HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:13:53 GMT

In article <C0CwMr.68D@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec31.210444.19909@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp>> I feel that among the criterion for rights should be the ability to 
gp>> morally distinquish actions. 
>
rl>Would you please explain how the goodness or badness of an action 
rl>is determined by the ability of the victim to make moral 
rl>distinctions, rather than by his ability to suffer the consequences
rl>of our action?  
>

I did not make that claim here.  I stated that animals cannot have rights
because they do not fit the criterion to possess them, as I see it.
BTW, I just love the way you slip in words like "victim" and "misuse".


>It seems clear that the ability of an individual to make 
>decisions ought to figure in our willingness to let him/her make his 
>own decisions, but I see no reason to believe that an individual's just 
>deserts as a moral patient are predetermined by his own intellectual 
>abilities.  

Gosh!  Is this a statement?  Were's the question?  Are you really Russell?
>

gp>> To go from one person to the next, determining if this person
gp>> meets this criterion or not is unjust.  To say humans have the ability to
gp>> do this, hence all humans have this right is. 
>
rl>Justice implies "fair treatment".

Yes, it does.

rl>  Is it truly fair to base our 
rl>treatment of other individuals, not on their abilities, but on 
rl>their membership in a class? 
>
Reread the first statement in this threat.  Does it mention membership in
a class?  Or does it mention *ABILITY* to make moral distinctions?

BTW, Russ old buddy, its been almost three months since I requested info
on the alleged cat shooting experiments.

                                  As Always,
                                   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: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:15:21 GMT

In <C0KuyM.BKp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Perhaps your values are determined by convention, but I make an
>effort to base my values on my observations of facts.  

I'm glad you're softening; now you only make an effort to use facts.

>To repeat
>my prior example, if you were to ask me why torture is wrong, I
>would point at the pain and suffering of the victim and not at 
>social conventions.

And what facts tell you that inflicting pain and suffering is bad.
The golden rule is a social convention, after all.

And you've already admitted that pain is not always bad. These particular
'facts' make dentists evil and childbirth bad. What facts do you use
to decide how much pain justifies how much benefit?

You need a better example.

Werner
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:44:45 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <C0G62G.9I8@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>In <C0EnLC.Hyn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>>I can't speak for other AR activists, but I prefer to base my judgments
>>of "good" and "bad" on the facts and arguments, rather than appealing to
>>conventions.  To give you an example, I'd say that torture is wrong
>>because it hurts... not because it violates a law.
>
>Giving birth hurts too, but surely you wouldn't say that it is wrong.
>Sometimes pain is acceptable, sometimes it's not. 

What is weird is when I decide that your pain is acceptable
for my benefit.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:20:14 GMT

From article <1993Jan5.050150.1685@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C0Cypv.6qF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>From article <1993Jan4.184046.7595@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>>> In article <C05A0w.3vB@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>>In order to analyze a problem critically, I need to understand the
>>>>underlying assumptions.   In a previous posting, you stated that
>>>>it's wrong to torture a human, not because torture is thoroughly
>>>>unpleasant, but because humans have rights.
>>> 
> gp>> You then misunderstand my meaning.  I will be happy to discuss the issue
> gp>> as soon as you provide the "alleged" cat shooting experiment ref.( as per
> gp>> our deal)
>>
>>Suit yourself.  James Hoskins posed the original query, and he's the
>>one who introduced your ideas into the discussion.  Not me.
>>
> James said nothing about my statemnts on the ethics of torture.  Don't
> attempt to shift the blame were it does not belong.  You typed in the
> above statement, you introduced the idea of "torture".

One more point.  I didn't beat down your doors in the middle of 
the night and force you to proclaim your circular argument that 
torture is wrong because torture is wrong.  You volunteered that 
argument, presumably in the hope that it would convince us that 
you've truly got an intellectual grip on the fundamental basis of 
"rights".  To the contrary, you succeeded in raising a lot of 
doubts.  Those doubts won't go away without addressing them 
directly, no matter how many times you wave your arms around, or
scream obscenities [as you did in a previous posting], or point your 
fingers at other issue.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw 
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:21:29 GMT


In <1993Jan12.061843.14038@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

>I say man relies on animals because man tends to be lazy.

If by 'lazy' you mean 'efficient', I'd say that was a virtue.

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: "... man tends to be lazy"
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw 
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:17:32 GMT

I changed the subject line because this topic has nothing to do with the
inanity of the Otto being......


attribution lost along the way, so somebody said:
>>>I would say that humans are dependent upon animals as a reliable food
>>>source (ie. they do provide us with necessary matter/vitamins/etc.) and
>>>that as a hunter prefers to kill their own meat instead of paying someone
>>>else to do it then hunting is ethical based upon your criteria above.

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>I say man relies on animals because man tends to be lazy.

William John M. Christie writes:
>Please clarify what you are implying here, I don't wish to put words into
>your mouth.  

Just what it says.  Man relies on animals because man tends to be lazy.
Run an experiment for a month.  Try not to use any animal products.

>I don't think that employing another species to provide your
>species with a food source is indicative of laziness.

I do.  What is the motivation for murdering animals for food when non-animal
alternatives are available?  

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:58:33 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

>According to your understanding of the facts of this case, why didn't
>Alex notify authorities at the first moment (ie., his first day on the job)
>he observed the substandard and unlawful conditions?

Perhaps because this would have one single result: he loses his job, and 
thereby loses any chance of getting the conditions for the monkeys improved.

The "authorities" are hardly going to act based on undocumented claims
made by an employee who lasted exactly one day on the job. 

This seems almost to obvious to be worth saying.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Deer Population Control Mechanisms
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:39:03 GMT

In article <RIGG.93Jan12080332@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <72z502xZ31s101@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>
>
>    Looking at how prey herd sizes are regulated in nature (i.e. where
>   no human intervention has occurred) I can think of 3 primary
>   mechanisms that might apply: 
>
>   1. Killings by predators.

Maybe someone out there is knowledgeable about the evolution of modern day
deer. My guess is that they (and we) have evolved in parellel, and that we
have preyed on them for most of their existence as a species. Presently we
are the main predator.

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:23:04 GMT

From article <mhulsey-110193164303@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <1993Jan10.011625.26956@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
> (Paul Roberts) wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> You might be confusing supporters of animal "rights" with supporters of
> animal welfare.  There is a *big* difference.

Why don't you clarify the difference by defining the term "animal 
rights" for us?  I've been skeptical of your use of this term, 
ever since you tried to tell us that Hitler was a big animal 
rights advocate, presumably because he was opposed to surgical
experiments conducted on animals without anesthesia.

> Your point and mine are not mutually exclusive.  Even if the animal
> "rights" movement has gained some support, many more have been convinced
> that it is an anathema to humankind.  You folks shouldn't claim supporters
> that you don't have.
> 
> I have seen no evidence that animal "rights" activists constitute more than
> a pitiful minority of the population in the U.S.
> 
> In my home town, _Bambiphilus obnoxious_ is, thankfully, near extinction. 
> A few were spotted recently at a local vegetarian restaurant, but there was
> a reluctance by officials to exterminate a baited field.

We could better judge the importance of your hometown as a bellwether of 
global opinion if you could tell us where it  stood on such issues
as abolition and women's suffrage.   

Right in the forefront of the debate, were they?  And where does 
your hometown stand nowadays with respect to the contemporary 
conflicts involving racial and gender bias and religious freedom?  

> Prominent ecologists suggest that _B. obnoxious_ can be controlled
> biologically without toxic bambicides through the introduction of
> _Advocatus welfarii var. reasonablis_, a variety of animal lover less
> threatening to humankind.

Keep up the derisive name-calling, Martin.  Perhaps you'll 
impress some of the undecided people who're still trying to make 
up their minds.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick)
Subject: analogy: hunting and sex [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 23:53:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.170206.29823@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
(mary.rita.otto) writes:
|> In article <1iaid3INNjkd@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
|> >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.
|> 
|> You certainly have an interesting sense of the ethical.  If I may take your
|> ethical example, and summarize it, I would say that it states, in short,
|> that hunting is not ethical since it is enjoyable and not necessary for
|> survival.
|> 
|> Using that same ethical evaluation, sexual intercourse for any purpose
|> other than reproduction (a survival chore) is unethical since it is
|> enjoyable and not necessary for survival.
|> 
|> Using that same ethical evaluation, drinking beer is unethical since
|> it is enjoyable and not necessary for survival.

this is ridiculuous.

(1) hunting causes an animal to suffer as a direct result of it bringing
enjoyment to the hunter.  if there were no suffering, there would be no
enjoyment.  if you disagree, then why don't you leave your guns or bullets
or arrows at home? (**)

(2) Hunting is completely non-consensual.  Do animals willingly come up to
you and request being shot?  Or do they run away and try to hide from you?

please complete your analogy to sex since I can't figure out what you could
possibly be talking about.

-- Nick

(**) yes, yes, the folks who need to hunt in order to survive are chiming in
now.  There are two purposes for hunting: to survive, and for fun.  to the
extent that you hunt only for survival then I agree with Greg Sherwin: it is
OK with me (although its hard to imagine that in today's society there could
possibly be very many of you out there); but to the extent that you hunt for
fun then you are being unethical.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw 
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:06:33 GMT

In <1993Jan10.075610.28170@leland.Stanford.EDU> vanya@leland.Stanford.EDU (john tillinghast) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>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 and suffering of sentient beings (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.

Always involves the death/suffering of a _sentient_ being?  By my
reckoning only humans are sentient; some marine mammals (dolphins/whales)
and primates may approach sentience but the general public doesn't really
hunt them.  If you're going to base your (anti-hunting) argument on non-human
animal's supposed sentience then could you please illustrate/prove your basis?

I would say that humans are dependent upon animals as a reliable food
source (ie. they do provide us with necessary matter/vitamins/etc.) and
that as a hunter prefers to kill their own meat instead of paying someone
else to do it then hunting is ethical based upon your criteria above.

Will Christie

-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Date: Tue,  5 Jan 1993 15:41:12 -0500 
From: Ruthann Schmidt <rs57+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: GM & animal testing

Can someone send me (or post) the address/dept/person to where I may
send a letter to GM concerning the company's use of live animals in
testing? Thanx.

Ruth Ann
Pittsburgh, PA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Originator: mackenzi@ice.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 19:29:10 GMT


Greg Popken writes:

|> I believe that in order to have rights beings (not individuals) must be
|> capable of fully understanding those rights, and the concequences of their
|> actions.

I'm new to this newsgroup and I thought I'd just to expand a bit on this
current topic, starting with the above previously posted material.

Animals primarily use instinct - it governs their lives and "tells" them 
what to do to survive.  This is not so with humans (as much as many would
like to think).  The major difference between humans and animals is the
human's capacity for rational thought, ie. reasoning, rather than instinct.
We do not rely on instinct as much as we do on our reasoning (now don't go
and say we don't have any instincts - how to eat, breed, etc. are obviously
there but are not as critical as they are in animals), and we need this 
reasoning in order to survive.  

While with instinct there is no conscious choice of actions involved, with
reason there is.  Therefore there must be courses of action based on reason
that are geared to human survival, and these are known as ethics.  Rights
are simply inate properties that humans possess to allow them to use their
reason to survive.  In this way, a being that does not use reason does not
have rights.

Unfortunately many people assume that having not having a particular right
opens the door for automatic exploitation and slaughter.  If one accepts
the above concept of a right then the concept of ethics is also just as
important.  Ethics based on reason oppose irrational actions.  For example,
if one were to beat up a passing dog for no particular reason and then 
justify it by saying animals have no rights, well, clearly this violence is 
an irrational act and is not what ethics and rights are all about.  However,
using animals for food and for valid medical research is not irrational.
These acts are rational courses of action for human survival.

Paul

P.S. Sorry if I got too philosophical.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: Blair.Haworth@launchpad.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:02:09 GMT

In article <HUTTAR.93Jan9045315@hp750.itg.ti.com> huttar@hp750.itg.ti.com (Lars Huttar) writes:
>In article <1ilg9a$ctd@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>> [........]
>> Probably would, come to think of it.  Christ, what a fucking maroon.
>
>What have you got against maroons, man?
>
>For those of you who don't want to unwittingly sound racist or offensive
>(doubtless Curtis Yarvin would rather be fully aware of his offensiveness),
>the word "maroon" is often used to refer to tribes in the Caribbean or
>South America, formed by and descended from slaves (generally African or
>Indian) who escaped from plantations.  Many of these tribes are still
>around today, with strong (if hybridized) traditions.
>
>I don't think Mr. Yarvin meant it this way.  I have no idea what he meant.
>
>I just don't want readers to start wandering around saying "what a fucking
>maroon" without knowing what it might sound like to the hearer.

Too late; they already are.  Mr. Yarvin was being literary, or as literary
as things get on USENET.  Practically anyone between the ages of twenty
and forty who grew up watching Saturday morning American teevee has this
usage ("maroon" = "yokel", "clod", etc.) irrevocably graven on their
brains by incessant exposure to Bugs Bunny.  God knows where the writers
dredged it up from; probably from juvenile pirate stories they read when
_they_ were kids.  Too bad, since the Maroons did kick ass in their prime
and have maintained a culture for four centuries; they saved Sir Francis
Drake's bacon at least once.  They probably didn't do it by thinking they
could sentimentalize their way out of the food web, either, which I think
is what Mr. Yarvin is getting at.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre,rec.humor,rec.pets.birds,alt.sex
From: bcollins@utdallas.edu (ARLIN B COLLINS)
Subject: Re: Turkey sex 
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:50:19 GMT

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??

-- 
 Arlin B Collins    Fri 08 Jan   Sun   Civil  Naut   Astro
 bcollins@utdallas.edu   rise:  07:31  07:04  06:34  06:04
 lat N32.9 long W096.9    set:  17:38  18:05  18:35  19:05
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals