HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:29:47 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Do you truly agree with Rich's claim that _all_ behavior is 
rl> selfishly motivated?

Mike Linan writes:
ml> You wouldn't try to imply that Jesus Christ belongs in the category you
ml> mention above would you Russell?  ...

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Yes, I'd probably put Jesus in that category, but he's certainly 
rl> not alone.  Your bible recounts the adventures of a number of 
rl> individuals who suffered tremendously while pursuing goals that 
rl> I would describe as altruistic.   Would you agree with Rich that
rl> the behavior of every single one of them was selfishly motivated?   

From article <1hnitsINNs7k@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Thank you for answering the question.  First let say I find it 
ml> sad and consistant with your prior attacks to demean Christianity 
ml> that you would criticize Christ for giving his life for the 
ml> salvation of others.  

You seem to be confused.  I'm not criticizing people who behave
altruistically.  Nor am I demeaning christianity by pointing out
that some christians are capable of respecting the golden rule...
thereby refuting Rich's claim that all behavior is selfish.

ml> But, that is simply your way so it seems.  At least you answered 
ml> the question which is normally a great chore for you.  To answer 
ml> your question, I do not consider the behavior of every single one 
ml> of them ( or any of them for that matter ) to have been selfishly 
ml> motivated.  Although I will acknowledge that humans are capable of 
ml> such selfish motivations.  

I fully agree that humans are capable of selfish motivations.  In 
fact, I'd probably agree that most human behavior is selfishly 
motivated.  It's clear, however, that some individuals are capable 
of looking at the "bigger pictures", so to speak, and acting 
accordingly.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:48:17 GMT

> 
> Your shortcomings are not "alleged," but factual.  [...blather...]

WHO GIVES A FLYIN' @#$%#~?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> Message-ID: <1992Dec18.143848.18138@icd.ab.com>
> 
> " I can recognize a bullshit artist when I see one, and you (Russell) are one.
> [...blather...]

WHO GIVES A FLYIN' @#$%#~?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> Message-ID: <mhulsey-181292123620@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>
> 
> BTW I did find your post where you boasted about attending an  "ivy-league"
> institution.
> 
> ...
> 
> You might argue that this was not a boast, but I disagree. [...blather...]

WHO GIVES A FLYIN' @#$%#~?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> Message-ID: <1992Dec17.174729.19678@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
> 
> Russell tactic 112:  Feigned Ignorance.
> Russell doesn't really want Martin to explain this to him.  [...blather...]

How do YOU KNOW what he really wants?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
etc. ad nauseam.

This is talk.politics.animals.  Let's talk about ANIMAL issues here.

Why don't you all go start a new newsgroup called
Alt.what.we.think.about.russell.lawrence and put all this blather in
there?  The more you attack him, the more it looks like you can't refute
his positions. 

All followups will be ignored unless they're related to animal issues.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:03:28 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes
rl> Why don't you simply define the term, "animal rights", so that we
rl> can study your own views, as well as these alleged nazi views, to see
rl> if they conform to your definition?

From article <1992Dec21.230020.9734@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Actually, you probably should be offended Russell that the National
jh> Socialist propaganda mill cranked out a load of crap about animal rights
jh> based on some jaded nazi's midnight thought that his fuhrer was vegetarian
jh> and he could tie this personal trait to an anti-intellectual attack on
jh> Jewish academics of the period and then find that have folks come along
jh> attempting to draw a parallel between your philosophy and this garbage.

Again, I'm hoping that the folks who've given credence to these "nazi" 
cries will define their use of the term, animal rights, so that we may 
determine whether the alleged parallels are rational.  On the whole I 
don't understand why I should blame some dead nazis for the hasty 
judgments set forth recently on usenet by a group of scientists who 
understand, or ought to understand, the difference between rational 
and fallacious conclusions.  

jh> My personal concept of "animal rights" indeed is generally consistent
jh> with some of the statements of the nazi propaganda mill, in particular that
jh> statement below that animals should not be tortured in pursuit of
jh> basic scientific knowledge.  I would trust your definition encompasses
jh> this belief as well.  No we are not therefore nazis.

Opposition to vivisection, as practiced in the 30's, doesn't necessarily
constitute an endorsement of the concept of animal rights.   

rl> Would you say that all men and women who love animals are "animal
rl> rights" advocates?

jh> No.

rl> Would you say that all vegetarians are "animal rights" advocates?

jh> No.

rl> Isn't it true that "vivisection", as practiced in Germany during the
rl> 30's, involved invasive operations performed *without* anesthesia
rl> or analgesics?   Would you be opposed to such a practice?

jh> I usually would be.

rl> If so, would this lead us to believe that you're an "animal rights"
rl> advocate?

jh> No.

rl> The animal welfare act prohibited "vivisection" [in the context used
rl> above] in research funded by HHS.  Would it be accurate to label the
rl> members of the US congress who supported this act as animal rights
rl> advocates?

jh> No.

Perhaps we're reaching an agreement.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 16:00:31 GMT

In article <BzJ5A3.FFD@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
[snip]
>As I mentioned previously, I've read Hitler's book and Speer's 
>memoirs;  I've read several of the major textbooks dealing with the 
>nazi era;  and I've also read several dozen papers written by 
>professional students of history dealing with nazi political 
>ideology.  None of them lend credence to the claim that the nazi's 
>were animal rights advocates in any meaningful sense.  
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please explain what you mean by "in any meaningful sense." 
Seems rather vague, doesn't it?

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      | "Americans have a right and advantage of being  |
| NRA               ILA | armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com | whose governments are afraid to trust the       |
|                       | people with arms."      - James Madison,        |
|                       | The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.        |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 22:40:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.172511.6461@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.153259.745@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>Would you also say that no employers mistreat their workers, because it would
>>be counterproductive?  The loss in productivity is balanced by the money saved
>>by spending less on housing and food.
>
>It IS generally counterproductive to mistreat employees; If it were
>not so, then our society would probably look like that of Dicken's "A
>Christmas Carol."  There would only be a half-day holiday on
>Christmas, and people would work 6 days a week.  Or maybe 7.

Animals do not have nearly as much capability compared to human
employees to do any of the following:

1. inform the media about their mistreatment.
2. form unions to collectively bargain for better treatment.
3. form unions to strike collectively when (2) fails.
4. lobby politicians and political parties for their cause.
5. appeal to international organizations like the U.N. for sympathy.
6. get Jesse Jackson to mention their plight in his speech to the
   National Democratic Convention of 1992.

>Certainly a loss in productivity may be "balanced" by money saved; but
>the question is, what kind of "balance" is it?  Well-paid,
>well-treated employees tend to be more productive than those that
>aren't, ceteris paribus.  For the "benefit" of lower costs, there is a
>corresponding "cost" of poorer productivity.  The "balance" has
>created pressure towards higher wages.  That is very clear by virtue
>of the fact that MOST jobs in our economy have wage rates that are
>considerably higher than the legal minimum wage.

Please, Mr. Browne. Animals are not human beings.
Please don't change the topic and try to argue your point.
Your doing so only magnifies your own ignorance.

The only way food animals can show their keepers that conditions are
less than tolerable is by having enough of them die.

-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:08:54 GMT

In <1992Dec3.201906.10682@icd.ab.com> Ken Whitehead writes:

[...]

> .... (Check out the winter kill of elk in Yellowstone that has occurred
> every year since the Fund for Animals "saved" them from the hunters if
> you don't know what I'm talking about;  you'll be appalled, I guarantee
> it.)  ...

Ken, 

I believe that you are seriously misinformed here.  The shooting of elk
(and other wildlife) in Yellowstone National Park has been outlawed
since 1894 by an Act of Congress.  The recent "winter kill" is a result
of the fires of 1988 and the ensuing short-term food scarcity.  It has
nothing to do with Fund For Animals' efforts.

The Fund For Animals has worked to stop the slaughter of BISON who
wonder outside the park boundaries.  These animals are killed, not
because they're starving, but because of an irrational fear that they
will spread brucellosis to cattle. 

Are you confusing these efforts to stop the killing of BISON OUTSIDE
Yellowstone with some nonexistent (and redundantly irrelevant) campaign
to halt the killing of ELK INSIDE Yellowstone?

Please check your references on this and post any information (along
with names of sources) which would support your original contention.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:10:09 GMT
Organization: WP Group


Russell Lawrence writes to Rich Young:
rl> As I explained previously, it was my intention to post, not only
rl> the references, but entire articles... some of which were published
rl> in the Times-Picayune, New Orleans CitiBusiness, and Gambit, sources
rl> that are unlikely to be available in your local library.   
rl> Unfortunately, I just haven't had enough time.  Do you think your
rl> interests would be better served by the references alone... given
rl> the fact that your limited resources would prevent you from testing
rl> the veracity of my interpretations?

From article <1992Dec21.142127.16884@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> Trust Us Russell.  Maybe not.  But don't underestimate us. I'm not
gp> interested in your version of the articles.  Post the ref.  If I can't
gp> get my hands on the articles I'll let you know.

Fine.  When I have the time to resume my participation in the 
discussion of the "cat shooting" experiments, I'll be happy to 
post the references alone and let you and/or one of your 
professional propaganda services do the background work.  

rl> Be that as it may, I'm under no obligation to be an "Answer Man"
rl> of sorts for every question that pops into the heads of my opponents.

gp> Pops into my head!  Russell I've never heard of the experiment.  You
gp> brought it up.

This is true, but I certainly didn't bring up all the questions that 
have been posed recently, such as the "pertinent" question [Hulsey's 
adjective] regarding my alleged presence at some small town event in 
Athens, Georgia.  

Would it be reasonable for me to dictate which topics Greg Popken 
and Martin Hulsey are obliged to discuss, and when?   If so, I'll
begin work on an extensive list of "unanswered questions" that will
keep both of you busy until the turn of the century.

> ...
rl> I am focusing on the issue, Rich.  And the issue is the hypocrisy 
rl> of folks who would belittle the statements of a medical doctor on 
rl> a vital nutritional issue, by appeals to his authority, while 
rl> applauding historical claims about the nazi mindset that were presented 
rl> in a journal that has *nothing* whatsoever to do with either political
rl> history or the history of ideas.

gp> Request nuber three.  READ THE BOOK I CITED. IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC 
gp> LITERATURE

Did you read the book you cited?  If so, would you consider loaning me
a copy?

Is the book that you cited widely respected as a credible source by
historians of the nazi era?  

Do you agree with me that the journal _Endocrinology_ has *nothing* 
whatsoever to do with either political history or the history of
ideas?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 23:54:14 GMT

In article <BzzKxs.MyI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>....some christians are capable of respecting the golden rule...
>thereby refuting Rich's claim that all behavior is selfish.

[...]

   The "Golden Rule":

	Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


   You wanna re-think your "refutation," Russell?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Poultry Preference Studies
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:51:24 GMT


I have before me the December, 1992 issue of _Highlights of
Agricultural Food Research in Ontario_ published by the Canadian
Ministry of Agriculture and Food.  There is an interesting article
by Ian J.H. Duncan of the Dept. of Animal and Poultry Science,
Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph,
titled "Measuring Animal Behaviour to Assess Welfare."

The author writes about his research with broiler chickens that
utilizes the non-invasive technique of assessing chicken decisions
when chickens are presented with options as to nesting, number
and make-up of companion chickens, lighting, and size of cage etc.

The author writes:

"There are plans to expand this approach and to determine other factors
important to chickens.  For example, will they work to get a dust-bath or a
substrate in which to forage?  What group size and social mix do they
prefer?  What procedures do they find particularly aversive?  When the
answers to these questions are known, and when this approach is expanded to
other species, it should be possible to design economically efficient
environments that satisfy animals' needs."


I know the argument from the point of view that were all humankind
to be vegan we would not have to entertain the savage notion of the
executioner morbidly studying the conditions under which the condemned
chicken lives until its execution.  Until that reign of perfection
arises on this earth, until that day that the earthworm lays with the
fish, the lamb with the fox, and mankind with the deer, I wonder,
is this acceptable animal research?


Happy Holidays
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:56:42 GMT

In article <C05F58.4r7@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> For a man who says he wants to focus on the issues, you certainly 
> pad your articles with a lot of 'ad hominem' fluff.

I have rarely attacked you personally.  When I did, the record indicates
that I was responding _quid pro quo_.  Perhaps you are confusing attacks on
your tactics with attacks on your person.

>Don't you 
> think it's might be supercilious for you to assume that your 
> opponents are "evading" your articles when, after all, they may 
> not consider you to be worth their trouble?   I'm sure I'm not
> the only person who declines to wade through an intellectual swamp 
> looking for a few tidbits that might deserve a reply.

Very few "tidbits" in the "intellectual swamp" escape your attention,
Russell.  In the case of my unanswered questions, the "tidbits" were
repeatedly posted, and repeatedly ignored.  These "tidbits" continue to be
ignored.

[Russell's "unanswered questions" deleted]

I have answered these questions in another post, so I shall not answer them
redundantly here.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: How PETA interacts with the ALF
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:51:31 GMT


(from the Fall 1992 issue of _PETA_News_)

"In the true account above [from _Free_the_animals!_], 'Valerie' and her
partners copied the Gennarelli tapes, then dropped them off on the dorrstep of
PETA's offices.  The Animal Liberation Front is aware of PETA's whistleblower
program and uses it.

"PETA did with the information what any professional journalist would:  we put
the evidence in the public domain.  After all, in a free society the public is
entitled to know what goes on in its name and with its money.  Sorry, FBI,
that is not illegal. 

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:26:22 GMT


Michael MY Hui writes:
mh> The only way food animals can show their keepers that conditions are
mh> less than tolerable is by having enough of them die.

From article <1hpsboINN8av@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> And that loss of a farmers product in itself should be enough to 
ml> prevent such conditions but, if for some reason it's not, that's what 
ml> the ARFs should be for.  

If chickens can survive in over-crowded battery cages -- without 
dying, would this lead you to conclude that their conditions are 
more than tolerable, rather than less than tolerable?  How would
a chicken living in such circumstances demonstrate her 
dissatisfaction?

ml> Only problem is that the "F" in ARF stands for "fanatic"
ml> and their views often include pretending that animals should be humans.

In my dealings with other AR advocates, I've never come across 
any individuals who've pretended, as you say, that all animals 
are (or should be) human animals.  On the other hand, I've met 
quite a few who've rejected the argument that genetic affiliation 
alone somehow justifies special forms of treatment or 
mistreatment.  

Illustration: I trust that you'll agree with me that it's wrong to 
torture dogs for fun, not because dogs are human or not-human, but 
because dogs are capable of experiencing the same sensations and 
emotional states that make torture a thoroughly unpleasant experience.  
How would you respond to a man who says, "It's ok for me to kick the 
shit out of this individual if it suits my pleasure;  he's only a dog"?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: WFPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Hunting @ Yellowstone (Was Bowhunting wounding...)
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 14:26:28 EST

In article <1992Dec30.175540.21147@clpd.kodak.com>
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
 
>
>
>As far as you know, are there any confirmed cases of inter-species
>brucellosis contamination?  How about any cases of transmission from
>wild animals to domestic stock?
>
>
No, to date, transmission of brucellosis to domestic livestock from elk or bis
on has NOT been confirmed under free-ranging conditions.  There is a probable c
ase of transmission in a pen facility (where the investigation was TRYING to
get transmission), but so far I'm not aware that this case has been published.
 
W. Porter SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry
WFPORTER@SUVM
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Pain sensation = Rights?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:36:46 GMT
Organization: none
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

NOTICE: What follows is a NOT a discussion about abortion. For those
wishing to continue Rosemary's post from an abortion perspective
can do this in the "Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)"
thread which is cross-posted to talk.abortion.

From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
*Just a clarification:  I am not pro-abortion, and I think the fetus
*does have rights when it reaches the stage where it can feel pain,
*etc.  Until that point I am pro-choice.

Rosemary, I'm curious as to whether you are suggesting that the 
ability to sense pain is a prerequisite condition for having "rights."
I could see where protective statutes (or laws) could developed
using this criteria, but personally, I do not call such protections
"rights."  For me the question of whether an entity can possess
rights hinges primarily on cognitive ability, not sensory apparatus.
If you have the time to spare, would you like to put together a
description of the criteria you use to decide whether something
should possess rights?  (Follow-up or e-mail is fine)

Regards, 
Tim Ikeda
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals