HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:54:21 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>In article <vqrzjgf@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>[...]  And that's to be expected.  They consider
>>owning animals to be slavery, ...
>
>Aw come on, John!  I've got 14 cats and I won't even mention how many
>dogs.  I don't view myself as a slaveowner, so why would I view other
>pet "owners" as slaveowners.  I can't see how anyone can take this
>seriously.  It wouldn't surprise me if well over 90% of animal advocates
>likewise share their living quarters with multiple animals covering a
>wide assortment of species.  And they don't consider themselves to be
>slaveowners.

Fair enough, Bob.  Only the "people in charge" have publicly stated
such views, and I agree that probably most AR folks don't think owning
pets is slavery.  It is, however, indicative of how blindly you
(general) follow. ;-)  I do feel that my original point stands.  You
folks consider hunting to be murder, and would not be tolerant of it
*at all* if you were in the majority.  This is nothing
earth-shattering, by any means.


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"--
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: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:33:44 GMT

In article <BvvH8w.IFK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>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.
>
References:
Genesis 41:8 - Pharoah called for magicians to interpret dreams.

Exodus 7:11 - Pharoah summoned magicians and sorcerers, who turned
              their staves into snakes.

Commentary from the New Internation Version, Life Application Bible
on Exodus 22:18  - ... Sorcery was punishable by death because it was
                   a crime against God Himself.  To invoke EVIL POWERS
                   (emphasis mine) violated the first commandment to
                   "Have no other gods."  Sorcery was rebellion against
                   God and His authority.  In essence, it was teaming
                   up with Satan instead of with God.

Leviticus 19:31 - Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you
                  will be defiled by them.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 - Pagan sacrifice outlawed along with divination,
                       sorcery, casting spells, mediums, spiritism, and
                       consulting the dead, as parts of witchcraft.

Numbers 22:4-6 - Balak calls in a socerer to curse the Israelites so
                 that he can defeat them.

Acts 8:9-11 - A man Simon was a sorcerer who had quite a following
              because of the magic he performed.

Acts 19:18-19 - Sorcerers converted, burning their spell scrolls.

The NIV verse for Exodus 22:18 "Do not allow a sorceress to live."

Biblical Sorcerers were beings with supernatural powers.

Humans who claim that they are witches would have to prove their
supernatural powers to be accepted as Biblical Sorcerers.

Mary Otto

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 20:37:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

If PETA and others of their ilk had the courage, they would
travel to the northern communities on the North American
continent and explain to the trappers, many of whom are
Aboriginal peoples trying to maintain their culture by living off
the land, why they shouldn't be harvesting furbearing animals. I
suspect they do not because they know they would encounter
everything from derision to their own personal death.  They would
rather stay in the major cities in the south where it's safe and
hassle legitimate businesses that sell fur (the majority of which
is ranched) to a market that demands it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:02:07 GMT
	<RIGG.92Oct8111323@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct8.204737.7648@clpd.kodak.com>
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:47:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.204737.7648@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
   In article <RIGG.92Oct8111323@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >That is my point.  Nearly all of the AR folks that I have met are also
   >anti-gun folks.  

   How many AR people have you met?  Of those, how many expressed "anti-gun"
   sentiments?  Exactly what did they say?  

I recently heard Wayne Pacelle of Friend for Animals speak on campus.
He sadi many things that were word-for-word out of HCI literature (I
"accidentally" got some HCI liturature from some of the mailing lists
I am on).  Another AR person I have been chattting with though email
said nearly identical staments: namely, the lies about "cop killer"
bullets and plastic handguns.

   Even though you don't know me, you can add me to the column of pro-AR
   and NOT anti-gun.  Thank you. 

I am quite happy to hear this.

   >By eliminating hunting with guns, their is one less
   >reason to allow guns; 

   This is BS.  My concerns about hunting have absolutely nothing to do
   with guns per se.  My suspicion is that you've been taken in by NRA
   propaganda.  In order to appeal to wider groups, they seem to be
   promoting this idea of linkage.

I can quite personally say that you are wrong.  There have been
numerous attempts to ban .25 and .32 caliber (and 9mm) amunition.  The
sponsors of the bills claim that their are NO sporting uses for any ammo
of this caliber.  Now, I own _one_ gun, a .32 Winchester special,
lever-action deer rifle.  It is the picture of a "sporting" weapon.
However, there is a strong effort to make my only rifle useless.

Another example is "sniper rifles".  Some gun grabbers have started to
work on banning these evil weapons.  They will have no success, of
course, since nearly all modern deer rifles are excellent "sniper
rifles". 

   The NRA should stick to 2nd amendment concerns.  The 2nd amendment has
   nothing to do with hunting.  ...

This is totally true.  However, until the supreme court has the
"testicular fortitude" to hear a gun case and say that the 2nd
ammendment most certainly does not mean the national guard, we will
have to consider such issues.

   >something most AR folks would like.

   Prove it.

I can't.  I mistakenly made generalizations about a group based on a
small sample.  However, do you honestly believe that over 10% of AR
folks support the second ammendment?  I don't.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 7 Oct 1992 19:08:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct5.222340.326@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org writes:
>In article <1aigfaINNn1n@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike  
>Linan) writes:
>> In article <BvIDvo.A0s@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> >Russell Lawrence writes:
>> 
>...
>> The question asked was why don't hunters hunt other hunters.  Number one,
>> this is against the law.  Number two, this is immoral in the eyes of most
>> societies.  These two factors combined with the overall tone of the poster,
>> led me to conclude that the poster and her comments were idiotic.  
>> 
>...
>Hunters hunting hunters are murderers because they are killing life.
>It is against law. It is immoral under most societies and religions.
>BUT sometimes just these societies go crazy and are making war.
>None of the above statements is remembered. Nobody stands upright
>(even christians) to say that killing any life is immoral anytime.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Even Christains?  How about especially Christains won't stand up to 
  to say killing animals for food is unethical because their (our) 
  God has stated that there is no wrong in doing so.


>What a untruthful society. Not killing is tougher than killing.
>No step forward. On the contrary, only steps backward.
>Why so down? Just seen a report about Ireland. These people are
>making 'war' since 800 years against each other (as one of them told).
>Luzy (if this is the name of the oldest known link to mankind) will
>feel ashamed for her descendants.


  This is how you feel.  I can appreciate that for what it is.  However,
  I do not agree with you and your views concerning the killing of animals
  and that is that.  I do agree that killing of humans is unethical :-).
  You are welcome to your beliefs but, don't bash us (those who don't feel
  the same) just because our views are different.


>Udo.


  Mike Linan
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 8 Oct 1992 15:13:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Bvs2z0.319@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Mike Linan writes:
>ml> Your confused Russell.  I never asked nor do I expect you or anybody
>ml> to accept my beliefs.  I really for the life of me do not know how
>ml> you can misunderstand what so many others clearly say to you.  

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> In this case, I suppose you won't have any objection if we expand the
>rl> scope of rights to protect the deer that you wish to kill, as well as
>rl> the witches that you might otherwise wish to kill.    

>From article <1av4hlINNssn@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> What an idiot.  :-) Look Russell, I've tired of you and your 
>ml> drivel.  If you have something interesting to discuss I'll be 
>ml> happy to do so.  But, for now you have bored me to pieces and I 
>ml> don't feel like wasting any more of my time responding to stupid 
>ml> questions.  

>Yes, there is something I want to discuss.  You've stated in the 
>past that non-human animals do not have rights, yet you've 
>admitted that you support existing laws than ban unnecessary 
>cruelty to dogs and cats.  Would the existence of such laws not 
>lead us to believe that (some) animals already enjoy (some) 
>rights in our society?  If so, would you also agree with me that 
>the concept of non-human-animal rights is not altogether 
>different from the concept of human-animal rights?  


Excellent!  Questions of proper subject matter!  My opinion is, I am
not sure if you could call the laws that protect animals from UNNECESSARY
cruelty animal rights or laws that limit the behavior of humans.  I guess
you could say that animals do have some rights at this time.  Human rights
and animal rights are the same in that they are not an absolute right that
one is guaranteed.  They can be violated and vary from society to society.
They are a different class of rights at least.  If man chose to pass laws
that gave rights to rocks, rocks would then have rights whether they 
needed or deserved them or not.  

I think the issue here is what different people view as *unnecessary*.  I
do not view hunting or livestock production as unnecessary.  Others 
obviously do however.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan






Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:20:01 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ... you seem to think that you can dismiss the role of sentience 
rl> and sapience in ethical arguments by pointing out the fact that 
rl> humans aren't omniscient, and hence, will never know everything 
rl> there is to know about sentience and sapience in other beings.  
rl> To illustrate, Rich Young's mind, no matter how hard it tries, 
rl> can't fully fathom what goes on in the mind of a cow or the mind 
rl> of a snail since it doesn't have their sensory input and mental 
rl> circuitry and environmental experience.  Do you not agree?  

From article <1992Oct16.145740.5962@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> No, Russell, you have it wrong yet again.  I've never said that
ry> sentience and sapience are not VALID criteria, I've only said
ry> that they are ARBITRARY criteria, and no MORE valid than a variety
ry> of other criteria.

Yet you've been unable to explain how a being that is neither 
sapient nor sentient could either develop or appreciate ANY 
criteria whatsoever.  

ry> The only position I've advocated is "alive" vs. "not alive," a set
ry> of conditions which can be measured.

The fact that a condition can be measured doesn't mean that it's 
relevant to an ethical discussion.  To illustrate, we could measure 
subatomic movements, but this wouldn't lead us to conclude that we 
should value hot ball-bearings more than cold ball-bearings.  Nor 
would the presence of self-replicating chemicals oblige us to 
treat a bacterium with greater respect than a grain of sand.  

One test of your "criterion" is whether or not it has any 
practical applications.  So far, the only practical application 
that you've presented is the notion that the killing and eating 
of cows is ethically comparable to the killing and eating of 
carrots.  Unfortunately, this sort of reductionism has the 
earmarks of a red-herring.  

BTW, when you're able to define the verbs "to know" and "to 
recognize" without reference to "meaning" and "significance", 
please let us know.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: On the Record
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:19:36 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <swood.719204830@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>[...] I called [Russell] 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).

It doesn't have to mean that at all. Maybe he just thinks that one day you
will see the futility and foolishness of calling people rude names instead
of addressing their arguments, and then you will regret being so silly.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:30:11 GMT
Organization: WP Group


Mike Linan writes:
ml> Find your own answers Russell.  This line of questioning has no 
ml> bearing on animal issues and really is a waste of my time.  Sorry 
ml> old bud.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Of course, it has a bearing on animal issues.  You've stated in the
rl> past that your "god" gave animals to humans like yourself to use as
rl> you see fit.  No offense, but it seems to me that your notion of
rl> "god" is not only antagonistic to the concept of animal rights, but
rl> antagonistic to the concept of human rights as well.

From article <1b1hk6INNc6j@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> So you seem to think.  I disagree with respect to human rights.  
ml> I have given my faith very much thought (something you will no 
ml> doubt find amazing) and while I will on occasion discuss it with 
ml> those who will not pass judgement and are open minded, I really 
ml> don't see that a man or woman will persuade me to waver on my 
ml> faith in God.  You do not have to agree with my faith.  

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.  However, it
seems obvious to me that your beliefs are antagonistic to the concept
of human rights that much of the world has come to take for granted.
To illustrate, many people who don't share your religious ideas may
argue that they own their own bodies, to do with as they themselves
see fit, but you seem to believe that all humans, regardless of their
religious beliefs, are the rightful property of your "god".  You can
prove my point in this matter by answering the following question:  

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

If your answer is affirmative to the first question or negative 
to the second question, then it seems likely to me that you're 
claiming a special priviledge for your "god" that you would 
probably deny to other humans as well as other gods and 
goddesses.  

rl> What rights would humans have, for instance, if it's perfectly ok 
rl> for you to kill innocent men, women, and children if/when your 
rl> "god" tells you to do so?  

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 Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:41:05
	<RIGG.92Oct5100242@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct6.184348.6065@clpd.kodak.com>
	<RIGG.92Oct7113927@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
In-reply-to: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu's message of 7 Oct 92 11:39:27

In article <RIGG.92Oct7113927@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:

   My contention is that these unpredictable movements are of little
   consequence when shooting at unalarmed deer under 20 yards.

I meant to type 30 yards...

tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:24:43 GMT

In article <Bvu8LA.6n8@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Another point that concerns me is the possibility that "god"
>apparently changes his mind.  According to protestant and
>catholic leaders alike, it was ok to kill witches even a few
>short centuries ago because god said so.  Since this sort of
>opinion is hard to come by in modern times, I can't help
>wondering whether "god" changed his mind, or perhaps, "god" was
>simply misrepresented all along.  Either way, this casts doubt on
>Linan's claim that "god" gave him permission to (mis)use animals.
>Do you disagree?
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Certainly I disagree with you.  According to Mike Linan, the old
covenant of God has been replaced with the new one (the New Testament)
in which God no longer presents the directive to kill witches.
Apparently, God changed her mind between the writing of the two
testaments.  It took backward mankind centuries to update his practices
with the "new and improved" directive from God, i.e., people in Salem,
MA burned witches, people in 1990's Berkeley do not (at least not
usually!).

If you're to make your argument effective that Mike is erroniously
basing his hunting on biblical "permission" don't you have a duty
to show that the bible does not grant this permission?  If you are
trying to point out that just as the idiot biblical believers burned
witches up to a few centuries ago, so too will modern-day Christians
learn that God does not want them to hunt or eat non-human animals
then you have to either a) present the relevant biblical passages,
or, b) tell us what you think God (excuse me; "god") will be saying
to people like Mike Linan on this subject in 50 years.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:23:43 GMT

In article <BvpvBM.4Iv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> What's the difference between "mindless acceptance" and "faith", Mike?
>
>From article <1aq37pINNr7@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> What's the difference between you and a fool Russell?   You obviously 
>ml> feel that any type of faith is mindless acceptance.  I obviously feel
>ml> that is foolish but, that doesn't make either true.  I also never
>ml> described my faith as mindless acceptance as you I admire mindless ac-
>ml> ceptance as you say I did.  You have a habit of saying people said 
>ml> things to you that they never did.  Would this be enough to label you
>ml> a liar?  Or just deceitful?
>
>Let's get back to one of the statements made by your "god" that I
>cited previously:  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."   
>
>Is this the sort of command that ought to be taken on faith?  Or, 
>would it not be wise for us to ask ourselves if a "god" really 
>gave such a command, and if so, should we obey.   Would you be inclined
>to say that a person who mindlessly accepts such a commandment is
>an "idiot"?    
>

Russell,
   Much as I appreciate a lot of your writing, you're really acting like a
jerk on this issue. IMO it would be a more appropriate dialogue in alt.religion
or somesuch, but you've taken it so far from tpa it's become totally
irrelevant. Give it a rest, please.

Jeff Achenbach
              
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals