraid, quite as clear as you'd make it out 
ry> to be...others have made similar observations throughout the 
ry> history of Man.  

Of course they have.  It wasn't all that long ago that Agni the Fire 
God was still alive and well.  Even today, I meet people who scratch
their heads when I ask them where fires go when the fuel is fully
consumed.  "To heaven?", was the response I got from a young teenager
a few weeks ago.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:04:31 GMT

	Just so everybody doesn't get highly annoyed when a vote is taken
on some other groups and you are requested to cc: your letter to another,
generally this is done so that if one mailer died the other shall still be
able to recieve the message.  At the end of the counting period, all
non-duplicate votes are counted.  Some people have weenie mailers and
can't be reached from certain hosts.

	You're better off worrying about people like me, with four or five
accounts and little to no way of verifying my identity on three of them.

<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: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: GM Protest
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:54:35 GMT


More GM protests


An animal rights demonstrator dressed as a pink pig was arrested Saturday
after she handcuffed herself to a Cadillac at the annual Greater Los Angeles
Auto Show.  Lucy Shelton, a member of PETA, protested the use of animals in 
General Motors vehicle crash testing.  She was arrested for investigation 
of creating a disturbance.

Shelton handcuffed herself to the steering wheel of a Cadillac that sat on
a revolving platform at the auto show in the Los Angeles Convention Center.
Police and security guards used a bolt cutter to remove her, and she was
booked on the misdemeanor violation.

About 12 other members of the animal rights organization who walked around
the convention center chanting "Boycott General Motors" were escorted from
the building by security guards, said Dan Mathews, a PETA spokesman.  GM
had no available comment on the incident.  PETA contends GM is the last
automaker to use animals in its tests on automobile safety.  "They do
brain and heart impact studies with pigs", and also use dogs and rabbits
in their tests, he said.

Mathews said PETA plans another demonstration next weekend at a Detroit
auto show.  Three members of PETA were arrested at the Rose Parade on
New Years Day for unfurling a banner in front of the GM float that read
"Animal Crash Tests Keep GM in the Dark Ages".
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:58:27 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Can deer see bullets as they move through the air?  If not, please
rl> explain how a deer is supposed to learn from the experience of
rl> being targeted and missed.

Jeff Achenbach writes:
ja> The noise scares the hell out of them and they don't come back.  
ja> They are much smarter than you apparently give them credit for.  

rl> I suppose thunder would also scare the hell out of them.  Would it
rl> be smart to be afraid of thunder?

From article <1992Sep1.142339.18250@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> Russell, I've read enough of your writing by now to know you're 
ja> not stupid.  Neither are deer.  I'm beginning to get the feeling 
ja> you're hiding behind dumb questions when you think you may be 
ja> losing an argument.  

If you think my questions are dumb, please take a critical look
at some of the incredibly dumb assumptions you've been taking 
for granted.

As an example, you seem to think that the dozens of deer in a 
particular area that hear the sounds of a particular set of 
gunshots are supposed to know, by some strange means, that each 
of these thundering noises has some sort of lethal significance.  
If deer are as critically astute as you seem to believe, it seems 
to me that they'd realize after one or two explosions that no 
real harm was done.  

-- 
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: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:48:07 GMT

As quoted from <BtsFK0.E6H@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):
rl> I'm a strong advocate of personal freedom (including freedom of 
rl> speech), but I think it's important to distinguish between the 
rl> personal freedom that we all should have to use our minds and 
rl> bodies as we see fit, and the "freedom" of property that some of 
rl> us conveniently advocate when we're seeking to appropriate the 
rl> minds and bodies of other thinking/feeling individuals.  

From article <Btut7x.LM3@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> That's why slavery is illegal and hunting isn't.

Why is it wrong to hunt retarded humans, but ok to hunt chimps?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:39:48 GMT

In <BtxM3K.9Dr@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Please explain why being in control would make an action ethically
>acceptable or unacceptable.   Portuguese slavetraders controlled
>the ivory coast in the 17th century.  Did this make the kidnapping,
>rape, and enslavement of east african blacks ethically acceptable?

	Wouldn't that depend entirely upon who you asked?  I remember
this thread being re-hashed many times before.  As I remember, I even
defended the actions of the Nazi's in a thread like this.  Of course,
I did so only to play Devil's advocate, and few groups fit the description
more than the Nazi's.  In any event, has anybody maintained an archive of
this discussion?  If there's anything that needs to be in a FAQ list, this
is it.  Russ, you know my views so I'm staying out of it this time.

<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. >