HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: korpela@rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 30 Sep 1992 22:39:57 GMT
Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep30.000234.29469@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
>
>You hunters keep talking about how this debate is stacked against you, how
>we want subhuman debris to represent the pro-hunting side, etc., but evidently
>not one hunter has the fortitude to just show up and make sure their side is
>fairly represented.  If you're unwilling to even try to make this a fair
>debate, you forfeit the right to bitch about its unfairness.

If you are so interested in a fair debate, why don't you move it to 
neutral ground.  An animal rights rally is not a place where fair debate
is going to take place.  Given past experiences I fear for the safety
of any hunting spokesperson the does take part in the debate.

If you really want a fair debate, how about this.  Hold the debate in
a closed studio.  That's right, no audience.  You can pass out video
tapes of the debate at your next conference.  No doubt you would edit
them to your advantage.  Perhaps we should put it on Laser Disc.

It's a funny thing, though.  I would not fear for the safety of an
animal rights activist at a hunting convention.  I guess that says 
something about the methods each group uses.  Also says which group
is more tolerant of people with different values than their own.


Eric Korpela                                    |  The two most common things
korpela@cea.berkeley.edu              Internet  |  in the universe are
BKYAST::KORPELA    42215::KORPELA     DecNet    |  Hydrogen and stupidity.
korpela%bkyast@ucbjade                Bitnet    |       -Harlan Ellison
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:36:51 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


Jeff Achenbach writes:

>What point would there be in getting up to debate in front of a bunch of 
>people whose minds are already made up? 

To promote awareness of the other side of the issue.  To get a chance to add
your $0.02.  To Stand Up for what you believe.

I participate in anti-fur protests in front of fur stores.  In
effect, I'm trying to convince fur consumers (who have already made up their
minds) that the fur industry is cruel and totally unnecessary.  A waste of
time?  Maybe.  But if the protest makes one single potential fur customer
decide to investigate the issue before making a purchase, it's worth the
effort.  
-- 
 Jennifer L. Johnson | "Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity."
 jjohnson@convex.com |  		--George Bernard Shaw
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:40:57 GMT

From article <1992Sep29.205112.3203@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> Russell tactic 117:  Creative editting - removal of damaging context.
mo>                      [Context is question is Russell's diversion from
mo>                       the issue of "hunting hunters" to a discussion
mo>                       of Mike's remark "what an idiot", which does not
mo>                       address the issue.]

Did the comment, "What an idiot", address the issue?  

mo> {Russell - this is for you, *just in case* you really didn't understand
mo> it: The content of the comment "What an idiot" was that Mike thinks
mo> people who consider hunting hunters a legitimate option are idiots.
mo> Mike was quite succinct in sharing his opinion.}

I realize that's his opinion.  What I don't understand is how/why
a man who considers the killing of witches to be perfectly 
reasonable would turn around and declare the hunting of hunters to
be "idiotic".
-- 
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: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:47:59 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Your statements don't make sense to me.   Please explain why it might
rl> be acceptable for Mike to label a question about hunters hunting 
rl> hunters as "idiotic", yet still expect the rest of us to accept his
rl> claim that "god" told him that deer hunting is acceptable.

Mike Hoskins 
ml> Your confused Russell.  I never asked nor do I expect you or anybody
ml> to accept my beliefs.  I really for the life of me do not know how
ml> you can misunderstand what so many others clearly say to you.  

From article <1992Oct5.195527.13967@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> Mike, Russell understands.  He just refuses to accept that anyone
mo> else may be right about anything.  He refuses to acknowledge that
mo> other opinions might be equally valid.

No, I really don't understand.  And by making such an admission, 
it seems to me that I'm giving Mr. Linan the benefit of the 
doubt.  If I were forced to make a best-guess about Mr. Linan's 
name-calling, I'd have to say that his use of the word, "idiot", 
to label his opponents is hypocritical since his own position is
founded ultimately on a unreasonable, unthinking practice that he 
calls "faith".  

Be that as it may, do you consider the statement, "Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live", to be equally valid as the statement:
"Government should make no laws restricting private exercise
of religion, be it christianity or witchcraft."  Bear in mind that
Linan's "god" made the first statement, whereas the second is
a paraphrase of something written by Thomas Jefferson.

mo> Russell uses a set of tactics to wage verbal warfare over the net.
mo> Currently, he is hunting hunters.  He sets traps.  He tosses little
mo> bombs (loaded questions).  He impales his victims on sharp insults,
mo> pointed remarks, and the razor edge of inuendo.  He is vicious.
mo> He searches for a weakness, a mistake, and pounces.  He wears down
mo> his quarry until they are driven over the cliff in exhaustion and
mo> are forced into oblivion.
mo> 
mo> He's not interested in fostering discussion, only in eliminating 
mo> opponents.
mo> 
mo> And there is no worse fate for him than what Todd said about nobody 
mo> taking him seriously anymore.

Are you trying to insult me?  Are you making pointed remarks?  Are
you vicious?  Are you trying to wear me down?  Are you trying to
eliminate me from the discussion?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: _Little_Fuzzy_: a sci fi novel about determining sapience
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:17:50 GMT
Summary: How can we determine the rights of extra terrestrials?


My colleagues on t.p.a may be interested in reading the following
science fiction novel:

     Piper, H. Beam.  _Little_Fuzzy_.  Ace Science Fiction.  New York, 1962.

It takes place several centuries in the future, when Terrans (us) have
extensive contact with other planets, and base their treatment of animals
on these planets based on their "sapience", a word which has no precise
definition (in the novel).

The Zarathustra Company owns the entire Class-III uninhabited planet, and
are free to exploit its resources as they wish.  Then a propector discovers
the fuzzies, who he believes to be sapient, which would make Zarathustra
a Class-IV inhabited planet and end the Companies privileges.

	"They don't talk, and they don't build fires," Ahmed Khadra
	said, as though that settled it.

	"Ahmed, you know better than that.  That talk-and-build-a-fire
	rule isn't any scientific test at all."

	"It's a legal test."  Lunt supported his subordinate.

	"It's a rule-of-thumb that was set up so that the settlers on
	new planets couldn't get away with murdering and enslaving the
	natives by claiming they thought they were only hunting and
	domesticating wild animals," he said.  "Anything that talks and
	builds a fire is a sapient being, yes.  That's the law.  But that
	doesn't meant that anything that doesn't isn't. [...]"

People on both sides of the animal rights debate will be interested by the
problems the pro-fuzzy and anti-fuzzy groups have in defining sapience to
include humans (and various extra-terrestrial races), exclude all nonhuman
Terran animals (including chimpanzees), and either include or exclude the
fuzzies.

Enjoy!

Rosemary
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
From: andrewt@scrooge.cs.wisc.edu (Andrew Thomas-cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: The ethics of wool vs synthetics
Keywords: wool synthetics animal rights environment
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:35:05 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

In article <1992Sep23.195631.12304@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
> <...>
>
> <...>  But what kind of coat should we wear?  Fur and leather
>are both obviously out of the question, which leaves us choosing between
>wool (probably harmful to animals) or synthetics (probably harmful to the
>environment, which harms animals).

     Most of my coats have a cotton shell. Perhaps that's an additional
     option, so that "wool or synthetics" is not an exclusive list.

>Is it actually possible to produce wool without harming sheep?  (i.e., are
>there humane woolgrowers, or would it be worthwhile to campaign for reform).

     Even though it may be possible to produce wool without harming sheep,
     this may not occur or occur rarely. Unless you limit your wool purchases
     to non-cruel sources, you may be supporting the cruel sources. For example,
     even though it is possible to obtain milk humanely from cows, this is
     not the dominant practice, so that drinking milk from an unknown source
     is likely to support cruelty.

     On the other hand, you have to decide for yourself what you consider
     reasonable compromises for a compassionate person living in an
     overwhelmingly cruel world. This is not always an easy choice.

     I'm sorry if I've gone beyond the scope of your question.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Animal Research (mouse screens?)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:41:24 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're still mistaken.  If you check your data carefully, I think 
rl> you'll find that PCRM's director has acknowledge the role that 
rl> live mouse screens played in discovering chemicals that have 
rl> therapeutic value in treating leukemias and lymphomas.  On the 
rl> other hand, officials from PCRM, NIH, the National Cancer 
rl> Institute, and a variety of other organizations, have 
rl> acknowledged the historical fact that the use of such screens had 
rl> failed to identify agents useful in treating tumors.  Be that as 
rl> it may, live mouse screens were abandoned years ago in favor of 
rl> live tissue screens.  

From article <BvBH48.Eyn@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
rs> Just a comment and question -- you mention that the NIH screens
rs> *did* uncover agents active against leukemias and lymphomas. In the
rs> information you have, is there mention of what tumors were used in the
rs> NIH mouse screens? If memory serves, the tumors are P388 and L1210.
rs> L1210 is a leukemia and P388 is either a lymphoma or a leukemia. If this
rs> is indeed true, it would seem, at any rate, that the NIH screens actually
rs> may have been quite useful, and the fault of NCI was to use too few
rs> different types of mouse tumors, ie they should have expanded the panel
rs> of tumors in the screen to include breast, ovarian, colon, and the other
rs> great killers.

I agree that the use of other tumors at the base tier of the 
screening process could have been more rewarding, albeit 
significantly more costly and burdensome.  Would you agree with 
me that it was fallacious to assume that a compound with 
therapeutic effectiveness in treating P388 would be equally 
effective in treating the full range of human cancer?

rs> Does the material you have (that quotes the NIH and NCI 
rs> officials) go on to reveal what they think should be the strategy 
rs> to identify that one compound out of 10,000 (per year) that may 
rs> have antitumor activity?  Just curious;  I really don't know the 
rs> answer to this one, and am no fan of mass screens.  I thought the 
rs> NCI screen was a real wash until I read your post.  

They decided to follow your suggestion, namely to use more types of
tumors at the base tier of the research, *after* replacing live mice 
with human tumor cells growing in vitro.

rs> And a question: I am surprised to read your statement that live 
rs> mouse screens were abandoned 'years ago'.  How many years?  I 
rs> know the NCI screen was being used when I was a graduate student, 
rs> and I don't feel that old.  Seriously, are you certain that the 
rs> screens have been abandoned?  This would be extrordinary.  

If memory serves, the transition took place between 1986 and 1987.
When did you leave grad school? :-)
-- 
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: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 30 Sep 1992 22:35:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


Subject: Re: Hunters Needed

In article <1992Sep30.215312.20669@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus
>>******************************************************************************
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
>
>Two points and a question:  1)  People, especially people who live in
>urban areas, will not know many hunters nowadays.  The stereotype is
>easily made--Jennifer probably (I hope) likes many people she knows who are
>meat eaters, obviously they just didn't personally kill their lunch;


Precisely.  I would like to think that many AR sympathizers would actually
come to understand what hunting and hunters are all about and accept their
lifestyle if they were not so out of touch with wonderful experience of the
hunt.  Not just the kill.


>2)  in spite of the almost unanimous good sense and tolerance
>exhibited by the hunters in this group with their lofty goals of only
>hunting what they eat and aiming for a quick kill there are slob hunters
>out there who a) enjoy killing and b) could care less if the animals
>suffers when they kill;


Unfortunately, you are right.  I personally have seen the 4x4 truck rolling
down the dirt road with slobs standing up in the bed with a beer in one had
and a rifle in the other.  I detest such images and am positive they are the
exception rather than the rule however.  Are we to judge all ARs by the 
actions of the few radicals that will kill and maim to get their point 
across?  NO.  And neither should the AR community judge the majority of hunt-
ers who truly love and care about their lifestyle and tradition by the
actions of the relatively few "slob" hunters out there.  Book 'em, send 
them to jail if they poach or break other laws.  I'll be the first to 
condemn them.


>3)  I have such a fellow who hunts on the farmland I rent.  I suspect
>he is up in his deer stand drinking beer while he waits for his deer.
>I am not saying that he is drunk; he probably puts down a 12 pack per
>day regardless of whether he is hunting or not.  Because I am not a
>hunter I want to know if among hunters drinking beer while hunting is
>just considered "slob hunting" or in fact is illegal in certain states?


Why do you let him hunt your property?  In California, to the best of my
knowledge it IS against the law to drink while hunting but, I might add 
that I and the buddies I hunt with would not consider drinking with rifles
in our hands even if it was legal.  I would never hunt with that type of
person.  I do enjoy a good drunk every now and again but, after the hunt
is the time for that.  Some folks just have more common sense than others
I reckon.


Mike Linan
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Reply-To: me@halfab.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:45:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.144902.13834@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com  
(Jeff Achenbach) writes:
> In article <1992Sep23.222212.398@halfab.ka.sub.org>  
me%halfab@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org writes:
> >In article <92261.143315DJC143@psuvm.psu.edu> <DJC143@psuvm.psu.edu>  
writes:
> >> Keep up the good work swood!  And good hunting
...
> >Why don't hunters hunt hunters?
> >Afraid of an animal that can defend itself?
...
> Ever seen a feral hog?

Yes, I sometimes feed some of these "Schwarzkittel".

> Some of us hunt them with bows. At least one guy here
> in Texas hunts them with a knife. Wanna go try it?

No!
But don't you want to go to "hunt" the guy with the knife with a knife?

This is it what I think man can avoid!
Killing of any form of life just for fun or lust!
If somebody hunts for his survival then he is a hunter.
The others are, in my opinion, killers.
Harsh words, I know.
In real animal world hunting is a daily task. 
There also exists strange behavior at the first glance,
like the killing of the own babies (eg. apes and lions).
Although we have not the right to kill any animal or man.
So you should better take a sixpack and throw away your knifes.
Try to reduce your aggressions with sports like free climbing.

Udo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:19:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.142831.18046@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>
>>Alka, you may not like my sense of humor but I really cracked up when I
>>read your posts.  This one as well as the last one.  Your comments above
>>about lusting after "brothers and sisters" and about your "non-human
>>animals" in your family conjoured up some pretty funny (to me and to
>>anybody else who finds a "professor" so full of herself writing so
>>sloppily) images of you doing some (in my opinion) unnatural acts of
>>"lust" with the "family" (combo bestiality-incest?).  Keep posting, Doc.
>>You're funnier than reruns of Sledge Hammer.
>
>>Mary Otto
>
>Always picking up on the salient points of the discussion, Mary.  Keep it up.
>Let me humor you a little more:  what the hell is Sledge Hammer?  ("Naturally, I
>don't own a television set", she added, with the smug enjoyment of being full ofherself).  If I have a future as a comedienne, I want to know what my com-
>petition is.  And more:  I may be a sloppy writer, but I'm certainly not into
>bestiality.  Is bisexuality a problem for you? 
>
>alka 

Alka,
Sledge Hammer was a spoof of cop shows.
Thanks for the clarification.

As for sexuality, I have all that I can handle in my husband, a very
macho, manly "indoors-type".  Thanks for asking me, but my dance card
is full.

Mary Otto
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Universal Ethic?
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:57:14 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <viking.717911686@vincent2.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan 
Sorenson) writes:
> 	Perhaps "unwarranted" would be a better term, as it does allow
> for the use of medical treatments, corporal punishment, and the like
> even though the recipient obviously doesn't want it but quite likely
> is deserving of it.
 
 Putting "unwarranted" in here would basically say "pain is bad unless 
something else makes it good". I think this is implicit in ethics - that any 
ethic may, in certain scenarios, be overridden by other ethics. Adding this 
term into our ethic adds no new meaning, and is potentially ambigious, so I 
think we need to steer clear of it. I think I'd like to stick with 
"unwanted". This is more fundamental to this particular ethic.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:42:33 GMT


[I've taken the liberty of changing the subject title back to the
original name.   The proposed new title, "Distractions number 206 
and 207" seemed kinda childish to me.]

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I'm still waiting for to to explain why it's ok for you to kill a 
rl> brain-dead man, but not ok for you to kill a kidney-dead man.   

From article <1992Sep29.152858.4025@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> In the first place, I've never said "it's OK to kill a brain-dead
ry> man, but not OK to kill a kidney-dead man."  This is a creation
ry> of your own mind, and proof to the contrary has yet to be shown.
ry> 
ry> I HAVE said that these two examples are similar in that they're
ry> both fatally flawed, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion,
ry> which is not the same thing at all, is it?

Perhaps, but I'm unwilling to accept your claim that an argument is
true or false or "fatally flawed" just because you say so.  After all,
you're not a god, Rich.

> ...
ry> You're trying to confuse us with the application of INTRA-species
ry> ethics, while the question at hand is about the EXTRA-species
ry> application of personal, human morality.

This sounds like an arbitrary distinction to me, Rich.  What's the
basis for your claim that "INTRA-species ethics" ought to be based
on different principles than "EXTRA-species ethics"?   Your "false
god of structural similarity", perhaps?

ry> ======================================================================
ry> Let me try to explain this once again.  To the cosmos, a brain-dead,
ry> or kidney deficient, or liver-failed, etc., human is effectively
ry> dead.  It is a non-functional organism.
ry> ======================================================================
ry
ry> [Russell's tactic #206 (Mary Otto has graciously assigned me the
ry> 200-series): make some officious comment which has nothing to do
ry> with reality and hope that it distracts his opponent.]

Who do you think you're fooling?  

-- 
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: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:07:26 GMT

 
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're fantasizing again, Mike.  Why don't you tell us again how
rl> "manly" you feel knowing that your hunting skills allow you to
rl> provide food for your family?

Jeff Achenbach writes:
ja> I think that both my sisters in law (quite pretty and feminine) who hunt 
ja> would take exception to this. 

From article <1992Sep30.143819.5546@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
th> Careful, Jeff - last time we got into this sort of a discussion 
th> with Russell, he ended up equating female references to that of 
th> racist references, and we found that he thinks that making 
th> references such as the one you made above "quite pretty and 
th> feminine" to be similar to calling someone a 'nigger'.  

You're confused.   I'd be quite happy to hear about the hunting
activities of Jeff's sisters-in-law.  I certainly wouldn't pretend
that they don't exist... as you might do if you were on my side
of the fence.  Nor would I dismiss their opinions because of their
positions as "wives or girlfriends".

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals