HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Trapping
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:23:20 GMT

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

>Well, while you're doing your Constitutional law thing.... where in the
>Constitution does it say trapping is a right?  How about hunting?  It doesn't.

	Again, for those who missed it the first time, the U.S. Constitution
does not spell out the rights of the people.  It limits the powers of the
government.  The Bill of Rights specifically notes some rights, but if you
look at the wording, it does this by specifically prohibiting the government
from limiting them.

	That means everything you do is a right.  Of course, since everybody
else has the same rights you cannot infringe upon them while exercising
your own rights, but if the Constitution is any guide hunting, trapping,
and viewing wildlife are all rights.

	And for the record, driving is a right too, despite what your
drivers ed. instructor told you.  It becomes a privlidge when you drive
on a public road.

< 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                    >
From: lydia@tarsal.dsg.ti.com (lydia middendorf )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: veg/abortion
Date: 16 Dec 1992 10:43:06 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Austin, Tx.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: middendorf@tsd.itg.ti.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarsal.dsg.ti.com


Exchange between Rosemary, Tod and Jenny deleted  (artical 10054)

Jenny says:

Dripping sarcasm aside, I must say if men could get pregnant things would be a lot
different.		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^


I say: This is very true. If men could get pregnant, not only would abortions
be legal....they would also be FREE!!!!!!!



lydia




--
Recycle yourself...be an organ donor  |  visualize whirrled peas....
		     Internet: lydia@tarsal.dsg.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: humans are smarter than ants [was Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?]
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:25:04 GMT

nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) screws up the
	attributes but still writes:

>|> >But this argument patently inapplicable to humans, as you point out by 
>|> >noting that humans can do sophisticated reasoning.  We CAN figure out 
>|> >alternatives.  We DON'T need to exploit animals.  And therefore we 
>|> >shouldn't, since it causes them suffering.
>|> 
>|> If you can
>|> demonstrate reasonable alternatives to **every** use we put animals in, 
>|>then your argument would hold.  Until that time, you are no better than
>|> Thag, [emphasis added]

>Are you serious?  We must find a way to completely and totally
>stop all animal suffering, before we take a single step in this
>direction them, no matter how obvious or simple? I suspect that
>you misspoke.

	No, I was simply responding to your statement that "we don't need
to exploit animals."  As in, not at all.  Until alternatives are found,
there is no substitute for any given test, and hence the blanket claim you
made above is still just a claim.

[ rest deleted -- I didn't write it ]

< 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: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Rights?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:19:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.063205.14086@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Tod
d H.) writes:

>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>Todd, as the originator of this anecdote, could you please come forward
>>and confirm or deny the claim that the goat owner had been repeatedly
>>abusive to the goat over a period of time.  The absence of a denial will
>>be interpreted as confirmation.
>
>First of all, the last line in the above quote is the most ARROGANT bit of
>BULLSHIT I've had the pleasure to see here, *INCLUDING* Russell Lawrence's
>generous doses.  I've been out of town for the past 5 days, so by now you've
>probably determined that you're right, and I'm wrong, about whatever you felt
>like screwing with today.


"The absence of a denial will be interpreted as confirmation," or phrases
to that effect, are used sometimes in legal wrangling.  They are called
Pregnant Negatives:  if X does not happen, then Y will happen.



:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:36:59 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Can the truth or falsity
rl> of a statement be determined by appealing to the authority of the speaker?

From article <1992Dec13.202029.11104@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> No, it can not.  But that is not the point here.  

Yes it is.

gp> Dr. Barnard has offered his "professional" opinion regarding the 
gp> scientific value of an experiment.  

And you've offered your not-so-professional opinions regarding ethics,
medicine, german history, etc.  Should we simply dismiss your statements
because of your credentials?   Or, should we concentrate on the facts
and arguments that you've present and get on with the debate?   

rl> As an example, can we determine the truth or falsity of your "nazi!" 
rl> cries by examining your credentials as an historian?

gp> The Nazi example is not a good analogy because it is a historical
gp> fact.  

Not really.  To support the claim that a particular nazi was an "animal 
rights" advocate would require, not simply a few quotations lifted out
of context, but a thorough, comprehensive analysis.   The fact that
you've failed to conduct such an analysis was made amply clear when
you demonstrated that you had failed to stop and consider what the term
"vivisection" truly meant back in the 1930's:  a truly barbaric 
undertaking by your own standards.

-- 
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: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:19:02 GMT

From article <mhulsey-181292123620@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> BTW I did find your post where you boasted about attending an  "ivy-league"
> institution.  I repost it here in its entirety, so that you cannot accuse
> me of quoting you out of context:

===================================================================
rl> I would agree that such a record of publication might not qualify 
rl> a person for a position at a second-rate university.  On the 
rl> other hand, it certainly wouldn't disqualify him/her for a 
rl> position at a top-rate university.  The ivy league institution 
rl> that I occasionally call "alma mater" has, for the past twenty 
rl> years or so, been turning it's back on the cretinous notion that 
rl> a thinker's qualifications can be judged by the sheer number of 
rl> his publications.  
===================================================================

I wasn't boasting when I made this comment.  Your insistence to 
the contrary is another indication of your inability to think 
critically.  

Incidently, I made this statement in response to the following
comments from you, Martin:

===================================================================
mh> When I exchanged "letters to the editor" with Barnard in our 
mh> local newspaper (The Athens Observer 4/2/92), he said that John 
mh> Orem's research had "nothing of clinical value," and was "macabre 
mh> and useless." I replied (ibid., 4/16/92) that Barnard was not 
mh> qualified to make such judgements against Orem, because his 
mh> publication record (two papers in Medline since 1986 when I last 
mh> checked) would not qualify him for a position at a second-rate 
mh> university, much less at UGA.  I never heard back from him or 
mh> PCRM's lawyer.  What I said was true, and therefore not libelous.  
===================================================================

You seem to be making a distinction here between "second-rate" 
schools and your own school, University of Georgia at Athens.
Was this supposed to add an additional aroma to your "air" of 
authority?

BTW, you say that you "exchanged" letters with Neil Barnard.  Do
you have any reason to believe that Dr. Barnard reads _The Athens
Observer_ on a regular basis, and hence, had a chance to see your
response?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Give Animals Voting Rights
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:52:41 GMT

Karl Rominger writes:
>
>Yep thats right, give animals the right to vote.
>They could have done a better job than the American public did in  
>November.

I don't know about that.... the humans here in Indiana certainly made
the right choice!  But I also don't think the animals would have voted
for any of the candidates.  

Now if Bambi were running....(and not from a hunter)  :-)

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
From: lgauvin@phobia.Berkeley.EDU (Lisa Gauvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: on-line listing?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 17:05:11 GMT
Organization: CEA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: phobia.cea.berkeley.edu

I am not sure if this is the proper place for this, but...
Does anyone have or know where I can access an on-line listing
of endangered species?

thanks for any help
lisa
lgauvin@cea.berkeley.edu
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: Tue, 15 Dec 92 00:42:06 GMT

In article <Bz63KK.CE9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From article <1992Dec12.170540.19751@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>ry> If you ask for credentials, you must be prepared to be asked in
>ry> return.
>
>In other words, if a speaker bases his arguments on the 
>credentials of his opponents, he should be prepared to establish 
>his own.  We're still waiting for Martin to reveal the names of the
>institutions that granted his degrees in medicine, philosophy, 
>history, etc.  

	Unless I missed something, you've once again completely misinterpreted
	Martin's postings.  As I recall it, he questioned the qualifications
	of a psychiatrist with two published papers to set himself up as an
	expert in human nutrition to the population at large.  Barnard has
	set himself up as the holder of Truth-Based-On-Fact(tm).  Science
	does not, in general, recognize such excursions out of one's field
	of expertise.  Now, you may consider this unfair, and perhaps it is,
	but it is the situation as it exists; psychiatrists with two published
	papers are not generally considered to be "experts" in human nutrition.
	For such a person to imply otherwise to the general public is hardly
	the highest of ethical standards.

	Martin, on the other hand, is offering clearly designated opinions
	on Usenet, which is hardly the same thing, and is certainly no more
	than you do.  Martin need demonstrate no higher a level of credentials
	than you have done to date.  In point of fact, Martin has provided
	reference after reference to support his position where you have not.

	Martin simply questioned Barnard's already-published credentials...
	it was YOU who asked Martin to present his, and have since refused
	to reciprocate.

	You don't care what Martin's credentials are, you'll never reveal
	yours, and it's clear that your interest is simply the argument, not
	the information which might be contained within it.  Don't expect
	intellectual respect when you give none.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Date: 16 Dec 1992 21:37:34 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <mhulsey-161292142016@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>In article <1gnq55INNqjv@agate.berkeley.edu>, spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
>(Steve Pope) wrote:

>> But you could sway me a bit on this if you can cite
>> any cases where the APS Ethics Committee actually sided
>> against an animal research on an ethics charge.
>
>I do not think that any evidence could sway you Steve.  You would cry
>"foul!" whether or not scientists attempted to police their own.  I
>seriously doubt if anything short of total abolition would please you.

Nice try Martin.  The reality is you sidestepped my question.
*Has* the APS Ethics committee ever done anything but
exonerate an individual researcher involved in an animal
[testing/research] ethics dispute?

Inquiring minds want to know...


Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: ALF policy on violence
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:52:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.203951.11903@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>
>What's your point Rosemary?

Just that contrary to the impression a lot of posts have given, ALF has a
policy against violence.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism 
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:44:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.133412.16980@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>In article <BzA9Fz.EqK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>>Rich Young writes (on November 6th):
>>ry> Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
>>ry> these:
>>ry>
>>ry> 1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
>>ry> one performing the activity, or,
>>ry> 
>>ry> 2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
>>ry> in the one performing the activity.

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.

Mary Otto


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: News Blurbs 3
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:26:15 GMT

dedward1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Deirdre Renee Edwards writes:

>I thought your comparison of the arguments used by members of hunting and AR
>communities was very interesting.  This is a main reason why I do not
>support any AR group and am against hunting.  I don't think that either
>community takes enough responsibility for the "wayward" members of its
>groups. 

I think you're absolutely right.  I don't know about the ARs, but I know
that in the hunting community there is a strong desire to weed out the
bad apples, but aside from catching them poaching and turning them in,
or shunning them for unethical acts while hunting, there isn't a lot
that we can do.  And I'd have to agree that, in spite of all our best
intentions, there is entirely too much toleration of the practices
of slob hunters, which reflect badly on us all.


> I agree that man has a place as a predator, and that stalking and
>bringing down game is something that requires skill and a knowledge of the
>natural world very rare in today's world.  

Since you're willing to grant us this concession, I can think of no
reason to take issue with the fact that you are uncomfortable with the
acts of a few.  Believe me, so are most of us.


>Yet the hunters who espouse this
>viewpoint are shadowed by the macho, ignorant people who show up during
>hunting season, shoot anything that moves, leave prey to rot at the side of
>the road, and have trouble with (or don't care about) limits.  These are the
>people who put spotlights on their cars, and want the Forest Service to
>build more roads so that there is easier access to game.  Instead of
>becoming part of nature, these "sportsmen" want nature managed to fit their
>convenience.  

I think you're slipping into dangerous ground here, however, with this
stereotyping.  The "one day a year" wonders that you refer to are usually
just that, and in spite of a massive presence on the first day of deer season
you don't see too much of them.  They aren't what we consider to be "real" 
hunters, although that's a distinction that usually gets lost on non-hunters.


>They people are not the majority, but their ineptitude is vast 
>enough to reflect on all of the hunting community. 

Thanks for the thoughtful and well-written piece.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Plant/animal similarities (was Re: Speciesism)
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 19:00:47 GMT

In <1992Dec10.182719.3294@clpd.kodak.com>, Robert Black writes:

[...]

Re: similarities between plants and animals:
>
>Let's assume for a minute that they are not very different.  Does this
>mean we can free most/all animals from labs and replace them with
>plants?  In particular, can we eliminate animals from pain experiments,
>which rely on nervous system responses?  

	You're confused.  The point of the [deleted] reference was to show
	that there are similarities between plants and animals which may
	preclude simple relegation of plants to the category of "unfeeling
	and therefore ethically irrelevant."  No one has argued that plants
	are MORE similar to humans than animals, and should thus replace
	animals in scientific research.

[...]


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: PETA leader writes book on ALF
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:27:53 GMT


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

"The voice that speaks for the animals speaks for the ALF (Animal Liberation
Front).  At long last, the story of the ALF in America is told, by PETA
cofounder Ingrid Newkirk.  Scintillating details about animal rescues fro
testing laboratories, fur farms, and food factories make for fast-moving
adventure and riveting reading.  Ingrid's interviews with the stop-at-nothing,
dedicated ALF leader "Valerie X" and her 10-year struggle to revolutionize
society's attitudes toward animals provide a behind-the-scenes look at the ALF
that surpasses everything you've ever heard about this shadowy group in the
media."

[Order from PETA Merchandise, P.O. Box 42400, Washington, DC 20015.  $11.95
($10.75 for PETA members) or ask for it at your local bookstore, not that I've
seen it in the stores in Toronto.]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism 
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 00:49:43 GMT

In article <Bz69xq.D5o@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Yes, yes, we know that some people always behave selfishly, but 
>rl> to the best of my knowledge, no one's presented any evidence to 
>rl> show that all behavior is selfishly motivated.  
>
>From article <1992Nov6.162026.7683@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>ry> Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
>ry> these:
>ry>
>ry> 1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
>ry> one performing the activity, or,
>ry> 
>ry> 2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
>ry> in the one performing the activity.
>
>Another one of your "prove me wrong" arguments, Rich???
>
>Please present us with the evidence that you have available to
>prove your claim that *all* altruistic behavior is selfishly motivated.
>
>I previously wrote:
>rl> It seems to me that "guilt" arises, not simply from some innate 
>rl> feature of humankind, but from an individual's realization that 
>rl> he has violated a particular cultural taboo.  If it's true that 
>rl> all such taboos arise from someone's desire to avoid guilt, then 
>rl> we'd have to conclude that big taboos (big guilt) arise from 
>rl> medium-size taboos (medium guilt), and that medium-size taboos 
>rl> arise from small taboos (small guilt).  Question: Where do these 
>rl> small taboos come from?  
>
>Please answer this last question.

	When you answer my question, I'll consider addressing yours.  In
	the meantime, I suggest that you refer to the discussion between
	myself and Bob Black on this very subject which has ensued over the
	month and a half since I asked you.  You had your chance.

	Please note that the article Russell now wants to address is dated
	November 6, 1992.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:03:50 GMT

From article <mhulsey-171292084150@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> "Pagan dancer," as coined by Rich Young, is a figurative term for a person
> who constantly evades relevant questions.  You are the person to whom Rich
> was referring to when he defined the term.
> 
> My experiences with you on the net bear out Rich's characterization of your
> tactics.
> 
> As an example, I will permit you to again evade a list of my questions:

You're confused.  There's quite a difference between the desire of a
man to evade questions that he cannot answer, and the desire of a 
man who doesn't wish to waste his time answering stupid questions
or time-consuming questions that he considers uninteresting at the 
moment.

I suppose you'll continue to pretend that you understand my personality, 
but that's to be expected... given your lack of training in the field
of psychology, medicine, history, law, ethics, etc, etc.

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