HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:41:24 GMT

In article <BzF9IL.7C4@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-171292085306@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> > In article <BzDq03.3qy@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> >> 
> >> mh> Is it fallacious to deny that a given speaker supports animal "rights" 
> >> mh> when they have proclaimed that they do?
> >> 
> >> It's fallacious to use equivocal definitions of the term "animal rights"
> >> in order to mislead an argument, Martin.
> > 
> > Would you mind answering my question?  Should I add it to "the list?"
> 
> I'd be happy to answer your question after you've defined the term "animal
> rights" with sufficient precision that we can compare the "animal rights"
> philosophy espoused by Singer or Regan with the "animal rights" philosophy
> that was espoused by the nazis.

My claim was that the Nazi press proclaimed support for the "rights" of
"animals."  This claim has absolutely nothing to do with what they meant
when they used the term.  We can make that determination afterward.

You have accused me of equivocation regarding the term "animal rights," but
I have not addressed the implications of the term.  It is irrelevant to my
claim.

You are hesitant to accept that the Nazis proclaimed support for animal
"rights" (whatever they meant) despite references indicating such. 
Simultaneously,  you readily accept, and expect everyone else to accept,
that Peter Singer supports animal "rights."  You have no references in any
language to support your claim.

I have a reference by Singer (Behav. Brain. Res. 13:45-49; 1990) that
indicates quite the opposite.  Not only does Singer *not* consider himself
an animal "rights" activist, but strenuously objects to the term being
applied to him.  You and others believe that non-human animals have
"rights" when even the animal liberationist Peter Singer does not.

You have repeatedly criticized my references and ability to interpret the
facts in this case, although they are in a language foreign to me.  This
seems a bit disingenuous considering the fact that you are incapable of
locating and interpreting references *in our native tongue* to support your
claim that Peter Singer "espouses" animal "rights."

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:56:44 GMT

In article <BzFp2D.BEn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>The next time you portray yourself as the "voice of reason", 
>perhaps you should advise readers that you're not an expert and 
>that your statements are merely opinions...  rather than facts.  

	What, pray tell, has portrayal as a "voice of reason" got to do 
	with expertise in a field?  As for the factual nature of my
	statements, they're certainly no less factual than yours...and
	usually far more completely documented.  Besides, my credentials
	are not at issue here.

>Meanwhile, let's not forget that Barnard, Spock, and Oski all 
>have MD degrees.  And both Spock and Oski are prominent experts 
>in the field of pediatrics.  

	Sure, they all have M.D. degrees.  Would you like Dr. Spock to
	repair your faulty mitral valve simply because he has an M.D.?
	Or perhaps Dr. Barnard could give you a liver transplant?

	By the way, even Dr. Spock was a bit nonplussed at the PCRM press
	release.  He stated to the New York Times that, regardless of what
	the PCRM had claimed, he had agreed only that breast milk was the
	preferred way to feed infants and that cow's milk should not be fed
	to infants under one year...standard advice for many years.

	Barnard is no more qualified to make dietary recommendations to
	the public than he is to perform liver transplants.

	As an aside, I'd like to make the following observation: in a past
	posting, I made a comment which attributed you with high, if wasted,
	intelligence; I no longer believe this to be true.  I think you are
	very CLEVER, but not overwhelmingly intelligent.  Please note that
	this is not meant as an attack, but merely a correction to a
	previous statement.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Date: 18 Dec 92 04:36:00 GMT
Organization: WP Group

From article <1992Dec18.001927.20228@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In article <1992Dec16.154452.24461@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>>Rich, the only human activity I can think of that does not meet either
>>of these criteria is Russell's proclivity to post volumes of "content-free"
>>psuedo-argument.  Perhaps this falls into the same exception category
>>as those sadly insane people who burn themselves over and over again
>>with lit cigarettes in perpetual self-torture, unable to stop themselves
>>from carrying out a self-destructive and painful compulsion.
> 
> Actually, even THIS meets criterion number one: Russell gets a
> charge out of seeing how far off the subject he can drag an opponent.
> Although he has no real interest in the subjects being discussed,
> he finds some amusement in playing clever verbal tricks on the
> unsuspecting, and thus twists and rephrases statements in an attempt
> to confuse his opponent, especially when his arguments are weak.  It
> is clear that his actions fit the first criterion.

You forgot to tell us that this is merely your opinion and that you're
not an expert in psychology, much less mind-reading.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Controversial monkey ad banned
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:41:55 GMT


[from _New_Internationalist_, Nov '92]

"A powerful new advert highlighting the suffering of thousands of monkeys
supplied to UK research laboratories by Sussex firm Shamrock (GB) Ltd, has
been banned by advertisers on the grounds that it is too 'controversial'. 
Booking agencies National Solos Sites Ltd and More O'Ferrall Adshel refused to
accept the full colour poster which featured a photograph of two caged macaque
monkeys, with the slogan 'From Paradise to Hell via Brighton'.  It was part of
a campaign run by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisecion (BUAV)
intended to draw attention to the mental and physical suffering of wild
monkeys captured from the forests and jungles of Asia and Africa to endure
death in Britain's research laboratories.  The advertising campaign in
Brighton was aimed at highlighting Shamrock (GB) Ltd's central role in this
trade."

[The ad is reproduced, it is very small but I *think* it says:]

"from Paradise to Hell - via Brighton!

"Torn from the wild in their tropical home, thousands of monkeys are trapped,
transported and sold into the laboratory animal trade every year.  Most
arriving in Britain are destined for monkey dealers, Shamrock (GB) Ltd, near
Brighton, who sell them on to become the victims of painful and pointless
experiments in research laboratories."
Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: News Blurbs 7
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:52:48 GMT

wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

>+ Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) announced the three major
>television networks will conform to new standards on limiting
>entertainment violence.  Among the items to be limited is
>"gratuitous depiction of animal abuse."

	If Senator Paul Simon intends to enforce this through legislative
acts, Senator Simon has violated his oath of office and may be legally
removed from office.  No mention has been made of this in the media I
read and listen to.  Anybody else know how it came about?

>+ The NRA has now aligned itself with the U.S. Fish and
>Wildlife Service.   Among the programs being promoted under
>this agreement that's "not necessarily geared to hunting" are
>training sites for new hunters and providing easier access on
>refuges for physically disabled hunters.

	This is certainly nothing new.

	Ferrel, can you read this yet?

< 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.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: PETA leader writes book on ALF
 
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:07:05 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Rosemary Waigh writes:

>I haven't read this yet; perhaps one of the t.p.a-ers has and could tell us if
>it's worth buying?

>[as advertised in Spring '92 PETA News]

>FREE THE ANIMALS!
>by Ingrid Newkirk

I have this book (autographed by Ingrid herself, no less  ;-) and would
recommend it to any activist.  

Although I have great reservations about ALF's tactics, after reading
about what ALF has exposed and the results of that exposure (e.g., really
BAD labs being shut down), I can't help but think that in many cases, the
end has, indeed, justified the means.  On the other hand, such "terrorist"
actions by a handful of activists contribute to the fallacy that all AR
activists are terrorists, which we are certainly not.  

When I ask myself, "Could I participate in an illegal activity to liberate an
animal from its tormentor," my initial answer is a resounding "No!"  But
however negatively I view lawlessness, I can envision situations in which
I would feel compelled to act on behalf of an animal.  For example, if I
came upon a child about to set fire to his dog, I wouldn't hesitate to take
away the dog, even though I know it would be theft to do so.  Legal or not,
this would be the Right Thing to do.  So, because I can envision situations
in which I'd be willing to break the law to save an animal, I can't completely
condemn the actions of ALF.  

I realize I'm opening myself up to flamage by the anti's, but before you
flame, ask yourself if there's *any* situation in which you would put
your own ethics/morals above the law (how 'bout to save the life of a child?
To save the life of *your* child?).  If you truly cannot come up with
a single such situation, flame away.

-- 
 Jennifer L. Johnson | "`Reality' is the only word in the language that should
 jjohnson@convex.com |  always be used in quotes."     "Nervous Xians"
		     |			--My Life with the ThrillKillKult--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:45:08 GMT

In article <BzDuL5.JHt@acsu.buffalo.edu> rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straub
inger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.195018.9105@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>
>jmh>Russell made a statement something along the lines of ["even at the
>   >ivy-league institution I sometimes call my alma mater..."].
>   >
>   >At least this much is apparent:  he states he did graduate from this
>   >institution.
>
>I disagree - he apparently claims nothing more than the occasional act of
>referring to some school as 'alma mater'. While there may be other
>postings with further detail, this one made no claim (to my
>recollection) of his having attended (or graduated from) some
>ivy-league school. I leave it to the historians of t.p.a. (or
>those with more comprehensive archives) to sort out.
>
>While 'alma mater' has some common interpretations,
>to invoke these interpretations is to make a major assumption.
>
>--Bob

I stand corrected.  My dictionary defines "alma mater" simply as
a college or school one attended.  I don't want to get too hung
up on Russell Lawrence's credentials as the truth or falsity or
an idea cannot be determined through appeals to authority.  What
is so interesting, however, about Russell is the extent to which
he seems to need to shroud himself in mystery.  It, and he, is
intriguing!

:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:25:46 GMT

From article <mhulsey-181292095016@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <BzFF52.9B3@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> According to an article on the Taub affair published by the 
>> _Washington Post_, the conviction was overturned on a jurisdictional 
>> technicality.  Can you corroborate your claims to the contrary without 
>> resorting to the bombastic handwaving demonstrations that you often 
>> employ to prove your points?  
> 
> The _Washington Post_ apparently relied on PETA for information rather 
> than reading the opinion of the Appeals Court.  

How do you know?

> As I have said, the "jurisdictional technicality" was not the 
> whole story.  My claim is corroborated by the reference that I 
> gave.  Check it out.  

Let me get this straight.  You're saying that your claim has been
corroborated by your reference, namely the CFAAR newsletter 4(1).
Would you mind telling us more about the "CFAAR" so that we can
judge the credibility of its legal opinions?   The reason I'm
asking, BTW, is that you apparently believe that the truth of
an argument can be judged by the character of the speaker.

> ...
>> Having affiliations with groups like PETA and PCRM doesn't belie a man's 
>> claim to have interests in scientific research.   You yourself have
>> admitted that Henry Heimlich is a scientist of significant repute, yet
>> he has strong ties with PCRM.
> 
> Being PRESIDENT of PETA should indicate a disinterest in animal research.
> Don't you agree?

The PETA that you're referring to isn't the PETA that exists today,
Martin.  As I recall, it had only twenty members or thereabouts, and
the two principle figures had come together... not because of opposition
to animal research, but because of their prior experiences working
together at a dog pound.   It would be a mistake to take Pacheco's
present views and project them onto a Pacheco who was some 13 years
younger.

You're free to speculate about Pacheco's private intentions, but
it's important for all of us to remember that you're not an expert
historian/psychologist/mind-reader.   In fact, it's fitting to
point out that you have an "ABSYMAL PUBLICATIONS RECORD" [your caps]
in all three of these fields.   Why don't you stick with facts 
rather than resorting to suppositions and crystal-ball-gazing...
like those ludicrous comments you've made about my alleged presence 
in Athens, Georgia?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: ALF policy on violence
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:14:36 GMT


From _New_Internationalist_, January 1991, "Terrorists or altruists?",
p13.

"...The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) newsletters explained quite clearly that
there were no leaders, there was no structure to refer back to.  You just did
what seemed right - providing you kept to the ALF guidelines.  That was - and
still is - that you did no harm to humans or animals. ... I don't approve of
using bombs, though.  They are too dangerous and innacurate.  I think the
people who carried out the bomb attacks in Bristol ... may have been ex-ALF
activists.  But by causing harm to humans they strayed from the guidelines -
and so they would not be part of the ALF now.  Or perhaps they were people who
had nothing to do with the ALF.  Who knows? ..."
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Trappers
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:40:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu



In article <1992Dec11.170920.17838@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>>By trapping the animal, doesn't the trapper take away my legal right?

>Mike Linan writes:
>>I my honest view.  No!

>So are you saying that I do not have a right to view the critters my tax and
>donation dollars go to.....?


You have every right to view all the critters your eyes can see.  You have
NO right however to spring the traps of a *legal* trapper regardless of 
what your views are and where you think your tax dollars are going.  The
DNR has every right to do as they feel is best for the "critters" popula-
tion as a whole.  Hunters have the right to hunt, fishermen have the right
to fish and trappers have the right to trap.


>>>In fact, any animal could have been caught between setting them and 
>>>having them sprung due to natural causes (i.e., me.  I'm natural....)

>>Yeah right.  You're doing a good job of playing stupid.  You know what you
>>did.  Tell us what possessed you to spring the traps.

>So I'm playing stupid by saying I'm part of nature, thus entitling me to
>spring the traps legally, say the way a tree branch might.  Well if it's


You are playing stupid because you sprung the traps purposefully instead 
of "naturally" by accident.

 
>because I'm a human that I'm not part of the natural springing process
>then why is human hunting natural.......?


It's not because you are human but rather because you sprung the traps
maliciously with the intent of preventing the trapper from being succes-
sful.  Not quite natural wouldn't you agree since most animals that are
caught in traps don't even know what they are or that they are there.


Mike Linan










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: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:11:07 GMT

From article <mhulsey-171292085306@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <BzDq03.3qy@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>> mh> Is it fallacious to deny that a given speaker supports animal "rights" 
>> mh> when they have proclaimed that they do?
>> 
>> It's fallacious to use equivocal definitions of the term "animal rights"
>> in order to mislead an argument, Martin.
> 
> Would you mind answering my question?  Should I add it to "the list?"

I'd be happy to answer your question after you've defined the term "animal
rights" with sufficient precision that we can compare the "animal rights"
philosophy espoused by Singer or Regan with the "animal rights" philosophy
that was espoused by the nazis.

>> Would you mind specifying the precise german term that was used in order
>> to proclaim such support?
> 
> This will be forthcoming upon translation.  I, too, am keenly interested in
> this point.

Why don't you type in the term?   I'll translate it myself.

>> mh> Also, the Nazis were not "allegedly" opposed to vivisection.  They
>> mh> *outlawed* vivisection.  Why don't you check out the Arluke & Sax article
>> mh> that I cited?
>> 
>> "Vivisection", as practiced in the 30's, has also been outlawed here
>> in the United States.   Surely you're not a proponent of such practices?
> 
> I never implied such.  Please examine the Arluke & Sax article.

If you're not a proponent of "vivisection", as practiced in the 30's,
please explain how your "anti-vivisectionist" views would differ from
the allegedly "anti-vivisectionist" views of the nazis.

BTW, in a previous article, you claimed that the nazis had expressed
horror at the vivisectionists' "torture" [sic] of animals.  If memory serves,
you put the word, "torture", in quotation marks.  Would you agree that
it might be torture to perform surgical experiments on unanesthetized
animals?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:18:12 GMT
Organization: WP Group

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Not really.  Professional historians specialize in particular periods... 
rl> like everybody else.  I doubt that *any* professional historians spend
rl> a lot of time reading _Endocrinology_, much less historians who have
rl> a joint interest in the nazi era as well as the animal rights movement.  
rl> 
rl> In time, I suspect the publication of these "nazi" claims in journals
rl> like _Endocrinology_ will be regarded as far more interesting artifacts
rl> that any alleged "animal rights" statements set forth by famous nazis.

Martin Hulsey writes:
mh> Let me get this straight Russell.  You say that professional historians
mh> will not  spend a lot of time reading "nazi" claims in journals like
mh> _Endocrinology_, yet, in time, they will regard them as "far more
mh> interesting artifacts?"

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Can you understand the difference between:
rl> 
rl> - a forum of historical study, and
rl> - a focal point of historical study.

From article <mhulsey-161292143921@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Yes.  Can you explain how something can, in time, become a "far more
mh> interesting artifact" without being read "a lot of time" by historians? 

Historians with an interest in the nazi era don't share their 
ideas in journals like Endocrinology, Martin.  In fact, such 
journals might be the proverbial "last place" that an historian 
would search if he were hoping to find credible historical 
analysis.   

On the other hand, an historian in the year 2010 who's exploring 
anti-AR backlash in the early 90's won't have much difficulty 
finding this article.  Nor will historians who have an interest 
in the ideologies of scientists.  This article wll speak volumes, 
not about animal rights philosophies or nazi philosophies, but 
about the mindsets of ideologues who won't hesitate to spend 
their time studying a piece of "historical" analysis presented in 
_Endocrinology_, yet would hesitant to take the time to study the 
works of Singer or Regan or Rollin, et al.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Reasons to not eat milk and eggs (was Re: Medicine & the Mall)
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:03:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.164307.25149@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>
>How does ethics apply to ones diet.   I want concise reasoning here.
>
>Karl

Ethics applies to one's diet the same way it applies to all of one's 
other actions.

How's that for concise? :-)

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals