HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:15:26 GMT

From article <1993Jan22.165819.5717@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>In article <C185pq.KIt@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>   It's an irrelevant question, Rich.  As the WorldWatch paper observed,
>>   it takes as much water to supply the average american with meat,
>>   milk, and eggs as the average american typically uses at home 
>>   (roughly 380 liters per day).
>
>So what?  According to your numbers it takes twice that much to keep
>the average american (living in California anyway) in clothes and
>fruit and vegetables.

Which one of these "single use categories" [your terminology] is
indispensable?    "livestock agriculture" or "non-livestock 
agriculture" ?

>>   It seems rather obvious that cutting
>>   back on one's intake of meat, eggs, and cheese, would provide 
>>   quite a savings vis-a-vis environmental costs.
>
>It seems to ME that a nearly equivalent benefit could be realized
>in drought-striken California by cutting back on lawns, fountains,
>and swimming pools.

Proof?   

>>   As an alternative,
>>   would you have us cut back on "non-livestock agriculture"?
>
>I never said this.  I merely pointed out that livestock-based
>agriculture is not the largest consumer of water in California.
>
>Frankly, I think growing cotton, lettuce, and oranges (not to
>mention grass, fountains, and swimming pools) in the middle of
>a desert is incredibly stupid, and would rather see such crops
>grown elsewhere.

I noticed that you didn't mention dairy cows, Rich.  Why not?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 21 Jan 93 06:06:56 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

(Russell Lawrence) writes:
> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
>> (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():

>>>> You're confusing scientific observables with sociological concepts.
>>>> The former are independent of conventional thought, the latter defined
>>>> by it.
>> 
>>>Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with "good"
>>>decision-making, and those decisions can, and should, be based on 
>>>observable facts, rather than superstitious opinions.  
>> 
>> Yea, yea, I've heard it dozens of times. Just once, name some
>> observable facts that make inflicting pain (your favorite)
>> wrong.

[standby for evasive maneouver...]

>As I explained, I'd be happy to demonstrate the principle on you
>if you have doubts.  In doing so, you'd be able to experience the
>facts first-hand. [...]

>Yes, I would be able to convince you that you don't like it.  And
>your dislike of the experience is the "fact", so to speak, that would
>oblige me to question the ethical goodness or badness of your 
>torture.  

Fact is, I don't like turnips either...

> If there were a consensus favoring torture, it could hardly
>make your suffering go away, 

No, it would just make it ethical. Aren't you listening?

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:34:08 GMT

In article <C18K7y.DrE@vcd.hp.com> dmunroe@vcd.hp.com (Dave Munroe) writes:
>achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>
>>Now this could be interesting. I had a girlfriend once who claimed too much 
>>coffee caused a bitter taste in certain bodily fluids which I am far too 
>>refined to mention.
>
>Uh-huh.  You certainly wouldn't want to give the whole net the impression
>she tasted cum.
>
>Good thing you didn't mention it.
>
>-Dave

Is this the voice of experience?

Jeff
From: booninvail@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: I was born to eat meat.
Date: 28 Jan 93 10:04:33 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1k81g1INN2gm@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.180537.2142@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
> booninvail@guvax.acc.georgetown writes:

I'm confused.  First you wrote:
 
>>> I was born to eat meat and so were you.  Take a look at your own 
>>> dentistry!  These nice sharp "canine" teeth I have are just great for
>>> ripping the tasty flesh of my animal meal.  

I replied that
 
>>.  you are making an inference 
>>from what something was designed to do in its early evolutionary 
>>history to what it can best be used for now.

To this observation, you reply:

> Yes, that is true.

But you omitted what I said right after this, namely that such 
inferences are unjustified.  The conditions under which humans attempt 
to nourish themselves now are fundamentally different from those under 
which they attempted to nourish themselves when such teeth were 
selected for.  So the fact (if it is a fact) that such teeth had 
survival value because they made meat-eating easier back then doesn't 
say anything about whether eating meat now has positive survival 
value.  (If our distant ancestors had had salad bars, we might have 
fewer sharp teeth today.)  So when you admit that this is the 
inference you were making, are you admitting that you were making 
an unjustified inference, and if not, why is it justified?    

-- David

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:16:34 GMT

ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>Are you unbiased because you directly or indirectly require that
>animals be made to suffer unspeakably (& killed) just so that you can
> eat their muscle tissue?

	There is a good chance, Alka, that I harvested the soybeans, corn,
and/or wheat that you ate today.  The pheasants were run over or sucked into
the guts of the combine, the deer were killed by the sickle blades of the
bean head as it rolled over the field while they lay, motionless, hoping
to escape predation by hiding.  Doesn't work on a John Deere.  Now then,
do you suddenly feel remorse at eating that tofu, or are you somehow
morally superior because you can point at Banta?

	Go ahead, tell me your worst -- I'm ready.  I raised it, I ate it.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroups: det.misc,ou.general,talk.politics.animals
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:39:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>when there's a dying man on the other side of the road, you really don't care
>>if the light is red or not: you cross the road!
>
>We're not talking about infractions of minor local legal codes  here.  These
>people attempted to murder someone.  A bomb planted on one of the cars did
>not go off when planned.  The researcher drive the car for five days before
>the bomb fell off and detonated.  

     Who are "these people"? Don't judge the ethics of many by the
actions of a few. I'm pro-choice, but I recognize that the women's
clinic bombers are not representative of the pro-lifers.

     Whoever was responsible for this act was not truly in favor of
animal rights. For, since humans are undoubtedly animals, animal
rights surely include human rights.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
                     Keep your values off my family.
      "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
      We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
      -- Jeremy S. Anderson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:43:10 GMT

From article <C16x9H.Kws@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
>>Once again, you seem to be ignoring the underlying facts, such as
>>the bruises and lacerations of the rape victim.  
> 
> I have no problem with this simple step of logic: inflicting
> pain is evil, therefore rape is evil. It's the underlying
> reason for the _premise_ that you are evading.

My premise is that pain is not good, unless it happens to be the
lesser of two evils.  To illustrate the exception, if you were to
place your hand against a red-hot stove, pain would be a wonderful
phenomenon, because it would cause you to move your hand before it's
cooked.   On the other hand, if I were to force your hand against
a red-hot stove and hold it there against your will, your pain
would not be good.

>>> You keep asking your opponents to provide reasons for your arguments.
>>> Why don't you give us your reasons for considering it wrong.
> 
>>Sure, Werner.  For starters, I'll point to the suffering of the
>>victim.  
> 
> Starters? You've been saying this for weeks.  Again and again. Sure
> it's wrong to cause suffering. I want to hear your facts and reasons
> for _why_ it's wrong to cause suffering.

Suffering is a fact, Werner.  Not a conclusion.   As I pointed out
previously, I'll be happy to torture you whenever it suits your
convenience, and thereby give you an opportunity to examine the
facts firsthand.   After a few precious minutes, I'm sure you'll
change your tune.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:38:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <lmc0pnINNq0p@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking) writes:
>In article <C19zGG.99u@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>[ on soybeans being complete, amino acid-wise ]

>>still, I think we can see that your claim is false.
>>                     mg/100 grams
>>                   Medium    Boiled
>>                  Hamburger Soybeans
>>Tryptophan          284        242
>>Threonine           965        723
>>Isoleucine          987        807
>>Leucine            1845       1355
>>Lysine              538       1108
>>Phenylalanine       873        869
>>Tyrosine            718        630
>>Valine             1116        831
>>Methionine          538        224

>Taking your numbers as accurate (I had a Bio professor at Sierra
>College in Sacramento jokingly conjecture the soybeans were boiled
>in chicken broth), you still need to put away 600 grams of boiled
>soybeans to get the 1500 mg of Methionine/day that's recommended for
>adults. (Ref. National Research Council, "Recommended daily
>allowances" 1986, page 44)

>I'll gladly boil you up 17 oz. of soybeans if you'll eat them in one
>sitting.

>Or, cutting to the chase: No.  It isn't the same 4 grams of protein
>from beef as it is from soy.  Although your miracle soy above is
>closer than I expected.

>andy

I don't claim to be all that knowledgeable in nutrition but, I do recall
that up until the early 70s the bodybuilders used protein made
from soybeans.  More advanced protein supplements were introduced which
were supposed to be far more easily *assimilated* derived from milk and
eggs or beef.  From what I understand the egg is one of, if not the most
easily assimilate "complete" protein foods and animal proteins are far 
more easily assimilated than vegetable proteins.  If that is correct, then
I would imagine your soybeans could have amino acid level as high as the
moon and still be an inferior food than those of animal products.


Mike Linan
From: romingk@alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Books review- "Free the Animals" By Ingrid Newkirk
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:28:07 GMT
Reply-To: romingk@alleg.edu
Organization: Allegheny College

In article <1993Jan25.145803.26460@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka  
Chandna) writes:
> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
> 
> >I can not believe this.  Spare us you glorification of the "dedicated"
> >activist.  They are terrorist!  Nothing more than common criminals.  I
> >view your glowing accounts of this activity as irresponsible and an
> >unethical.
> 
> Believe it, Greg.  And if you don't want to read my "glorifications" of  
the
> ALF, put me on your kill file, but don't tell me what to think.  I  
define
> "terrorism" in a slightly different manner than you do.  You see, I  
think 
> that animal experimenters are terrorists, nothing more than the sort of
> people that set their dog on fire or put their cat in the microwave oven  
to
> see what will happen .. except they get published & paid for doing that.
> Our ethics are very different.  I wasn't brought up to think of animals  
as
> being some lesser form of life.  I wasn't made to believe that humans  
have 
> souls while animals don't.  It is part of the way that I was brought up,  
and
> indeed, part of my cultural heritage to INCLUDE ANIMALS IN MY MORAL  
UNIVERSE.
> Viewing animals as "things", as means to *our* ends is, in my opinion, 
> morally bankrupt, and certainly unethical.  Promoting that viewpoint in  
the 
> manner that you do, I believe, is most irresponsible.
> 
> alka

Thats right alka in your opinion.  Well I think abortion is morally  
bankrupt, but do you see me raiding clinics and freeing fetuses to go live  
in the wild?  No. (mainly because fetuses like lab animals don't live in  
the wild)  Thats right you are morally bankrupt, because you try and force  
your morals upon me and society.  Fine eat veggies.  I like V8, but don't  
stop me from eating meat.  Especially 16 oz. medium rare NY strips done  
over charcoal fire, and served with corn, potatoes, and green peas.  Yum  
Yum.  Stop by I'll cook one up for ya.

Karl 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: I was born to eat meat.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:21:26 GMT

From article <viking.728206831@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
> In <C1H4p9.1x6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> Alex Pace writes:
>>Orangs and gorillas also have canine teeth?  Were they "born" to
>>eat meat?
> 
> 	They do.  Not incredibly often, but they do.  

So do sheep.  Were they "born" to eat meat?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Date: 24 Jan 93 14:16:42 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <1993Jan21.071145.13602@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>=> Go out to your garden.  Pull up one pound of carrots.  Take it to your
>>=> dinner table.  How many pounds of carrots do you have?  Probably one 
>>=> pound,
>>=> unless you threw most of it away peeling it.

>Contents may have settled during Shipping writes:
>>I have .9 pound of carrot flesh, and .1 pound of carrot top that I
>>discard.

>Try using the tops as garnishes or mixed in a toss salad.  Works well.  
>Another
>option is to put it into a compost bin for use as fertilizer.

>>=> Go out to your pasture.  Get a 1000 lb cow.  Take it to your dinner table.
>>=> How many pounds of beef do you have?  

Gee, if you're going to allow fertilizer into the equation, you better
make another trip to the pasture.

Werner
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:27:28 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <C1BvHz.JpK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>In the final analysis, 
>it seems to me that the same kind of self-centered thinking 
>that's often used to justify fur trapping, hunting, animal 
>research, etc, has caused the loss of more man-years than animal 
>research has saved.  

This could be said about almost any activity in the affluent west.  If
the effort spent on various obscure projects, medical or otherwise,
with animals or without, including your effort at uncovering medical
fraud, and especially Peta's effort at saving bambi, were spent
directly at improving the lot of the 3rd world we would undoubtedly
save more man-years. This is true of most of the expensive medical
treatments too. For the price of sustaining one dialysis user, I
suspect we could save many in Somalia. Face it, we are self-centred,
but with respect to other humans, vegans are no less so than
carnivores.  How many hungry (people) could be fed with the resources
that went into saving Taub's monkeys?

Werner
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11610 rec.food.veg:12523
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:34:22 GMT

In <C16G3p.5nw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Someone's misinformed.

	Indeed.

>From World Watch Paper #103, "Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the
>Environment", by Alan Durning and Holly Brough:

	Grep for "Flavin" in your worldwatch index, and read his paper
on Chernobyl.  Then compare his description with what is possible as
described in any decent physics textbook.  WWI is not considered as
a reputable publisher, and in fact is no better a source than the N.Y.
Times or other daily newspapers, where facts aren't always verified due
to time constraints.  You might also read the book "Ecotopia."  It's
about as possible, and factual, as the stuff WWI pumps out.

	And please, don't ask me to refute Flavin line-by-line.  I
did that for a soc class three years ago, and am only now recovering
from the trauma of having to read him.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:52:25 GMT

From article <1jplgr$46d@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
> In article <C188qs.Ks6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>You're right.  I didn't have time, but I do plan to read some of
>>your articles in the future.   In particular, I'm looking forward to
>>your publication of "Why I'm Still a Virgin" and "How to Avoid Social 
>>Entanglements".   Let me know when they're scheduled to appear. 
> 
> They're probably scheduled to appear about the same time you publish
> your aritcles "How to be a pompous childish brat" or "The many joys of
> being a child molesting pervert".  

In that case, we'll be waiting a long time.  I have no plans to 
publish such titles, but at this very moment I am seriously
thinking about an article called, "Hypocrite".   It's about a guy
whose personal judgments are determined by his political affiliations
rather than his application of consistent values and principles.

> I can't help but, mention how boring
> and ludicrous many posts have become on this group, especially yours 
> Lawrence. 

Perhaps you should be reading the posts published by Mr. Banta, instead.
He's the guy who instigated the thread that you've partially quoted above
by posting gems like the following:

     "My rule of thumb is this:  If I can't fuck it and reproduce, 
      it's a potential food source..."

     "No, a baboon's life is to eat, fuck, and die.  Fini."

Are such comments meaningful to you when they're posted by someone
who shares your political position?

> Am I the only one who notices that almost nobody here is
> convinced of anything by the oppositions claims and demands.  There is
> next to nothing to learn unless you want to learn how to "debate" like
> deceitful child who pretends to be intelligent.  How many people have 
> actually had their minds changed by a hunter?  How about a AR?  Very 
> few if any that I have seen.  Round and round we go, nowhere!  

Do you have any constructive plans for improving the quality of the
newsgroup?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Russell's lie
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:03:12 GMT

In article <C1FFnH.EnJ@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Don't you think it's dishonest for an organization to circulate
>the original article without circulating the retraction?
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


If they did this while they were unaware of the retraction it would
be dishonest.

Were they aware of the retraction when they circulated the article?





:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:21:02 GMT

From article <viking.727601662@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
> In <C16G3p.5nw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>Someone's misinformed.
> 
> 	Indeed.
> 
>>From World Watch Paper #103, "Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the
>>Environment", by Alan Durning and Holly Brough:
> 
> 	Grep for "Flavin" in your worldwatch index, and read his paper
> on Chernobyl.  Then compare his description with what is possible as
> described in any decent physics textbook...

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.   Is there some connection
between Flavin's account of Chernobyl and the findings of a 
joint Japanese/American study on the sources of greenhouse gas,
as reported by the authors of the WorldWatch paper?

> WWI is not considered as
> a reputable publisher, 

Yes they are.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:40:16 GMT

From article <C1I852.G4F@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca:
> In <C1FCw8.Dwq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>If it could be demonstrated that:
> 
>>1) animals are mindless automata, as Descartes claimed, and hence,
>>   devoid of thoughts and feelings; and
>>2) animal fats promote health, rather than disease; and
>>3) animal agriculture helps the environment;
> 
>>then, I'd be happy to eat steaks and hamburgers and chickens all
>>day long.   However, there's a substantial body of evidence to 
>>demonstrate that:
> 
> Obviously, but you didn't disagree with my claim that concern about
> animal welfare is both necessary and sufficient to be vegan.

Why should I agree with such a claim?  Most cardiologists could 
introduce you to patients who don't eat meat and dairy products 
because of health concerns.  And it's not too difficult to find 
environmentalists who abstain from meat and dairy products 
because of the impact that animal agriculture has on natural 
resources and the environment.  All three reasons are important, 
and any one of them may prompt a switch to veganism.  

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