HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Sunday, 20 Dec 1992 21:43:59 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject:    NRA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service




  NRA To Assist Wildlife Habitats

  Washington (AP) - The National Rifle Association of America, the
  nation's main lobbying organization of gun owners, today joined with
  the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote wildlife conservation.

    The NRA and the federal agency, in signing a memo of understanding
  on conservation and management efforts, stressed that the programs
  would benefit wildlife as well as hunters.

    The agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Services will make refuges
  more accessible for hunters as well as promote educational programs
  and tours.

    Richard DeChambeau, director of the NRA's hunter services division,
  said volunteers from among the NRA's three million members would donate
  time and labor to improve wildlife habitats.

                      Thursday, December 17, 1992 THE PHOENIX GAZETTE, A3
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Poem about animal rescue
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:55:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.204507.12217@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>
>[Cheesy poem gloryfying terrorism deleted]
>
So rescuing animals is terrorism now?  What definition of terrorism are you
using?  Theft, perhaps, but terrorism?

>Rosemary, I get the impression from the last two posting that you support
>the activities of the ALF.  Is this true?
>
I don't know enough about ALF to pass judgement yet, I'm just giving another
side to balance out the huge number of "ALF are a bunch of terrorists"
postings which have appeared lately.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:09:16 GMT

In article <Bz9M4p.8AC@ccu.umanitoba.ca>  () writes:
> In article <1992Dec8.025720.13151@pellns.alleg.edu>,
> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Well well well.  Ha ha ha.
> > 
> > I just read PETA and it's two chief people, the pig woman and whats  
his  
> > face are in hot water.  It appears they are being brought up under the  
> > RICCO legislation for raqueteering charges.  Not only may they go to  
jail,  
> > but PETA and all of it's assets would be siezed.  Ha HA HA HA.
> > 
> > Boy this is better than a hot grilled rubeun with lots of thousand  
island.
> > 
> > Put People First
> > 
> > 
> > Karl 
> > romingk@alleg.edu 
> 
> 
> Ha HA HA HA. Put Grammar First.
> 
> -----------------
> Jonathan Esterhay

It was late when I posted this, and that was further compounded by the  
fact that I sometimes forget to check my spellings.  However, despite  
grammatical problems the fact still remains PETA is about to suffer the  
same fate as a marshmellow at cub camp.

Karl
romingk@alleg.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: "A rat is a pig is a....."
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 14:53:52 GMT

mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

>In article <ByvMC8.8DI@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>.[...]
>> Do you support laws that criminalize mistreatment of animals.  If so,
>> would it be reasonable for us to assume that you're an animal rights
>> advocate? 

>Sorry to burst in, but you have no evidence that humans must give "rights"
>to animals in order to treat them humanely or to regulate their treatment. 
>Such laws might just as easily fall under the aegis of animal welfare.

In the thread that was being carried, Martin, what you've written above was
precisely Russell's point.  Someone had said that Adolf Hitler was a supporter
of animal rights & they felt that the evidence for this lay in the fact that
several laws regarding the welfare of animals were brought into existence 
during Hilter's reign.  Both you and Russell are making the exact same point.

alka

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:49:12 GMT

linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:

>>Thanks for volunteering.  I have the hammer.  Mike, can you bring the
>>nails?  Rich, you bring the main post, Martin, bring the horizontal.

>On my way Mary.  Only problem I see is who gets to do the hammering? :-)

	Just as a precautionary note, we should avoid making him a martyr.
Last time we tried it, the Mormons left Nauvoo, founded Salt Lake City,
and retaliated with The Osmond Family Christmas.  Before that...  Well,
Rome fell, the Dark Ages began, and another new religion sprang up.

	Nope, it's just too risky.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:16:17 GMT

black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>Uh Rip, ... er I mean Dan, in case you just woke up after a long sleep,
>this is 1992. :-)

	Bubonic plague still exists in the USA, and smallpox still exists
on other continents.  While I admit this doesn't mean we aren't killing
enough lab animals, it does mean that we still have a long way to go
before eradicating these diseases.  Perhaps an alternative cure could
have been found without rat testing, but given the decimation the plague
and smallpox once caused, would you risk a human life on it?

	My grandfather survived polio.  He now has one leg a bit shorter
than the other, but is otherwise fine.  His brother died from it.  Do
you think he, or even I, would care how many rats died finding a cure
to the disease?  I think not.

	Come to think of it, cancer is still the leading killer so far
as I know.  That terminal cancer patients still volunteer for very
experimental treatments in a desperate hope to live makes me less and
less concerned about a rat with a tumor.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: AR merchandise in Canada
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:17:54 GMT

The Animal Rights Catalog
#205-1857 West 4th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V6J 1M4

cost: $2.00

All sorts of books, personal care products, housecleaning supplies,
vitamin and mineral supplements, petfoods, videos.  All products guaranteed
to be vegan, except the cat food which is vegetarian.
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:51:05 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <1992Dec16.195018.9105@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>In article <mhulsey-161292141424@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu
> (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>>In article <Bz9p2L.AwD@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>>
   [deleted; this just gives a handle to the third participant]

mh>>I haven't yet been successful in locating the post.  Are you hereby denying
  >>that you ever claimed to attend an "ivy-league" institution?

jmh>Russell made a statement something along the lines of ["even at the
   >ivy-league institution I sometimes call my alma mater..."].
   >
   >At least this much is apparent:  he states he did graduate from this
   >institution.

I disagree - he apparently claims nothing more than the occasional act of
referring to some school as 'alma mater'. While there may be other
postings with further detail, this one made no claim (to my
recollection) of his having attended (or graduated from) some
ivy-league school. I leave it to the historians of t.p.a. (or
those with more comprehensive archives) to sort out.

While 'alma mater' has some common interpretations,
to invoke these interpretations is to make a major assumption.

--Bob
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjozwiak@shearson.com (Jenny Jozwiak)
Subject: REPLY TO TODD ET AL
Reply-To: jjozwiak@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:19:48 GMT


.(Do not misinterpret this as suggesting that I oppose abortion in order
.to save the white race, or any such thing - I oppose abortion because it
.is murder - and use it as an example of how the value system being forced
.on society is fundamentally incompatible with itself)
.

.Todd Law



No.  Abortion is abortion, murder is murder.  Murder is killing an individual/s.   Abortion is killing an embryo/fetus, which is not yet an individual.  The mother is
an individual and if she is carrying the dependant embryo/fetus in her body, it is  her choice as an individual whether or not she wishes to continue to carry it to full
term at the early stage of pregnancy. The living individuals rights must come before
a fetus.  Why?  Because if you dared to think about what chaos would occur if say
abortion were considered murder, and punishable by death....well, not only would there
be alot of illegal abortions but there would be a lot of dead women.  But you dont
care about that do you?  Women are probably looked at by you as something less than
men anyway.  Well, we women will continue to have or not have babies, no matter what
you say.  It is our bodies that nurture and house the fetus, and ultimately give birth
to an individual.  But that is OUR decision, NOT yours...cant handle that can you?  
The idea that there might be something women can do that effects humanity that men
can not control....

 YOu men can go decide to kill men, women and children in the name of freedom, or
oil, or power....YOU WAGE WAR.  Your good at that.  When men stop waging wars period,
then MAYBE I will listen to your pious words regarding "the murder of a fetus".
Hypocrites.

Jenny

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: AHA Abuse Studies
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:47:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.143911.8006@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>ANIMAL CRUELTY; CHILD ABUSE
> 
> 
>A newly published resume of research on the correlation between child and
>animal abuse, compiled by the American Humane Association, confirms the
>long suspected relationship between abuse of animals and violence toward
>humans.  Among the major findings: 
> 
>   152 criminals studied by Alan Felthous and Stephen
>   Kellert reported having committed 373 atrocities to animals
>   during childhood.  Most of the criminals came from violent homes.
> 
>Researchers Elizabeth Deviney, Jeffrey Dickert, and Randall Lockwood
>discovered that among 57 families being treated by the New Jersey Division
>of Youth and Family Service in connection with child abuse, 88% of those
>in which children had been physically abused had also been involved in
>animal abuse.  Two-thirds of the time, an abusive parent killed or injured
>an animal to discipline a child.  One third of the time, a child took out
>hostility by abusing an animal.
> 

(much more of the same obvious observations deleted)

Yawn. Could anyone but an academician be even a little surprised by this?
The obvious conclusion: There are folks out there with no conscience who
break laws and abuse those who are powerless to defend themselves, in spite
of societal taboos against such behavior. Having displayed a tendency toward
such behavior, they are more likely to repeat said behavior than those who
haven't. 
   Who pays for these idiotic studies of what is and has been obvious to the
majority of rational humans for as long as they've bothered to think about 
it? Some people deserve nothing more than a quick death. 

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: ALF policy on violence
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:57:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.145233.14695@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.203951.11903@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>
>>What's your point Rosemary?
>
rw>Just that contrary to the impression a lot of posts have given, ALF has a
rw>policy against violence.
>
WHAT?  These people use BOMBS.  They burn down buildings.  They vandalize
private property.
THAT'S not violent?
                              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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:17:03 GMT

From article <1992Dec17.215534.23590@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>, by jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson):
> rl =  russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
> mh =  mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
> 
> rl: Would you mind specifying the precise german term that was used in order
> rl: to proclaim such support?
> 
> mh: This will be forthcoming upon translation.  I, too, am keenly interested in
> mh: this point.
> 
> rl: Why don't you type in the term?   I'll translate it myself.
> 
> Please tell us what qualifies you to give an accurate translation.
> Perhaps you have a degree in German?  If so, from where?
> --
> John Kapson, future graduate of the Lawrence Academy of "Debate"

Perhaps you meant to refer to the Hulsey Academy of "Debate" 
here.  It's the Hulsey Academy, not Lawrence, that's committed to 
the dubious practice of resolving arguments by appealing to 
credentials, emblems of authority, and so on.  Lawrence, on the 
other hand, has made it clear on many occasions that he prefers 
facts and reasons to 'ad hominem' appeals.  Examples:

================================================================
You still haven't figured out that appeals to authority fall into
the category of "ad hominem" arguments.
================================================================
Any competent philsopher would testify that the truth or falsity 
of an idea cannot be ascertained by appealing to the credentials 
of the speaker.  
================================================================
Can the truth or falsity of a statement be determined by 
appealing to the authority of the speaker?  
================================================================
In the future, I hope that you'll focus on the facts and arguments 
presented by men and women like [doctors names deleted] in lieu of 
demeaning yourself by appeals to their authority.
================================================================

Incidently, the Hulsey Academy is also well-known for its use of 
"double standards" and "special pleadings" to defend its use of ad 
hominems.  A good example of this is the claim that a medical 
doctor needs credentials in nutrition to express his opinions 
about food hazards at a public press conference, whereas a 
"nutrition scientist" requires no credentials whatsoever to 
express his views on any subject that he chooses in a public forum 
like usenet.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:12:01 GMT

In article <Bz9q9p.Azr@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
rl> Thanks for pointing out that it's fallacious to assume that a given
rl> speaker favors "animal rights" simply because he's opposed to animal
rl> mistreatment.

From article <mhulsey-161292145605@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Is it fallacious to deny that a given speaker supports animal "rights" 
mh> when they have proclaimed that they do?

It's fallacious to use equivocal definitions of the term "animal rights"
in order to mislead an argument, Martin.

mh> There is no evidence that we must give "rights" to animals in order to
mh> provide for their welfare or humane treatment.  

rl> Yet, you'd have us believe that the nazis were "animal rights" advocates
rl> because they were allegedly opposed to vivisection, as practiced in the
rl> 1930's.

mh> Not at all.  I believe that the Nazis supported animal "rights" because
mh> they proclaimed that they did.

Would you mind specifying the precise german term that was used in order
to proclaim such support?

mh> Also, the Nazis were not "allegedly" opposed to vivisection.  They
mh> *outlawed* vivisection.  Why don't you check out the Arluke & Sax article
mh> that I cited?

"Vivisection", as practiced in the 30's, has also been outlawed here
in the United States.   Surely you're not a proponent of such practices?

rl> The practice of using terms like "animal rights" and "vivisection"
rl> ambiguously for the purpose of deceipt is called "equivocation", but 
rl> you already knew that.  Didn't you? 

mh> Yep.  The practice of ignoring relevant questions is called "evasion."  
mh> You wrote the book on that.  Didn't you?

You're entitled to your opinions.

-- 
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: humans are smarter than ants [was Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?]
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:47:57 GMT

nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:

>Your statement suggests exactly why human exploitation of animals is wrong.

>Ants don't have a choice.  They can't figure out -- "reason" as you say -- 
>a different way to do whatever it is they do with the ants they enslave.  
>Birds, same thing.  Bacteria, even more true.

>But this argument patently inapplicable to humans, as you point out by 
>noting that humans can do sophisticated reasoning.  We CAN figure out 
>alternatives.  We DON'T need to exploit animals.  And therefore we 
>shouldn't, since it causes them suffering.

	You would cause me a great reduction in suffering if you would
have used that RETURN key every 70 or so columns too, but you did not.
Is that because you are a bacterium, bird, or ant, or is it just because
you didn't know the answer to this problem?  The point?  If you can
demonstrate reasonable alternatives to every use we put animals in, then
your argument would hold.  Until that time, you are no better than Thag,
the ancient wanderer who wantonly ate grubs and insects as food during
his long treks through the Mesopotamian wilderness, not knowing that
plants could be domesticated and cultivated.  The ability to reason we
have, but all reasoning must be done in steps, and we're not too far
from Thag in reasoning terms.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: REPLY TO TODD ET AL
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:42:06 GMT

	In regards to the "abortion is murder" debate, there is a simple,
obvious solution that nobody has yet tried.

	Find a place that does abortions, and charge both the woman and
the doctor with murder in the first degree.  Prosecute.

	If guilty
		abortion is murder
	else
		shut the hell up
	endif

Simple, effective, and a fairly quick solution.  If Operation Rescue
or others don't feel they can do this and get a conviction, that only
tells me they are fringe elements not to be taken as representative
of society.  Note that this same tactic applies equally well with
those who believe eating meat is murder.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: humans are smarter than ants [was Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?]
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:40:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.003403.20790@beaver.cs.washington.edu> nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.153602.14023@samba.oit.unc.edu>, itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>|> Rosemary, I view biomedical research as a defense in the stuggle for
>|> survival.  Bacterial and other microbes exploit their ability to mutate to
>|> survive.  Some species of birds exploit other species by laying eggs in
>|> their nests.  Some ants exploit other species of ants as slaves. I exploit
>|> my ability to reason.
>
>
>Your statement suggests exactly why human exploitation of animals is wrong.
>
>Ants don't have a choice.  They can't figure out -- "reason" as you say
> -- a different way to
>do whatever it is they do with the ants they enslave.  Birds, same thing.  
>Bacteria, even
>more true.
>
>But this argument patently inapplicable to humans, as you point out by noting
> that humans can
>do sophisticated reasoning.  We CAN figure out alternatives. 

Nick, what alternatives  might these be.  Yes there is research going on as
we speak to develope new alternatives.  And I can assure you that if valid
alternatives are developed they would be welcome by the research
community.  Animal experimentation is tedious, difficult, and expensive. 
Furthermore, no researcher I know enjoys using animals or benifits from
their use( other than scientifically).
Besides I'm not speaking of choices here.  It is well accepted that
natural selection favors those who can best adapt to survive.  We (i.e.
humans) were not given sharp teeth and claws.  We don't have stingers,
camoflage, poisonous skin, or the ability to run fast.  We have highly
developed intelligence (yes possibly even Russell). That is our advantageL
our evolutionary gift.  By going into the lab and developing drugs and
technics that fight off those "things" that thraeten me, I am exploiting
what nature has given me.  The fact that other animals die in my pursuit
for survival, is natural selection.  Nature as it works every day and has
worked for millions of years.


> We DON'T need to exploit animals. 

Yes we do.

                                          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