HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Date: 5 Jan 1993 00:08:51 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan4.213344.14811@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>It's  not an american  "thing"
>as i see it but more of a rural, family, cultural thing.  Hunting with dad
>grandpa or other family members.  Collecting guns, target shooting, ....
>Its hard to for to explain as I was not raised into it.  But, having
>friends in it, and being there for a short period of time, I can tell you,
>from an objective point of view, its there.  

Agreed - and you do bring a less ethnocentric perspective on the issue,
which is important.  However, hunting with dad or grandpa might be an age
old tradition for some families, but that does not make it ethically
justified.  Not to argue with you personally, as I agree with you, but
speaking in general - some things that are family traditions aren't
necessarily things that deserve preservation based on that fact alone.
Alcoholism, wife beating, and bloodletting might be  family traditions for
that matter.

One of the great philisophical errors is to believe that the way things are
is the right way - that because it has always been that way therefore it
is right and proper.  If this were true, women would still be barred from
applying to law school, blacks would not be able to vote, etc.  Of course
there are those who still believe that, and I'm afraid they are beyond help.

I too have had experiences with these 'cultures' - I had a girlfriend from
southern Illinois once, and her family had the serious attitude that "if
anyone walked onto gradma's farm, cousin Jed and Clarence would shoot
them".  No questions asked.  Even if their car was broken down and they
wanted to ask to use the phone.  And they would tell me this in dead
seriousness.  Maybe that's the way they live, but I thought it was
rather ignorant -- without trying to sound condescending.  Some elements
of "heritage" are just morally objectionable unfortunately.

greg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:18:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.214805.24525@clpd.kodak.com>,
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:
> 
> In article <mhulsey-070193091416@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan6.215136.11377@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
> >(Paul Roberts) wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >The opinion also detailed the chronological development of the Maryland
> >anti-cruelty statute.  Contrary to Pacheco's assertion, there was no change
> >in section 59 during his tenure in Taub's lab that would make animal
> >researchers subject to this law.  The version of section 59 in effect at
> >that time was instituted in 1975.
> 
> Pacheco didn't assert that the law had just been changed.  He said he
> just *learned* that the law had been changed previously.

Bob, you are correct here.  Either way, Pacheco was wrong.

From Singer, In Defense of Animals, p.140:

"Then, after about two months, I found out that a revision in the Maryland
statute had excluded language designed to exempt animal experimenters."

The "revision" to which Pacheco refers occurred in 1975, and did NOT
exclude "language designed to exempt animal experimenters."

From the Appeals Court Opinion, p.5:

"It can readily be seen that the legislature has consistently been
concerned with the punishment of acts causing 'unnecessary' or
'unjustifiable' pain or suffering.  Furthermore, clearly the legislature
recognized that there were certain normal human activities to which the
infliction of pain to an animal is purely incidental and unavoidable and,
in such instances, Section 59 does not apply."

Therefore, Pacheco (or whoever advised him) was mistaken in his
interpretation of Section 59, and had no legal cause to pursue his "case"
against Taub at the expense of the welfare of Taub's monkeys.

The Appeals Court Opinion made clear that _bona fide_ biomedical research,
such as that carried out by Taub is a "normal activity" and that the use of
animals in such research is both necessary and justified.  The anticruelty
statutes do not therefore apply to the conduct of authentic research.

The case of the Silver Spring monkeys was a legal defeat for PETA for two
reasons:

1) Taub was fully exhonorated.

2) A legal precedent was established in Maryland that protects animal
researchers against further application of Pacheco's tactics.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:33:44 GMT

In article <1ia52dINNgdq@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.083700.26155@doug.cae.wisc.edu> ftarnol@nma.mnet.uswest.com (Fred Arnold (303) 896-8084) writes:
>>If we begin now, we have time to organize and plan a campaign
>>to defeat this latest attack on our hunting heritage.  We cannot afford
>
>I disagree with hunting in general on the grounds that it is not only no
>longer necessary, but because it's motivations are out of sport and
>some pseudo-claim to "heritage" rather than survival it is unethical.
>But I am only addressing the "heritage" point you made here since that is
>the issue at hand.
>
>Believe it or not - I am pretty open-minded about these things...so differ
>with me if you'd like.
>
>greg


Greg,
   I probably shouldn't be here as biomedical research is my "bag".  I am
not a hunter and have strong feelings regarding gun control.  But, after
living for a time in Kentucky, involved in wildlife management I became
aware of this "heritage" you refer to.  It's  not an american  "thing"
as i see it but more of a rural, family, cultural thing.  Hunting with dad
grandpa or other family members.  Collecting guns, target shooting, ....
Its hard to for to explain as I was not raised into it.  But, having
friends in it, and being there for a short period of time, I can tell you,
from an objective point of view, its there.  


                                          Greg Popken
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:02:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.063201.8239@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <mhulsey-110193164303@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>
>
>There's certainly no shame in being on the FBI's hit list. Every
>social change / civil rights group in recent history has been there.

On the FBI Terrorist Oganization List?  Do you have examples?
>
>Can you give me some examples of people killed or injured by
>"animal rights" actions, so that I can get a sense of just how
>bad this "terrorism" is?  And these bombings that we sometimes
>hear talked about - how many of those in the last twelve months, 
>say?

June 1990.  ALF plants a bomb under the car of a veternarian in an attempt
to kill him.  The bomb goes off prematurely, shrapnel hits a baby in a
carrage  paralyzing it.

About the same (I don't have the ref. now) another car bomb, placed under
a car explodes when the wife of a researcher is inside. She escaped burned
but alive.

1989 U.S. Terrorist Research and Analysis Center. Alf is responsible for
approx. 100 crimminal acts since 1982.  Three of which have been decleared
as terrorist.

If you want more recent info. let me know.  I don't have my files here. 
But ALF has been up to alot lately( lab raids, meat packing industry
attacks etc...) I can assure you.

 > >Sometimes I wonder if someone isn't trying to promote something     
 >>that is little more than an urban legend. 

Tell that to the people whos lives and families have been threaten.

WAKE UP

Greg Popken
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Feeding the big snake
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 00:35:42 GMT

I had occasion to feed my Australian Carpet Python recently and it made
me think about the whole predator/prey relationship.

I tossed the prey mouse into the snake's cage and sat to watch a little
microcosm of nature.  At first the mouse looked around the cage with no
concern but then, it noticed the odd creature staring at it and moving
towards it; the mouse began to grow nervous.

The snake froze in striking position then and the mouse quickly forgot
about it.  Little fuzzy began wandering around the cage carelessly then.

BAM!  Suddenly the snake lashed out, grippe the mouse with its mouth,
threw several coils around it and lifted it into the air (Carpet Pythons
are arboreal in nature).  The mouse, which was basically receiving a more
painful version of the treatment whats-his-name Dodd up in Washington
state just received, trembled with fear.  After a moment, the mouse's
eyes began to bug out and its feet twiched spasmodically.  Then it died
and the snake set about swallowing it.

Shall I post a GIF, next time?

   don

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:33:01 GMT

From article <lktvmuINNndr@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> In article <C0KvDA.BLs@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>Do you understand why our legal system makes a distinction between
>>"major" and "minor" persons?
> 
> Yes, I do.  Do you understand why animals are not treated as "minor"
> persons, yet?  Keep workin' on it.

How do you explain our society's treatment of "minor" persons 
(infants, for example), given your prior statements concerning 
rights and legal responsibilities?  

You wrote:

======================================================================
> The simple fact of the matter is that animals don't have rights.  To
> have a concept of rights, one must have a concept of legal discourse
> to secure those rights.  Regardless of how hard you try, you can't
> make animals live within your legal system, just as I can't make them
> live within mine.
======================================================================

You seem to be suggesting that an individual must have a concept of
rights, in order to be treated in a rightful manner by individuals
who do, indeed, fit within our legal system?   If that's not what you 
were saying, please clarify how/why an animal's concept of rights is 
relevant to the discussion.

Just so you know'll where I stand, I'd say the debate over animal
rights concerns the way that responsible humans ought to treat animals...
not the way that non-human animals ought to be treating humans.

>>> "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
>>>  by those who have not got it."
>>>                                 -- George Bernard Shaw
>>
>>"Animals are my friends; I don't eat my friends." 
>>                                  -- George Bernard Shaw
> 
> One of the more obvious reasons why Shaw was respected as a
> professional cynic, not a professional vegetarian.

This remark doesn't make much sense to me.  Were you hoping to dismiss
Shaw's views by dumping them into a non-existent category  (eg.
"professional vegetarianism")?   Be that as it may, do you think Shaw 
would be cynical of your political theories?  Or, do you think he'd
accept them on the basis of mere convention?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.bizarre,rec.humor,rec.pets.birds,alt.sex
From: sorlin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven J Orlin)
Subject: Re: Turkey sex
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:19:44 GMT


In article <GLEASON.93Jan8165158@scf16.scf.loral.com> gleason@scf16.scf.loral.c
om (Robert Gleason) writes:
>
>-   In article <1993Jan8.211014.26797@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> rjwade@rainbow.ecn
.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>-  >In article <C0HpFz.1A4@panix.com> stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller) writes
:
>-  >>I would just like to point out, on behalf of mammels everywhere, that
>-  >>turkeys do not, repeat DO NOT have phalli.  No Turkey Dicks, period.
>-  >>Cloaca, that's it.
>-  >>
>-  >you mean coca-cloaca?
>-    Is this the kind that *comes* in liters??
>
>Oh, so *that's* what egg nog is? (and why there is so much around the holidays
)
>
>[Man. This is getting really sick ]-)
>
>
>Robert.

so stop, this is alt.sex, not alt.turkey.sex
-- 
"If I wanted your criticism....it was in my former life."
Steven J Orlin                   /\  /\  /\  /\  /\  /\
sorlin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu/  \/  \/  \/  \/  \/  \
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10924 alt.peeves:18923
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:30:23 GMT

From article <mhulsey-050193105134@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>>[article deleted]
> 
> Thanks for finally providing this information Russell.  However, this is a
> small fraction of the references that you originally "cited" (though
> incompletely).  I see absolutely no reason why it should have taken three
> months to grab this article from your archive and repost it.

As I pointed out previously, I've discussed this particular incident for 
weeks-on-end on two separate occasions and I truly do not wish to dive
into it without giving the topic a greater "rest".

> If this article provides an accurate account of the methods and findings of
> the LSU researchers, then I would go on record as opposing this particular
> "experiment" also.  If other facts are later brought to light, I might
> waffle.

The article that I posted is by no means complete.  When I have a chance,
I'll post additional materials.  I'd suggest that you reserve judgment
until then.

> The comment that you made in an earlier post about DOD animal research
> being exempt from the AWA also disturbs me.  However, it is typical for the
> government to pass laws for us, then exempt themselves.  

This doesn't make sense.  HHS is a part of the government, and it's
HHS funding procedures that were most heavily affected by the AWA.

> I see no reason
> why military researchers should not also be obliged to justify their
> projects to a review committee composed of military researchers, although I
> could see reasons for keeping the information therein from the press &
> public (for some time) for the sake of national security.

I can understand this argument, but it falls apart when the researcher
turns around and argues that his work is driven, not by military objectives,
but altruistic ones.

-- 
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: analogy: hunting and sex [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:00:14 GMT

In article <C0H2AE.ILG@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>In <1993Jan6.200018.12928@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>
>It seems to me one would have to be deliberately obtuse to take
>what anyone has said to mean that hunting is unethical _just_
>because it is recreational. It's possible to find sentences that
>seem to say that, but in context the argument always goes: the
>suffering and death of animals are not justified by fun alone.

*Wrong!*  Sherwin really did say that he found it objectionable because
it was not necessary for survival and was recreational.
>I don't object to hunting, but the sex and beer analagies ignore
>half the 'recreation' argument, i.e. the suffering.

The sex and beer analogies were carefully chosen.  Many people
consider sex for purposed other than reproduction and merely for
pleasure to be unethical (on religious grounds).  Many people
also consider the consumption of alcohol for non-medical (survival)
purposes to be unethical (on religious grounds).  I quote for you
Mr. Sherwin's original denounciation of hunting as a "sport":

From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Date: 4 Jan 1993 20:01:17 GMT
In article <1993Jan4.083700.26155@doug.cae.wisc.edu> ftarnol@nma.mnet.uswest.com (Fred Arnold (303) 896-8084) writes:
[cut to the chase]

Sherwin wrote:

I disagree with hunting in general on the grounds that it is not only no
longer necessary, but because it's motivations are out of sport and
some pseudo-claim to "heritage" rather than survival it is unethical.

>
>Werner

Any questions?

Mary Otto
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:30:28 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <lkrj4rINNj35@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking) writes:
>                 ... oops, I'm probably too pig-ignorant to make that
>observation.
>

All your bluster about how Might Makes Right does tend to suggest that, yes.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:07:49 GMT

In <C0Gytp.9Iy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <C0G62G.9I8@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca:
>> In <C0EnLC.Hyn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> 
>>>I can't speak for other AR activists, but I prefer to base my judgments
>>>of "good" and "bad" on the facts and arguments, rather than appealing to
>>>conventions.  To give you an example, I'd say that torture is wrong
>>>because it hurts... not because it violates a law.
>> 
>> Giving birth hurts too, but surely you wouldn't say that it is wrong.
>> Sometimes pain is acceptable, sometimes it's not. What is acceptable
>> is determined by convention.

>Acceptability and convention are equivalent terms.
>Would torture be "good" if it were acceptable/conventional?

Is drinking unacceptable because a small interest group considers it "bad"?

Isn't the AR issue about what is acceptable and what is not, rather than
about the semantics of what is "good" or "bad"?

>(Yes, I realize that pain isn't always bad).

So you need another example of how facts and arguments tell you 
what is wrong and what is right.

Werner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: why hunting is unethical
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:45:00 CST
	<1iaid3INNjkd@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<1993Jan5.170206.29823@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
	<1993Jan5.235340.7158@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<viking.726304371@vincent1.iastate.edu>
	<1993Jan11.062609.12319@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
In-reply-to: nick@skate.cs.washington.edu's message of Mon, 11 Jan 93 06:26:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.062609.12319@beaver.cs.washington.edu> nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:

   If hunting is more than just a kill, then by definition if we subtract
   out the kill then there will still be something left.  I guess
   something about the fun of sneaking up on the animal, the smell of gun
   powder, feeling self-reliant, whatever.  Why can't you get all that
   with blanks, or better yet just a walk in the woods??  Presumably you
   agree; if not then we won't get much farther.  

I do not agree.  "hunting" with blanks is missing many of the
advantages of hunting.  The most obvious and important (to me) thing
missing is the venison.  One of the primary reasons I hunt deer is to
obtain a freezer full of lean, drug-free meat.

The use of blanks also eliminates the need for marksmanship.  Finding
a clear shooting lane, a cooperative deer, and a steady hold are key
components of the hunt.

   Now to the killing part of your satisfaction.  To make it easy to
   quote and respond:

      my fundamental claim: it is unethical to kill sentient beings
      just for the satisfaction of killing them

Please see above.  There is a lot more to hunting that just the
satisfaction of the kill.  Most notably is the venison.  Secondary
benefits include increased health of the herd and ecosystem.
 
   (Notes. (1): It is also unethical if done for lots of other reasons,
   and there's lots of other unethical things we can do to each other,
   but we don't need to go into that now.  (2): To make it clear, we are
   now no longer talking about the smell of gunpowder or whatever; that
   was a few sentences ago.  So it does no good to say "But killing is
   only PART of my I enjoy hunting.")

But that _is_ the debate.  The hunt does not exist without the kill
and the kill _is_ just one component of the hunt.  If we are are "no
longer talking about the smell of gunpowder or whatever", then what
are we allowed to talk about??

   So tell me why you disagree with this statement, and how this meshes
   with your belief that, say, humans shouldn't murder one another.

Humans should not murder one another because we have entered a social
contract which outlines how we will treat one another.  Nonhuman
animals are not capable of such a contract.

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