HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:18:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.030225.10756@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <C1F748.Ezv@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.142223.20600@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>2.  Animals are sentient.  They care whether they live or die.  To kill
>>>    them is to go against their wishes.  Killing non-human animals is wrong 
>>>    for the same reasons that killing human animals is wrong.
>>
>>  And what is that reason?
>
>Because it fails to take their interests into account.
>>
>>>A question for you:  do you think it is ok to painlessly kill humans?
>>
>>  No.  I start with the principle that it is wrong to kill people.  What
>>principle do you start with.
>
>Consideration for others.
>
  You see, that's what it all boils down to. That statement is the basis for
practically all moralities.  But the question is what you mean by "others."
Your "others" evidently includes all animals.  Mine could include only people.
Some people include plants.  Some may even include rocks...

>>  Also -- do you really think animals are conscious?
>
>I think they are conscious enough to notice they are being injured or killed,
>and object to it.
>-- 
  There's a tough one to support.  Plants will also "object" to being killed
insofar as they'll react in a way to avoid it.  Animals do the same thing.
They just do it in a more humaniod way.  Reacting against death doesn't 
qualify you for consciousness.
  Then there's the question of whether animals are aware (really a synonym
for conscious).  It's fundamentally impossible to know that, and we'll never
resolve that, especially not here.
  But let me ask you this.  If the animal was not aware, would it be wrong to 
kill it?  If you could kill the animal in such a way that it would never know
ewhat was coming, in a way that caused it no pain, suddenly and painlessly,
would it still be wrong?  You would in no way be going against its will, because
it wouldn't expect to be killed, and couldn't object.  
  My guess is you would still think it was wrong.  In another post, you said
that it would be wrong to painlessly kill a person in their sleep.  And i
would assume you would extend this to animals.  So why is it wrong to kill them
if it doesn't go against their will?



-- 
	               / )/ )/ )        /    /
			/  /  /      --/----/--
                       /  /  /  / \   /    /
		      /  /  /   \_/\ /    /  
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:32:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.230738.975@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>>>
>>>3) review of the tax system with the purpose of abolishing the GST 
>>>and redistributing the tax burden on the PRINCIPLE of fairness, 
>>>equity ad ability to pay.
>>
>>That is not a policy...the GST raises $20 billion dollars...specifically
>>tell us how the Liberal Party is going to raise $20 billion dollars.
>
>Even Jean Chretien, embarking on his western tour, said that the tax
>income must be accounted for in one way or another ... I just can't
>believed that people up north will fall for a shell game removing the
>GST and placing the tax same somewhere else.  The merits of the GST
>have been that (theoretically) with the substitution for the wholesale
>tax that was hidden, consumers would have a truer sticker price ...
>and, manufacturers won't have to "advance" the wholesale tax payments
>to the federal government and then receive credits for the exported
>portion later.  The free price hike that some retailers and some
>wholesalers/distributors took with the arrival of the GST demonized
>it, but I still find it hard to think that people would hide their
>heads in the sand and fall for a hidden GST.
>

Chretien is trying his best to exactly succeed at this shell game...
in all of his year end interviews, he kept saying that he couldn't
be specific because he didn't even know how much money the GST was
bringing in...even though the Finance Department publishes them
at least quarterly...and the simple fact is that the order of
magnitude of the tax, and of any replacement tax is known.

The Liberals are being fundamentally dishonest on the tax issue, which
is why they don't deserve to be elected...the same goes for the NDP.

The Tories, Reform, and the National Party are not really attractive
alternatives, but each is at least unambiguously clear on tax policy.

Gerald

Xref: sparky can.general:6420 can.uucp:278 alt.bbs.lists:1769
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.uucp,alt.bbs.lists
Subject: Re: Public Usenets BBSes
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:46:07 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

In article <C1HBrs.2yu@cs.dal.ca> dinn@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael 'Moose' Dinn) writes:
>Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca) wrote:
>: Is it possible for someone to posta Public USEnet access BBS list for Canada?
>
>One I know of.
>
>swamp.alt.ns.ca
>(902) 461-4773
>In Halifax, Nova Scotia
>

Nanaimo, BC - 604-245-4366 :-)


-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                 Information is power - get connected
Xref: sparky can.general:6434 talk.politics.animals:11774
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Food chain (was Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted))
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:08:33 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility

In article <1993Jan26.233258.11511@elegant.com> woods@elegant.com (Greg A. Woods) writes:
>Normally a "food chain" implies that one critter/life-form eats another,
>right down the line until we have "critters" consuming only inanimate
>substances and energies (no, energy is not "animate"!).

So?  Some animals, like rabbits, are herbivores => veganism is natural.

>I for one am not about to go against something so fundamental as that!

*Agriculture* goes against nature!

>Or are you going to say that since we human critters are intelligent, we
>should know better than to kill and consume other sentient beings?  

Yup.

>If
>so, why can't a "sentient" tiger perceive the wishes of the elk, or a
>sentient house cat perceive the wishes of the mouse?  

Who knows?  I have no way of discussing these issues with tigers and house
cats, since I don't speak any feline language.

>Oh, you say the
>tiger and the cat aren't intelligent enough to respect the wishes of the
>elk and mouse.  

Not to mention they will die without meat, at least in the wild where they
have no access to human manufactured supplements.  Clearly their situation
is quite different from that of humans, for whom meat consumption is an 
option, not a necessity.

>Well why should intelligent beings like ourselves
>respect the wishes of the tiger or cat, or the elk or mouse for that
>matter?

Would you also say that since babies are liable to urinate on adults' laps,
it is okay for adults to urinate on babies?  We cannot use the different
capacities of others as an excuse to be less than compassionate to them.

[...]
>BTW, from my layman's understanding of omnivorous critters, they chose
>their diet as a matter of efficiency and necessity.  For example, some
>necessary proteins might not be easily available in a given class of
>food in sufficient quantity or appropriate combination to satisfy the
>requirements of the critter.

Fortunately, humans can easily get all the proteins and other required
nutrients without consuming meat.  (In some respects it is *easier* to have
a well balanced diet as a vegetarian, because of higher fibre and lower fat.
Not to mention a nice hearty bean stew fills you up with fewer calories,
making overeating less likely.)
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
 "You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is
  concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity." - Emerson
Xref: sparky can.general:6437 talk.politics.animals:11785
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:59:23 GMT

In <C1H6yo.2y0@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:

>In article <1993Jan26.030225.10756@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:

>>Consideration for others.
>>
>  You see, that's what it all boils down to. That statement is the basis for
>practically all moralities.  But the question is what you mean by "others."
>Your "others" evidently includes all animals.  Mine could include only people.
>Some people include plants.  Some may even include rocks...

So what do we have so far?
- human rights
- animal rights
- mineral rights

Heck.  Why not.  Let's add it.
- vegetable rights

Let's just face it.  It's a morality thing.  Take a suitable philosophy
course and you'll see that there's no point in pretending to argue
using logic.

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
Newsgroups: can.general
From: karim@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Karim Younes)
Subject: Re: Canadian driving American-owned car in Canada -- illegal?
Keywords: stupid Canadian laws
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Montreal, Canada.
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:34:08 GMT

In <1993Jan24.201227.15499@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:

>I called Avis International to enquire how much a car rental would cost
>if I planned to rent from Seattle, Washington and drive to Vancouver,
>BC and back.  They informed me that Canada has some law stating that
>a Canadian citizen cannot drive an American-owned car in Canada.  Has
>anyone ever heard of this?  What is the rational for it?  Is there any
>way around it?

Yep. I had a problem like that many years ago, driving up from
California to Vancouver. When we went through the Canadian border
on our way to Vancouver, the guard didn't say anything. However,
a week later, we tried to cross the border back to the US side,
and spent a couple of interesting hours trying to explain to
the US border people how the hell we had been able to drive one
of their cars to Canada.

I don't think there is a way around it, unless you have two
passports :-)

-- 
Karim "Kouki" Younes                      Bell-Northern Research
karim@bnr.ca                              Montreal, Canada

Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:39:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.142223.20600@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <4078@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>>Rosemary Waigh (g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu) wrote:
>[...]
>>Maybe now you can explain why it's ok to painlessly kill vegatables for
>>food but it isn't ok to painlessly kill animals for food.  
>
>1.  I question whether it is possible to painlessly kill animals.
>2.  Animals are sentient.  They care whether they live or die.  To kill
>    them is to go against their wishes.  Killing non-human animals is wrong 
>    for the same reasons that killing human animals is wrong.

	Since you made no distinction, may we assume that you mean ALL
	animals?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:54:36 GMT

It always scares me when parties begin talking about doing away with a tax
like the GST and implementing a single tax or one geared to ability to pay.
Tell me why the GST is not based on ability-to-pay. If I can afford a new
car or whatever, am I not demonstrating ability-to-pay? What happens to new
investment? If it is shot down then we have fewer jobs and then we have
fewer tax payers down the road and the taxes for those still working go up
and they decide to leave and that causes taxes to go up further. I for one
would be one of those leaving and I provide the government with tax funds
every week of the year. Already I can pay less taxes if I move and the
marginal changes in tax rates are casuing me to think along those lines now
let alone with a more reprehensive tax coming from the liberals.
Xref: sparky can.general:6395 can.uucp:276 alt.bbs.lists:1766
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.uucp,alt.bbs.lists
Subject: Public Usenets BBSes
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 05:30:40 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Is it possible for someone to posta Public USEnet access BBS list for Canada?

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969, Redhill, Surrey, England, UK
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,mtl.general
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: Access denied?
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:26:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.185109.19103@IRO.UMontreal.CA> laviers@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Cocotte Minute) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.153913.4802@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>
>[lotsa good stuff coming from the american hat deleted]
>
>> A great deal of talk and debate (and action) in the 'English'
>> provinces about meeting the needs of the French-speaking members of
>> the population.  Just recently one of the big news items in Ontario
>> was the need for more French school space, and I believe the space
>> was alloted (I may be wrong, but the point remains).  Everything I
>
>       It's all a question of proportions... Ottawa, for example, which
>has always had a very big franco population, has never had a public franco
                                                              ^^^^^^
>school before 1979. When Francojeunesse school was founded, I went there for
>one year in 1980. The quality of French being taught was pitiful: the
>teachers even made serious grammar mistake in our report cards.
>I still don't know if there are any more public franco schools in
                                          ^^^^^^
>Ottawa, a part from that one.

What do you mean by "public" in this context?  In Ontario there are
_two_ publicly-funded school systems, usually called "public" (i.e.
non-denominational) and "separate" (i.e. Roman Catholic).  Since
most Franco-Ontarians are (nominally) Catholic, and this was even
more true in the past, I would expect that most French schools would be
in the separate school system, not the public system.

A French public school board was set up in the Ottawa region a few
years ago.  I hope they have more than one school to administer.
There are lots of Ottawa residents on the net.  Perhaps one of them
can give us an up-to-date account of the number of French schools
(public and "separate") in the region.
>
>My point is: Ontario (and I assume the other anglo provinces) has always
>been behind Quebec in it's treatement of lingual minorities.
>
Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: can.general
From: idallen@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca (Ian! D. Allen [CGL])
Subject: Re: Ottawa info wanted!
Reply-To: idallen@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca (Ian! D. Allen [CGL])
Organization: Computer Graphics Lab, University of Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:00:44 GMT

>I'm going to be in Ottawa February 5,6,7 znd I am hoping that there is 
>someone here who can tell me if there are any concerts, benefits, 
>hockey games, or other noteable events going on during that time.

WinterLude (Bal-de-Neige) is Feb 5-14.  Skate on the canal; see ice
and snow sculptures, listen to music, make music, etc.
-- 
-IAN! (Ian! D. Allen)  idallen@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca  [129.97.140.64]
 Computer Graphics Lab/University of Waterloo/Ontario/Canada (519)888-4534
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: greg@organia.sce.carleton.ca (Greg Franks)
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Organization: Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University.
	<1993Jan25.123205.21600@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<1993Jan27.231328.1656@galaxy.gov.bc.ca>
	<1993Jan28.134456.9675@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:33:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.134456.9675@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
   I'm in Ontario where the NDP has jumped whole hog onto the
   gambling bandwagon...gambling being the most regressive form
   of taxation of all.

   I have yet to see where the federal NDP say it is going to
   get $20 billion dollars to replace the GST, or the additional
   billions of dollars to pay for its spending and make work projects.

   Gerald

Plan A: They'll tax the life out of corporations, thats how.

OOPS -- the Federal Torys have done a good job of getting rid of those
already, so I guess the NDP will have to come up with a new scheme.

--
Greg Franks, (613) 788-5726               | "The reason that God was able to
Systems Engineering, Carleton University, | create the world in seven days is
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1S 5B6.         | that he didn't have to worry about 
greg@sce.carleton.ca  ...!cunews!sce!greg | the installed base" -- Enzo Torresi
Xref: sparky can.general:6426 ont.general:2455
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:14:03 EST
From: bob burge <BURGER@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.general,ont.general
Subject: Re: Charles J. Givens Seminar

In article <93027.115803BOYDJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Jeff Boyd
<BOYDJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> says:
>
>I've listened to a few of the "bait" lines on his TV ads, and I'm not
>interested.  The information is superficial, questionable, and easily
>found elsewhere without having to pay for it.
>
>If you want reckless financial advice, just go to your bank.  They'll
>give it to you free of charge.

Jeff -- Is not this *exactly* what Queen's is looking for? Come on...they
have got to figure out how to pay for the Queen's East-Campus - or the
Queen's Castle!!!  Don't you think we should all take the course and then
lend our expertise to the administration?

(BTW: The UofA should take lessons from Queen's!)
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: HUNTING DOG WANTED
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:11:57 GMT
Followup-To: can.general
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Steve Franklin (franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca) wrote:
> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
> >How cruel.
> [ opening of a debate about animal rights ]

Steve:
There is no sense debating with Rosemary.  She just paints herself
into a moral corner and then starts setting the followup to
talk.politics.animals.   It's fun to watch but rather pointless.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: can.general
From: jbutt@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt)
Subject: Re: submitting federal tax returns via modem
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:36:36 GMT


To all,

This idea of email tax returns has been done in the U.S. with much success. Maybe we should try to do it here in Canada.

As for getting you refund back quicker.... Don't wait until the deadline, do it as soon as you get your t4's ands stuff. All should be in your hot little hands by feb 28 (that's the law) File immediately and you should get your cheque back in time for easter vacation.

( I got this info from a friend of mine who works at the Revenue Canada Processing office in St. John's Nfld)

And really, to the most dedicated of hackers, is there really a "secure" line??

Probably not.


-- 
 |----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Jonathan D. Butt             | "You dont need to be a Rocket Surgeon to   |
 | jbutt@garfield.cs.mun.ca     |  figure that one out !"  - Don Cherry      |
 | jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca         |                                            |   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,mtl.general
From: wcsswag@alfred.carleton.ca (The Charlatan)
Subject: Re: Vancouver area weather
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:26:49 GMT




 In an Ottawa Citizen article, they Ottawa spend on the order of 15
million(CDN) a year.Nepean about 4.5 million(Kanata,etc similiar).  
The region of Ottawa-Carleton about 10 million(estimate). So roughly a
least$30-35 million trucking "public" snow. For those not in the Ottawa
area, snow is not left on the side of the road. After a few days it is
collected and dumped in "snow dumps" around the area. You dump private
snow though for a fee.:-)

Contributing snow-info
alex

P.S. What are those pole on the hydrants really for?:-)







Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:02:25 GMT

In article <C1F748.Ezv@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.142223.20600@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>2.  Animals are sentient.  They care whether they live or die.  To kill
>>    them is to go against their wishes.  Killing non-human animals is wrong 
>>    for the same reasons that killing human animals is wrong.
>
>  And what is that reason?

Because it fails to take their interests into account.
>
>>A question for you:  do you think it is ok to painlessly kill humans?
>
>  No.  I start with the principle that it is wrong to kill people.  What
>principle do you start with.

Consideration for others.

>  Also -- do you really think animals are conscious?

I think they are conscious enough to notice they are being injured or killed,
and object to it.
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
 "You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is
  concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity." - Emerson
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada