HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: animals in research. 
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:06:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.170011.23692@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg  
Popken) writes:
> >>In article <1992Oct27.215622.23702@pixel.kodak.com>  
black@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com
> >
> Tim>>However, they realize that the general public is primarly
> Tim>>concerned with helping humans.
> >
> RB>Then, as such, the general public should be very interested in the harm
> RB>to humans caused by some animal research. 
> 
> 
> Don't you think the general public should be more concernered about the
> potential for harm to humans if medical treatments were use on them first
> without animal testing?
> 

I think that general public should be concerned about the harm to humans
by medicine that has been tested with animals!

Like in the one of the last cases about some medicine where many people died
(*I am sorry but I do not remember the product name just now) because of the
fact that the animal tests had shown the dangerous potential of the product
but it was sold allover the world even though it was dangerous, for years!
How can you trust people which do such things?
What are their arguments worth?

Animals died without any reason again. And many humans died also. :-(

Udo.

PS: *But I know the name of the company that produced the medicine.
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Scott Wood's tactlessness
Date: 11 Nov 92 08:13:35 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Nov10.204322.17315@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
>
>
>Hey, I've got an idea!  Let's ignore posts by Mr. Wood in which he calls us
>"AR-heads."  Perhaps he can be taught that his arguments would be more
>convincing if couched in a modicum of decorum, as prescribed in the expression,
>"You can draw a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar."  
>

Let's just ignore all messages that are mainly abuse. I've been doing
it for quite a while now. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More violence
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:11:36 GMT


Greg Popken writes:
gp> Animals have no rights!  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Do dogs and cats have a right not to be tortured?

Mike Linan writes:
ml> No!  They don't enjoy such a right.  Will a pack of coyotes never 
ml> torture a cat or dog?  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> This doesn't make much sense, Mike.

From article <1drp3eINN935@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> The point is there is no recourse against the coyotes.  Why is that.
ml> Could it be that humans don't have the right to torture animals but
ml> the laws of conduct do not apply to other animals.  You say this trans-
ml> lates into rights for dogs and cats, I say it's more a matter of what
ml> is considered lawful conduct for humans.

Isn't that what concepts of "rights" is all about?  

ml> What "right" will have been violated other than in your own mind?  
ml> You may say that a human can be lawfully prosecuted for torturing 
ml> a cat or dog but, is that because of some "right" for the animal 
ml> or that the powers that be have determined that humans do not 
ml> have the "right" to do so?  

rl> What's the difference?

ml> The difference is that animal control officers kill cats and dogs every
ml> day.  What becomes of their "rights" at that point. 

You tell me.  We agree that animals should have the right not to be 
tortured to death, but this doesn't imply that all animals should have
a right to life, or a right to free speech, or a right to drive a car.
Were you assuming that all rights are somehow etched in stone? 

ml> You would be prosecuted for destroying Mount Rushmore.  Does that 
ml> mean you don't have the "right" to do that or that rocks have 
ml> "rights"?  

rl> Mount Rushmore is public property.  If you privately owned a large
rl> granite boulder elsewhere in South Dakota, do you think you'd be
rl> prosecuted for blasting it to gravel?
rl> 
rl> If you privately owned a small kitten, could you be prosecuted for
rl> burning it alive?

ml> I suppose but, would I be prosecuted because I violated some right of 
ml> the kitten or because the laws define such activities as illegal?  Maybe
ml> there is no difference.  I don't know.

There's quite a bit of difference between a law that would prevent you
from destroying Mount Rushmore and a law that would prevent you from
torturing a kitten.  In the first case, the law is protecting property
for the sake of it's rightful owners.  In the second case, the law
actually limits the property rights of the kitten's owner because we
respect the thinking/feeling abilities of the kitten.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Scott Wood's tactlessness
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:43:22 GMT
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.



Has anybody else noticed that in Scott's posts, he always refers to
animal-rights activists as "AR-heads"?  

While it's true that this newsgroup is often peppered with insults from both
sides (even Yours Truly occasionally stoops to hurling invectives, though only
in retaliation), Scott is the only "contributor" I've noticed who is seemingly
unable to refrain from insulting those of us who disagree with him.  In fact,
he often begins his "argument" with an insult, as in "The problem with you
AR-heads..."

In doing so, he demonstrates that his true objective is not to participate in
a discussion, but simply to deride his opponents.

Hey, I've got an idea!  Let's ignore posts by Mr. Wood in which he calls us
"AR-heads."  Perhaps he can be taught that his arguments would be more
convincing if couched in a modicum of decorum, as prescribed in the expression,
"You can draw a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar."  




-- 
 Jennifer L. Johnson | "`Reality' is the only word in the language that should
 jjohnson@convex.com |  always be used in quotes."     "Nervous Xians"
		     |			--My Life with the ThrillKillKult--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:49:40 GMT


James Hoskins writes:
jh> Is that how you perceive us omnivores, as Dahmers?  I see us 
jh> somewhat differently: we perceive Rich's pain, we acknowledge the 
jh> pain of loss felt by his relatives and we eat him anyway.  Are we 
jh> worse or better than Dahmer--in your opinion?  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're asking me to "grade" individuals as though we have the 
rl> mental prowess to say that Mr. C is better than Mr. B, and that
rl> Mr. A is better than Mr. B.  However, we could only make such a 
rl> determination by analyzing each and every decision in a man's 
rl> life and somehow, by some miraculous means, adding and 
rl> subtracting them to form some sort of grand score.  Since we're not 
rl> omniscient, such an endeavor seems kinda farfetched to me.  As 
rl> such, I'm disinclined to judge individuals as individuals.
rl> 
rl> On the other hand, it's not beyond our ken to analyze a single 
rl> experience and evaluate a choice of alternative actions.  Given a 
rl> choice of entrees, one consisting of beans and rice, and the 
rl> other consisting of Rich Young's heart, isn't it well within our 
rl> mental abilities to evaluate the full impact of our actions 
rl> in choosing heart rather than beans and rice?  

From article <viking.721129930@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Only if you're omniscient with regards to plants and not
ds> at all towards animals.  

Not really.  It doesn't require omniscience to observe that an
entity appears to have (or not to have) an existence that's meaningful 
to him/her/it.  

ds> You just said you can't make such a
ds> detemination "by analyzing each and ever decision in a man's life"
ds> and yet you are so sure beans and rice are capable of being fully
ds> analyzed by your mental abilities?

Kindly present some evidence to demonstrate that the bean seeds and rice 
seeds that I consumed last night would have led meaningful lives had
I consumed chicken or beef as an alternative.   Did they suffer in some 
way when I boiled them alive?

ds> Either you have created a double-standard, which I won't
ds> particularly mind, or else you must claim ignorance towards the
ds> plants.  In the latter, I note that there are ugly parallele
ds> towards justifying genocide (among other acts) in this rationale.

Would you mind elaborating, Dan?    

-- 
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: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:44:37 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Is Jesus ever seen to eat meat in the Bible?

From article <1992Nov6.201152.28163@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, by rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor):
rlt> Luke 24:41-43:
rlt> And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto
rlt> them, Have ye here anything to eat?
rlt> 
rlt> And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and an honeycomb.
rlt> 
rlt> And he took it, and did eat before them.

Thank you for answering my question.

In the same year that I initially became a vegetarian, one of my 
friends took a one year leave of absence from the college that he 
was attending and joined a monastery run by a group of tibetan 
buddhist exiles.  Like my friend and I, the monks preferred a 
vegetarian diet to a meat-based diet for reasons of health, but 
they also respected the doctrine of 'ahimsa' or non-violence.  
After spending several months at the monastery, my friend was 
shocked one afternoon when the head monk gathered up his neophyte 
students and took them to a fast food restaurant where he urged 
them to join him in eating hamburgers.  

How would you interpret this event?

1) Would you say that the buddhist monk approved of meat consumption?
2) Given the fact that the monk advocated vegetarianism, would his
   hamburger-eating venture be a sign of hypocrisy?

-- 
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: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:35:06 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Is Jesus ever seen to eat meat in the Bible?

From article <1992Nov6.162559.17209@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
... [ad hominems deleted]
mo> Jesus was never seen to use the latrine in the Bible either, thus
mo> convincingly making the case that he was a superhuman GOD.
mo> [Same logic as "he didn't eat meat, so he must be vegetarian"]

Would you mind answering the question?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: (none)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 13:49:30 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

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.

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

Greg Brown   

____________________________________________________________________________
gregb@serivce.csrv.uidaho.edu
             (208) 885-6721

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way
it treats its animals"
                 Ghandi
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:58:21 EST
From: <TSMITH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Term Limits Alternative
 <JTURNER.92Nov6190051@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>

In article <JTURNER.92Nov6190051@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>,
jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) says:
>
>In article <92311.134048TSMITH@auvm.american.edu> TSMITH@auvm.american.edu
>writes:
>
>
>>t has been suggested that congressional term limits be
>> implemented as a way to alleviate government gridlock.
>[...]
>> An alternative is suggested.  This is a theoretical plan that
>> would have to be implemented by constitutional amendment and is
>> offered for discussion.
>
>> Freeze all of the salaries levels for congressmen and senators
>> at their current levels.  Under this law they would not be entitled
>> to another pay raise while in congress.  Even if they leave office
>> and get re-elected, they would still be entitled to no more than
>> their original frozen salary level.
>
>        Except that many Congresspersons (especially Senators)
>make much more money from speaking engagements and the like than
>from salary.  This plan would merely entrench those Solons most
>in the favor of the lobbyists/special interests.  Especially
>those favorable to the richest special interests.  Do you really
>want the country being run by the oil, gas, tobacco, medical,
>insurance, etc. lobbies?  I thought not.

>                                        --Jeff Turner
Two points: 1, This suggestion is not necessarily in final form; I did not say
that it didn't require a little fine tuning.  There are already ethics laws to
limit how much money congresspersons may get from outside interests, and surely
there will be more. (Maybe require that all honoraria received while in office
be taxed 100 percent and earmarked to be applied to the national debt. But that
is another story.)
            2, I'm not sure I follow your argument that this would reinforce
special interest groups having the elected officials in their pockets.  I don't
see the connection.  Assuming that outside special-interest income could be
limited, how could the lobbies be in control?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: Theory?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:20:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.195153.23385@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>With Wittgenstein, I would argue that it's wrong to say that "I like
>cauliflower" is just an abbreviated way of saying "I believe I like
>cauliflower."  For one, as you note, this easily leads to an infinite
>regress.

Isn't this analogous to the identification with x and x+0?  That this
leads to the infinite regress x = x+0 = (x+0)+0 = ... doesn't seem to
have stopped people from making this identification.

>More importantly, the sentences are used in different ways.  I
>would not ever say  "I believe I like cauliflower" if what I really
>meant was just that I liked cauliflower.  I would only use it if either
>had some doubt as to whether I really liked it, or if someone was asking
>me to list my beliefs concerning cauliflower.  

Or if you didn't like it before but had just now tasted it prepared in
a delightful way.

Natural logic is fun to speculate on but hard to study.  A naive
approach to formalizing a logic of belief amenable to study is to model
belief as one deductively closed theory per individual of a community,
and to define the interpretation of "P" to be the set of individuals
that believe P.  The above identification would correspond to B being a
member of the interpretation of the proposition "B believes P" iff B is
a member of the interpretation of "P".  This axiom of self-knowledge is
quite different in character from other axioms such as "B believes
TRUE" and the equivalence of "B believes P and Q" with "B believes P"
and "B believes Q", both of which are consequences of the model.  (Note
that the equivalence of "B believes P or Q" to "B believes P" or "B
believes Q" is not a consequence of the model, and expresses that B is
opinionated, or has a complete theory: B has a belief for every P,
assuming B believes "P or not P" for every P.)

The axiom of self-knowledge is one of those axioms that is not a
property of the model as described above.  It is "natural to add, but
should not be added lightly."  A more detailed mechanism for the
communication of beliefs may well result in making it a property of the
model.  Beyond that I have to confess abysmal ignorance concerning what
is known about actual logics of belief with and without it.
-- 
Vaughan Pratt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:33:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov6.175024.13668@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Peter Nelson (I think):
>>  ...
>>   Having read Rand's political and ethical writings, I have found 
>>   nothing of sufficient intellectual rigor to form the basis of 
>>   anything relevant to the discussion.  Her work is incredibly flawed
>>   and empty for someone who has attracted so much attention.  (Although
>>   it should be noted that the attention she attracts is among "middle-
>>   brows", sophomore philosophy students and the like; she has little
>>   following among serious philsophers or political thinkers.) ...
>
>First of all, let's dispense with the notion, implicit in so
>much that I see written here, that one philsophical text can
>be determined in some objective or absolute way to be better
>or truer than another.

  See below.

>well-defined components.  Hence, Objectivism.  Once the
>premises (the worldview) are set up, the engine can be run
>and the guilt can be extruded -- can be shown to be not only
>irrelevant, but evil.  Thus, Rand's philosophy actually
>accomplishes something useful, which is more than can be
>said about a great many philosophers. 

  Well, I admit this is a novel analysis that had never
  ocurred to me before.   I mean, true, she HAS found a
  market niche.


>On the whole, I think philosophies should be judged on how
>well they serve those who consume them, as judged by the
>consumer.

  The only way I might fault this (and what would be the
  point of posting to Usenet if not to fault some other
  poster?) is this:

  "Twinkies" has a successful market niche meeting the snack
  needs of millions.  They are junk food, of course, but
  they cheerfully admit this.  They don't claim to be of
  gourmet quality, nor do they claim to be health food.

  The problem is that Randianism is not content to serve
  a middlebrow market as a middlebrow philosophy.  They
  *claim* to be of a rigorous calibre.  They claim to 
  have an exacting, logical, provable model on which to 
  base their conclusions.  I attack them not just because
  their model is wrong, but because they misrepresent
  themselves. 

  One the question of whether "one philsophical text can
  be determined in some objective or absolute way to be
  better or truer than another", I agree, if we limit our
  discussion to ethics.  But this is the whole point: 
  Randianism claims that they ARE better or truer than
  another.

  But I would note that what today we call "science" used to
  be called "natural philosophy", and that by some criteria
  it CAN be shown to be better or truer than others, even when
  we're talking about meeting the same people's same needs.
  E.g., chemistry works better than alchemy at doing the 
  things alchemy purported to do.  Scientific medicine can
  cure diseases that medicine relying on spirits and magic
  cannot.


---peter
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: Theory?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:42:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.224936.121@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.022007.14425@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>>
>>Isn't this analogous to the identification with x and x+0?  That this
>>leads to the infinite regress x = x+0 = (x+0)+0 = ... doesn't seem to
>>have stopped people from making this identification.
>
>Hmm, only a little bit.  It would be more like DEFINING x to be x+0,
>which would be a bad idea.  (Or saying that x is just an abbreviation
>for x+0, and that one REALLY means x+0 when one says x.)

This is backwards.  x is merely a variable here, like P.  The part
corresponding with "I believe" is "+0".  And indeed x+0 is by
definition x, which is the connection I was making in contemplating the
possible equivalence of "I believe P" and "P".

>>Natural logic is fun to speculate on but hard to study.  
>
>Yup, that's why I usually work with unnatural logic.

Attaboy.  To paraphrase Drew McDermott's "Artificial Intelligence and
Natural Stupidity", sci.logic features "Artificial Logic and Natural
Fallacy."
-- 
Vaughan Pratt
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4853 talk.philosophy.misc:2404 rec.arts.books:19908
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:39:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BxoABo.LB3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>Eric S. Raymond writes:
>>I think Peter Nelson is entirely correct in rejecting Objectivist epistemology
>>as junk; his arguments are cogent, correct, and (to anyone with a technical
>>knowledge of epistemology) quite devastating.
>
>I have not seen any such arguments by Peter Nelson.  Unless I have him
>confused with someone else (in which case I most sincerely apologize!),
>he doesn't have any idea what the Objectivist epistemology says.

  I certainly have read her philosophical and ethical writings (I have
  not read her fiction).

  You are welcome to come out of the woodwork and try to make some
  sense of her ideas or even to offer operational definitions of
  her terms, specify what metrics we might use in measuring "rational",
  or even explain why you think logical empiricism should be superceded
  by some other set of epistemological principles.  


>But as I say, I would love to hear these arguments from Peter Nelson.
>Perhaps I can straighten out the confusion here.

  I'm sure they're all in your spool file, since all my recent
  postings on this topic have been in the last week or so.

  In essence: her central terms terms are not defined either
  operationally or in terms of anything which can be measured
  mechanically.   Her theories are not testable or falsifiable.
  She leaps from premise to conclusion with no intervening
  logic (premise: man (man qua man) relies on his rationality
  to survive.  Conclusion: to deny him this rationality (i.e.,
  to deny him what he needs to survive) is immoral).   She has
  pages of intervening words, or course, but ultimately nothing
  that justifies the conclusion.  And of course she relies on 
  tautology: a=a.
        

---peter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory