HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:48:23 GMT

In article <9209021522.AA15705@super.super.org> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>
>

>          THE IOWA ALLIANCE FOR ANIMALS INVITES YOU TO ATTEND
> 
>           The First Midwest Regional Farm Animal Conference
>       October 9, in Ames and October 10, in West Des Moines, Iowa
> 
>FARM ANIMALS
> 
>What is Their Future in American Agriculture?

Very strong in animal production!!!
> 
> Conference sponsorship is provided by the following groups:
> - Animal Advocates of South Dakota
> - Animal Rights Coalition (Minnesota)
> - Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
> - Center for Health & Validity in Science (Missouri)
> - Greater Nebraska Animal Welfare Society
> - Iowa Alliance for Animals
> - People for Animal Rights (Missouri)
> - St. Louis Animal Rights Team
> - Save Animals from Exploitation (Minnesota)
> - Wisconsin Animal Education Network
> 
>PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AGENDA:
> 
>  Friday Evening, October 9 - Ames
>  7:30 - 9:30 "Meat on the Menu: At What Cost?" - T. Colin Campbell
>               and Jeremy Rifkin
Where is this at, I live in Ames and want to attend.

> 
>  Saturday, October 10 - West Des Moines
>  7:15 - 8:00 Conference Registration
>  7:15 - 8:00 Continental Breakfast
>  8:00 - 8:45 "Tracing the Roots of Animal Agriculture" - Jim Mason
>  8:45 - 9:45 "Beyond Beef" - Jeremy Rifkin

What is beyond beef is, more beef

>  9:45 -10:15 Break
For Hot Dogs?
> 10:15 -11:00 "A Veterinarian's Perspective of the Health and
>               Welfare of Farm Animals" - Ned Buyukmihci

Animals on the Farm are well taken care of.

> 11:00 -11:45 "Correlating Eating Habits and Health:  Lessons from
>               the China Study" - T. Colin Campbell
> 11:45 - 1:00 Lunch
>  1:00 - 1:45 "Social and Ethical Implications of Animal
>               Agriculture" - Victoria Moran
>  1:45 - 2:30 "Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture" - Terry Gips

Sorry people animal production is a key point here you need the waste to 
replace the chemicals.

>  2:30 - 3:00 Break
>  3:00 - 4:00 Workshops:
>              - Vegan Cooking Demonstration/Taste Test - Hendriks
>              - Sustainable Agriculture - Gips
>              - Ask the Veterinarian - Buyukmihci
>  4:00 - 5:00 Workshops:
>              - The Love-Powered Diet - Moran
>              - Becoming a Farm Animal Activist - Sandstedt & Mason
>              - To be announced
>  5:00 - 5:30 Closing Comments, Door Prize Drawings

Giving away free beef?

>  5:30 - 6:30 Social Hour/Cash Bar
>  6:30 - 7:45 Dinner



-- 
mpleis@iastate.edu     Mark L. Pleis 
Agricultural Systems Technology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:17:29 GMT

In <Btx1w2.3ps@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Meanwhile, please address my previous question.  If a particular 
>hunter has sought to influence the sort of practices that 
>effectively increase deer fertility while destabilizing the food 
>supply, isn't it hypocritical for the same man to turn around the 
>following winter and cite "overpopulation" as an ethical excuse 
>for hunting?  

	I don't see anything hypocritical about it, providing the hunter
is up-front in stating his desire to hunt.  Furthermore, overpopulation is
but one reason used to justify hunting, and I doubt you'll find many hunters
who wouldn't hunt if the population was growing but nowhere near starving.

	I see this like the angler who lets the small fish go so that he might
again have the pleasure of catching them once they've grown a bit more.
What angler would appreciate, say, pollution in the lake so as to keep the
fish population below what the lake can feed?  No, animals are a renewable
resource that are harvested.  A hunter is no more hypocritical in wanting
to make conditions such that more can and should be harvested than is the
farmer who grows more crops than what the land could handle by using a
fertilizer, which will often damage the land should the crops not be grown.

	Self-interest and a desire to promote it isn't hypocritical.  Only
when over-population is the _only_ reason to hunt would your example hold.
Since it is not, I see nothing hypocritical.  Self-serving, of course,
but hardly hypocritical.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:58:01 GMT

In article <BtxLqB.9CF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From article <7pwysaj@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
>jve> Russell, Russell, Russell.  You truly disappoint me.  This is the
>jve> second time you've quoted this completely out of context with the
>jve> intent to malign my character.  So let me remind everyone (ad nauseum
>jve> -- is anyone getting as tired as I am of this lad's temper tantrum?)
>jve> what was truly said:
>jve> 
>jve>  "I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers
>jve>   or whatever) vote in this. :-) :-)  Just funnin' ya, Russell."
>
>Let me remind you that Linda didn't appreciate your attempt to "fun"
>me at her expense.

I imagine it is indeed a tough, cruel world for the humour-impaired.
She has my genuine sympathy.


>Russell Lawrence wrote:
>rl> Thanks for "letting" one of the female employees of my company 
>rl> voice her expressions of gratitude to Ferrell Wheeler for posting 
>rl> material that she found useful.  
>
>jve> Two comments.  First, why do you need to say Linda is a *female* 
>jve> employee?  A non-sexist person like myself would have merely said 
>jve> she was an employee, not a *female* employee.  Why do you draw 
>jve> this distinction?  Second, what on Earth are you talking about?  
>jve> She's free to do what she wants, and since I've never said or 
>jve> implied otherwise, you should take the advise to remain silent, 
>jve> rather than remove our doubts.  
>
>As I said, I'm sure that Linda appreciates the fact that you're willing
>to let the girlfriends, wives, and mothers who work for companies
>like mine participate in usenet.  I hope you extend the same courtesy
>to the women at rpi.

I extend such a "courtesy" to everyone, Russell, old friend.  You
still don't get it, do you.  That's too bad.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:11:55 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>In the original article, I specifically asked whether or not it's
>hypocritical for a man who justifies hunting because of the threat
>of deer starvation to turn around and advocate practices that enhance
>the probability of starvation.  
>
>Such people do, indeed, exist, although you may not be one of 
>them.  Do you consider their position to be hypocritical?  

Russell, please produce a person that justifies his or her hunting
*solely* on the grounds that it helps cut down starvation.  And make
sure that this person *also* advocates practices to enhance
starvation.  This little image you've conjured up is bullsh--, old
friend.  These people exist only in your mind.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy)
Subject: Re: New meaning for Peta
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:29:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.212437.2034@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>In article <Bu0qIn.DJ1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>Mark Pleis writes:
>>mp> PETA
>>mp> People for the eating of tasty animals.
>>mp>
>>mp> On this Iowa Conference thing I think that the State FFAOfficers
>>mp> should make a trip to this (Myself Northeast
>>mp> Vice-President)little event and help you people get your shit
>>mp> straight
>>mp>
>>mp>
>>mp> Beef Real food for REAL people
>>
>>Russell Lawrence writes:
>>rl> Is it true that the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study found a
>>rl> high correlation between beef consumption and breast cancer?

Never herd of this group.

>>rl>
>>rl> Is it true that the China Health Project found a high correlation
>>rl> between meat consumption and heart disease, stroke, cancer, and
>>rl> diabetes?

I don't care about this pin head eather.

>>
>>From article <1992Sep3.160238.9425@news.iastate.edu>, by mpleis@iastate.edu (C
>owboy):
>>mp> No public health organization has said that eating meat is bad.
>>
>>Would you mind answering the questions I asked previously?
>>
>>--
>>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
>
>
>Don't hold your breath waiting for your answer from Cowboy.

Don't get a carrot stuck up you but eather.

I raise Dairy and Beef and make a good living at it. I will keep producing
beef and milk as long as I live.  My family eats a lot of meat and eggs and
the youngest to die was 93. So if you don't like how I make my living thats
just to bad.  The farmer will always come out on top so don't toy with us.
The reason I don't jump back on these postes right away is I have a real job
and I am a full time student taking AST, Animal Science and Food Science
classes.  So Russ. Get a life have an Iowa corn fed feed streak.
.



-- 
mpleis@iastate.edu     Mark L. Pleis 
Agricultural Systems Technology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:38:07 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Do you agree with John that it would be ethically acceptable for
rl> aliens to hunt humans for sport simply because they might have
rl> the power to get away with such actions?  Or, would you be able to 
rl> name one or two reasons why such hunting might not be good?

From article <_qwyjgj@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> What are you talking about, Russell?  I never said anything like 
jve> this.  I said that it would be ethically acceptable to the aliens 
jve> to hunt humans, and that what Russell Lawrence or I thought 
jve> didn't really matter, since the aliens would be in control.  
jve> Please stop putting words in my mouth.  

Please explain why being in control would make an action ethically
acceptable or unacceptable.   Portuguese slavetraders controlled
the ivory coast in the 17th century.  Did this make the kidnapping,
rape, and enslavement of east african blacks ethically acceptable?

If it would help clarify your views, please feel free to point 
out that the mere belief that an action is good or bad doesn't 
make it so.  

-- 
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: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:38:24 GMT


From article <1992Sep1.145225.1283@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> The EXISTENCE of sentience/sapience is fact;  the USE OF THESE 
ry> CHARACTERISTICS AS A YARDSTICK FOR ASSIGNMENT OF "WORTH" OR 
ry> "STATUS" is arbitrary, since, from the standpoint of the natural 
ry> world, neither of these characteristics is any more important 
ry> than a host of other characteristics.  

You've already admitted your belief that the "natural world" is 
mindless.  And I believe that you probably agree with me that 
ball-bearings are also mindless.  As such, it doesn't make sense 
for you to declare than any idea is arbitrary, simply because 
it's not endorsed by natural worlds, ball-bearings, and other 
mindless entities.  For someone to declare that an idea is "arbitrary"
simply because ball-bearings, bricks, cosmoses, etc, are unable
to grasp the idea is, in effect, a perverse, twisted appeal to 
a non-existent authority.  

Sentience and sapience are not arbitrary notions when it comes to 
evaluating the goodness or badness of an action.  As everyone 
who's followed this discussion ought to realize, the notion of 
goodness or badness or any other kind of "worth" would be 
meaningless if sentience and sapience were non-existent qualities.  

If we're going to define "status" and "worth" from the mindless 
perspective of a ball-bearing or a cosmos, then we ought to say 
that the idea of "status" is non-existent...  not that it's 
arbitrary.  Lest someone think that "status" is a particularly 
vulnerable concept in this regard, let's be broadminded and point 
out that all other ideas would be equally non-existent to 
mindless entities.  The idea of Rich Young, for example, doesn't 
exist for ball-bearings.  To say that Rich Young doesn't have special 
"status" where ball-bearings are concerned is a grotesque 
understatement.  

In short, I doubt that any serious thinkers would believe that
the ethical consequences of:

   -- whacking dogs with hammers
   -- whacking carrots with hammers
   -- whacking ball-bearings with hammers

are "arbitrary" considerations simply because the "cosmos" can't 
perceive any difference between these actions.  If you wish to 
insist that it's wrong to say that the dogs have more "status" 
than carrots and ball-bearings, that's fine with me, but in such 
a case, please be prepared to specify a word that the rest of us 
can use to describe the obvious differences between dogs, 
carrots, and ball-bearings with respect to pain and suffering.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:21:07 GMT

unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

	Humor potential?  Try these two on for size:

>Shouldn't that be "reproduction". Production implies factories..... :-)

	We once had boars from a place known as Boar Power.  Included in
the sale was a sign, which today sits proudly over the door to the farrowing
house: "WARNING: Authorized Personel Only!  Pig Factory.  Boar Power."

>Murder is involved here, but you left that out.......

	"Did you know a cow was *murdered* for that jacket?"
	"Yes, but I didn't think there were any witnesses.  Now I'll have
to kill *you*..."

	Hey, charge me with murder 1.  If it sticks, I'll eat veggies only.
If it doesn't, your claim is merely rhetoric.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:02:26 GMT
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

Russell Lawrence writes:

>I'm sure that we can identify extremely ill animals from the 
>comfort of our living rooms, especially if they're falling over 
>or staggering around, but the fact that an animal may look 
>healthy and fit to long-distance human eyes doesn't mean that it 
>is, indeed, healthy and fit.  

Er...umm... Russell, you're confusing an old man like me once again.
In the past you've argued that that hunters only shoot the biggest
healthiest stags, and hunters like myself argued that we take whatever
comes along.  So now you seem to be telling me that when we hunt, we
can tell which ones are the good ones, but when we watch a wolf pack
take one down, suddenly we can't.  Would you mind explaining why this
difference exists, other than ficticiously in an effort to selectively
help your argument?  I'm baffled by it.  Thanks in advance for your
answer, I'm sure it will help us all out.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Russell Lawrence
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 18:57:50 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


Jeez, when I logged on today there were 55 entries in
talk.politics.animals and about HALF seemed to be from Russell
Lawrence! Got a bit a time on your hands Russ ol' boy?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 08:01:01 GMT

	Todd makes some excellent points, and since we've already discussed it
in e-mail I'll admit publicly that I didn't know he paid for only his newsfeed
and not his email.  This being the case, I feel he has a legit gripe and that
it should be taken into accounts.

	I still believe taking a vote to keep one from posting is censorship
of a sort, and that killfiles work well, but in this case I think we have a
problem that a simple solution can solve.

	1) Whereas Ferrel cannot participate except via e-mail, and
	2) Whereas Ferrel is posting verbatim mail he gets from a mailing
list, and
	3) whereas there has been little followup discussion on the posts
Ferrel makes for our contemplation, and 

	4) whereas this is causing hardship for others, I propose this
compromise:

	A) Ferrel can provide a concise summary of the information, and
most preferably one that carries the bare minimum of description other
than the group and the action.  For example, "PETA kills Dairy Operator.
Leaders of PETA admitted to killing Joe Jim Bob of Monkey's Mountain, AK
in a shoot-out this morning."  As I count it, that's two lines of text,
and the signature should point towards the mailing list or archives.

	B) Everybody else can trim the irrellevant out of their posts!
I won't have Ferrel censored for using bandwidth when I see message of
over 100 lines and three-deep in attributions.   Use them where needed,
chuck them when they aren't.


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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
Subject: Re: Ducks Unlimited fiasco
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: global
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:24:15 GMT

In article <92Aug25.191021.16009@acs.ucalgary.ca>, powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:
> 
> I've just read the July 13 Newsweek article on the Ducks Unilimited
> headquarters in Canada "Unkind to Feathered Friends? Ducks Unlimited
> builds an office in the wetlands" and the response by Rick Wishart DU
> Canada in the letters section of the Aug 10 edition.
> 
> Has the DU Canada headquarters issue been covered in other national
> print media and, if so, where and when? I would also like to contact
> DU directly and see if I can get info on this as well as a copy of the
> Environmental Impact Assessment done on the development. Do they
> (either the US or Canada offices) have an Internet address?
> 
> Jim Powlesland
> Academic Computing Services
> University of Calgary
> 

You won't get a copy of the environmental assessment: no independent 
review was ever done. DU did have a consulting firm do an assessment
on its behalf. This internal assessment identified 153 negative
impacts that would result from the project, but DU shelved the
report and started building anyway.

The LA times covered the story a month or two back, but I don't think
that there has been that much other coverage in the US.

If you want information on the office complex, contact Prasad Gowdar
at gowdar@ccu.umanitoba.ca. He'll be able to give you any info you 
need.

--------------------------------------------
jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
> 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:47:08 GMT

>
>When I get a chance, I'm going to go back through my notes and locate
>two references that have an important bearing on this issue.  One of the
>references was a manual on deer hunting, and the other was an article
>in one of the hunting magazines.  Both of them pointed out that the
>"crop" of fawns could be increased by adopting forest management 
>practices that increase the quantity of food available for deer.  I'm
>sure that you would accept the idea that fertility can be enhanced by
>increasing caloric intake.  Why then, are you so opposed to the 
>(identical) concept that fertility would be diminished by reducing 
>caloric intake?
>

When you do, would you take note of how "crop of fawns" is defined? It occurs
to me that this could mean fawns surviving till hunting season rather than
fawns born. Survival could be the limiting factor regardless of fertility,
could it not?

Thanks in advance,

 Jeff Achenbach
 achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:20:28 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Please explain why being in control would make an action ethically
rl> acceptable or unacceptable.   Portuguese slavetraders controlled
rl> the ivory coast in the 17th century.  Did this make the kidnapping,
rl> rape, and enslavement of east african blacks ethically acceptable?
rl>
rl> If it would help clarify your views, please feel free to point 
rl> out that the mere belief that an action is good or bad doesn't 
rl> make it so.  

In article <mdyyf!m@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> Please don't argue my side, Russell.  But if it helps to clear 
jve> things up for you, then yes, you are right that your belief that 
jve> something is wrong does not make it so.  

I totally agree with this last statement.  Would you agree with 
me that your belief that some action is "good" doesn't make it 
so.  As an example, if a powerful body of men believe that rape is 
wonderful, should we accept their beliefs at face-value?  Or, 
should we give dig deeper into the underlying facts and reasons 
by giving due consideration to the pain and suffering of their 
victims?  

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