HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:56:13 GMT

From article <1992Dec11.162940.16341@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> [selective quotations deleted]
gp> Get the point Russell?  Later provisions relaxed these standards to permit
gp> vivisection under stringent controls.  Regardless, it is clear from these
gp> and other quotes that you choose to ignore, that the Nazi Party supported
gp> animal rights ( maybe if you close your eyes you can make it go away)

No, it's not clear at all, Greg.  I noticed that *all* of your 
references came from journals of associations with a vested 
interest in the status quo.  And they're obviously intended to 
serve a political goal by demeaning the views of opponents by means
of fallacious "nazi" name-calling.   Typical.

A few selective quotes stating that "Hitler loves animals" 
doesn't mean much if you were to analyze these same passages in 
the total context of the hundreds of thousands of speeches, articles, 
and political campaigns of the Third Reich.  

gp> Question:  Do you agree that the Nationalist Socialist Party in Germany 
gp> in the 1930's supported animal rights?

rl> Of course not.  To the contrary, I think you'd be hardpressed to find
rl> a single nazi thinker whose ideas are even remotely comparable to the
rl> arguments set forth by folks like Gandhi or Singer or Regan.

gp> Please reread the parts about "love for animals and the torture of
gp> vivisection".

Come off it.  You yourself might make similar statements under 
similar contexts.  Do you hate animals?  Would you allow your 
coworkers to perform surgical experiments on animals without the 
benefit of anesthesia?  If your answer to either question is 
"no", please explain how the aforementioned statements concerning 
"Hitler's love for animals" would be different from the sorts of 
observations that we could make about Greg Popken.  

gp> Question: Do you still refuse to admit that the Nazi Party in Germany in
gp> the 1930's supported animal rights?

You're still equivocating, Greg.   Your definition of "animal rights"
seems to waver around quite a bit... depending on the particular
argument at hand.   

BTW, are you aware of the fact that anesthesia and analgesics weren't 
commonly used on animals back in the 30's?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From:  ()
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:58:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.025720.13151@pellns.alleg.edu>,
romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) wrote:
> 
> 
> Well well well.  Ha ha ha.
> 
> I just read PETA and it's two chief people, the pig woman and whats his  
> face are in hot water.  It appears they are being brought up under the  
> RICCO legislation for raqueteering charges.  Not only may they go to jail,  
> but PETA and all of it's assets would be siezed.  Ha HA HA HA.
> 
> Boy this is better than a hot grilled rubeun with lots of thousand island.
> 
> Put People First
> 
> 
> Karl 
> romingk@alleg.edu 


Ha HA HA HA. Put Grammar First.

-----------------
Jonathan Esterhay
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:38:48 GMT

mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

> > As usual, Russell will want to have the last word on this matter.  I hope
> > that his last word will eliminate everyone's suspicion that he has no
> > degree.  The "ivy-league" institution of which he boasts probably proved
> > too much for him, for he couldn't evade his professor's questions as he
> > evades questions posed here.
> 

rl> Would you mind citing a passage where I made such a "boast"?  

mh>I haven't yet been successful in locating the post.  Are you hereby denying
mh>that you ever claimed to attend an "ivy-league" institution?


I saw it too.  I expect that a lot of people saw it.  If Russell attempts to
deny that he said it, it will only confirm what I observed about him at the
end of our "Clinton/Fonda" exchange -  to quote from my last posting, 

" I can recognize a bullshit artist when I see one, and you (Russell) are one. 
You are no longer the enigma you've tried for so long to be.  There is nothing 
of substance to you."

I suspect that we can therefore discount many of his unsubstantiated claims,
among these, the fact that he was once a hunter.
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: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:31:36 GMT

From article <1992Dec13.180415.5767@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> Russell, if you look at the quotes, you would see that these are not the
> opinions of the journals in question.  These are direct quotes from
> leaders of the Nazi Party.  Goring called for a complete ban on vivisection
> in Aug. of 1933.  It is a historical fact . there is no room for
> interpretation here.  

Yet, such statements were taken out-of-context.  As an example, 
you didn't bother to tell us how "vivisection" in the 30's 
differed from "vivisection" today.  Nor did you bother to tell us 
how the views of the anti-vivisectionists of the 30's differ from 
animal rights advocates of today.  

> If this was not done in support of animal rights,
> perhaps you could give a few alternative reasons why the Third Reich would
> do this.

Two questions:

Can you explain why you support the "Animal Welfare Act" if it's not
for "animal rights"?

Do you understand what the term "equivocation" means, and hence, why
it's fallacious to use the term "animal rights" loosely in one context
(when we're talking about nazis) while using the term much more rigidly
when we're talking about contemporary movements?

> Russell, I would be had pressed to find a AR person who is "even remotely
> comparable" to these people.  They put forth compeling arguments(though I
> disagree with them).  That is why they are leader in the area of animal
> rights.  I am not claiming that the Nazis were such.  I am merely stating
> that they did support the concept of animal rights.

Your statements are unfounded.

> ...

>>BTW, are you aware of the fact that anesthesia and analgesics weren't 
>>commonly used on animals back in the 30's?   

> Yes, I am aware that in the thirties anesthetics and analgesics were not
> in standard use as they are today.  That is a shame.  But, that was sixty
> years ago.  Welcome to the 1990's Russell.

We're not talking about the 1990's, Greg.  We're talking about your
claims that the nazis were animal rights advocates.  If it's true
that some nazis were opposed to vivisection, it's important to remember
PRECISELY what vivisection entailed in the 20's and 30's.  

gp> Please reread the parts about "love for animals and the torture of
gp> vivisection".

>>Come off it.  You yourself might make similar statements under 
>>similar contexts.  Do you hate animals?  Would you allow your 
>>coworkers to perform surgical experiments on animals without the 
>>benefit of anesthesia?  If your answer to either question is 
>>"no", please explain how the aforementioned statements concerning 
>>"Hitler's love for animals" would be different from the sorts of 
>>observations that we could make about Greg Popken.  

> I would not pass laws banning all vivisection.  That's how I differ.

Would you have praised and supported surgical experiments on fully conscious
animals?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:44:34 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Dec16.015320.20433@samba.oit.unc.edu>, itsmine@med.unc.edu 
(Greg Popken) writes:
> (I just love Darwin)
 
What would Charles say about work done to ensure that the weakest genes are 
propagated as frequently as are the strongest? Would he view this as 
strengthening the species' ability to survive? 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: Re: Painless slaughter?
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:21:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.161946.16497@zooid.guild.org>  writes:
> 
> An excerpt from an interview with Harriet Schleifer, "Inside a Canadian
> Slaughterhouse", _Toronto_Vegetarian_Handbook_, Toronto Vegetarian
> Association.  Ms Schleifer is director of Urban Animal Advocates in  
Montreal.
> 
> "No, just shut off, unaware, frighteningly normal.  In a way it is the  
same
> process that every single person who eats meat is doing.  What they have  
on
> the plat e is a piece of dead animal, but no one thinks of it like that.   
If
> you did, could you seriously sit down and eat it, day after day, without  
being
> upset, and actually enjoy it?"

I butcher my own meat.  I also hunt for some of what I eat.  I am totally  
aware that it was once living and is now dead.  This is not unnatural, is  
the wolf immoral for eating meat.  No. and neither is anyone else.  This  
is pathetic propaganda.

Karl
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: Fri, 18 Dec 92 18:07:11 GMT

In article <BzFu42.CCp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>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.

	Are you denying that it's true?  If so, then what IS the truth?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: PETA's compassion?
Originator: itsmine@cahaba
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:11:57 GMT

This recently came to my attention and I thought I would share it with you.

PETA ad in the Des Moines Register just a few days after the discovery of
the bodies in Jeffery Dahmer's apt.
**************************************************************************

                      Milwaulkee....July 1991...

                    They were drugged and dragged 
                           across the room....

                    Their legs and feet were
                          bound together....

                     Their struggles and cries 
                          went unanswered...

                     Then they were slaughtered and
                         their heads sawn off...
 
                     Their body parts were refrigerated
                         to be eaten later...

                     Their bones were discarded
                            with the trash


                         IT'S STILL GOING ON
Please remember that this senario is reality for over 16 million sensitive
individuals who lose their lives every day in this country for nothing more
than the fleeting taste of "meat."

Violence and pain are as real to the victims you don't relate to as those
you do.

Non-violence can begin at breakfast, with what you eat.
For a free set of vegetarian recipe cards, contact People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals.


            IF THIS LEAVES A BAD TASTE IN YOUR MOUTH,
                   BECOME A VEGETARIAN.
**************************************************************************

According to the Associated Press PETA originally sought to place the ad
in two Milwaukee newspapers. They rejected them because they felt that
they were in bad taste and offensive to the victim's relatives.
Needless to say this raised alot of hell in the area (i.e. subscription
cancelations, a Newsweek article and general public disapproval.)

Undaunted PETA apparently came back a week later with a second ad which
begins :"MEAT STINKS. Ask Jeffery Dahmer's neighbors."


_________________________________________________________________
(please insert your own sacrastic remark on compassion here)


                                       Greg
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 18:49:45 GMT

In article <BzHnnn.8G7@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec18.175644.25650@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> In article <BzFp2D.BEn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>>	... my credentials are not at issue here.
>
>Hypocritical thinking is the issue, Rich.   

	Yes, and it would be wonderful if you'd stop doing it.

[...]

>> 	By the way, even Dr. Spock was a bit nonplussed at the PCRM press
>> 	release.  He stated to the New York Times....[...]
>
>Would you mind posting a reference to this article?

	Sure.  As soon as you supply Martin, et. al., with references to
	cat shooting and beagle drowning as they've asked repeatedly.

	You have forfeited your right to timely responses to such requests
	by virtue of your consistent refusal to comply with similar requests
	from others.

>> 	Barnard is no more qualified to make dietary recommendations to
>> 	the public than he is to perform liver transplants.
>
>Yet you seem to think that you're qualified to make dietary 
>recommendations to the readers of usenet.

	And so do you.  Are you any more qualified than I?  Usenet is a forum
	of opinions, sometimes supported by references to published works.

>And not ordinary
>recommendations, mind you, but special recommendations from
>the "voice of reason" himself.   Let's hope you don't decide
>to repair any faulty mitral valves or perform liver transplants.

	We're still waiting for you to make some cogent statement regarding
	the relationship of claims of reasonableness to implications of
	expertise.  I doubt that even YOUR facile mind can do more than
	attempt a distraction...kind of like the one you just tried above,
	as a matter of fact.

>A few months ago one of the readers of sci.med.nutrition
>with an interest in breast-feeding posted references to several 
>scientific articles suggesting that breast-feeding raises the 
>intelligence of infants.  Weren't you the guy who disputed 
>the evidence by claiming to be one of three, bottle-fed brothers 
>all of whom had IQ's over 150?

	As usual, you are in error.  I disputed no evidence with such a
	claim.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:48:40 GMT

Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>Are you defending yourself against the rats, or mice, or whoever, who are
>killed in vivisection laboratories?

			The Black Death
			 European Tour

		Dec 1347	Constantinople
		Dec 1347	Marseilles
		Jun 1348	Naples
		Jun 1348	Rome
		Dec 1348	Bristol
		Jun 1349	London
		Jun 1349	Oxford
		Dec 1349	Dublin
		Dec 1349	York
		Jun 1350	Magdeburg
		Jun 1350	Rostock Hamburg
		Dec 1350	Wisby
		Dec 1350	Danzig

All ticket sales final.  Rumors of a Black Death Reunion Tour are
unsubstantiated, though the group members have been known to get
together every now and again for a jam session.

	Remember, this particular plague wiped out roughly half the
population of Europe.  In short, it makes smallpox look like a
walk in the park.  The cure?  Sanitary conditions and rat extermination.

< 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,talk.abortion
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:29:28 GMT


Just a clarification:  I am not pro-abortion, and I think the fetus does
have rights when it reaches the stage where it can feel pain, etc.  Until that
point I am pro-choice.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
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: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:29:40 GMT

In article <Bz7zqw.1B2@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> Not really.  Professional historians specialize in particular periods... 
> like everybody else.  I doubt that *any* professional historians spend
> a lot of time reading _Endocrinology_, much less historians who have
> a joint interest in the nazi era as well as the animal rights movement.  
> 
> In time, I suspect the publication of these "nazi" claims in journals
> like _Endocrinology_ will be regarded as far more interesting artifacts
> that any alleged "animal rights" statements set forth by famous nazis.

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

--
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: Human motivation and true altruism 
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 00:19:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.154452.24461@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>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.

	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.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:46:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.185428.28611@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>[follow-ups to t.p.a]
>In article <1992Dec15.064520.22393@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>this is similar to saying that humans don't have to have sex, we can procreate
>>just fine by passing sperm around in little bottles.
>>
>>i think the human race would prefer the enjoyment of the activity, as much,
>>if not more than, the practicality of the activity itself.
>
>It's not just a question of practicality, it's a question of ethics.  Is it
>ethical to harm others just for pleasure?  I don't think sex is a good analogy
>for meat eating, rape or sadism would be closer.

the definition of "others" is relative here.  my personal feeling is that
killing animals for food is not "harming others".

from here the debate becomes religious.

since debating religion is futile, i will stop.

(i don't read talk.politics.animals, followups via email if you really
want me to see them.)

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[             I don't want to work for a company that has a CIO.              ]
[              Disclaimer! I don't need no stinking Disclaimer!               ]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Poem about animal rescue
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:45:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.230912.4170@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>[from _The_Animals'_Voice_, Vol. 3, No. 5.]
> 
>White Coats, Black Mask

[Cheesy poem gloryfying terrorism deleted]

Rosemary, I get the impression from the last two posting that you support
the activities of the ALF.  Is this true?

                                           Greg  


-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************