HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Wisconsin Conference
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:32:48 GMT



                         THE EARTH
                        THE ANIMALS
                          AND YOU
                   Making The Connection
 
                        Sponsored by
                 Students for Animal Rights
                 Citizens United For Animals
 
Saturday, November 7th and Sunday November 8th, 1992
 
 University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
 Student Union
 2200 East Kenwood Boulevard - Milwaukee
 Please direct any questions to 414-229-6819
 
We invite you to attend the premier conference which is sure to become one
of the most important annual events in Wisconsin.  "The Earth, The Animals
and You '92" is a conference dedicated to the welfare of _all_ living beings
and the planet we share.
 
During this two-day conference you will be united with other concerned
activists to learn how to turn your compassion into action!
 
This conference will feature:
 
+ National and state organization speakers;
 
+ Workshops dealing in environmental, animal rights, human health
  and other vital topics;
 
+ Cruelty-free vendors featuring environmentally friendly and non-
  animal tested products for home and health (They make great
  compassionate Christmas gifts!);
 
+ Delicious vegan (pure vegetarian) cooking lessons;
 
+ And much, much more!
 
Your registration fee will cover BOTH days of the conference, workshop
materials, and vegan lunches on Saturday and Sunday.
 
CONFIRMED CONFERENCE SPEAKERS
 
          Lorri Bauston - Farm Sanctuary
        Lawrence Carter - Health Care Consumer Network
       Barbara Chadwick - Animal Rights Mobilization (ARM!)
            Joan D'Argo - Greenpeace
    Julie Byrnes Enslow - Mobilization for Survival
   Lisa Lembke, DVM, MS - State Humane Agent
                          State of Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture
         Victoria Moran - Author _The Love-Powered Diet_
                          Contributing Editor _Vegetarian Times_
         Becky Robinson - Alley Cat Allies
      Lori Schwingshakl - Environmental Decade
            E.J. Shumak - JES Exotics, Wildlife Sanctuary
          Susan Straley - Sierra Club
 
ACCOMMODATIONS/REGISTRATION
 
Rooms have been reserved at The Hotel Wisconsin (720 Old World Third Street,
Milwaukee) at a special rate of $39.00 per room (1-4 people) plus tax. Rate
includes transportation to and from the conference. For reservations please
call 414-271-4900 and reference "The Earth, The Animals And You."
 
 Before November 1: $20/regular admission and $10/students
 After November 1:  $25/regular admission and $15/students
 
Students will be required to show a valid student ID at registration.
 
Mail registration to:
 
The Earth, The Animals and You
P.O. Box 07176
Milwaukee, WI  53207
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:22:24
	<RIGG.92Oct7165438@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct9.162855.15063@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.162855.15063@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
   In article <RIGG.92Oct7165438@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >There are advantages for the animals:
   >
   >1)  Hunters are much more limited so they will do a better job of
   >removing the young and the weak.

   So for hunters to do a better [job?], we need fewer of them?  

I do not see how this follows.

   Is removing the young really an "advantage" for the animals?

Yes.  Numerous folks have suggested that hunters don't do any good for
the herd since we (supposedly) just want the largest, healthiest
animals of the herd.  Removing the young and the weak is what other
natural predators do to keep the herd healthy.

   >2) There is much less disturbance.  The sound of a bow is almost
   >imperceptable whereas a gun shot alarms animals over a much wider
   >area.

   But a gun has the advantage of warning other animals of the danger.
   Sounds like a wash at least to me.

It also disturbs all of the other wildlife.


   >3)  A bow requires much more dedication and effort which results in a
   >better class of hunters.  I know I will get flamed by gun hunters for
   >this and I am also a gun hunter.  But I think bow hunters know and
   >understand their prey much better: they have to.  This results in a
   >hunter that has much more respect for the animal.

   Respect is nice, but so is life.  Which is more advantageous to you:
   Someone who respects you but is out to kill you?  Or someone who
   respects you but is not out to kill you?

You were comparing hunting with a gun or hunting with a bow.  Given
that choice I would prefer someone who studied me and understood me
over someone who lobbed lead at me from 300 yards while I was at a
full sprint.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:40:05 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Oct7114105@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <RIGG.92Oct7113927@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>
>   My contention is that these unpredictable movements are of little
>   consequence when shooting at unalarmed deer under 20 yards.
>
>I meant to type 30 yards...
>
>tim

I'd agree with that. And add that according to a survey published in one of
the national magazines (Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, or Sports Afield, I
forget which. I read them all plus many others.) something like 75% of 
whitetails are shot at ranges of less than 20 yards.

Jeff Achenbach
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Drinking and Hunting (was re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters)
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:22:55 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

There has been a lot of talk about drinking and hunting.  I do not endorse
the concept, and in fact I actively try to discourage it.  But I am just
curious.  Does anyone have any hard statistics or proof of where alcohol
use and hunting has led to harm to humans or deaths of animals.  Please
email me with any hard proof you may have.  Posting such is up to you.

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
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:16:19 GMT

From article <1992Oct14.210313.14943@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> All that can be said of dissimilar life forms is that their reactions
ry> to similar stimuli may not be congruent.  You most assuredly can NOT
ry> assume that these reactions are, therefore, less critical to the life
ry> form in question, or that the life form is not deserving of similar 
ry> "respect."

Disregarding the importance of sentience and sapience for a moment,
please explain why we should regard a mindless "living" entity with 
greater "respect" than a mindless non-living entity?   Are the
living entities embued with "Anima" perhaps, or touches of some 
mystical "spirit" from the Fertility Goddess?  Or maybe you just
have a special fondness for mindless chemicals that we call 
proteins that you trot out when it suits your convenience?

ry> Give me a metric, Russell.  How do we eliminate the arbitrary
ry> nature of your "meaning" test?  "Thoughts and feelings?"  What
ry> on Earth are "thoughts and feelings"!?  How do we know whether 
ry> "thoughts and feelings" exist in a non-human species? 

How does a man who's skeptical about the "thoughts and feelings" 
of other beings manage to overlook his own use of the verb, "know"?  
Without reference to thoughts and feelings, please define the 
expression, "How do we know".  

Moving right along...

How do we know with certainty that other thoughts and feelings, 
besides our own, truly exist in human species?  [We don't] 

Unless there's been a recent breakthrough that has escaped my 
attention, no philosopher has ever provided an absolutely solid 
proof of the "other minds" problem.  Unless you can provide a 
"metric", as you say, for measuring human thoughts and feelings, 
it's hypocritical to insist that we provide one in the case of 
non-human animals.  

> ...
rl> Of course, it'd be easier for us to base an ethical decision on 
rl> something simple like the whiteness or blackness of fur, but the 
rl> simplicity of this definitive approach would reflect stupidity,
rl> not intelligence.

ry> But at least whiteness or blackness of fur can be established
ry> objectively. 

You're fooling yourself.  As Hume demonstrated several centuries ago,
we can never comprehend real objects with absolute certainty.  Our
senses, not to mention our cognitive faculties, simply aren't perfect. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:29:42 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <RIGG.92Oct14171447@valeron.che.wisc.edu> rigg@valeron.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.171553.741@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>   In article <RIGG.92Oct9103340@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:

>   Here are some statements from Benke paraphrased from pp 7-19:
>
>	   From the late 1940s to 1969 he used variously tipped arrows
>	   on a thousand or so small game animals, plus 75 to 100 larger
>	   animals.  ...
>
>	   ...  Overall he lost 3 to 4 animals to each
>	   killed.  And of all the bowhunters he observed, none did any
>	   better.
>
>Why do you suppose this number is so high?  We have agreed on a 50%
>recovery rate. However, he gives a rate of 20%.  Was it the more
>limited equipment and understanding of 50 years ago?
> 

Broadheads haven't changed all that significantly in design. Compound bows,
sights, releases, etc. have made it far easier to become a proficient shot
than the recurves and longbows. However, these traditional weapons will kill
just as surely when in the hands of a practiced archer. These numbers merely
indicate to me that Benke is the kind of slob I don't want representing 
bowhunting. 


Jeff Achenbach
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: anti-AR TACTIC number 213
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:32:51 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Originator: proberts@moose

Tactic:

 WRITE every ALTERNATE word IN upper CASE letters IN
order TO emphasize YOUR point.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics 
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:39:46 GMT

In article <Bvpwxo.4qv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>
>Mary Otto's tactic:  Post an article that makes her opponent the subject
>of the conversation.
Russell tactic 120:  Double standard.  (Russell can talk about Mike, but
                     I can't talk about Russell.)

Russell tactic 109:  Falsely generalize opponents position
                     to the point of absurdity.  (The subject was
                     the use of unfair tactics and the stifling of
                     debate in a open forum.)

Russell tactic 128:  Assumption based on Russell's self-importance.
                     (He really thinks this is about him.)
>
>Definition of the "ad-hominem" fallacy:  An argument that attempts to 
>disprove the truth of an opponent's arguments by attacking the opponent.
>
>-- 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

THANKS RUSSELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU JUST DEFINED WHAT YOU WERE DOING TO MIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mary Otto



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 06:15:59 GMT


Mike Linan writes:
ml> If, if and if.  One of your favorite pastimes is pretending but, 
ml> my God has not told me anything directly other than by his word 
ml> in the Bible and nothing in there says to kill innocent men, 
ml> women or children.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Sure there is.  For starters, how about:  "Thou shalt not suffer a 
rl> witch to live".   

From article <1992Oct9.041923.9664@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> The Bible covering supernatural events and all, one would expect
mo> something on witches.  But you have no proof that the witches
mo> described in the Bible as having supernatural powers actually
mo> existed.  

The bible contains several passages that refer to witches, 
witchcraft, demons, etc.  If such beings and practices did not 
exist, why did "god" confuse the issue by giving his followers 
such bad advice? 

I might be willing to agree with you that witches don't have
supernatural powers, but then again, I have a hard time believing
that a man could heal the sick by casting out demons. 

mo> Nor have you answered the challenge to prove that a
mo> witch is human.  Until you have proven your assumption that
mo> witches are human (and heresay by people who claim to BE witches
mo> cannot constitute scientific proof) we must assume that they are
mo> NOT human.  That eliminates the possibility of Mike's God telling
mo> him to kill innocent people.

Do you have any idea how many witches were truly killed in the name
of this "god"?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:37:40 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes in response to me:

>I'd say you haven't rejected it outright, but are nibbling at the edges.

	At the edges we find the greatest difference of opinion, and it
is these differences that mark the fundamental differences in our views.

>>And I take
>> this pain voluntarially because I hate pain-killers when I can get
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> by without them, but none of this pain is wanted.

>It sounds like you wanted the pain from the procedures more than you wanted 
>the results of leaving the procedures undone. 

	Given a few weeks of pain versus death, yes that is true.  On the
other hand, I have an injured back from that same accident in 1987, and I
accept the pain from that over a risky surgery.  In both cases, the pain
is warranted, not wanted.

>Perhaps the problem here is using the word unwanted. A more precise 
>phrase might be "pain that the recipient doesn't choose to have inflicted on 
>him/her". This is clumsy so I just used the phrase "unwanted pain". Perhaps 
>"unchosen pain" would work better. The key point is that the decision to 
>receive pain is up to the recipient. 

	"Unchosen pain" would work much better, but how many kids would
choose to have their teeth filled?  The kids don't choose to endure this,
hence it's unchosen pain that is forced upon then.  That it is for their
own good, and involves less pain in the long run, makes it warranted
even though unwanted and unchosen. 

> >I won't tell the surgeon this December that he's being
>> unethical in inflicting pain upon me  
> 
>Good, as that would be a misapplication of my proposed ethic. I said "the 
>less unwanted pain I inflict, the better". No mention is made of a boundary 
>line between unethical and ethical.

	But I don't want *any* pain, and especially not from a surgeon
who is supposed to fix what's broken.  One annoyance I had was that they
used an enriched oxygen mixture on me.  This leads to irritation of the
throat, and hence coughing.  Caughing after hernia surgery is one of the
most painful things that can be done.  I sure didn't want that.  Thus, the
doctor should have let me breath normal atmosphere to alleviate this in
order to have fit your proposed ethic.  I find these many inconsistencies
are removed if we use the word "unwarranted" instead of "unwanted," as
the former includes the latter but also allows for that pain which is
in the overall good for us to endure.

	So what, specifically, is your reason for dismissing it?  Can
you come up with an example of how it could be miscontrued?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:06:56 GMT

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

`In article <92Oct08.203751.14843@acs.ucalgary.ca> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:

`> ...  businesses that sell fur (the majority of which
`>is ranched) to a market that demands it.

`Decreasingly so, thank god. Furriers are going out of business in droves.

`Paul

Not in my area - THANK GOD!

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
From: rigg@valeron.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:29:05 GMT
	<RIGG.92Oct6115201@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct8.160653.4961@clpd.kodak.com>
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:06:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.160653.4961@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
   In article <RIGG.92Oct6115201@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:

   >He also
   >was aiming for the gut which no one would do while hunting.

   I would quibble a little with the literal text of your statement, since
   I think you meant that no true "ethical" hunter would intentionally do it.
   However it does sometimes happen (I won't presume know how often, if ever,
   it's intentional).  Benke's purpose was to study the effects on the animal
   when it does happen.

No.  I meant what I said. NO hunter would aim for the gut.  Even the
greenest of greenhorns knows not to aim for the gut.  Note, I am not
saying that no one ever accidentally hits the gut...

   >  Perhaps
   >he had a special permit to collect data on the efficiency of archery
   >equipment.  I just can't figure out why his results were so different
   >from my experience.

   Remember it's not just his results.  I've been quoting him because I
   have his book, but I have posted names of other studies performed by
   wildlife management agencies which also claim to show about 50% wounding
   rate. 

I'll accept this figure.  I'll assume you are fairly representing
these reports and that a 50% overall average exists.  However, I
mentioned several ways to reduce this number to around 10%.  I'd
like to reiterate that "wounding" does not necessarily mean "long
painful death".

tim 
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: an observation
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:13:18 GMT
Organization: WP Group


In article <Bvs3Du.3KH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Argumentum ad populum:  The notion that the truth or falsity of a
rl> position can be ascertained by appealing to the beliefs of the 
rl> multitude.  

From article <1b1pasINNd7l@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Boy Russell, seems to me you sure have done a lot of studying on the
ml> subject of arguing.  It has already been observed and noted by at least
ml> a few posters that you appear to live for this group and I have to say
ml> I agree.  

You're entitled to your beliefs.  If you want to learn how to 
distinguish logical arguments from mere fallacies, I'd recommend 
that you read the section dealing with logical fallacies in the 
article "Glossary of Logical Terms", _The Encyclopedia of 
Philosophy_, McMillen and Company.  

rl> Perhaps we should poll logicians, philosophers, and scientists to
rl> see what they think of a statement that was quite popular once
rl> upon a time in both Europe and America:
rl> 
rl>    "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live."

ml> No, all we have to do is bring to light how many people really 
ml> consider you to be dishonest, manipulative and foolish.  I'm sure 
ml> you know of some fancy name of arguing that the polling of 
ml> everybody will take the heat off of you.  

Millions of people believed that the statement quoted above gave 
them divine permission to ignore the rights of other (human) 
beings, just as millions of people still believe that other 
biblical statements have given them divine permission to ignore 
the rights of non-human beings.  We've learned over the years, 
however, that mere belief doesn't make a statement truthful, even 
when the belief is accepted by a multitude of people.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:58:16 GMT

In article <BvvDsu.HFM@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> It seems to me that a benevolent, omniscient "god" would have 
rl> taught his creatures to honor the thoughts and feelings of other 
rl> thinking/feeling individuals instead of giving them contrary 
rl> commandments to hamper their development.

From article <1b50amINN611@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> We now know how you feel Russell.  Let's just remember that you 
ml> are a non-believer and so your words have little meaning to those 
ml> who do believe.  

I'm just trying to understand, Mike.  Along comes your "god" and says,
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  And then you come along and
say that "god" didn't really mean what he said because he was referring 
to some non-existent witches with supernatural powers.  I guess this is
a little bit like playing "Simon says";  we have to learn to distinguish
between the statements that are true and the statements that are supposed
to be twisted around backwards.

rl> Yes it is.  And Mike Linan's notions about the dictates of his 
rl> "god" illustrate the relativity quite plainly.  If the bodies of 
rl> animals, both human and non-human are the rightful property of 
rl> "gods", rather than the minds contained within the bodies of 
rl> those animals, then the concept of "rights" loses its meaning.  

ml> Russell, you nearly always fail to write anything that reads like your
ml> opinion.  What you nearly always do is write comments that you would have
ml> us believe is fact, just because you view it as such.  The concept of
ml> "rights" are in the Bible, IMO.  ...

I don't think so.  Would you mind citing some passages?

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