HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:49:07 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <C1876H.KqE@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>According to Cornell University's David Pimentel, it take 17000
>kilocalories of fossil fuel to produce one kilo of trimmed beef.

Now I can say it: Bullshit.

Cite your reference, Russ.  Can David Pimentel be found anywhere other
than the student register?

andy
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:45:52 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <C1FDAA.Dxq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <C1EpHI.z3@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
>> In <C1876H.KqE@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> 
>>>From article <lltj2lINN43b@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
>>>> 
>>>> 17,000 kcalories of *WHAT*, Russell?  Not fossil fuel.  OF GRAIN and
>>>> grass!  That gives us the 8.47 ratio that probably boils down to the
>>>> 4.8 pounds of grain to 1 pound of beef that hasn't been disputed,
>>>> pinhead.
>> 
>>>According to Cornell University's David Pimentel, it take 17000
>>>kilocalories of fossil fuel to produce one kilo of trimmed beef.
>>>Got it straight now, banta?
>> 
>> That includes the fossil fuel used to produce the grain. It takes
>> 3400 kcal to produce a nutritionally equivalent amt of grain . That's
>> 5:1. Isn't that what he said?   ...

>No, that's not what he said.  Take another look at the phrase,

>            "Not fossil fuel. OF GRAIN and grass."

>I'm amazed that so many people on your side of the fence will 
>recognize the inputs of fossil fuel energy required to produce 
>grain and grass, yet turn around and ignore those same inputs 
>when the grain and grass are consumed by livestock.  

They're not being ignored. It's simply that they all boil down
to the 5:1 ratio. That point's been made. But you try to exaggerate
it by using big numbers.

Werner


>-- 
>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: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:23:33 GMT

From article <1993Jan25.213524.16595@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
> In article <C1FB0G.DK3@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>Two years ago, Sixty Minutes reported some "excellent" research which
>>showed that amalgam fillings cause MS and that the removal of amalgam
>>fillings can cure MS within a matter of days, if not hours.   Within
>>days of the broadcast, dental researchers all around the country were
>>screaming, "bullshit", at the top of their lungs.
> 
> Russell,  Would this be an example of your recent views on
> the meaning of "retraction," and "correction and clarification?"
> 
> If there is a sample of, say, 10 research programs generally
> regarded to be excellent and number 10 is subsequently found
> to be less than excellent, numbers 1 through 9 must be less
> than excellent too?

You're missing the point.  We're not really talking about some 
research that was once thought to be "excellent" and later found 
to be "not excellent".  We're talking about a television 
production company that occasionally, and perhaps often, 
sacrifices known facts for the sake of sensationalism.  As an 
example, the show's report on dental amalgam was blatantly 
cavalier in its treatment of the scientific data, and pandered
to a body of opinion that many dental researchers, health
officials, and consumer advocates consider fraudulent.

Be that as it may, I'm not displeased that Sixty Minutes aired
the program on Sunday.  At worst, it will fuel a good deal
of ranting on the part of ideologues, but it will also raise
quite a few questions, especially here in New Orleans.  If the
answers to those questions support the notion that the case 
against Carey was unfounded, I'll be happy to alter my opinions
to fit the evidence.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Christians Not Sapient ???
Date: 25 Jan 1993 09:15:28 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu
Summary: Throw 'em to the lions

In article 1642 Russ quotes himself saying:

>>>The lions mentioned in Will's previous post, for example, are 
>>>undeniably "sentient", but they may lack the "sapience" and 
>>>knowledge to fully understand the consequences of their actions...

He then goes on to add:

>.......Christians 
>who burned other human beings during the middle ages, for 
>instance, made some very bad choices, but it would be unwise for 
>us to hold them "guilty" of their actions.   

He is obviously suggesting that the Christians were not capable to fully
understand the consequences of their actions.  Is this because he feels
that anyone who is willing to follow a doctrine to such extremes as to kill
someone must not have a sapient bone in their bodies?  Maybe the
tree-spiking Earth First! members that kill loggers are also not sapient
such that they follow their doctrine to the murders of others...
I think that the middle aged christians know damned well what they were
doing and if there was a place called hell they'd be rotting there,
releasing methane of course.

alex the omnivore

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:01:07 GMT

unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

>There is more than the water reason to not eat meat, e.g., health, ethics,
>and/or environment.  Also, you wouldn't have to increase non-meat agriculture,
>because the reported number of people who can be fed by the grains and soybeans
>US cattle eat is 1.3billion (US population is about 250 million).  Even if the
>reported number is off by a factor of 5 [one monumental error] we could still
>feed all americans.

	We already do.  Farmland isn't being lost to cattle, it's being lost
to suburbs.  That being the case, feed goes to whomever pays for it.  If you
pay $3.00/bu for corn, and somebody else pays $4.00 for meat, the corn goes
to the cow if it results in a profit.  Fact of life, pal -- to the producer
of the food, you're worth only what you will buy and in what form.

	Why else do you think Somolia is starving?  Did you think the
farmers of the world organized a boycott, or did you think they just
give away their grain to needy causes?

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Methane/Environment Issue
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:27:26 GMT

From article <1juvieINN9ns@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> This entire issue of methane from cattle originated from a half serious
> article written in the journal "Science" (or was it scientific american?)
> about 5 or 6 years ago.  

If you can pinpoint your source, I'd appreciate it.  As I pointed 
out previously, the source cited by the WorldWatch paper was a 
project sponsored jointly by the Japanese and United States 
governments.  

> Global warming may or may not even exist as a result of human 
> activity.

True enough. :-)   It's also true that you may or may
not exist, and that we are or aren't having this discussion.

> All living organisms exchange gasses with the atmosphere.
> Worst case warming scenarios call for a 7 degree average increase.
> Most predict a 2-3 degree increase over the next 2 centurys.
> An increase of less than 10 degrees increases the growing season and the
>   airable land and would increase the area in which multiple crops per year
>   could be grown.

Proof?

> The average temp. of the earth changes anyway.

Why make it worse?

> Carbon Dioxide is the main greenhouse gas, methane accounts for less than
>   10 percent of the greenhouse scenario.

Pointing your finger at one problem won't make another problem go
away.

> ...
> But seriously folks, the cow farting scenario quickly became a loosing
> position on the debate circuit and the reason is that no matter how that
> grain ends its life be it in a cow's belly, person's belly, or left to
> decay, it will still release methane...no net gain.

You're not making much sense, Alex.  Were you assuming that grain
that's not needed would continue to be grown???

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: gregb@owl.us.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown)
Subject: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Organization: University Of Idaho.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:24:00 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Alex L. Pace (alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:

: The question that comes to my mind is: Isnt it worth it even if the animals
: went through excruciating pain if a man is saved?

Hmmm...and I was under the impression that WAR!! was the major cause of
death in Vietnam, Dr. Carey's opinion notwithstanding.   Just another
classic example of a research "end-case" where the benefit is to a few, 
and the suffering to many.  Seems to me if we could focus on peace and
compassion, no animals need suffer.


--
-----------
Greg Brown
gregb@owl.us.uidaho.edu  (University of Idaho)

"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse
is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."
   	Ralph Waldo Emerson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Hypothetical case (was Re: Silver Spring monkeys)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:52:35 GMT

In article <C184F5.JAv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan21.135903.18574@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> In article <C171Lo.D9B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>
>>>Again, I could introduce you to dozens of physicians 
>>>and dentists who would tell you privately, but not publicly, 
>>>about doctors who are grossly incompetent and/or sadistic, yet 
>>>serving as clinicians on the staffs of major institutions. 
>> 
>> Shouldn't you take this to alt.med.flame.  I know alot (and I mean Alot)
>> of lawyers that are incompetent.  But, that doesn't reflect on the
>> regulation of biomedical research either.
>
>I agree that lawyers aren't involved in biomed research.   On the
>other hand, the folks who belong to the animal use committees at
>our local medical and dental schools work side by side, day in and
>day out, with individuals who're charged with the protection of
>human patients.

No they don't.  where do you get your information?

>HHS has documented case after case after case of situations wherein
>state boards have failed to discipline medical and dental practitioners
>for malfeasance or incompetency, and the end-result in such situations
>is that "bad" doctors continue to harm patients.   I don't understand
>how/why you think that the foxes guarding the animal henhouse are
>going to perform their duties more deligently than the foxes guarding
>the humans.

Again, what does this have to do with research?  The short comings of the
State Medical Boards in no way reflect the Animal Care Committees.
 
>My recommendation: 
>
>-- The proceedings of state boards as well as animal care committees
>   should be open to the public.

Sure.

>-- Both state boards and animal care committees should include a healthy
>   proportion of members who have no political or economic stake in 
>   the matters at hand.

Like who?  AR advocates?
The sole function of this group is to assure that the animal care
facilities meet with gov. standards.  If they do not, then the director of
the facility is held responsible.  If they neglect their duties and the
federal agents that visit the facility note violations they are also
held responsible.  This committee, composed of scientist vets and laymen
have no reason not to report violations.

 > >BTW, do you work for a medical school, Greg? 

The program I am involved in is part of the medical school.  Only a very
small persentage of the facility in the dept. have medical degrees.  And
they do not practice medicine.

Who do you work for Russ? 


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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:46:43 GMT

In <C1DsyD.47u@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <viking.727866067@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>> 	Farmland isn't being lost to cattle, it's being lost
>> to suburbs.  

>Are you speaking in US-terms or global terms?

	US terms.

>  Either way, how about
>showing us some facts that would demonstrate both the amount of forest
>land and non-livestock farmland that's been converted to livestock use in
>recent years, as compared to suburban land developments?

	Open your eyes, Russ!  Look around!  Name one year when the
population decreased since the Vietnam War.  Name one city that has
razed suburbs and devoted them to agriculture.  If you can't see
that cities are annexing land left and right to keep up with their
booming populations, and then figure out that the land they were
annexing wasn't being used for a wild mustang habitat, perhaps
the obvious won't need a federal study to show it's true.

	Then again, perhaps you don't get out of the city much.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Feedback to pro-ARs
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:37:15 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


Rich Young writes:

>In article <1993Jan28.000340.25522@news.eng.convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
>
>[...]

>>If middle American thinks we're so ridiculous, how do you explain our
>>increasing numbers?

>	If Middle America thinks you're so mainstream, how do you explain
>	your still-tiny numbers?

>-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)

I never said we were mainstream; I said we are growing in number.  Perhaps
"still tiny," but growing.  Every great social movement began small, Rich.


-- 
Jennifer L. Johnson | "The animals of this world exist for their own reasons.
jjohnson@convex.com |  They were not made for humans, just as women were not
		    |  made for men and blacks were not made for whites." 
						--Alice Walker
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 27 Jan 1993 03:36:23 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <C19zGG.99u@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
[ on soybeans being complete, amino acid-wise ]

>still, I think we can see that your claim is false.
>                     mg/100 grams
>                   Medium    Boiled
>                  Hamburger Soybeans
>Tryptophan          284        242
>Threonine           965        723
>Isoleucine          987        807
>Leucine            1845       1355
>Lysine              538       1108
>Phenylalanine       873        869
>Tyrosine            718        630
>Valine             1116        831
>Methionine          538        224

Taking your numbers as accurate (I had a Bio professor at Sierra
College in Sacramento jokingly conjecture the soybeans were boiled
in chicken broth), you still need to put away 600 grams of boiled
soybeans to get the 1500 mg of Methionine/day that's recommended for
adults. (Ref. National Research Council, "Recommended daily
allowances" 1986, page 44)

I'll gladly boil you up 17 oz. of soybeans if you'll eat them in one
sitting.

