HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:37:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.211212.10980@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Rob
erts) writes:

[>>Yes, I have noticed.  I find it very akin to other group hatreds.  It is
>>generally best described as an intense bigotry.  The hater's mind is made
>>up.
>>]

>You guys are really just too funny, all gravely agreeing with each other
>about the appalling personality defects of those who disagree with you.

Happy to be able to provide you with some amusement; we all could use
more of it!  Jennifer's venomous hatred got the ball rolling; personally
I found her point of view somewhat frightening, as did others.  Maybe
you didn't ?
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Universal Ethic?
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:29:17 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

Allow me to reiterate a key point from the original article in this thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note that I'm not suggesting that this is the ONLY ethic. Others surely  
exist and may at times conflict with this one, perhaps even overriding it. 
For now I'm ignoring this conflict and merely trying to determine if the 
above ethic is "universal".
 --------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, for example, a physician may have an ethic of trying to heal the sick. 
In doing so, pain may need to be inflicted. Depending on the level of this 
pain and the severity of the illness, one ethic or the other may win out. But 
even if the physician decides to inflict the pain, he/she may also strive to 
find a painless treatment, thereby satisfying both ethics. The point here is 
that, regardless of the path chosen, the physician still believes in the 
ethic of avoiding pain.  

Similarly, in wartime inflicting pain may have some benefits, but the ethic 
doesn't go away. If the same results can be accomplished without inflicting 
pain, then this would be a preferable approach. Note further the (general) 
ethical proscription against tortuing POWs, even though the information 
gained might save lives on your own side. Again, even in war the ethic 
against inflicting pain seems to always be there, though it often gets 
overridden by other ethics/concerns.

The bottom line: I'm not saying that the ethic against inflicting pain is 
omnipotent - that it always wins out over other concerns - I'm just saying 
that it's always part of the equation. If you disagree, you're saying that 
there are situations when the infliction of pain is COMPLETELY, 100% 
irrelevent to the ethical analysis. 
 
The example of a masochist is interesting; I think it centers on the 
definition of the word "Pain". It's not just a physiological phenomenon, it's 
also psychological. That is, it's the perception of the recipient that 
counts. In this case, the recipient of the physical pain perceives it as 
pleasure, not Pain. (Actually, it's probably perceived as both, but the 
pleasurable aspect wins out). Thus, I'd say no Pain is inflicted.  

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:51:28 GMT

From article <1afkduINN7d7@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> This may be true to some degree in some people but, you could 
ml> just as easily say that the only way little insecure wimps can 
ml> attack those "macho" men is to question their motives.  It's 
ml> pretty sad I think.  Obviously many of you ARFs don't really have 
ml> a clear understanding of what being a man is all about and feel 
ml> threatened by those who look and do what men have traditionally 
ml> done...  

You're definitely making progress, Mike.  A few months ago you would have 
used the label, "perverts", rather than "little insecure wimps". 

How's that body-building program coming along, BTW?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 28 Sep 1992 22:51:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:

> Included in those 700 are Ted Nugent, self-proclaimed hunting 
> advocate [who will do a ] 30-minute mini-concert to attract 
> attention to his anti-drug, pro-hunting message directed at kids, 
> and quoted Nugent as saying, "The kids listen to me because I play 
> rock n' roll, and I speak the truth with great passion.  It works 
> like magic."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Nugent was
among those rock musicians who would, while up on stage,
stomp small animals to death.  I may be mistaken about this;
a number of rock stars engaged in this practice, and I
*think* Nugent was one, but I could be wrong.  (Can anybody
confirm this?)

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:53:51 GMT

jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:


`Dan Sorenson writes:

`>jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:
`>If Nugent believes his message "works like magic," then why does he refuse to
`>participate in the FoA debate?  It's certainly not because he's going to be
`>busy bowhunting that day.

`>	Why don't you ask Ted -- I'm sure he will be more than willing to
`>give you his opinion with great gusto.

`I believe he _was_ asked to participate in the debate.  The first announcement
`for the Conference mentioned his name as a possible spokesperson for the
`hunting side of the issue.  In fact, if you go waaaay back in this newsgroup,
`you'll find a couple of responses to my base note announcing the Conference
`in which at least a couple of hunters said it was unfair to include a "yahoo"
`like Nugent (the hunter's words, not mine) as the hunting spokesperson.  The
`hunter's claim was that Nugent was too radical, and would only fuel the fire
`of the opposition.

My father holds this opinion as well.  He feels that in a video released
a couple of years back, Ted over emphasized kills too much by placing a
lot of them at the beginning of his video.  Though I would agree over
emphasizing the killing of the sport it misleading to the total relaying
of the essence of hunting, I also understand that Ted marketed this
video mainly to hunters and Ted fans (mostly the same group).

He is a bit raucous - perhaps it is the rocker in him - perhaps he does
so just to raise attention.  But when he truely digs in and starts to
debate, he does a damned good job of it.

swood
-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:00:18 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Sep29.231809.27725@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
>If you wanted to ensure "fair" representation, i.e., biased remarks from
>_both_ sides of the issue, I suggest you attend the debate and post your own
>followup. 

Why are you calling it a debate if nobody is showing up?

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:22:53 GMT

jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:


`Scott Wood writes:


`>If your debate truely needs equal sides to the arguement, and if in fact the
`>cost is just to cover the expenses of the event, get me a couple of
`>complimentary passes, and I will personally deliver them to Ted's offices
`>in Jackson, Michigan.  In fact, if you get one for me, I consider hoppin in my
`>little red truck and driving all the way to Austin to join the debate and
`>miss opening weekend of Archery bow in my home state of Michigan in the
`>name of truth.
`>But put money in the hands of the adversary and spend all that money and
`>time to go all the way to Austin to do so?  NOT!!!!

`>swood

`Scott, you don't have to put a penny in the hands of the adversary.
`All you (or Nugent) have to do is show up with your pockets full of "truth."

`So, big fella, are you gonna be true to your word (above), or wimp out?

Well, number one, it is now 9:10 P.M. Wednesday afternoon, so it is a wee
little bit too late, and I have not the time that the rest of you usenet
junkies do to check the newsgroups more than twice or at tops three times
a week, so I was unable to read your clarification on the open admission
status of the debate.  Frankly I skimmed the original text and printed a
hard copy which I was unable to pick up until tonight.  I doubt that even
if I left right now from the Detroit area, I would be able to make it there
in time, but perhaps you should be sure to enform me more in advance (by
email if necessary, as I do check that often) of up and coming events.

If in fact this is an open debate, and it is a fair arena for debate, I am
sure you will have a reasonable attendance to the festivities from both
of the arguement.  If it is not fair, you deserve what you get and I just
hope the liberal press doesn't make the hunters look bad as a result.  And
don't tell me you haven't invited your favorite pro-AR journalists to cover
the event.

swood
-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Meat eating and hunting
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:02:48 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep30.045021.6608@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
> Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>>But has enough long term, global information been counted to make a truly
>>>accurate assessment of game over say, the next decade?  If you look at short-
>>>term, small area predictions, even the weatherman can do good.  But if he
>>>tries to extrapolate a few months along, he will probably fail.
> 
> John S. Van Etten writes:
>>The point here is that game management doesn't need to assess things
>>in the long term.  A year-to-year basis works fine.  If the target
>>population for a given track of land is, say, 1000 deer and the
>>wildlife people count 3127 deer on it during the Spring, they can
>>issue enough permits to cull the 2127 surplus (statistically, with the
>>corresponding errors).  If they go out and count 49 deer, there will
>>be no season until the population builds up.  Note -- we're all well
>>aware that these counts are estimates taken from smaller samples, and
>>all that, but they are quite accurate (I believe the NYS DEC brags
>>about being +/-7% in each Deer Management Unit while estimating
>>required and actual doe takes to maintain a given population).
> 
> Let's take a look at your hypothetical case of 49 deer.  What happened to
> decrease the population to that level?  More than likely a harsh winter,
> or poor summer, causing starvation along with a population held as closely
> to 1000 as the DNR specified.  We are now down to 49.  Suppose the harsh
> conditions prevail for a second year?  How many of the 49 are left now?
> And if the droughts continue through a third year?
> 

If extra-ordinary conditions prevail then the hunting is omitted for how
ever many years it takes to recover the population.  For example, several
harsh winters in a row decimated the Quail population here in Ohio.  
Hunting was stopped for quite a few years until the population reached
a strong and viable level.  

> Perhaps an overpopulation of animals during years of abundant vegetation
> guarantees plenty of the healthiest animals will survive the lean years.
> I don't know for sure.  

And you don't think the deer population here in Ohio is at that level?
HAH!  I can take you out almost any time and show you deer.  I see at
least a couple a week.  And that's only during a very brief period in the
morning and evening on my way to work.  I'm usually not even looking for
them except to avoid hitting one with my car.

Sue

> 
> Rob U
> --
> -       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
> -     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
> -      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
> -                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:59:01 GMT

From article <1992Oct2.231330.11236@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> You have evidence to support the assertion that I said it was OK
ry> to kill any human?  It should be obvious, but "irrelevant to the
ry> discussion" is hardly equivalent to "OK to kill", no matter HOW 
ry> often you wish to insist that it is.
ry> 
ry> Now, you tried this tactic before, with quotes and all, and Craig
ry> Boeker (who wasn't even involved in the discussion) pointed out
ry> that your deductions were less than exemplary, based on the quotes
ry> you provided.  One would have thought that this would discourage
ry> you from repeating such silliness.  Please refrain from such
ry> things in the future and save us all some bandwidth.

Is it ok to kill a brain-dead human?
Is it ok to kill a kidney-dead human?

You pretended previously that you had answered these questions, yet 
now you're claiming that I don't have any evidence concerning 
your position.  What's with all the secrecy?  Is there some 
reason why you're unwilling to reveal the role that sentience 
and sapience, not to mention structural similarity, plays in your 
"assignment of status"?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 22:27:38 GMT

In article <BvGKrH.I9H@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>In article <BvF2F0.54H@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> It seems to me that your distinction between "INTER-species ethics"
>rl> and "INTRA-species ethics" is a transparent attempt to define-away 
>rl> the inconsistencies in your argument.  
>
>From article <1992Oct1.165048.12496@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> Then you've missed the point yet again.  It is a distinction which
>ry> illustrates the fact that the existence of sentience and sapience
>ry> in other animals is ethically important only to a sub-set of only
>ry> one species: our own.  The ethical importance of sentience and
>ry> sapience stems entirely from your own opinion, not from any
>ry> universal absolute.
>
>The existence or non-existence of universal absolutes has no bearing
>on the discussion.   It's a cop-out, Rich.

	Oh?  From what?  If there is no absolute from which your ethics
	spring, then I am free to develop my own.

	The cop-out here is your continued failure to supply any answers to
	the very questions I've been asking regarding the source of your
	ethics.  I'll ask them again, just in case you've [conveniently]
	forgotten again:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. Define "meaning" as you've used it in this discussion.

2. Who, or what, gave you the authority to assign status to non-human
    species?

3. By what absolute, significant-to-all-species criteria do you attach
    ethical importance to the death of some species and not others?

4. Why, if your criteria are not absolute, am I 'wrong' to develop my
    ethics [in this area] using some other criteria?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: an observation
Date: 5 Oct 1992 22:29:03 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct5.210414.11725@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.142809.8848@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>>Is it just me, or does it look to anyone else like nobody is taking poor
>>Russell Lawrence seriously anymore?


>It is just you, Todd. 


I think you are mistaken Paul. 


Mike Linan





 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should Humans assign status?  Animals do.
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:32:52 GMT

In <Bv4JpK.3L5@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>Mary Otto writes:

>mo> Humans should feel free to assign status to animals.  Animals
>mo> assign status to other animals.
>mo> 
>mo> For example:  A cute little bunny rabbit assigns the status: "Predator"
>mo> to an owl...
>
>From article <1992Sep25.003555.4421@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> You have the right idea, but that's not what the argument was
>ry> about: the question was whether the use of sentience and sapience
>ry> as criteria to determine appropriateness as "food" is arbitrary...
>ry> such classification being an artifact of the human mind imposed
>ry> primarily on the basis of similarity of structure.
>
>Wrong, Rich.  Our respect for sentience and sapience is fundamental,
>and not layered on top of structural similarities.  To illustrate,
>let me remind you that I made it clear that I would respect the
>sentience and sapience of all beings, even those that might not
>be "alive" in the conventional sense.

	Indeed, you DID say that...and then went on to say that, in the case
	of mammals and birds such differences did not exist, thereby basing
	your judgement of worth IN THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT on similarity of 
	structure.  [See <Bsv4GK.Cw0@wpg.com>]

>ry> One of the first pro vegetarian, pro-AR arguments used is that
>ry> plants can't feel pain because "they don't have nervous systems
>ry> like we do."  Nor do bacteria, or amoebae, so we can kill them
>ry> with impunity since their anatomies are so completely different
>ry> that they can't possibly "feel" [note quotes] some analog of what
>ry> we call pain.
>
>If you have any evidence to support your argument that a carrot 
>would feel pain if I pluck it from the ground, let's hear it.  

	What do you mean by "pain?"  A carrot is so dissimilar in structure
	that it would be foolish to assume that its "perceptions" are identical.
	It is NOT foolish, however, to assume that there may be some analogue
	of which we are not aware, and which we would find extremely difficult
	to detect and comprehend.  Clearly, some survival mechanism exists in 
	plants: the increased manufacture of tannic acid in oak trees under 
	attack from predatory insects is but one example.  Who is to say that
	the bite of a caterpillar on a leaf doesn't cause the oak some "pain"
	which results in the increased production of tannic acid.  Is this
	so different, in principle, from human reaction to touching a hot 
	surface?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: NCIB view of PETA
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:16:00 -0300
Distribution: global
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Oct1.173959.12279@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy) writes:
> In article <27698@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad) writes:
> 
>> 
>>    People for the ethical treatment of animals (PETA), failed to meet several
>> acceptable charity standards, the National Charities Information Bureau
>> (NCIB) reports.
>>  
>>    According to a letter from the Animal Welfare Foundation based in St. Paul,
>> PETA spends too much on fundraising and too little on programs.  The report
>> says 42% of PETA's organizational expenses are related to fundraising and 
>> only 20% goes to research and investigations into animal cruelty.
> 
> Ha! ONLY 42% ??? When I worked for Greenpeace, we were up to
> almost 70% !!!!
> 
> And further-- 20% plus 42% makes 62%. You're leaving out the other 38%,
> probably because it is spent on education programs.
> 
> Find a real issue. PETA isn't a charity, it's a political organization.
> 

Actually, I think this is a very real issue.  Anyone have comparable 
numbers for the NRA?  Ducks Unlimited?  Other pro-hunting groups?  The 
higher the percentage of monies taken in that are used to raise more funds 
is a direct index (IMNSHO) to that group's effectiveness.  I've always 
considered Greenpeace a fairly ineffective organization.  The fact that 
they at one time spent 70% of their income on further fundraising tells me 
that there was perhaps justification for that perception.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:18:34 GMT

From article <1992Sep28.164024.12370@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> Udo, you completely misunderstand.  Hunting is not a release for 
mo> violence or aggression.  Hunting is a means of returning to the 
mo> role of a predator and being part of the cycle of life and death 
mo> in nature.  What defines a hunter is the acceptance of the fact 
mo> that humans are a predatory species of those instinctive 
mo> behaviors which are part of the definitive characteristics of our 
mo> species as predators.  

So you say.  I'd recommend that you read the following article:

Blumenschine, Robert J. and Cavallo, John A.  "Scavenging and Human
Evolution", _Scientific American_, V264:4, October, 1992. p 90-96.

> ...
mo> On the other hand, inflamatory comments about killing human 
mo> hunters for sport has a lot to do with aggression, in my opinion.  
mo> Aggression between humans may well be aggravated by the 
mo> dissociation from nature caused by the urbanization process.  

Perhaps it's also exacerbated by the notion that it's ok to use or
abuse other individuals when it suits our personal needs and pleasures.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals