HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:20:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.222340.326@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org writes:
> > Hunters hunting hunters are murderers because they are killing life.
> > It is against law. It is immoral under most societies and religions.
> > BUT sometimes just these societies go crazy and are making war.
> > None of the above statements is remembered. Nobody stands upright
> > (even christians) to say that killing any life is immoral anytime.

From article <1avcj4INN1c3@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Even Christains?  How about especially Christains won't stand up to 
ml> to say killing animals for food is unethical because their (our) 
ml> God has stated that there is no wrong in doing so.

Uh huh.  And that's the same "god" who said: 

	 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

Thanks for reminding me.

> > What a untruthful society. Not killing is tougher than killing.
> > No step forward. On the contrary, only steps backward.
> > Why so down? Just seen a report about Ireland. These people are
> > making 'war' since 800 years against each other (as one of them told).
> > Luzy (if this is the name of the oldest known link to mankind) will
> > feel ashamed for her descendants.

ml> This is how you feel.  I can appreciate that for what it is.  However,
ml> I do not agree with you and your views concerning the killing of animals
ml> and that is that.  I do agree that killing of humans is unethical :-).
ml> You are welcome to your beliefs but, don't bash us (those who don't feel
ml> the same) just because our views are different.

You say that killing of humans is unethical.  Would this include 
"witches" in particular, not to mention all sorts of other people 
who don't share your religious beliefs?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:56:48 GMT

In <1992Oct13.214448.238@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer) writes:

>A legitimate may be wrong.
>One example: it was 'legitimate' for nazis to kill jews, invalids, ...
>Another example: it is 'legitimate' for some people to blast airplanes.
>Many other examples exist.
>Maybe the answer is: for man there is no legitimate to kill life.

I agree, legitimate needs may be wrong.  However their acceptance
is subject to the people that do the act.  I feel a legitimate need to ask
forgiveness of one who will forgive me for sins that I have committed that
are against the teachings of my faith (sorry about the run-on sentence). 
You may not feel that I have to ask forgiveness and that my legitimate need
is wrong (or unfounded).

To clarify and bring it within the scope of the newsgroup:
You may feel a legitimate need to stop the exploitation of animals (I hope
I don't assume too much here).  I on the other hand will dismiss some of
the basis (facts, feelings etc.) that you have used to legitimize your
need.  Therefore I will continue to do what you see as my exploitation of
various animals and not see a legitimate need to stop.

For me personally, there is no legitimate way to murder a human life (I
will leave definitions of murder out since I do not have a blanket answer for
what murder is).  I think there are some legitimate reasons to kill a human
(self-defense being the only clear one to me though) but those again are
subject to my beliefs, facts etc.  I see no legitimate reason not to kill
animals so long as their body will be used for a purpose.  Again I alone
will define what a legitimate purpose is as it pertains to me (just for fun I
would disagree with, however for food (regardless of whether it was fun) I can
legitimize).  I hope this helps.

Will Christie




-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Animal Rights at Canadian Universities?
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:30:58 GMT

(Note distribution; I apologize if this article appears outside of Canada).
M
My spouse and I are looking into places to do graduate work in Canada,
and I am wondering what the animal rights climate is at other universities.

If you are aware of any animal rights (or anti-animal rights) groups, or
relevant happenings, at any Canadian universities (besides UofToronto),
please let me know.

Thanks in advance,

Rosemary Waigh
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: NCIB view of PETA
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: global
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:52:23 GMT

In article <92Oct08.172455.18037@acs.ucalgary.ca> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:
>
>The figure you gave for Ducks Unlimited seems at bit low. Is it
>for DU, Inc. (the Amercian parent company) or for all three DUs
>(DU Inc., DU Canada, DUMAC- DU Mexico)?
>

The figure was taken from a US IRS tax form, so I would guess that it
excludes DU Canada and DU Mexico.

I've also heard that DU had hoped to raise a 1992 budget of $77 million
but fell short by $15 million.  As a result they have laid off 58 of their
162 member staff, delayed moving to their new Memphis location, and put
up for sale $4.5 million worth of wetlands in Texas and South Carolina.

The continuing recession has hurt a lot of similar groups who count on
contributions.

---
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: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:36:49 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> If you're saying that we shouldn't coerce animals living in
rl> nature to obey codes of conduct based on ideas beyond the scope
rl> of their understanding, most AR advocates would be in full
rl> agreement.  On the other hand, your arguments will break down
rl> quickly if you're suggesting that intelligent humans should be
rl> excused from their ethical responsibilities, simply because lions
rl> and tigers are excused.

From article <1bikkmINN8k6@agate.berkeley.edu>, by timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda):
ti> ...
ti> The second point I made was that if our desire to minimize pain is in 
ti> fact paramount, then it is indeed our ethical responsibility to prevent 
ti> predation.  Clearly the modes of hunting employed by predators 
ti> (besides humans) inflict pain on the hunted.  To use the lion example,
ti> hunted zebras are sometimes disemboweled and feasted upon before 
ti> their death or unconsciousness.  Despite the gruesomeness of this 
ti> image, you are correct that I think it absurd to expect the other 
ti> animals to obey codes which are beyond their understanding.
ti> 
ti> But why do we not force our codes upon animals?  

Because we're not gods. :-)  

Our lack of omniscience and omnipotence won't preclude us from 
obligating the animals living in our midst to obey certain codes 
of conduct (not permitting a companion dog to urinate on the 
carpet, for instance), but our intellectual and physical 
limitations would clearly restrain our ability to impose our 
sovereignty on animals living in the wild.  

ti> I am not suggesting that intelligent humans should be excused from 
ti> their ethical responsibilties simply because other animals are 
ti> excused.  Instead, I disagree with the "ethical" premise.  Therefore, 
ti> I feel no such responsibility as you do.  

Bear in mind that my position isn't an absolutist one, so I can 
envision exceptions to typical ethical "conclusions" just as you 
have done.  However, our ability to envision exceptions doesn't 
give us a license to dismiss basic precepts altogether.  As a 
classic example, it might be acceptable to torture a terrorist 
unmercifully if, by doing so, we could force him to reveal where 
he's stashed a ten megaton bomb in the heart of Tokyo or New York 
City.  The fact that the torture of one man is the lesser of the 
evils in such a case would not lead us to conclude that torture 
is a "good" activity.   

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that your
primary reason for dismissing some of the basic premises is 
that you're not fond of the conclusions.  Am I mistaken?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:31:29 GMT


Mike Linan writes:
ml> I don't know of any "witches", do you?  That is not just someone 
ml> who likes to pretend they are a witch but rather someone who has 
ml> supernatural powers...

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> So you say.  However, I've read the relevant passages many times and
rl> don't recall any distinctions between witches with supernatural
rl> powers and witches without supernatural powers.  If you think such
rl> passages exist, please post some references.

From article <1992Oct12.043344.26992@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> References:
mo> Genesis 41:8 - Pharoah called for magicians to interpret dreams.
mo> 
mo> Exodus 7:11 - Pharoah summoned magicians and sorcerers, who turned
mo>               their staves into snakes.
mo> 
mo> ...  [various biblical claims deleted]
mo> 
mo> Humans who claim that they are witches would have to prove their
mo> supernatural powers to be accepted as Biblical Sorcerers.

Fair enough.  In this case, we'll also insist that any modern-day 
human who claims to speak for "god" be required to walk on water or 
raise the dead or perform some sort of "Biblical" miracle under 
controlled conditions.    

Otherwise, we'll have to dismiss their pretense that "god" approves
of the way that our society mistreats non-human animals, just as
Mary Otto would dismiss the claims of modern-day witches.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: lee@ace.npac.syr.edu (Lee C. Brink)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
In-reply-to: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca's message of Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:10:54 GMT
Organization: Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse, NY
	<1992Oct14.051054.5971@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:36:33 EDT

>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:10:54 GMT, chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie) said:
Will> tells me I should oppress?  Should I also mention that the United
Will> States has declared it legal for U. S. agents to enter a foreign country
Will> to retreive people that face charges in the U. S., regardless of the
Will> foreign country's view?  (*disclaimer*  I am uncertain of the exact
Will> wording of this, clarifications please?  Also, I intend no offence to the
Will> general U. S. public)  What about their rights if you're so concerned
Will> about that?


The facts about the US agents going into Mexico:  The Supreme Court said that
the treaty did not exclude the US from sending agents into Mexico to retrive
fugitives.  They did not say that the US could send agents everywhere with
impunity.  They did mention in their position that it is a very "BAD" thing
to do.  I believe a new treaty not allowing agents of either country to
cross the border after fugitives is either in the works, or has already been
signed.

   Lee

--
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Lee C Brink	            | Office Support Co-ordinator at NPAC	   |
| lee@nova.npac.syr.edu     | Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 |
|			    | 315-443-1722				   |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:37:31 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <92Oct08.203751.14843@acs.ucalgary.ca> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:

> ...  businesses that sell fur (the majority of which
>is ranched) to a market that demands it.

Decreasingly so, thank god. Furriers are going out of business in droves.

Paul
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: an observation
Date: 8 Oct 1992 16:58:04 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Bvs3Du.3KH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Todd H. writes:
>th> Is it just me, or does it look to anyone else like nobody is taking poor
>th> Russell Lawrence seriously anymore?

>Ted Robinson
>tr> What a silly post!

>From article <1av5auINNt1d@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> You think so Ted?  Perhaps you would find many, many more on 
>ml> t.p.a.  who feel the same way Todd does about Russell.  I know at 
>ml> least a few who feel the same.  Care to take a poll to find out 
>ml> what others think of Russell?  

>Argumentum ad populum:  The notion that the truth or falsity of a
>position can be ascertained by appealing to the beliefs of the 
>multitude.  


Boy Russell, seems to me you sure have done a lot of studying on the
subject of arguing.  It has already been observed and noted by at least
a few posters that you appear to live for this group and I have to say
I agree.  


>Perhaps we should poll logicians, philosophers, and scientists to
>see what they think of a statement that was quite popular once
>upon a time in both Europe and America:


No, all we have to do is bring to light how many people really consider 
you to be dishonest, manipulative and foolish.  I'm sure you know of some
fancy name of arguing that the polling of everybody will take the heat off
of you.  


>   "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live."

 
Oooh.  Apparantly you are under some delusion that this verse is something
that haunts me.  Ha!  You are so entertaining Russell.  Ha!

>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan









Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:38:11 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Let's get back to one of the statements made by your "god" that I
rl> cited previously:  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."   
rl>
rl> Is this the sort of command that ought to be taken on faith?  Or, 
rl> would it not be wise for us to ask ourselves if a "god" really 
rl> gave such a command, and if so, should we obey.   Would you be inclined
rl> to say that a person who mindlessly accepts such a commandment is
rl> an "idiot"?    

From article <1992Oct7.142343.13940@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> Russell,
ja> Much as I appreciate a lot of your writing, you're really acting 
ja> like a jerk on this issue.  IMO it would be a more appropriate 
ja> dialogue in alt.religion or somesuch, but you've taken it so far 
ja> from tpa it's become totally irrelevant.  Give it a rest, please.  

No, it's not irrelevant.  A significant subset of the folks who 
post here apparently think they can win the debate by resorting 
to name-calling and personal insults. I'd truly like to know
how/why such people haven't considered the possibility that their
comments may be hypocritical.  Once we resolve this problem, I'm 
sure that we'll make better progress in the future.

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

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

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

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

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics (was: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters)
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:09:31 GMT

motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

>In article <BvHI83.3ou@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>Russell Lawrence writes:
>>Not at all.  In posing questions about the statement, "Thou shalt 
>>not suffer a witch to live", I was hoping that Mike would explain 
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Russell tactic #2:  Lying.  (Russell wasn't "hoping" for Mike to
>                    explain anything.  Russell was bashing and baiting
>                    Mike over religious beliefs.)

Otto talent #1:  Reading Russell's mind (How do you know, Ms. Otto, 
	that Russell was in fact *not* hoping that Mike would explain...).

>Russell tactic 113:  Reduction of religious beliefs to mere information
>                     rather than deeply held convictions and philosophies.

Otto talent #2:  Ability to overlook the deeply held convictions and phil-
	opsophies of others, which may or may not be rooted in religious 
	beliefs (i.e., the ideas of this entire net), while maintaining 
	implicitly the unquestionability of the beliefs of certain religious
	doctrines.

>>of his "god".  Given his penchant for labeling non-christians as 
>        ^^^^^
>Russell tactic 125:  Insult and degrade opponents beliefs.  (Was it
>                     really necessary to use lower case *and* quotes?)

Otto talent #3:  Ignore the possibility that the opinions of others *might* 
	just be different from her own (Is it really necessary to capitalize
	the word god, and to use it as though it means something?)

Otto talent #4:  Ascribe as "Russel tactic 125" qualities which characterize
	her contributions to this net.  Examples of this abound.

>Russell tactic 120:  Double standard.  (Russell thinks witches are legit
>                     but God is not.)

Otto talent #5:  Double standard. (Otto thinks that God is legit, but witches
	are not. -- I, for one, know several witches, but I've yet to meet
	god.)

>*****************************************************************************
>Okay, this has been fun so far.  I've enjoyed pointing out Russell's
>tactics during this thread.  Now, let's see what happens when we apply
>Russell's tactics back on Russell.

As has already been pointed out in the enumeration of Otto talents, I don't 
quite understand this threat.  A myopic, tunnel-visioned inability to appre-
ciate the views of others (much less the value of nonhuman animal life) is
a well-exercised trademark of the antis on this net.  Using the tactics that
you've attributed to Russell is something which your ranks have quite perfected,
wouldn't you say?   

>Mary Otto

alka
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: On the Record
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:04:59 GMT
Organization: WP Group

From article <swood.719204830@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
sw> Just to go on the record, in one of my recent replies to a semi-hostile
sw> response I received from Russell (when I suggested that some of his posts
sw> were non-relavent or to obscure for this newsgroup and would be better
sw> suited to email) I called him and "ASSHOLE".
sw> 
sw> He seems to think that I will somehow regret this in the future (which
sw> must mean that he was planning on stepping accrossed net lines and using
sw> it against me in a later arguement or something equivalent).
sw> 
sw> I know this itself is a waste of bandwidth, and I apologize, but I just
sw> wanted to let it be known - that with the response I recieved - and
sw> Russells apparent disregard for order, truth and polite suggestion -
sw> I, IMHO, considered him to be an "ASSHOLE" at that particular moment
sw> in time.  Enough said.

Speaking of disregard for order, truth, and polite behavior, you 
forgot to tell everybody how you were going to make my mailbox 
overflow if I continued to "push" you by discussing topics that 
you consider irrelevant.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:00:37 GMT

keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd) writes:

`In article <1992Oct2.045404.9699@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

`>
`>Russell has also commented that hunting is supposed to be perceived as
`>"manly" and "macho" and necessary to some men to foster development of
`>lagging self-concepts.
`>
`>Russell, how does this apply to me?
`>
`>Mary Otto
`>

`Don't bother asking Russell this question, Mary.

The local newspaper (The Oakland Press) solicited articles from CASH
(Committee Against Sport Hunting) and from the NRA on the opening day of
bow season in the area to do a pro/con of hunting.  The NRA article (IMHO)
was very well written and did not really try to offend non-hunters or
anti-hunters in any way.  In fact, the writer spoke more of suggestions for
what hunters should do if confronted with activists (which ended up paying
off as a group came all the way from Maryland to protest in Hell, Mi - seems
to me if there is true non-hunting sentiment here, why did the group have
to come from Maryland?)
The Con-article however used fiction, lies, heresay and name calling to
try to make hunters look bad.  Stating that hunters are responsible for
destroying "vital fat layers" and calling hunters "ignorant nincompoops".

The letters to the editor have been flowing in with my only seeing one
anti-hunting letter out of about ten printed thus far.  The one letter was
off beat enough to suggest (as Russell did) that hunters did so out of some
male need to feel macho or dominant.  They also stated that the only reason
some women hunt is because it is the only way that they will be able to
spend quality time with their mates.

Gee, how does this apply to Mary?  In fact, I had a girl invite me out to
her farm once to hunt some of the Pheasant and Quail that they stock to
train 'her' field pointers.  As far as I know she is still hunting, and
whenever I talk to her, she is usually interested in having me go hunting
because most of her boyfriends don't!

swood
-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals