HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:23:37 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan12.153336.20911@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>a desire to be more righteous than thou!  They're not content with living
>out their philosophy quietly.  No, like the Temperance freaks who did so
>much to improve the quality of life in this country, and like today's
>Fundamentalist Christians, their whole existence is based on shaming people
>into being like them.
>

Actually they are more like the people who campaigned to abolish
slavery. Still, each to his own analogy.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:52:53 GMT

(Paul Roberts) writes:
>ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:

>>Giving birth hurts too, but surely you wouldn't say that it is wrong.
>>Sometimes pain is acceptable, sometimes it's not. 

>What is weird is when I decide that your pain is acceptable
>for my benefit.

In that instance, the pain is not acceptable, imo.

  (But we do decide collectively that the suffering of some 
  workers (coal miners e.g.) is acceptable for our collective 
  benefit. )

The suffering of one species to the advantage of another is a different
matter though. It is common and natural; hardly weird.

Werner


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Subject: Re: Medical research has not "added 20 yrs to our lives"
Originator: mackenzi@haley.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 15:12:28 GMT


In article <1993Jan11.222329.18743@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

|> PR> Statistically speaking, medicine has done little to increase life
|> PR> expectancy.

This may be so, but is there anything about how medicine has increased
QUALITY of life?

--Paul









Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: aad@siemens.com (Anthony Datri)
Subject: Re: Turkey sex 
Organization: Siemens Corporate Research, Princeton (Plainsboro), NJ
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:53:45 GMT


>  Is this the kind that *comes* in liters??

No, you're thinking of "Wild Turkey", which exists only in magazine ads that
try to get me to buy a bottle of it shaped like some random object for lots of
money.
-- 

======================================================================8--<
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:24:39 GMT

From article <mhulsey-070193091416@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <1993Jan6.215136.11377@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
> (Paul Roberts) wrote:
>> Naughty naughty Alex. This was an undercover investigation, Martin.
>> Yes, that involves not telling the person you are investigating
>> what your motives are. What is so bad about that? How do you feel
>> about the police doing undercover investigations to counter crime?
>> Do you condemn them for "lying" too? Or are you just looking around
>> for things to accuse Pacheco of?
> 
> Bogus analogy.  Pacheco was not an agent of law enforcement acting with
> probable cause that a crime was being or to be committed.
> 
>> >Furthermore, the fact that escapes you and others is that Taub was
>> >completely exhonorated of all cruelty charges in this matter. 
>> 
>> So you keep saying, but it isn't true. He got off on a technicality.
> 
> If you read the actual Appeals Court opinion, rather than PETA's account of
> events, you will see why it is misleading to say that the Appeals Court's
> decision was based on a technicality.  

You've already admitted that you didn't read the opinion of the Appeals
Court.  Moreover, you've told us that your sole source of information
about the opinion were the statements made by Taub himself.  How do you 
know that your assessment of the opinion is more accurate than the
assessment published by an independent reporter from the Washington Post?

> The opinion noted the potential
> value of Taub's research for rehabilitating movement in human stroke
> victims.

I have no doubt that the court may have noted the value of Taub's 
research and treated Taub with respect, but this doesn't change the 
fact that the case was dismissed on a technicality.   The logical
truth of the matter is that the potential value of Taub's research
was irrelevant to the charges.  

> The opinion also detailed the chronological development of the Maryland
> anti-cruelty statute.  Contrary to Pacheco's assertion, there was no change
> in section 59 during his tenure in Taub's lab that would make animal
> researchers subject to this law.  The version of section 59 in effect at
> that time was instituted in 1975.

Why don't you explain this to the state attorney who prosecuted the
case against Taub?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick)
Subject: why is hunting ethical? [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 23:33:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.031347.22120@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff
Achenbach) writes:
|>    Although I call [hunting] recreation (fresh air, exercise, and not absolutely 
|> necessary to my survival) I don't feel the term does justice to the range
|> of emotions experienced. Going into the wild, discovering and deciphering
|> the ways of the target species, and (hopefully) putting food on my family's
|> table gives me a sense of accomplishment and pride that I don't get by 
|> going to work in a research lab and bringing home a paycheck with which to
|> buy food raised and killed by someone else. Sad to say I lack the skills to
|> adequately explain this.

That you enjoy your hobby does not make it ethical.  Suppose I told you that my
hobby was throwing bricks into storefront windows.  You'd tell me to stop.  And
no amount of "But it's fun" or "Well lots of people do it" or "But I get lots of
enjoyment from make a successful getaway" on my part would make you wrong to try
to stop me.

So you should stop trying to convince me that hunting is fun.  I believe you when
you tell me you enjoy hunting.  Instead, you should try to convince me that it is
ethical.

Let's consider another abuse of animals, cock fights.  Do you think this it is
ethical for people to stage cock fights?  Suppose someone said "But I LOVE cock
fights.  I can't really explain it.  It's just fun.  Part of my heritage.  And
besides, there only chickens."   How would you respond?

-- Nick

(PS: yes, I am comparing hunting to cock fights: animal suffering for primarily
recreational purposes.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10818 talk.environment:5368 sci.environment:14359
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:35:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

Gregory "Shoot a squirrel, go to jail" Sherwin writes:
   <Comparison between occasional "rescue" of unharmed seals and kidnapping>
   <of humans mercifully deleted.                                          >
>>>If we did the same to sick and injured humans
>>>in some cases it might be felony kidnapping and imprisonment and involuntary
>>>subjection to medical treatment.
>>
>>And if I squashed a human the way I squash flies, I'd be in jail.  So
>>what?
>
>Okay - so legally there are imposed restrictions to doing things to humans
>where they aren't as strict in relation to animals.  I think that's
>pretty obvious.  So far all all I get out of your posting is that you like
>to squash flies and that you can't do so to humans without civil
repercussions.  What's your point?  What's your point of even posting
>altogether?

Well Greg, it's not that I have a burning desire to discuss "Animal Rights"
(Bwahaha), I'm posting here to point out how utterly absurd such an idea
really is.  Animals are animals, Greg, and the fact is that they are under-
neath us in the food chain (usually).  Their importance can't possibly
compare with ours, so I have to wonder:  why exactly are you engaging in
this mental masturbation???

     don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seen on a bumper sticker:
        "I killed Shirley Maclaine in a previous life"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:32:31 GMT

In <C0ntrA.284@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <C0LpHL.2r1@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca:
>> In <C0KuyM.BKp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> 
>>>Perhaps your values are determined by convention, but I make an
>>>effort to base my values on my observations of facts.  

>As an example, would it be a "good" thing for my friends and I to torture 
>you for our own personal pleasure if all of us (except you, of course) 
>agreed that it's socially acceptable to do so?

No, but then it wouldn't be socially acceptable either just because you
and you friends agreed that it was.

Now if I were raised in a society that considered suffering pain
necessary for a person's well-being, and if they therefore considered
it beneficial to inflict pain occasionally, and if all the people I
knew believed that it was so, I have no doubt I would accept the
conventional wisdom. And I'd lay heavy odds that you would too. We
would only have had to live 100 years earlier when "spare the rod,
spoil the child" was a nearly universally held tenet.

[...]
>I don't think you could find many dentists and pregnant women who would
>disagree with my statement that "pain is bad". 

That's true. Are you appealing to convention here?


>> You need a better example.
>I'll stick with the one I've got.

But it's only half an example. You promised an example for how you
used facts to determine right and wrong. All you've given is
'inflicting pain is bad'.  Then you claim it's not because of
convention, but you don't say what other reason there might be.

Werner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:45:12 GMT

In article <1icqm0INN8ke@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sh
erwin) writes:
[...]
>
>I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call putting a 9mm slug in the
>brain of my lover a form of foreplay.  Maybe you do - I don't know.
>I think I won't take that chance and refrain from asking you out on a date
>this Saturday night. :)
[...]
>
>Call me interesting I suppose, Mary.
>
>greg


Good idea.  I have a feeling that Mary's husband would hunt you down
and kill you--possibly for her amusement.







;-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:41:59 GMT

In article <C0I2L3.GJG@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:

>In <C0Gytp.9Iy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>
>>Acceptability and convention are equivalent terms.
>>Would torture be "good" if it were acceptable/conventional?
>
>Is drinking unacceptable because a small interest group considers it "bad"?
>
>Isn't the AR issue about what is acceptable and what is not, rather than
>about the semantics of what is "good" or "bad"?
>
>>(Yes, I realize that pain isn't always bad).
>
>So you need another example of how facts and arguments tell you
>what is wrong and what is right.
>
>Werner
>



Dammit Werner, you can count on Russell to supply one.  You
obviously haven't read his Bible--Tom Regan's _The Thee Generation_.






:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:22:14 GMT

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>Basically, I don't understand how one can "live and let live" with a group
>of petulant buffoons, when their objective is to eliminate some of your
>freedom.  To me, that's the equivalent of an unhappily  pregnant woman
>trying to respect the narrow-minded asses blocking her entrance to an
>abortion clinic.

	I have the great privlidge of being a land-owner, hence AR activists
have a difficult time trying to stop me from enjoying my hunt.  First, I
have the deed, so a simple call on the CB or telephone nets a criminal
tresspass charge.  Second, I am generally the one carrying the weapons.
Being a kind and curteous soul, I wouldn't think of shooting these people.
However, did you ever notice how few of them wear earplugs?  ;-)

	Basically, they're free to think and feel whatever they want.
They are also free to try and convince a legislator that they are right.
I'm free to do the same.  This is why I respect their opinions, because
I respect the law that lets them be spouted.  And pointedly ignored.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11009 alt.peeves:19000
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:30:52 GMT

In <1993Jan6.183816.4107@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]
>I've addressed this previously and nothing has been said to undermine my
>previous statements.  Pacheco walked a fine line.  He tried to help the
>monkeys in small ways without destroying the case.  As you know, there
>are those who believe that long run improvements and greater awareness
>resulted from this case.  That was Pacheco's hope: that the long term
>changes would offset the short term exigencies.  From that standpoint,
>it would appear that he chose a reasonable path.

So you admit that some long run improvements justify short term
exigencies such as animal suffering. The only difference between PETA
and the animal researchers is what the justifying long run
improvements are; PETA choosing improved animal welfare, the
researchers improved human welfare.

Werner
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10945 alt.peeves:18937
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: why hunting is unethical
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:11:01 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

(Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:
>>   my fundamental claim: it is unethical to kill sentient beings
>>   just for the satisfaction of killing them
>>So tell me why you disagree with this statement, 

I don't.  In your personal set of ethics, it is unethical for you to 
kill animals that are, in your opinion, sentient.  Complete agreement.

Did you state this as some public affirmation of faith, or were you
just informing us that there are more animals for the rest of us to
kill?

drew
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10906 alt.peeves:18906
From: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 11 Jan 1993 12:11:31 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley CS Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: cobra.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <HUTTAR.93Jan9045315@hp750.itg.ti.com> huttar@hp750.itg.ti.com (Lars Huttar) writes:
>In article <1ilg9a$ctd@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>>
>> Probably would, come to think of it.  Christ, what a fucking maroon.
>
>What have you got against maroons, man?
>
>For those of you who don't want to unwittingly sound racist or offensive
>(doubtless Curtis Yarvin would rather be fully aware of his offensiveness),
>the word "maroon" is often used to refer to tribes in the Caribbean or
>South America, formed by and descended from slaves (generally African or
>Indian) who escaped from plantations.

Mary on a crutch!  If I'd expected to encounter the Ankle-Chewing
Toilet Twit I'd have worn my hip boots.  

I suppose one has to expect such vermin around here, though.  As my
Boy-Scout Troop Leader said, before he rolled on a latex jacket and
sodomized my pet chinchilla, Fluffy, into terminal diverticulitis -
"Always Be Prepared."

Yes, Mr. Huttar, "maroon" can mean a mulatto tribesman of the Brazilian
jungle.  It can also mean a traditional method of execution, the color
of shit, or a common colloquial misspelling of "moron."

People unclear on the concept of context-derived meaning should now
pull over, set the parking brake, and carefully review map and
directions.  

Thank you.

!Peeve: "Maroon."  Ah.  I think I'll use the word a bit more, now; it
seems to be a real Rorschach test.  Catches 'em right off.  The
feathery sensitivity of penguin dicks.  I mean, the man is white as
mackerel belly!  "Lars Huttar."  Probably has an albedo that'd qualify
him for a free lifetime membership in the KKK and a three-paragraph
entry in _Aryan Who's Who_.  And here he is bawling about an imaginary
slight to an ethnic group that doesn't even exist anymore!

In the immortal words of Mel Blanc, gentlemen: "What a maroon."

c
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw 
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:24:42 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>I say man relies on animals because man tends to be lazy.

ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>If by 'lazy' you mean 'efficient', I'd say that was a virtue.

So what makes you think that the unnecessary subjugation and massacre of a 
docile species is more 'efficient'?

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 12 Jan 1993 18:43:07 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

(Paul Roberts) writes:
>It is ironic that people like Curtis (below), the worst kind of
>idiot that the human race has to offer, are the ones who are so

Ahhhh.  I'm beginning to understand.  If someone can make valid points
*and* be entertaining at the same time, they are "the worst kind of
idiot."

You are very wise, Paul, and we wish to put you on a isolated mountain
top so you can be "wise" without bothering others.

andy
banta@abigndon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10983 alt.peeves:18971
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Date: 8 Jan 1993 20:44:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <lkradpINNig1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking) writes:
>(Tim Rigg) writes:
>>   ...   A Norwich hunter who fatally shot a man he mistook for a deer
>>   in 1988 was sentenced this summer to six years in prison after
>>   being convicted of second-degree manslaughter.

>>This is what should happen to all "hunters" who make such a stupid error! 

>Oh, bravo, Tim.  Your succinct affirmation of United States justice
>strikes fear into the hearts of hunters everywhere.

>I'm quivering in my boots right now.

>Sod off.

I sense (perhaps wrongly) that you are a hunter drew.  If so it appears that
you may have read Tim's post and assumed it was coming from an AR or at least
that is what your post suggested to me.  I think you might like to know that
Tim is a hunter and was also the moderator for rec.hunting.  I feel he has
stated how I and most all the hunters I know feel about those who would be
so stupid as to make such a mistake.  It simply doesn't happen if you are 
concerned about what you are hunting and know what you're doing.  You may
not care or welcome this information judging from your nasty response to 
Tim's comment but, I think you should be certain of who you are addressing 
before you do so, just as every hunter should be certain of what they are 
aiming at before squeezing the trigger.  Those who do not should face the
consequences of their recklessness.


>drew


Mike Linan







Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre,rec.humor,rec.pets.birds,alt.sex
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Turkey sex 
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:10:14 GMT

In article <C0HpFz.1A4@panix.com> stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller) writes:
>I would just like to point out, on behalf of mammels everywhere, that
>turkeys do not, repeat DO NOT have phalli.  No Turkey Dicks, period.
>Cloaca, that's it.
>
you mean coca-cloaca?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory