HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Policy of Peace.
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:24:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <16ou05INNnqo@agate.berkeley.edu> korpela@rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.165814.42338@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>> [Stuff Deleted]
>>	So, in light of this, let me attempt to make myself very clear:
>>
>>	Killing when it is NOT absolutely NECESSARY is WRONG.  Wrong.  
>
>If you truly believe this, you'd better go join a tribe of vegetarian
>gatherers, because your lifestyle is causing lots of unnecessary deaths.
>
>I can see right now that you are guilty of using electricity.  It's not

We live in a world not of our making. I think it is rational for us to
do what we can to minimise that amount of suffering that results from our
actions, even if we can't totally eliminate the possibility that some of
the things we do will have unfortunate side effects.

It is about time we had a FAQ file on ``why plants have a different moral
status than animals'' and ``why the fact that an environmentalist uses
a gallon of gas doesn't discredit the entire environmetal movement''.
In fact, maybe we could automate this entire newsgroup, have programs
posting the same things over and over again. Maybe it has already happened?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Ferris' Postings
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:39:44 GMT

To you folks out there calling for an end to Ferris's AR propaganda
postings;  let's not try to censor this guy.  He's just putting info
up on the board for anybody that wants to read it.

If you don't want to read it (I personally don't), use your Author
Kill on a daily basis.  It flushes all the crap real effectively.
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My dog
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:15:53 GMT

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

>In article <lxgyafl@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) 
>writes:
>> So it's OK for this dog to munch on rabbits and such despite the fact
>> that the owner is feeding it.

>What do you mean by "it's OK"? If you're asking whether or not the dog is 
>behaving ethically, I'd say the question is nonsensical - ethics apply to 
>humans and not to dogs. A dog can be neither ethical nor unethical. 

	If I am to grant rights, or recognize rights, I require that the
being I grant them to be capable of knowing the difference between
exercising them and abusing them, for only then can I prosecute for
the violation of said rights by the individual.  You make my point for
me.  Why should I grant a right to somebody or some thing that cannot
know what I've granted, or act responsibly towards the others who
have that same right?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Policy of Peace.
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:01:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <viking.714109103@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>In <Bt5Cn5.KJA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>>Consider, for example, the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis experiments 
>>that were exposed by the NY Times in 1972.  As I recall, the 
>
           [deleted description of incident where individuals were
            untreated by (terribly misguided) physicians in order
            to observe the progress of the disease]

>	I admit to being ignorant of this particular incident.  Two
>questions do come to mind that we might do well to ponder.
>
>	1) Cancer patients who are terminally ill often partake in
>experimental treatments.  Sometimes these experimental treatments
>consist of placebo's or standard treatments extended to serve as a
>control group for the real experimental treatment.  Is it any less
>right to do this than to give everybody the experimental treatment
>and not have a control group to make the results verifiable?
>
          [deletions]

>	My answers: 1) No.  The control group is necessary, and hence
>I feel a placebo no less moral than the tretment.  Even if the treatment
>is a cure, the deaths of the control group would permit verification
>shortly, and hence save many more lives.  Thus, I do admit killing can
>serve a purpose, even if they are humans.


I just want to stress that control groups are used but are *not*
denied the most effective proven treatment, if such exists; control
groups must be treated according to the accepted standards of care.
They receive the current 'best treatment', against which an experimental
treatment is tested. If a group is given a 'placebo', it is because
there is no treatment accepted as safe and effective. One recent example
where a placebo group was used was some of the original work with AZT 
(for treatment of AIDS). A placebo group was used because AZT had not been 
proven effective, and it has serious, life-threatening side effects.
The placebo group received equivalent care, minus the drug. The experiment
was halted, and AZT was offered to the placebo group, when the AZT group
showed marked improvement in certain clinical tests. There are other
cases in which control groups fare better than experimental treatment
groups.

Bob Straubinger 
Dept Pharmaceutics
SUNY Buffalo        "opinions above are mine, not those of SUNY"
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:48:07 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <92Aug14.182033.29634@acs.ucalgary.ca> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:
>
>Yup. A typical AR type - prone to violence. 
>

I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that "AR types" 
are LESS prone to violence than the general population.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Ferris' Postings
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:01:56 GMT

(John S. Van Etten) writes:

>However, since I am alone (other than Todd, whom I
>currently can't reach on e-mail -- any other addresses?) in my
>thoughts that the group's bandwidth can be better spent on other
>things, [...]

>As I've said before, for me the problem is more in losing other
>people's information due to the clutter.  But the point is now moot. 

	Given the 300-line posts we've seen on here, with attributes
running four and five deep, I'd say Ferris's posts aren't that big a
deal.  Personally, I just skip over posts that are more than 100 lines
or so -- I'm not patient enough to read them at 2400 baud.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 18 Aug 92 08:59:48
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of 18 Aug 92 06:47:01 GMT

In article <Bt62uE.3B8@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   The precise set of mechanisms that allow fat tissue to serve as a 
   "switch" doesn't matter for the purpose of our discussion, but 
   the fact remains that this mechanism inhibits reproduction when 
   food supplies are scarce.  Hence, the argument that mammalian
   populations are limited primarily by death [either from starvation or 
   predation] appears to be unfounded.   

I am a bit confused.  Do you mean to imply that prey animals such as
deer can completely self-regulate their population?  What would such a
population be like, ie.  would it be heathly, what sort of cycles
would the population experience, what role would disease play?  Please
describe how this would work in a large enclosed area (maybe 5000
acres).  The use of a enclosed area is just so the mental "study" can
be quantified better.  If you prefer, you can use any area you like.

If deer can self regulate their populations without any predation, do
you have any guesses why the League Against Cruel Sports used culling
by shooters to maintain deer populations on reserves they controlled?

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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:27:23 GMT

In <Bt5B9F.K3w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

	You know, Russ, I am beginning to think you are some sort
of program, with a finite database of questions you may ask.  As I
remember, I was asked these two just a few weeks previous.  That
you did not give a concrete answer too is somewhat curious.

>Would you mind explaining the role that adipose tissue plays in 
>regulating mammalian fertility?  What's the minimum level of body 
>fat that a female deer must have in order to ovulate?  

	I don't know.  Do you?  If you don't, why didn't you ask
a local zoologist (my girlfriend is a zoologist, and she doesn't
know right off-hand either) or the local DNR agent?  I know that
low bodyfat reduces the chance of fertility in a mammal, but
I've never heard it referred to as a "switch" or anything.

>When the population of a herd reaches the maximum sustainable 
>population level, what happens to adipose tissue in females as 
>the caloric intake/capita begins to drop, and, what effect would 
>this have on additional population growth?  

	It would lower population growth for one season, at which
time the present herd population has decreased due to starvation.
In addition, there will be some young born as the time of conception
may have been when food was plentiful, and caloric intake/capita
need not drop in a gentle curve depending on the area the herd
has to forage in.  If you know concrete figures, why not state them?

>Is it true that natural predators, wolves for instance, prey on
>diseased and sick animals rather than healthy ones?

	They prey on the stupid or weak, not just the diseased and
sick, but those are generally the weak ones.  Wolves can kill
healthy animals too, but being opportunists in hunting they will
kill the prey that can least likely escape.  Generally, you are
right.  On the other hand, find me a hunter who can tell the
difference at 100 yards while peering through his sights.  I'd
say wolves are a great boon to keeping a disease-free herd, but
they do not prevent over-population.  They merely benefit from it.

	Really, Russ, this is a tad boring answering your mostly
rhetorical questions.  How about a few facts being sprung upon us
from you?  Why not ask the question and then answer it?  You know,
give us food for thought?  All you've given us here is a menu, and
the meals don't look particularly appetizing.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: What would *you* have done?
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:23:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.201811.42362@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>Josh (feinstei@vax.sonoma.edu) writes:
>> My question is: what *should* I have done that would have had a more positive
>> effect for the dog, the boys, and even the man himself? Was there something
>> I could have said or done that would have helped this man realize how fucked
>> up he was acting?
>
>	Hmm ... just remember that the dog is property, and that the owner of 
>said property is within his lawful rights to do whatever he wants to the dog.  
>Any attempt on your part to rescue the dog may result in the man having the 
>lawful right to shoot you.  At least this is the point of view of some hunters.
>Definitely not mine.
>

Most states have laws against cruelty to animals. I find myself offended by
that last remark about hunters. I am a hunter and a lover of animals. Depending
on the size of the guy, I may have started a fight. I'd take a beating rather
than stand by and watch a helpless animal, child, man or woman get abused like
that.

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Olympics and Animal rights
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 21:38:09 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


>xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

>In modern olympic games, equestrian is also very popular, but the
>human got medal and money, what did horse get?  --Zhigan

The best feed, medical attention, etc. that money can buy. And,
if a stallion, going to stud full-time in his retirement.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Ferris' Postings
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:26:55 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


I vote NOT to censor ferris' AR postings. I find them quite
interesting. In fact, they rate right up there with Linan's
comments about Lawrence Russell's mental abilities, sexual
preferences, etc. Great reading.
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: re: moral Judgements
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:36:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WP Group

From article <64452@cup.portal.com>, by gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson):
taw> Why do our moral attitudes towards animals have do be an all or 
taw> nothing propisition?  You will note that I emphisized the word 
taw> unnecessary.  I see a great deal of differance between shooting a 
taw> pheasant for dinner and setting a dog on fire just to watch it 
taw> burn.  We both agree that humans have certian rights that can't be 
taw> violated for any reason.  For me the defining charachteristic 
taw> that seperates humans from animals is the ability to tell right 
taw> from wrong.  You have to admit that the ability evaluate our 
taw> actions from a moral perspective is uniquely human.  That ability 
taw> more than anything else separates humans from animals and 
taw> justifies humans having rights.  

The two dogs that live with me apparently think that it's "wrong"
to take an object from the mouth of another dog, but "right" to take 
an object that another dog has apparently abandoned.  They also
think that it "right" to greet visitors and "wrong" to defecate on
the floor of the house/den.   And BTW, they figured out these things 
without any help from me.   Does this mean that they have the
same rights as President Bush?

On the other hand, a friend of a friend of mine suffered severe 
brain damage from a beating and can no longer distinguish between 
the rightness or wrongness of actions that would seem obvious to 
you or me and even to the two dogs.  Does this mean that he has 
no rights?

taw> I would like to know exactly what rights you feel that animal have
taw> and what charachteristics of the animals justify those rights. Also,
taw> what charachteristics of animals prevent them from having the exact 
taw> same rights as humans.  

You yourself stated that it would be wrong to set a dog on fire.
Was your judgment in such a matter based on the dog's ability to
feel pain?  Or, was it based on the assumption that dogs understand
the moral relevance of death-by-fire? 

The notion that any organism (human or non-human) should have the 
exact same rights as all other organisms doesn't make much sense 
to me for the simple reason that it wouldn't make much difference 
to the organisms themselves.  As an example, the dogs that live 
with me couldn't care less about freedom of religion, or the 
right to bear guns, or the right to vote in human elections.  On 
the other hand, I'm sure both of them would be deeply concerned 
if you were to approach them with a burning torch.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: ou.politics,det.politcs,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Putting People First group forming
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:18:23 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.


	There is a Putting People First group now forming in the
Pontiac area.  This group is essentially geared to help counter some
of the hype and hysteria being set forth by the animal rights extremists.

If you believe in humanitarian treatment of animals and common sense
treatment of the environment, but also feel that you and those people
close to you ultimately take precedence over animals and plants, then
please call for more information...


National Headquarters:

	Kathleen Marquandt, President
	4401 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
	Suite 310-A
	Washington, D.C.  20008-2322
	1 (202) 364-7277

or locally in the Detroit, Pontiac and Flint area call:

	Scott W. Wood  (313) 394-0351

This number has caller I.D. - ANY and ALL pranks or hostile calls
WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW!

Thanks

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Rover stares down my barrel.
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:47:22 GMT

In <1992Aug10.163010.42252@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>	Anyway, hunters, I have every right to shoot your dog or your cat.  I
>do so in the name of population control.  And don't tell me that there are more
>humane methods to kill an animal, like the methods they use at the humane
>societies.  I'd rather shoot them down myself, because it's more fun, and it
>helps me feel like a big shot.  Plus, I can avoid all those damned fees. Oh,
>and don't worry, I'll feed them to my beloved piranha, so it's not like
>they're going to waste or nothing. 

So then you wouldn't mind me fishing for your piranha with a barbed hook
or spear gun?  Or better yet I could try shooting it too and really prove
my skill with a firearm.  :-)

-- 
==========================================================================
  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.
==========================================================================
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunting and Killing. Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:09:07 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


Oops!

In my previous entry, the line: "To the sportsman the death of
the game is now what interests him"

should have read:

"To the sportsman the death of the game is NOT what interests
him"
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Question and Explanation.
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:36:59 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

>I pose a question for all those who advocate the right to kill animals
>(hunters):
>						 
>Do you believe it is ethical to kill an animal primarily for its fur?

Yes. Do you? How does the pelt differ from any other organ? Is it
special in some way?

Actually, I think it can be (note: can be) quite acceptable to kill an
animal and make no human use of it. (Flame bait, I know.)

--Jonathan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: WOOLWORTHS; PETS
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:41:26 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I've sent my comments to Farrell, but I didn't send you a carbon 
rl> copy.  Farrell's free to decide for himself whether to keep my 
rl> message private or to share it with others, including you.  He's 
rl> also free to decide for himself what he will or won't post, just 
rl> as the rest of us are entitled to decide, as individuals, what we 
rl> will or won't read.   

Mike Linan writes:
ml> Let's not forget what we will or won't eat, what we will or won't 
ml> hunt, what is or isn't ethical, what we will or won't believe in, 
ml> who we feel is or isn't honest.  That is the whole point, that we 
ml> have the freedom to choose what we will eat and whether we will 
ml> hunt.  Ain't nobody got the right to take that away from us.  

rl> You don't have such a freedom.  Try barbequing Barbara Bush for 
rl> lunch and see how far you get.  

In article <viking.714014335@vincent1.iastate.edu>, Dan Sorenson:
ds> You'll probably get to within ten feet of the first secret
ds> service agent (pity the initials SS have such negative connotations;
ds> and we were using them fifty hears before Hitler had his first beer!)
ds> and then you will be room temperature.  Be that as it may, there
ds> is still the freedom to _try_ it, which is one I freely give away.

Yes, Mike Linan has the "freedom" to try to eat Barbara Bush;  
a rapist has the "freedom" to hunt vulnerable women;  a mugger
has the "freedom" to steal from helpless victims;  etc, etc.  On 
the other hand, any man who takes advantage of such "freedoms" is 
likely to end up sharing intimate secrets in ironclad bedrooms with
sweaty guys named "Bubba".  

I don't think you and Mike are using "freedom" in the same sense.  

rl> Let's try to maintain the distinction between personal rights and 
rl> property rights, shall we?  The fact that Linan's mind may have a 
rl> rightful claim to control Linan's body as it sees fit, doesn't 
rl> mean that Linan's body has a right to seize or control the bodies 
rl> of other feeling/thinking beings.  

ds> Animals are legally property at this time, Russ.  Don't
ds> forget that (I'm certain you have not).  That you don't believe
ds> this to be true doesn't necessarially mask the fact that it is
ds> true right now.  Animals are property.  Fight it if you wish, but
ds> for now you must either live with it or face the consequences.

I agree with you that some animals are legal property at this 
time, just as some humans were legal property in some regions of the 
world as recently as the late 1950's.  Times are changing, however.  

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