HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Who is forcing Idealism? (Was: Re: Quote from Clinton?)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:12:48 GMT

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

`In article <1k2h39INNe5v@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:
`>In article <1993Jan25.154830.27246@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka
`>Chandna) writes:

`>...but many of the chemicals in a
`>cats brains do the same thing in human brains.

`There are those who would dispute this including:

Is it totally inconceivable that there are some similarities and thus
useful information can be gathered?

Geesh

swood
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:22:46 GMT

From article <1993Jan23.191429.3688@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> The AR types do not consider insulin to be an example of animal research
> which has resulted in a benefit to humans...
> Ted Robinson, Bob Black, and (if memory serves) Russell Lawrence concurred
> on this point.

I didn't post a judgment because I don't know enough about the 
history of the events.  

BTW, I don't dispute the claim that animal experiments have 
yielded potentially useful information.  I do, however, have 
serious doubts about the claim that all such experiments are 
"essential" or "necessary" or that their benefits outweigh their 
harm.  To illustrate the last point, take a look at the postings 
over the past few days where supporters of animal experimentation 
have stated that the murder of humans is ok if the perpetrator 
can "get away" with the crime, or that human famine is ok as long 
as they're not the ones who're starving.  In the final analysis, 
it seems to me that the same kind of self-centered thinking 
that's often used to justify fur trapping, hunting, animal 
research, etc, has caused the loss of more man-years than animal 
research has saved.  

-- 
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: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:17:08 GMT

From article <mhulsey-260193075509@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> Is it within your mental powers to imagine how this research could benefit
> humans?  Are you opposed to all animal research, or just this particular
> project?
> ... 
> Do you care more about the suffering of cats than the suffering of your
> fellow humans?

Please tell us your stand on sport hunting and fur trapping, so that
we can determine the role that humane compassion plays in your ethical
decision-making.

-- 
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: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:06:37 GMT

From article <C18I58.Gs9@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
> In my opinion, PETA's impact would derive from the ability to mobilize 
> public opinion, the one currency that federal bureaucracies
> have in common. 

Don't forget congress and the chief executive.

> *If* the AMA or NABR were able to inspire the
> public to a similar froth, I would believe those organizations 
> might have impact on the NIH.
>
> Why do you think the AMA or NABR might have some sway?

Along with the NRA and the National Dairy Board, the AMA has been
one of the top spenders in congress for several decades.  And the
pharmaceutical companies also have a good deal of clout.  Care to 
take a guess about PETA's relative rank in terms of PAC contributions?

-- 
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: "... man tends to be lazy"
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:32:43 GMT

In article <1jplgr$46d@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>In article <C188qs.Ks6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>From article <lltllvINN48i@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
I can't help but, mention how boring
>and ludicrous many posts have become on this group, especially yours 
>Lawrence.  Am I the only one who notices that almost nobody here is
>convinced of anything by the oppositions claims and demands.  There is
>next to nothing to learn unless you want to learn how to "debate" like
>deceitful child who pretends to be intelligent.  How many people have 
>actually had their minds changed by a hunter?  How about a AR?  Very 
>few if any that I have seen.  Round and round we go, nowhere!  
>
>t.p.a. is really becoming a waste of time, or has it been all along and
>I'm just now realizing it?
>
>Mike Linan
>

It can be entertaining, with occasional food for thought. What is the 
acceptable timetable (to you) for changing a person's beliefs? You are 
well aware, I'm sure, that the issue of animal rights is purely emotional.
Appeals to scientific, biological fact on the part of ARs are predominantly
smokescreens to justify preconceived idealized notions of the ways of nature.
The Bambi syndrome, in other words. Hunters and ranchers tend to feel they're
doing what comes naturally, and have been taught since childhood that it's
okay. Both are deeply held beliefs that won't quickly respond to rational 
arguments. Ever tried to convince a born again christian that god was
constructed by the human imagination? The very idea is too threatening to 
consider, and rational discourse is impossible. The animal rights/human
rights equation is at least as deep a conviction on the part of both parties.

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:48:59 GMT

From article <1993Jan27.172521.5351@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C1HvxK.8MH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>-- You've stated in the past that the thoughts and feelings of animals
>>   don't count in your assessment of cruelty if/when their torment is
>>   "necessary" or "useful".   Since women in Miami don't "need" to
>>   wear mink coats and most US sport hunters don't really "need" to hunt 
>>   deer, how do you justify the suffering that may be experienced by mink 
>>   and deer in these two circumstances?
> 
> Russell, why do you persistantly attempt to redirect the issue.  My
> purpose here is to disseminate the truth about animal research.  (Since we
> can't rely on the AR press to do so.)  
> I do not own mink coats.
> I do not hunt.
> That's my position.

You don't participate in cat shooting experiments either, yet 
you haven't hesitated to justify them on the grounds that they're 
allegedly "necessary" and "useful".  Would you please answer my 
questions about sport hunting and fashion fur, so that we can get 
a better grip on the scope of your "necessary" and "useful" 
concept?  So far, it sounds like whitewash.

-- 
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: I was born to eat meat.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:29:32 GMT

From article <1k2fnvINNdrk@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> I was born to eat meat and so were you.  Take a look at your own 
> dentistry!  These nice sharp "canine" teeth I have are just great for
> ripping the tasty flesh of my animal meal.  

Orangs and gorillas also have canine teeth?  Were they "born" to
eat meat?

> My teeth don't look anything
> like that of a horse or other herbavore, neither do yours.  

They do, indeed, bear a close resemblance to the teeth of frugivores
like orangs and herbivores like gorillas.  

Try biting into a hunk of cabbage or a large apple without using 
your canines.  If you're young, perhaps it won't be painful, but 
it surely won't be comfortable --- not for very long at any rate.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: California/Desert
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:28:30 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <C1C8F5.LI2@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>According to USDA data (cited in the WorldWatch paper mentioned 
>previously), 70% of the 1990 US grain crop was consumed by 
>livestock.

This is the flip side of your "single use" argument.  What Dan
Sorenson pointed out is that 30% of the grain produced is suitable for
human consumption.

And all your mumblings along these lines aren't arguing for more
ethical treatment of animals.  Their arguments for environmental
conservation with a presupposed hypothesis.

You aren't arguing for "ANIMAL RIGHTS"

If you were concerned with environmental conservation, you would look
at each problem individually, and objectively choose a method of
remedying problem areas.   Your arguments are the height of
speciousness.

drew
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: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:39:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.104007.2736@netcom.com>, loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> You know, I love all this horseshit about "fully anesthetized cats."  The
> point being made is that the cats did not suffer, and therefore the
> research was ok.

No, the "point being made "is that animal activists lied about the
anesthesia that the cats received to falsely imply that they suffered pain
during the procedures.

The "point being made" is also that animal activists cannot convince the
public that animal experimentation is "bad" without distorting the facts. 
The case of the Silver Spring monkeys and now the "cat-shooting" project
are two examples.

If you concur with the second GAO panel of "experts" (who had never done
any brain research) that the anaesthesia confounded the results of the
work, would you argue that the results would have been more reliable if no
anaesthesia were employed?

>Greg, do you seriously give half a shit if the cats
> sufferred?  If so, is it within your keenly calipered mental powers to
> imagine what it must have felt like when the anesthesia wore off (or even
> wore down)?  

Is it within your mental powers to imagine how this research could benefit
humans?  Are you opposed to all animal research, or just this particular
project?
 
> Or is the "fully anesthetized cats" argument just a rationalization to
> cover the fact that you really don't care if suffering is inflicted on
> animals?

Of course Greg cares about the suffering of animals.  So do I.  That is why
he and I are pleased to find out that the claims of the animal activists
regarding the use of anaesthesia were lies.  Greg and I also care about the
suffering of our fellow humans.  In fact, we care more about our own
species than any other.  This is why we support animal experimentation.

Do you care more about the suffering of cats than the suffering of your
fellow humans?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
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 17:07:16 GMT

In article <C1H888.2Fv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan26.144455.11418@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>>>>Would you care to tell us roughly how much water is used to stock 
>>>>>fountains and swimming pools, Rich?  After you've supplied the 
>>>>>facts, we'll find out whether or not your finger-pointing is just 
>>>>>another evasive maneuver?  
>>>> 
>>>> Already asked and answered.
>>>
>>>In other words, you don't know.
>>
>>Nor, apparently, do you.
>
>Evidently, you didn't have any facts to support your claim that
>Californians could save as much water by cutting back on swimming 
>pools as they could save by cutting back on meat and dairy
>consumption.  
>
>According to WorldWatch:
>
>   "... the water used to supply each american with meat, milk
>    and eggs each day probably matches a typical american's
>    daily water use at home, about 380 liters".

	First, I said "nearly as much"; second, does the WorldWatch number
	include swimming pools, fountains, lawns, and commercial car washes,
	or is it more like just the water each individual uses for washing,
	cooking, flushing, and drinking?  By the way, the American Water
	Works Association, as quoted in the 1992 World Almanac, says average
	daily water use is more like 636 liters.  My, oh my.  Who SHALL we
	believe?

	How much water is used for swimming pools, lawns, fountains, 
	commercial car washes, and other human uses which could be
	eliminated without risk to life, health, and major industry, Russell?

	You can't even tell me which human uses your 380 liters includes.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Who is forcing Idealism? (Was: Re: Quote from Clinton?)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:35:47 GMT

In article <1k2h39INNe5v@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.154830.27246@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka
>Chandna) writes:

[...]

>Actually Dr Carey was experimenting on cat head trama because a cat's brain
>is actually better understood than a human's ...

That's not what Dr Carey himself previously wrote:

	"We have selected the cat as our experimental animal because
	it is small and relatively inexpensive....  Use of the cat
	represents a compromise between animal size, brain size and
	configuration of missile size. 

			- Michael Carey, Proposal to the Army, 1985

>...but many of the chemicals in a
>cats brains do the same thing in human brains.

There are those who would dispute this including: (1) Dr Michael Sukoff,
a neurosurgeon on the clinical faculty at the University of California
at Irvine, who as a former Lt Commander in the US Navy spent two years
providing neurosurgical care to Vietnam War casualties;  (2) Stanley
Katsner of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Health Sciences'
Department of Pharmacology (See Feb 1985 Pharmacology of Human Blood
Vessels, Federation Proceedings, vol. 44, no. 2). 

---
Robert Black 		|  Replies may be slow.
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Originator: young@plasma
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:12:34 GMT

In article <C1BvHz.JpK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan23.191429.3688@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> The AR types do not consider insulin to be an example of animal research
>> which has resulted in a benefit to humans...
>> Ted Robinson, Bob Black, and (if memory serves) Russell Lawrence concurred
>> on this point.
>
>I didn't post a judgment because I don't know enough about the 
>history of the events.  

	Perhaps not.  As I said, I was going entirely from memory.  I am
	certain of the other two, however.

[...irrelevant handwaving deleted...]


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: Wanted, Info on falconry (pro and con)
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 18:57:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.181258.10224@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
>Can anyone point me to a source of information on the pros and cons of
>falconry. Does falconry help raptors in any way? Is there widespead
>abuse of birds involved in falconry? Are the birds regularly taken from
>the wild? Is the training abusive? You get the general idea. I'd like
>unbiased data, so reports from falconers of their organisation are
>probably not what I'm looking for (though they might be).
>
>Please email replies if possible.
>Thanks
>

I suggest you repost this on rec.hunting. There are several people in that
group who engage in falconry and would probably be glad to give some feed
back on it.

Keith


-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |  Go Volunteers!   | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:33:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

>When I first heard of the segment, I thought of you, boo-hooing in your beer.

When I first saw the segment, I thought of you, wacking-off at your
pin-ups of animal-restraining devices.

	- John Hoag (loca@netcom.com)
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: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:51:12 GMT

In article <C16G3p.5nw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan20.143155.9995@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>
>> From the TUFTS UNIVERSITY DIET AND NUTRITION LETTER, Vol. 10, No. 4, June 1992:
>> "Coal mining, oil and gas drilling, the incomplete combustion of 
>> fossil fuel, the burning of vegetation, and our wetlands all produce 
>> large amounts of methane.  Rice paddies and termites alone produce 
>> almost twice as much methane as cattle."
>
>Someone's misinformed.
>
>From World Watch Paper #103, "Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the
>Environment", by Alan Durning and Holly Brough:
>
>"In addition, livestock are a source of the second-most important
>greenhouse gas, methane.  Ruminant animals release perhaps 80 million
>tons of the gas each year in belches and flatulence, while animal
>wastes at feedlots and factory-style farms emit another 35 million 
>tons.  In such operations, waste is commonly stored in the oxygen-
>short environments of sewage lagoons and manure piles, where methane
>forms during decomposition.  Manure that falls in the fields, by
>contrast, decomposes without releasing methane because oxygen is
>present.  Livestock account for 15 to 20 percent of global methane
>emissions --- about 3 percent of global warming from all gases."

	Point: TUFTS said: "...twice as much methane as __CATTLE__."

	       Russell quotes: "__LIVESTOCK__ account for 15 to 20 percent..."

	Point: "Twice as much" even using Russell's numbers is another 40
		percent, so livestock, rice paddies, AND termites would
		produce only 60 percent of total global methane emission.

	Conclusion: The two pieces of data are not mutually exclusive, and
			the only one misinformed is poor Russell.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:21:51 GMT

In article <C1H64E.255@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> You're referring, of course, to the assumptions that you, 
> yourself, were circulating...  after you jumped to conclusions.

Precisely how did I jump to a conclusion?

>[...]

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Books review- "Free the Animals" By Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:32:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.151140.26696@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>
>>In article Alka Chandna  writes:
>
>>> In an incredibly believable manner, Newkirk slips in quotations 
>>>by everyone from Mahatma Gandhi ("The greatness of a nation and its moral 
>>>progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals") to Jeremy Bentham
>>>("The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they speak? But, can they
>>>suffer?") to Leonardo daVinci ("The day will come when we will look upon the
>>>murder of beasts as we now look upon the murder of men") to Martin Luther 
>>>King ("An unjust law is no law at all").  Peter Singer's utilitarian argument
>>>finds its way into the pages of the novel, as does Tom Regan's rights and
>>>responsibilities spiel.
>
>>Did she mention Hitler?  The Nazis introduced some sweeping
>>antivivisection laws in the 30's.
>
>Let's try to remember some basic principles of logic.  If the Nazis introduced
>some "sweeping antivivisections laws", does it follow that antivivisectionists
>in general are Nazis?

I couldn't agree more.
Nor does the use us of pro-AR quotes from famous people lend credence to
the movement.

>
>The sort of thinking that allows for the existence of exploiters and 
>populations to be exploited is exactly what Nazism is all about, exactly 
>what the notion of a Master Race is all about, exactly what the notion of
>a Master Species (or "crown of creation") is all about. 

So now I'm a Nazi, huh?

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