HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:29:33 GMT
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.

If I may butt in for just a moment on this one, Russ...

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Along these same lines, was it ok for a people like Jane Fonda 
>and Bill Clinton to protest US involvement in the Vietnam War?  
>Or, would you agree with Scott that such actions constitute 
>treason?  

What Bill Clinton did was legal, (although in my opinion, it made it
impossible for me to vote for him for Commander-in-Chief), but Jane
Fonda went to North Viet Nam and made propaganda broadcasts on the
behalf of an enemy with which her country was engaged in military
hostilities.  She also posed for propaganda pictures which were widely
published at the time, and publicly urged Americans fighting in South
Viet Nam to refuse to fight.

She also encouraged the North Vietnamese, telling the Communists that 
the "people" in the US were behind them. US prisoners in Hanoi reported
increased torture and other forms of poor treatment after Fonda's visit,
and there were reports of a prisoner being executed for refusing to see 
Fonda. 

It's not the same thing as merely protesting the war;  Fonda actively gave
aid and comfort to the enemy (the legal definition of treason, I believe), 
no two ways about it.  If Angela Davis had pulled a little trick like that,
you better believe she would have wound up in the slammer for treason,
but not old Henry Fonda's little girl...  but that doesn't change the
facts.  Jane Fonda was a traitor, and she'll be treated like it for the 
rest of her life, no matter how much "respectability" her/Ted's fortune 
buys her.

And can you imagine the moral quandry poor President Clinton is going
to find himself in if he ever needs to send troops into combat?  You 
almost have to feel sorry for the guy.  (I'm even going to resist the
temptation to  make a sarcastic remark about that.)  ;-)
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Prop 200 in Arizona??
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:57:20 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <RIGG.92Nov4094026@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>Does anyone know the results on Proposition 200 in Arizona?  It was
>billed as an anti-leghold trap measure but would have banned all
>hunting, fishing, and trapping on state lands (83% of the state).
>
>Also, what to the net.AR folks think about such tactics?  The measure
>was clearly misrepresented when the signatures were collected and when
>it was described.  Do the ends justify the means?

Could you give us a few more specifics about the alleged "misrepresentation"?
Such as, what was the actual text of the proposition, and how was it
described in campaign materials?

I haven't heard anything about this proposition, and I have no reason to
think that any deceiptful "tactics" were involced in getting it on the ballot,
etc.

Paul
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:46:03 GMT
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In <Bx8AE1.Dvn@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

   Russell,

	Please, in a series of numbered statements, present your position 
	regarding the ethics of non-human food choices and the process by 
	which you implement those ethics in making those dietary choices.

	Thank you.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:24:15 GMT

In article <swood.721018223@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood -  
EVENSONG) writes:
>> 
>> swood
>> 
>> [deleted]
>>   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!

Hello Scott. Is this a 'catch me if you can'?

In article <1992Nov7.060943.3816@cbfsb.cb.att.com> (Mary Otto) writes:
>Russell tactic 104:  Bait with sarcasm to lead discussion off the issue.

Hello Mary Otto. Which Scott tactic number may that be?

This was Udo tactic number ichweissnichwieviel.

Udo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: animals in research.  Was Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:56:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.200829.16988@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.185920.10467@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.170011.23692@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Oct27.215622.23702@pixel.kodak.com> black@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com
>>>>
>>>Tim>>However, they realize that the general public is primarly
>>>Tim>>concerned with helping humans.
>>>>
>>>RB>Then, as such, the general public should be very interested in the harm
>>>RB>to humans caused by some animal research. 
>>>
>>>
>GP>>Don't you think the general public should be more concernered about the
>GP>>potential for harm to humans if medical treatments were use on them first
>GP>>without animal testing?
>>
>RB>You seem to be assuming that if a treatment has a certain effect on
>RB>animals, then it will have the same effect on humans ... and that if
>RB>a treatment does not harm animals, then it will not harm humans.  I
>RB>don't see that this is the case.
>
>There are very few things in science and medicine that are absolutes.  We
>deal with probability.  Often times published data contains a 95% or
>better probability of being accurate (P<=0.05).  This also holds true for
>the applicability of animals experiments in human systems.  Applications
>of data obtained in animal experiments to humans systems offers a great
>degree of variability, depending on the subect being studied.  Surely you 
>can not argue that experiments
>addressing the success of surgical proceedures or monitoring the cellular
>response induced by various pathenogens has a very high degree of 
>applicability to humans.  

What I'm suggesting is that if you want to KNOW whether a treatment or
procedure applies to humans, you first must TRY it on humans.

>I will admit that the response of some animals to some
>pharmaceuticals is not indicative of human response to the same compounds.
>However, the similarities by far at weigh the differences particularly if
>the right animal system is choosen.  The number of instances were animal
>research has lead to positive results and the application of those reults
>to humans has been detrimental are minuscule compared to the number of
>times animal models have correctly predicted human responses.  

Could you be more specific?

>not a good indicatio

Is this a typo or did some data get dropped in transmission?

---
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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:01:40 GMT

Dan Sorenson writes:
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.  

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

From article <viking.721461347@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> You missed it, Russ.  The police swear to uphold the law.
ds> Given that the second amendment to the Constitution is above any
ds> local or state law, they cannot take guns and still be upholding the
ds> law.  Note also that I've sworn to defend the Constitution against
ds> all enemies, *foreign or domestic.*  That includes the police, the
ds> government, the military, and the people should it become necessary.

Would it include the supreme court justices who are endowed by 
the constitution with the rightful authority to intrepret the 
constitutionality of our laws?  Would it include upstart 
individuals who pretend that they themselves are vested with such 
interpretative powers, rather than the Supreme Court justices?  

ds> You'll just have to trust me to have the judgement to not shoot
ds> those who don't require or deserve it, Russ.  For the police, I'd
ds> have to say that illegal attempts to confiscate my guns will be
ds> ignored or met with court action.  Should they turn violent, they
ds> will be met with force.  This would require that they act illegally,
ds> but I sincerely hope this never becomes the case.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question:  Is it be acceptable
for you to kill policemen who are sworn to uphold laws that you haven't 
personally approved?

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."

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

ds> 	All.  Have you ever fought a fire?  

Yes, I have.  Have you ever known any policemen who were killed
by folks who considered themselves to be above the law?

-- 
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: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:45:06 GMT


Greg Popken writes:
gp> Animals have no rights!  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Do dogs and cats have a right not to be tortured?

From article <1dpdq0INNnj0@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> No!  They don't enjoy such a right.  Will a pack of coyotes never 
ml> torture a cat or dog?  

This doesn't make much sense, Mike.

Would grizzly bears and human street gangs never attack Mike Linan?
If the answer is "no", would it be reasonable to infer that Mike Linan
has no rights?  

ml> What "right" will have been violated other than in your own mind?  
ml> You may say that a human can be lawfully prosecuted for torturing 
ml> a cat or dog but, is that because of some "right" for the animal 
ml> or that the powers that be have determined that humans do not 
ml> have the "right" to do so?  

What's the difference?

ml> You would be prosecuted for destroying Mount Rushmore.  Does that 
ml> mean you don't have the "right" to do that or that rocks have 
ml> "rights"?  

Mount Rushmore is public property.  If you privately owned a large
granite boulder elsewhere in South Dakota, do you think you'd be
prosecuted for blasting it to gravel?

If you privately owned a small kitten, could you be prosecuted for
burning it alive?

-- 
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: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Date: 10 Nov 1992 00:09:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BxGyrB.EKC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1dmgs1INN1o4@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> First let me say that whether the Bible indicates Jesus ate meat or 
>ml> not has no real relevance to whether hunting and/or eating animals is
>ml> moral to Christians since it has already been proven it is according to
>ml> the Christian faith.

>So you say.  Let's not forget that medieval and renaissance clerics 
>also proved that witch-killing was also mandated by the christian
>faith.   Or maybe not.

Yeah, maybe not.  You can bring up all the nasty deeds throughout time
that you care to Russell but, I *dare* you to prove that what they *claimed*
was mandated by the Christian faith actually was.  If isn't in the Bible
you can claim whatever you like but, that don't make it so.


>ml> With that said, let me provide the passages that *do* indicate Jesus ate
>ml> meat.  In paticular, the passages indicate he ate lamb.
>ml> 
>ml> In Exodus, chapter 12 (read the whole thing), the passover is descibed
>ml> and what is eaten during the passover.  The meal includes lamb.

>Right.   And let's not forget the words to live by that are
>found further on, in Exodus 22:18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch 
>to live".


Be real Russell.  How in the hell can we forget the irrelevant words that
you love so much?  You quote them nearly every single day.  I ain't asking
you to believe what I say, but you asked so I'm answering.  If you can't 
handle the fact that the answer to your questions are not what you'd like
them to be I don't really know what to tell you.
 	

>ml>Then, in Matthew, chapter 26 Jesus is quoted when instructing the disciples
>ml>to prepare the passover and that he and they would eat the passover (lamb)

>Does it really say this?


Of course it does.  What, do you think I'd lie?  Don't worry Russell, I can't
really gloat too much since as I said I really don't consider it to be of
great importance since hunting and meat eating is *clearly* moral throughout
the Bible.


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



Mike Linan
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:30:03 GMT

In <BxGzK0.Enp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Ho Chi Minh dedicated his whole life to the resolution of 
>vietnamese social problems caused by centuries of colonial rule.  

	By armed revolution, backed by communist countries that
will require a communist government when the revolution was over.
I understand he initially asked for aid from the US, but was refused.
Still, if the resolution of vietnamese social problems was his goal,
he failed when he fired his first AK-47.

>You're probably right that he was comforted by the fact that many 
>americans did not support their government's efforts to maintain 
>a pro-US dictatorship in South Vietnam.  However, I'm not sure if 
>your notion that critics were guilty of "treason".  It seems to
>me that citizens like Fonda were supporting the very principles upon 
>which our country was founded.

	Let's see what the US Constitution has to say.  In Article 3:
Section 3.    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort.  No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.

	I'd say a photo-OP manning an anti-aircraft gun and her radio
broadcasts, if not levying War, consist of adhering to their Enemies
and giving them aid and comfort.  The problem is that I don't think
you can satisfy the strict definition of War or Enemy as the whole
thing was officially a police action.  Had it been declared a war,
she would have been guilty as can be.

>Speaking of free speech, were Scott's friends exercising their
>constitutional rights when they bought tickets to Lethal Weapon
>with the express intention of demanding their money back?  Or,
>would you say that they were violating their implicit contract 
>with the owner of the theater?

	Yes, and Yes.  While I don't particularly like the tactic,
what are the chances of them getting their money back?  The implied
contract in the purchase of a ticket is that a movie will be shown
and they will be admitted.  The content of the movie is not in the
contract, as it is implied that it will be the movie you elected
to watch.  Demanding your money back on breach of contract can only
be done if the owner has failed to provide an environment to watch
the movie in, or the movie.  They don't have a case, they're just
trying to bully the owner.

< 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: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:04:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.165551.25953@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>
>>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...
I mean people who actually act on their AR beliefs, not those who for unknown
reasons claim to support animal rights while simultaneously violating them.
>>
>>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?
No.  See my earlier posting (if it's still around) in which I condemned
violence against humans as inconsistent with animal rights philosophy.

>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.
The actions of some terrorists (a small minority in my experience) are
irrelevant to the question, do animals have rights?
Currently there are very few anti-AR activists, because they have little
to activate for.
>
>By the way how do you feel about animal research?*  (* Loaded question.)
>
I will admit that emotionally this has been a very difficult issue for
me, because before I was born my mom worked as a medical laboratory
technologist, which sometimes included animal research.  As a result I
just avoided thinking about the whole issue until very recently.  However,
I can see no rational argument for painful/fatal experiments on animals
which could not be used to also justify the same experiments on humans who
did not consent.  Therefore I must condemn these experiments.

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org

(Fran Trutt posting to come later as per my email to you.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:15:36 GMT

In article <fbQ.02fg295c01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted
Robinson) writes:

>James Hoskins writes:
>> Now I really am confused.

>We seek to be ethical according to our ethical system. How do we decide what
>that ethical system is? I can't give a crisp answer. Somehow, over time,
>concensus emerges. How did we decide the world is round? Over time a
>concensus emerged, but unanimity is still elusive. My feeling is that,
>indeed, there is concensus in our society that it's better not to inflict
>pain. But there will always be someone who disagrees. Within this newsgroup a
>concensus emerged on the basics of the ethic, though some disagreement
>persisted on the specifics of the wording. While this disagreement was
>interesting, I believe it applied to fairly special cases and that for the
>bulk of real cases, everyone agreed with the ethic (with possibly one
>exception).
>

Can you offer your insight on how/why behavior of so many people in this
world would be in conflict with an ethic that they more or less subscribe
to?


>
>Unlike anti-AR types, I believe there are differences between humans and non-
>humans.

I am confused again.  I see the "anti-AR types" using "differences between
humans and non-humans" to justify killing the animals.  On the one hand
the differences mean we should leave them alone, on the other, we can eat
'em.  Whew.

>Ted Robinson
>tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
>These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Using lab animals for flea-breeding
Date: 7 Nov 1992 01:34:46 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

Steve Pope's interesting question:

>What I want to know is, just why do these researchers
>need fleas in the first place?  Would the world come to
>any great harm if research fleas were unavailable?

Besides being nuisances, fleas spread diseases such as plague.
The modes of flea-transmitted disease are by no means all worked out.
Since no flea-based computer model or flea tissue culture is
currently available, researchers are forced to actually work with
the intact organism.  (!!!)

Maintenance of different flea stocks (required for flea genetics) would
be impossible if researchers had to isolate and harvest fleas from
naturally afflicted pets or livestock.

PS - I'm not a flea researcher but I play one on t.p.a.

Regards,
Tim Ikeda
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: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:38:36 GMT

In article <BxB0yx.83p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:

>rl> I don't understand your question, Rich.   In particular, I'm baffled
>rl> by your demand for a "series of numbered statements".
>rl>
>rl> If you want me to discuss the reasons for my own dietary choices,
>rl> I'd be pleased to do so, but I see no reason to confine myself to
>rl> a particular mental architecture that would suit folks whose minds
>rl> are bound by linear thinking.
>
>From article <viking.721037507@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (D
an Sorenson):
>ds> Draw us a flowchart, Russ.  You're rather known for logical
>ds> and empirical analysis when it suits you -- do it here.  Simple.
>ds> I'll even be so bold as to state that we'll accept it in any form
>ds> of psuedo-language, be it C, xBase, Prolog, Fortran, or English
>ds> in the familiar boxes showing conditionals.  Frankly, I'm interested.
>
>So am I, but I don't understand why you think that a discussion
>of ethical choices ought to take the form of a "flow chart".
>Would you mind explaining your rationale?  As a demonstration of
>your good faith, it would also be helpful if you'd provide an
>illustration of such a flow chart by mapping out your analysis of
>human animal rights versus non-human animal rights as extensively
>as possible.  Be sure to use the "familiar boxes showing
>conditionals", lest someone accuse you of setting hypocritical
>standards.
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Russell, whether you like it or not, you are an interesting person.

I too am interested in your comments on the nature of your eating
choices as they relate to your ethics.  I could write about my
world-view when I was a vegan, but that would be much less interesting
than hearing how you frame the world.  Would your use as a starting
off point of the following examples help you:  Isn't the Louisiana
Coast known for crawfish or crayfishes or something?  What goes through
your mind when you are out kayaking in the bayou and come upon a cajun
who invites you to sample some crawfish jambalaya or whatever it's called?
I sometimes sprinkle roasted termites from a large glass jar with
nail holes in the metal lid over spaghetti sauce I make, for purposes
of protein, texture and flavor.  What would go through your mind,
ethically, in turning down the meal I would offer you.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.politics.guns