HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:51:32 GMT

In article <5ptzr2#@rpi.edu>, John S. Van Etten writes:
jve> Since my definition of being is loosely "something which
jve> is alive," there is no real "status" being defined while basing a
jve> decision to kill something for food on whether or not it is indeed
jve> alive.  All beings are equal...

Would you kill and eat a human?   Or would you refrain from doing
so because of your respect for the human's thoughts and feelings?

jve> I will kill any of them for food.

Does a cow care if you kill it?  [yes]
Does a cabbage care if you kill it?  [probably not]

If the cow objects strenously to your actions while the cabbage 
couldn't care less, then the impact that your actions have 
on each of them would be vastly different regardless of your
mental feat in reducing both "cow" and "cabbage" to the level of 
something that you can stuff in your face, ie food.  

jve> If you want to say that I too am defining a status by saying that 
jve> things which are alive are superior to things which are not 
jve> alive, that is acceptable to me.  But I am not making any 
jve> *arbitrary* ranking among those which are alive, as you are.  

To be concerned about the thoughts and feelings of other beings is 
hardly an arbitrary consideration.

jve> In my opinion, sentience and sapience are valid (and there are many
jve> others, of course) criterion on which to base our "treatment" of any
jve> being.  

Name some others.

jve> They are, however, as Rich has expained to you ad nauseum,
jve> arbitrary for considerations of life and death...

Rich has claimed over and over again (ad nauseum) that such 
criteria are arbitrary, but the presumably-now-abandoned 
"explanation" that he offered up previously hinged on the 
non-existence of a sentient/sapient "cosmos".  If I may 
paraphrase, he said something to the effect that sentience and 
sapience are arbitrary ideas because the "cosmos" doesn't share 
them.  However, if the "arbitrariness" of any idea is measured by 
the non-existence of a "thinking cosmos", we'd be obliged to 
conclude that every idea is arbitrary... which flies in the
face of empiricism and reason.  Is that what you had in mind?  

jve> Please note that I consider "treatment" to
jve> be orthogonal to life and death decisions, so what I'm saying in
jve> essence is "Yes, if a being is sentient and sapient we should kill it
jve> in a humane manner and avoid needless suffering."  But it's life or
jve> death as such is no different than the life or death of a carrot or
jve> cabbage.

Is your life or death no different from the life or death of a 
carrot?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: an observation
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:48:17 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <Bw0wCK.4C9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>rl> Possibly.  And he may have written, "Do unto others as you would 
>rl> have them do unto you".  Unfortunately, there are many who would 
>rl> say that such consideration don't apply to our mammalian 
>rl> cousins, not to mention our more distant animal relatives.  

>From article <1992Oct12.071343.17276@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
>wc> What do you mean by possibly?  

>I don't know that these statements were truly written by a "god".  Would
>they be less admirable if they'd been drafted by a poor humble man
>without any divine connections whatsoever?

Although I believe he had divine connections Jesus of Nazareth was still a
porr and humble 'man' (at least). 

>wc> In Matthew 19:19 of the KJV Christ says: 'Honour thy father and  
>wc> thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' Are 
>wc> you going to accept the Christian Bible as a source of reference 
>wc> or not?  I am one of those who believes that that consideration 
>wc> generally does not extend to 'our mammalian cousins'.  Can you 
>wc> explain or prove to me that it should?  

>Can you explain or prove to me that a "god" truly said:  "Thou shalt
>not suffer a witch to live".   Such statements would seem cruel to 
>me, even if they were spoken by a "god".

I already have explained the aforementioned statement in previous postings
(different threads if that makes a difference to you) including the
context and definitions used.  As have many other people I might add.
You have still not answered my question.

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
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:38:53 GMT

In <Bw12rG.6Ao@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>Without referring to "cosmoses", collective lives, giraffes, etc,
>please explain how/why you consider sentience and sapience to be
>"arbitrary" criteria in determining the goodness or badness of
>actions involving other beings.

	In other words, limit myself to an anthropocentric view, as you do?
	No problem.  Without an explanation, a description, of that which
	constitutes "meaning", assignments of status based on these criteria,
	even WITHIN human society,  begin to be somewhat random, or
	"arbitrary."

	But, the whole point of the discussion, Russell, was to examine
	the relevance of human judgements from a non-anthropocentric point
	of view.  It was to evaluate whether there is some real basis, or
	whether it is simply human hubris, to say:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <altar.713493440@sfu.ca>:

>>Insects are not of the same status as birds, repitiles (sic), and mammals...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 	Sentience and sapience are no more important to other species than
	a variety of other characteristics.  Human use of them to make
	ethical judgements is arbitrary.  With this in mind, perhaps you'd
	care to address the following, without resorting to the same
	hackneyed, inadequate responses you've repeated for us in recent
	postings.

	   o  First, you need to define "meaning" for us, since you claim
		that "meaning" is necessary to make life worthy of human
		concern.  We need a definition so that we may apply this
		standard to all species and classify them accordingly by
		your values.

		So far, your arguments are rather like those against
		pornography: "I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I
		know it when I see it."

	   o  Second, you need to tell us which external entity gave you
		the right to make life and death judgements of other species
		based on your ill-defined "meaning" test.

	   o  Third, you need to tell us the source of your absolute deter-
		mination that it is "wrong" to kill sentient/sapient animals
		for food.

	   o  Fourth, if the determination of "right" versus "wrong" in this
		area of discussion originates from within the confines of
		your own mind, you need to explain to us why we should
		blindly accept your judgement as absolute, or be relegated
		to that slag heap of humanity you use for those who do not
		agree with you.

-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:23:17 GMT

jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:




`Scott Woods writes:

`Near the end of last week, Scott posted a response in which he "quoted" me
`as saying that hunters are murderers, etc.  I took exception to that response
`(and to this one), because

`  2) The lines he attributed to me were his own--poorly-paraphrased from
`     email correspondence between us.  

Oh come on now.  You sent me a mail message with those lines in it.  I
will have to hunt to see if a copy of such still exists.  I am not going to
get a quander over this, but the message was sent - by you.  If you don't 
have the 'testicular fortitude' to admit it, then that is your problem.

I do not usually practice in posting things from mail on news, but I needed
to make a point on that and I felt you had nothing to hide.  If you do, let
us know.  I am sure that might cast an interesting slant on our perception
of your views.


swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: To what end Pain?
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:08:18 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

Some of you have stated to me that you somehow pain is more than just
a nervous response mechanism.  I am interest in source materials that
would show this to be so.  Please refer me to some.  I have through my
University access to a good number of libraries and would be more
interested in reading on this subject.

Understand, I personally believe that even love is a learned emotion and
holds no more magic then we want to believe it does.  I stated in one of
my earlier posts that a computer model can be made to simulate pain response
and people flew off the handle claiming that pain was more than just a
trigger of a nerve sending a message to the brain to warn the organism of
danger.  I want proof.

swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:14:56 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> This reminds me of the crock about AR activists allegedly 
rl> throwing blood on women who wear fur coats.  Have there been any 
rl> arrests?  Any convictions? If not, it seems rather silly for 
rl> anyone to blame the threats and the blown-up mailbox on an 
rl> unknown group of animal rights "terrorists".  Why not blame Santa 
rl> Claus or the Easter Bunny instead?  Or perhaps we should blame 
rl> one of the many groups whose financial interests are threatened 
rl> by the growing debate over animal rights.  

From article <viking.718510832@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Do you honestly think hunters are going to go through this
ds> kind of trouble?  The service provided was a PR bonanza!  

Precisely.  Another one of those stunts that serves to misrepresent
the goals of the rights movement.  

ds> ... Threats and bombings are not the ways of hunters, or their 
ds> organizations.  

Perhaps.  They're not my ways, either.

ds> As for blowing up mailboxes, I wouldn't do that.  

Me neither.

ds> First, it's a federal offense, and I'm a law-abiding gun owner.  

Me too.

ds> Second, it's a cowardly thing to do.  

Positively.

ds> I prefer my confrontations to be face-to-face;

Me too.

ds> there is less danger to innocent bystanders this way, and I have no
ds> reason to hide my beliefs and opinions.

I agree.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:06:57 GMT

From article <1992Oct7.022801.5022@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
Mary Otto writes:
mo> Russell has also commented that hunting is supposed to be perceived as
mo> "manly" and "macho" and necessary to some men to foster development of
mo> lagging self-concepts.
mo>
mo> Russell, how does this apply to me?
mo>
mo> Seems like a pretty direct question to me.
mo> Russell's evasive answer:

If you reread my article carefully, you'll notice that it was a 
response to a post by Keith Boyd...  not Mary Otto.  It doesn't 
make much sense for you to pretend that the article was an 
evasive answer to whatever question you may have posed previously.  

Be that as it may, the answer to your question *was* in the post, as 
I'll explain below.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Here's my 09/30/92 response, from Message-ID: <BvFF67.8E3@wpg.com>:
rl> 
rl> =======================================================================
rl> I'm not saying that all hunters are drawn to the activity because 
rl> of wannabe "macho" cravings, but many of the hunters that I've 
rl> known over the years appeared to have that goal in mind.  It 
rl> seems to me that those individuals, as well as hunters as a 
rl> whole, would benefit greatly if the insecure guys would muster up 
rl> the courage to come to terms with whatever forces are driving 
rl> them emotionally.  I'm sure you'll agree with me that no amount 
rl> of bodybuilding, "manly" hunting, and "pervert" name-calling is 
rl> going to truly coverup a man's private fears.
rl> =======================================================================

mo> Russell, I, Mary Otto, am not a man.  (Just in case that was
mo> another thing you didn't "understand" I wanted to clear it up for you.)
mo> 
mo> So what does reposting the prose that prompted my question do in terms
mo> of answering that question?
mo>
mo> As you are so fond of saying, "You haven't answered my question."
mo> 
mo> Or is it true that I have found a hole in your logic?

Not really.  Read the following sentence very, very carefully and  
pay special attention to the expression, "I'm not saying", that appears
at the beginning:

"I'm not saying that all hunters are drawn to the activity 
because of wannabe "macho" cravings, but many of the hunters that 
I've known over the years appeared to have that goal in mind." 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: schwae@barh1a.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Biblical justification for eating animals
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:19:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.043433.22674@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>>>Leviticus 11:27 (RSV)   And all that go on their paws, among the animals that 
>>>go on all fours, are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcass shall be 
>>>unclean until the evening, 
>>>(what does this say of some of our "game" animals?)
>Mike Linan writes:
>>I'm not sure what you mean or may be implying.
>
>It seems clear to me.... the animals that go on all fours on their paws are
>unclean to man.
>
It refers to the plantigrade, or sole-walking animals, such as bears, 
weasels, etc.  Most Western food animals such as goats, cows, horses,
sheep, and pigs, walk digitigrade, or on their toes.  Pigs are out
because they don't chew cud.  Most of our big game is digitigrade
and ruminating.  On the other hand, squirrel is out.

I think the "on their paws" part means that only mammals are implied
by this passage.  I believe birds and fish were covered separately.

E.S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:16:56 GMT

Tim Rigg writes:

>3)  A bow requires much more dedication and effort which results in a
>better class of hunters.  I know I will get flamed by gun hunters for
>this and I am also a gun hunter.  But I think bow hunters know and
>understand their prey much better: they have to.  This results in a
>hunter that has much more respect for the animal.

Not a flame, Tim, but I think this would be truer if one said simply
that *percentage-wise*, bow hunters are more likely to know and
understand their prey better than gun hunters.  I've seen a few pretty
poor bow hunters in my day, as well as a lot of damn good and
dedicated gun hunters.  I've shot deer at less than 20 yards with a
rifle on more than one occasion. :-)  I've even had doe eat the leaves
off the bushes I was standing behind, while I was dressed in a blaze
orange cap and vest and holding my .284, a few times.
     To reiterate, yes I agree that there are more good, skillful bow
hunters than gun hunters; but the are a lot of good gun hunters as
well.


>There are also benefits to nonhunters:

[stuff deleted]
>3) It gives the gun grabbers one less reason to allow guns. (This may
>not count since a constitutional amendment means so little to them.
>But that is a debate for another group)

I'm confused as to what you mean by this, Tim.  I would think that gun
hunting would be better than bow hunting at *defending* RKBA, since it
seems to be one of the few "sporting purposes" that remains PC enough
to preserve what little freedom we have left.  If we didn't need guns
to hunt, the politicians (e.g., Kennedy with his armed bodyguards, or
the man in the wheelchair with his armed bodyguards) would be all too
quick to dismiss our rights.  Self defense is not a valid reason to
own guns, afterall (that's what they make cops for). :-P  And a few of
us rebels might not let King George be Pres for Life, or something.
Wouldn't want that to happen.  The (or should I say George's) National
Guard is the militia, isn't it?  Preserving the free state in which
Americans live, and all that.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Netiquette and Debate [PLEASE READ]
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:36:21 GMT

Please people, I have no desire to become a Usenet junkie, however I aspire
to be involved in debates of this nature.  I notice a lot of personal retorts
and responses going through on net bandwidth.

Please use email when ever appropriate for personal exchanges or comments
and try to keep the news group related to issues that can be discussed by
all...

swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:34:15 GMT

In <BvsEKz.8H0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Do you honestly think hunters are going to go through this
>ds> kind of trouble?  The service provided was a PR bonanza!  

>Precisely.  Another one of those stunts that serves to misrepresent
>the goals of the rights movement.  

	I might misinterpret you, or perhaps you minsinterpreted me,
but the hunting mentioned was a PR bonanza for the hunters.  "Hunters
help the handicapped" is a great headline.  Spend a few months in a
wheelchair and you'll find that even total jerks treat you as though
you are helpless and deserving of pity.  Had they known I was in
solely so I could heal from a motorcycle accident I suspect their
treatment would have been different, but the underlying aspect of
the heartstrings being played is what's important here.  The hunters
have more pluck by allowing handicapped hunting than the ARs have
for stopping it, especially given the location.


[very condensed]
>Perhaps.  They're not my ways, either.
>Me neither.
>Me too.
>Positively.
>Me too.
>I agree.

	Note this, Russ-bashers.  He and I agree on some things!
Granted, he's probably not about to borrow my .50 and go deer
hunting with me (and no, I'm not hunting deer this year, just
tresspassers), but he's not above agreeing with somebody from the
other side of the fence.  Frankly, I've noticed the Russ-bashing
has become as boring as some of Russ' favorite questions.  It's
time for some new threads and questions.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Machoism and hunters?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:21:46 GMT

From article <swood.718574987@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
sw> Just because some of the guys are macho that hunt doesn't make it an
sw> evil.  If they are hunting to satisfy some form of dominance, perhaps
sw> they are ill, but evil, I say not.

I agree, although I'd go a step further and assert that such 
people are neither evil nor ill, but misguided and confused.  

It's refreshing to hear the posts about women who've taken up 
hunting as a sport.  It's been a long time since I've spent much 
time in direct contact with the "macho" hunter-types I described 
previously, but I suspect that their interest in hunting will 
decline as more women get directly involved, rather than cheering
from the sidelines.

-- 
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: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:52:56 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl>If you still believe that sentience and sapience are irrelevant
rl>concepts, [...]

From article <1992Oct7.212525.23214@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> As you've been told before, this is NOT my argument.  My argument
ry> is that sentience/sapience are ARBITRARY CRITERIA for assigning
ry> "status" to non-human species.

As I've said many times before, I'm not "assigning status" when I
recognize that an animal has thoughts and feelings.  Such qualities
are intrinsic to its being, and don't simply spring into existence as
a result of my recognition.  A cow, for instance, will continue to
experience feelings and emotions, regardless of what goes on in the
mind of Russell Lawrence or Rich Young.

Please explain why sentience and sapience would be "arbitrary" 
considerations when we're discussing our treatment of non-human 
entities, but "not-arbitrary" when we're discussing our treatment 
of human entities.  

You've suggested in the past that ethical ideas aren't absolute simply
because the "cosmos" hasn't endorsed them.  Would you change your 
opinion if it could be established that the "cosmos" is both
sentient and sapient?

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