Or, cutting to the chase: No.  It isn't the same 4 grams of protein
from beef as it is from soy.  Although your miracle soy above is
closer than I expected.

andy
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:49:11 GMT

In article <C1H7u5.2D4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan26.144317.11319@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>In article <C1G3Ht.H36@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>Again, the issue at stake is the relationship between livestock 
>agriculture and environmental decay.  It wouldn't matter if the 
>livestock happened to be ostriches or llamas or yaks or whatever.  

	Gettin' kinda hard to justify eliminating cattle on the basis of
	methane, isn't it, Russell?

>>What happened to the methane, Russell?  You're free to wave your
>>arms around and point in different directions in an attempt to 
>>distract attention, but it won't change the fact that your methane 
>>argument has pretty well gone up in the proverbial smoke.
>
>No they haven't.  If you really think the EPA and WorldWatch data
>is erroneous, please post the the correct data.

	Even your own data shows that "all livestock" contribute only
	3% of greenhouse gasses as methane, Russell.  I'd say that this
	pretty much makes a molehill out of your gas-filled mountain.
	Especially since cattle are necessarily a fraction of the 3%.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
Subject: Re: Retraction Honesty?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:20:25 GMT

itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:

> Regardless they are of the AR sect.

So now it's the "AR sect", eh?  Well, coming from a member of the AT (Animal
Torture) sect, I suppose they might consider that a compliment.

	- John Hoag (loca@netcom.com)
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: How common is trapping?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:21:45 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu


How many of the commercially available fur coats are made out of live
trapped animals?  I was under that impression that mink and foxes are
raised on farms for this purpose.

alex the omnivore



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:35:44 GMT

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>>Are you unbiased because you directly or indirectly require that
>>animals be made to suffer unspeakably (& killed) just so that you can
>> eat their muscle tissue?

>	There is a good chance, Alka, that I harvested the soybeans, corn,
>and/or wheat that you ate today.  The pheasants were run over or sucked into
>the guts of the combine, the deer were killed by the sickle blades of the
>bean head as it rolled over the field while they lay, motionless, hoping
>to escape predation by hiding.  Doesn't work on a John Deere.  Now then,
>do you suddenly feel remorse at eating that tofu, or are you somehow
>morally superior because you can point at Banta?

To begin with, I don't feel that my statements reflect a smug sense of moral
superiority; I was only addressing the smug manner in which 242 had slagged
my review (i.e., I was somehow "biased" - I was only pointing out the relative
nature of the term:  242 can in no way say that *I* am biased; in fact, *he's* 
much more biased than I am on the issue, simply by the sort of lifestyle he
leads - there are *actions* that make his position solid [eating animals, etc]
-- in my case, one could argue there are no such comparable actions, so I'm
less biased than he would be).  That's my line, and I'm sticking to it.  	If it's not satisfactory to your taste, and if you still feel that I'm somehow
taking on a morally superior stance, too bad.  Cry to your mother; not to me.

Regarding the deer and the pheasants, let's talk numbers.  If I were to eat
meat, corn, soybeans, oats & other crops would still be raised & harvested.
In fact, for one meal that I eat, a substantial multiple (depending on the meat,somewhere between 7 and 10) of the volume of crops would need to be grown.  Thiswould mean that even more deer & more pheasants would become casualties of
my meal.  I don't want to distance myself from the violence which does sustain
my life.  I know it's there & I regret it being there.  But the fact is that 
I do try to minimize it.  Maybe I could do more by having my own garden and
attempting to live solely off of that (in such a manner as to not be reliant
on the indiscriminatory nature of your John Deere).  Maybe that doesn't make
sense in terms of the bigger agricultural economy.  I DON'T KNOW.  I don't
claim to know all the answers (maybe part of the reason you post such bizarre
messages is because you think that I think that I know all the answers).  I'm
simply trying to live by some principles that make sense to me, i.e., mini-
mizing the amount of violence that one perpetrates.

Okay?  Tell me what you think on the issue of biasedness.  I have a feeling
that our ideas may well mesh on this one.

Thanks,
alka

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals