HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: coneill@polarbear.rankin-inlet.nt.ca (Chris O'Neill)
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 00:58:45 CST
Organization: Polar Bear Heaven BBS - Rankin Inlet, NWT

> ObCanadian:  Hudson's Bay Company no longer sells fur! :-)  (If they can
>              stop selling fur, why can't Eaton's?)

They did???  That's news to me!  I bought a beautiful red fox pelt from the
Northern just before Christmas.  I chose it over a white fox, and two other red
fox pelts that were on open display right in the middle of the store.  They
were next to the rabbit pelts (domestically raised, probably) that's often used
for trim on hand-sewn parkas, mitts, mukluks, etc.

I realize that you undoubtedly find the above situation disgusting.  Fine by
me... that's your right.  Hopefully, you'll respect my right to disagree.  (But
I doubt it!)

Chris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris O'Neill, System Operator           | "I typed it right...  It's the
Polar Bear Heaven BBS, Rankin Inlet, NWT | !@#$@^ computer that turned it
coneill@polarbear.rankin-inlet.nt.ca     | backwards!"       - Anonymous


Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:30:10 GMT

In article <C1F7Kq.Lxr@math.uwaterloo.ca> rbutterw@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth [MFCF]) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.142223.20600@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>2.  Animals are sentient.  They care whether they live or die.
>
>Is that true?  I know many animals fear and avoid pain,
>but are any actually aware of or in fear of death itself?
>
>
>>    To kill
>>    them is to go against their wishes.  Killing non-human animals is wrong 
>>    for the same reasons that killing human animals is wrong.
>
>Does this apply to all animals?  I think Einstein said something like
>"I gave up gardening after I realized I was cutting worms in two."

Worms aren't, strictly speaking, animals.  (I don't recall offhand
which phylum worms are in - my last bio. course was in grade 9, which
was, whew, a LONG time ago!  Early '80s, for sure!)

I'm not trying to be TOO picky - I'm sure that Rosemary discriminates
between phylae too.

>So, do you refuse to eat any vegetables that might have been grown
>in soil that might contain worms?  If so you must be a big supporter
>of hydroponics and other chemical-intensive gardening methods.
>
>We all have some image of a hierarchy of life, and we all choose
>to draw the line somewhere.  Above it we don't consider killing and
>below it we allow killing for our own preservation or pleasure.
>
>You choose to draw the line a little lower than most people.

However, Rosemary seems to draw the line HIGHER than the insects.  Or
is it immoral to kill insects, Rosemary?  How about spiders?
Arachnae?  Does this have any implications for certain types of
"sea-food" that are from the same phylae as critters that are
conventionally called "bugs?"

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Xref: sparky can.general:6410 can.politics:11722 soc.culture.canada:10422
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:35:09 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa

In article <C1H78J.47A@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
>  I see your point, but it doesn't credit your argument to accuse me
>of lying with stats (I don't see any statistics in my argument).  As you
>admit, it is possible for a sales tax to be regresive.  I know what a 
>regressive tax is.  And I contend that, in general, a sales tax will consume
>a greater percentage of a poorer person's income.  In general, people
>with lower incomes spend a greater percentage of it in the marketplace, while
>people with higher incomes tend to invest and save more.  This means that 
>the poorer person is spending a greater portion of his/her income on 
>taxable goods and services.  And this, in turn, means that a greater
>percentage of the poorer person's income will be spent on taxes on
>these goods and services.  Obviously, the person with a greater
>income spends more in absolute terms on a GST.  But the person with a
>lower income spends more in relative terms -- a greater percentage.

However, this behaves very similarly to "trade surpluses."  Everybody
thinks that a trade surplus is a "good thing."  Unfortunately, a
perpetual trade surplus means that you're exporting goods, and NEVER
GETTING ANYTHING BACK.  In the long run, a trade surplus is really
quite silly.

A "wealthy person" may be able to DEFER payment of GST, but if they
defer it permanently, then it results from never spending the money,
and thus not actually getting any benefit from the money.

Money that never gets used is "useless."  If a "rich person" merely
saves/invests, and never purchases anything with those savings, then
he or she is NOT better off.
-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Xref: sparky can.general:6439 talk.politics.animals:11793
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Food chain (was Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted))
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:23:58 GMT

I will take the liberty of rearranging some text in the interests of
readability, rather than misrepresentation.

In <1993Jan27.145039.4451@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:

>In article <1993Jan27.050146.20438@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:

>>In the end, living things *compete*.  They compete for food, space,
>>water, air, and any other resource required for life.  Ultimately,
>>the question is:
>>     Do you wish to compete?  (i.e.: Do you wish to live?)

>Alvin, as I mentioned in another article I *do* realize that it is often
>impossible to avoid harming others.  But isn't this all the more reason
>to minimize the harm we do whenever we can?

Ok.  I can agree with this.  (Though I was once told, "Hell is filled
with people with good intentions.".  That's why I don't have any! :-)

>In the states, for each acre of forest cleared for parking lots, roads,
>houses, shopping centres, etc., *seven* are cleared for meat production
>(land for grazing or growing feed).  I don't have the stats for Canada,
>but I see little reason to suspect it's much different.  If everyone 
>became vegetarian, a great deal of this land could be returned to its 
>natural state.

Well, it's not like we're comparing meat against parking lots as sources
of food.  But, if I recall, someone (maybe you) said that if everyone
were to omit meat from their diets, then we'd require 1/7th the current
amount of land for the purposes of agriculture.  This sounds like a good
thing.

I actually wouldn't be upset if meat were outlawed.  Meat is simply
made convient in our society.  Notice that my stand softens when you
attack meat on environmental rather than moral grounds (because
there is no definitive measure for morality).

I think it is probably in the best interests of animal right activits
to at least *pretend* to be environmental activists.  I'm sure they
would receive much more sympathy if they would *concentrate* on arguing
in terms of something measurable.

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
Xref: sparky can.general:6342 soc.culture.canada:10266
From: coneill@polarbear.rankin-inlet.nt.ca (Chris O'Neill)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Vancouver area weather
Date: 23 Jan 93 06:44:10 GMT
Organization: Polar Bear Heaven BBS - Rankin Inlet, NWT

> For those not in the Ottawa area, snow is not left on the side of the
> road. After a few days it is collected and dumped in "snow dumps" around
> the area. You dump private snow though for a fee.:-)

Hmmm...  What a novel idea!  If they get bored, for lack of snow, send 'em up
here.  We've got LOTS of the stuff they can haul around, and we'll even keep
them busy into June!  ;-)

Chris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris O'Neill, System Operator           | "I typed it right...  It's the
Polar Bear Heaven BBS, Rankin Inlet, NWT | !@#$@^ computer that turned it
coneill@polarbear.rankin-inlet.nt.ca     | backwards!"       - Anonymous
Xref: sparky can.general:6405 ont.general:2453
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:58:03 EST
From: Jeff Boyd <BOYDJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.general,ont.general
Subject: Re: Charles J. Givens Seminar


I've listened to a few of the "bait" lines on his TV ads, and I'm not
interested.  The information is superficial, questionable, and easily
found elsewhere without having to pay for it.

If you want reckless financial advice, just go to your bank.  They'll
give it to you free of charge.


jeff

Newsgroups: can.general,ont.general,soc.culture.canada
From: charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy)
Subject: Re: 1993 income tax rates (combined federal/Ontario)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:25:52 GMT

lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:

>  In answer to the one you posed, yes I would like to see B.C. adopt the
>  automatic support (child) deductions practices of Ontario.  I do feel that
>  such practices are unfair for those NCPs (non-custodial parents) that DO pay
>  their support regularly and on time.  Unfortunately, the thousands of NCPs
>  in this country who are deliberately in default of child support orders,
>  *without just cause*, have created such a problem (and massive expense to
>  the taxpaying public) that blanket policies such as the automatic deductions
>  for child support payments may be the best option overall, at least until
>  someone comes up with a better idea...?


Just cause is a very open ended statement. This could easily become government
backed extortion of NCPs. I have no problem with the scenario if the NCP has
control over how the funds are used. If there is a dispute let the funds be
deposited to a trust account until the problems are dealt with. Ideally,
my family is really no business of yours or the government and am I glad my
wife shares this view. It seeems as though the popular belief of today is
that a family is the responsibility of the government and not those involved.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca

>Founder, P.E.R.C.S. (Parents for Enforcing Regular Child Support)
>Vancouver Island, B.C., Canada // Courtesy of the old coot hisse'f!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Jobagy
charles@cs.ualberta.ca
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:22:23 GMT

In article <4078@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>Rosemary Waigh (g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu) wrote:
[...]
>Maybe now you can explain why it's ok to painlessly kill vegatables for
>food but it isn't ok to painlessly kill animals for food.  

1.  I question whether it is possible to painlessly kill animals.
2.  Animals are sentient.  They care whether they live or die.  To kill
    them is to go against their wishes.  Killing non-human animals is wrong 
    for the same reasons that killing human animals is wrong.
    Plants, OTOH, do not care whether they live or die (yes, I have read
    _The_Secret_Life_of_Plants_ which alleges that plants can feel pain).

A question for you:  do you think it is ok to painlessly kill humans?
>
>: Because some of us are opposed to needless suffering and death, such as that
>: caused by humans hunting.
>
>But it isn't just hunting that your against.  Your position,  as I
>understand it,  is that ALL killing of animals is immoral, humans
                            ^ unnecessary
>hunting for food is the moral equivalent of humans slaughtering
>domestic animals for food.  Please be state clearly that this is your
>position so the new readers of the group understand where you are
>coming from.

I thought it was obvious that being opposed to needless suffering and death
includes being opposed to the slaughtering of domestic animals for food
(a practice which usually causes much more suffering than hunting).

ObCanadian:  Hudson's Bay Company no longer sells fur! :-)  (If they can
             stop selling fur, why can't Eaton's?)
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
 "You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is
  concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity." - Emerson
Xref: sparky can.general:6310 soc.culture.canada:10205
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Vancouver area weather
Date: 21 Jan 1993 19:57:42 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services, UBC, Canada
Distribution: can
NNTP-Posting-Host: swiss.ucs.ubc.ca

 Near the end of last year, some happy soul whose name has escaped
 me burbled about Vancouver having a "no snow, never cold" climate.
 Well, it hasn't quite worked out that way in January.  At the 
 moment, we are in the third day of thaw after a substantial
 snowfall had sat undisturbed for slightly over two weeks.  During
 those two weeks, we had next to no wind, and no precipitation.
 The snow just sat where it had been shoved to, and slowly turned
 to ice.
 
 So did the mixture of snow, water and ice on top of my pool cover.
 The Western way of dealing with a pool in Winter is to cover it
 over.  We can't drain, because the normally unfrozen ground water
 would just fill it from below.  You _can_ drain below the skimmer
 outlets, put bleach bottles in the skimmers and turn off the pump;
 but what we do is leave the level at normal and leave the pump
 running.  By the beginning of this week, just before the Rains
 Came, I was getting seriously worried about whether the plumbing
 was going to freeze anyway as the ground freezing deepened and
 the ice sheet on top of the cover thickened.  A power failure of
 anything other than momentary duration would certainly have
 caused serious trouble.  OK, I know some of you Easterners would
 just love to have such worries.
 
 We had not one, but two rows of icicles hanging outside the living
 room window.  We had, and to a substantial degree still have, a
 bank of shovelled snow 1.2 m high alongside the drive, 1.5 m
 down by the road where I have to fight the fight, familiar to many
 of you, with the city's attempts to plough up a ridge of ice across
 the drive.  There's so much ice in that 1.5 m that it's hardly
 begun to shrink.  It wasn't so much as dented by the second car
 to skid onto our lawn this month.
 
 Sidewalk clearing is almost unheard-of in North Vancouver district
 except in commercial areas, partly no doubt because we have no
 bylaw even theoretically obliging homeowners to do it. So we're
 continuing mostly to walk in the road, which is at least,
 blessedly, not subject to black ice every morning now that our
 seasonal temperatures of a few degrees plus have returned.
 
 Oh yes, the _first_ car to skid onto our lawn since New Year's.
 This was when the snow wasn't very thick yet, but the temperature
 was around -10 and had been for some time.  She ended up leaving
 four tire tracks that barely burned the grass on the rock-hard
 ground, as the skidded in a half-abeam attitude to the drive,
 where she astonishingly avoided all the available trees and rocks,
 not to mention the house, and ended up after further rotation
 pointed straight out to the street as though she'd been parked
 for the night.  Her nerves were noticeably jangled.
 
 Well, such is one perspective on the reality of this Winter in
 Lotusland.  So far.
Newsgroups: can.general
From: rnelson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Randy Nelson VE3WRN)
Subject: Re: submitting federal tax returns via modem
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:06:29 GMT

In article <1jpnhuINNm6d@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler ) writes:
>   I believe this is the second year for computer filing.  I also seem to
>recall hearing that people who filed by computer last year and requested
>automatic bank deposit of their refund were able to get it very fast.
>
>				     ---Steven Leffler
>
	I read through this thread with curiosity as I had hoped to gain more
specific info as to what companies offer this service and what program do
I run on my computer to generate the return. If anyone can help, PLEASE
BE SPECIFIC. I am not yelling, just catching your attention. :-)

Thanks,
Randy
:


-- 
Randy Nelson VE3WRN  Ontario Representative      rnelson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca
197A Cedarvale Cr.   Disability Information    ..uunet!watmath!watserv1!rnelson
WATERLOO, ON         Services of Canada.         rnelson@watserv1.waterloo.edu
N2L 4T3          (519)884-2989 (Voice and TDD)   VE3WRN @ VE3EUK.ON.CAN.NA
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: can.general
Distribution: world
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.10 Rev. Dec 15 1992
Subject: Re: Anti-Racist Rally in Vancouver
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:44:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In <20JAN199311145881@erich.triumf.ca> histlib@erich.triumf.ca 
(MARY OLIN) writes:

>This friday from 6 to 8 PM a rally will be held in front of the
>Vancouver Art Gallery, Georgia St. side. It's purpose is to counter a
>rally by the White Aryan Resistence, the group founded by Tom Mezger,
>consisting mostly of skinheads. They've recently been leafletting our
>high schools looking for recruits.

	Recently in a large city in Texas, a student group appearantly
organised a mass mooning of a Klan gathering. It would seem Vancouver
could do no less for such a distinguished organization as the White
Aryans. 
	Though of course they don't were those cute satin outfits.

-- 
		 John Henders
		 Vancouver,BC
Xref: sparky can.general:6484 talk.politics.animals:11887
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Food chain (was Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted))
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:27:15 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:

>In the states, for each acre of forest cleared for parking lots, roads,
>houses, shopping centres, etc., *seven* are cleared for meat production
>(land for grazing or growing feed).  I don't have the stats for Canada,
>but I see little reason to suspect it's much different.  If everyone 
>became vegetarian, a great deal of this land could be returned to its 
>natural state.

	Pay me two million and I'll keep mine in its natural state,
unless acid rain from the power plant kills the trees.  No takers?
Just what do you intend to do with this land, and what compensation is
offered?  The world runs on profit, not good looks.

>The industries which transform animal skins into wearable goods are also
>polluting and habitat destroying.

	Though less so than the industries that turned out the computer
you typed this on.  In addition, hides used to be tanned using the brains
of the animal killed, and many places use similar organic substances to
this very day.  Claiming a factory is habitat-destroying is no different
than admitting the home you occupy is habitat-destroying.  The only
question is, still, where you draw the line.

>Alvin, as I mentioned in another article I *do* realize that it is often
>impossible to avoid harming others.  But isn't this all the more reason
>to minimize the harm we do whenever we can?

	You might want to concentrate on the larger sources first, though.

< 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: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Food chain (was Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted))
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:37:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.063010.20602@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.040833.4696@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>So?  Some animals, like rabbits, are herbivores => veganism is natural.
>Unfortunately, this goes against the corresponding principle:
>Some animals, like eagles, are carnivores => carnivism (?sp) is also
>equally natural.

I never said carnivory was unnatural, I was merely responding to the other
poster's claim that veganism was going against nature, so we shouldn't do
it.  I don't base my ethical decisions on whether they are "natural" or not.
For example, a high infant mortality rate is "natural".  All medical treatment
is "unnatural".  Yet I would choose to provide medical treatment for those
who need it if at all possible.

>>Fortunately, humans can easily get all the proteins and other required
>>nutrients without consuming meat.
>Which makes vegetarianism a form of moral relativism, since it is only
>in a highly agriculturalized society that it is possible to attain
>such nutrients without consuming meat.

What I am saying is that since the people reading this article have the 
choice between veg(etari)anism and meat-eating, it is unethical for them
to eat meat.  Since you have this choice, if you eat meat you are causing
*avoidable* suffering and death!

>Or would you argue that at those times that it was NOT possible to
>live as a vegetarian due to the combination of:
>a) Lack of suitable vegetable proteins, and
>b) Lack of knowledge of nutrition,
>that it was immoral to eat meat THEN?  You set yourself up for the
>"kill", in that if vegetarian is NOT a form of moral relativism, that
>it is correspondingly moral to cause people to starve to death.

I would not fault someone for eating meat if the only alternative really
was death for themselves.  However, no one reading this article is in that
situation.

We can also come up with similar situations where it is necessary to kill
other people; however this does *not* mean it is okay to kill other people
in general.
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
 "You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is
  concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity." - Emerson
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals