HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Date: 25 Jul 92 21:21:14 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <jecome01.711842559@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> jecome01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Eric Comer) writes:
>just wanted to start a conversation on the ethics of using animals
>in biomedical research.  how do you feel about the topic?  is there
>a compromise that can be made between no experimentation and unregulated
>experimentation?

OK, here's a compromise position that you might care to consider, which
avoids the absurdity of "no experimentation" and "any experimentation":

`` Take the criteria that are used today to decide which experimental
   medical procedures may be used on human beings, and when they may
   be used. Use those same criteria to determine whether an experimental
   procedure may be used on an animal, and when it may be used. ''

Note: this isn't necessarily my position, I am just suggesting it as a
possible compromise. I can't stand *extremists* either ....

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: HARES; INTUBATION; ZOOS; FUR
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:08:15 GMT

In <Bs706z.JAv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <viking.712469214@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> How many IRA-backed bombings, random deaths of civilians, police, 
>ds> and soldiers alike, and the cry is to end a greyhound killing a 
>ds> rabbit?  There is no doubt in my mind that somebody can't see the 
>ds> big picture here.  

>You're contradicting some of the claims that you made yesterday on
>behalf of ethical relativism.  It's funny how your "big picture" 
>appears and disappears to suit your purpose, Dan.  

	Huh?  I missed a bit, then, because I don't see where my feeling an
IRA attack is more significant and less ethical than a greyhound hunting a
rabbit.  Remember, my big picture is whatever I happen to see through my
filtered senses, Russ.  The smog in LA is something I could not help but
notice, yet two friends riding through Iowa mentioned the whole state
smelled like pig and cow shit.  Funny... <sniff!>  I don't smell anything.

	Side note: I have been informed via e-mail that the terrorist
attacks are in Northern Ireland, and this is just Ireland we're talking
about here.  Apparently cultural differences about in that area.

<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: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: ALTERNATIVES; MEDICAL SCHOOL
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:51:52 GMT


ALTERNATIVES; MEDICAL SCHOOL
 
 * More Medical Schools Drop Animal Labs from Curriculum - In our
last issue, we reported two additions to the list of medical
schools without animal labs in their regular curriculum.  Since
then, we have heard from several more, and report these for the
benefit of prospective students.  Additions include Yale
University, Baylor College of Medicine, Jefferson Medical College,
the University of Hawaii, Wayne State University, West Virginia
University, the University of Oklahoma, and Northwestern
University.  The University of California (Irvine) has dropped
animal labs from its regular curriculum, but continues animal labs
"on occasion" in an elective surgery course.  Overall, about one-
fourth of U.S. medical schools have dropped all animal laboratories
from their curricula. PCRM provides information on non-animal
teaching methods to medical students and faculty.  Medical students
who would like to participate in reviews of new teaching methods
are encouraged to call PCRM.
 
 From: Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
 PO Box 6322, Washington, DC 20015
 PCRM Update: Spring 1992
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Norwegian Whaling
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:55:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.080403.28117@ugle.unit.no> haralds@ifi.unit.no writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.160623.7682@vax.oxford.ac.uk> gms@vax.oxford.ac.uk
>writes:

[stuff about testing "warm harpoons" deleted]

>>I hardly dare ask...how and on what was this research carried out?
>>
>>Michele
>>
>I heard that they run som small-scale experiments: 
>killing baby-whales.....  (please don't  take this seriously!!!)
>
>Actually, when developing  things like this I don't  think testing 
>it on a whale is required. Suficcient mathematical models are
>awailable to calculate the impact situation - you can also test
>it on "dead" material (wood/steel etc.).
>
>Harald 

Michele,

     Harald is quite correct, such testing is usually modeled and then
tested on an inanimate substance.  Very often "ballistic gelatin" is
used to determine the killing or wounding efficency of a given weapon.
This gelatin is a reasonably good approximation of soft living tissue
and the "wound channels" generated in it are very close to those in an
actual living specimen.  Measuring these "wound channels" and
comparing their size to that of the vital organs of the animal (or
human, during testing of military weapons) gives an accurate feel for
its effectiveness.  Live models are rarely ever used during weapon
development, as Harald said.  Duxseal and clay are also used to
simulate live tissue during testing.


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"--
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Summary: extinction == death of an individual?
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:53:26 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <BrqyBM.34p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
     [deletion]
>
>From article <xtdmraf@dixie.com>, by refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom):
>th> It's not a great moral offense against the species that you're 
>th> killing, it's a great moral offense against all the OTHER species 
>th> (including man) that benefit from or are in some way reliant on 
>th> the extincted species.  
>
rl >Apart from man, which "OTHER" species would be offended by such 
   >extinctions?  If you can't offend an animal by using him in a 
   >medical experiment or by killing his companions prematurely, I 
   >don't understand how you could offend him by killing the last 
   >remaining members of a different species.  

Maybe a clarification of the usage of 'offended' would be in order here;
there exist in nature very some tight, highly specific predator-prey
relationships; one could surmise that extinction of the prey could
lead to extinction of the predator. With some twist of the word, such
a happening might be considered to 'offend' the dependent species.

I'm having a hard time following the thrust of this argument; I believe
you would agree that humans are not the only creatures that benefit from 
biodiversity, nor the only ones to 'suffer' should extinctions occur.
From the standpoint of biodiversity, there is a difference between the
deaths of individual members of a species, and the death of the last
members of species.

That said, I can't decide which way to interpret the above -- only humans
are 'salient enough' to be 'offended' by extinction? Humans are the only
ones who 'use' animals in such a way that they would be inconvenienced
by extinctions? Killing any individaual of a species is (morally)
no different from killing the last member of a species (or driving the
population to a non-sustaining level)? I suspect your argument is
the latter, but it just *seems* like there is a difference.

Bob Straubinger
Dept. Pharmaceutics
University at Buffalo   "Opinions above are mine, not SUNY's"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 14:44:22 GMT

In article <af7R02Sr1b8b01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
> 
>Note: I realize you disagree with my feelings re. the "ethicality" of 
>hunting. My point here was not to try to argue for my version, but to suggest 
>alternate ways of discussing ethics (i.e. the two points above).
> 

Ethics is sort of like being pregnant. Either you are or you're not. Likewise,
a person is either ethical or they're not. IMHONESTO. In my book, there is no 
in between. How many ways can you debate ethics??  
 
> 
>2. The hypocrisy of the messenger doesn't change the truth of the message. 

This is bullshit, Ted.  Would you watch a televangelist on tv begging you to
send him money when you knew he/she lived in a lavish home with gold-plated 
faucetts on a beautiful lake?  (God don't have no junk...) I don't buy it.
By the same token, don't even think for one second that I will listen to
a person who claims to being an animal right's activist and then that person
goes to McD's for a hamburger. Actions speak louder than words. 
 So you see Ted, when one has no ethics, one loses most or all of credibility
in the eyes of the public. What do you think Dr. Kevorkian's chances are of
being elected president of the AMA???   My guess is zero. (Remember he came
up with the suicide machine for terminally ill people)  He has lost his
credibility because he failed to uphold the Hippocratic Oath.


>The logical conclusion of your complaint about hypocrisy is that only those 
>that are ethically perfect can comment about ethics.

Sort of like "He who is without sin, cast the first stone", huh?

> Do you really want to 
>cut off all possible discussion of ethics?
> 
>Ted Robinson
>tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
>These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.

Keith


-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 | GO GAMECOCKS!   |   keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419  dod#????  | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny)
Subject: HUNT: Omaha's Fontenelle Forest
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 23:19:23 GMT

The deer population has gotten too big for Fontenelle Forest, the
officials there say they will allow hunting in the forest/preserve only
as a last resort.  See, Fontenelle borders another forest...Gifford
Point.  They allow bow-hunting in Gifford (as opposed to the "NO
HUNTING" rule at Fontenelle).  Gifford is contemplating allowing
musket-loaders to hunt this year, to bring down the herd count.  I read
this all in Friday's OMAHA WORLD HERALD.
 
I called the director at Fontenelle and asked about alternatives to
hunting.  He said that they could move the deer to another forest, but
it would cost a couple thousand dollars (that they don't have to spare)
and the mortality rate is high for such moves.  He said that the herd
had a disproportionate amount of does.  Does this mean that there are
too many does?  I assumed that's what he meant, but when I talked to my
sister later...she said that too many does is not a problem (but then
again, she acts like an expert in things she really doesn't know much
about).  At any rate, I thought I'd just pass this along, given the
"hunting" threads prevelant.
 
...e 
--
| Ed Stastny                   | SOUND Now available via: email (from me), |
| ed@odin.unomaha.edu          | gopher (odin.unomaha.edu), and snailmail. |
| Staff: SOUND NEWS AND ARTS   |===========================================|
|        Newspaper and netzine | Death has far too short a fuse, live!
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: HUNTING NEWS
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:25:48 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <tl1x4a@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) 
writes:
> Just so you kiddies know, the National Shooting Foundation *didn't*
> claim that "bathing is twice as dangerous as hunting."  They claimed
> that a person was twice as likely to die by drowning in a bathtub than
> by being killed in a hunting accident.   
 
John - you're splitting hairs. Whatever the precise wording, the (attempted) 
implication of the NSF is clear, and they did so using lousy statistics. 
Using the same logic one could say "a person is far more likely to die by 
drowning in a bathtub than by being blown up in the Space Shuttle". The 
article posted by Ferrell tried to normalize the numbers by accounting for 
two things:
 
1. The ratio of bathers to hunters is about 16. This factor is clearly 
missing in the NSF approach and needs to be added in.
 
2. The ratio bathing attempts/bather:hunting attempts/ hunter is about 36:1. 
This also needs to be factored in. Doing these adjustments yields a measure 
of danger in terms of deaths per attempt. 

A different approach is to measure it in terms of death per time spent on the 
activity. It's arguable which is a better metric of "danger", and the AR side 
chose the approach which sounds best to their ears, but note that the NSF 
seems to have used neither. You've castigated AR folks for abusing 
statistics, while overlooking the fact that the NSF folk abused them even 
more.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Date: 25 Jul 92 20:39:27 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.161746@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <jecome01.711842559@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
>jecome01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Eric Comer) writes:
>> just wanted to start a conversation on the ethics of using animals
>> in biomedical research.  how do you feel about the topic?  is there
>> a compromise that can be made between no experimentation and unregulated
>> experimentation?
>
>   Yes, and it's already in place.  Here at Iowa State University 
>any experiment using vertebrates has to be approved by a 
>comittee that checks for cruelty, funding for care etc.  I thought
>this was the case most places.
>
>   What on earth made you think experimentation is unregulated?
>
>
>> 	Thanks 
>> 		Eric

What make you think that he thinks it is unregulated? Unless my newsreader
skipped some lines, he said "Is there a compromise between <extreme position
A> and <extreme position B>?".

To which you reply: "what makes you think that <extreme position B> is now
the case?"

He raised the topic in a very neutral way, and you immediately take it that
he is a rabid "anti-" - maybe he is, but the message certainly didn't give you
grounds to think so.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: HUNTING NEWS
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:32:45 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <ya1xrkm@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>     It's a common notion among certain hunters that AR folk have come
>up with their convoluted values (no offense anybody) from watching the
>film "Bambi" too many times, and actually starting to *believe* it.

Just to provide one data point:

1. Much though I dislike labels, I guess I am one of the "AR folk".
2. I have never seen "Bambi", not once.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: "A Very Good Opponent."
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:13:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.131542.41815@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.e
du (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>> think the actual number is about 355 degrees, which makes them a very good
>> opponent on the ground.  Traditionally, it's been too easy to get them in
>> the air, and especially with repeating shotguns.  When our forefathers
>
>    A "very good opponent" ... wow, if a turkey is a very good opponent,
>what's a not-so-good opponent?  A tree?  How about a barn?  Is hunting barns
>sport?  I guess they have to be alive to be sport.  Some sport.  Outwitting a
>turkey.  Sounds a little too challenging for me.  Those turkeys are cunning
>ones, yes sir.  It's a wonder they're not the ones rocketing to the moon, or
>theorizing that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared.  I
>wonder if Einstein liked to hunt?  Einstein said he would "rather be torn to
>shreds" than involve himself in base, violent actions.  The question here is:
>was Einstein an unknowledgeable animal-rights fanatic and pacifist who wished
>love for all the cuddly little creatures, or a man who is at least slightly
>more evolved than they majority of those in his species?  Is someone who likes
>to hunt, even though the can acquire meat at the grocery store, more evolved?
>... more intelligent?  Or is looking at them like looking into the normally
>uncontrolled and aggressive and primal and instinctive man that he was for mos
t
>of his evolution?  Is achieving the power of thought over aggressive instincts
>the next stage in human evolution? Will mankind ever become more evolved than
>it is now?  If everyone eternally accepted that hunting is more rational and
>intellectual than it is primal and instintive, would the power of thought ever
>become more powerful than the power of instinct?  Should anyone even TRY to
>achieve this?  Or is it better not to try?  Should I give in to those who say
>I'm full of shit about all of this and redefine the purpose of my existence?
>What is the purpose of being alive?
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
>David Caruso II                    "Great minds are the most misunderstood."
>dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu                            -- DAC2

Why don't you get some international experience, perhaps live with peoples who 
don't have enough to eat?  In general, you ask a lot of important 
questions--your perspective seems limited.  Keep dreaming.
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Skill as defined by Caruso II
Date: 28 Jul 92 08:58:47 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>In article <Brvzvy.JE5@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>>[snip]
>>>Mike Linan writes:
>>
>>>DC2>	Hunting seems simply a matter of ...
>>>>
>>>> All this wonderful insight from one who has never engaged the sport of hunt-
>>>> ing. 
>>
>>>	Well, please tell me, am I wrong?  What am I missing, Mike?  Is it 
>>>really so much more complex than it sounds?  Please, enlighten me ...
>>
>>What are you missing? Experience. That goes for anything, sex,
>>parachuting, hunting, ...  It's no good asking someone what it
>>feels like to them, you have to see what it feels like to you.
>>
>>So the very BEST for you to appreciate what is involved is by trying it
>>for yourself. Asking someone to *describe* what it feels like -
>>especially using this appaling medium - must like having sex with a wet
>>paper bag, it just isn't anything like the real thing (or so I'm told
>>:-).
>>

>This is all very well, but surely you aren't saying that we can't have
>a view of - or even form educated opinions about - activities we haven't
>personally participated in?

Of COURSE you can have a view on the subject.

I am very suprised that you feel that your opinion is "educated"? You
start by saying that no skills are involved, that you have never done
it, and yet you think your opinions are "educated"? If you say
something that is ignorant, incorrect, and downright FOOLISH, you
should EXPECT to be caught up short.

>Try going over to soc.history and saying something like "all this condemnation
>of the Holocaust, from people that have never killed themselves a Jew/gay/commie/
>gypsy in there lives!" ....

Try LEARNING rather than merely postulating.

>hunters with nazis, I am merely pointing out that we all have lots of opinions
>about activities in which we have not personally participated, and those
>opinions are not thereby worthless.)

Not worthless, just rubbish.

--Jonathan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Soft Headed Thinking Disgusts Me
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 06:00:07 GMT

 dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

>George Dibos writes:
>> No?  Then please defend the rationalization that killing less complex
>> life-forms (vegetables) to sustain yourselves is more justifiable than
>> killing higher life forms.

>	Basically, I hold a fundamental respect for ALL life.  Of course, it is 
>a part of a normal ecosystem that life consume other life.  However, technology 
>has now made eating meat *unnecessary*.  Therefore, I do not eat meat, because 
>I respect all life and it is not necessary to eat meat.

	In other words, you respect plant life less than you do animal life,
and don't state why you do so.  Interesting...  This is very similar to the
hunter saying he respects animal life less than human life.  I suppose you
have an answer to this?

>  There are many 
>important nutrients and other necessary items that I must have to survive that 
>can only be found in plants.  Therefore, I must eat plants.  As soon as I can 
>acquire the necessary nutrition without killing a plant, I will do so.

	What will you be killing in this case, and how is that "better"?

>	I could eat meat, like it has been natural for man to do in the past.  
>But I believe it is time for society and the human race as a whole to take 
>another step of advancement in their evolution and become more independent, and 
>also more respectful, of their environment and other life forms.

	Evolution has never been a conscious decision, so far as I have been
able to tell.  When your incisors and canine's disappear, then it will be
time to be herbivores.  Until then, your decision to "evolve" does not
implicate the rest of the race to do so.  In addition, your life is still
dependent upon the killing of other life forms, no matter if they are plants,
animals, or yeast.  Would you mind telling us how you can justify this?  I,
and others, are justifying killing only a few steps up the food chain, so
perhaps your reasoning has escaped us?

<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. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jecome01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Eric Comer)
Subject: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:02:39 GMT

just wanted to start a conversation on the ethics of using animals
in biomedical research.  how do you feel about the topic?  is there
a compromise that can be made between no experimentation and unregulated
experimentation?


	Thanks 
		Eric
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals