HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:06:56 GMT


I think it's a fairly impossible ethic to subscribe to Universally as
an omnivore.  But, to give you insight into my thought process, I
guess I hierarchialize the ethic and it therefore has different meaning
between its application to the human and animal worlds.  The "less pain
inflicted the better" statement applies first and foremost to my
interactions with other people.  Secondly, it is applied to animals, but
admittedly in a less rigorous manner than that which you apply the ethic
as a vegan.

For me, inflicting less pain to animals stands as an ideal stating they
should be treated as humanely as possible before they are consumed.  Where
you cite examples of chickens being piled one atop the other etc. etc. I
am as troubled by these examples as you are, but do not draw the ultimate
conclusion you do that this animal--or its counterpart kept in more
ideal circumstances-- should not be consumed by people.  Basically, I
am more able, rightly so or not, to attach and live with a little qualifier
to the ethic such as you would not:  "I am not perfect."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: animals in medicine. Was: Diabetes/Milk
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:19:50 GMT

From article <1992Oct16.042638.4667@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Let me remind you that IDDM is a "life-long disease" only thanks 
mh> to the Nobel-winning animal research done by Banting & Best in 
mh> 1925.  Prior to the availability of Insulin, most persons who 
mh> contracted IDDM died shortly thereafter.  
mh> 
mh> If Bambiphiles had sucessfully banned animal research prior to 
mh> that time, we would not be having this exchange today.  Over one 
mh> million of us (those with IDDM and those having ancestors with 
mh> IDDM) would not be alive today.  

This is a preposterous claim...  sorta like saying that the 
america's would have remained undiscovered if Isabella had failed 
to finance the voyage of Columbus.  What makes you think that a 
specific path to knowledge is the only path to knowledge?  

All of the animal rights advocates that I know, including me, 
favor restrictions on the use of animals in research, not a 
total ban.   It's a shame that many people can't perceive an 
ethical difference between these two positions.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
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 05:00:45 GMT

From article <1992Oct8.224257.21640@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Russell, in order to draw tight the logical connection you are hoping
jh> to make between "suffer not a witch to live" and a hunter calling the
jh> assertion that "hunters hunting hunters" is "idiotic," would it not be
jh> incumbent upon you to offer evidence that modern-day Christian hunters
jh> with faith (let's be totally specific, i.e., Mike Linan) either
jh> kill or advocate the killing of witches?

Not really.  We've established that Linan's "god" apparently 
advocated the killing of witches in the very same book in which 
he allegedly gave Linan permission to (mis)use animals.  If it's 
reasonable for Linan to say that someone is an idiot because he 
asked a question, "Why don't hunters hunt hunters?", it doesn't 
make much sense for Linan to disregard the obvious implications of a 
statement like, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  

Another point that concerns me is the possibility that "god" 
apparently changes his mind.  According to protestant and 
catholic leaders alike, it was ok to kill witches even a few 
short centuries ago because god said so.  Since this sort of 
opinion is hard to come by in modern times, I can't help 
wondering whether "god" changed his mind, or perhaps, "god" was 
simply misrepresented all along.  Either way, this casts doubt on 
Linan's claim that "god" gave him permission to (mis)use animals.  
Do you disagree?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
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 20:07:01 GMT


James Hoskins writes:
jh> Many people, quite learned, empirical and rational have religious
jh> faith.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. 

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Proof?

From article <1992Oct9.150043.25226@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> Here's just a few of the many learned, empirical and rational thinkers
mo> who were Christians.  (I think Mike Linan is in good company.)
mo> 
mo> Galileo, 
mo> Newton (who actually did quite a bit of religious writing)
mo> Isaac Newton (who actually did quite a bit of religious writing)
mo> Euler was a devout Lutheran
mo> Copernicus was a priest

Several years ago, I watched a television interview of a woman
whose husband had been convicted of several violent rapes.  She 
testified that the discovery of her husband's criminal activities 
came as a total shock to her because he had been a gentle and 
affection lover throughout their marriage.  Would this lead us to 
believe that gentle love and violent rape are not mutually 
exclusive concepts?  

What you're saying is that some people who know how to think 
rationally may be willing to accept some beliefs without 
thinking at all.   This doesn't mean that rational scutiny
and mindless acceptance go hand in hand.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:53:35 GMT

In article <Bvu8LA.6n8@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Oct8.224257.21640@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@ma
gnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>jh> Russell, in order to draw tight the logical connection you are hoping
>jh> to make between "suffer not a witch to live" and a hunter calling the
>jh> assertion that "hunters hunting hunters" is "idiotic," would it not be
>jh> incumbent upon you to offer evidence that modern-day Christian hunters
>jh> with faith (let's be totally specific, i.e., Mike Linan) either
>jh> kill or advocate the killing of witches?
>
>Not really.  We've established that Linan's "god" apparently
>advocated the killing of witches in the very same book in which
>he allegedly gave Linan permission to (mis)use animals.  If it's
>reasonable for Linan to say that someone is an idiot because he
>asked a question, "Why don't hunters hunt hunters?", it doesn't
>make much sense for Linan to disregard the obvious implications of a
>statement like, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


In article <Bvs3Du.3KH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Perhaps we should poll logicians, philosophers, and scientists to
>see what they think of a statement that was quite popular once
>upon a time in both Europe and America:
>
>   "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live."

>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Russell, you've asked and answered your own question.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:52:29 GMT

In <BvtMy9.3Cu@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Millions of people believed that the statement quoted above
[ "Thall shalt not suffer a witch to live" for you newbies ]
>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.

	Just a nit, Russ, but rights are a fairly new concept.  At
the time the Bible was written, human rights were not known nor
even contemplated in most areas.  What you had was privlidge, based
almost solely on power.  To argue that something _was_ immoral is
useless.  To argue that something _is_ immoral might get you somewhere.
To better illustrate, slavery *was not* immoral, but slavery *is*
immoral.  The time frames are entirely necessary to argue this.

<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: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: NCIB view of PETA
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 17:24:55 GMT
Distribution: global
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


The figure you gave for Ducks Unlimited seems at bit low. Is it
for DU, Inc. (the Amercian parent company) or for all three DUs
(DU Inc., DU Canada, DUMAC- DU Mexico)?
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:44:51 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

Whoops! Something got chopped off. I meant to say:

If you don't like Russell's tactics, why not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
find someone else who's tactics are more to your liking and engage him/her in 
a dialogue. You should realize that when you slam Russell, you tell us far 
more about yourself than about him.   
  
 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:8869 sci.med.nutrition:869
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Meat eating and hunting
Reply-To: me%halfab@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:09:34 GMT

Hope that the following suits to this theme.

Just seen a tv report about slaughter cattle transports here in europ.
The animals where treated in a very worse manner.
A good real hunter (remember I am against sports hunting) does NOT treat
his bag nearly nasty than the cattle was by the drivers and the captain
of the transport ship. Many times our daily meat is tied with much more pain
than a hunted deer is after it was hit by a perfekt shot.
For example one scene: After the transport on the road from Germany to  
Yugoslavia a cow with fractured pelvis was hit multiple times unnoticed
of its screams of pain (because nobody pays for dead cattle) to get it
off the transport ship again. After that it was tied with one leg to a
crane and hovered off the ship. Because of this action its leg broke.
The animal was living and aware of the pain. After some discussions of the
driver with the captain the cow was throwed on board again with a
dredging shovel. Always living and aware of the pain. The transport to
Africa leaved the harbour with the cow.
People would be executed if they do this with man. Even in war it is a crime.
Only some animal tests are even cruel and last longer.

Udo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:38:52 GMT

In <Bvrw7o.ps@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>Moreover, some of these folks have stated in the past that their
>denial of rights to humans and animals alike is justifiable because
>of the dictates of their "god".   As long as they maintain these 
>beliefs, it won't make much sense to banish their rationales to 
>another newsgroup. 

I think in this instance you are assuming that they are denying
rights to humans because you believe that they 'shall not suffer a
witch to live'.  You would have to first prove that they will kill a
witch if they found one.

>Again, let's consider a statement and a question:

>  -   "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
>  -   "Why don't hunters hunt hunters?"

>Why would someone be willing to accept the first statement on "faith",
>yet be quick to dismiss the second question as "idiotic"?

>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

The first statement was made in the Old Testament which to Christians is
neccessary to understand the significance of a Messiah.  However it
outlines a covenant God made with the Jews before the coming of Jesus of
Nazareth (who I will for convenience call Christ).  After Christs'
crucifixion a new convenant was made for all people.  References to the
new covenant (contained in the New Testament) about witches are outlined
in Galations 5:20, the general gist of which is that witches are not
allowed to the Kingdom of Heaven.  The first statement is not necessarily
valid to Christians.  Another point is that finding a statement in the
Christian Bible does not mean that it's followers accept it.  Another
example of that is extra-marital sex (Mathew 5:27-28) and it's practice in
the modern day, but that discussion is for another newsgroup. 

The second statement dealing strictly with hunters is murder.  To me it
seems to say that human hunters should hunt other human hunters. 
Unequivocally murder in my eyes.  I concur that this statement is idiotic
as it advocates murder of human beings.

Will Christie

-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Shapshot of talk.politics.animals
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:45:36 GMT


From article <swood.719112744@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
sw> Today, just out of curiousity (seeing so many Russell posts) I 
sw> did a snapshot of activity on the talk.politics.animals newgroup.  
sw> This covers the last five days (as our sight only saves news back 
sw> that far) and is sorted from those users with the most postings, 
sw> down to those with the least.  Looks like Russell wins!  (I seem 
sw> to recall a phrase - "Get a Life!") 

I appreciate your concern, but I've decided to stick around.  Rather
than focus on the number of my postings, perhaps your time would
be invested more wisely if you would debate their factual and rational 
contents.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Animal Rights at Canadian Universities?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 15:35:15 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


For animal rights info at the University of Calgary, contact Dr.
Mike Burgess, Assistant Dean, Medical Bioethics, Dept. of
Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 (403) 220-
4553.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:58:10 GMT

In <Bvw38p.12r@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <1992Oct10.013852.28072@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
>wc> I think in this instance you are assuming that they are denying
>wc> rights to humans because you believe that they 'shall not suffer a
>wc> witch to live'.  You would have to first prove that they will kill a
>wc> witch if they found one.

>How many witches have been killed by christians in the name of god?

Yes Christians have killed other people in the name of 'most merciful
Christ'.  Not only perceived witches (whether they were or not is for God
to decide) but fellow Christians as well.  This is not in tune however
with the modern world (dealing with witches at any rate) and not
pertinent I believe to the discussion.

>If your "god" ordered you to kill a group of individuals...  without 
>explaining his reasons, would you disobey? 

A tricky question.  Determining whether or not it was in fact God who told
me, I would have to act as the spirit moved me.  God alone will judge
whether I did as God intended me to.  Again however I fail to see what
this has to do with the discussion at hand. 

[stuff deleted for brevity]
>Was god behaving idiotically when he said: "Thou shalt not suffer
>a witch to live?"   Would you be inclined to say that the many,
>many christians who participated in the killing of heretics and
>witches during the middle ages and renaissance periods were also 
>behaving idiotically?

I would have to answer the first question on the basis that God had
intended to protect humans from supernatural elements that would otherwise
divorce them from God.  The definition of a witch may have a different
meaning now than it did then.  I am inclined to consider a witch in the
Old Testament as a malevolent being with supernatural powers that
would break your spiritual contact with God for it's own use.  Therefore I
do not consider it idiotic that God would warn humans about witches and
what to do with one if you encountered one.
As to the second question I would have to pose this one:  Do you believe
you are acting idiotically asking questions about the actions other people
have committed in the far past on a topic that I think is not related to this
newsgroup?  I do not intend to insult you however I wish to show that they
had their own reasons for committing the acts they did and no doubt felt
perfectly justified in doing so.  Whether they were or not is for God to
judge.

Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:8916 sci.med.nutrition:902
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 10:49:07 GMT


William Christie writes: 
wc> Show me how God disproves of the way humans treat animals.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Show me that your "god" really and truly disapproved of the 
rl> mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of witches, heretics, and 
rl> unbelievers during the late middle ages.  After all, your "god" 
rl> did say: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  

In article <1992Oct15.040002.27110@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, William Christie:
wc> You have been told the context and definitions of the above 
wc> statement.  It is then irrelavent to the question you pose above.  

No, it's not irrelevant at all.  Your current opinions, after 
all, are only your current opinions and are not necessarily 
reflective of a genuine divine will.  In medieval times, 
literally hundreds of prominent christian theologians read the 
same bible that you've read and concluded that witch-killing was 
not only acceptable in the eyes of "god", but desirable.  

Actually, there's no need to turn back the clock that far to find 
abundant evidence of the misuse of divine credentials in matters 
involving rights.  Roughly half of the pro-slavery books 
published prior to the american Civil War were written by 
clergymen who claimed to speak for "god".  

Isn't it possible...  just possible, in another hundred years 
from now, that your great-grandchildren will be wondering how/why 
so many christians in our day and age could turn their backs on 
the suffering of non-human animals, while pretending to have 
God's approval?  

wc> To answer your question God does disprove of the abuse of using 
wc> God's name to commit acts God is opposed to.  You are blaming the 
wc> principle (in this case Christian faith) for the acts it's 
wc> adherents have done...  

If your "god" ordered you to kill me, and you complied, would it 
be most appropriate for my relatives and friends to place the
responsibility on you?  or on god?  

wc> Would you please answer my question that was left from the last post?

Are you referring to this question:  

    Did God say, "Love thy neighbor as thyself?"

My answer is, "I don't know". 

-- 
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: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:29:08 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

`That's why I threw the quotation marks around it, Bob.  I'm well aware
`that the AR movement is diverse, and that people like Ingrid Newkirk
`don't speak for every individual.  It strikes me as odd, however, that
`we should be faulted so quickly for thinking that the head of the
`largest AR group (PETA) represents more than one person, while you AR
`folk (in general, not you specifically) seem to think the NRA speaks
`for all hunters (just to refresh our memories, there are over 17
`million licensed resident hunters in the U.S., but the NRA is still
`hoping to reach the magical 3 million member mark soon).

Should I perhaps point out that not all hunters in the U.S. use firearms,
and most people aren't trying to ban bows and arrows....

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:07:57 GMT


In article <RIGG.92Oct8111323@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
tr> That is my point.  Nearly all of the AR folks that I have met are also
tr> anti-gun folks.  

From article <1992Oct8.204737.7648@clpd.kodak.com>, by black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)):
rb> How many AR people have you met?  Of those, how many expressed "anti-gun"
rb> sentiments?  Exactly what did they say?  
rb> 
rb> Even though you don't know me, you can add me to the column of pro-AR
rb> and NOT anti-gun.  Thank you. 

Me too.  Apart from time spent in the shower, my handgun and I 
are inseparable;  the lawyer who first introduced me to PETA 
carries a handgun;  my dad recently got involved in animal rights 
issues and he sometimes carries two guns;  etc, etc.  

Do you ever get the feeling that our opponents derive their "facts"
from theories, rather than basing their theories on the facts? :-)

tr> By eliminating hunting with guns, their is one less
tr> reason to allow guns; 

rb> This is BS.  My concerns about hunting have absolutely nothing to do
rb> with guns per se.  My suspicion is that you've been taken in by NRA
rb> propaganda.  In order to appeal to wider groups, they seem to be
rb> promoting this idea of linkage.
rb> 
rb> The NRA should stick to 2nd amendment concerns...

Truly. 

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