HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:01:13 GMT

In <BxKtnM.I96@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>It's been my experience that people who don't appreciate the 
>concept of non-human animal rights are often equally 
>disrespectful of human rights.  Perhaps you'd be willing to share 
>your views on a couple of human rights questions: 

	Is this a private conversation or can anybody jump in?  Your
biases are already showing with the wording of the question, but you
have never said you weren't biased.

>1) Do you favor the right of individuals to select their own form of
>   government.  If so, do you agree that the US violated the rights
>   of the vietnamese people by subverting the plans for an all-vietnam
>   election, as embodied in the terms of the geneva peace accord that
>   was signed after the french loss at Dien Bien Phu?

	Yes, and yes.  However, international law allowed the latter as
we were supporting the regocognized government of the region.  Did you
support the Angolan rebels in the late '70's too?

>2) Do you disapprove of torture?  If so, would you have agreed with
>   critics like Jane Fonda that the participants in the CIA's 
>   "phoenix" project ought to be tried for war crimes?

	First, I know people who worked on the Phoenix project, and
torture wasn't a common thing, any more than Viet Mihn assassinations
were.  However, even torture can be justified in certain circumstances
when it is so loosely defined.  However, if a war crime has been
committed then by all means try the participants.  There is nothing
that exempts one from trial that I am aware of in a war.

>Was Vietnam your home?  If not, was it "patriotic" for the US to
>use her military muscle to "protect" the vietnamese people from 
>their desire to control their own political and economic future?

	Is Afghanistan your home?  If not, was it "patriotic" for
the US to use her military muscle...  etc...?  Works both ways.

>On the other hand, if you're the sort of person who likes to asks
>questions, I'm sure you'll realize that some wars may be totally
>unjust.

	Some may be.  Some are not.  Should ever soldier be allowed
to disobey his orders because he feels this way, or would the
breakdown in command and control be of greater harm?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:13:21 GMT

In article <Bx8AE1.Dvn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>
>To put it simply, the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer might see nothing
>wrong with consuming Rich Young's heart for dinner, wouldn't take
>away the pain that Rich might experience during his own
>slaughter, nor would it diminish the loss that Rich's friends and
>relatives might experience if he were killed for food.
>
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

Stipulation for the record: both youse guys way too smart for me.

Russell, sorry no context.  So if the heart eaters are a bunch of
Jeffrey Dahmers, certainly then the pain felt by Rich--and his
friends--is irrelevant isn't it.  It's not perceived by the Dahmers,
it doesn't exist, the Dahmers therefore have no basis to change
their behavior.  Is that how you perceive us omnivores, as Dahmers?
I see us somewhat differently:  we perceive Rich's pain, we acknowledge
the pain of loss felt by his relatives and we eat him anyway.
Are we worse or better than Dahmer--in your opinion?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:55:05 GMT

In article <BxH83B.GBC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>... ad hominems deleted


"ad hominems" put back in...


In article <1992Nov7.060943.3816@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (ma
ry.rita.otto) writes:

>Russell tactic 104:  Bait with sarcasm to lead discussion off the issue.
>Russell tactic 107:  Discredit opponent's opinion on animal rights area
>                     because of opponent's political opinions (real or not).
>Russell tactic 109:  Falsely generalize opponents position
>                     to the point of absurdity.
>Russell tactic 111:  Divert discussion onto other controversy (politics).
>Russell tactic 114:  Confusing the issue (the issue being non-violent protest
>                     of AR propaganda in films, not the OTHER political
>                     affiliations of those participating in the protest)
>

These are not, in my opinion, ad hominem attacks on your person.


>I'm not sure what the words, "misleading", "untruthful", and
>"disingenuous" really mean to you and Mary Otto.
>
>I'd be pleased if you and/or Mary would point out any factual
>errors and/or fallacious arguments that you perceive in my postings.
>And in reply, I'd be happy to post my sources and/or explain my
>arguments in greater detail.

Russell, there's style and then there's substance.  Your intellect
is unparalleled.  I don't see you making substantive errors, or if
you *do* commit factual errors I am unaware of what they might be.
I am ambivalent about these very words I am now typing:  you are
who you are; at once very entertaining, at once exasperating, sometimes
like a spolied little boy in a snit, at times very illuminating.
Mary's numbered "tactics" should be welcomed by you as a "style-check."
If you have concluded that you're doing the best you can do to
"actively reduce suffering in the world" then more power to you.

>However, I don't see much point in responding over and over again
>to *ad hominem* tidbits like the following:
>=========================================================================
>mo> Russell tactic #3:  Evade, evade, evade.
>mo> (Rich, you should have known he doesn't have the courage, conviction,
>mo> or, most importantly, THE ANSWERS to these questions.)
>=========================================================================

In the above, lines two and three are, I believe, an ad hominem attack
on you.  That someone would perceive that you "evade, evade, evade" is
a statement about your polemics not your person.  I think you're so
close and involved and passionate in what you're doing in t.p.a you may
not be able to perceive some of your stylistic characteristics that
antagonize your fellow-travelers.


**
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: California Condor and hunters
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:39:15 GMT

In <1992Nov8.151010.14946@zooid.guild.org> Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

[stuff about condors deleted]

>ALL hunters, of course, bear the burden of guilt for killing animals, even
>if not endangered, unnecessarily. (Okay, all hunters with good aim :-).)

This should probably be set-up under a different thread heading but.....

What guilt is this that I should feel whenever I kill an animal?  I have
no difficulty in killing cow birds which are becoming a problem around
the family cabin since they destroy our local population of song-birds.  I
only feel regret when I have killed an animal (usually upland game or
waterfowl) and have destroyed the meat in the process (shooting at a range
I shouldn't have or misjudging my aim).  Of course other scavengers (mink,
fox etc.) will eat the remains so it isn't a total loss.  I don't wish to
sound offensive but you're going to have to show that my killing an animal
for food (whether directly by hunting/fishing or going to the nearest
McDonald's) is something I should regret.  For that matter you will have to
show the meat-eating public the same thing.


Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:01:29 GMT

In article <BxGv2J.DD4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Nov9.165551.25953@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>gp> I must say your stance on the issue sounds to be based on a absolute
>gp> ethical basis.  I admire your conviction.  Though I disagree with your
>gp> conclusions.  At least someone here will stand be their beleifs instead of
>gp> wavering back and for "depending on the situation" (This means you
>gp> Russell).
>
>I can't help wondering if your views "waver" back and forth in 
>accordance with the situation.  For example, is it always wrong
>to kill human beings?  Or would the rightness or wrongness of
>such an activity depend on the situation?
>
Russell let's stick to the issue shall we.  If you want to talk ethics of
the death penalty take it somewhere else.  You believe animals have
rights.  I can assume I am correct in this statement. Do you own any
leather products, eat meat or fish use non-"cruelity free products".
Shit or get off the pot Russell.  If animals have rights than why do you
use these products.  
I'll make a statement I'm sure you have been wanting to hear.(Let me get
my asbestos suit). Animals have no rights!  Rights are a human contraption
and should only be applied to humans.
I do think we have a responsibility to treat animals humanely.  I blame
this on my upbringing and the Vatican. (Sinead O'Conner and I go way
back.)

					    Greg Popken


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expessed here are my own.   *   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       *   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  *   end of the page. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:48:03 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Isn't it also wrong to harm policemen who are charged with the 
rl> responsibility of upholding the law?  Let's suppose, once again, 
rl> that legislation were eventually passed that would outlaw private 
rl> ownership of guns.  Would you surrender your guns in such a case?  

In article <viking.721129308@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Are you kidding?  For me, the succinct word is "never."

Please be more explicit.  Are you declaring that you would violate the
law in such a case?

rl> Or, are you going to tell us, once again, that the cops would 
rl> have to "pry them from your cold, dead fingers"?  

ds> As I, as a law-abiding citizen and, inherent in that claim,
ds> a hunter and not a poacher, see it, there is no reason to disarm 
ds> me.  

So you say, but the folks who burn down research labs might argue 
that there's no reason for such research to continue, yet surely 
you would not argue that their personal convictions give them the 
right to ignore the law.  My question is this: If gun ownership 
were illegal, would you kill policemen sworn to uphold the law?  

ds> ... Cop killers deserve to die.  

Interesting.

ds> AR arsonists merely deserve to suffer a long, lingering death 
ds> at the hands of a fellow inmate in the state pen.  I consider 
ds> this sort of thing "justice," if not "societal evolution."

Do all arsonists deserve such a death?  Or just AR arsonists in
particular?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:44:56 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

`I've deleted rec.food.veg.

`The bottom line, folks, is that  poachers *are* hunters.  According
`to the "American Heritage" dictionary, that is, which is
`right here in front of me:

`      "Poacher: one who hunts or fishes illegally".  

`Jeff Achenbach writes:

`Achenbach, would it ever occur to you to check your
`facts before spewing drivel about someone being "ignorant"?
`I didn't think so.  

`Steve

Check your facts dear sir.  The dictionary you happen to own must have been
influenced by AR-head propaganda and rhetoric.  I have checked three different
dictionaries on this end and have failed to find any reference to the actual
word hunting in any of the definitions on poaching:


1. poach \'po-ch\ vt [ME pochen, fr. MF pocher, fr. OF pochier, lit., to 
   put into]a bag, fr. poche bag, pocket, of Gmc origin; akin to OE pocca bag 
   - more at POKE : to cook in simmering liquid {~ed egg} 
2. poach vb [MF pocher, of Gmc origin; akin to ME poken to poke] 1: to 
   trample or cut up (as sod) with or as if with hoofs  2a: to trespass on  
   2b: to take (game or fish) by illegal methods  1a: to sink into mud or mire 
   while walking  1b: to become soft or muddy and full of holes when trampled 
   on  2: to trespass for the purpose of stealing game; also : to take game 
   or fish illegally - poach.er n

"to take" - kinda like stealing instead of hunting eh?

swood

-- 
  Nov. 08   Closing day of Duck/Waterfowl season (upper L.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 11   Closing day of Michigan Quail hunting
  Nov. 12   Closing day of early Waterfowl season (lower L.P.)
 Currently  Rabbit, squirrel and bird season are still alive and well!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: California Condor and hunters
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 15:47:36 GMT

Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>In article <1992Nov05.155003.1520@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:

>> How much guilt do you bear, supporting and financing
>>the terrorist acts of the Animal Rights Movement?

>I am getting tired of this stereotype of all Animal Rights activities being
>"terrorist".  Personally, I am a member of only one group, which is very
>emphatic about supporting only non-violent legal activities.  Of course the
>non-violent, legal activities aren't likely to become front-page news, which
>is why you don't hear about them.

Hey, I finally got through!!  See, the point here is that Steve Pope is 
attacking ALL sport hunters using the worst poaching stories that he can find
as evidence that we are all satinistic baby-killers.  Fact is, you can't do
that, because the atrocites committed by poachers don't apply to hunters.  In
the same light, the arsonists that we were asked to console should be divorced
by the AR movement, if that movement had any sense.

Rosemary, I promise not to call you a terrorist again, if you'll promise not
to call me a poacher.  <Grin>

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: More violence
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:15:54 GMT

In <BxMrBC.4y0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> The point is there is no recourse against the coyotes.  Why is that.
>ml> Could it be that humans don't have the right to torture animals but
>ml> the laws of conduct do not apply to other animals.  You say this trans-
>ml> lates into rights for dogs and cats, I say it's more a matter of what
>ml> is considered lawful conduct for humans.

>Isn't that what concepts of "rights" is all about?  

	You cannot be this nieve, Russ.  Rights define the law, not the
other way around.  The basis of the Law in this country is in the Inalienable
Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, among other documents
that pre-date it.  These rights have been extended via legal means, but
cannot be reduced by law.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:55:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.154419.15682@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>Non-animal rights folks have a strong (though not universal) tendency to
>participate in inherently violent activities such as meat-eating, leather-
>wearing, etc.  Some of them even are so insensitive to the sufferings of their
>fellow beings that they can enjoy killing them for "sport".
>
>On the other hand, by definition AR supporters abhor these violent activities.

All AR supporters? I know some AR supporters that eat meat wear leather
etc...
>
>The 'anti' side so far is not very active solely because cruelty to animals
>is the norm, so they have nothing to fight for.

Regardless of what the norm is does it justify violence?
>
>There is however the case of Fran Trutt, who was encouraged to violence
>by an anti-AR person trying to discredit the AR movement (I'll go to the
>library to get the references if you interested.)

I want you to show me one instance of "anti AR" supporter threatening the
lives of an AR activist or their families, harrassing these people
bombing and destroying personal property, attempts at murder (of humans).
If you can show me one instance of such behavior by anti-AR suppoters I'll
show you 100 instances of such activity by AR activist.
AR supporter alway seem to demonstrate the exceptions and claim that it is
the rule. 

In your argument aboveit sounds like it was the AR activist that perpetuated
the violence. How was Fran "encouraged to violence"?  An argument?  An
exchange of ideas?  Please e-mail me a reference. I'm interested.

I must say your stance on the issue sounds to be based on a absolute
ethical basis.  I admire your conviction.  Though I disagree with your
conclusions.  At least someone here will stand be their beleifs instead of
wavering back and for "depending on the situation" (This means you
Russell).

By the way how do you feel about animal research?*  (* Loaded question.)

                               reg Popken
			       The opinions expressed here are my own.
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:10:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


In article <BxKtq5.IA5@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From article <1dolqrINNine@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Russell you never fail to display your ignorance of the Christian faith.
>ml> How many times have you been informed that your now famous quote is from
>ml> the Old Testament and while a good reference for history, it came before
>ml> the time of Christ and the laws of the New Testament.  I don't expect you
>ml> to accept this though seeing as how it isn't convenient to your argument.

>What "new" laws, Mike?  

>===================================================================
>"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets;  I 
>am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.  For verily I say unto 
>you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in 
>no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".  
>===================================================================


Why don't you include where you got this from Russell so that those who
care to can look it up and see what context it is in and what the true 
meaning is supposed to be?  God's laws were not the same or at least were
expounded upon after the coming of Christ.  That is for sure.  

You have not answered my question as to what comments you may have concern-
ing the scripture in the Bible that indicates Jesus did in fact eat meat.
Why not?


>ml> Just tell me one thing.  Wasn't it you who asked the question if Jesus 
>ml> had eaten meat in the Bible?  If so, why did you ask the question if you
>ml> were only going to ignore or criticize the answer?  So there it is, Jesus
>ml> ate meat in the Bible.  Do you have anything to say since you were so 
>ml> curious as to whether he had or not?

>I've consumed meat from time to time.  Does this mean that I approve
>of meat consumption?


No it doesn't mean you approve of meat consumption but, then you are not
Jesus Christ and I don't think you would pretend to be.  What it does 
mean is that if you condemn others for eating meat that you are a hypocrite.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and HUNTING
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:47:48 GMT

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

>1. There is a second ethic that comes into play, overriding the one stated 
>above
>            or
>2. Shooting animals is less ethical than not shooting animals.

>Assuming you believe #1 to be the case, what is this ethic?  Can you 
>formulate a crisp definition of it?

	Certainly.  I was hungry (or cold, or whatever) and am higher
on the food chain.  Therefore, I hunted for my food (clothing, whatever)
and I killed for my personal benefit.  The fact that what I killed and
consumed is not the lowest on the food chain or the make-up of its
nervous system is not relevant.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:08:29 GMT


From article <1dolqrINNine@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Russell you never fail to display your ignorance of the Christian faith.
ml> How many times have you been informed that your now famous quote is from
ml> the Old Testament and while a good reference for history, it came before
ml> the time of Christ and the laws of the New Testament.  I don't expect you
ml> to accept this though seeing as how it isn't convenient to your argument.

What "new" laws, Mike?  

===================================================================
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets;  I 
am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.  For verily I say unto 
you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in 
no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".  
===================================================================

ml> Just tell me one thing.  Wasn't it you who asked the question if Jesus 
ml> had eaten meat in the Bible?  If so, why did you ask the question if you
ml> were only going to ignore or criticize the answer?  So there it is, Jesus
ml> ate meat in the Bible.  Do you have anything to say since you were so 
ml> curious as to whether he had or not?

I've consumed meat from time to time.  Does this mean that I approve
of meat consumption?

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