HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:09:10 GMT

jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
`Steve, while you're waiting for his elaboration, maybe you'd like
`to offer comment on the passage reprised below:

`In article <1992Nov16.232922.23894@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.a
`cs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
`>the rat population in (I believe I have the city right) Prague is
`>reaching about a 1:1 proportion with the human inhabitants of the
`>city.
`>what solution would
`>you advocate to humanely solve the rat problem?

*** serious mode off ***

Why not get a bunch of aluminum tubing, some plastic beads, and some
stiff spring steel wire and emboss a government logo on them, put welfare
people to work in the process of making and distributing them to the homeless
and that way they could just allow people to hunt them for food!

O.K.  - just a far out thought....

*** resume normal discussions ***

swood
-- 
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Bird season in Michigan and pheasant in zones 2 & 3
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Goose season (U.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 14   Closing day of early Archery Deer season in Michigan
  Nov. 15   Opening day of Rifle Deer season in Michigan (YES!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Fonda
Keywords: You really had to be there, Russell...
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:11:23 GMT

kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:

`From article <1992Nov10.182933.6448@icd.ab.com>, by kdw@icd.ab.com 
`(Kenneth D. Whitehead):

`kw> What Bill Clinton did was legal....

Wow - How did I miss that one!  What hunters do is legal too.  You are
willing to condemn hunters but not Bill Clinton?  I think what Clinton
did was un-ethical.  You think what I do is un-ethical.  Neither of us
disobey the law.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

swood
-- 
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Bird season in Michigan and pheasant in zones 2 & 3
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Goose season (U.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 14   Closing day of early Archery Deer season in Michigan
  Nov. 15   Opening day of Rifle Deer season in Michigan (YES!)
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:07:01 GMT

In article <swood.722017047@vela>, swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood -
EVENSONG) wrote:
> 
> Oh no - here we go again.  And I suppose that you feel that your arguements
> on my private views of Jane Fonda's involvement in Vietnam as well as the
> tangents you have spun it off into on historical debate of the conflict
> relate to animals-rights discussions?
> 
> Yeah right...
> 
> swood
> 

Because you referenced me as well as Russell, I suppose that I should also
apologize for bursting into your exchange with Russell.  If I had it to do
over again, I would have started a new thread on "animals in testing."  I
still might.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: throw it on the floor - it's happier there.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:56:15 GMT

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

>>>So are you saying that their newsletter will tell me that they planned
>>>and funded a bombing?

>>Thier newsletter shows that they funded Fran Trutt, not knowing what she
>>intended.  This is at the very least irresponsible behavior, criminally so
>>in my view.

>Not if they were unaware of her precise activities.  If they fund her,
>they no doubt retrospectively wish they had monitored her more closely. 

You seriously don't think it's irresponsible to fund someone not knowing what
they intend to use the money for?  Wow.

>I'm still looking for a statement and evidence from you that FOA
>knowingly funded a bomb attempt and for authorization from you to send
>your accusation to FOA for confirmation or rebuttal.  That seems only
>fair when a serious accusation like this is publicly made. 

I don't know how many times I've gotta write this - you're beginning to remind
me of Russell Lawrence, the cronic ignorer of lines he deleted.  I NEVER SAID
that FOA *KNOWINGLY* funded the bombing.  I DID say that the *FUNDED* Fran
Trutt, and that thier money went to the bombing.  Big difference, now quit
trying to imply that I've said something other than what's been written.

[stuff about NAVS improprieties deleted]

>Where else did you read about it?

CompuServe, Genie, AREN, PPF, and the Garbage Collector.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:02:12 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Your analogy seems simplistic to me.  It might be more 
rl> relevant if the "prostitute" were seeking a million dollars to 
rl> fund a program for feeding hungry kids.  In such a case, would 
rl> prostitution be worse than the starvation of many thousands of human 
rl> beings?

From article <1992Nov16.005820.22320@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> Your missing the point Russell.  In the story above the loss of a
gp> principle is at question.  It doesn't matter whether it $5 or$1,000,000
gp> aids experiments or leather shoes. (or what the money is for)  The
gp> principle has "already been established".  The "kind of person" that
gp> accepts the money has already been elicited.  It doesn't matter how much or
gp> what is why I find it hypocritical for someone to say they believe anumals
gp> have rights, but still use animals for whatever purpose.

Would you mind answering my question, Greg?  In the case 
described above, would prostitution be worse than the starvation 
of many thousands of human beings?  

rl> Now please answer my previous 
rl> question: Is it always wrong to kill human beings?  Or, should we 
rl> entertain exceptions in cases involving self-defense, medical 
rl> treatment, criminal punishment, punishment for religious heresy, 
rl> etc?  

gp> Not if the killing is justified.  (I'm ahead of you on this). Justified
gp> based on the norms and rules of society.

Yet, you don't seem to consider such "justifications" to be prima facie
evidence of "wavering".  Why not?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Trutt readings part four
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:23:30 GMT


(June 1990, _The_Animals'_Agenda_)

"Tapes Incriminate U.S. Surgical Spy In Trutt Case"

"Accepting a plea bargain, accused U.S. Surgical Corp. bomber Fran Trutt
pleaded 'no contest' April 17 to charges she tried to murder company
president Leon Hirsch by placing a pipe bomb near his parking space on
Nov. 10, 1988.  Trutt will reportedly be sentenced on July 16 to serve one
year in prison, with three years probation and 10 years suspended.  The deal,
a blow to Friends of Animals and other groups who raised funds for Trutt's
defense, kept the court from hearing full details of how U.S. Surgical spies
Mary Lou Sapone and Marc Mead apparently instigated the attempted bombing in
an effort to discredit animal protectionists who object to U.S. Surgical's
use of dogs in sales demonstrations of surgical staples.

"During pretrial hearings, the court did hear tapes Sapone clandestinely
recore d while talking Trutt into trying to kill Hirsch ahead of her former
lover, who was also allegedly targeted.

"'If it's my lover, then they know me,' Trutt said.

"'So maybe you should do Leon first,' Sapone returned.

"Trutt wavered.  'It's not just him.  He's got a whole bunch of people working
for him who are doing it (killing dogs).'

"Answered Sapone, 'Yeah but, but when you were saying if you're rid of him, it
may discontinue because it may be somehing.  I mean, he runs the place, right?
And so it's a directive from him.  So maybe if he wasn't there, they
wouldn't...'

"Trutt, whose defense was based on alleged entrapment, said she took the plea
bargain in hopes of seeing her own dogs again soon.

"'She was willing to allow herself to be incarcerated for a crime she did not
commit in order to see her dogs immediately,' defense attorney John Williams
said.  'She would do anything for her dogs.  The only thing you could compare
it with is a mother seeing a child.'

"There were no demonstrations at the Stratford, Conn. courthouse, where Sapone
conspicuously avoided meeting the gaze of activists including Friends of
Animals president Priscilla Feral, but three days later some 300 protesers
staged the biggest demonstration yet outside U.S. Surgical headquarters in
Norwalk.  Meanwhile, in Tucson, Arizona, 11 members of Voices for Animals were
fined $137 each for criminal trespass after chanting 'U.S. Surgical slaughters
dogs!' at a sales meeting the firm held under the brand name Autosuture."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:53:40 GMT

In article <BxsJ7q.E6w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Would you mind answering my question, Greg?  In the case 
>described above, would prostitution be worse than the starvation 
>of many thousands of human beings?  

I don't know what in the hell my opinions regarding the ethics of
prostitution have to do with this discussion, Russell.  But, if it would
humor you I would be willing to prostitute myself if I thought that it
would save lives.  Because I hold human life to be of greater moral value than
prostitution.  (Please don't tell me you have a million dollars to burn.)
>
>rl> Now please answer my previous 
>rl> question: Is it always wrong to kill human beings?  Or, should we 
>rl> entertain exceptions in cases involving self-defense, medical 
>rl> treatment, criminal punishment, punishment for religious heresy, 
>rl> etc?  
>
>gp> Not if the killing is justified.  (I'm ahead of you on this). Justified
>gp> based on the norms and rules of society.
>
>Yet, you don't seem to consider such "justifications" to be prima facie
>evidence of "wavering".  Why not?

ussell, all humans are entitled to certain rights as established by
laws and morals.  In situations inwhich a person infringes on anothers
rights (e.g. rape, theft, assalt etc...) the transgresser forfits certain
rights of his own ( e.g. jail, the death penalty etc...).  The
transgresser has made a conscientious moral decision (i.e. to committ a crime)
and he is responsible for the actions of his decision. 
     Getting back to the root of this discussion (I know how much you hate
     that), humans are the 
only creatures capable of making conscientious  moral decisions and hence are
the only creatures capable of possessing rights.


BTW, how in the hell did medical treatment work its way into that
question?

                                     Greg Popken

>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


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.                                 ******************************

-- 
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: steaming lobsters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:54:39 GMT

welchb@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
bw> 1) Is this a normal way of preparing lobsters?

From article <1727@esl.ESL.COM>, by markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen):
mc> Of course a fox can do a nasty number on a chicken, but that's totally
mc> natural.  And don't forget some perfectly happy vegetables are steamed
mc> to death, too, not to mention, skinned alive and chopped up.

Two questions:

-- Do vegetables feel pain when they're "skinned alive"?  
-- Does the "naturalness" of an action make it ethically justifiable?

-- 
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: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:35:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.192803.8974@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>
>I don't eat meat or wear leather.  Now, if I've passed your consistency
>test, why don't you see how you fare on mine?  I've been reading your posts
>Greg, and you seem like a reasonable enough fellow.  You feel that animals
>don't have rights, but I should remind you that the flip-side of "animal rights"is "human responsibility".  You see, the animal rights movement is partially
>about nonhuman animals, but more than that it is about *human* treatment of
>nonhumans.  the implication of animals not having any rights is that humans have
>no responsibilities to ensure fair treatment of nonhumans. 

I do not claim that humans have no obligation toward the fair treatment of
animals.    But, animals do not have rights which equate them with humans.
I am suggesting that in situations in which a choice is to be made between
the benifits to an animals and the benifits to man, the option benifiting
man should always outwiegh the option benifiting the animals at the cost to
man.  Now please don't counter with some extreem scenario involving
obvious cruel and immoral treatment of animals.  As I have said before 
I believe we have an obligation to traet animals humanely.  But, 
this does not mean treating them as humans.  Simple, when conflicts arise
between the two, the situation benifiting man takes precedence.

>  Deep down, no one wants to harm animals.  The challenge now
>is to see how deeply ingrained the tradition of exploitation is next
>to the option of leading a more compassionate life. 

I agree.  But, in regards to research investigating biological phenomena
there is no other suitable option.

>
>I try to be consistent in putting together my beliefs with my actions, but it's
>not easy.  Even within the realm of "human rights", I will sometimes drink 
>coffee, for example, that's not grown on a farm where the workers' rights are
>ensured (i don't keep such coffee in my house though).  Likewise, although 
>my home only contains cruelty-free toiletries and cleaning products, I may use
>soap in a public bathroom, the contents of which & the testing-history of
>which, I am unsure.  

I would also point out that the toiletries you claim are "cruelty-free" are
 usually not so.  The manufacturer simple used components in the product
 that have already been tested.Hence there is no need for further testing
 of the product by them so they can claim it is cruelty free.

                                                    Greg Poken
>
>
>alka


-- 
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: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Society, Linkoping University, Sweden
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:08:52 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>I am presuming that by sterilizing somewhere between
>30% and 50% of the adult populace, population growth
>would decline to zero, thus saving the earth from total
>eco-destruction.  I could be off base on this, but I
>can't think of any alternatives.
Simple.
The problem is solved if everybody used advanced enviromental
friendly western technology. Now is the problem education, religious
and political mindlocs and capital. But it looks better and better
when the third world industrialices. I hope they succed, its a matter
of education or dister.
The "over"population is a false problem. There is enough food
and room in the world for todays populatin and lots more BUT 
there is local overpopulation and breakdowns in the economy
system that leads to starvation and famine.

>I envision a global mandate for achieving X percentage of
>sterilization in every jurisdiction.  Individual jurisdictions
>(countries and their political subdivisions) would decide
>on their own selection systems, based on what is most palatable
>to their constituencies, or what is otherwise feasible.
>I would imagine in first-world countries, you would rely on
>paid volunteers.  While in the third world, lotteries might
>be needed.
God grief, do you want war?
Educate people instead of cutting of their balls.

>BTW I do not expect this to be a popular idea.
Its also damn stupid.

Oh, I suppose you have volontered?
I would respect you more if you had yourself sterelized.
(Yes I am serious. )

--
--
Magnus Redin    Lysator Computer Club    redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus redin, Rydsv{gen 240C26, 582 51 LINK|PING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (Answering machine)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:00:03 GMT

In article <mhulsey-131192153346@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Marty Hulsey) writes:
>
>Russell, your actions here might be ill-informed.  Although P&G does test
>its products on animals, you may be unaware that they also spend a
>considerable amount of money funding extramural proposals for the
>development of alternatives to animal testing.  To my knowledge, none of
>their competitors that you support have such research programs.  Consider
>that your support of P&G might help fund the breakthrough that ultimately
>allows animal testing of consumer products to be eliminated or reduced.
>
Um, Martin, if we can already buy consumer products which have not been
animal-tested, it would appear that the breakthrough has already occurred.
Even if the end of animal-testing really did mean no more new shampoos or
dishwashing liquids, so what?  New and improved consumer products are
hardly essential.

Ro
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Date: 17 Nov 1992 18:27:07 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

Jeff Achenbach writes:

>Merely trying to make a point. Deer are beautiful to look at, fun to watch,
>great to eat. However, when the population becomes too great and habitat
>is in danger of irreversible damage, all species in that particular area
>suffer. At this point, the deer, of which I am personally extremely fond,
>are vermin. 

Whether they are "beautiful" or "vermin" is besides the
point.  My purpose is to see the situation addressed humanely.

> As an aside, I consider human overpopulation no better. There
>is, in both (all) cases, a moral dilemma. Individual rights versus the 
>overall quality of life for the population. 

It is no moral dilemma for me, since I also advocate
forced sterilization of humans.

>   Should sterization of the deer herd be successfully managed, the habitat
>will still take a beating until the present deer begin to starve or die of
>old age. No telling how long this will take or what will be the toll on said
>habitat in the meantime. Damage may, by that time, be irreversible.

Certainly true -- which is why deer populations management
should be do in step with park/greenbelt/golf course developments,
not as an afterthought.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: steaming lobsters
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:49:11 GMT

In <By567H.2o6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>reactions to stimuli, what word can the rest of us use to make
>a distinction between reactions that hurt and reactions that don't?

	The word "response" is the point of contention, Russ.  For
humans, "pain" works quite well as a description of one response.
For many higher mammals it works fine too.  For plants, we have fewer
clues as to what is appropriate, hence pain may fit as the response,
and it may not.  I used to term precisely because the analagous
response in humans would be pain, not because plants can feel.

< 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: gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: (none)
Date: 16 Nov 1992 19:11:11 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
>From: gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu (Gregory G. Brown)
Subject: Hunting (Was: AR support)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: University of Idaho
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:49:07 GMT

The recent thread on whether hunting has impacted wildlife populations has
been interesting. From the discussion, I would conclude that it has 
affected some, but not others.  I think a more interesting question is what
has been the impact of "modern" game management practices?  

But I think a stronger case against hunting can be made on the grounds of
morals and ethics.  Hunting today amounts to "killing for fun."  Less than
2% of hunting qualifies as subsistence hunting.  

Survey research consistently supports the finding that killing of the
animal is only one part of the total hunting experience.  Being outdoors, being
with friends, enjoying the scenery, etc. consistently rank above or on par with
the killing experience.  In other words, there are alternative activities
that can replace hunting.

Hunting is a blood "sport" that will (hopefully) fade as we as a species
expand our ethics to include others.

Greg Brown   

____________________________________________________________________________
gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu
	     
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way
it treats its animals"
                 Ghandi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals