HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: georged@meaddata.com (George Dibos)
Subject: Soft Headed Thinking Disgusts Me	
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:14:52 GMT

Excuse me, NewsGroup, but has the absurdity of your passion (is that
the right word?) for Life ever occurred to you?

Life--ALL life--by definition, MUST consume other life to exist.

Period.

I know, all PETA members eat sand, right?

No?  Then please defend the rationalization that killing less complex
life-forms (vegetables) to sustain yourselves is more justifiable than
killing higher life forms.

I'm waiting...

It simply makes you feel less guilty about it.

Again, period.

Or are you willing to go on the record as stating that YOU don't think
less complex life-forms are less "valuable" and deserving of life than
the more-complex life forms are???

Hypocrites!

-- 
+---------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------------+
| George Dibos        | Views expressed are my own.... | (513) 865-1689        | 
| Mead Data Central   +--------------------------------+ Software Engineer     | 
| P.O. Box 933        | Every day I drink a toast to   | NGS Update/Data Svcs. |  
| Dayton, Ohio  45401 | the wonders of beautiful women | georged@meaddata.com  | 
+---------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: White Hats vs. Black Hats. Was: DIET AND HEALTH NEWS
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 06:00:38 GMT

In <Bs0sLu.28z@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>It's truly sad that many people in our society still consider ignorance
>to be preferable to truth.

	Watch it, Russ -- the idiot thinks the master to be stupid, the
master thinks he knows the idiot is stupid.  Ignorance and truth are
terms used to describe others when we can't believe they disagree.  I
make this point as a side note, not to disagree with the below:

>According to _PCRM Update_ (V8, N1), the _National Cattlemen_ 
>magazine recently awarded Harvard physician and researcher, 
>Walter Willett, with a "Black Hat" designation as punishment for 
>the findings of the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study, which 
>established a strong correlation between dietary meat-intake and 
>colon cancer.  By contrast, the magazine awarded "White Hats" to 
>McDonald's and Hardee's restaurant chains.  I suppose we can 
>conclude from this that it's a "good thing" to promote 
>hamburgers, and a "bad thing" to carry on research that uncovers 
>some nasty side-effects of meat consumption.  

	There's got to be something wrong with this; at least that
it's over-simplified.  Hardee's and McDonalds tend to use beef from
the cheapest bidder, often other countries in South America.  Argentina
comes to mind.  This is hardly in line with the NCA's aim of promoting
the domestic beef market.  Something else is afoot.

	BTW: I'm not a member of the NCA, nor do I particularly care
what they say.  I just find their choices strange.  It would be more
likely that they chose the "lesser of two evils" and hope Hardees
and McDonalds choose to use this award in their advertising, which
makes it a political problem and not one of facts.  <sigh!> Politics...

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: HUNT: Omaha's Fontenelle Forest
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:57:54 GMT

Ed Stastny writes:

[stuff about hunting in Fontenelle Forest deleted]
>I called the director at Fontenelle and asked about alternatives to
>hunting.  He said that they could move the deer to another forest, but
>it would cost a couple thousand dollars (that they don't have to spare)
>and the mortality rate is high for such moves.  He said that the herd
>had a disproportionate amount of does.  Does this mean that there are
>too many does?  I assumed that's what he meant, but when I talked to my
>sister later...she said that too many does is not a problem (but then
>again, she acts like an expert in things she really doesn't know much
>about).  At any rate, I thought I'd just pass this along, given the
>"hunting" threads prevelant.

Ed, you and your sister are both right.  A disproportionate amount of
does in a herd means that, as you said, there are too many does.  This
means that too many offspring will be born and the herd will grow too
quickly in size, since one buck can "service" quite a few does.  So
your sister is right too, at least in the sense that too many does is
"not a problem" as far as having enough bucks for them to mate with.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kbrown@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (J. Keith Brown)
Subject: Re: Hunter's legitimate concern
Summary: My mistake...sorry!
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:49:18 GMT

> > ...
> jkb> Lastly, someone stated that they had never seen a banquet 
> jkb> advertised at an AR activity.  I believe if the individual will 
> jkb> refer to a previous post on a scheduled AR activity, a banquet 
> jkb> (including meat on the menu) and a dance were listed.  
> 
> I find this very difficult to believe.   Would you mind reposting
> the pertinent paragraph(s) of the article in question?
> 
> -- 
> Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
> russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

In a recent posting in which I gave some info on the use (or rather the
non-use) of DU money to support banquet I ended with what appeared to be
a serious AR contradiction.  I refered to an earlier post on an upcoming
AR conference in which they had on the agenda a banquet and a dance (someone
had stated that they had never seen these as part of AR activities).  I
further stated that it seemed to be a strange contradiction that the 
banquet was going to include the eating of meat since it was advertised
as a tex-mex banquet.

I want to apologize for inadvertently jumping to the wrong conclusion.  I
have received email explaining that the tex-mex banquet will be 
vegetarian...there will not be meat consumption.  My apologies for my
error on this one.

The info on the DU banquets that I posted, however, is correct.


Keith

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:22:06 GMT

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

>And remember 500,000 IS half a million.  That's still a lot of deer, even
>if only 2% of the peak total at an earlier time.  Now saving the 50
>remaining Florida panthers ... there's a challenge that is "virtually
>impossible" and will probably take a miracle.  Would "the advent of sport 
>hunting" be a recommended measure here?

	Side note: my understanding (and I'm _not_ driving 120 miles to
get the reference in question) is that there are fewer than a dozen panthers
left that are unrelated enough to start a viable breeding campaign.  The
number one killer?  Cars.


>There's nothing inherently bad about fanaticism if the cause is just and
>the tactics are ethical.

	I think this depends entirely upon your level of agreement with
the cause of the fanatic.  Terrorists often use the same logic to defend
their actions.  You can tell that to a few hundred Marines in Beruit, or
their descendents as the case may be, but I doubt they'll be convinced.
It may be that "ethical" is a fairly relative term.

>No, but the amount of money spent is one indicator.  Someone unwilling
>or unable to spend $60 for a cause is not a good candidate for the label
>of fanatic in support of the goals of that cause.

	Not at all.  A fanatic may experience financial or social problems
that preclude their spending as much as they would like, but they could
still be fanatics.  I'm a fanatic in many causes: motorcycle riding, gun
ownership, cancer research, and political corruption, but unlike many I
have little discretionary income to devote to the causes.  That my
income is fairly low is the reason you don't see my money being used,
not my mindset.  If I had the money, I'd spend it on causes I liked.

>Agreed.  Before anyone jettisons an existing system, there should be some
>assurance that a better alternative is available and ready to be phased in.
>But "better" in this context implies what is better for the animals not the
>hunters, wherever the interests of the two are in conflict.

	I notice you used the plural, "animals," whereas Russell seems to
be in favor of using the singular in all cases.  While I agree with your
statement, I cannot but help notice the difference between people on the
"other side of the fence" in this case.  Perhaps Russell would like to
give his interpretation of this in 500 words or less?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Skill as defined by Caruso II
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:19:38 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <Bs3Cy0.Fnq@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:

>Of COURSE you can have a view on the subject.
>
>I am very suprised that you feel that your opinion is "educated"? You
>start by saying that no skills are involved, that you have never done
>it, and yet you think your opinions are "educated"? If you say
>something that is ignorant, incorrect, and downright FOOLISH, you
>should EXPECT to be caught up short.

I never said "that no skills are involved". Try checking your
attributions before you start flaming me in caps.

Paul
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: HuntEnders
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:17:28 GMT



Hello all!

A local (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) anti-hunting group has recently
begun publishing a quarterly anti-hunting magazine called 'Setting New
Sights.' Although it's not 'The Animals' Voice,' it's a solid effort,
with good commentary and investigative articles.

The group is looking for well-written, well-researched feature articles
on almost any aspect of the hunting issue to print in upcoming issues.
The articles should be somewhere in the 2500 to 3500 word range, although
longer or shorter is ok, since the magazine format is very flexible.

The group would appreciate any submission, and will pay $50 (Canadian) for
any feature article it prints. Submissions of any photographs, short
articles
other materials, are also welcome and encouraged, and a fee can be
negotiated
for any materials we end up printing. We'll also send contributor's a copy
of
the issue in which their work is printed.

Submissions can be sent to

        Hunt Enders
        15-222 Osborne St. South
        Winnipeg, Manitoba
        R3L 1Z3
        Canada

or FAXed to (204) 452-5339.

Text-only submissions can be sent to either of the above, or to

        jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca

If you would like to subscribe to 'Setting New Sights,' send a note
to the address above. Subscription rates are $20 US for US addresses, $20
Canadian for Canadian addresses, and $30 Canadian for overseas, and
cheques should be made out to 'Hunt Enders.' The proceeds from
subscriptions
go partly towards the cost of the magazine, and partly to fund local lobby
and education efforts.

Thanks,
Jonathan

--------------------------------------------
jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
  \
 **NOTE NEW ADDRESS**
--------------------------------------------
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Effecting social change
Date: 21 Jul 92 06:50:12 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <bekw02RA1a7e01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>I have a general philosophical question for the group:
>
>In trying to effect social change, what actions are "reasonable"? Is law-
>breaking OK? Is violence against individuals? Violence against property? 
> 
>As test-scenarios, consider two situations where social change might be 
>desirable:
> 
>1. Slavery in the Old South (U.S.)
> 
>2. Treatment of Jews (and others) in Nazi Germany


It seems to be such a general question that I am not sure I understand
the relevence to this group. I say this because one thing we have seen
very little of here is pro-AR people advocating violence of any sort
in pursuit of the social change they would like to see, though at least
some of the "I hate those AR-types" brigade are very keen to portray
pro-AR people as lab-burning, Frank Purdue-assaulting lunatics. It seems
to me that the main thing that PETA does, for example, is encourage its
members to write to legislators, administrators, and corporations and
urge them to support animal welfare measures. And then we read stuff
from the opposition decrying PETA's awful "methods" and "tactics".

Anyway, to return to your abstract question: I think it is possible to
come up with hypothetical situations in which violence might be justified.
Suppose the Allies know all about the Nazi death camps, and believe they
that they can hinder the operation of the killing machine by bombing the
railway tracks that lead to the camps - recognising that you can't drop
bombs without at least some likelihood of killing someone. I think it
would be hard to argue that it would not be justified to bomb those
railway tracks. If anyone would like to argue that it wouldn't be
justified, I'd like to hear their reasoning.

I don't know how to weigh up what is "reasonable" in any general
way though. I would like to be able to say that I didn't think that
violence could ever be justified as a method of getting something done -
perhaps Gandhi would have said that - but I am not sure I can. 

I'll say this though: I think civil disobedience type actions are
probably far more *effective* than violent actions in achieving the
kind of social changes that people seem to be pursuing these days.
Probably wouldn't have been at all effective against the Nazis.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Ethical Relativism. Was: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:58:54 GMT

In article <Bs1IoE.1ox@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence asks John Van Etten:
>rl> Has it occurred to you that an action might be ethical or unethical
>rl> regardless of the power of the person performing the action?
>
>Dan Sorenson:
>ds> Yes, it has.  I've discovered that there is no absolute morality
>ds> or ethical code. 

What about Kant's Categorical Imperative?  Why wouldn't that comprise an
absolute ethical code?

---
Robert Black 
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
Subject: Re: A hunter pestered me at Denny's...
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:25:17 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <Brq1Cq.Guu@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> From article <1992Jul20.194431.2994@desire.wright.edu>, by sbishop@desire.wright.edu:
> sb> ... BTW, have you YET read _Meant To Be Wild_?  You *do* tend to 
> sb> ignore things like that.
> 
> No, I haven't read it yet, but I do intend to read it.  
> 
> sb> The whole problem is, there are very few areas in the East where 
> sb> people will tolerate the release of predators.  How many have 
> sb> been reintroduced into YOUR neighborhood?  While it is a nice 
> sb> idea.  It just AIN'T feasible.  
> 
> Perhaps, but times are changing.

Let us hope so.  Currently we are getting totally overrun by deer, the
coyotes are killing farm animals since they don't run as fast as deer,
and we are losing endangered species by the dozens.

> 
> ..
> sb> P.S.  The only thing that is going to prevent the on-going 
> sb> ecological disaster we are causing is, less people.  
> sb> Unfortunately the U.S.  government is not interested in any 
> sb> promotion of birth control.  
> 
> rl> Perhaps because there are far too many voters who refuse to see
> rl> personhood where it truly exists, while conjuring up personhood
> rl> where it does not exist.
> 
> sb> No, it's really the fundamentalist church groups who are against 
> sb> ANY form of birth control.  They have put lots of pressure on 
> sb> government to keep from offering free birth control to poor 
> sb> people.  
> 
> As I said, people conjure up personhood where it does not exist
> while failing to see personhood where it clearly does exist.  To
> illustrate, many of my neighbors would testify that "gods" are 
> persons, fertilized human eggs are persons, and american flags
> are persons [with a full set of rights], but chimps and gorillas
> are just mindless things like mechanical dolls.
> 

I totally agree with you on this.  Unfortunately I see no improvement
in sight.

Sue


> -- 
> Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
> russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Re; Texas AR Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:19:22 GMT

	Just to interject a point, Ted Nugent is more than capable
of giving a solid, researched, and factual statement concerning
hunting.  If anybody ever hears the Ted's World radio broadcasts out
of Detroit, Michigan (where Ted hosts a morning radio show for a week)
you might just find him to be eloquent, rational, and knowledgable.
However, he does this in the manner of Rush Limbaugh.  When it's his
show, have a good time.  When it's in the public spotlight, be factual
and do your homework.  The Whackmaster is not anybody hunters need be
afraid of having as a spokesman.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunting-Fat-Fertility. Was: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:43:46 GMT


Dan Sorenson writes:
ds> Will it matter if the food supply runs out shortly
ds> after hunting season is removed?

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You seem to be assuming that a deer would "run out" of food the 
rl> way canned beans might disappear from store shelves.  In reality, 
rl> the food would become less abundant and hence, harder and harder 
rl> to find.  As such, the shift from feast to famine isn't going to 
rl> occur over the course of a few days or even a few months.  

From article <viking.712464416@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> I think it will happen a lot faster than a few months, but
ds> perhaps a full month is a good compromise...

Why don't you post a followup when you know what you're talking 
about?  :-)

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:45:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.212048.24313@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.110048.6563@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Jul16.161229.20082@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>> In article <1992Jul14.112456.6502@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>In article <1992Jul13.174125.41518@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> John Robinson wrote to David Caruso II:
>>>>......  Would you think more highly of hunters if they dragged their 
>>>>heels as they went into the woods, reluctant to dicharge a distateful 
>>>>duty?
>>> 
>>> 				YES
>>
>>Well some people think that one shouldn't have fun dancing, one shouldn't 
>>have fun drinking, and one definately shouldn't have fun in the bedroom.  In 
>>fact, when one digs a little deeper, such people feel that no one should ever 
>>have fun doing much of anything.  Are you one of these people?
>>
>
>Well, this question wasn't addressed to me, but since it was addressed
>to someone who said something I agree with, here's my 2c worth:
>
>I am all in favour of people having fun, I am just rather perturbed
>when that fun appears to be had at the price of pain, distress, violence
>and death inflicted on unwilling participants.

Very well put, Paul.  It echoes my sentiments very closely.

---
Robert Black 
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: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Subject: Re: Effecting social change
Reply-To: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 23:01:37 GMT


In a previous article, tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) says:

>I have a general philosophical question for the group:
>
>In trying to effect social change, what actions are "reasonable"? Is law-
>breaking OK? Is violence against individuals? Violence against property? 
> 
>As test-scenarios, consider two situations where social change might be 
>desirable:
> 
>1. Slavery in the Old South (U.S.)
> 
>2. Treatment of Jews (and others) in Nazi Germany
> 

Why do I have the sinking feeling that I know where this is going?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hunting-Fat-Fertility. Was: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:54:21 GMT

In <Bs6qGz.H4B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:


>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> You seem to be assuming that a deer would "run out" of food the 
>rl> way canned beans might disappear from store shelves.  In reality, 
>rl> the food would become less abundant and hence, harder and harder 
>rl> to find.  As such, the shift from feast to famine isn't going to 
>rl> occur over the course of a few days or even a few months.  

>From article <viking.712464416@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> I think it will happen a lot faster than a few months, but
>ds> perhaps a full month is a good compromise...

>Why don't you post a followup when you know what you're talking 
>about?  :-)

	If it weren't for the smiley, I'd roasty-toasty your little...

The variables involved in determining a time frame are far beyond the
scope of time I'm willing to invest in this debate.  Critter population,
foliage, weather, terrian, population, and a few other variables need
to be taken into account, and I can't make a living doing that right
now.  I suspect you already know this, hence the smiley?

	Perhaps somebody else has the proper factors and equations?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >