HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:06:44 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <C03BxC.H6w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <mhulsey-301292105232@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.
uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>
>>I am curious whether "Russell Claus" *finally* brought me a set of answers
>> to my "unanswered questions."  I've been a good boy.  If they were, by some
>> chance, answered, can someone help me out by reposting or e-mailing them to
>> me?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't view Martin's first post-holiday missive
as mean-spirited.

>If/when you convince me that this line of reasoning has merit, I
>suppose I'll have to take a few minutes to prepare a long list of
>"unanswered Martin Hulsey questions".  Here are two questions to
>get us started:
>
>#1:  Are you finally willing to admit that your "unanswered questions"
>     about my alleged presence at a meeting in Athens, Georgia, were
>     irrelevant to the major issues at hand?   If so, why did you
>     repeatedly insist that you were asking pertinent questions?


Russell, what are the major issues at hand?  Is it what the Maryland
appeals court did or did not say?  Is it whether Martin will admit that
his question of your attendance at a Georgia PETA debate was "stupid."

Bob Black worked through a list of Martin's "questions" which Martin
posted before he left on holiday.  He did so magnificently, posing
food for thought, and left no doubt where he stands on major issues. 
He did so without the nagging, confrontational tone with which you will
greet us and the new year.


 >#2:  Is it a mark of reason, or mere stupidity, when a debater chooses to
>     focus on the alleged personality attributes of his opponents, rather
>     than addressing the relevant facts and arguments?
>

Any self-respecting debate moderator would throw you off the stage
at this point.  You continually emphasize your use of "debate form"
as the model of how we should view your participation in t.p.a.  You
should realize that more appropriate role models exist than Morton Downey
Jr. and Howard Stern.



>So you say.















:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:20:22 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ....some christians are capable of respecting the golden rule...
rl> thereby refuting Rich's claim that all behavior is selfish.

Rich Young writes:
ry> The "Golden Rule":
ry> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
ry> 
ry> You wanna re-think your "refutation," Russell?

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Not really, unless there's some reason for us to believe that altruism
rl> and selfishness are equivalent concepts.  

From article <1992Dec29.223815.1658@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> Why am I not surprised?  The "Golden Rule" is the epitome of selfish
ry> behavior: we are advised to treat others with dignity, kindness, and
ry> respect, etc., NOT because it's proper behavior, but because it will,
ry> we are told, engender similar behavior toward OURSELVES.  

I think you've misrepresented both the language and the intent of 
the original author by tacking on a set of clauses that reflect 
self-interest alone.  

ry> The fact
ry> that both the actor and the acted-upon benefit is irrelevant: the
ry> behavior is still selfishly motivated.  To call this a "refutation"
ry> of my claim is not only patently incorrect, it's ludicrous.

Is there some reason for us to believe that altruism and selfishness
are equivalent concepts?

Let's set aside your self-serving rendition of the "golden rule" and 
go back to the original, uncut version, shall we?  In stating that a 
thinking person should treat other beings as he would choose to be 
treated in like circumstances, the golden rule defines a standard for 
altruistic thinking and behavior.  Yet, you're quick to assume that 
the golden rule is presribing selfish behavior, simply because it sets 
the altruistic standard in terms that any man can easily understand
(ie in terms that relate to one's own needs and wants).

ry> [ludicrous, adj., meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly
ry> inept, false, or foolish.]

[equivocation, noun, the use of equivocal terms in order to deceive,
mislead, hedge, etc.]   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 17:25:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.153259.745@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.172515.29679@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>The extreme forms of mis-treatment
>>probably do exist somewhere, but since they're unhealthy for the
>>animals, it's unwise to run a farm in such ways.  Farmers don't want
>>to have sick animals on the farm, because sickness spreads, and
>>results in lower productivity.  Cruelty to animals isn't merely of
>>questionable immorality - it's also counterproductive.
>
>Would you also say that no employers mistreat their workers, because it would
>be counterproductive?  The loss in productivity is balanced by the money saved
>by spending less on housing and food.

"no employers" would be going a little too far; no matter what makes
sense, or is moral, people WILL do stupid things.

It IS generally counterproductive to mistreat employees; If it were
not so, then our society would probably look like that of Dicken's "A
Christmas Carol."  There would only be a half-day holiday on
Christmas, and people would work 6 days a week.  Or maybe 7.

In case you haven't noticed, that's NOT the world that we live in.
There ARE people that live under those sort of conditions, but
POLITICS seem to be the cause as opposed to ECONOMICS.

Certainly a loss in productivity may be "balanced" by money saved; but
the question is, what kind of "balance" is it?  Well-paid,
well-treated employees tend to be more productive than those that
aren't, ceteris paribus.  For the "benefit" of lower costs, there is a
corresponding "cost" of poorer productivity.  The "balance" has
created pressure towards higher wages.  That is very clear by virtue
of the fact that MOST jobs in our economy have wage rates that are
considerably higher than the legal minimum wage.

The unfortunate fact that SOME employers feel that it is to their
benefit to "abuse" their employees does NOT change the fact that in
MOST cases, they DON'T.

>>Veal is one of the animal rights movement's 
>>classic examples of cruelty to animals.  I'm not sure that there are
>>any farms around that still use the procedures that are described in
>>the animal rights propaganda.  
> 
>The traditional methods of confinement and malnourishment in raising veal 
>calves are still legal and in use.  Canadian Vegans for Animal Rights is
>currently campaigning for legislation to make these practices illegal.

I see that you don't disagree with the assertion that it is
propaganda.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 00:02:19 GMT

In article <C03s1F.Jys@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From article <1992Dec31.005149.25983@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):

[...]

>You seem to be incapable of grasping the possibility that some other 
>individuals might respect your feelings, not because it's the 
>"Right Thing (tm)" or because they're looking for "satisfaction", 
>but because they're capable [unlike you] of appreciating what goes 
>on inside the heads of other beings.  

	Sure, and this "appreciation" of which you speak makes it difficult
	to ignore those other beings.  This is principle number 2: reduction
	or prevention of "bad" feelings.  If, given your sympathy for these
	other beings, you did nothing, you would suffer bad feelings, so
	you do something to prevent that.  The motivation is selfish, though
	the result may well be beneficial for both parties.

>Have you never, ever, had an experience in which you performed a
>selfless act (or worse, a painful act) solely for someone else's 
>benefit?

	Technically, no.  I do it because I can't stand the thought of 
	leaving the status unchanged.  It benefits others, but I do it
	so that I can live with myself...and so do you.

>> It really doesn't matter which interpretation is used; either one
>> is easily explained by one or both of my original criteria.  We do
>> things either because they make us feel good, or because they'll
>> allow us to reduce or avoid bad feelings.
>
>As I've pointed out many times, your arguments are circular.  If 
>humans are incapable of thinking altruistically, how do you 
>account for the initial appearance of the cultural taboos that 
>allegedly give rise to the "bad feelings" that you would cite as 
>the basis for cultural taboos?  

	"Taboos" are usually put in place to promote harmony within a 
	society, violate them and one risks being ostracized from the
	social support which a society gives.  Observing these "taboos"
	helps to guarantee continuation of this support, thus it is
	beneficial to the individual.  This is principle number 2 again.

[...]

>I agree that true altruism doesn't exist in Rich Young, but Rich
>Young is hardly in a position to declare that it's never, ever, 
>existed in other individuals.

	I'm not asking you to prove that unicorns exist, Russell.  If you've
	got a case I can't refute with my two principles, let's hear it.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:35:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms

In article <1992Dec30.184512.21569@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1hpsboINN8av@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec24.224052.22825@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

>>....  Only problem is that the "F" in ARF stands for "fanatic"
>>and their views often include pretending that animals should be humans.

>Mike, can you please give us some examples of people whose "views often
>include pretending that animals should be humans."  I'm looking not just
>for names, but statements made by these people.  I realize you don't
>archive old posts, so paraphrasing to the best of your recollection
>would suffice.  Thank you.


Okay Robert.  Making me think are you?  My comment was made from what I
interpret from situations and comments made relative to those situations.
For example, when people complain about chickens being confined to small
cages.  It seems they feel they wouldn't like that done to them and relate
that to how they imagine the chicken must feel.  Sure it would be great if
the chicken could roam free and I'm not saying they shouldn't but, who 
knows if being so confined is as miserable as it would be for humans?  
Many people like to equate animals feeling with our feeling.  They may or
may not be similar.  Nobody knows for sure unless they have been an animal
in a prior life.  The concept of animal "rights" is another issue.  Animal
welfare would perhaps be a better term.


>Robert Black 


Mike Linan










Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 22:38:15 GMT

In article <C005rt.2Jp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> ....some christians are capable of respecting the golden rule...
>rl> thereby refuting Rich's claim that all behavior is selfish.
>
>From article <1992Dec28.235414.16537@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>ry> The "Golden Rule":
>ry> 
>ry> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
>ry> 
>ry> You wanna re-think your "refutation," Russell?
>
>Not really, unless there's some reason for us to believe that altruism
>and selfishness are equivalent concepts.  

	Why am I not surprised?  The "Golden Rule" is the epitome of selfish
	behavior: we are advised to treat others with dignity, kindness, and
	respect, etc., NOT because it's proper behavior, but because it will,
	we are told, engender similar behavior toward OURSELVES.  The fact
	that both the actor and the acted-upon benefit is irrelevant: the
	behavior is still selfishly motivated.  To call this a "refutation"
	of my claim is not only patently incorrect, it's ludicrous.

	[ludicrous, adj., meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly
				inept, false, or foolish.]


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Human motivation and true altruism
Date: 29 Dec 1992 19:30:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu



In article <BzzKxs.MyI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Yes, I'd probably put Jesus in that category, but he's certainly 
>rl> not alone.  Your bible recounts the adventures of a number of 
>rl> individuals who suffered tremendously while pursuing goals that 
>rl> I would describe as altruistic.   Would you agree with Rich that
>rl> the behavior of every single one of them was selfishly motivated?   

>From article <1hnitsINNs7k@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Thank you for answering the question.  First let say I find it 
>ml> sad and consistant with your prior attacks to demean Christianity 
>ml> that you would criticize Christ for giving his life for the 
>ml> salvation of others.  

>You seem to be confused.  I'm not criticizing people who behave
>altruistically.  Nor am I demeaning christianity by pointing out
>that some christians are capable of respecting the golden rule...
>thereby refuting Rich's claim that all behavior is selfish.


Perhaps.  Excuse me if I misunderstood your meaning.  I do not keep 
old posts so I can't reread yours that I took exception to.


>ml> But, that is simply your way so it seems.  At least you answered 
>ml> the question which is normally a great chore for you.  To answer 
>ml> your question, I do not consider the behavior of every single one 
>ml> of them ( or any of them for that matter ) to have been selfishly 
>ml> motivated.  Although I will acknowledge that humans are capable of 
>ml> such selfish motivations.  

>I fully agree that humans are capable of selfish motivations.  In 
>fact, I'd probably agree that most human behavior is selfishly 
>motivated.  It's clear, however, that some individuals are capable 
>of looking at the "bigger pictures", so to speak, and acting 
>accordingly.  

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


Mike Linan






























Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: Simian AIDS
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:50:13 GMT

Lab Workers/"Monkey" AIDS

>From IPPL News, December 1992, International Primate
Protection League, P.O. Box 766, Summerville, SC  29484:
 
     LAB WORKERS TEST POSITIVE FOR "MONKEY" AIDS
 
The 11 September 1992 issue of the US Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) _Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report_
announced that the blood of two laboratory workers working
with monkeys had tested positive for "Simian AIDS."
 
This monkey disease is highly fatal to monkeys, and has
affected stumptail macaques at the Yerkes Primate Center,
Atlanta, Georgia.  Stumptail macaques are listed on the US
Endangered Species List as "Threatened."  According to Yerkes'
1991 Annual Report:
 
"A closed colony of [stumptail macaques] was established in
1964 and was maintained as a closed colony till 1981 when four
[new] animals were introduced... In 1986, we learned that the
animals introduced into the colony were from an SIV-infected
colony...the colony remained healthy until mid-1988 when
increased clinical problems became apparent...Of 17 deaths
that occurred from mid-1988 through 1989, 12 were seropositive
to SIV and the serological status of 4 was unknown.  The only
known seronegative animal was a 10 month old infant.  The
major finding at necropsy was severe weight loss with a
significant number of animals having oro-esophageal
candidiasis and intestinal mycobacteriosis...Morbidity and
mortality continued to occur through July 1990."
 
Only 9 members were alive by July 1990.  The _Report_ notes
that:
 
"The study demonstrates widespread natural transmission of SIV
infection within a colony of stumptailed macaques with
devastating consequences."
 
Clearly, if ever the monkey AIDS virus spread to humans, the
results could be disastrous.
 
As early as November 1988, CDC had published guidelines to
reduce the risk of transmission of "Monkey AIDS" to laboratory
workers.  However, two workers sero-converted although they
have not become sick.
 
In Case 1, a technician at a research laboratory sustained a
stick with a blood-contaminated needle after drawing blood
form a monkey infected with Monkey AIDS six months previously.
 
Case 2 involved a worker at another primate facility who had
worked on clinical specimens of monkey tissue without wearing
gloves.
 
CDC noted in an "Editorial Note" that Simian AIDS viruses can
infect some primate species without causing disease, but, when
experimentally inoculated into other primate species, the
viruses can cause a disease similar to human AIDS.
 
Whether the massive amount of experimentation with animal
AIDS-related viruses across the nation could ever produce a
mutated virus capable of infecting humans more easily than
known AIDS viruses is a matter of increasing concern to some
virologists.
 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:06:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.024856.4108@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.181444.18587@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>I used to think that t.p.a was a really pointless forum for debate,
>>but now I see that it serves an admirable purpose in highlighting
>>the stupidity, vacuousness, and just plain pig-ignorance of the "we
>>hate AR" crowd.
>
>Two out of three, I'll give you.
>
>But that crowd is not entirely vacuous.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

>They are trying to preserve, in their words, "the American way of life".

Let's just say "LIFE".

>Determination to promote one's cause is an admirable personality trait.

I bet you say that to all the all the posters.

>But it's only admirable if one is intelligent enough to choose the
>proper cause to champion, and let outmoded ideas become history.

Outmoded ideas? Like, oh say, medical advancement?

>Otherwise, one's only distinguishing feature is to be pig-headedly
>determined to be dead wrong until death.

Which will be approx. 20 yrs later thanks to medical research.

>That ain't going to get you into any history books.

Oh! Did they stop giving away the Noble in physiology?

                                   GREG POPKEN

-- 
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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:20:29 GMT


From article <1hq7p2INN9ot@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
> You have a point.  I'm sure executives have a great deal of power over how
> a farm/ranch will be run and how much money is allocated for the living
> conditions of the livestock.  However, those who actually "run" the show
> hands-on probably have at least as much if not more power in determining
> how the livestock is treated.  It isn't hard to understand how those who
> are farm/ranch managers would be hired to do a job and are given what they
> need to get the job done.  The millionaire corporation executives who may
> own farms/ranchs may not know nearly as much about running the operations
> and therefore hire managers who do know.  

=========================================================================
"Under the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 and subsequent revisions, standards
have been set requiring cages for animals to 'provide sufficient space to
allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with 
adequate freedom of movement.'  This act applies to zoos, circuses,
wholesale pet dealers, and laboratories, but not to animals being reared
for food."

"So how do cages for laying hens measure up by the minimal standards set
for birds in general?  To answer this question, we need to know that the
wingspan of the most common type of hen averages around thirty inches.
Cage sizes vary, but according to the _Poultry Tribune_,

   'a typical size is 12 by 20 inches in which anywhere from one to
    five layers are housed.  Space available per bird varies from
    240 to 38 square inches depending on the number of birds per cage.
    There is a tendency to crowd the layers to reduce building and
    equipment costs per bird'.

"Obviously, this size is too small for even one bird to stretch her wings
fully, let alone five birds in the same cage --- and, as the last line
of the quoted passage hints, four or five birds, not one or two, is the
industry standard.

from Singer, Peter.  _Animal Liberation_, 2nd edition, Avon Books: NY,
1990. p 111.
=========================================================================

Question 1: Who typically makes the decisions to house five large birds 
in a cage measuring 12 by 20 inches?   The managers who care about 
animals, perhaps?  Or the managers who care about the bottom line?

Question 2: If it's wrong to house chickens used in research in such 
crowded conditions, why is this practice perfectly acceptable on the
idylic factory farm?  

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