HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Date: 30 Dec 1992 17:12:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec29.223815.1658@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>In article <C005rt.2Jp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>Russell Lawrence writes:
>>rl> ....some christians are capable of respecting the golden rule...
>>rl> thereby refuting Rich's claim that all behavior is selfish.

>>From article <1992Dec28.235414.16537@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>ry> The "Golden Rule":

>>ry> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
 
>>ry> You wanna re-think your "refutation," Russell?

>>Not really, unless there's some reason for us to believe that altruism
>>and selfishness are equivalent concepts.  

>	Why am I not surprised?  The "Golden Rule" is the epitome of selfish
>	behavior: we are advised to treat others with dignity, kindness, and
>	respect, etc., NOT because it's proper behavior, but because it will,
>	we are told, engender similar behavior toward OURSELVES. 

Rich, I'm not trying to get into yours and Russell's argument nor am I trying
to take sides.  But, I do think you may not have the right perception of what
the Golden Rule is meant to be.  Sure, anybody that does anything regardless
of who benefits from it can be selfishly motivated.  However, the Golden 
Rule uses the "as you would have them do unto you" as an example of how you
would should treat others.  If the only reason for treating others well is
so that you will be treated well, I think you have no guarantee you will be
treated well and do not understand what the true meaning (as I see it) of
the Golden Rule is.  Not everybody is selfish in everything they do.  Giving
to those who are in need give many people a good feeling but, that doesn't 
mean that is the main reason that act is done.  It isn't necessarily bad 
to feel good about helping others.



>-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)



Mike Linan












Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: A real head-scratcher (was Re: News Blurbs 8)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:39:18 GMT

Ferrell S. Wheeler writes:
>>+ Investigators report the vehicles General Motors used in
>>crash tests performed to obtain federal certification may have
>>been equipped differently than the millions of pickup trucks
>>actually sold to the public.  The National Highway Traffic
>>Safety Administration also states General Motors may not have
>>disclosed information pertaining to fuel tank leakage
>>resulting from crash tests.  A consumer safety group claims
>>fuel-fed fires in certain GM truck models have led to the
>>deaths of at least 300 people and is urging a recall.

Robert M. Straubinger writes:
>What is the relevance of this to t.p.a. ?

Let's see, how about.... even though GM is the ONLY automaker to use
animals in crash and toxicology tests, they still produce some of the
world's most unsafe automobiles!?  I see the relevance..... 

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: The Power of Your Plate (was Re: animals in research)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:45:59 GMT


From article <mhulsey-181292093625@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Your shortcomings are not "alleged," but factual.  I cannot prove that
mh> Barnard does not have a degree or other credentials in nutrition.  If he
mh> did, he would have indicated so when he wrote his book on "nutrition"
mh> called "The Power of Your Plate" or when giving any one of his many press
mh> conferences.  He clearly has no publications referenced in Medline remotely
mh> related to nutrition, as I demonstrated.

In article <1992Dec20.193158.17734@zooid.guild.org>, Rosemary Waigh
<rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> wrote:
rw> Have you actually read _The_Power_of_Your_Plate_ yet?  Which parts 
rw> did you object to?  (I apologize in advance if I am asking you to 
rw> repeat yourself.)

From article <mhulsey-211292125302@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> I do remember covering this before, but I could be wrong.
mh> 
mh> I have not (yet) objected to the contents of the book.  I have not yet read
mh> the book, but only glanced at it.  I do intend to read it, but I am
mh> hesitant to purchase it, because I do not support Barnard (as you may have
mh> gathered).
mh> 
mh> The reviews that I have seen (I forget where, perhaps Animal's Agenda)
mh> indicate that it consists, in part, of interviews between Barnard and
mh> nutrition researchers such as Ornish and Campbell.  Is this correct?

Let me get this straight: You previously claimed that Barnard's 
credentials must be non-existent --- otherwise he would have 
mentioned them in _The_Power_of_Your_Plate_.  Yet, now you're 
telling us that your information about this book came from 
second-hand opinions (ie book reviews).  

You've stated that Barnard has given "many" press conferences.  How 
many is "many"?  And have you attended any of them?   Or read the
transcripts perhaps?

I don't agree with your assumption that a writer would 
necessarily list his own credentials in books and press conferences. 
Worse still, I don't understand why you would pretend to know 
what was or wasn't discussed in a forum that you did not attend
or in a book that you didn't read.  

Incidently, I'm surprised that you would accept Dean Ornish's 
credentials in the field of nutrition.  Have you read any of his 
books?  

> I suspect that when I read it, I will have objections to some points.  I
> base this conjecture on the contents of PCRM press releases, to which I
> object greatly.  

Would you mind citing a passage from any of the PCRM statements that you
consider disagreeable?  [no paraphrases or mind-reading conjectures
please]

-- 
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: A real head-scratcher (was Re: News Blurbs 8)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:35:40 GMT

From article <C09B56.ALn@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
> In article <1992Dec30.162825.3901@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>>+ Investigators report the vehicles General Motors used in
>>crash tests performed to obtain federal certification may have
>>been equipped differently than the millions of pickup trucks
>>actually sold to the public.  The National Highway Traffic
>>Safety Administration also states General Motors may not have
>>disclosed information pertaining to fuel tank leakage
>>resulting from crash tests.  A consumer safety group claims
>>fuel-fed fires in certain GM truck models have led to the
>>deaths of at least 300 people and is urging a recall.
>> 
> 
> What is the relevance of this to t.p.a. ?

This wouldn't be much of a "head-scratcher" if you were more 
familiar with the ongoing squabbles between GM, on the one hand,
and consumer advocates and animal rights groups on the other.  :-) 
GM has persistently maintained that the use of animals in crash tests
is essential to automotive safety engineering, but for some reason
many of GM's cars and trucks haven't been fairing too well in the 
safety stats for quite some time... perhaps because GM's "safety" 
programs are cosmetic, rather than practical. 

Here's a real head-scratcher:

Does it take an animal crash-and-burn test to figure out that the 
gas tank in a pickup truck belongs on the inside of the frame?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: News Blurbs 8
Organization: Pitzer College
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:00:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.171018.10846@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.162825.3901@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. 
Wheeler) writes:>>
>>PETA spokespersons stated a Montana woman and West Coast man
>>appear to be the grand jury's prime targets, although two top
>>PETA officials may also be targets. The group's lawyer
>>commented a few PETA members have refused to give testimony
>>without promise of immunity
>
>Immunity?  From what?  PETA wouldn't do anything wrong.

RICO prosecution would be my guess.  A grand jury indictment on those 
charges would pretty much close down most of PETA's operation.

Wonder if Lawrence Walsh could use this against Bush?
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Date: 28 Dec 1992 19:37:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec21.174817.26943@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>Message-ID: <mhulsey-181292093625@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>
 
>> Your shortcomings are not "alleged," but factual.  [...blather...]

>WHO GIVES A FLYIN' @#$%#~?

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>> Message-ID: <1992Dec18.143848.18138@icd.ab.com>
 
>> " I can recognize a bullshit artist when I see one, and you (Russell) are one.
>> [...blather...]

>WHO GIVES A FLYIN' @#$%#~?

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>> Message-ID: <mhulsey-181292123620@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>
 
>> BTW I did find your post where you boasted about attending an  "ivy-league"
>> institution.
 
 
>> You might argue that this was not a boast, but I disagree. [...blather...]

>WHO GIVES A FLYIN' @#$%#~?

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>> Message-ID: <1992Dec17.174729.19678@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
 
>> Russell tactic 112:  Feigned Ignorance.
>> Russell doesn't really want Martin to explain this to him.  [...blather...]

>How do YOU KNOW what he really wants?

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>etc. ad nauseam.

>This is talk.politics.animals.  Let's talk about ANIMAL issues here.

>Why don't you all go start a new newsgroup called
>Alt.what.we.think.about.russell.lawrence and put all this blather in
>there?  The more you attack him, the more it looks like you can't refute
>his positions. 

>All followups will be ignored unless they're related to animal issues.

>Robert Black 


Ignore what you want Mr. Black.  Perhaps you would be better advised to
ignore what a fool you make yourself out to be with this post which is
so obviously related to animal issues.  Perhaps you should ignore the
fact that no one here is obligated to post articles which meet your ap-
proval.  Perhaps you should ignore the fact that Russell's positions are
at issue but no more so than his deceitful methods and tactics.  

If you don't like those on t.p.a. voicing their objections to Russell's
posts perhaps you should NOT ignore "WHO GIVES A FLYIN' @#$%#?

Mike Linan




















Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 15:45:37 GMT

In article <viking.725276365@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>In <1992Dec24.224052.22825@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>>The only way food animals can show their keepers that conditions are
>>less than tolerable is by having enough of them die.
>	Ever hear of a database, Michael?  Perhaps you might care to share
>how a rancher might interpret a few pounds drop in weight gain per ton of
>feed, or maybe you will wax eloquent on how health can be judged by the
>coat of the animal?  Might you tell us how many thousands of animals you
>have raised?  Could you possibly inform us of the affect antibiotics to
>combat pnuemonia have on profit?

If the only criteria you use to guide you in the proper treatment of
food animals is by their weight, then by golly you really care very
little about their welfare. All you want is rapid weight gain. Period.
Face it, isn't that the whole purpose of your suggestions above?
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:31:52 GMT

From article <1992Dec31.000644.21077@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
> In article <C03BxC.H6w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>  >#2:  Is it a mark of reason, or mere stupidity, when a debater chooses to
>>     focus on the alleged personality attributes of his opponents, rather
>>     than addressing the relevant facts and arguments?
>>
> 
> Any self-respecting debate moderator would throw you off the stage
> at this point.  You continually emphasize your use of "debate form"
> as the model of how we should view your participation in t.p.a.  You
> should realize that more appropriate role models exist than Morton Downey
> Jr. and Howard Stern.

You're hypocritical.  

-- 
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: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:35:45 GMT

From article <1992Dec28.202235.18123@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
> 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. Without it,
> they wouldn't tolerate the long hours and hard work for little pay. It's a
> 24 hour a day, 7 day a week job, and damn near any good trade will make 
> you a better living with a lot smaller investment and a lot less risk. Maybe
> you can get a summer job on a farm, if you're lucky. It would probably be
> a real eye opener for you.

75% of the food consumed in the US is produced by 3% of the farms/ranches.
Do you think the large operations have a genuine love and concern for 
animals --- hidden away somewhere between the mail room and the executive
boardroom perhaps?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:01:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BzHo22.8HD@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Would a man who volunteers to be crucified belong in this category?

>Mike Linan writes:
>ml> You wouldn't try to imply that Jesus Christ belongs in the category you
>ml> mention above would you Russell?  ...

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Do you truly agree with Rich's claim that _all_ behavior is 
>rl> selfishly motivated?

>From article <1gtbfuINN83j@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Answer my question Russell.  I will not continue in a discussion with you
>ml> while you ignore my questions and answer them with your own questions.  
>ml> Play by the rules Russell.

>Yes, I'd probably put Jesus in that category, but he's certainly 
>not alone.  Your bible recounts the adventures of a number of 
>individuals who suffered tremendously while pursuing goals that 
>I would describe as altruistic.   Would you agree with Rich that
>the behavior of every single one of them was selfishly motivated?   

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


Thank you for answering the question.  First let say I find it sad and
consistant with your prior attacks to demean Christianity that you would
criticize Christ for giving his life for the salvation of others.  But,
that is simply your way so it seems.  At least you answered the question
which is normally a great chore for you.  To answer your question, I do 
not consider the behavior of every single one of them ( or any of them
for that matter ) to have been selfishly motivated.  Although I will 
acknowledge that humans are capable of such selfish motivations.

Mike Linan
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:40:26 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Dec30.170617.16865@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>
>Which will be approx. 20 yrs later thanks to medical research.
>

Wrong. Increases in life expectancy are due almost entirely to public
health and civil engineering (clean water supplies, sewerage treatment,
etc). Statistically speaking, medicine has done little to increase
life expectancy.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 00:51:49 GMT

In article <C01yLz.AIM@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>Russell Lawrence writes regarding the "Golden Rule":
>
>I think you've misrepresented both the language and the intent of 
>the original author by tacking on a set of clauses that reflect 
>self-interest alone.  

	My interpretation is certainly one valid one; another might be that
	one should treat others in the way we would like to be treated
	without expectation of reciprocation, simply because it's "The
	Right Thing To Do(tm)" and will allow us to proceed through life
	satisfied that we have hurt no one.

	It really doesn't matter which interpretation is used; either one
	is easily explained by one or both of my original criteria.  We do
	things either because they make us feel good, or because they'll
	allow us to reduce or avoid bad feelings.

[...]

>Is there some reason for us to believe that altruism and selfishness
>are equivalent concepts?

	Is there some overwhelming reason why such an equivalence is
	necessary?  In point of fact, altruism and selfishness are mutually
	exclusive.  My point is that true altruism does not exist.  Anything
	in the human experience which appears to BE altruism is simply a 
	serendipitous by-product of that which we do for our own emotional
	benefit.  In the long view, it is the result that matters...the
	hungry are fed, the homeless are sheltered, the orphaned are
	adopted...but we are discussing motivation, not results.

[...]


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Think about it!
Originator: itsmine@cahaba
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:26:01 GMT

I recently came across a leaflet printed by PETA.
In bold type on the front it read:

       Their jaws clenched, reacting to the pain.
       Cats were injected with embalming fluid while still alive

On the back: in bold type: unattributed quote

       "I watched as L cut open the rat.  Blood was spraying out.  He
       smiled and told me, 'It's still alive.  The heart's pumping blood.' 
       The rat was then hooked up to a formaldehyde tube.  His legs were
       kicking."

It sounds to me like this L character is quite the sadist.  What cruelty! 
What inhumanity!

I don't think so.  What their describing here is a standard lab. procedure
called perfusing or "fixing" an animal.  What they conveniently forget to
tell you is the entire procedure.

First of all the animal is given near lethal doses of anesthetics
(usually pentobarbital).  Because the animal will not be recessitated after
the procedure large quantities of the anesthetic can be used.  

Once the animal is clearly "under" the chest cavity is opened to expose
the heart.  Saline solution will be introduced through the atria of the
heart in order to displace the blood.  Thus it is beneficial if the heart
is still beating in order to facilitate exchange of the fluids.

Next formaldehyde (or another embalming fluid) is introduced through the
heart.  Again if the heart is still beating the embalming fluid is more
efficiently dispersed through the body.

Certain cells of the body function on ion generated
electrical gradients (i.e. neurons, muscles etc...).  When the membrane of
the cell becomes permeable to ions (depolarizes) the cell fires.  Muscle
contract.  Neurons pass action potentials (electrical signals).

Formaldehyde permeablizes the cells.  Thus, muscles contract.  Jaws
become "clenched". Legs start "kicking".
Nerves responsible for encoding pain (nociceptors) fire.
But the animal is unconscious.  Perhaps even more so than a human
undergoing surgery.
        
Now, go back and read the quotes from the leaflet.  Ask yourself,
honestly, "Is this leaflet misleading?" and if so "Why does this
organization need to rely on such tactics, if infact its cause
is so correct already?"

Think about it.

                                GREG
-- 
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,talk.environment
From:  ()
Subject: Re: News Blurbs 7
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:33:04 GMT


> 
> 	If Senator Paul Simon intends to enforce this through legislative
> acts, Senator Simon has violated his oath of office and may be legally
> removed from office.  No mention has been made of this in the media I
> read and listen to.  Anybody else know how it came about?

Forgive me...being a Canadian, I often underestimate the inanity
of American politics, so maybe I'm off the mark here.

In Canada, and most other countries as far as I know, legislators are 
elected to legislate. That involves drafting, debating, and passing
legislation into law, which is then enforced.

Is it true that it is illegal for American legislators to legislate?
If so, that certainly explains a good deal.

A second of thought before opening one's mouth would suffice to
avoid this sort of silliness, wouldn't it?

--------------------------------------------
jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 02:48:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.181444.18587@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>I used to think that t.p.a was a really pointless forum for debate,
>but now I see that it serves an admirable purpose in highlighting
>the stupidity, vacuousness, and just plain pig-ignorance of the "we
>hate AR" crowd.

Two out of three, I'll give you.

But that crowd is not entirely vacuous.

They are trying to preserve, in their words, "the American way of life".

Determination to promote one's cause is an admirable personality trait.

But it's only admirable if one is intelligent enough to choose the
proper cause to champion, and let outmoded ideas become history.

Otherwise, one's only distinguishing feature is to be pig-headedly
determined to be dead wrong until death.

That ain't going to get you into any history books.
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals