HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:03:41 GMT

From article <mhulsey-090193161507@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C0I8E0.IqM@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>> From article <mhulsey-070193090629@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>> > In article <C0EJD4.Gtw@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Did you notice the quotation marks around the phrase, "animal rights"
>> >> philosophy in the passage above?
>> > 
>> > Yes.  If you had done your homework, you would realize that Singer objects
>> > to the term animal "rights" being applied to him with or without quotes.
>> 
>> Proof?   
> 
> You are the one who claimed that Singer supported animal "rights."

Not exactly.  I made the following statement, which you misinterpreted:

========================================================================
I'd be happy to answer your question after you've defined the term "animal
rights" with sufficient precision that we can compare the "animal rights"
philosophy espoused by Singer or Regan with the "animal rights" philosophy
that was espoused by the nazis.
========================================================================

Incidently, let me remind you that you never did bother to define 
the term "animal rights".  I'll add this question to the list of 
"unanswered questions" that I post from time to time in response 
to your list of unanswered questions.  

> Rather
> than offering evidence to prove your claim, you now attempt to shift the
> burden of proof to me.  I did you the courtesy of providing a reference, by
> Singer, that you could use to determine Singer's true position on animal
> "rights," yet you chose to ignore it.

If memory serves, Singer didn't write the article that you cited.  Would
you mind providing the author's source for Singer's alleged statements?

I suspect you'll find that Singer would object to the term "human
rights" to the same degree that he would object to the term "animal
rights".   However, this kind of objection involves a philosophical
fine point, rather than the political issues.

> I am very weary of your tactics, and I will be reluctant to engage you in
> the future.
> 
> You will, no doubt, claim that I am evading your questions, but consider
> the possibility that I consider you a "waste of time" or "uninteresting." 
> After all, it is impossible for you to determine my "inner motives."

Suit yourself.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:31:30 GMT

In article <C0H0AD.9py@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> Was there a particular claim that you doubted?  

Yes, the claim that the "cat-shooting" experiment was worthless or
unnecessary.  Likewise for the "beagle-drowning" experiment.

> I provided the full text of a reference just the other day, Martin.

Yeah.  You said that the delay was due to your time constraints in
"keyboarding" the materials.  Months later, you provide an article that you
say was reposted from your TPA archive.  What gives?

>When
> do you think you'll get around to posting some references, apart from
> Taub's own claims published in an opinionated newsletter, to support your 
> claims in the Silver Spring Monkey business?

What you call "Taub's own claims published in an opinionated newsletter"
referenced verifiable court testimony.  Your source, a newspaper article,
gave no references for verification.  Do you seriously believe that your
reference is more credible than mine?

I have just received additional info.  I will post excerpts as soon as I
can "keyboard" them.   Using your guideline, that should be no longer than
three months.
 
> Incidently, I'm also waiting for answers to my questions concerning your
> claims re: the nazis.

As soon as I hear from associates who are translating the German text, I or
they will post the results.

We've waited patiently for three months for you to post a single
"keyboarded" reference that was, in fact, reposted from your archive.  You
have no grounds to be impatient with me. 
 
>[...]
> Your statement didn't make sense, Martin.  If you believe that the
> "government" is at fault for limitations in the AWA, perhaps you'll
> be willing to tell us whether the various anti-AR organizations that
> you support are in favor of having military research subject to the
> same requirements that presently apply to research funded by HHS.

Or perhaps I won't.  I've told you previously that I have no obligation to
defend any "anti-AR" organization.

BTW, you agreed in a previous post that military research was worthy of
secrecy to protect national security.  Have you changed your mind?

>[...]
> > Did the PI in the cat-shooting experiemnt make altruistic claims about
> > his/her objectives?
> 
> Yes.

What were they?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:17:08 GMT

Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>The objective is to eliminate unnecessary suffering.  Just as people should
>not to be free to kill other people, so they should not be free to kill other
>animals.

	Interesting.  Personally, I figure killing Hitler, Dahmer, and a
few others would be filed under "civic improvement."  You seem to disagree.
Even moreso, think on this: I hunt with a .50, and I usually hunt small
game such as rabbit and squirrel.  I don't just shoot them, I vaporize
body parts.  I find this to be quite rewarding as I'm using all of my
skill as a hunter to get a clean head-shot, and the animal is certainly
dead before any sensory perception can take place.  Even if I miss my
mark, death is certain and quick (I've only rarely missed completely).

	Based on your stated purpose above, I must be doing quite well.
But tell me, why do you concentrate so much on hunting when there are
loads of other causes for suffering?  Medical care, aid to starving
people and animals, that death scourge of cancer, AIDS, and the
automobile?  Let's not forget stairs and swimming pools, killing more
each than handguns last I read the stats.  Something amiss here.

< 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 >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick)
Subject: sentience [was Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)]
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 06:56:03 GMT

In article <C0oEAy.BAB@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie) writes:
|>    [quote of article claiming animals are sentient]
|> 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?

Your reckoning is out of date.  From the american heritage dictionary:

  sentience -- adj. (1) having sense perception, conscious; (2) experiencing
  feeling or sensation. n. (1) a sentient person or thing; (2) a mind

It seems clear that a dog falls outside your set of sentient beings, so I'll use it
as an example.  Seems pretty clear to me that it satisfies all parts of this
definition.  Dog's notice the world around them.  The remember who its owner it,
and many people around them.  Many dogs know their name.  Dogs get depressed,
excited, irritable, defensive.   This is all obvious and I assert you lying if you
say otherwise: you know it is obvious as well.

So the only tricky part might be the stuff about consciousness and the mind.  It
seems clear that any sensible theory of consciousness will not have souls that
belong only to human bodies, so we can stick with modern theories of mind.  I think
it is the case that even the most most vocal critics of modern cognitive science
(John Searle, Hubert Dreyfus, Roger Penrose, for example) wouldn't for minute claim
that animals aren't conscious.

Or do you mean something else by "sentient"?

|> I would say that humans are dependent upon animals as a reliable food
|> source (ie. they do provide us with necessary matter/vitamins/etc.)

a vegan diet provides perfectly adequate nutrition.

-- Nick

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:06:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.192739.27311@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.183323.24130@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Ro
>bert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec30.233605.20882@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.
>acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>>>In article <C03BxC.H6w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>3)  As I understand what Alex of PETA did, he went into Taub's lab and
>>>worked there for four months.  His court testimony indicates his belief
>>>that from day one he observed monkeys living in substandard and unlawful
>>>conditions.
>>
>>Some clarification is needed here.  It's not correct to say that Alex
>>Pacheco believed from day one that the monkeys were living in "unlawful"
>>conditions.  Initially Pacheco did not believe that laws were being
>>broken.  Several months later he discovered that a Maryland statute
>>against cruelty was meant to include animal experimenters.  Until then
>>he believed that the treatment of the monkeys was unethical - but not
>>covered under any statute and therefore not unlawful.

[...]

>I still have problems with the ethics of Alex's actions.  He permitted,
>apparently, the monkeys to suffer under unethical conditions for four
>months.  (I realize this interpretation is open to question; important
>here is Alex's perception)

He explains how difficult the decision was for him in the book
_In_Defense_Of_ Animals_ edited by Regan and Singer.  He was
elated when he discovered two months into the period that the law
would apply.  Also, in small ways he did what he could to relieve
the suffering without arousing suspicion.

>Anyway, there's a larger issue here than why he didn't notify authorities.
>According to Russell, this Taub monkey business has become something of a
>cause celebre and served to clean-up the acts of numerous animal research
>laboratories during the past 10 years.  In your opinion, Bob, was the
>unnecessary and unethical suffering of the monkeys during this four month
>period, their individual suffering, worth it given the net result?

I'm not sure.  Peter Gerone, head of Delta Regional Primate Center,
implied yes in the statement posted by Russell.  And Gerone is
pro-research anti-PETA.

>Also, I asked Russell whether he would have permitted this monkey
>research given proper treatment of the research subjects.  Were the
>goals of the research, I assume mitigation of human suffering, worth
>the sacrifice of these animals.  He answered "Perhaps."  What's your
>esteemed opinion?

Based on what I've read, probably not.  The NIH, which funded the
research, apparently felt the same way.  
--- 
Robert Black
black@serum.kodak.com - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.  
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers. 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:27:52 GMT

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 acceptable
is determined by convention.

Werner
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:51:36 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <mhulsey-060193102102@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>
>                     Pacheco obtained employment in Taub's
>laboratory under false pretenses.  In other words, he lied.  

Naughty naughty Alex. This was an undercover investigation, Martin.
Yes, that involves not telling the person you are investigating
what your motives are. What is so bad about that? How do you feel
about the police doing undercover investigations to counter crime?
Do you condemn them for "lying" too? Or are you just looking around
for things to accuse Pacheco of?

>
>Furthermore, the fact that escapes you and others is that Taub was
>completely exhonorated of all cruelty charges in this matter. 

So you keep saying, but it isn't true. He got off on a technicality.
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:26:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1icqm0INN8ke@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.170206.29823@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>>Mr. Sherwin,  (no sarcasm, just differentiation from Mr. Popken, aka Greg, too)

>>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.

>Nope - that hunting is to kill animals out of a sense of fun and pleasure
>as opposed to a means of survival makes it barbaric.  I think there is some

How many hunters do you know that kill while foaming at the mouth and then
just let the animal lay to rot?   Every hunter that I know enjoys hunting
but, also enjoys taking home several months supply of meat.  To hunt in the
manner you describe would mean running from animal to animal, killing each
for the sake of killing alone.  Either you don't know much about hunting and
hunters or I certainly wouldn't like to hunt with those that you must be 
referring to.

>truth to the idea to "take only what you need from this earth", and by
>putting slugs in animals brains because it has something to do with
>having fun and appreciating the great outdoors as opposed to feeding your
>family perverts humanity's place within nature.  Maybe you don't think
>that killing a moose or a rhino to put its head on your wall is a waste,
>but I do.  Fact is that we as humans are animals just the same - and when
>we kill not out of survival, we are acting not as if we exist within
>nature, but above it.  That this world was created solely for the amusement
>of humans.  But you see - that is a fallacy.  If we pollute and turn the
>planet into a charred mud ball, we have to live in that crap.  It goes
>full circle.

Let me wipe my tears first.  Sad view and not without merit.  However, I
think you will find that hunters, on the whole are among the most concerned
about the survival of wildlife and the environment.  You obviously are
speaking of a select few "slob" hunters or are speaking of a preconceived
image that you have of hunters.  Either are not an accurate portrayal of 
the majority of hunters from my experiences.


>greg


Mike Linan
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 8 Jan 93 03:45:29 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1993Jan7.160704.1546@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, 
jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

> Short of trial transcripts (!) where can I find an account of the Taub/
> Alex monkey business.
 
Ingrid Newkirks's book about the ALF in the US (I think it's called Free The 
Animals, but I'm at work and it's at home so I'm not sure) has a chapter 
about this episode. It's by no means an exhaustive account, and obviously 
it's not from a very neutral source, but it has a few tidbits. In fact, I was 
surprised to learn that this episode was the genesis for the US ALF, or at 
least for one portion of it.  
 
Anyway, I've really enjoyed the book so far; it's quite exciting. You seem to 
be interested in better understanding the mentality of AR advocates, so I 
think you'd appreciate the insights it offers on that score. 
 
 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:27:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.183323.24130@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Ro
bert Black (x37236)) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.233605.20882@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>>In article <C03BxC.H6w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>3)  As I understand what Alex of PETA did, he went into Taub's lab and
>>worked there for four months.  His court testimony indicates his belief
>>that from day one he observed monkeys living in substandard and unlawful
>>conditions.
>
>Some clarification is needed here.  It's not correct to say that Alex
>Pacheco believed from day one that the monkeys were living in "unlawful"
>conditions.  Initially Pacheco did not believe that laws were being
>broken.  Several months later he discovered that a Maryland statute
>against cruelty was meant to include animal experimenters.  Until then
>he believed that the treatment of the monkeys was unethical - but not
>covered under any statute and therefore not unlawful.
>
>[...]
>
>>...  Thus, presumably and evidently Alex allowed the monkeys to suffer
>>under unlawful conditions during his tenure at the lab.
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>See above.
>
>>a)  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?
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>See above.
>---
>Robert Black
>black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
>These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.


Thanks for the clarification Bob.

I still have problems with the ethics of Alex's actions.  He permitted,
apparently, the monkeys to suffer under unethical conditions for four
months.  (I realize this interpretation is open to question; important
here is Alex's perception)

Anyway, there's a larger issue here than why he didn't notify authorities.
According to Russell, this Taub monkey business has become something of a
cause celebre and served to clean-up the acts of numerous animal research
laboratories during the past 10 years.  In your opinion, Bob, was the
unnecessary and unethical suffering of the monkeys during this four month
period, their individual suffering, worth it given the net result?


Also, I asked Russell whether he would have permitted this monkey
research given proper treatment of the research subjects.  Were the
goals of the research, I assume mitigation of human suffering, worth
the sacrifice of these animals.  He answered "Perhaps."  What's your
esteemed opinion?




:
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Cat Court Case
Date: 12 Jan 93 05:43:40 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan11.234656.10690@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>
>I would like you to read the facts of the following legal case
>involving a dispute over the ownership of a cat and reply to
>me by email with a one-word answer of whom you find for--the woman
>or the man in the story.  

Really, one would need the wisdom of Soloman to come up with a
solution to this. Well, maybe not ....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:48:05 GMT

In article <mhulsey-070193091416@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.215136.11377@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
>(Paul Roberts) wrote:

[...]

>The opinion also detailed the chronological development of the Maryland
>anti-cruelty statute.  Contrary to Pacheco's assertion, there was no change
>in section 59 during his tenure in Taub's lab that would make animal
>researchers subject to this law.  The version of section 59 in effect at
>that time was instituted in 1975.

Pacheco didn't assert that the law had just been changed.  He said he
just *learned* that the law had been changed previously.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10946 alt.peeves:18938
From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 12 Jan 1993 00:55:16 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1ilg9a$ctd@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
> [inane stuff suited for alt.gooley deleted for lack of amusement]
>c

Yeah - whatever.
Breathe through your nose, not your mouth - it might fool someone.

greg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals