HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:13:53 GMT

In <BzzqrM.q1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>75% of the food consumed in the US is produced by 3% of the farms/ranches.
>Do you think the large operations have a genuine love and concern for 
>animals --- hidden away somewhere between the mail room and the executive
>boardroom perhaps?

	I used to produce 1100 head of hogs per year and roughly 1000 head
of cattle per year.  The mail room stood on a post beside the driveway,
and the executive boardroom contained a microwave, TV, stove, and a table.
It was also used to eat meals in.  In other words, the kitchen.

	Of the large, "corporate" farms I have known, they meet the
same criterion.  Perhaps the farms you refer to actually had a boardroom
and a mail room.  I doubt it.  Whoever is in charge of caring for the
animals makes the decisions on a day-to-day basis; the directors who
sit in the baord room you mention above either 1) take his advice and
have flunkies compute a new bottom line, or 2) ignore it all and have
lots of dead animals to pass on to stockholders.

	Either way, those flunkies don't tell the caretaker squat
about what to do or when to do it.  It's still the same as the "family"
farm we all wax nostalgic about.

< 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.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: booninvail@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: animal rights 101
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:11:16 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

I have just finished teaching a course on animal rights in the 
philosophy department at Georgetown.  I am interested in hearing from 
people who have taken or taught such a course at other schools: what 
texts were used, what specific topics were covered, what was effective 
or interesting, what made the course successful or unsuccessful, etc.  
I am hoping to have the chance to teach the course again, and would 
benefit from hearing from you.  

Thanks,

David Boonin-Vail
Dept. of Philosophy
Georgetown University


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:20:56 GMT

From article <mhulsey-211292140312@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <BzHL7s.7v7@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>>[...]
>> I wasn't boasting when I made this comment.  Your insistence to 
>> the contrary is another indication of your inability to think 
>> critically.  
> 
> Because you are such a "critical thinker," why don't you tell us why it is
> not a boast?  Doesn't the term "ivy-league" suggest an premier institution
> of higher learning?

Yes, but I don't believe that my affiliation with such a school 
confers any special merit on me.  My ideas will stand or fall on 
their own merits, regardless of my academic background.  

>> You seem to be making a distinction here between "second-rate" 
>> schools and your own school, University of Georgia at Athens.
> 
> Yep.  I'm proud of my institution.  You might say that I was boasting here.
> I was not intending to disparage any other institution.  Note that I
> indicated they, too, would be smart enough not to hire a "scientist" who
> had published only two papers in eight years.

It's a shame that your "alma mater" apparently relies on quantitative
figures rather than qualitative evidence.  

As I pointed out previously, the shortcomings of this approach
are discussed at some length in _Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and 
Deceit in the Halls of Science_, by William Broad and Nicholas 
Wade.

-- 
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: Hunter Kills Jogger
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:28:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.233242.5945@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.180253.16876@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>   I can understand an accident wherein a bullet travels through brush and
>>injures someone who could not be seen. I've never been able to understand 
>>these cases of mistaken identity. The courts have been far too lenient. 
>>Responsibility rests with the person holding the rifle and no one else. There
>>is absolutely no excuse for shooting anything by mistake. Reminds me of the
>>folks who run over motorcyclists in broad daylight because "they just came
>>out of nowhere!" Truth is, they just didn't look.
>>
>>Jeff Achenbach
>This shooting is a great tragedy, but from the information given it was an
>accident, which could happen to anyone participating in a sport which involves
>lethal weapons.  The poor hunter probably already feels terrible about what
>happened, he doesn't need people acting like he deliberately killed the
>victim.
>
>Ro

Bullshit. As with any other privilege, there is a corresponding responsibility.
In this case, it is being sure of your target. It is the number one rule of
gun ownership. The rifle was deliberately aimed at a person and the trigger 
pulled. A jogger looks nothing like a deer, and shooting hours are legally 
limited to times when visibility is more than adequate to tell the difference.
These "accidents" happen to those who are careless, stupid, or slobs.
No deer is worth the risk of hurting an innocent person. In this case, the
hunter was participating in an antlerless deer hunt. If he couldn't tell a 
jogger from a deer, how could he tell a buck from a doe. This was a "slob"
shooting at something large and moving. Had it been a buck, odds are he'd 
have abandoned it and gone on hunting.


Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Simian AIDS
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:35:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.165013.11348@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>Lab Workers/"Monkey" AIDS
>
>>From IPPL News, December 1992, International Primate
>Protection League, P.O. Box 766, Summerville, SC  29484:
> 
>     LAB WORKERS TEST POSITIVE FOR "MONKEY" AIDS
> 
>In Case 1, a technician at a research laboratory sustained a
>stick with a blood-contaminated needle after drawing blood
>form a monkey infected with Monkey AIDS six months previously.
> 
>Case 2 involved a worker at another primate facility who had
>worked on clinical specimens of monkey tissue without wearing
>gloves.
> 
> 
>Whether the massive amount of experimentation with animal
>AIDS-related viruses across the nation could ever produce a
>mutated virus capable of infecting humans more easily than
>known AIDS viruses is a matter of increasing concern to some
>virologists.
> 
> 
But whether the massive amounts of experimentation with animal
AIDS-related viruses across the nation will hopefully produce a cure for AIDS
is a matter of increasing concern for millions of humans.

Please forgive the last reply.  I'm not sure what happened.

                                  GREG
-- 
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: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:17:33 GMT

In article <BzMG6D.Crw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec21.160031.4743@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>, by jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson):
>> In article <BzJ5A3.FFD@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> [snip]
>>>As I mentioned previously, I've read Hitler's book and Speer's 
>>>memoirs;  I've read several of the major textbooks dealing with the 
>>>nazi era;  and I've also read several dozen papers written by 
>>>professional students of history dealing with nazi political 
>>>ideology.  None of them lend credence to the claim that the nazi's 
>>>were animal rights advocates in any meaningful sense.  
>>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Please explain what you mean by "in any meaningful sense." 
>> Seems rather vague, doesn't it?
>
>Please define the concept of "animal rights" that was allegedly 
>advocated by the nazis.    


As I expected: Lawrence makes as assertion that I find ambiguous,
I ask for some clarification, and Lawrence retorts with more dictionary
games while declining to amplify on his previous assertion.  One wonders
whether Lawrence is actually interested in discussion or simply in
wasting peoples' time...

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      | "Americans have a right and advantage of being  |
| NRA               ILA | armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com | whose governments are afraid to trust the       |
|                       | people with arms."      - James Madison,        |
|                       | The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.        |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:56:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.181444.18587@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.213529.3602@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>
>>[delete:  Greg's, possibly uncalled for, intellectually undesirerable,
but none this less personally satisfying attack on Russell.]

Paul  replies:
 >It really sends you into conniptions to come across someone whose
>arugments you can't refute, doesn't it? >

I wouldn't know.  I suppose if I met one it would.

>>Have you not noticed that none of the other AR advocates here on the net
>>have come to your defense?  
>
>Probably because Russell patently doesn't need anyone to "come to his
>defense".  Face it Greg: he runs rings around you.

Yes, Russell is running in circles, isn't he?

>
>I used to think that t.p.a was a really pointless forum for debate,
Has anyone explained the "U" key to you yet?

>but now I see that it serves an admirable purpose in highlighting
>the stupidity, vacuousness, and just plain pig-ignorance of the "we
>hate AR" crowd.
You know, were I come from those is fighting words.  I bet you got a real
perty mouth too.
Seriously, I don't know how long you have been involved in this group, but
I feel I can let my history here speak for itself.  I have treated each
person I have encountered with respect.   (With the exception
of Russell.) I have made a point to post all information I find relevant
to the discussion.  Not just the information that supports my opinion. 
Can Russell honestly make the same claim?
I admit my personal attacks on Russell are "un-intellectual", but I am
only human.  (and damn did it make me feel better).

As far as the "we hate AR" thing goes....
There are very few things in this world I "hate".  And AR advocates are
not among them.  Perhaps your stereotyping falls short here.

If you wish to continue this feel free to E-mail me.  It doesn't belong here.
However, if you feel the need to publicly attack me (as I did with Russell)
feel free to.  As a side note, I already know about my Mom's army boots,
my sister's "profession", and my Dad's sexual preference.

                                         GREG POPKEN

P.S. Re: Mike's previous defense of me. YEAH! WHAT HE SAID! YEAH!    

-- 
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: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:47:28 GMT

In article <C03yJ5.KqJ@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec30.233605.20882@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>
>
jh>> b)  In allowing the monkeys to suffer, in awaiting opportunities to
jh>> photograph them suffering, was not Alex in effect allowing these
jh>> individuals to suffer (unlawfully) so that other monkeys and lab animals
jh>> in the future would not have to be subjected to similar conditions.
jh>> Contrast and compare this manner of thinking to that of a medical
jh>> researcher
jh>> like Greg Popken who says, "I need to (lawfully) sacrifice these mice
jh>> now,
jh>> until we get to a point that we will not have to sacrifice any mice."
>
rl>Does Greg Popken view the misuse of animals as the lesser of the evils?
rl>Or, does he simply dismiss the misuse of animals altogether?   What
rl>exactly are the "needs" that motivate his use of mice?

Hi Russell! I'm back.  Did you miss me?

You have the most incredible ability to answer (or not answer) questions with
questions. Have you ever read Guildenstern and Rosencranzs Are Dead?

What do you mean by misuse of animals?  You can't be refering to "lawful"
research.  Which is what I am involved in.

In the case of valid, accredited research I view the *use* of animals as a
necessity.  I make every attempt to minimize the number of animals used
and the amount of "suffering" they experience.  In this sense you can can
say that I believe the use animals is the lesser of the "evils".  I don't
enjoy the use of animals.  I derive no perverse pleasure from it. (I don't
like to go to the denist either. But I do.)

The *misuse* of animals I do not condone or tolerate.

RE: "needs" that motivate my use of mice.
   Since the begining of time (no I don't have a ref.) health problems
have plaqued (no pun intented) man.  I feel that preventing the suffering
of Humans is one of the highest ethical responsibilities of all persons.
In addition, I have an ability, a knack, a disposition (whatever you wish
to call it) for scientific investigation of biological phenomena.  My
motivation for doing scientific research is a combination of those two
ideas.  My motivation for using mice is simply that it is the most
reliable model, I can find, that will alow me to complete the task at hand.

                                       GREG

P.S. I'm opening space on my hard drive to fill with all those references
you've been working on Russell.

-- 
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: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:10:17 GMT


Bob Black writes;
bb> Just my spur-of-the-moment opinions regarding questions about which 
bb> whole books could be written ...

From article <mhulsey-311292134153@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Thanks for your consideration, Bob.  Don't you agree that Russell should
mh> try to be as prompt?
mh> 
mh> Surely whole books could be written on these topics, but isn't that 
mh> what we are here for?  These issues should be addressed rather than 
mh> evaded.  

[400+ lines deleted]

For a man who says he wants to focus on the issues, you certainly 
pad your articles with a lot of 'ad hominem' fluff.  Don't you 
think it's might be supercilious for you to assume that your 
opponents are "evading" your articles when, after all, they may 
not consider you to be worth their trouble?   I'm sure I'm not
the only person who declines to wade through an intellectual swamp 
looking for a few tidbits that might deserve a reply.

======================================================================
From Message-ID: <C058uA.3s3@wpg.com>
Most of your questions aren't particularly difficult and most of them
strike me as irrelevant to the major issues.   Do you recall the following
statement in which I attempted to help you make a distinction between
"evasion" and "disinterest"?

======================================================================
From Message-ID: <BzonuJ.3In@wpg.com>
Do you understand the concept of a "killfile", Martin?   Usenet users
often use a "killfile" to skip over the postings of posters they
consider illogical or disagreeable.   Would the presence of a man's
name in someone's "killfile" lead us to conclude that his arguments
are irrefutable or compelling.  Probably not.

======================================================================
From Message-ID: <C058uA.3s3@wpg.com>
Unanswered questions #4 & #5:   

Would the presence of a man's name in someone's "killfile" lead 
us to conclude that his arguments are irrefutable or compelling?  
If not, isn't it possible that readers who choose not to reply
to a given set of questions may not be "evading" the questions,
but simply choosing not to waste their time responding to someone
else's stupidity?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter)
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 14:51:43 EST

In article <1993Jan1.162825.22820@spdc.ti.com>
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
 
>In this case, it is being sure of your target. It is the number one rule of
>gun ownership. The rifle was deliberately aimed at a person and the trigger
>pulled. A jogger looks nothing like a deer, and shooting hours are legally
>limited to times when visibility is more than adequate to tell the difference.
>These "accidents" happen to those who are careless, stupid, or slobs.
>No deer is worth the risk of hurting an innocent person. In this case, the
>hunter was participating in an antlerless deer hunt. If he couldn't tell a
>jogger from a deer, how could he tell a buck from a doe. This was a "slob"
>shooting at something large and moving. Had it been a buck, odds are he'd
>have abandoned it and gone on hunting.
>
>
>Jeff Achenbach
   I've may have missed some of the other articles in this discussion, but
I'm going to add my 2 cents.  I agree, the hunter should take responsibility.
The truth is, however, the shooting probably wasn't intentional.  The judicial
system must take this into account.  The moral of the story, however, is not
that hunting kills people and therefore should be banned as some might take it.
The moral of the story is - don't be stupid.  Know your target if you're the
hunter, and if you're jogging during hunting season, be aware that some hunters
ARE stupid - wear blaze orange!  Does anyone know how many people are killed
in car accidents involving deer?
                                               -Brad Porter
DRPORTER@SUVM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:53:38 GMT

From article <1992Dec31.005149.25983@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> I think you've misrepresented both the language and the intent of 
>> the original author by tacking on a set of clauses that reflect 
>> self-interest alone.  
> 
> My interpretation is certainly one valid one; another might be that
> one should treat others in the way we would like to be treated
> without expectation of reciprocation, simply because it's "The
> Right Thing To Do(tm)" and will allow us to proceed through life
> satisfied that we have hurt no one.

You seem to be incapable of grasping the possibility that some other 
individuals might respect your feelings, not because it's the 
"Right Thing (tm)" or because they're looking for "satisfaction", 
but because they're capable [unlike you] of appreciating what goes 
on inside the heads of other beings.  

Have you never, ever, had an experience in which you performed a
selfless act (or worse, a painful act) solely for someone else's 
benefit?

> It really doesn't matter which interpretation is used; either one
> is easily explained by one or both of my original criteria.  We do
> things either because they make us feel good, or because they'll
> allow us to reduce or avoid bad feelings.

As I've pointed out many times, your arguments are circular.  If 
humans are incapable of thinking altruistically, how do you 
account for the initial appearance of the cultural taboos that 
allegedly give rise to the "bad feelings" that you would cite as 
the basis for cultural taboos?  

> [...]
> 
>> Is there some reason for us to believe that altruism and selfishness
>> are equivalent concepts?
> 
> Is there some overwhelming reason why such an equivalence is
> necessary?  In point of fact, altruism and selfishness are mutually
> exclusive.  My point is that true altruism does not exist...

I agree that true altruism doesn't exist in Rich Young, but Rich
Young is hardly in a position to declare that it's never, ever, 
existed in other individuals.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:03:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194026.13658@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.170617.16865@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>
GP>>Which will be approx. 20 yrs later thanks to medical research.
>>
>
>Wrong. Increases in life expectancy are due almost entirely to public
>health and civil engineering (clean water supplies, sewerage treatment,
>etc). Statistically speaking, medicine has done little to increase
>life expectancy.

Paul, were did you get this from?

My estimate of 20 yrs is from a U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services report.

                                           GREG

-- 
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