HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Man==animal and dog stuff
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:27:05 GMT

myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

>unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) eloquently quotes:

>>-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
>>-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
>>-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -

>To those on the other side of this debate, the animal
>exploiters and sadists, just carefully consider Einstein's quote
>above.  

	You might do well to consider them yourself before labeling those
of us on the other side as "exploiters and sadists."  Sure I use animals.
I don't "exploit" them, as that is an unethical use for ones own profit.
I find hunting perfectly ethical.  I am also not a sadist.

	Oh, you might also remember that Einstein was was indirectly
responsible for the vaporization of thousands of Japanese, and had
Germany not fallen it's quite likely there would have been many
thousands of vaporized Germans to account for as well.  Apparently
"compassion" isn't allowed for tyrants.  When your interpretation of
morality makes the laws I, and the majority of Americans, disagree with
yet must live under, you are a tyrant.

<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: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:12:40 GMT

>> Scott Wood writes:
>> >Because they do it under the guise of animal welfare.  And many people
>> >who don't know any better send their money to these groups thinking they
>> >are looking out for the interest of animals everywhere.
 
>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>> If preventing the needless slaughter of animals isn't animal welfare,
>> what is?

Christopher Morton writes:
>Who defines "needless"?  Ingrid Newkirk would consider a cure for AIDS 
>developed using animals as needless.  An AIDS patient would probably 
>disagree.

So are they hunting deer now to find a cure for AIDS.  The topic at hand was
FFA's stand on black bear hunting and hunting in general.  To go after an animal
for "sport" is needless.  To "manage" populations so that a viable crop is 
around the next year for "management" is apparently needless.  To use an animal
that is unable to develop full-blown AIDS also appears to be needless.  How 
many potentially life-saving drugs have been discarded as useless because the
animal "model" didn't work?

>> >When in fact some types of hunting are necessary to control populations of
>> >animals.  
>> 
>> Why is hunting the only option?  What are the different "types of hunting" ?
>
>Why is hunting NOT an option?

Why is it about the only option tried?  In a few instances you hear of re-
locating animals, but that appears to be one of the least used.  All too
often, the blown them away option is more "economic" or "feasible".

>> If management policies were aimed at expanding available habitat, promoting
>> decreased breeding of the species instead of providing resources for hunters,
>> some of the problems could be SOLVED rather than put off for a few years....
>
>Expanding available habitat WHERE?  Are you willing to have your home or 
>apartment bulldozed to make room for deer habitat?

How about allocating land taken by the State in foreclosures, drug arrests,
etc. and convert them to wildlife habitats?  Why allow continued expansion
of cities into rural areas while many of the inner cities are falling into
ruin?  How about adopting Boulder, CO's "Open Space System"?  I find it oddly
ironic that many suburbanites place large concrete or plastic deer on their
lawns in place of the deer they have driven off.

>> Well, at least the animals appear to be smart.  Isn't the overabundance of
>> elk an indication of a problem with the local ecosystem?
>
>Yes, not enough predators.  Since man is also a predator the situation is being
>rectified.

To whose benefit, the animals' or the hunting clique?  Why is man now elevated
to the status of "THE ONLY PREDATOR"?

Rob U, why is man ONLY an animal when it benefits MAN?
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Man==animal and dog stuff
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:15:24 GMT

>Dan Sorenson writes:
>>When your interpretation of
>>morality makes the laws I, and the majority of Americans, disagree with
>>yet must live under, you are a tyrant.

Michael Hui writes:
>I agree. So that's why I use gentle prodding and reasoning rather than
>laws.  But not from the likes of Pat Buchanan and George Bush. You
>either have their set of Family Values, or you are not an American.
>
>According to your statement above, if Pat Buchanan, or even George
>Bush, becomes president again, they would indeed be tyrants.

You know, I let your first digs at the Republican Party go by figuring you 
wouldn't do it again, but......

I'm not sure how the relative merits of the US political process have anything
to do with the concept of animal rights....unless Hillary is advocating
rewriting the constitution!   :-)  The troubling thing now sweeping the US,
and most propagated by the left, is the concept of being Politically Correct
(PC).  PC is censorship, plain and simple.  If this be not tyranny, then
it is well veiled!  Before I go hyper let's drop it here and go E-mail....ok?

Rob U, Nuke Hillary
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:37:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.203237.13105@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.154150.11709@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Ro
>bert Black (x37236)) writes:

[... for some reason, this posting never appeared here, so I'm
     reconstructing it from memory.  Apologies if the original
     really did get to other sites and this is redundant ...]

>Isn't a main tenet of Buddhism that to live is to suffer.

Yes.  (1) To live is to suffer.  (2) This suffering results from the gap
between what one wants and what is.  (3) The way to reduce this
suffering is to reduce the gap.  (4) The way to reduce the gap is
through the Eightfold Path.  ...  at least those are the four main
tenets to the best of my recollection.  It's been a number of years
since I investigated the world's main religions (e.g.  THE RELIGIONS OF
MAN by Huston Smith, THE TAO OF PHYSICS by Fritjof Capra, D.T. Suzuki,
etc.).  Apologies to any adherents of eastern religions for 
oversimplifications or distortions.  Feel free to correct these. 

>  I respect your
>belief in the moral imperative not to add to suffering, also a Buddist tennet.

Thanks for respecting my views, independently of whether or not you agree.  I
have tried to give some thought to them.

>If I could take you out into the woods Mr. Black, crest a hill and find a 
>beautiful buck foraging unknowing of our presence, skillfully stalk the animal 
>and sight in your high powered rifle, have you pull the trigger accurately on 
>the prime kill spot, and watch the animal drop in its tracks, suffer seconds
>of pain and die, would you join me in eating the animal?

No I wouldn't, unless in a state of extreme hunger or facing the prospect
of no other options for the near future. 

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:41:18 GMT

From article <1992Sep8.125555.3963@desire.wright.edu>, by sbishop@desire.wright.edu:
sb> One thing people tend to forget is, that water is not lost 
sb> forever.  It's recycled as soon as the cattle eliminate it, soaks 
sb> into the ground and back into the aquafer.  And thirty gallons is 
sb> an outrageous amount, my horses need five to seven gallons (or 
sb> less) a day.  Cows aren't quite as big as horses.  

People tend to forget the water that's required to grow fodder and
grain.   

sb> Most of the grain crops in the midwest are produced WITHOUT 
sb> irrigation.

WorldWatch Institute calculates that approximately 380 liters of
water are required each day to produce meat, milk, and eggs for 
the typical american.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:48:36 GMT

In <BuAFCw.5zB@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>WorldWatch Institute calculates that approximately 380 liters of
>water are required each day to produce meat, milk, and eggs for 
>the typical american.  

	Then I submit people in California should quit trying to grow
crops in the middle of a damned desert!  Either that, or perhaps the
WorldWatch Institute screwed up again as Flavin did with his 73 dead
estimate for the Chernobyl disaster?

	Say, Russ, do they give an estimate of how much of that water
pumped onto fields just flows back into the river?  Soil erosion and
all that, you know, is a big topic these days.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Superstitious Fantasies vs. Ethics
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:52:37 GMT

From article <16tniuINNh62@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> If everybody had personally met God and had all the answers about our 
ml> lives here on earth and what was on the other side I doubt there would
ml> be any of the controversy concerning religion.  Since we don't have the
ml> answers, one can only go on the word of God and faith.  I am not foolish
ml> enough to expect everybody to accept this and some may think I am foolish
ml> for believing.  I am at ease with this reality.

We may not have all the answers, but we clearly have some of the
answers.  As an example, we know that "fire" isn't caused by Agni, 
the endoeuropean fire god, and we're pretty sure that fires don't go 
to the "other side", ie Fire Heaven, when their fuel is fully
consumed.  

You've insisted on many occasions that your "god" gave animals to 
humans, to do with as humans see fit.  How does your belief that 
animals are the property of your "god" differ from your belief 
that humans are also the property of your "god"?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Animal Rights
Reply-To: me%halfab@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:06:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.104303.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu  
writes:
>      Animals have no rights!
Human animals sometimes have!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 02:06:00 GMT

In article <viking.716517741@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>>Nope.  You're just organizing another attempt at
>>whitewashing.  The true facts would repulse the public.
>	I'm a member of the public, and it doesn't repulse me.  Strike one.
You are certainly one barbaric, cold blooded member of your public.

>>Is it simply the money, or are you actually brainwashed?
>>Actually, brainwashed is a little strong, so I'll retract
>>that.  Co-opted fits about right.
>	It could be that we simply believe animals to be quite good as
>research subjects.  If you can name, and exhibit, a better specimen
>you will be a *very* rich person in spite of saving animals.  Strike two.
Wrong. Alternatives do exist, but they all cost significantly more.
Worse, "prior results" all involve animals, and there's a tremendous
inertia and reluctance to switch over to the non-animal alternative,
because results will be difficult to correlate to prior research data.
Again, this simply means more effort is necessary initially, hence
requiring even more money.

>>Of course you've been successful.  If there's one thing
>>the animal testing community is good at it's closing 
>>ranks.  Too bad they've forgotten how to be scientists.
>	And you kindly forgot that the AT community is not who he is
>talking to.  It's the public.  Strike three.
Again, if you're trying to speak on behalf of the human public, then
I must be from Mars, just dropping by this week for a brief look.

>>w95_cook, you and others like you simply don't have the guts to 
>>admit that animal testing is, in fact, inhumanity on a gross scale.
>>You know it.  But you won't say it. 
>	I've got the guts to say that I believe you are wrong, and
>that you're way out of your depth.  Judging from all the evidence
>you've supplied here, you'd be out of your depth anywhere the sidewalk
>was wet.  Get this, pal, I don't believe what you believe.  Live with it.
This is priceless. You call someone out of his depth when he suggests
that treating animal cruelly is inhamane and must stop? Just what does
that attitude have to do with one's "depth"? Your lack of depth is truly
showing, since you're refuting arguments without ever checking into the
facts yourself.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Date: 10 Sep 1992 19:59:38 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <92Sep10.182213.4915@acs.ucalgary.ca> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:
>
>Yep, Ol' Russell is employed. When I derided him a few weeks back
>saying he must have a lot of time on his hands, he replied to me
>personally saying his boss doesn't mind. "Doesn't know" is probably
>more accurate.
Like I said earlier, I don't understand why Russell led me to believe he
was self-employed.  Having a full time job and paycheck from an employer
should certainly be more of a priority than part-time business or paper
route.  Perhaps Russell would be willing to clarify any misunderstandings
pertaining to the source of his livelyhood.  Russell, are you listening?


Mike Linan
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:40:58 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:


>I have two questions:
>
>1) Would you mind posting the email message that you claim I sent you?
>   Be sure to include the date and message-id. 

I don't have it any more.  I read it, had a good belly-laugh, and hit the 
'D' key to send it to bit-heaven.  I'm sure you've got a copy of it somewhere,
why don't you post it?  I'm sure this may come as a shock to you, Russell, but
I don't adoringly save each and every one of your scintillating posts.

>2) Don't you think it's rather moronic for you to challenge, first the
>   authority, and later the existence of other participants on usenet?

I challenged authority??  Huh??  Weren't you the guy telling me I that there's
no such thing as authority here on the net?  Russell!  Wake up!

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: non-leather shoes from China
From: sj@silma.com (Suzanne)
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:18:22 GMT
Organization: Silma Inc


 
 Just picked up a pair of non-leather shoes, brought them home
 and then noticed they're from China.  I'm worried they're
 made by forced labor, so I'm taking them back.
  
FYI, the store was Payless Shoe Source, the one most often
recommnded on the net as a source for non-leather dress
shoes (in the U.S., anyway.) 

I hate to think that I'll ever end up going back to leather
shoes (I'm a non-leather-wearing veg for 15 yrs), but if
everything comes from China, that's how it'll be.

I thought it was kind of strange how shoe prices seem to have
dropped in the last 5 years...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Animal have no rights
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:59:42 GMT

Jim B. Powlesland writes:
>Animals have no rights. Only PERSONS have rights. Human beings are
>persons because they have the capacity to make moral
>distinctions. Animals do not have the capacity to make moral
>distinctions; therefore they are not persons.

Animals do have rights.  They do not have human rights.  Humans have human
rights.  Do you know that an animal cannot make moral distinctions?
So, they may or may not.  Does that mean you have to assume they don't?
I have met some humans that are unable to make moral distinctions, does
that mean they are not persons?

Rob U, people are animals
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: CAL THOMAS AND INGRED NEWKIRK??
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:33:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <8SEP92.08583984@wums.wustl.edu> by w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu:

> I read an article by arch-conservative Cal Thomas about two weeks ago.  In it,
> he argued against increasing funding for AIDS research, largely because those
> who suffer from the disease "could have avoided it by not engaging in certain
> immoral behaviors." (not an exact quote).
> 
> The article was very bitter, filled with not one word of sympathy for the
> victims of this disease.  It also seemed very familiar, somehow.
> 
> It occured to me today that this article reminded me of Ingred Newkirk 
> (PETA's directory) and her position that AIDS research should be halted. She 
> also argues that the victims of the disease could have avoided it, and that
> therefore we should not use the chimps and macaques necessary to find a 
> vaccine.
> 
> I've always heard that if you go far enough to the political right, you start
> bumping into people on the far left.  I've never really realized until now
> how true that can be

Welcome to the real world.  This kind of thing usually manifests itself in the
censorship debate.  Whereas Thomas's opprobrium is probably directed primarily
at addicts and homosexuals, Newkirk's is directed at HUMANS as a class.  The
result is the same.  Death.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 04:06:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.192329.11750@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>Personally, I
>know many people who you would probably consider "opponents of PETA and
>Greenpeace" (though most of them if asked, would say they feel such groups
>are just plain foolish) but none who would waste their time calling 800
>numbers to harrass, or waste the money of, such groups.

My goodness. Such smugness coming from an American. How embarassing.

>Then again, they
>also aren't about to spend their own money making phone calls to request
>literature from these groups.  So, even if these groups are as worthy as
>some claim, it's unlikely that they will win over any potential supporters
>in my circle of acquaintance.

A rather simplistic analysis.
What are the available ways to promote your cause?
Media, political lobbying, grass roots promotion, holding vegan food
fairs.  All of them have far higher potential of getting the message
across to the ignorant general public than a free information phone
line. The phone line only works if the public wants the information,
like an AIDS information line.  In the Animal Rights movement, the
kinds of people forming "r l taylor"'s circle of acquaintance simply
couldn't care, hence we have to find an effective way to get the
message across, and give them a chance to evaluate it themselves. A
free information phone line is not the best way.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada