HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Painless slaughter?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:10:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.142127.15662@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.161946.16497@zooid.guild.org>  writes:
>> 
>> An excerpt from an interview with Harriet Schleifer, "Inside a Canadian
>> Slaughterhouse", _Toronto_Vegetarian_Handbook_, Toronto Vegetarian
>> Association.  Ms Schleifer is director of Urban Animal Advocates in  
>Montreal.
>> 
>> "No, just shut off, unaware, frighteningly normal.  In a way it is the  
>same
>> process that every single person who eats meat is doing.  What they have  
>on
>> the plat e is a piece of dead animal, but no one thinks of it like that.   
>If
>> you did, could you seriously sit down and eat it, day after day, without  
>being
>> upset, and actually enjoy it?"
>
>I butcher my own meat.  I also hunt for some of what I eat.  I am totally  
>aware that it was once living and is now dead.  This is not unnatural, is  
>the wolf immoral for eating meat.  No. and neither is anyone else.  This  
>is pathetic propaganda.
>
>Karl

Gee.  Each piece of the vegetables is a dead plant or a seed that will never
grow or a reproductive organ!  And the chair that I am sitting on was
once part of a living tree.  And the natural gas being burned by my
furnace was once part of a living dinosaur or ferns in the great swamp.

Every time I read some of this "a piece of a dead animal" junk, I become
more convinced that there is a faction out there that is so afraid of
death that they don't want to face the reality that death is a part of
the cycle of life and completely natural.  Death is unavoidable.  So,
what's the big deal that an animal has died?  The animal will die no
matter what you might do to avoid the eventuality.

Mary Otto



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:36:30 GMT

In article <Bz47Lr.2MC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec11.162940.16341@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> [selective quotations deleted]
>gp> Get the point Russell?  Later provisions relaxed these standards to permit
>gp> vivisection under stringent controls.  Regardless, it is clear from these
>gp> and other quotes that you choose to ignore, that the Nazi Party supported
>gp> animal rights ( maybe if you close your eyes you can make it go away)
>
>No, it's not clear at all, Greg.  I noticed that *all* of your 
>references came from journals of associations with a vested 
>interest in the status quo.  And they're obviously intended to 
>serve a political goal by demeaning the views of opponents by means
>of fallacious "nazi" name-calling.   Typical.

I can't believe I skipped over this the first time I read it.  Of course
the organizations have an interest in the topic.  Otherwise they would not
have brought it to the attention of their readers.  However, this does not
mean that they are free to print falsified information.  I will admit that
the information in Pro-AR journals is not blantantly falsified.   They may
and do stretch the facts or conviently forget to mention anesthetic for
example.  But, there is a quote here from Goring stating that vivisection
on all types of animals has been banned.  How can that be misconstruded?
Don't you think it would be pretty damn bold of an internationally read
journal to make this up?

And what is this typical "nazi" name calling crap?  I have stated a number
of times that this is indicative of nothing.
 In addition do know how many times I have heard the AR side compare
what I do to what the Nazis did to the Jews.  To claim an quilt by
association would only lend credence to that argument.


                       
                                           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
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:32:18 GMT

In article <BzF96G.7AE@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-171292084150@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> > "Pagan dancer," as coined by Rich Young, is a figurative term for a person
> > who constantly evades relevant questions.  You are the person to whom Rich
> > was referring to when he defined the term.
> > 
> > My experiences with you on the net bear out Rich's characterization of your
> > tactics.
> > 
> > As an example, I will permit you to again evade a list of my questions:
> 
> You're confused.  There's quite a difference between the desire of a
> man to evade questions that he cannot answer, and the desire of a 
> man who doesn't wish to waste his time answering stupid questions
> or time-consuming questions that he considers uninteresting at the 
> moment.

I believe that I am asking pertinent questions.  If you feel that my
questions are "stupid" or "uninteresting," rather than simply damaging to
your point of view, please indicate which ones and why.

> I suppose you'll continue to pretend that you understand my personality, 
> but that's to be expected... given your lack of training in the field
> of psychology, medicine, history, law, ethics, etc, etc.

I don't really need to understand your personality, although I am curious
about what makes you tick.

--
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:21:34 GMT

In article <Bz7yKr.149@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> Can you explain why you support the "Animal Welfare Act" if it's not
> for "animal rights"?

Sorry to burst in here guys, but Russell is here employing a familiar
tactic of the animal "rights" movement.  That is, he is pointing to an
advance in animal welfare and proclaiming it to be an advance in animal
'rights'."  Russell should note that the legislation was called the "Animal
Welfare Act," not the "Animal Rights Act."

There is no evidence that we must give "rights" to animals in order to
provide for their welfare or humane treatment.  

--
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:37:09 GMT

In article <Bz46GK.2Ho@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>> The only person whose credentials I questioned was Dr. Neal Barnard.  I do
>> not consider him an opponent, although I do wish that he had the
>> inclination to become an opponent by appearing here and defending his
>> pseudo-physician's group.  
>
>So you say.  Yet you haven't explained how/why you consider yourself
>qualified to question Dr. Barnard's credentials.  Do you have a degree
>in medicine, BTW?

Russell, would the opinion of an M.D. be sufficient to put into question
Dr. Barnard's credentials as a scientist?

                                      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
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:36:07 GMT

In article <BzFFD6.9DB@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <mhulsey-171292155226@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>> 
>> I am so sorry that I did not ask this mysterious stranger his name.  I
>> suppose I must remain forever puzzled about whether this mysterious
>> stranger was Russell Lawrence, because the equally mysterious Russell will
>> probably never provide the answer.
>
>It wasn't me, Martin.

Now did that hurt, Russell?


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
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Speciesism
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:58:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.214227.21383@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>

>It's not a case of evolving morality.  It's a case of economic expedience.
>Racism and sexism and ageism are issues because we need more people
>in the workforce and so the workforce has to include more than just
>white males in their prime.  Expedience.
[much deleted]
>Mary Otto
>
Mary, maybe all you care about is money, but most people have consideration
for others regardless of expedience!

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: News Blurbs 3
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:24:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.015408.3797@news.eng.convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec8.190406.26729@news.eng.convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
>
>>>Jennifer writes:
>>>If you look at the number of AR supporters and the number of incidents
>>>of vandalism, arson, property damage, etc., such acts are hardly "typical."
>
gp>>Just a little note. One -half of all the terrorist acts committed in the
gp>>U.S. in 1990 were animal rights related.
>
>Please site the reference for this information, Greg.
>
Sorry it took me so long long to reply.  But, as some members of TPA
refuse to acknowledge references (this means you Russell) I felt
compelled to investigate these acts myself.  I apologize  in that I had
the year wrong.  It was 1989.  For those of you you feel that a reference
will suffice (this means everyone but you Russell) the information can be
found in the FBI report on terrorism for 1989.
Compelled to reveal all the pertinent  information and not to
intentionally mislead anyone with "half "the information. (A courtesy I
hope will be reciprocated (this especially means you....well you know))
There were four acts of terrorism committed in the U.S. in 1989, and the ALF
claimed responsibility for two of them.  The 50% does seem misleading
regarding total numbers, but that is the quote I originally read in
another article.
Regardless of the total number acts, terrorism, for any cause, is
inexcusable.  
>
>PETA doesn't call its members in the middle of the night and ask us
>to commit acts of terrorism. 

Are you sure?

> Nor does PETA encourage such acts in
>its literature. 

It doesn't condemn it either.

                                  Greg Popken

-- 
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
From: jjozwiak@shearson.com (Jenny Jozwiak)
Subject: Vegetarianism/Abortion
Reply-To: jjozwiak@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:49:23 GMT

Rosemary Said;

	>2.  There is more involved in the abortion question than right to life, there
	>is also the question of the rights of the pregnant woman.
    
Todd said:                                
>"rights" should read "convenience".

I say:

"Convenience"? Yes, I guess your are correct. No other thought could possibly enter
a prospective mothers mind other than how terribly inconvenient is would be to have
a child. 
How inconvenient to spend 9 months carrying a child to full term, going through what is described as the worst pain imaginable in childbirth, paying thousands of dollars for doctors, testing and hospitals, then raising another human being  till the legal age of 18 years old, or bringing another unwanted child into the world that may grow 
up in foster homes if even that.

Yea,
I guess that is a little inconvenient. I suppose the pregnant woman should be
forced to have that baby.  So what if she is 14 years old, or has been raped, or can
not possibly afford to have/keep a child finacially or emotionally, or the father conveniently seems to disappear or show no interest.  Hell, thats what god gave her a womb for right?   So what if she has other plans in life.....like travel or college or a career.  She should put those thoughts aside and give birth damn it! 

Dripping sarcasm aside, I must say if men could get pregnant things would be a lot
different.  

	>I make no claim to consistency, but derive fun from arguing with those 
	>who think they have it.  Pass the headcheese.


Oh Todd, keep on eating that headcheese (a very German snack) its real "brain food".


Jenny
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: Oxford Fellowship
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:40:07 GMT

SCHOLARSHIP; ANIMAL RIGHTS
 
 
A 250,000-pound(UK) animal welfare fellowship is now available at 
Oxford University. Funded by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, 
the first of these fellowships has been awarded to The Reverend Doctor 
Andrew Linzey of Essex University, an outspoken theologian on the
subject of the church's moral stance on animals.   Dr. Linzey said, 
"One of the major constraints in animal welfare has been the problem 
of theological attitudes and the indifference of the religious
communities.  It is a courageous move to set up the world's first 
such fellowship, because it will ensure that the issue is now firmly 
injected into the intellectual cauldron at the very highest level 
of academia." 
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 10/92
 
 =================================================================
 : AmNet News Service, HQ....BBS/FAX 303/680-7791 FIDO 1:104/539 :
 : AmNet Denver Node.............BBS.303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 :
 : AmNet New York City Node......BBS.212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 :
 : 16056 E. Columbia Pl. * Aurora, CO * 80013 Voice 303/680-9011 :
 :             james.cherry@f536.n104.z1.fidonet.org             :
 =================================================================
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 14:24:08 GMT

In <1992Dec16.172537.9227@clpd.kodak.com>, Robert Black writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec12.190047.23254@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>>
>>>Bob Black wrote, regarding similarities between plants and animals:
>>>
>>>Let's assume for a minute that they are not very different.  Does this
>>>mean we can free most/all animals from labs and replace them with
>>>plants?  In particular, can we eliminate animals from pain experiments,
>>>which rely on nervous system responses?  
>>
>>	You're confused.  The point of the [deleted] reference was to show
>>	that there are similarities between plants and animals which may
>>	preclude simple relegation of plants to the category of "unfeeling
>>	and therefore ethically irrelevant."  No one has argued that plants
>>	are MORE similar to humans than animals, and should thus replace
>>	animals in scientific research.
>
>If you really believe that animals and plants have sufficient similarity
>to be assigned a rough moral equivalence, how do you propose to redress
>the current imbalance which favors animals?  Should we repeal animal
>protection laws or rush through plant protection legislation?  Should
>it be against the law to saw off a dog's legs? ... to mow the lawn?  Do
>you see any ethical difference between these two actions?

	You must be taking lessons from Russell...he makes unjustified
	assumptions, too.  BTW, when, exactly, DID you stop molesting your
	neighbor's little boy?

>You seem to be equating "unfeeling" with "ethically irrelevant."  Is this
>an accurate inference?  IYO then does "feeling" equate to "ethically
>relevant?"

	No, AR advocates and "ethical" vegetarians have equated "unfeeling"
	with "ethically irrelevant."  I've merely restated this claim, and
	offered some evidence which shows that plants may not be as far
	removed from animals as those groups would like to believe, and
	that plants are not "unfeeling."  Since you are certainly a member
	of the first group, if not the second, I ask YOU, "Does 'feeling'
	equate to 'ethically relevant?'"

>If there are similarities between plants and nonhuman animals which "may
>preclude simple relegation of plants to the [ethically irrelevant]
>category", then aren't there similarities between nonhuman animals and
>human animals, which actually *do* preclude simple relegation of animals
>to the ethically irrelevant category?

	What a silly question: of COURSE there are.  Who ever said
	otherwise?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: ALDF Litigation
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:40:13 GMT

COMMENTS; ANIMAL RIGHTS; ALDF
 
 
Steven Wise, president of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, had some 
interesting things to say recently in the group's newsletter about 
why he thinks litigation is an important tool in achieving rights 
for animals.  "It's one of the most important."
 
"Education, legislation and litigation are the three ways of getting 
rights for animals, of obtaining any modern social reform.  Education 
causes the issue of animal rights to bubble through the public 
consciousness.  People talk about it and think about it maybe for 
the first time.  However, the use of animals is so ingrained in our 
economic and social systems that fundamental change will involve a
social revolution.  We're only in the early stages now.  It will be 
difficult because certain people will always exploit animals, as they 
will any weaker beings, if they can.  We must constantly expose these 
people for who they are and what they do.  That's part of education 
and its a part of legislation, and litigation too.  But legislation 
and litigation not only expose the them, but require them to stop."
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 10/92
 
 =================================================================
 : AmNet News Service, HQ....BBS/FAX 303/680-7791 FIDO 1:104/539 :
 : AmNet Denver Node.............BBS.303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 :
 : AmNet New York City Node......BBS.212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 :
 : 16056 E. Columbia Pl. * Aurora, CO * 80013 Voice 303/680-9011 :
 :             james.cherry@f536.n104.z1.fidonet.org             :
 =================================================================
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:11:01 GMT

From article <1992Dec15.132134.16590@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In the case of Barnard's pronouncements to the press, it is quite
> reasonable to question his qualifications in the field of human
> nutrition if he is going to set himself up as an expert to the public.

Fine.  If you're going to portray yourself as the "voice of reason" 
to readers of the vegetarian newsgroup, then perhaps we should continue
to question your qualifications.   

> If he'd simply been expressing opinions on Usenet, no one would
> have said a word. 

I'm sure that you'd have said more than a word or two.

-- 
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: Trapping
Date: 11 Dec 1992 21:34:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec11.172214.2797@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <30967@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> jsemrad@ems.cdc.com writes:
>
>>governing unit to get trapping made illegal in the park?  If the traps bother
>>you that much why don't you take constructive action instead of just being
>>a weenie about it?


>But springing the traps *is* constructive action. The most "weenie" thing
>I have yet seen on this newsgroup is Karl saying "I am forwarding your
>posts to the authorities".

>Sure, campaigning to have trapping made illegal is a better long-term
>solution. In them meantime, springing the traps is the right thing to
>do, even if it is against the law.


Well there may be at least a few trappers out there who might feel punching
those who spring their traps in the face or worse is the right thing to do.
Lawlessness can work on both sides of the fence Paul and I wouldn't expect
those who are being violated by ARs to stand idly by for too long.

Mike Linan








Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
From: refrig@dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Rights?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 14:21:22 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

>In article <1992Dec12.063205.14086@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Tod
>d H.) writes:

>>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>>>Todd, as the originator of this anecdote, could you please come forward
>>>and confirm or deny the claim that the goat owner had been repeatedly
>>>abusive to the goat over a period of time.  The absence of a denial will
>>>be interpreted as confirmation.
>>
>>First of all, the last line in the above quote is the most ARROGANT bit of
>>BULLSHIT I've had the pleasure to see here, *INCLUDING* Russell Lawrence's
>>generous doses.  I've been out of town for the past 5 days, so by now you've
>>probably determined that you're right, and I'm wrong, about whatever you felt
>>like screwing with today.


>"The absence of a denial will be interpreted as confirmation," or phrases
>to that effect, are used sometimes in legal wrangling.  They are called
>Pregnant Negatives:  if X does not happen, then Y will happen.

I see - now the ARWhackos are so far gone they think that the Usenet is a
formal legal trial setting.  Take a pill, whackos.

-- 
Todd++;
refrig@dixie.com

"Others may hate you ... but they cannot beat you ... unless you hate them.
 Then you destroy yourself."     ----  Richard M. Nixon

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals