HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:04:58 GMT


The following article is from Jamie Pehling.
------------------------------------------------------------

          Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine

    There  is a lengthy "special advertising supplement"  to 
the  New  York  Times Magazine for  4  October  1992  called 
"Fabulous Furs".  According to a disclaimer of sorts on page 
4A, the insert, which is saddle-stitched inside the magazine 
as  if  a part of its normal content, "was produced  by  the 
American  Fur  Industry and the Fur Information  Council  of 
America  and did not involve the reporting or editing  staff 
of The New York Times."

    The   insert  consists  of  20  pages   of   advertising 
apparently  for  fur  producers and  retailers,  among  them 
Maximilian,  Bloomingdale's, Mohl Furs,  Christie  Brothers, 
Sorbara,  Saga Mink of Scandinavia, and Neiman  Marcus.  The 
final  page  is  dominated  by  the  (in)famous   Blackglama 
advertisement  featuring the slogan, "What becomes a  Legend 
most?" that PETA and Cassandra Peterson lampooned with "What 
disgraces  a  legend most?" in the "Fur is  DEAD"  campaign.  
The  Blackglama advertisement includes the phone  number  1-
800-445-MINK "for information to guide your purchase."   The 
number reaches an answering machine. 

    Interspersed  with  many  photographs  are  quotes  from 
largely  unknown (to me) persons, presumably  prominent  fur 
figures.   Among the most memorable are "Why fake  it?   Get 
real.   Fur...it's  forever!"  by  Martin  Price  and   Juan 
Pisonero  Giorgio  Di  Sant'Angelo, "Fur  is  a  challenging 
medium in which to express myself creatively." by Zuki,  and 
"If a woman wants a fur, it's her right." by Valentino.

    I  wonder if the New York Times Magazine  would  publish 
the aforementioned PETA ad?

    The  Times welcomes letters from readers  at Letters  to 
the  Editor,  Magazine,  The New York Times,  229  West  43d 
Street,  New  York  NY  10036.   Letters  must  include  the 
writer's name, address, and daytime telephone number.
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:45:48 GMT
Organization: WP Group


In <BvxLx8.92x@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> My personal recommendation is that we cut the crap, and stick with the
rl> known facts.

From article <1992Oct12.191235.4692@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> A wise idea; I trust we won't be seeing more speculation regarding
ry> PR stunts by hunters in your future postings unless there is proof?

The next time someone accuses AR folks of blowing up mailboxes 
(without proof), you can count on me to bring up the alternative 
possibilities.  Since you have no desire to be an illogical, 
raving hypocrite, I'm sure that you won't be raising any objections.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animals in research
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:21:29 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <1992Oct4.004437.378@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org writes:
>Just some hours ago I saw a report about test animals in japan (apes).
>They were treated like waste ...
> .... Why do they still test?
>
>Udo.

   Vague as this story is, it prompts a question -- does anyone know
how animal research is reviewed and regulated in Japan?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:50:10 GMT

In article <1eav02LF25TT01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>with the following ethic:
>
>  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.

	You are, of course, assuming that there is some absolute truth to
	the statement above.  There may well be thousands of people who
	do not subscribe to your postulate, which would make your questions
	inappropriate.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:48:28 GMT

swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:

>ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>....
>`during the presentation.  He was further told that he could remove his hand
>`at any time if we wanted to.  A mere 40 minutes later, the man's hand was a
>`deep purple.

>`Now imagine if instead of that man's hand, an animal's paw was trapped in the
>`"humane" device.

>No imagine that the trap was a size too small for an object the size
>of a human hand.  And imagine that an animal is going to not be aware of
>the trap and thus get his leg positioned differently than a human that was
>volunteering.

Precisely, Scott:  the animal will *not* be aware of the trap, and as multi-
tudes of photographs & films have borne testimony to the fact, these trapped
animals often have their limbs trapped in different positions, along with 
portions of their faces, tails, and so on.  Also, since the traps are not 
labelled for which species they are intended and since animals can't read,
one very often finds the wrong type & size of animal trapped in a particular
trap.  This is to say nothing of the fact that non-target animals are very 
often trapped and then discarded. 


alka

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:20:50 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> If your "god" told you to kill a group of men, women, or children 
rl> without providing an explanation or permitting questions, would 
rl> you obey?   Would someone who obeys "god" in such a matter be 
rl> trodding on the basic human rights of the victims?

From article <1b4asdINN12d@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> I'm not getting into this with you Russell.  You can think what you 
ml> want about religious beliefs but, you pretending games are not some-
ml> thing I want to be a part of.  It's clear you do not believe in faith
ml> or God so I don't expect you to understand my position.  It is a waste
ml> of my and other posters time to continue this subject line.

As you may remember, Mike, you answered the question previously 
via email.  I was hoping that you would share your views with 
other readers so that they may understand that your notions about 
"god" are antagonistic to the concept of human-animal rights as 
well as to the concept of non-human-animal rights.  

ml> If, if and if.  One of your favorite pastimes is pretending but, 
ml> my God has not told me anything directly other than by his word 
ml> in the Bible and nothing in there says to kill innocent men, 
ml> women or children.  

rl> Sure there is.  For starters, how about:  "Thou shalt not suffer a 
rl> witch to live".   

ml> You either have a very short memory or you are very hard headed 
ml> Russell.  I told you that the verse you quote is from the Old 
ml> Testament and was a different time with different laws from God.  
ml> Since the time of Jesus Christ the Old Testament has been 
ml> superseded by the New Testament with changes and revisions.  This 
ml> may be convenient to my argument but, it has not changed in 
ml> nearly 2000 years.  

You say that there haven't been any changes, but history 
demonstrates that protestants and catholics were hanging and/or 
burning witches into the late 17th century.  The demise of this 
practice came about...  not because the writing on the pages
of the bible suddenly and mysterious changed, but because of 
the growing respect for the concept of rights.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Chuck D'Ambra)
Subject: Are sentience and sapience arbitrary ethical criteria?
Reply-To: chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu
Organization: The Big Cracker
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:12:59 GMT

Rich Young maintains that sentience and sapience are arbitrary criteria
for ethical determinations (if that is not a precise statement of your
position, please clarify).  He recently posted several alternative biological
classifications as examples of other possible arbitrary criteria.  I did not
save the article, but I believe all of the examples differ in that only
the presence or absence of sentience and sapience determine whether or not
an organism is capable of suffering and of caring about what happens to
itself.

Is it your position then, Rich, that capacities for suffering and conscious
self-interest are arbitrary criteria for ethical considerations?

--------------------
Chuck D'Ambra
chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:02:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.135608.10208@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.182631.6179@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

>Where? I didn't know any state allowed drug-tipped arrows.

Mississippi has allowed them for many years.

[...]

>
>Jeff Achenbach

---
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: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:05:15 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You say that killing of humans is unethical.  Would this include 
rl> "witches" in particular, not to mention all sorts of other people 
rl> who don't share your religious beliefs?  

From article <1b4ha1INN2he@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> I don't know of any "witches", do you?  That is not just someone 
ml> who likes to pretend they are a witch but rather someone who has 
ml> supernatural powers...

So you say.  However, I've read the relevant passages many times and
don't recall any distinctions between witches with supernatural
powers and witches without supernatural powers.  If you think such
passages exist, please post some references.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:19:23 GMT

In article <BvtKyC.2Cy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
Mike Linan is attributed as follows:
>ml> If, if and if.  One of your favorite pastimes is pretending but, 
>ml> my God has not told me anything directly other than by his word 
>ml> in the Bible and nothing in there says to kill innocent men, 
>ml> women or children.  
>
>Sure there is.  For starters, how about:  "Thou shalt not suffer a 
>witch to live".   

Russell,
The Bible covering supernatural events and all, one would expect
something on witches.  But you have no proof that the witches
described in the Bible as having supernatural powers actually
existed.  Nor have you answered the challenge to prove that a
witch is human.  Until you have proven your assumption that
witches are human (and heresay by people who claim to BE witches
cannot constitute scientific proof) we must assume that they are
NOT human.  That eliminates the possibility of Mike's God telling
him to kill innocent people.

Mary Otto



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:11:17 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <viking.718437457@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>In <Bvpwxo.4qv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>>Mary Otto's tactic:  Post an article that makes her opponent the subject
>>of the conversation.
>
>>Definition of the "ad-hominem" fallacy:  An argument that attempts to 
>>disprove the truth of an opponent's arguments by attacking the opponent.
>
>	If your credibility can be disproven this way, it is indeed a
>valid method of persuasion.  

[...]

This only works if the statements in question depend on INFORMATION
provided by the person whose credibility is under challenge. 

If the statements in question are based on LOGIC, as Russ's often are,
then they can not be disproven by attacking him.  You must attack and
refute the words and the logic.  Attacking him (or anyone else) instead
of the words only exposes the bankruptcy of the attackers' position. 

---
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: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:54:38
	<1992Oct5.221442.21930@spdc.ti.com>
	<1992Oct7.182351.15869@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:23:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.182351.15869@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

   >But your solution appears to be a ban on bowhunting, whereas

   Though I haven't yet mentioned a bowhunting ban, I have not seen any
   convincing reasons to oppose such a ban.  

   The main case for bowhunting seems to be that it provides excitement and
   recreation for a subset of hunters.  From the animals' standpoint, it
   offers no "advantages" which are not already available from gun hunting.

There are advantages for the animals:

1)  Hunters are much more limited so they will do a better job of
removing the young and the weak.

2) There is much less disturbance.  The sound of a bow is almost
imperceptable whereas a gun shot alarms animals over a much wider
area.

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


There are also benefits to nonhunters:

1)  There is much less disturbance.  People can relax in their back
yards without worrying what the latest gun blast was from.  The
serenity of the woods is preserved.

2)  The hunting areas are safer.  There is a small but nonzero risk to
nonhunters from stray bullets.  The inherent safety of an arrow is
orders of magnitude better.

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


tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: On the Record
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:07:10 GMT

Just to go on the record, in one of my recent replies to a semi-hostile
response I received from Russell (when I suggested that some of his posts
were non-relavent or to obscure for this newsgroup and would be better
suited to email) I called him and "ASSHOLE".

He seems to think that I will somehow regret this in the future (which
must mean that he was planning on stepping accrossed net lines and using
it against me in a later arguement or something equivalent).

I know this itself is a waste of bandwidth, and I apologize, but I just
wanted to let it be known - that with the response I recieved - and
Russells apparent disregard for order, truth and polite suggestion -
I, IMHO, considered him to be an "ASSHOLE" at that particular moment
in time.  Enough said.

swood

DISCLAIMER:  The opinions expressed here I in no way regret!


-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:00:43 GMT

In article <BvKn6w.1Kz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
Attributed to James Hoskins:
>jh> Many people, quite learned, empirical and rational have religious
>jh> faith.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. 
>
Russell demands:
>Proof?

Here's just a few of the many learned, empirical and rational thinkers
who were Christians.  (I think Mike Linan is in good company.)

Galileo
Isaac Newton (who actually did quite a bit of religious writing)
Euler was a devout Lutheran
Copernicus was a priest

Albert Einstein:  "I believe in God, because to not believe is to deny
the moral fabric of society."  also "God does not play dice."

George Washington Carver

C.S. Lewis

Rene' Descartes (wrote a philosophical work proving the existance of God)


If you require a more contemporary reference:
Dr. Schaffer, University of Georgia, Professor of Chemistry and nominee for
the Nobel Prize in Chemistry


Mary Otto


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:13:35 GMT

From article <1992Oct9.154731.16670@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> Now, this is the third time that I've re-posted this.  One would 
ry> normally assume that three repetitions would be sufficient to make 
ry> it crystal clear that nothing has been "abandoned" here and that
ry> there is no "appeal to non-existent authority."  If we say that the 
ry> sapience and sentience you use as criteria to assign moral and ethical 
ry> relevance, or "status", to non-human species is utterly without 
ry> significance to those non-human species, we have said precisely the 
ry> same thing without using the term upon which you've hung this 
ry> desperate excursion into semantics rather than substance... 

What makes you think that sentience has no significance to non-human
species?   [mind-reading perhaps]

Anesthesia is a tool whose major purpose is to diminish sentience 
so that painful and/or emotionally disturbing medical procedures 
can be implemented without causing unnecessary suffering for the 
recipient.  Do you believe that animals should receive anesthesia 
prior to surgery?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:18:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.184348.6065@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <RIGG.92Oct5100242@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.165521.3131@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>   In article <RIGG.92Sep30190220@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>Okay, but there are always the unpredictable movements of the animals
>and the less forgiving nature of arrow inflicted wounds.  (i.e.  less
>forgiving than bullet or drug-tipped arrow)
>

I think maybe you overestimate the effectiveness of a bullet. A gut shot
deer will probably not be found whether shot with a bullet or an arrow. 
Same with a leg shot. I don't know how quickly these drugs work, and suspect
that may also be dependent on shot location.


>>  Most responsible hunters
>>are working hard to prevent high wounding rates.  The easiest way is
>>to help other archers become proficient with their equipment.  
>
>Actually there is an easier way, one that even handles the unpredictable
>movement by the target animals to an extent which no degree of
>proficiency could ever achieve.  That way is described by Benke in his
>book.  And that way is supported by others including the Mississippi
>bowhunters and Dr. Keith Causey, Auburn University Professor of Zoology
>and Wildlife Science (who has 31 years experience as a wildlife
>scientist and bowhunter). 
>

What bothers me about this solution, as I've stated before, is I believe 
it would tend to spawn an attitude among the more casual bowhunters that 
any shot is acceptable, so long as the deer is hit. Maybe it's my own 
predispositions, but I have that attitude troubling. I just can't believe
that even a drug tipped arrow doesn't have a possibility of inflicting a 
nonlethal injury.


>>
>>A less preferred way is to mandate proficiency.  I have a tough time
>>with this but supprt a test of a bowhunters ability.  The ideal test
>>would be to have all would-be bowhunters shoot a course similar to my
>>league course and then require some minimum score to obtain a license.
>>There are many logistical problems with this but it would succede in
>>dramatically reducing wound rates.
>

This is already done on some wildlife management and military lands. I
think it's a good idea, but hate to mandate anything. Why not do the same
for gun hunters? 
   IMO, the compound bow has brought more people into bowhunting than is
desireable. It is much easier to become proficient, and I have no objection
to people using them. What bothers me is that many people use it only to 
extend the deer season, and don't practice enough or take the time to 
learn the difference between shooting a deer with a bow and a rifle. I 
wonder if wounding rates would show an increase that correlates with the
virtual explosion of bowhunting's popularity?


Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: so long for now (maybe)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:14:42 GMT

   I'll be going to another lab on a temporary assignment starting Monday.
I don't know what computer system they use, or if it will allow me access
to the net. In case it doesn't, or I can't figure it out, I just want to
say I've really enjoyed these discussions. I'm scheduled to be back in 
January, so I'll check in then for sure.

Regards,
        Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals