HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: Thesis on Species/Individuals
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:54:33 GMT


01248034  ORDER NO: AADMM-65692
THE MEANING OF EXTINCTION FOR JUSTICE BETWEEN SPECIES: AN EXAMINATION OF
SOME PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS CONCERNING NATURE PRESERVATION
  Author:  HORSLEY, JANE SARAH
  Degree:  M.E.S.
  Year:    1990
  Corporate Source/Institution:  YORK UNIVERSITY (CANADA) (0267)
  Supervisor: N. EVERNDEN
  Source:  VOLUME 30/04 of MASTERS ABSTRACTS.
           PAGE 1053.  286 PAGES
  Descriptors:  PHILOSOPHY; ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
  Descriptor Codes:  0422; 0768
  ISBN:         0-315-65692-1

     Chapter One sets out several conceptual puzzles that arise within
scientific discourse concerning extinction and preservation. I examine the
commonplace that extinction is a natural phenomenon. I draw an analogy
between extinction as the death of species and the death of individuals.
     Chapter Two surveys the various proposals to articulate the values
involved in species preservation. I develop an axiological typology to
characterize and compare positions on species preservation in the
environmental philosophy literature. I explore the different connotations
suggested by notions of humans in nature, and humans apart from nature. I
examine the prospects for conflict between animal liberation and nature
preservation policies. I address the problems of extinction and
preservation from the perspective of an agent centered moral theory.
     Chapter Three elaborates on several aspects of the approach that I
recommend, the principle of respect for ecological and evolutionary
wildness. I argue that the distinction between preservationists and
conservationists turns on the meaning of the word 'natural' as a normative
ideal. I propose a criterion for 'naturalness' in the context of the
preservationist project.
     Chapter Four focuses on the implications of species preservation for
moral and political theory. I provide illustrations of the practical
dilemmas raised by the efforts of preservationists concerning habitat
conservation in the context of the existing legal and regulatory framework.
I introduce the question of rights in the context of species preservation.
I raise the question of justice between species. I discuss the advantages
of legal rights over moral rights, and the merits of pluralism rather than
monism. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:06:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.175438.25157@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> = Steve Novak writes:
>>>> = Mary Otto:
    (I just love watching two men fighting over me!)
>>>>> = Michael Loomis writes:
>
>>>>> I still think the killing of human fetuses is a positive moral 
>>>>> good on a planet overpopulated by homo sapiens.
>
So, I responded, to provoke further discussions, the following question:
>>>> If you feel that way about the value of humans, why don't you make
>>>> your own abortion retro-active and commit suicide?
>
>>> Of course, Michael said human fetuses.  Not humans.  
>
>>Human fetuses are by definition humans, i.e. members of the
>>species Homo Sapiens. 
>
>Michael was speaking of *fetuses*, which are != all humans, as Otto
>insinuated.
Insinuated?  Well, actually, I was responding more to Michael's opinion
that the world was overpopulated by homo sapiens.  (I didn't question
what he meant by that, or whether he included a homo sapiens in the
womb in his tally.  I assumed he meant those already born.)  In my
opinion, someone who states that there are already too many people in
the world (especially in December) sounds a lot like Ebeneezer Scrooge
when he said "... best they should die and decrease the surplus population."
In my opinion, his statement about overpopulation showed a disrespect
for the value of human beings.

Further, in order to challenge this disrespect and the opinion that
there were surplus humans on the planet, I asked him why he did not
choose suicide.  I felt that the answer to the question would be quite
revealing;  why would a man persist in continuing to live if he felt
it were morally wrong?  How could a man justify his continued life
without having to refute the statement that there were too many people?
Perhaps more disturbingly, how would this man select which should live
and which should die, starting with himself?  It is a fascinating
question, and all based on his assertion that there is a population
surplus and that addressing that surplus was a moral issue.

>
>Gads, you're slow, boy.  Catch up!
Perhaps a simple question is too deep for some people to grasp.  Not
Michael, not Steve, not Doug.  Would any of you like to try again?
I am really curious about this, and I feel that it has interesting
ramifications for t.p.a, since we will treat animals no better than
we treat each other.

Mary Otto
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:42:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec26.024856.4108@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.181444.18587@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>I used to think that t.p.a was a really pointless forum for debate,
>>but now I see that it serves an admirable purpose in highlighting
>>the stupidity, vacuousness, and just plain pig-ignorance of the "we
>>hate AR" crowd.

>Two out of three, I'll give you.

>But that crowd is not entirely vacuous.

>They are trying to preserve, in their words, "the American way of life".

>Determination to promote one's cause is an admirable personality trait.

>But it's only admirable if one is intelligent enough to choose the
>proper cause to champion, and let outmoded ideas become history.


And who are we to ask if our causes are "proper" or "outmoded"?  You
Michael?  Certainly you can't expect us to make these decisions on our own
now can you.  No doubt we would make the wrong choice.  That is, not the
same choice as YOU.


>Otherwise, one's only distinguishing feature is to be pig-headedly
>determined to be dead wrong until death.


And which of us is the "pig-headed" one Micheal?  Would I be wrong to
assume you will not say it's you?  Does that automatically mean it has
to be me in your mind?  Who is this enlightened person who will be able
to state absolutely and correctly which of us has made the "proper" 
choice.  You?  Lawrence?  Roberts?  I don't think so.


>That ain't going to get you into any history books.


Do you think Hitler made the right choice of causes?  If not, why do you
suppose he is in the history books?  Wrong again.


>Michael MY Hui  ~{PmCw6w~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada



Mike Linan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194026.13658@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.170617.16865@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>
>>Which will be approx. 20 yrs later thanks to medical research.
>>
>
>Wrong. Increases in life expectancy are due almost entirely to public
>health and civil engineering (clean water supplies, sewerage treatment,
>etc). Statistically speaking, medicine has done little to increase
>life expectancy.
>
>Paul

Also, medical research is not always vivisection!

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.environment
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: Wolf Kill Cancelled
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:48:17 GMT


                WOLF KILL CANCELED!
 
Alaska state officials have announced their proposed plan to
shoot over 300 wolves has been canceled.
 
Thousands of protests were received from citizens all over the
country and even European Animal Rights groups had joined the
protest.  Animal Rights groups responded to the news stating
they would call an end to their worldwide Alaska tourism
boycott.
 
Wayne Pacelle, national director of the Fund for Animals
commented, "We're feeling really vindicated and heartened that
wolves are not going to be slaughtered."  But added his group
would lobby against any future wolf kill plans.
 
Officials intend to hold the wolf summit meeting, but will
keep the meeting an open forum for the discussion of Alaska's
wolf and wildlife management policies.
 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 00:23:25 GMT

In article <1hsl9oINNkl7@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:

[...]

>Rich, I'm not trying to get into yours and Russell's argument nor am I trying
>to take sides.  But, I do think you may not have the right perception of what
>the Golden Rule is meant to be.  Sure, anybody that does anything regardless
>of who benefits from it can be selfishly motivated.  However, the Golden 
>Rule uses the "as you would have them do unto you" as an example of how you
>would should treat others.  If the only reason for treating others well is
>so that you will be treated well, I think you have no guarantee you will be
>treated well and do not understand what the true meaning (as I see it) of
>the Golden Rule is.  Not everybody is selfish in everything they do.  Giving
>to those who are in need give many people a good feeling but, that doesn't 
>mean that is the main reason that act is done.  It isn't necessarily bad 
>to feel good about helping others.

	Mike, I see exactly what you're trying to say, but I believe I have
	to stand by my point: the "Golden Rule" (which is paraphrased in
	Matthew 7:12, I believe, and also in the writings of Aristotle and
	Confucious) is advice intended to promote good will among humans by
	advocating the proper treatment of others under thet assumption that,
	even if such treatment does not produce equivalent results, the
	practicing of it will produce an easing of one's own conscience, or
	a feeling of well-being or satisfaction in knowing that one has done
	"the right thing."

	Please remember that my original criteria were:

	   1. actions taken to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in
		the one performing the activity and/or,

	   2. actions taken to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad")
		feelings in the one performing the activity.

	I maintain that the "Golden Rule" has elements of both.

	Something else must be clarified as well: the word "selfish" has, in
	common usage, a distinctly pejorative connotation.  As used in this
	discussion, however, it means simply that actions are taken to benefit
	oneself, NOT that there is also an associated cost to another.  I
	completely agree, it certainly is not "bad" to feel good about
	helping others...I simply maintain that it is the good feeling, not
	the helping of others, which is the motivation...and there should
	be no stigma in the admission of this point.  In the larger sense,
	it could be argued that it really matters little what the exact
	motivation may be, as long as "the others" are ultimately helped; it
	is the "end" that matters.

	For purposes of the discussion with Russell, however, the motivation
	is the entire issue.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Van Etten, Benke, and Schuh  (Was Re: Bowhunting wound rates)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:05:22 GMT

A while back John Van Etten mailed me a copy of a bowhunting article by
Dwight Schuh.  The copy had no identification to indicate where the
article had actually been published.  John originally said the article
had come from _Deer_and_Deer_Hunting_ magazine, but I have reason to
think that is not correct.

I would like to find out what publication, date, and issue carried this
article.  John Van Etten has not responded to email requests, and may
have completed his stint at RPI.  Does anyone else know the origin of
this article?  Thanks.  
---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.  
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: How PETA interacts with the ALF
Date: 24 Dec 92 05:50:11 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <1992Dec21.225131.19827@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>(from the Fall 1992 issue of _PETA_News_)
>
>"In the true account above [from _Free_the_animals!_], 'Valerie' and her
>partners copied the Gennarelli tapes, then dropped them off on the dorrstep of
>PETA's offices.  The Animal Liberation Front is aware of PETA's whistleblower
>program and uses it.

Ummmm ... what are 'the Gennarelli tapes' ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:02:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.162919.4026@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>Hunter Kills Jogger
>
>>From _The ARIES Newsletter_, December 1992, Animal Rights
>Information & Education Service, Inc., P.O. Box 332, Rowayton,
>CT  06853:
> 
> 
>The hunter, Robert Cook, 42, of Thomaston, was hunting with
>two others in a special anterless deer season and apparently
>mistook Elliott for one of them, 

A jogger looks like a deer?!?

>A Norwich hunter who fatally shot a man he mistook for a deer
>in 1988 was sentenced this summer to six years in prison after
>being convicted of second-degree manslaughter.
> 

That's a good start, but it's not enough, IMO. He aimed and shot intentionally.
Can someone explain to me why this is manslaughter and not murder? Something
to do with intent, I presume?
   I can understand an accident wherein a bullet travels through brush and
injures someone who could not be seen. I've never been able to understand 
these cases of mistaken identity. The courts have been far too lenient. 
Responsibility rests with the person holding the rifle and no one else. There
is absolutely no excuse for shooting anything by mistake. Reminds me of the
folks who run over motorcyclists in broad daylight because "they just came
out of nowhere!" Truth is, they just didn't look.

Jeff Achenbach
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:00:20 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <BzMot0.F7D@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Please define the concept of "animal rights" that was allegedly
>rl> advocated by the nazis.
>
>From article <1992Dec21.190724.5546@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@ma
gnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>jh> I'm not sure if the following will prove to help define nazi
>jh> animal rights advocacy in any meaningful sense but here goes:
>
>Why don't you simply define the term, "animal rights", so that we
>can study your own views, as well as these alleged nazi views, to see
>if they conform to your definition?

Actually, you probably should be offended Russell that the National
Socialist propaganda mill cranked out a load of crap about animal rights
based on some jaded nazi's midnight thought that his fuhrer was vegetarian
and he could tie this personal trait to an anti-intellectual attack on
Jewish academics of the period and then find that have folks come along
attempting to draw a parallel between your philosophy and this garbage.

My personal concept of "animal rights" indeed is generally consistent
with some of the statements of the nazi propaganda mill, in particular that
statement below that animals should not be tortured in pursuit of
basic scientific knowledge.  I would trust your definition encompasses
this belief as well.  No we are not therefore nazis.

>
>Would you say that all men and women who love animals are "animal
>rights" advocates?
No.


>Would you say that all vegetarians are "animal rights" advocates?
No.

>Isn't it true that "vivisection", as practiced in Germany during the
>30's, involved invasive operations performed *without* anesthesia
>or analgesics?   Would you be opposed to such a practice?
I usually would be.

>If so, would this lead us to believe that you're an "animal rights"
>advocate?
No.

>The animal welfare act prohibited "vivisection" [in the context used
>above] in research funded by HHS.  Would it be accurate to label the
>members of the US congress who supported this act as animal rights
>advocates?
No.

>Thanks in advance for defining your terms so that we can study both
>sides of the argument unequivocally.
You are welcome sir.

>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Date: 29 Dec 1992 15:54:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms

In article <1992Dec24.224052.22825@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.172511.6461@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.153259.745@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>Would you also say that no employers mistreat their workers, because it would
>>>be counterproductive?  The loss in productivity is balanced by the money saved
>>>by spending less on housing and food.

>>It IS generally counterproductive to mistreat employees; If it were
>>not so, then our society would probably look like that of Dicken's "A
>>Christmas Carol."  There would only be a half-day holiday on
>>Christmas, and people would work 6 days a week.  Or maybe 7.

>Animals do not have nearly as much capability compared to human
>employees to do any of the following:

>1. inform the media about their mistreatment.
>2. form unions to collectively bargain for better treatment.
>3. form unions to strike collectively when (2) fails.
>4. lobby politicians and political parties for their cause.
>5. appeal to international organizations like the U.N. for sympathy.
>6. get Jesse Jackson to mention their plight in his speech to the
>   National Democratic Convention of 1992.


Nor do animals deserve such capabilities.  They are after all bred for
slaughter.  Don't TRY to compare them to humans and you won't have the
problems related to giving them "rights".


>>Certainly a loss in productivity may be "balanced" by money saved; but
>>the question is, what kind of "balance" is it?  Well-paid,
>>well-treated employees tend to be more productive than those that
>>aren't, ceteris paribus.  For the "benefit" of lower costs, there is a
>>corresponding "cost" of poorer productivity.  The "balance" has
>>created pressure towards higher wages.  That is very clear by virtue
>>of the fact that MOST jobs in our economy have wage rates that are
>>considerably higher than the legal minimum wage.

>Please, Mr. Browne. Animals are not human beings.
>Please don't change the topic and try to argue your point.
>Your doing so only magnifies your own ignorance.


You said it.  Animals are NOT human.  If the bleeding heart liberals
would quit trying to pretend they are and just concentrate on making 
sure they aren't suffering unnecessarily they wouldn't look so ignorant.


>The only way food animals can show their keepers that conditions are
>less than tolerable is by having enough of them die.


And that loss of a farmers product in itself should be enough to prevent
such conditions but, if for some reason it's not, that's what the ARFs
should be for.  Only problem is that the "F" in ARF stands for "fanatic"
and their views often include pretending that animals should be humans.

>Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada


Mike Linan
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:33:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec24.181444.18587@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.213529.3602@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:

>>I can't take it any more Russell.  I have tried to be civil.  I have tried
>>to be factual. I have intellectually honest. (As I'm sure Martin has). 
>>But, I can't not take your unfounded innuendos, your evasion of  the
>>issues, and your blatant attempts to ignore the facts.  You sir are the most
>>closed minded, intellectually bankrupt, and intentionally deceitful person
>>it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.

>It really sends you into conniptions to come across someone whose
>arugments you can't refute, doesn't it?

Don't you mean someone who WON'T LET anyone refute his arguments because
of the deceitful, evasive tactics he uses in his arguments.  How in the 
hell can you refute someone who will not make their position perfectly 
clear, will not answer questions by others that he chooses not to or will
answer them with questions of his own while ignoring his opponents questions?
How can you debate with someone who takes the issues off on wild tangents
or diverts the points by breaking them down into dictionary games?  Get 
real Paul!



>>Have you not noticed that none of the other AR advocates here on the net
>>have come to your defense?  

>Probably because Russell patently doesn't need anyone to "come to his
>defense".  Face it Greg: he runs rings around you.

No he doesn't Paul.  That is unless he doesn't mind carrying the label 
most have associated him with.  That is one who is deceitful, manipulative,
evasive and generally combative without any clear agenda other than fighting
with *anyone* who doesn't agree with him.  In the past year that I have 
spent on t.p.a. I can't remember more a single instance where Russell con-
ceded to someone else's position.  That many people veiw him in the same
light does not absolutely mean he is as we view him but, it certainly does
say something about Mr. Lawrence.  You may want to claim him and his ways
and if so I think that says something about Mr. Roberts.

>I used to think that t.p.a was a really pointless forum for debate,
>but now I see that it serves an admirable purpose in highlighting
>the stupidity, vacuousness, and just plain pig-ignorance of the "we
>hate AR" crowd.


Perhaps it is people like you and Russell who instill any "we hate AR"
feeling by displaying such stupidity and dishonesty.  Think about it.
Critically.


Mike Linan












Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals