HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:30:37 GMT

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

`> "I was there," responds the editor, "and personally observed the
` 
`Read this description again, especially the part about screaming loudly that 
`they were PETA members. Also, the part about being interested in causing 
`*obvious* trouble. Which does it sound more like, people working to help 
`animals, or people working to discredit the AR movement? I think you've been 
`bamboozled.  

Aw, come on now.  And you say that I am fabricating?  I suppose that you
are going to tell me now that the attacks on local animal research clinics
were actually just people working to discredit The Animal Liberation Front?
I suppose that we are going to have to issue ID's to Animal Rights and Anti`s
so that we can truely identify them as real or not.

This activity (as was stated in the article) occurred at the same time
PeTA nationals were down talking pets and pet shows.  Also at the same
time they were endorsing the "liberation" of caged animals.  They claimed
to be PeTA members.  What else is there?

I also do not think an Anti-Animal Right member would endanger an
expensive show dog just to spite a AR group.  I just think your grabbing
at straws on this one.

`BTW - I've heard that Ingrid is a very soft-spoken individual.  I find it hard
`to believe that she "snarled" anything. Did you hear her snarl yourself? Did 
`someone else? Or did you make this up? If so, can we then assume that all 
`other desriptions of what Ingrid said/did are similarly invented/distorted?

I have never met Ingrid, but I happen to know there is someone reading this
group who has. (Mary - a.k.a. motto - if your listening you might want to
comment on this one)  I am not sure if it was mentioned in the post, but
the article was not of my origin.  I have however read some of her past
works and quotes and think that even with the tone of the article, her
political attitude sure makes it seem more believable.

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Meat eating and hunting
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:48:43
	<RIGG.92Sep14103509@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Sep15.044311.29456@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
In-reply-to: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu's message of Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:43:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.044311.29456@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
   Tim Rigg writes:
   >No come on!  This is bull.  Are the exploding deer populations in
   >Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio also due to hunters
   >"reintroducing" them to those states?
   >tim

   Sorry this took so long, but I had to find it again......

   From the Indianapolis News, Monday, April 27, 1992:

     "Deer became extinct in Indiana after settlers first began razing forests
      for cropland, Pagac said. They were reintroduced during the 1930s."

I'll conceed this point, but just a little bit.  I wonder what the
situation would be if no deer were specifically reintroduced.  It
seems that plenty would have come in from Michigan and Illinois to
create the same population explosion.

I grew up in Northwest Indiana.  The habitat is very good for deer.  I
wonder if market hunters weren't the real reason for the earlier
"extinction". 

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 18:22:13 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


Yep, Ol' Russell is employed. When I derided him a few weeks back
saying he must have a lot of time on his hands, he replied to me
personally saying his boss doesn't mind. "Doesn't know" is probably
more accurate.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Animal rights...again
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:55:24 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>    Allow me to reiterate myself: Animals have NO rights. It appears that there
>has been some confusion as to what I mean.  I first used the term "animals" in
>the ordinary sense, meaning non-humans.  Let me rephrase my position so that 
>even an animal activist can understand it.  Only human beings have rights.

Well, I would have phrased your last sentence as: "Only human beings have
human rights."  Shouldn't there be a class of rights that governs all beings,
with human rights being applied to humans in addition to the basic rights?
Natural law comes close to addressing this point.....

> No law that I am aware of has ever given animals rights.  Therefore
>it is a blatant lie to say otherwise.  Until such a law is passed, I will
>continue to say that animals have no rights, and I will continue to be right.

I don't know why it is a "blatant lie" to say animals don't have rights.!?
Is it right to torture an animal to death?  If you don't think so, then you
have just given it a natural right.  Some may think it is perfectly ok to
torture an animal, but some people also feel that certain members of the human
race are not deserving of human rights.......

>     Has anyone noticed that the animal rights activists also tend to be in
>favor of abortion (the slaughter of human beings) on demand? However that's
>another question...

I for one am strongly Pro-Life.  But abortion brings up an entirely odd case
where two "natural" rights are in opposition:  The right to life and the right
to personal liberties.  It is not an easily settled debate.......

Rob U, isn't it odd how many classify animal advocates as being left?
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Animal Rights
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:43:03 GMT

     Animals have no rights!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:38:35 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Sep08.144044.25095@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
> [...]  Come on, Russell, call me a liar again - I just
>might have that message here after all.
>
>-- 
>Todd++;
>------------------
>todd@refrig.dixie.com

Look here todd--, why don't you put up or shut up? If you can prove Russell
a liar, then do so. Otherwise, keep your infantile ramblings to yourself.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:25:01 GMT

>`swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>`> Human life is more valuable than animal life!

>u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:
>`This statement is false.
>`Don't even think about trying to impose your own value system on me. I'll
>`make up my own mind on what is valuable, thanks very much.

Scott Wood writes:
>My opinion on this comes from the fact that the intelligence of a human
>is capable of more good than any 1000 animals combined.  Whether that be
>for mankind, 

More good?  How about:  Wars, Terrorism, Murder, Rape? 

>animal kind 

More good?  How about:  Extinctions, Vivisection, Enslavement?

>or the environment.

More good?  How about:  Acid rain, clear-cutting, water and air pollution?


>  And whether or not the human intelligence has the wisdom to act for good.

Sometimes, sadly, that is in question too....

A beaver builds dams that provide habitat for many other species.  Kind of
like a human.  It even destroys whole ecosystems in favor of others.  Kind
of like a human.  At times, beavers seem to be pretty equivalent to humans.....

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: moral Judgements
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:19:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.141429.27810@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.203512.7328@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>> >In article <64032@cup.portal.com> gun-smoke@cup.portal.com
>>> >(Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>1. What does "dominion" mean in the bible?  Does the assignment of it
>>to humans really rule out recognition of rights for animals?
>
>Wait a minute! Are you implying our wildlife management should be based on
>the Christian bible?

No I'm not implying that.  I'm following up on this earlier statement 
(since vanished) in this thread:

   tas>I disagree.  Judeo-Christian teachings tell us that man was created in 
   tas>God's image and was given dominion over the animals(Genesis 1:27).

Within this context, my question about the meaning of "dominion" here is
a reasonable one. 

>>2. Why shouldn't Genesis 1:29 be interpreted as promoting a vegetarian
>>diet as the original diet for humanity?  Why shouldn't any later
>>apparently conflicting dietary dictums be seen strictly as a consequence
>>of man's own perfidy?
>
>I am outraged and insulted that anyone would bring the bible into an otherwise
>intelligent discussion. I think I'd better quit this response before I say 
>something I may later regret.

Well it seems like you're easily outraged, but that's your prerogative. 
Are you saying the discussion was intelligent until now?

What is wrong with using biblical references and requesting
clarification from those who believe the bible instructs us in how
humans should treat nonhumans and informs us that animals do not have
rights?  This is true of a number of pro-hunters.  If I've interpreted
them correctly (dissenters feel free to correct this), there are hunters
who believe that "God" has told them it's okay to hunt and kill animals. 

To the extent that the bible is invoked as a justification to sanction
hunting or as evidence to conclude that animals cannot be holders of any
rights, then it's very definitely a valid topic to pursue further.

Perhaps you're confused here, having entered the discussion in the
twilight of its life.

>Jeff Achenbach
>achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: ruman@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (ruman)
Subject: Re: moral Judgements
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Master Time Killers INc
Keywords: cannibalism 
Distribution: usa
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:25:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

In article <65411@cup.portal.com> gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:
>
>I already answered this one too.  
>
>"For me the defining characteristic that separates humans from 
>animals is the ability to tell right from wrong.  You have to admit 
>that the ability evaluate our actions from a moral perspective is 
>uniquely human. That ability more than anything else separates 
>humans from animals and justifies humans having rights."  
>

Does this mean that you consider all those humans unable to distinguish
right from wrong and those unable to "evaluate actions from a 
moral perspective" fit for consumption? Circumstances permitting
would u have no ethical objections to eating the meat of brain dead
people or people with near zero IQs? 

I was also wondering how you are aware of the fact that animals are
incapable of making moral judgements. Or are you of the view that
morality is absolute and are guided solely by your religious texts?

>
>Just because certain behavior towards animals is wrong under certain 
>circumstances, doesn't mean that animals have rights.   We should not 
>torture animals is because it is wrong to delight in suffering.  This does 
>not mean animals have rights.  The ideal we are striving for is humane 
>treatment of animals while still providing for the needs and goals of 
>humans.  This is a far cry from saying that the animals have rights that
>humans can't violate for any reason.
>
In effect you are saying it is wrong to torture animals not because
it is causing them suffering, but because it is wrong for humans
to engage in "inhumane" acts. Why is it wrong to deal with animals
in an inhumane fashion? Why do you want to view your actions
towards animals in a moral perspective? Is it because you think
they are capable of feeling and have emotions? If so what is the
difference between an act based on emotions and an act based on
some morals. I feel everyone of man's , so called moral judgements
can be shown to be based on emotions and are in fact emotional
judgements. 

I have just begun reading this group and am unaware how long this
discussion has being going on, but would appreciate if you can 
answer my questions even u have answered them before..  I will admit I am
not a particularly well-read or erudite person in philosophy. Most of my
questions are based on gut feelings. 

>
>Tom Swenson
>
>Freedom of the press is great.  If YOU own the press.

Sincerely
ruman
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Meat eating and hunting
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:47:57 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <RIGG.92Sep14103509@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.032028.1407@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>
>   [Lots deleted]
>   In Indiana, there is a problem with an overabundance of deer in the
>   State Parks (no hunting allowed, hunters reintroduced deer to the
>   state in the 30's).
>
>No come on!  This is bull.  Are the exploding deer populations in
>Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio also due to hunters
>"reintroducing" them to those states?
>

I don't know about those states in particular, but Pennsylvania was for all
intents and purposes devoid of deer by about 1918. The present population is 
descended from Michigan deer imported at about that time period. It is one of
the great successes of wildlife management that there are now more that a
million whitetails in PA, due to the efforts and funding of the Pennsylvania 
Game Commission and dedicated hunters.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:50:52 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Dan Sorenson writes:
>>> I remember a claim of each cow drinking something like thirty
>>> gallons of water per day.  My experience has shown ten or less is more
>>> the correct figure, but if you take all the water used by the garden,
>>> the washing machine, the shower, and the cattle, then divide by the
>>> number of cattle, you can see where your average will be scewed. 
 
Russell Lawrence writes:
>>As I recall, we've discussed the amount of water required to produce
>>a pound of edible meat, but not the amount of water that a cow drinks
>>every day.   Were you assuming that the irrigation water required to
>>produce fodder and feed grain should not be counted in the consumption
>>figures?

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>One thing people tend to forget is, that water is not lost forever.  It's
>recycled as soon as the cattle eliminate it, soaks into the ground and back
>into the aquafer.  

Then explain why the aquifers are drying up in some places.  There is a limited
supply of fresh water in the world and we are doing our best to use it up
quickly......

>And thirty gallons is an outrageous amount, my horses
>need five to seven gallons (or less) a day.  Cows aren't quite as big as
>horses.

That must be a rather inactive day.... :-)  I guesstimated about 7-10 as
typical for our horses.  But this does NOT include the amount used to
grow any of the feeds, cleaning of the horses, cleaning of the stalls, growing
of the bedding materials, etc.....  And horses aren't exactly raised to 
promote "rapid weight gain" to "get them to market faster" or such drivel.....

>Most of the grain crops in the midwest are produced WITHOUT irrigation.

Then explain those long pipe thingies that rotate about a center pivot 
point that seem to be growing all over Nebraska..... they usually only
grow where crops are.  Maybe it's modern art.... from the air those
green circles are really neat lookin'    :-)

Rob U, feedlots suck
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Lies about PETA
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:14:01 GMT

Ingrid Newkirk writes:
in> I am asking your help to restore commonsense and to nip this 
in> bizarre and damaging rumor about dog releases in the bud.  I do 
in> not wish to engage in legal action against dog breed associations 
in> and individuals who are deliberately repeating a libelous 
in> statement.  May I hear from you?  

From article <18r7msINN4ic@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Do you have proof that these acts were purely fiction or that if 
ml> they were not, that no one affiliated with PETA were involved.  

Ah yes, Mike Linan's oft-used, but fallacious, "Guilty until Proven 
Innocent" argument.   Perhaps other readers would be interested in
hearing what a professional philosopher might say about your concept:

	 "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam -- an argument that a proposition is 
	  true because it has not been shown to be false, or vice-versa."

	  From "A Glossary of Logical Terms: Fallacies", by Boruch A.
	  Brody, _Encyclopedia of Philosophy_, MacMillan Publishing Company.

ml> Or are we just supposed to believe you and your biased views?  
ml> What's the matter Wheeler.  You sure can dish the bullshit 
ml> propaganda out but, you don't like being on the receiving end 
ml> do you?  As far as I am concerned, I believe the stories are 
ml> true.  Prove otherwise and I will discount the stories.  

You're entitled to believe what you wish to believe, however 
unfounded your beliefs may be.  Nevertheless, you ought to beware 
of making public accusations based on those beliefs lest you find 
yourself in civil court facing a libel charge.  

ml> Ingrid E. Newkirk
ml> National Idiot

I'd like to know why you consider Ingrid Newkirk to be an "idiot".

Does she lack the ability to think critically?  If so, how would
her "idiocy" compare with your inability to comprehend fallacies that
would be plainly obvious to any first-year philosophy student?

Does she lack the ability to learn?  If so, how would her learning
disabilities compare with your own apparent inability to learn new
facts and arguments?

Perhaps you think she's an "idiot" because her ethical beliefs 
differ from your own.  If so, why would her belief that 
thinking/feeling animals deserve respect be more "idiotic" than 
your belief in the existence of ghosts, demons, and various 
godlets?  There's quite a bit of scientific evidence to support 
the notion that non-human animals have thoughts and feelings, but 
there's no scientific evidence whatsoever to support your notion 
that demonic infestations cause disease.  As such, it seems to me 
that you've somehow managed to confuse "intelligence" for 
"idiocy", and vice-versa.    

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:46:23 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <Bu4BIu.9K9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>[ re the personification of "Nature" ]
>
>In article <Bu2Fxw.5AM@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> ...  It wasn't all that long ago that Agni the Fire God was still 
>rl> alive and well.  Even today, I meet people who scratch their 
>rl> heads when I ask them where fires go when the fuel is fully 
>rl> consumed.  "To heaven?", was the response I got from a young 
>rl> teenager a few weeks ago.  
>
>From article <1992Sep5.134528.4713@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> OK, Russell, point well taken.  Rather than simply calling Matt's
>ry> views "misrepresentations," how about supplying some EVIDENCE of
>ry> that fact?  Or are you simply going to assert that he's lying and
>ry> leave it at that?
>
>I do not consider Matt to be a liar for telling us what "Nature" 
>does or doesn't believe.  Still, it's important for us to divest 
>ourselves of the habit of invoking non-existent authorities as 
>convenient props for our own personal opinions.  The use of such 
>authorities may not be lies, but they are misrepresentations.  
>

Is it not equally important to divest ourselves of such ambiguous terms as
"good, bad, and meaning" when discussing nature and other animals? You seem to
have no problem with anthropomorphism when it suits your purpose.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor)
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:23:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.171048.12477@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.135918.24842@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:

>>Maybe that's why we never see an 800 number for PETA?  Bet they'd scream
>>if they had to pay for phone calls from people who disagree with them.

>So?  Are we to conclude from this that the opponents of PETA and Greenpeace
>are more likely to abuse 800 numbers than the opponents of fur farms and
>pork?

Or perhaps PETA and Greenpeace are more aware of such tactics (since it
has been alleged that they indulge in them) and are therefore more careful
to ensure that no one can use these tactics against them.  Personally, I
know many people who you would probably consider "opponents of PETA and
Greenpeace" (though most of them if asked, would say they feel such groups
are just plain foolish) but none who would waste their time calling 800
numbers to harrass, or waste the money of, such groups.  Then again, they
also aren't about to spend their own money making phone calls to request
literature from these groups.  So, even if these groups are as worthy as
some claim, it's unlikely that they will win over any potential supporters
in my circle of acquaintance.  I guess it's a toss-up whether PETA, Green-
peace, etc gain or lose more by not having 800 numbers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals