HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Methane Release
Date: 23 Jan 1993 22:48:18 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1Bsvx.JCA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>>The larges cause of admospheric methane is not the farming of livestock.
>
>Is this truly a fact?  You haven't posted the figures.  Instead,  

Yes, it is a fact.  Its also a fact that more methane is emitted from the
florida everglades in one week than from all the cattle in the nation.
Perhaps the real solution is to pave that national park???  While we're at
it, then entire swamp state of Louisanna could go as well...not only do
swamp lands emit methane but Louisanna is a large producer of natural gas.

>together produce "almost twice" as much.   In any case, it's obvious
>that the methane emissions/capita brought about by rice eaters
>is far less than the methane emissions/capita brought about by
>beef eaters.  Pointing one's fingers at termites may distract the

Your terrible logic really glares out here Russ if you realize the much
more of the world relies on a rice based diet than a beef based diet.  Much
for the far east relies on production of rice as a staple in their diet.

>>Eliminating
>>the production of rice wouldn't be a major impact on the diet
>>of most North Americans, but elimination of livestock production
>>certainly would.
>
>If this is true, then it's obvious that eliminating rice from
>US diets wouldn't have much impact on our methane emissions.

True, especially considering that US producers are more effiecient than
those in other nations and therefore have a much better ton/acre ratio than
in say, China.  

Its really a shame that you try to use gloabal warming as a partial
foundation for your anti-beef stance.  The issue of changing climate is
especially mute when you realize that climate change has been around as
long as the earth, it wasnt that long ago when we had a baby ice age if
you've studied history.  The doomsdayers of global climate are particularly
useless if you consider that humans are now more flexible as a species than
ever before in our existance.  Speaking of humans, you know of course that
people emit not only methane but also carbon dioxide as part of their
normal body functions?  Does the fact that the world population has double
in the last 30 years and will double again in your lifetime scare you?
IMHO we could do with an average increase of about +10 degrees to make
places like wisconson more liveable.  In fact, such an increase would
probably increase the hospitable landscape of the earth by opening up areas
of Canada and the old Soviet Union that now are just too damned cold.


alex the omnivore


















































Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:49:24 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>|> Because the amount of water saved by going to a non-meat centered diet
>|> could go into replenishing water levels in lakes and reservoirs.

Norbert Schlenker writes:
>Well, now, just how is it going to do that?  We're going to turn 
>everyone into vegetarians, so they are going to eat more plant
>material, which means we need to grow MORE plants for people.

It appears you aren't familiar with what a vegetarian diet really is.  The
replacement for meat is often some form of grain or bean dish using some of 
the same material fed to livestock.

>And we're not going to slaughter any more animals, so they're still
>going to be fed and watered too, so we'll need just as many plants
>and just as much water for them as now.  Maybe more, since it appears
>that castration is out if your agenda becomes policy.

Since no one will go cold turkey, the population of the animals will diminish,
provided artificial insemination is no longer practiced, over a short period of
time.  

>Looks like reservoirs are going to be even more depleted.

Unless we change our ways.....

Rob U

--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:46:01 GMT

From article <lmdekkINNs7n@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> In article <C1HwG6.8ns@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>If there's a particular claim that you still dispute, let's hear it.
> 
> The validity of the California water supply data.
> That 1/3 of the fossil fuels are used to produce livestock.
> Exactly how much fossil fuel is used to produce a pound/kilo of
>    beef.

I posted my sources previously.  For the most part, the data came
from Encyclopedia Britannica's yearbook and WorldWatch Paper #103:
Durning, Alan and Brough, Holly. "Taking Stock: Animal Farming
and the Environment", WorldWatch Institute: Washington, 1991. 

> That you are arguing animal rights and no environmental
>    conservation.

My ethical decisions aren't constrained to choices between hamburger
and beans.  They involve myriad choices covering a wide range of
activities.  In our discussions about the role of animals in our
society, I'm not going to confine myself to the particular areas that 
meet with your approval.

> That ethics are an absolute.
> That *your* take on ethics is an aboslute.

I'm not an absolutist.  On the other hand, I'm not a relativist, either.

-- 
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: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:14:24 GMT

From article <C18vuF.509@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> In <C16EwE.50p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>I think most people have figured out by now that meat,
>>dairy, and egg production is more tightly bound (category-wise) 
>>than the production of fibers, flowers, potatoes, leafy vegetables 
>>fruits, etc.  
> 
> You left out footwear and belts among others in the first
> category.

Both categories include footwear and belts.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
Subject: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:13:43 GMT

alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:

>...PeTA zealots.  
>...wacky special intrest group 
>...these PeTA freaks 
>...publication put out by these goons 

>...all-star team of research doctors 
>...the good doctor's work 
>...the good doctor's district 

Classic characterizations.  The wackos vs. the all-star researchers.

You and Mike Wallace have a lot to learn, little alex. 

	- John Hoag (loca@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Originator: young@plasma
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 07:08:01 GMT

In article <C1Buo8.Jnz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan23.183459.2406@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>
>> It is absolutely correct that "accepted" does not mean "true,"
>> but this begs the question, which is, "Does truth or falsity
>> determine ethical acceptability?"  And the answer, of course, 
>> is, "No."
>
>Let's not confuse truths and opinions.  It's perfectly reasonable
>to determine opinions by conducting opinion polls.  To determine
>whether the opinions are truthful, however, we'd have to examine
>the underlying facts and reasons.

	But we're not looking for Truth, we're looking for ethical accep-
	tability...a point you seem to want to avoid.  All that's necessary
	for this is the opinion poll.

>The difference between you and I, Rich, is that you accept ethical
>ideas at face-value whereas I insist on probing them and testing
>them to determine their degree of soundness.

	No, Russell, the difference between us lies in the fact that I
	understand that there is often a difference between what I feel 
	and what is acceptable to the society in which I live.  Your
	persistent efforts are, perhaps, commendable to some, but the
	fact remains that, in our society, killing animals for food is
	ethically acceptable, however emotionally disturbing you might
	find the practice.

	It is you who apparently cannot separate logic from emotion.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:06:28 GMT

From article <mhulsey-270193073208@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C1H6wK.299@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>>[...]
>> Please tell us your stand on sport hunting and fur trapping, so that
>> we can determine the role that humane compassion plays in your ethical
>> decision-making.
> 
> I don't believe that my opinions on these topics are pertinent to
> discussions of animal research.  You are simply grasping at straws in a
> feeble attempt to discredit me.  I will, however, give you the benefit of
> the doubt, and post my opinions on these topics of you will answer two
> questions:
> 
> 1) given your non-absolutist position on animal research, what kinds of
> animal research would you consider to be ethical?

You're asking me for some sort of blanket formula, yet, I've 
told you many times that I'm not omniscient and hence must 
examine the research on a case by case basis.  

> 2) given your belief that animals possess "rights," how can you justify
> your non-absolutist position on animal research?

I've answered this question as well, Martin.  As I've pointed out
previously, it's obvious to me that "rights" aren't an inherent 
property of a particular individual or group of individuals;  
rather they represent an observer's respect for the individual's 
or group's thoughts and feelings.  As such, I don't regard "rights" as 
absolutist entitlements.  

Now please answer my questions about the "necessity" and "justifiability"
of sport hunting and fur coat wearing.  If a man thinks it's "necessary" 
for Miami socialites to wear-fur coats, how could we trust his judgment
that a particular research project is "necessary"?

-- 
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: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:15:57 GMT

In article <C1J3uu.GwA@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> You're asking me for some sort of blanket formula, yet, I've 
> told you many times that I'm not omniscient and hence must 
> examine the research on a case by case basis.  

Unacceptable answer.  What guidelines would you employ in evaluating each
case?

> > 2) given your belief that animals possess "rights," how can you justify
> > your non-absolutist position on animal research?
> 
> I've answered this question as well, Martin.  As I've pointed out
> previously, it's obvious to me that "rights" aren't an inherent 
> property of a particular individual or group of individuals;  
> rather they represent an observer's respect for the individual's 
> or group's thoughts and feelings.  As such, I don't regard "rights" as 
> absolutist entitlements.  

I'll accept this as an answer.

> Now please answer my questions about the "necessity" and "justifiability"
> of sport hunting and fur coat wearing.

Not yet.  You are only half finished.  Try again.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Tsk tsk Russell (was Re: Ingrid's lies.)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:50:28 GMT

From article <swood.727730197@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
> In article <C0v599.62x@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>>Next time our "Putting People First" ranter from Michigan shows up,
>>be sure to ask him for his candid opinions about public expenditures
>>on health care.
> 
> Talking about me when I am not around?  Lose my email address or something.
> Well, I am back!!!
> 
> As far as MY opinions on health care, they don't belong in this 
> group, nor under the banner of Putting People First.  I am and 
> have been very clear to seperate my opinions from those of the 
> organizations I support and speak for.  

You're not the only PPF member I've come across who's displayed a 
ranting dislike for many of his fellow human beings.  Perhaps a more
honest name for your organization would be, "Putting Some People 
First".   Are you a member of the Klan by any chance?

> In fact if you recall Russell, that was why I sent you my personal opinions
> in email (both to keep them off an innapropriate news group and to make
> sure that my public opinion as a PPF member did not conflict with my personal
> opinions as a US Citizen) and in fact is was you that jumped accrossed
> net etiquette and blatantly posted them accrossed the world.

So you say.

If you want your opinions to remain private, why don't you just 
keep them private?  With the exception of your obscenities, your 
email messages weren't much different in substance or scope from 
your public postings.   

-- 
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: La Cat Shooting Experiments
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:19:09 GMT

From article <1993Jan25.220020.17190@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
> In article <C1FG81.EyF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>I'm hoping the Times-Picayune will get involved at this point,
>>and pressure some of the "anonymous" folks at LSUMC to make
>>public statements.
> 
> Russell, I certainly hope that you would never be present outside
> of my door on those occasions I am tempting my cat into her cage
> for a trip to the vet.  You might assume I was a cat torturer.

Are you suggesting that I can't tell the difference between the
act of shooting cats and the act of taking a reluctant cat to the
vet?

If/when Carey's funding is reinstated, would you be willing to
donate your cat to his project?

-- 
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: Who is forcing Idealism? (Was: Re: Quote from Clinton?)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:28:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan26.213418.14374@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:


>>How would Clinton feel about those who's ideological bent would seek to
>>limit America's *choice* to eat whatever it wants.

>>alex the omnivore

>Look omnivore, who's "limiting your choice" to eat whatever (shit) you want?
>Is someone pointing a gun to your head saying, "if you put that piece of cow
>in your mouth instead of this tofu I'll blow your fucking head off"?
>I didn't think so.  Get it straight:  a suggestion isn't an order.  Stop your
>petty whining.


Ooohh!  Alka gets mad!!  Give it a break Alka.  If there are ARFs who will
kill and maim to free laboratory animals (there are), don't pretend that
there aren't ARFs that would abolish the eating of animals to suit their 
ideals and morals.  How do we know you aren't amoung them that would?


Mike Linan





Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Pain is moot
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:28:22 GMT

In talking over these issues last night with some friends, one of them
came to the conclusion that the issues involving pain are irrelevant to
the Animal "Rights" organizations.  Regardless of how humane you can make
trapping or hunting or slaughtering or vivesecting of animals, they would
still not support it.

Seems that is very true.  So the harping on pain is merely an emotionally
stimulating tactic to them.  What a shame.  I guess I was always aware of
this, but the realization of the vividness of this fact furthers my
opinion of how shallow these groups' agendas and belief systems are.

swood

-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:54:44 GMT

In article <C1BvHz.JpK@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> BTW, I don't dispute the claim that animal experiments have 
> yielded potentially useful information.

Perhaps because you cannot.

>I do, however, have 
> serious doubts about the claim that all such experiments are 
> "essential" or "necessary" or that their benefits outweigh their 
> harm.

Yes, we know.  You have suggested on numerous occasions that animal
experimentation and product testing are less than necessary.  However, you
have not provided information to prove these claims.

For example:

I have been waiting months for you to provide evidence for your
chronological claim that the "early 80's" proposal for the beagle-drowning
experiment was made after the 1981 publication by Heimlich demonstrating
the efficacy of his technique on drowning humans.

In addition, I'm waiting for you to offer some evidence for your claim that
the Ames test for bacterial mutagenicity is a suitable alternative for the
Draize test for ocular irritancy.

>To illustrate the last point, take a look at the postings 
> over the past few days where supporters of animal experimentation 
> have stated that the murder of humans is ok if the perpetrator 
> can "get away" with the crime, or that human famine is ok as long 
> as they're not the ones who're starving.

I missed those.  What do they have to do with the issue of animal research?

Are your posts supporting animal "rights" repudiated by other posts that
support ALF terrorism? 

>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.  

Would you care to defend this "non-claim" with some figures from your
"final analysis?"

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Terrorism and Imagery
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:47:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.030855.4018@sol.cs.wmich.edu> thmiley@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Tim Miley) writes:

>I would like to get a better glimpse of what goes on in the animal labs.
>
>Do this one time.  Make contact with an animal researcher and see if you can
>get a guided tour of the lab.  See if you can get in.
>
>My point being: if the researchers are so confident that their research is
>helpful to mankind, why are they not proud of showing it off?


Tim, excuse me for butting in, I just wanted to comment on this last
issue.  I'll leave the rest to you folks (I have enough on my hands as it is)
But as  researcher, I can tell you why we are reluctant to let others in
the labs.  VIOLENCE.  Plain and simple.  I some guy I don't know from Adam
walks up to me on the street and says, "I'd like to see what goes on in
your lab."  I'd be a little apprehensive.  How can I be sure he doesn't
just want to case the place for later "illegal actions".  
There was an incident here at UNC a few years ago when two people came
into one of the labs claiming to take pictures for a local paper.  That
was fine.  There were no objections from the the researchers.  Then they
discovered, after about 15 min that these two men weren't who they claimed
to be.  A security system was installed in the lab the next day.
Don't get me wrong. It's not like noone gets into the labs.  The
university sponsers labs visits from area high schools for kids interested
in research. Other activities often involve tours of the lab.  But, you
can't blame us for being cautious.  And please don't interpret it as being
secretive.  It's just being careful.


Greg Popken


-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Retraction Honesty?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:30:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.152025.21741@netcom.com> loca@netcom.com (John Hoag) writes:
>itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>
>> Regardless they are of the AR sect.
>
>So now it's the "AR sect", eh?  Well, coming from a member of the AT (Animal
>Torture) sect, I suppose they might consider that a compliment.
>

Oooh! A little touchy today aren't we John?
Someone else take the last bowl of Kellogg's Corn Pops?
 
The word "sect" is only used to denote people who hold a certain belief.
In this case Animal Rights. There is nothing derogatory to it.
I make a point to avoid personal attacks.  (Except in Russell's case.  We
have this special relationship.  Besides, I think he really likes it.)

In contrast, your "AT" ref...
I view the use of personal attacks as a wonderful fall back position when
logic fails to support ones point.  I don't need it.


Greg Popken

ARBARA (Also Referred to By Animal Advocates As) 

Terrorist
Murderer
Nazi
Sadist
Evil scientist
and now AT

See ya in the funny papers!

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg