HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: huttar@hp750.itg.ti.com (Lars Huttar)
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:53:15 GMT
	<1ikv98$939@agate.berkeley.edu> <1ilg9a$ctd@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: IEF Development, Texas Instruments Inc., Plano Texas
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at Texas Instruments Inc.
              The opinions expressed within are those of the user and not
              necessarily those of Texas Instruments.
                                                     

In article <1ilg9a$ctd@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
> Jesus.  Look at this maroon.  Just look at him.  Now I'm not one to
> [........]
> Probably would, come to think of it.  Christ, what a fucking maroon.

What have you got against maroons, man?

For those of you who don't want to unwittingly sound racist or offensive
(doubtless Curtis Yarvin would rather be fully aware of his offensiveness),
the word "maroon" is often used to refer to tribes in the Caribbean or
South America, formed by and descended from slaves (generally African or
Indian) who escaped from plantations.  Many of these tribes are still
around today, with strong (if hybridized) traditions.

I don't think Mr. Yarvin meant it this way.  I have no idea what he meant.

I just don't want readers to start wandering around saying "what a fucking
maroon" without knowing what it might sound like to the hearer.


Peeve:  A very nice-looking babe started talking to me last night, 
at a bar where I went to see Chris Duarte (blues guitar) live...
but I couldn't hold up the conversation, so she ignored me the rest
of the night.  (;_;)

Peeve 2: The hacker geek stereotype... you're probably thinking it
right now...  Can't talk to a girl, posts to Usenet at 4:52 am, must be a
reclusive nerd.  :-)

Lars Huttar                          3
huttar@hp750.itg.ti.com      ||   _______           ____      ||
(Opinions herein are not     ||:  |  |  |   |   |   |  |   | :||  Mars
necessarily those of TI.)    ||  _| _| _|  _|  _|  _| _|  _|  ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:50:27 GMT

From article <1993Jan11.193336.1675@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by rgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rick Gordon):
> The problem, see, is that we have here a misunderstanding about what
> "rights" are.  I'll go through this slowly.
> 
> 1. Human beings are granted rights by the society or the government or
> the culture or what-have-you.
> 
> 2. Anybody who qualifies as a human gets 'em. 
> 
> 3. Humans are granted these rights for a very simple reason.  It ain't
> because it's the nice thing to do, it ain't because God wants it that
> way.  It's a case of self interest purely, because:
> 
> 4. If you deny humans these rights, eventually they will take away your
> toys and kill you.
> 
> Any other explication is handwaving and self-congratulatory bilge.

Can you think of any reason, apart from fear and self-interest, that
would oblige you to respect the thoughts and feelings of less 
powerful individuals?

Let's suppose that we were attempting to resolve the "goodness" or
"badness" of a particular action, without getting embroiled in the
matter of "rights".   Would it be reasonable or unreasonable to argue
that the goodness of the action is determined by the power of the 
perpetrator?

> There may be a tribe of self-aware orangutans who are at this moment
> organizing and planning a Confrontation with the dominant species, but
> if they exist the news hasn't reached me yet.  Were it to happen, we'd
> have to deal with them.  Until that time the idea that animals have
> rights analogous to those humans spent generations spilling blood over
> is silly.

It's clear that rights aren't etched in stone, but it's equally clear
that the set of rights doesn't have a constant number of elements for
each and every individual.   For example, George Bush presently has
the right to sleep in the White House, whereas you and I do not.  As
such, I'm not sure what you mean by the term, "rights analogous
to human rights".  Would you care to explain?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: UPC on Turkeys
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:46:52 GMT

Ferrell S. Wheeler writes:
>>Treated with respect, domestic turkeys are friendly birds who
>>enjoy human companionship.  ...
>    [24 lines deleted]
>>Modern turkeys are so heavy and misshapen they must be
>>artificially inseminated to reproduce.  Obscenely, the males
>>are "milked" of their semen by phallus manipulating teams who
>>stick it in the upside down turkey hen's vagina with a
>>hypodermic syringe or the operator's breath pressure blown
>>through a tube.  ...
>    [more deletions]

Robert M. Straubinger writes:
>   Out of curiosity, what is it that makes artificial insemination
>"obscene"? It is a widespread procedure practiced on human and
>non-human animals alike.

What makes it obscene?  How about.... doing it without the consent of the
victim.  How many cases have you heard of where humans were artificially
inseminated without consent?  I seem to recall a case just a few months ago
where a doctor was convicted for using his sperm in an ai incident.  The 
victim there gave consent up to a point.....

Imagine (I know you can do that) if you will... a crowded street.  A prim and
proper woman is walking down the street with her male friend.  Out of nowhere
several creatures jump out, throw them to the ground.  The male is attacked
by a phallus manipulating team and milked of his semen.  The woman is inverted
and has the semen stuck into her with a syringe.  Would this be obscene?
Is this typical of "a widespread procedure practiced on humans"?  
I guess that would depend on your idea of a normal sexual act........

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter)
Subject: Re: why is hunting ethical? [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:09:38 EST

In article <1993Jan5.233302.6434@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:
 
>That you enjoy your hobby does not make it ethical.  Suppose I told you that my
>hobby was throwing bricks into storefront windows.  You'd tell me to stop.  And
>no amount of "But it's fun" or "Well lots of people do it" or "But I get lots of
>enjoyment from make a successful getaway" on my part would make you wrong to try
>to stop me.
>
>So you should stop trying to convince me that hunting is fun.  I believe you when
>you tell me you enjoy hunting.  Instead, you should try to convince me that it is
>ethical.
>
>Let's consider another abuse of animals, cock fights.  Do you think this it is
>ethical for people to stage cock fights?  Suppose someone said "But I LOVE cock
>fights.  I can't really explain it.  It's just fun.  Part of my heritage.  And
>besides, there only chickens."   How would you respond?
>
>-- Nick
>
>(PS: yes, I am comparing hunting to cock fights: animal suffering for primarily
>recreational purposes.)
 
(Your first sentence is not a sentence.)  Anyhow, I don't know that hunting
is a question of ethics or not, but a question of management.  I agree that
were enjoyment the only reason for hunting, it should probably be stopped,
but enjoyment is not the only reason for hunting.  Hunting is a very viable
method of population control.  Without population control, the number of deaths
and wrecked cars due to incounters with deer would severly increase.  There
are other reasons along with this.  The chances for quick transmission of
disease and the impacts of famine within a large population are much
greater than within a smaller population.  Hunting may not be ethical
to some people, but in general it IS considered ethical by society.  If
your ethics can't tolerate hunting - DON'T HUNT!  To control populations,
we could have biologists tranquilize and then kill individuals, but that
costs large amounts of money (where hunting actually takes in money that is
generally devoted to environmental studies, habitat improvement, etc).
Keep in mind, hunting groups donate large sums of money to research on the
species hunted.  Hunters don't want to see the demise of a species any more
than anyone else does.  Actually, many care more about the species than
the anti-hunters.
                                      -Brad Porter
DRPORTER@SUVM
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: UPC on Turkeys
Date: 6 Jan 93 04:22:45 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <1992Dec30.163003.4122@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>
>                      FOOD FOR THOUGHT
> 
>Treated with respect, domestic turkeys are friendly birds who
>enjoy human companionship.  ...
    [24 lines deleted]
>Modern turkeys are so heavy and misshapen they must be
>artificially inseminated to reproduce.  Obscenely, the males
>are "milked" of their semen by phallus manipulating teams who
>stick it in the upside down turkey hen's vagina with a
>hypodermic syringe or the operator's breath pressure blown
>through a tube.  ...
    [more deletions]

   Out of curiosity, what is it that makes artificial insemination
"obscene"? It is a widespread procedure practiced on human and
non-human animals alike.

Bob Straubinger
Pharmaceutics
SUNY Buffalo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:36:08 GMT

In <1993Jan12.052754.7046@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>In article <mhulsey-110193164303@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

>Evidence for that "many more"? What I have seen of public opinion surveys
>on this subject (e.g. Gallup Youth Survey, 1992) suggests that my side
>has a lot of support, and it is increasing. 

Are there any polls for the general population. Many people that are
vegetarian in their youth revert to their carnivore traditions before
they hit 30, especially when they encounter the responsibility of
providing food for a family.

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick)
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 00:19:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.213118.20434@dazixco.ingr.com>, avdh@dazixco.ingr.com (Alain
van der Heide) writes:
|> In article 16374@odin.corp.sgi.com, zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
|> >I am a committed Fruitarian; I only eat things that can be taken 
|> >without killing the plant. You senseless and vicious slaughterers of 
|> >carrots, onions, and rutabagas have the juice of innocent plants 
|> >on your hands!!
|> WHAT!?!?  That apple, pear, or grape which you cruelly rip from the loving
|> grasp of its mother branch is the offspring of that plant, and itself has the
|> potential, and therefore the right to grow into a productive self-actuallized
|> adult plant.
|> You sir, are a foul murderer of plant foetus's.  A plant abortionist as it
|> were.  You should be ashamed!

gee, you two sure have stumbled onto a novel attack on animal rights:
Plants Have Rights, Too.

I'm going to respond seriously because while you two are apparently beyond
hope I think this sort of argument is made all the time, and occasionally
people believe it.

(1) You are lying when you tell me you believe plans are conscious.

(2) Even if you did believe that plans are conscious, it wouldn't matter. 
maybe the name of the game should be "Eliminate All Suffering", but it
isn't.  The name of the animal rights game is "Reduce Suffering."  So you
not only need to convince me that plans are conscious, but that they are
MORE conscious than animals (and therefore capable of suffering more.)

-- Nick

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters
 (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:23:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.232737.5656@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary
Waigh) writes:

>In article <1992Dec28.202235.18123@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Je
ff Achenbach) writes:
>>
>>If I may add my 2 cents. I've never met a farmer/rancher who didn't have
>>a genuine love and concern for the welfare of his/her animals.
>
>I guess this is a different kind of "love and concern" than I am used to.  I
>just hope this isn't the kind of "love and concern" that my husband feels for
>me.
>
>Ro
>rwaigh@zooid.guild.org


A farmer's "love and concern" is different.  And you're right to point
out that this love varies from the love your husband has for you. (!)
One question:  can you imagine loving your husband if he were a farmer?






:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: sentience [was Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)]
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:43:21 GMT

In <1993Jan11.065603.13134@beaver.cs.washington.edu> nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:

>Your reckoning is out of date.  From the american heritage dictionary:

>  sentience -- adj. (1) having sense perception, conscious; (2) experiencing
>  feeling or sensation. n. (1) a sentient person or thing; (2) a mind

>It seems clear that a dog falls outside your set of sentient beings, so I'll use it
>as an example.  Seems pretty clear to me that it satisfies all parts of this
>definition.  Dog's notice the world around them.  The remember who its owner it,
>and many people around them.  Many dogs know their name.  Dogs get depressed,
>excited, irritable, defensive.   This is all obvious and I assert you lying if you
>say otherwise: you know it is obvious as well.

>So the only tricky part might be the stuff about consciousness and the mind.  It
>seems clear that any sensible theory of consciousness will not have souls that
>belong only to human bodies, so we can stick with modern theories of mind.  I think
>it is the case that even the most most vocal critics of modern cognitive science
>(John Searle, Hubert Dreyfus, Roger Penrose, for example) wouldn't for minute claim
>that animals aren't conscious.

We're not discussing what these other people think.  If you wish to
formulate your own ideas based on their thoughts however feel free.  This
could break out into a long protracted argument though about consciousness
of lower forms of life.  The crux here is the height of consciousness and
how much of that qualifies a being for sentience.  You say that the dog
example satisfies all parts of the definition but then go on to say it
might be tricky to prove the consciousness and mind stuff?  That was half
of each definition (adjective and noun).  Isn't that just a wee bit
selective?  (Granted I'm being pretty selective by my examples as well
though).

>Or do you mean something else by "sentient"?

Yes, pertaining to intelligence coupled with a high degree of consciousness. 
Being cognitive of a little more than:  "I'm hungry, walk me now, I'm going to
eat this leather shoe" etc.  Aware of surroundings and time, and having
the capability to communicate with one's species and use of tools.  Maybe
not right away but having the potential within the being's normal
lifespan.  Does this help?  

>|> I would say that humans are dependent upon animals as a reliable food
>|> source (ie. they do provide us with necessary matter/vitamins/etc.)

>a vegan diet provides perfectly adequate nutrition.

And as noted above so do animals.

Will Christie

-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Russell's unanswered questions
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:28:20 GMT

In article <mhulsey-040193120816@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>,
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) wrote:
> 
> In article <C07BCL.EA1@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:

I'm still waiting for some answers Russell.  Why do you continue to evade
my questions?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: dre@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Biker on Antihistamines)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:17:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: The San Jose Home for Perverted Hackers

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>Of course, that also makes me wonder if the people working there ever
>experiment with a wee bit of barbecued sea.  I know I would; I hear it's
>quite good, tastes remarkably like chicken...

Nah, they're mammals -- they taste kind of gamey and they're very very
tender.
-- 
"And tell me, how did you come to have so many children?"
"Well, Groucho, I love my wife."
"I love my cigar too, but I take it out sometimes."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:55:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.021436.28926@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <RIGG.93Jan8154959@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>
>
>Incidentally, did anyone else read that article in the WSJ recently
>about the rangers (game wardens?) in Louisiana (sp?) using a "robot
>deer" to catch poachers?
>
>The statistic that stuck in my mind was this: they set up the deer
>by a stretch of road, and 18% of the drivers that went by took a
>shot at the deer from their vehicles (which is a massive no-no).
>
>Now, I don't necessarily believe everything I read in the papers,
>and I accept that none of "our" hunters are of this type, but it
>certainly seems that there are places out there where there an
>awful lot of hunters of the worst sort, who are argubaly giving
>the rest of you a bad name.
>
>Paul

I read about this in one of the outdoor magazines a while back , and yes,
I believe it. Louisiana (and Texas) have a high proportion of "slob" hunters.
Actually, I think it fits in with their view of nature and animals in general.
"If it doesn't make money, it ain't worth squat!" seems to be the attitude
of a large number of (certainly not all) people. Spend some time on the back
roads of east Texas and rural Louisiana and count the abandoned pets (I've 
seen whole litters of puppies more than once). Observe the way many people
treat their dogs after they pass the cute and cuddly puppy stage. But that's
kind of off the subject.
   This is the same area that has had some successful sting operations recently
wherein duck hunters and goose hunters had far exceeded their legal limits.
This attitude goes back many generations. There has historically been a lot
of fish and game in Lousiana, and many people rely on it for home consumption
and commercial harvest. In many of their minds, anything goes as far as getting
their game. I'm not sure these are truly "sport" hunters or if they fall more
into the subsistence category. Either way, I'm  glad they got caught, and I 
wish the officials luck in catching a whole lot more.

Jeff Achenbach
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10987 talk.bizarre:44449
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Turkey sex
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:37:39 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1993Jan8.213347.7580@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
(mary.rita.otto) writes:
>Since we have decended into joke mode here:
>
>An informal poll of several members of the male gender revealed that
>80% would view the actions of the "phallus manipulating teams" to be
>a public service, whether anything was done to the females or not.
>One asked if they would be offered a drink before and a cigaret after.

Personally, I'd consider it a public service, as long as it was done in
the interest of science. :)

    don
From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Date: 4 Jan 1993 20:01:17 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan4.083700.26155@doug.cae.wisc.edu> ftarnol@nma.mnet.uswest.com (Fred Arnold (303) 896-8084) writes:
>If we begin now, we have time to organize and plan a campaign
>to defeat this latest attack on our hunting heritage.  We cannot afford

Look - I am no people-hating/animal-loving freak, and to me hearing the
words "hunting heritage" made me laugh.  All I could envison are the typical
hunting scenes (yes, i have been on a hunt or two) of people beating their
chests in the name of "heritage" or "culture".  Yes, humans started out as
hunter-gatherers...but back then we used bones and sticks and not AK-47s.
If hunters wished to go back to their "hunter heritage" and resort to
bones and sticks and refrained from frequenting their local Safeway - then
I might see some purpose to all of that.  Otherwise I think this claim
to "heritage" is no more valid than slave ownership or clubbing our brides-to-be
over the head and dragging them off by their hair as "heritage".  Humans
evolved, society has evolved, and some things that people claim as "heritage"
are no more culturally relevant than say the senseless killing of young
black men in our inner cities over drugs is a modern day claim to
"heritage".

>According to the
>NRA, only 7-8% of Americans hunt today.  That makes us the most vulnerable
>of minorities.  ARM groups can continue to chip away at the hunting
>population until our hunting rights are gone.

Well, you can also say that 7-8% of Americans go bowling too.  Hunting has
lost its relevance to human survival and it only remains for sport.  SPORT.
As in "Well, I'm tired of raquetball - what do you say we go hunting
tomorrow?".  It was once a means of personal sustenaince, but now is
just an outdated remnant of our societal past like legal slavery or serfdom.

I disagree with hunting in general on the grounds that it is not only no
longer necessary, but because it's motivations are out of sport and
some pseudo-claim to "heritage" rather than survival it is unethical.
But I am only addressing the "heritage" point you made here since that is
the issue at hand.

Believe it or not - I am pretty open-minded about these things...so differ
with me if you'd like.

greg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals