HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:29:17 GMT


In article <BxsJ7q.E6w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Would you mind answering my question, Greg?  In the case 
rl> described above, would prostitution be worse than the starvation 
rl> of many thousands of human beings?  

From article <1992Nov16.195340.7430@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> I don't know what in the hell my opinions regarding the ethics of
gp> prostitution have to do with this discussion, Russell.  
gp> But, if it would humor you I would be willing to prostitute 
gp> myself if I thought that it would save lives.  Because I hold 
gp> human life to be of greater moral value than prostitution.  
gp> (Please don't tell me you have a million dollars to burn.) 

In other words, you can appreciate the possibility that prostitution
in such an instance would be the lesser of the evils.  This doesn't
signify that you're an advocate of prostitution or that you're
"wavering" in your opposition to prostitution.  Rather, it's merely
your acknowledgement that we live in an imperfect world and hence, are
often faced with difficult choices between two sets of "bad" 
alternatives.

As I pointed out previously, I respect the thoughts and feelings 
of all beings (both human and non-human) in all instances.  And, 
I contend that it's "not good" when we overlook those thoughts 
and feelings in order to better our own ends.  However, some 
ethical choices involve, not simply a choice between good and bad 
outcomes, but a choice between two bad outcomes.   To the extent
that I may condone some unavoidable, invasive uses of animals in
medical research, I'm not turning my back on the rights of animals.
Rather, I'm recognizing the possibility that our violation of the
rights of animals may be the lesser of the evils in a particular
set of cases.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: steaming lobsters
Date: 22 Nov 92 10:34:43 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <By3sF5.J26@wpg.com>
russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
|
|welchb@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|bw> 1) Is this a normal way of preparing lobsters?
|
|markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|
|mc> Of course a fox can do a nasty number on a chicken, but that's totally
|mc> natural.  And don't forget some perfectly happy vegetables are steamed
|mc> to death, too, not to mention, skinned alive and chopped up.
|
|Two questions:
|
|-- Do vegetables feel pain when they're "skinned alive"?

Excellent question; does anyone know the answer?  I've never talked to
a plant to know if it feels pain when attacked.  They certainly don't
scream out like some animals do.

|-- Does the "naturalness" of an action make it ethically justifiable?

Another excellent question.  And I ask: who defines what is ethical?
(It appears to me that humans do.)  Is it ethical justifiable to kill
life in a way that does not inflict pain, or is it not ethically
justifiable to kill life in any way?  And as we define ethically
justifiable killing, at what point does killing become not
justifiable?  Do we kill for food only, or do we kill for clothing, a
place to live, a place to drive, a manufacturing plant for making
computer parts, etc.  Is it justifiable to kill plants, but not
animals?  Is it justifiable to "kill" the Earth by errecting great
highways or digging great open-pit mines?  If creature inherits a
method to kill in a way that causes terror (the fox and chicken
example applies here), is that non-justifiable for that creature?

It seems that ethics can only be applied to humans as we can define
what is ethical and act accordingly, teaching others and applying the
principles that are derived from our definition of ethics.  Perhaps we
could discuss what the general principles of ethical living "should"
be given our present day knowledge of how we affect the world around us.

Mark
-- 
   I want to reach that state of condensation of sensations which
constitute a picture.
   -- Henri Matisse
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:21:46 GMT

In <1992Nov16.013238.23471@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:

>In article <BxMruo.515@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>RL>Humans are animals, Greg. And human rights are a subset of animal 
>>rl> rights.   

[other stuff deleted]

Out of curiosity (I don't know what transpired before) what are the rights
that animals give to each other?  What do you mean by saying human rights
are a subset of animal rights?  That humans have added rights to whatever
you feel animals have given other animals?  By this definition it would
seem that whatever rights humans have set up are only valid toward their
own species.

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: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:42:48 GMT

In article <1e9e5kINNe18@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.231414.23703@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>

[Stuff deleted]


>
>Okay, I'll address it.
>
>
>>I'd be interested in your reaction to the following situation which
>>occurred in Columbus.  [..]
>>[ a proposed solution was ] sucking the hogs out of their burrows 
>>into a big truck and then
>>driving the truck to a rural area to deposit the live unharmed animals.
>
>Good plan.
>
>>The problem with this scenario was that no place within the county or
>>immediate area wanted the animals 
>
>No problem.  Do it in the dark of night.  Leave no trace.
>

Yet another instance of the law breaking mentality of SOME of the AR 
supporters. I guess it's alright as long as you don't get caught, huh?
Is it better to infringe on the rights of an unwilling landowner in the
dark of the night just to project so-called "rights" onto a bunch of 
furry little burrowing critters. I don't think this would be the way
to go about it. Jmho.



>Steve

Keith 


-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |  Go Volunteers!   | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:01:49 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> From Vogue magazine (November, 1990):
rl> 
rl> "Though neither the FDA nor the Consumer Product Safety 
rl> Commission requires animal testing before a consumer product or 
rl> cosmetic goes on the market....."

From article <swood.722197641@vela>, by swood@phoebe.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
sw> Well then, how about their insurance companies that give them 
sw> liability coverage or the court system in general?  I would 
sw> imagine that the existance of both would financially mandate any 
sw> and all possible testing for human safety.  

Please explain how/why an unmodified draize test is superior to the 
cam test or eytex or [insert list of alternatives].  

The fact of the matter is that Revlon, Avon, and Estee Lauder aren't
the only companies that have abandoned animal testing in favor of 
alternative methodologies.  One list of such companies that I recently
examined contained roughly four hundred names.

-- 
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: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:36:29 GMT

In <Bxtt8p.n0t@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <viking.721894959@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> No.  That "right" extends from being a superpower, and the
>ds> USA is the biggest kid on the geopolitical block.  With this power
>ds> comes responsibility.  Frankly, I don't care what the Vietnamese
>ds> do in their country -- let them alone.  However, if China starts
>ds> using the VC as a puppet for their political gains, it is legal and
>ds> moral to try and stifle that response.  

>Please tell us when China began using the VC as a puppet.  

	I suspect it was about the same time they "gave" away weapons.
You'll kindly take note of North Korean involvement from the Chinese
and the involvement of the USSR in Afghanistan for references on how
a "tit for tat" involvement works.  Take note of the US with regards
to Panama, the Phillipines, and even Cuba for further reference.

>ds> The same goes for the USSR, or even Syria.  Once things have 
>ds> quited down, elections should decide the preferences of the 
>ds> people.  As you should have noted by now, few revolutions are 
>ds> backed by popular elections.  Were this the case, there'd be no 
>ds> need for a revolution, would there?  

>You're telling me what you think ought to be true, given your theories,
>but your theories don't fit the historical facts.  Again, do your 
>homework.  

	I'm still waiting for you to give some examples to support
your claims.  Name some popular revolutions, Russ.  It can't be
that hard.  I expect each to show over 50% of the later popular
vote to be for the incombents after the revolution, and for other
testimony from the populace to back this.  Can you find a few?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:11:35 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu



>>It is no moral dilemma for me, since I also advocate
>>forced sterilization of humans.
>>
>
> Interesting comment. Do you consider forced sterilization of humans to
> be humane?

No.  But if as I assume it is our last, best chance to
stop population growth then I favor it.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: steaming lobsters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:50:02 GMT


welchb@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
bw> 1) Is this a normal way of preparing lobsters?

From article <1727@esl.ESL.COM>, by markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen):
mc> Of course a fox can do a nasty number on a chicken, but that's totally
mc> natural.  And don't forget some perfectly happy vegetables are steamed
mc> to death, too, not to mention, skinned alive and chopped up.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Two questions:
rl> 
rl> -- Do vegetables feel pain when they're "skinned alive"?  
rl> -- Does the "naturalness" of an action make it ethically justifiable?

From article <viking.722419650@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> 	Adopting the "answer a question with a question" routine,
ds> 
ds>- Do vegetables feel pain when they're "skinned alive"?  
ds> 
ds> They exhibit a response to the stimulus, which can be
ds> construed as placing them in pain.  They invariably tend to die, which
ds> can be seen as pain under most definitions of the word.

If you're going to appropriate the word "pain" to designate all 
reactions to stimuli, what word can the rest of us use to make
a distinction between reactions that hurt and reactions that don't?

-- 
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: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:52:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.184745.15929@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

[...]

> ....  On the other
> hand, PETA has unmasked several of their 'moles', people they had get jobs
> in labs just to see if they could dig up some dirt.  Oddly enough, these same
> people who were supposed to be digging up the dirt were the ones responsible
> for the sorryass conditions to begin with, as it was their job to clean the
> cages, but they were too busy videotaping them to alleviate the suffering.

I'm curious about what you're referring to here.

[...]

In Message-ID: <1992Nov19.185615.16016@refrig.dixie.com> Todd wrote:
> Lines: 37
> 
> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
> 
> >>>So are you saying that their newsletter will tell me that they planned
> >>>and funded a bombing?
> 
> >>Thier newsletter shows that they funded Fran Trutt, not knowing what she
> >>intended.  This is at the very least irresponsible behavior, criminally so
> >>in my view.
> 
> >Not if they were unaware of her precise activities.  If they fund her,
> >they no doubt retrospectively wish they had monitored her more closely. 
> 
> You seriously don't think it's irresponsible to fund someone not knowing what
> they intend to use the money for?  Wow.

I think at some point it's reasonable to trust people and I think it's
inevitable that once in a while that trust will turn out to be misplaced.

IF Trutt was given money to launch a publicity campaign aimed at exposing
unnecessary killing of dogs, and subsequently misused the money, then I
have no doubt that FOA and Ms. Feral regret not monitoring her more
closely.

BTW I'm curious: What happened to Mead, the driver of the car?  Was he
arrested?  Was his parole revoked?  Who tipped off the police so they were
already on the scene?  Why was Hirsch afraid to answer questions about
Mead's defense?

[...]

> Todd++;

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Question for Ted
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:22:26 GMT



Ted, sometimes Martin comes up with a few interesting questions
buried at the bottom of the 20th scrolled screen of quadruple
attributed text.  Did you miss this one?



 In article <mhulsey-191192095631@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>
 (Martin Hulsey) writes:


The problem with the animal "rights" movement is that they try to have it
both ways.  They claim that we shouldn't exploit animals because they are
"like us" (e.g., Ingrid's rat=pig=dog=boy argument), but simultaneously
argue that we should be "different" (i.e., don't prey upon other *animal*
species) when choosing a diet.  IMO, this reasoning has an inherent
contradiction.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity



He characterizes this as a "problem."  Without getting into whether
absolute consistency is a requirement for any view or doctrine, could
you shed some light on how I should best understand the apparent use
of two sides of the same coin that keeps popping up in the framing of
many AR arguments.     If you have the time, put this in sharper focus
for me, and do so crisply.  8-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:07:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.184847.25815@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <RIGG.92Nov15164405@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.220531.9159@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>No.  Not just Benke's book.  I made that clear right from the outset.  I
>said that there existed at least 18 studies which indicated a consistent
>pattern of 50% wounding rates for bowhunting and I even listed some. 
>From an October 8, posting:
>
>--      Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1984 - 58%)
>--      Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (1987 - 50%)
>--      Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (1988 - 51%)
>--      Wildlife Society Bulletin (1978 - 50% in Alabama)
>--      Wildlife Society Bulletin (1978 - 50% in South Carolina)
>--      Wildlife Society Bulletin (1981 - 48% in South Dakota)
>--      Wildlife Society Bulletin (1983 - 49% in Iowa)
>--      Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners (1963 - 44%)
>--      Vermont Fish and Game Department (1972 - 63%)
>--      Wisconsin Chapter of Wildlife Society (1983 - 55%)
>--      Deer and Deer Hunting (1986 - 56%)

Don't forget the follow up study to the Boydston and Gore one, which showed,
if my memory serves me, about 20%.

Jeff Achenbach


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:08:18 GMT

In article <Bxu5sr.tE@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>PCRM member, Henry Heimlich, appeared on a recent episode of _The
>Nature of Things_, to discuss his fervent opposition to a
>proposed animal research project in the early 1980's, wherein a
>prospective researcher wished to study the use of the Heimlich
>maneuver on drowning victims by deliberate drowning 42 healthy
>beagles.  Heimlich pointed out that the efficacy of the famous
>maneuver bearing his name had already been demonstrated on
>drowned humans and that the deliberate drowning of dogs would
>have been useless.  The project was eventually cancelled, thanks
>to public pressure as well as Heimlich's opposition.  Was
>Heimlich qualified to make such an assessment?
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Russell, I'd agree that the beagle drowning research you refer to
above sounds pretty horrible.  I'm wondering about your position on
what I would call "mice and rat" research.  I was glancing through
a few issues of Science magazine recently (I read it for the abstracts)
and I was struck by how many studies use mice and rat models.  These
studies do not strike a lay reader with an explicit understanding of
"how humanity has been served."  Rather, it seems to me to be basic
stuff that looks into questions of interest that may or may not
further the well-being of people.  Typically, a mouse or lines of mice
are injected with a substance, perhaps there is or is not a period of
delay for expression of mutagenic activity, the mice have their heads
cut off; their cells are centrifuged, results analyzed; the researchers
write a paper.  What's your opinion of this type of animal research?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:42:16 GMT

In article <1e90vnINNb20@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>Jeff Achenbach writes:
>> Steve Pope writes:
>
>>>>You can't go set up birth control clinics for deer, and there are a
>>>>LOT of deer, so the cost of managing the herds is a significant
>>>>concern.  
>>>
>>>The city of Madison should've thought about that cost
>>>before installing the arboretum.
>>>
>>
>>So, Steve, are we to refrain from building parks so that animals won't 
>>populate them when they're done? Or maybe we should abandon any that wild
>>animals find attractive? 
>
>If we build parks that affect animal populations, we should
>deal with the effects of this in the most humane way feasible.
>
>>Are you suggesting humans have no right to any
>>property (land) that wild animals may find attractive? And that we have no
>>right to protect it from them?
>
>Don't give me any BS about "rights".
>

Now there's an intelligent statement. Do you think you could engage 
your brain and spew forth some rational response? 

>It happens that deer are attracted to lush, green, watered
>areas.  Hence when one is created (e.g. a golf course on 
>an otherwise dry hillside), a LOCAL overpopulation of 
>deer results.  Even if the area has no overall overpopulation.
>
>I do not consider it acceptable to kill, bludgeon, poison
>etc. the deer just because we (a) want to build a recreational
>facility and (b) don't want to spend the money to address
>the situation humanely.

Can you cite an example where your humane (surgical sterilization) technique
has worked? From the little I've heard, survival rates are quite low for
deer that have been handled even for relocation. Apparently they are easily
traumatized. 

  You didn't bother to answer my questions about other less cute and 
cuddly pests. I forgot to mention the africanized bees are now within 
about 200 miles of me as well. Are we to deal humanely (and just what  
does that mean, anyway) with all manner of vermin, or only those which
you have decided are worthy?

Jeff Achenbach   

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals