HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:57:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.014640.14502@julian.uwo.ca> morton@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Brent Morton) writes:
>There will always be minority groups who believe they are morally superior to
>everyone else because of something they do, believe in, or advocate. 

There will always be people who blindly accept the status quo, without a
thought to the cruelty involved.

>The idea put forward by SETA zealots and the like is that we could get by
>without ever, EVER, having to kill an animal. 

I have *never* heard anyone say this, ever.  Could you give a reference?

>Not only is this false, it's also silly. The animal-rights movement is one of 
>the most hypocritical groups you can find. These people don't bother to learn 
>the facts; 

Which facts are these?

>all they see is someone killing a nice, cute, cow (or any other creature you 
>can name). Their efforts would be better spent supporting a group such as 
>Amnesty International.

Several members of UofT SETA are actively involved in Amnesty International.

In my experience people who try to do something about the problems facing
non-human animals are more likely to also help humans.  It's the people who 
say that suffering is inevitable who tend not to try to do anything about it.
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
Xref: sparky can.general:5917 ns.general:100
From: jsteeves@ac.dal.ca (Jason Steeves)
Newsgroups: can.general,ns.general
Subject: Re: Lead news stories...
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:11:20 -0400
Distribution: can,ns
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <Bz24yw.Dqs@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In article <Bz1xFL.AwK@cs.dal.ca> colin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Colin Edward Mac Donald) writes:
>>	But no, the lead story is:
>>
>>		CHARLES AND DIANA ARE SEPERATED!!!

> Personally? I laugh at people who think that Lady
> Di will still be implemented as queen. I say fat chance - then again, I
> couldn't care less. I say we liquidate the monarchial assets, and put all
> those billions to some REAL use.

If Diana's not Queen, Charles won't be king. Their eldest son will.
Just about the only thing keeping them together now is the knowledge
that if Diana divorces, she'll automatically lose custody of their
eldest son (and probably the younger too). He'd become "property of
the crown" or some such nonsence (heir to the throne).

   ______       
  (__  __)     .----------------------. 
 _  / /        | Jason Steeves        |
( \/ /         | (jsteeves@ac.dal.ca) |
 \__/ ASON     `----------------------'
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:45:20 GMT

In article g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>please don't be absurd.
>>devote macrobiotics make up a very minute percentage of the world population.
>
>>hunting and keeping livestock would only be of questionable legitimacy if
>>we had food generators like on star trek.
>
>>until then, you will find a need for meat and other livestock products.
>>a need, not a desire, as converting one's system to a diet entirely
>>independant of the exploitation of animals is not something everyone can do.
>
>Very very few Canadians are in a position where they must eat meat.

i would argue this, having spent nearly a year of my life as a vegetarian.
the transition from herbavore(sp?) to vegan is not an easy route.

there are many obstacles and habits to navigate.

i distinctlly remember bringing a friend to the hospital after she was given
chicken broth by a concerned friend.  the animal matter was basically poisonous
to her.

soybeans and grains are basically pretty boring, and i think the food
lifestyle you favour would not go with anywhere close to a majority of
canadians.

i would say that although, medically, nutritionally, i agree that very few
humans on earth "must eat meat", they will do so, and they will continue
to do so.

this is similar to saying that humans don't have to have sex, we can procreate
just fine by passing sperm around in little bottles.

i think the human race would prefer the enjoyment of the activity, as much,
if not more than, the practicality of the activity itself.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[             I don't want to work for a company that has a CIO.              ]
[              Disclaimer! I don't need no stinking Disclaimer!               ]
From: jaz.johol@compdyn.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Jaz Johol) 
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: ?SENDING SASE CANADA TO U
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:28:00 GMT
Reply-To: jaz.johol@compdyn.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Jaz Johol) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Computer Dynamics - Vancouver B.C. - (604)986-9937 (604)255-9937

-> From: gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch)
-> Newsgroups:
-> misc.misc,misc.consumers,can.general,mtl.general,concordia.general
-> Subject: ?Sending SASE Canada to USA.
-> Message-ID: <5541@daily-planet.concordia.ca>
-> Date: 10 Dec 92 19:06:40 GMT
-> Followup-To: misc.misc
->
-> I would like to send snail-mail from Canada to the USA.  My
-> recipient requests a stamped, self-addressed envelope.
->
-> If I put Canadian stamps on the SASE will US postal service
-> deliver it?  If not, why not?  And also, if I need US postage
-> stamps, where in Montreal can I buy them?
->
-> -- gk

The other alternative is to buy an international reply stamp from
Canada Post.  I think it costs more then buying US stamps.  This
could be your last resort if you can't get hold of US stamps.
                                                                                                             
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: craig@cattnts.canada.ncr.com (Craig Campbell)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Organization: AT&T / NCR Canada Ltd., Toronto, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:21:48 GMT

All this banter about rights/privledges is frightening.  The govenrment 
(IMHO) does not exist to define what I can and can't do.  In some limited
cases, the government is allowed to say what I can't do (with good reasons),
like murder for example.  

For any other activity, the government should mind its own business.  The 
government has NO right to interfere with my life, in general.  The govenrment
does have the Privledge of interferring in some areas (currently, a greatly 
abused Privledge in need of addressing).

Enough said,

craig

Merry Christmas!!

-- 
Craig Campbell		|	These opinions are entirely the result of a 
Systems Engineer	|	small butterfly crashing into the far side
NCR Canada,		|	of the planet.  Chaos Rules.
an AT&T Company		|	I speak for no one, except, possibly, myself.
Newsgroups: can.general
From: morton@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Brent Morton)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:46:40 GMT

In article <schuck.724464576@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>Suicide is an easily obtainable ideal.
>
>What you are really saying is that avoiding cruely to animals is only
>worth it when it doesn't inconvenience you *too* much.
>
>I'm saying the same thing, but I'm not a hypocrite about it.
>

There will always be minority groups who believe they are morally superior to
everyone else because of something they do, believe in, or advocate. The fact
that they think it is morally wrong for society to do something is of 
paramount importance to them, and everything else aside.

The idea put forward by SETA zealots and the like is that we could get by
without ever, EVER, having to kill an animal. Not only is this false, it's
also silly. The animal-rights movement is one of the most hypocritical groups
you can find. These people don't bother to learn the facts; all they see is
someone killing a nice, cute, cow (or any other creature you can name). Their
efforts would be better spent supporting a group such as Amnesty International.

If anyone reading this is aware of Australia's current rabbit problem, you can
imagine the animal-rights folks getting wind of the extermination there.

-- Brent
morton@artifis.gaul.csd.uwo.ca

Xref: sparky can.general:6052 can.politics:10881
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:19:26 GMT
Followup-To: can.general,can.politics
Distribution: can
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Rosemary Waigh (g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: On the contrary, I know of many human beings who are herbivores, and who
: question the legitimacy of hunting and keeping livestock.  Even human beings
: who do eat dead animals have been known to question the legitimacy of hunting.

Well,  you're back at it.

Please provide some arguments as to why it is immoral to eat animals
that have been killed painlessly.   Please provide arguments as to
why it is immoral to hunt.  You can ignore the second request if you
can fulfill the first.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:37:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.201405.2648@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <w2JoVB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>ignoring all the entirely legitimate uses of guns - including, but not 
>>limited to, hunting, competitive shooting, protection of livestock, 
>>protection from wild animals, etc.
>>
>"Entirely legitimate"?  Hunting and keeping livestock are of questionable
>legitimacy.

Ethnocentric! Racist! Tell natives that hunting is of questionable legitimacy.

Obviously, hunting (done by many animals) and keeping livestock (not as 
common) IS legitimate, otherwise carnivores etc. would never have evolved and
survived for so long. If it isn't legitimate, then carnivores will die
out, so why bother worrying about it.


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Supreme Court allows pedophiles access to playgrounds!
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 18:35:15 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends

In article <schuck.724133458@sfu.ca> 
(Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: 
  ....
> What a wonderful blow for freedom our Supreme Court has struck again.
> 
> Isn't it nice to know that men have the right to hang around playgrounds
> and take pictures of little girls panties.

        The point Bruce misses is that there is no law against the
        unlicenced taking of pictures of little girls' panties. Since
        that's unsatisfactory, concerned citizens should immediately
        form a lobby to have a law passed. Perhaps Bruce could sponsor
        a newsgroup for der SPIELGP (The Society to Preserve the
        Invisibility-Equivalence of Little Girls' Panties).

        Actually, going after this kind of thing one at a time could
        be awfully time-consuming. Why not generalise and form il
        AMAWI (The Association to Make All Wierdness Illegal)?

        Don't bother to send me a membership application. :-)

        Cheers,
                Marc

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQBNAiqxYTkAAAECALfeHYp0yC80s1ScFvJSpj5eSCAO+hihtneFrrn+vuEcSavh
AAUwpIUGyV2N8n+lFTPnnLc42Ms+c8PJUPYKVI8ABRG0I01hcmMgVGhpYmF1bHQg
PG1hcmNAdGFuZGEuaXNpcy5vcmc+
=HLnv
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:53:11 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Jim Mercer (merce@xenitec.on.ca) wrote:
: duquet@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Jean-Remi Duquet) writes:
: >Of course, I don't suggest to ban hunting and "range shooting" (or whatever
: >the name is in english). But there's a difference between a two-shot hunting
: >gun and the weapon Marc Lepine used in Polytechnique.

: not really.  most hunters carry multi-shot rifles.  two-shot guns are mostly
: used by farmers to rid themselves of pests.

A double barrel shotgun is far more dangerous than many so called assault
rifles and can be sawed of to be just a concealble as a pistol.

: anyone hunting any reasonable size game would not want to get caught out
: of bullets.  the gun used by lepine was narginal as to whether it was a
: hunting rifle or an assault rifle.

First:  there is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'.  It's a emotive
    term invented by the media to describe guns that look 'bad'.

Second:  it is illegal to use the gun Lepine used for hunting in many
    regions because it is *underpowered*.  This is why hunters get worried
    when people start talking about 'bad' guns.  If Lepine had used a
    deer rifle or a shotgun,  the death toll may have been higher.

: >BINGO ! And what's the source of this lack of control in the USA ? 
: >All together: gimme a N, gimme a R, gimme a A...
: >Ok, block the border.
: >If the lack of control in the USA is such a big problem (a point I agree with
: >100%), let's prevent this here with better control.
: >Just the point I was trying to make, nothing more. 

At this point I'd like to point out that the gun laws in parts of the
US are far stricter than those in Canada.   Washington DC has a complete
ban on firearms.   New York City has a ban on all handguns and many
semi-automatic rifles.  The State of California has restrictive legislation,
registration, a 15-day waiting period and will soon have a mandatory
training course.  Also it is illegal for gun dealers to sell hand-guns
to an out-of-state buyers.

Does any of this mean you think Oakland, the Bronx, or Washington's slums
are a safer place to live?

: i would agree to see more weapons moved up into the restricted area, but
: the controls we have are already many times tighter than the US.

See above.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: ?SENDING SASE CANADA TO U
Date: 17 Dec 1992 17:55:11 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services, UBC, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: swiss.ucs.ubc.ca

 Actually, I'm surprised that some enterprising organization (in
 fact, why not the new private enterprise postal outlets?) doesn't,
 at least in the biggest centers such as Vancouver, offer the
 service of weighing mail, determining the appropriate US postage,
 and selling the US stamps at enough of a surcharge to make a
 reasonable profit.  International reply coupons are expensive and
 cumbersome.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
From: Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Broughton)
Subject: Re: Henry VIII (was Re: Lead news stories...)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:50:59 GMT

> CZ94 writes:
>
> Henry married Anne of Cleves (#4) for purely political reasons, and
> took an immediate dislike to her.  The marriage was ended after
> just a few months.  I'm not sure whether this was technically considered
> to be a divorce or an annulment, or what excuse was invoked.

Annulment. The claim was made that the marriage with Anne of Cleves was never
consummated.


--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Robert Broughton    Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca

"We calm and reassure. We embrace people with the message that we're
all in it together. That our leaders are infallible and that there is
nothing, absolutely nothing wrong." - Miles Drentell, _thirtysomething_
Newsgroups: can.general
From: morton@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Brent Morton)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:54:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

In article <1992Dec16.015739.19965@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>everyone else because of something they do, believe in, or advocate. 
>
>There will always be people who blindly accept the status quo, without a
>thought to the cruelty involved.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I don't agree with the idea that killing animals
for food is cruel. I find it disturbing that you're suggesting I think to
myself, 'well, I know it's cruel, but what the hell; meat tastes good.' This
is another common denominator within the morally-correct: that anyone who 
disagrees with them is either misinformed, or afraid to confront the "truth".

>In my experience people who try to do something about the problems facing
>non-human animals are more likely to also help humans.  It's the people who 
>say that suffering is inevitable who tend not to try to do anything about it.

I couldn't agree more. What we have to realize is that every issue, especially
this one, has at least two sides -- the problem with many minority groups
struggling against some aspect of society is that they act like there is only
one: theirs.

-- Brent
morton@artifis.gaul.csd.uwo.ca

P.S. I noticed you tried to switch this thread to talk.politics.animals, but
since I don't have time to sift through that group I kept the message here. I
also don't have time to follow this thread in this group anymore, so I'll add
a Followup-To: t.p.a. 

Newsgroups: can.general
From: shephard@fraser.sfu.ca (Gordon Shephard)
Subject: Re: FIFTEEN INCHES OF SNOW ON BURNABY HILL, SFU, VANCOUVER, BC
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:26:38 GMT

myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <shephard.724804782@sfu.ca> shephard@fraser.sfu.ca (Gordon Shephard) writes:
>>SOME reason they haven't closed the University.  Give me a break,
>>Security doesn't think they can GET OFF THE HILL, Classes are over for the
>>Semester and they (Hmm.  I wonder who is they :) aren't closing the
>>university?)

>How's the glass-over-steel-struts roof holding up over the main mall?

Unlike when the university opened (First big Snow, the Glass panes
over the Main Mall broke) It is so far so good.  Shouldn't be too 
difficult to engineer anyways.

But the ROADS...Got a ride home, went about 30Km/hr the entire way.

Wow.  It's great.

-- 
| Gordon Harry Shephard         | Distributed Computing Support Group  |
| Academic Computing Services   | Phone: (604)291-3930   (604)464-4991 |
| Simon Fraser University       |                                      |
| Burnaby, BC, Canada. V5A 1S6  | shephard@sfu.ca                      | 
|                                                                      |
| Disclaimer: In No Way am I speaking for my Employers or Simon Fraser |
| University.                                                          |
Newsgroups: can.general,rec.food.veg
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Terminology Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:56:31 GMT

In article <altar.724698565@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>Anyway, maybe we shouldn't be too precisarian about the term
>"vegetarian", although it does make it difficult for the complete
>vegetarian when confusion abounds.  

This is why I was trying to clarify the term.  It's not fun going to a
restaurant and having the waiter trying to convince you that vegetarians
eat fish!  (And I wouldn't have even gone to that restaurant if my friend
hadn't recommended it, thinking that vegetarians eat fish.)

>Many people do become complete vegetarians by first
>starting off as a "semi-vegetarian", then a pico-vegetarian,
>and then finally arrive to a complete vegetarian practice.  

I have no problem with this, just that the word "vegetarian" should not
be used for people who still eat some kinds of flesh.  (I spent a year going
from lacto-ovo-vegetarianism to veganism, but even though I was vegan 95% of
the time I did not call myself a vegan until I had completely stopped using
milk and eggs.)
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
From: jaz.johol@compdyn.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Jaz Johol) 
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: GOOD CANADIAN WINES FOR X
Date: 13 Dec 92 03:33:00 GMT
Reply-To: jaz.johol@compdyn.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Jaz Johol) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Computer Dynamics - Vancouver B.C. - (604)986-9937 (604)255-9937

-> From: jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt)
-> Newsgroups: can.general
-> Subject: Good Canadian wines for Xmas (don't Laugh)
-> Message-ID: <1992Dec10.032417.14262@cs.mun.ca>
-> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 03:24:17 GMT
->
-> Does any one know of any good Canadian Wines I can give as gifts for
-> Xmas??
-> I.ve heard of the Inneskiln (?) winery in Niagar on the Lake, are
-> there any oth If so post or e-mail me please.

If you can get a hold of British Columbia wine some from the
Okanogan and Kelowna are really good.  I don't have any specific
names but those on the net may know of some.

Jaz
Vancouver, in Beautiful British Columbia

PS:  Did you know that only Vancouver and Victoria are the only places
in Canada that have no snow.  YES NO SNOW OR COLD WEATHER.
                                                                                                                               
Newsgroups: can.general,rec.food.veg
From: molnar@Bisco.CAnet.CA (Tom Molnar)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: UTCS Campus Access
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:56:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.045709.29345@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
# [ another redirect, geez, rosemary, how many groups do you read? ]
# 
# In article g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
# >>That's why I highly encourage you all to go read the literature on what
# >>is a PROPER vegetarian diet. You may want to include some shellfish in
# >>there if you want. 
# >
# >Of course, if you eat shellfish or other animals you are not a vegetarian.
# 
# maybe by your definition.
# 
# i know of a number of vegetarians who have small anomalies in their diet,
# like eggs, or shellfish or fish.
# 
# god, you are really coming across as a zealot.
# 
# do you really take yourself this seriously, or are you really that big of a
# twit?

Jim, based on this outburst, you must judge me a twit as well.  I don't
consider anyone who eats animal flesh a vegetarian either.  They may
have a propensity for a healthier, vegetarian diet, but they aren't vegetarian.
Unfortunately the definition of vegetarian is inconsistent.  Some, like
you, accept a particular dictionary definition (e.g. webster) of
vegetarian.  Others use it to encompass a philosphy.  Some believe it
applies to diet only.  It's the same with strict vegetarians, or
vegans. That's the way of it, no reason to react so harshly.

Regards,
Tom
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics