HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:04:52 GMT

vanya@leland.Stanford.EDU (john tillinghast) summs it up:


>Jesus Mary, are you really this thick or do you just like to shoot at straw men when the animals are shy?
>The essential fact that you seem to need to have explicitly stated (and everybody else here got past
>long ago) is that hunting *always* involves the death

	Not if I miss, which is rare but could happen.

> and suffering of sentient beings

	Not if my aim is true.  I mostly hunt small game, and I use a .50;
they don't feel a thing.

> (often ones on
>which other beings are dependent) so that some kind of excuse is necessary for it to be considered
>ethical. This is why Sherwin points out that it is not necessary for survival and this is why the
>other hunters here are actively defending what they do instead of mindlessly repeating the same irrelevant
>theme ad nauseam.

	On the other hand, you conveniently ignore that hunting, and the
killing therein, is not considered unethical by hunters simply because we
recognize that we are not only the top of the food chain but also that death
and pain itself are just as much a portion of nature as birth and joy.  We
hunters see no reason killing something, and eating or otherwise utilizing
it, is any less ethical than exploiting land to grow crops.

	Furthermore, hunters never attempt to force somebody else to
eat meat.  Frankly, we don't care what you eat.  It's only the anti-hunters
that appear to have this goal in mind.

< 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.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:26:47 GMT

From article <mhulsey-120193102651@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> PETA and its supporters falsely suggest that the Appeals Court's decision
> to overturn Taub's conviction was based on a technicality that did not
> address the charges against Taub.  In fact, the Opinion noted the potential
> for Taub's work to benefit the victims of stroke.

Would you mind explaining how the potential of Taub's work was relevant
to the facts that had supported the original charge?   You seem to be
incapable of grasping the possibility that a given body of research may
have potential and be cruel.  

Was the case overturned because:

   a) the original evidence was called into question; or
   b) the appeals court ruled that Maryland state laws do not 
      apply to federally funded animal experiments.  

      [answer: b]

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10820 talk.bizarre:43930
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Turkey sex
Date: Thu,  7 Jan 93 18:59:14 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Ferrell S. Wheeler informs:
> Obscenely, the males are "milked" of 
> their semen by phallus manipulating teams

i have no joke here; i just like saying "phallus manipulating teams"
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant |  inceptus clamor frustratur hiantes             |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:24:04 GMT

This is really interesting stuff.  You guys have stimulated a great deal of
thought on this issue.  I have followed your exchanges with great interest.

I must say that I have yet to see anything that would refute my original
claim.

Rich has done an admirable job of defending my thesis; it was and is far
better than I could have done myself.  He need not be concerned with
"misstating my position."  It is by now *our* position.

IMO, the example of the "altruistic" dog that Bob gave long ago is atypical
of the species.  He cannot refute an assertion about *species* by citing
atypical examples of individual behavior.  I have seen no more
counterexamples, but I could have missed them.

If Bob can find an example of a species that sacrifices itself to promote
the survival of another species, as animal activists suggests that we
humans do, it will no doubt be an example from the fossil record.  In other
words, an extinct species.

So, let us continue on our merry, speciesist, way, and (hopefully) survive.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10964 talk.bizarre:44417 rec.humor:37857 alt.sex:41790
From: rybicki@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre,rec.humor,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Turkey sex 
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:57:51 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <C0K1zv.3so@utdallas.edu>, bcollins@utdallas.edu (ARLIN B COLLINS) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.211014.26797@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>>In article <C0HpFz.1A4@panix.com> stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller) writes:
>>>I would just like to point out, on behalf of mammels everywhere, that
>>>turkeys do not, repeat DO NOT have phalli.  No Turkey Dicks, period.
>>>Cloaca, that's it.
>>>
>>you mean coca-cloaca?
>   Is this the kind that *comes* in liters??

No.  It just smells of fish. 
 _________________________________________________________________________
|                                 |                                       |
|  Ed Rybicki                     |    Now you've got the hang of it      |
|  Dept Microbiology              | There's nothing you can't do with it  |
|  University of Cape Town        |         If you're very into it        |
|  PB Rondebosch 7700             |         You can't go wrong....        |
|  South Africa                   |                                       |
|  fax 27 21 650 4023             |              - Mad John               |
|  ed@micro.uct.ac.za             | (Ogden's Nut-Gone Flake, Small Faces) |
|_________________________________|_______________________________________|
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Date: 10 Jan 93 01:02:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan9.182813.4751@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:

>Russell, rights carry with them certain responsibilities.  Animals are
>incapable of accepting these responsibilities.  Furthermore animals are
>incapable of making a distiction between morally correct and incorrect
>behavior.  Therefore the are incapable of possesing rights.
>

This doesn't follow. Small children and the insane are incapable
of accepting responsibilities. But they do possess rights. Therefore,
the fact that members of certain group are incapable of accepting
responsibilities does not imply that they are incapable of
possessing rights.

'bout time we had a FAQ for this sort of thing ....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:26:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <C0H0I3.I68@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
In <1ifgchINNngm@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
writes:
>>>>To justify killing [animals] out of recreation is to justify any 
>>>>serial murderer who gets off on watching people die.  
>
>Applying this to meat-eating would indicate you also believe:
>
>"To justify killing animals to eat their meat is to justify killing
>people to eat their meat."
>
>If you apply logic consistently, you either consider cannibalism OK or
>hunting for food unethical. That someone assumed the latter was giving you
>the benefit of the doubt.
>
>But now you tell us hunting for food _is_ justified. Then, unless you
>really are a cannibal, you must believe (just like everyone else) that
>human life is more important (to us) than other animal life.  A lot
>more important.  So what's with the preposterous serial murderer line?

Personally, as someone who just dropped into this discussion, I'd take it
that he's backpedalling furiously from an insupportable and absurd position.

Now, I don't hunt but I can't help but feel that somebody who spends so
much of his time and energy trying to restrict the pleasurable pursuits of
others is suffering from frustration, probably of the sexual variety...

Mister Sherwin...can I call you Gregory?...get a life and stay out of
other peoples' business.

    don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control
 a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not
 crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which
 our government was founded." - Abraham Lincoln
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10894 talk.bizarre:44224
From: smorris@tweedledum.ucsb.edu (Stephen Morris)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Turkey sex
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:07:01 GMT
Reply-To: smorris@tweedledum.ucsb.edu (Stephen Morris)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Distribution: world, rec, usa, na

>
>>Modern turkeys are so heavy and misshapen they must be
>>artificially inseminated to reproduce.  Obscenely, the males
>>are "milked" of their semen by phallus manipulating teams who
>>stick it in the upside down turkey hen's vagina with a
>>hypodermic syringe or the operator's breath pressure blown
>>through a tube.  ...


Ummmm.  Actually, female turkeys can reproduce WITHOUT sex.  Look up
"parthenogenesis".

Female people can theoretically do this as well, since they have all the genes  
they need ... I, for one, hope they decide not to!









S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller)
Subject: Re: Turkey sex
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:39:47 GMT

In <1ihnaiINNp9e@pacific.cs.ubc.ca> jwu@cs.ubc.ca (Joseph Wu) writes:

>stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller) writes:

>:I would just like to point out, on behalf of mammels everywhere, that
>                                              ^^^^^^^
>:turkeys do not, repeat DO NOT have phalli.  No Turkey Dicks, period.
>:Cloaca, that's it.

>I take it then, that "mammels" are "Famous Rock Stars" who know 
>that there are "No Turkey Dicks, period." 8)


Yes, as opposed to "mammals," who will rip your frikking legalistic
proper spelling dick off!
-- 

__________________________________________________________
Steve Miller				stcmille@panix.com
		A Famous Rock Star!
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 10 Jan 93 01:16:25 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <mhulsey-090193153805@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>
>I would suggest that the antics that people associate (perhaps unfairly)
>with the animal "rights" movement (bombings, arson, vandalism, etc.) has
>had a negative effect on animal welfare, because many people have become
>polarized against the idea.
>

I would suggest that you are mistaken. I don't believe that any
significant number of people do associate these things with the
AR movement, despite the best efforts of a few individuals to
promote the idea.

Many people have become polarised against the idea? Seems to be
that by any conceivable measure, the Animal Rights movement has
gained tremedously in strength and numbers over the last decade,
say.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:04:12 GMT
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms

In article <viking.726303379@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>Obviously if we could marry only people with whom we agreed on everything, no
>>one would ever get married.  But to me it is important to agree on the big
>>issues, which for me include but are not limited to animal rights, atheism,
>>feminism, masculinism, ...
>
>	That's a lot of ism's to agree upon.  Are they worth your marriage,
>or can you agree to disagree on some of these things?
>
Since in Canada one can only marry one person at a time, and I would rather
not go through a divorce, I was quite picky about who I married.

This is way off topic by now, though, isn't it?

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: News Blurbs 9
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 23:03:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.172215.5050@super.org> wheeler@super.org
(Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>+ Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania made known his
>contempt for animal rights activists and environmentalists at
>a recent year-end news conference.  His reason -- abortion.
>Casey was discussing his strong feelings against the abortion
>issue and his belief the government should protect the
>powerless.  When asked why that conviction did not extend to
>the pigeon shoot issue, Casey angrily responded, "I'm up to
>here with the ones that want to protect snail darters and the
>spotted owl ... because these same people, these
>environmentalists ... a lot of them, are a million miles an
>hour in favor of abortion on demand."  Opponents to
>Pennsylvania's pigeon shoots pledged to continue their battle
>to ban the shoots.

Personally, I see people who want to ban either abortion or hunting
as idiots.  There are enough REAL problems to work on...

>+ A man was mauled when he climbed into a pen housing three
>bears at a Pakistani zoo.  After entering the moat, he
>challenged the bears to a fight.  The man was rescued by
>zookeepers and taken to a hospital.

Sounds rather like he lost.  Will there be a rematch?

   don
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Date: 5 Jan 1993 15:47:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1iaid3INNjkd@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.221422.26200@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>>Nonsense.  Hunting is a means to put food on my table economically and I
>>don't consider that a sport.
>
>Okay - then if this is the true purpose of hunting for you, then I have no
>complaint.  I think that is a perfectly valid reason.  However, you made no
>claims to some sort of "heritage" nor are you doing it for recreational
>purposes - which I think is true of a good majority of hunters I know.
>That is the sport - the reason for many magazines, for gun sales in sporting
>goods stores (eg. Sportmart), etc. - and the reason I don't find hunting ethical
>for the most part.  By using hunting for a means of sustenance, you
>are an exception to that.
>
>greg

Maybe you just can't relate to the "heritage" of hunting.  Just because one
enjoys hunting doesn't mean it isn't a necessity for putting food on the 
table.  Many farmers LOVE what they do and wouldn't change lifestyles for
anything but, they live and die by the sweat of their brow.  The fact is 
that most of America's did not live in cities as little as 150 years ago
and they hunted and farmed to feed themselves.  That is the "heritage" of
America.  Fewer than 100 years ago venison was commonly found on the menus
of most restaurants.  That most people live in cities now does not magically
change our "heritage".

Mike Linan
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Date: 9 Jan 1993 05:56:43 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <picou.726527129@trojan> picou@convex.com (Michael Picou) writes:
>I write:
>>Oh, bravo, Tim.  Your succinct affirmation of United States justice
>>strikes fear into the hearts of hunters everywhere.
>
>I take it you are the type of person who shoots at sounds in the brush....

Sheesh.  What an excitable collection of gits.  I reacted to what I
interpretted as a pretty tired and predictible "Hunters belong in
jail" article.  I came to find out that Tim isn't a beast apologist,
he simply didn't supply any context in his article.  He subsequently
provided context, and I consider the issue taken care of.

andy
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
 by those who have not got it."
                                -- George Bernard Shaw
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:08:55 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <mhulsey-090193170716@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>
>If Bob can find an example of a species that sacrifices itself to promote
>the survival of another species, as animal activists suggests that we
>humans do, it will no doubt be an example from the fossil record.  In other
>words, an extinct species.

Do you mean that not doing painful experiments on animals would
amount to humans "sacrificing themselves" for those animals?

This seems a bit like justifying mugging by saying ``I'll never
be rich if I sacrifice my financial well-being to that of some
stranger on the street''.

Animals activists don't suggest that we "sacrifice ourselves"
for animals, they suggest that we treat them with respect and
not cruelly exploit them.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:40:10 GMT

From article <viking.726828617@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>>The statistic that stuck in my mind was this: they set up the deer
>>by a stretch of road, and 18% of the drivers that went by took a
>>shot at the deer from their vehicles (which is a massive no-no).
> 
> 	I strongly doubt 18% of the vehicles in that state have
> firearms in them!  Something smells bogus here to me.

Have you ever visited Louisiana?  [Obviously not].

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: gleason@scf16.scf.loral.com (Robert Gleason)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre,rec.humor,rec.pets.birds,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Turkey sex
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:51:58 GMT
	<1993Jan8.211014.26797@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> <C0K1zv.3so@utdallas.edu>
Organization: Loral Space and Range Systems, Sunnyvale, CA


-   In article <1993Jan8.211014.26797@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
-  >In article <C0HpFz.1A4@panix.com> stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller) writes:
-  >>I would just like to point out, on behalf of mammels everywhere, that
-  >>turkeys do not, repeat DO NOT have phalli.  No Turkey Dicks, period.
-  >>Cloaca, that's it.
-  >>
-  >you mean coca-cloaca?
-    Is this the kind that *comes* in liters??

Oh, so *that's* what egg nog is? (and why there is so much around the holidays)

[Man. This is getting really sick ]-)


Robert.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: why is hunting ethical? [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:17:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.233302.6434@beaver.cs.washington.edu> nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.031347.22120@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff
>Achenbach) writes:
>|>    Although I call [hunting] recreation (fresh air, exercise, and not absolutely 

Jeff's eloquent statement about hunting deleted for brevity.

>That you enjoy your hobby does not make it ethical.  Suppose I told you that my
Nick,

You missed the point that Mr. Sherwin was making.  He said that hunting
was unethical because it was a) recreational and b) not necessary for
survival.  Therefore, Jeff's point was that hunting could be both fun
and ethical.  Actually, you make a wonderful supporting case for my
argument against Mr. Sherwin by stating that the fun value of some
activity actually has no bearing on whether that activity is ethical
or not.  Therefore, the fact that hunting can be quite enjoyable does
not in itself make it unethical.

My examples of sex and beer drinking were drawn to show that the
ethical standard Mr. Sherwin was using seemed flawed -- such
activities are a)recreational and b) not necessary for survival (the
example for sex limited the discussion to other than reproductive
purposes.  Further, there are small numbers of people who do feel
that the consumption of beer and non-reproductive sex *are* unethical;
thus, these examples were a litmus test in that sense as well.
It could have been the case that Mr. Sherwin truly did object to
all things a) recreational and b) non-essential for survival.  Since
by his own admission that is not the case (at least he was clear
about that for beer drinking) then I feel he needs to make a stronger
case for his labeling of hunting as unethical -- since under the
same ethical standard beer drinking is ethical in Sherwin's opinion.


[examples of wanton violence deleted]

>(PS: yes, I am comparing hunting to cock fights: animal suffering for primarily
>recreational purposes.)

This effort to bring in cock fighting for comparison sheds no light on why
you believe hunting to be unethical.  It shows that you believe it to be
one member of a set of things you find to be unethical, but it does not
provide a rationale for the ethical evaluation.  Perhaps you can explain
exactly what ethic you feel hunting violates for us.  Perhaps you can
explain why hunting should be considered "unethical" rather than something
you find personally distasteful.  Currently, you have said absolutely
nothing to convince me that hunting should be considered unethical.
Would you care to try and convince me?

Mary Otto



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves