GAYS for ANIMAL RIGHTS
Leor Jacobi
If so, contact:
Rex Gravley
c/o People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
4131 18th St.
San Francisco, CA 94114
(415) 431-9886
Rex would like to work on increasing awareness of animal issues withing
the gay community, especially in San Francisco.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leor Jacobi | "They think you don't know the score,
East Bay Vegan News | but you're into something more
leor@mellers1. | than their physicality,
psych.berkeley.edu | mere dollar sign reality." -- Life's Blood
Jeffrey J Barbose
From: Leor Jacobi, le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu
Date: 8 Oct 1994 20:38:32 GMT
In article <377008$f...@agate.berkeley.edu> Leor Jacobi,
le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu writes:
>Are you Gay? Are you interested in Animal Rights Issues or Activism?
>
>If so, contact:
>
>Rex Gravley
>c/o People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
>4131 18th St.
>San Francisco, CA 94114
>(415) 431-9886
>
>Rex would like to work on increasing awareness of animal issues withing
>the gay community, especially in San Francisco.
>
I'm sure Rex would.
Pass on a suggestion to Rex in improving PETA: LEARN about your subject
matter before making proclamations.
PETA is as clueless about medical and biological research as Pat
Robertson is about homosexuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Very few beings really seek knowledge in this world. Few really
ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers
they have already shaped in their own minds - justification,
confirmation, forms of consolation without which they can't go on.
To really ask is to open the door to a whirlwind. The answer may
annihilate the question and the questioner." -- Anne Rice
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Thorson
Jeffrey J Barbose <bar...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>PETA is as clueless about medical and biological research as Pat
>Robertson is about homosexuals.
Funny you should say that. Pat Robertson is a vegetarian.
Jack Hamilton
>Funny you should say that. Pat Robertson is a vegetarian.
Really? It's amazing what you can find out on the net. He's in good
company, then - I'm sure someone is about to post the list of murderous
vegetarians.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton j...@crl.com KD6TTL '92 K75RTA co-moderator, sci.med.aids
Joe Clark
>
> >Funny you should say that. Pat Robertson is a vegetarian.
>
> Really? It's amazing what you can find out on the net. He's in good
> company, then - I'm sure someone is about to post the list of murderous
> vegetarians.
...which would be about as relevant as a list of pacifist omnivores.
BTW, PETA is often very, very specific about medical and pharmaceutical
research. For example, its ongoing campaign against the
estrogen-replacement drug Premarin-- made, as its name suggests, from
pregnant (horse) mares' urine-- describes the cruel methods of collecting
that urine *and* offers no fewer than *three* cruelty-free substitute
drugs. Like ACT UP, PETA doesn't just criticize, it offers alternatives.
--
Joe Clark
joec...@hookup.net
joec...@scilink.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nelson Minar
Leor Jacobi <le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Are you Gay? Are you interested in Animal Rights Issues or Activism?
>c/o People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Given my personal experience with PETA, I would strongly discourage
sensible people from wasting their time with them. I say this as a gay
vegetarian with a history of working in activist groups. In my one
personal interaction with PETA I found them to be extremely
irresponsible. Maybe they've changed since then, but I suspect not.
A couple of years ago I posted a satirical article about gerbils and
gay men in a context that made it clear the article was satire
intended to lampoon a homophobe. Someone on the net misunderstood it
(or chose to misunderstand it), decided I was advocating torturing
small furry animals, and anonymously sent the post off to PETA along
with a demand that I be punished.
PETA never attempted to contact me about the post - instead, they sent
a letter off to the president of the college where I was a student
demanding I be censured and referred to the authorities in the State
of Oregon for prosecution.
I feel PETA acted irresponsibly in several ways:
they acted on a single anonymous complaint
they never attempted to contact me
they never attempted to understand the context of the message
they did not consider the implications of sending out a letter that
outed me to my college.
PETA's attempt at making my life miserable failed - my college is much
more sensible than that, and I was (fortunately) already out at the time.
But it made me think pretty carefully about the responsibility of
activist groups, and insured that I would never support PETA again.
Btw, if there are any PETA representatives reading this post, please
drop me an email. I never bothered to snail mail a copy of an
explanation I agreed to post to soc.motss, but I'd be happy to email
it to someone.
john whiteside
: In article <CxDJq...@taligent.com>,
So can we also assume that all homosexuals are medical researchers?
--
John Whiteside / jwhi...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Jeffrey J Barbose
From: Joe Clark, joec...@hookup.net
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 10:32:21 -0500
In article <joeclark-101...@joeclark.tor.hookup.net> Joe Clark,
joec...@hookup.net writes:
>> e...@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:
>>
>> >Funny you should say that. Pat Robertson is a vegetarian.
>>
>> Really? It's amazing what you can find out on the net. He's in good
>> company, then - I'm sure someone is about to post the list of murderous
>> vegetarians.
>
>...which would be about as relevant as a list of pacifist omnivores.
>
>BTW, PETA is often very, very specific about medical and pharmaceutical
>research. For example, its ongoing campaign against the
Yeah, and the PAID head of PETA, Ingrid Whats-her-name, categorically
called all research involving animals (and I quote) "ghoulish and
barbaric, very Middle Ages".
Might she have other interests besides the animals?
>estrogen-replacement drug Premarin-- made, as its name suggests, from
>pregnant (horse) mares' urine-- describes the cruel methods of collecting
>that urine *and* offers no fewer than *three* cruelty-free substitute
>drugs. Like ACT UP, PETA doesn't just criticize, it offers alternatives.
Might their cruelty-free substitutes be scientifically unsound?
I recall when a bunch of PETA-variety people picketed outside of the
Mellon Institute of Science, part of Carnegie Mellon University, and
offered, in place of animal use in education, *the BIOLOGY Coloring Book*
as a viable alternative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This disease will be the end of many of us, but not nearly all, and
the dead will be commemorated and will struggle on with the living,
and we are noit going away. We won't die secret deaths anymore.
The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come."
-- Prior Walter, Angels In America: Perestroika, by Tony Kushner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Kaye
: A couple of years ago I posted a satirical article about gerbils and
: gay men in a context that made it clear the article was satire
: intended to lampoon a homophobe.
Welcome to real life on the Internet. Satire doesn't work very well.
Posts are taken to be either the 100% total truth, or they are flamed
until the person gives up. A sense of humor apparently just doesn't come
through very well in this medium. As to lampooning the homophobe, it's
been my experience that most homophobes are so clueless as to not even
understand what you're trying to do.
--
d...@crl.com In 1990 1 out of 8 Americans were living in poverty,
San Francisco 2nd-highest rate in the Western industrialized world.
Melinda Shore
>Yeah, and the PAID head of PETA, Ingrid Whats-her-name, categorically
>called all research involving animals (and I quote) "ghoulish and
>barbaric, very Middle Ages".
>Might she have other interests besides the animals?
I don't think so. In my experience, however, the PETA
people really know very little about those beasts that
they're trying to "protect," nor do they actually know very
much about the way that science is done.
I'm very sympathetic to animal welfare causes, but PETA
is completely off-the-wall and I have little respect for
them.
--
Melinda Shore - No Mountain Software - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
I DON'T SPEAK FOR CORNELL.
I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO POST ABUSIVE OR THREATENING EMAIL
Software longa, hardware brevis.
Paul Roberts
>called all research involving animals (and I quote) "ghoulish and
>barbaric, very Middle Ages".
Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's vice president, does not receive any
monetary compensation from PETA - she isn't "PAID". You can
read about this in PETA's financial report.
Paul
Melinda Shore
>Welcome to real life on the Internet. Satire doesn't work very well.
I take this as a hopeful and welcome suggestion that your
posts so far have been poorly-executed ironic posturing,
and that you haven't actually been serious about any of it.
What a relief!
Tim Wilson
>it's
>been my experience that most homophobes are so clueless as to not even
>understand what you're trying to do.
Not to mention black-wearing straight-acting guys in San Francisco.
--
Tim Wilson <t-wi...@memphis.edu>
David A. Kaye
: I take this as a hopeful and welcome suggestion that your
: posts so far have been poorly-executed ironic posturing,
: and that you haven't actually been serious about any of it.
: What a relief!
On occasion they are exactly that. Anyone who reads me long enough can
figure out what's said seriously and what's said in humor. Trouble is,
some people just barge in, read something, know nothing about its or the
author's past, and post some vicious remark. Oh well.
--
d...@crl.com 50% of patients in nursing homes in America are
San Francisco drugged or tied up during some part of the day.
FJ!!
>Melinda, could you provide some examples of the latter, that is something
>which really would distress a cow?
Cold hands?
FJ!!
Frank W. Elliott Jr.
Well, that's exactly what you did to Nelson. You made an utter fool of
yourself in the process.
--Frank
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions in this message are not necessarily those of Princeton University
or of any of its agencies. They may not even be mine. ;-)
Emily Rizzo
(Melinda Shore) writes about PETA:
> I think that they tend to anthropomorphize animals,
>and often assume that the things that cause distress to
>humans would cause distress to, say, cattle, while tending
>to overlook the things which really would distress a cow.
Melinda, could you provide some examples of the latter, that is something
which really would distress a cow? I'm not by any means disagreeing with
you, it's just that I'm at a loss to summon up any examples of what you are
talking about due mainly to my lack of familiarity with cows.
Emily
Melinda Shore
>Melinda, could you provide some examples of the latter, that is something
>which really would distress a cow?
Well, the only time I've ever seen a cow in distress was
when it was first mooved, er, moved into unfamiliar
circumstances. They're remarkably easy-going animals. But
I have seen horses in distress quite often, and it's
generally been a result of poor health, the built-in
fright/flight reflex, or lousy horsemanship.
Harry (the horse in the picture with me in the motss
archive) had been an abused horse. He'd been raced and
starved and beaten and ridden by a very large rider (he's a
little guy) who was terrified of him and who rode him in an
extremely severe bit. When I first bought him he was a
very, very frightened horse, and as he became healthier he
was a very, very frightened strong horse who dealt with his
fear by 1) trying to unload his rider (buckarama!) and 2)
reacting to someone entering his stall by either trying to
climb the walls or by trying to kick the person. This was
clearly not safe, and it wasn't doing anything to calm down
poor Harry. It took watching him out with the other
geldings for quite some time to figure out that Harry was
bottom horse on the totem pole, and that he felt safer with
someone in charge that he trusted. That was the point at
which I became much more agressive with him, and at which
Owen decided to explain to us that feminists abuse our
animals. Anyway, the ugly stuff lasted less than two
weeks, and Harry turned into a happy, safe, and rather
porky little horse who was rideable by beginners and was a
dream to handle from the ground. It took understanding his
herd role to make this happen.
Another good example involves an animal rights person
(although I assume a more extreme animal rights type
wouldn't ride at all). Anyway, this woman was taking a
lesson and she was letting the horse do pretty much what it
wanted, to the point where he was getting dangerously
unruly. Rather than giving one good swift correction and
having done with it, she was constantly badgering the horse
and annoying the hell out of him, which was just making
things worse. My trainer yanked her off the horse, jumped
on herself, and gave Zipper one good boot. This pretty
much established the terms of the relationship, and the
result was that he was far more obedient and the rider
didn't have to harrass him. Both the rider and the horse
were much happier, or at least they would have been if this
student hadn't been an animal rights type who believed that
the horse had just been beaten and abused and who quit on
the spot.
People are killed by animals every day. It can be an
attack by an undomesticated animal, being thrown by a
horse, or being crushed by a cow who decided to lean
against the milker. If you're going to deal with animals
*at* *all* you need to be clear about how to do so safely,
both for your sake and the animals'. A horse is a herd
animal and has a flight instinct, while a cat is a loner
and has an attack instinct. Horses and dogs have a work
ethic, and cows and sheep don't. It's a mistake to assume
that any animal will have the same response to a given
situation as any other kind of animal or as a human, and
it's been my experience that animal rights extremists often
fail to take these things into account when determining
whether or not abuse has taken place. Too many of them
would rather see deer starve to death slowly or be run down
by natural predators than they would see them be killed by
a hunter's gun.
I've got to apologize for the length of this thing, but as
someone whose life pretty much revolves around her animals
and as someone who has made a practice of taking in
abused and/or neglected animals, this stuff is important
to me. And as a person with a lot of experience with
abused animals, I think that PETA is full of absolute
crackpots.
David Stevenson
>
> I think that they tend to anthropomorphize animals,
>and often assume that the things that cause distress to
>humans would cause distress to, say, cattle, while tending
>--
And PETA's refusal to follow up on DAK's Progress Report is
yet another confirmation of your point.
Greg Parkinson
In a not-too-long-ago issue of the New Yorker there was an
article by Oliver Sacks about an autistic woman who had
a successful career designing facilities to house cows.
She talked about just *knowing* what would bother the cows
and what wouldn't, and as I remember it was stuff I didn't
expect, like certain frequencies of sounds.
ObMotss: Oliver Sacks.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Parkinson "Isn't this a disgusting spectacle!"
g...@panix.com Betty, on _I Love Lucy_
John Hollister
I will be delighted to treat animals just like humans - *after* people
are no longer treated like animals.
--
John Hollister bb0...@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu
............................................................................
"Honey, I'm more man than you'll ever be and more woman than you'll ever get"
-traditional queen's retort
Greg Parkinson
> If you're going to deal with animals
>*at* *all* you need to be clear about how to do so safely,
>both for your sake and the animals'.
There was a fascinating article a while back in Harper's
about a man who had an Orangutan act in Las Vegas who
was taken to court by an "animal rights" organization
who alledged he was abusing the animals. There was
lots of great stuff about their variety of intelligence
that was optimized for spotting small pieces of fruit
in dense jungles, but what reminded me of it here was
their talking about how people who work with animals,
who train them, have to learn how to communicate with
the animal and not vice-versa, and how the animals have
no tolerance for bullshit and inconsistency.
In his case the jury decided that there was no abuse,
and said it would be a crime to forcibly take the animals
away from him. I appreciate the difference that was stated
here before, that some people think that humans have no
right to own or control animals and others are concerned
with their welfare and protection from mistreatment
and cruelty. It just seems to me that the philosophical
differences wrt owning a well-kept animal are just that,
philosophical, while working to save animals from suffering
and pain is a shared priority that seems to sometimes get
lost in the rhetoric.
Bob Donahue
: Brian Kane (ka...@buast7.bu.edu) wrote:
: : One other line of reasoning that I've heard is the "intelligence/ability
: : to feel pain" argument. You know, chickens don't have much going on
: : upstairs, fish don't feel pain when they die from suffocation.
: *That* must be the reason fish flop and flail around so much when they're
: taken out of water.
: (No, Brian -- this wasn't a flame of you. It was a flame of those who
: claim "fish don't feel pain when they die from suffocation".)
Lobsters scream when you put them in the water. I've never
seen a PETA demonstration outside of Legal Seafoods in Boston. Funny.
In one of Crichton's books (Congo) he discusses "classist"
thinking with respect to how people view animals and their rights.
Deer, etc. are beloved because they are cute, yet no one thinks much
about killing snakes, bugs, spiders, etc., or eating lobster, fish, etc.
Worse, no one seems to care about the feelings of plants.
We rip them out of the ground, chop them into pieces, scrape their
skin off, cut into them for their fluids, sometimes while leaving
them intact with gaping wounds (sapping). For what? A salad!
Syrup for pancakes! Lumber! Gross - totally sickening.
Bring back polyesther! Synthetics! And as a wise man once
said to Dustin Hoffman - PLASTICS!
Chemically yours,
BBC
Melinda Shore
>As a city boy, I've had few encounters with animals but
>remember clearly a family in a Seattle suburb who bought
>a hores and treated it like family. Not knowing horses,
>they never clipped his hooves and by the time we saw the
>horse, his hoves were split. He had no shoes and walked
>tenderly.
Yeah - that's quite clearly neglect. Horses suffer if you
don't take care of their feet. But so often people don't
know what they're looking at. A couple of years ago there
was a knock on my door at about 7am. Someone had been driving
down the road and saw one of the horses in a nearby pasture
lying down and assumed that it was sick because he'd never
seen a horse lie down before.
Jeffrey J Barbose
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu writes:
>I've got to apologize for the length of this thing, but as
>someone whose life pretty much revolves around her animals
>and as someone who has made a practice of taking in
>abused and/or neglected animals, this stuff is important
>to me. And as a person with a lot of experience with
>abused animals, I think that PETA is full of absolute
>crackpots.
And as a person who has done medical research with animals and has
written grants which required TONS of paperwork outlining all
methodologies used to assure minimal distress to the
lab animals, I agree with Melinda completely on this.
As opposed to Ms. Ingrid, the fearless and clueless leader of PETA, who
claims that science involving animals is categorically 'ghoulish', and
that science practices w.r.t. animals is virtually unchanged since the
middle ages.
Leor Jacobi
since it did, I should respond.
My original post had little to do with PETA. A friend of mine who works
for PETA wishes to start a group to work within the gay community,
primarily educating about the cruelty of the gay rodeo and also about
leather alternatives.
I only mentioned PETA to show that he has the resources at his disposal
to make the group effective.
Regarding PETA, Newkirk et al are not in it for the money. Their
financial records prove this. It is those who profit from the use of
animals that are reaping financial rewards.
To those who "outed" PETA as being against animal research, well, that's
not big news to anyone. PETA is an anti-vivisectionist group.
To the fellow who feels that he was mistreated by PETA staff, I'd suggest
that he contact Rex at the PETA office at the number I gave. Rex is a
reasonable fellow, gay, and would probably help you out, issue an
apology, etc, if you had a legitimate gripe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leor Jacobi | "Whenever people say `We musn't be sentimental,' you
East Bay Vegan News | can take it they are about to do something cruel. And
leor@mellers1. | if they add, `We must be realistic,' they mean they
psych.berkeley.edu | are going to make money out of it." -- Brigid Brophy
Melinda Shore
>Are you involved with the rodeo?
I'm involved with livestock (THE TRUTH WILL OUT, ALLEN
CARSON), particularly horses, and I go to the rodeo when
I can. I'm around horses and cattle and sheep on a daily
basis.
>I have stood next to the horses as the cowboys were tightening the
>bucking strap. The animals are in a state of extreme distress.
I remain unconvinced that any of the PETA people I've talked
with, including yourself, are capable of recognizing "extreme
distress" in animals.
FJ!!
don...@omphalos.skepsis.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
> Worse, no one seems to care about the feelings of plants.
"Du redest mit der PFLANZE?"
"Wer machr hier schlapp, ha?!! REISS DICH MAL ZUSAMMEN! JETZT MAL ZACK
ZACK ZACK HIER!!!"
Ralk Konig, "Konrad und Paul"
FJ!!
Terry Heatlie - Support Services - SunSoft
|> Mike Reaser (rea...@netcom.com) wrote:
|> : Brian Kane (ka...@buast7.bu.edu) wrote:
|> : : One other line of reasoning that I've heard is the "intelligence/ability
|> : : to feel pain" argument. You know, chickens don't have much going on
|> : : upstairs, fish don't feel pain when they die from suffocation.
|>
|> : *That* must be the reason fish flop and flail around so much when they're
|> : taken out of water.
|>
|> : (No, Brian -- this wasn't a flame of you. It was a flame of those who
|> : claim "fish don't feel pain when they die from suffocation".)
|>
|> Lobsters scream when you put them in the water. I've never
|> seen a PETA demonstration outside of Legal Seafoods in Boston. Funny.
|>
|> In one of Crichton's books (Congo) he discusses "classist"
|> thinking with respect to how people view animals and their rights.
|> Deer, etc. are beloved because they are cute, yet no one thinks much
|> about killing snakes, bugs, spiders, etc., or eating lobster, fish, etc.
Ahem. I beg to differ.
|>
|> Worse, no one seems to care about the feelings of plants.
|> We rip them out of the ground, chop them into pieces, scrape their
|> skin off, cut into them for their fluids, sometimes while leaving
|> them intact with gaping wounds (sapping). For what? A salad!
|> Syrup for pancakes! Lumber! Gross - totally sickening.
I must kill to eat. However, by eating low down the food chain, at
the plant level, I can minimise the amount of *plants* that I end up
eating, directly or indirectly. So who says no-one cares about plants?
Regards,
Terry Heatlie.
--
terry....@sun.com (internet). terry....@sun.co.uk (JANET) ___
Disclaimer: all my own work (except this disclaimer, which I nicked). \ /
*** I want to go to 'Frisco bay, drink my liquor and spend my pay *** V
Leor Jacobi
Melinda Shore <sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <37tph5$s...@agate.berkeley.edu> le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu (Leor Jacobi) writes:
>
>PETA lies about rodeo. I've even seen PETA materials which
>show a photograph of a mare used in bucking horse
>competition where they claim that the bucking strap is used
>to cause pain (wrong) and that it's crushing the horse in
>the picture's "testicles."
Are you involved with the rodeo?
I have stood next to the horses as the cowboys were tightening the
bucking strap. The animals are in a state of extreme distress.
Whether or not the strap is touching their testicles, the fact that
rodeos are cruel to animals is trivial to anyone to has ever witnessed
one.
These barbaric demonstrations of our domination over animals have no
place in a compassionate society.
>There's so much *real* cruelty to animals in the world, and
The rodeo is cruel to animals -- if you consider confining, tying up,
and jerking around an individual who has not given consent to be an act
of cruelty.
>I'd feel much better about PETA if they would stop wasting
>their time with rodeos and zoos and start focussing a
>little more clearly on things like Premarin production,
The issue of premarin being produced from the urine of pregnant mares in
a crual way is one of PETAs current high-exposure campaigns.
>inhumane slaughter, and the things which really do cause
>suffering.
All slaughter causes suffering. The rodeo causes incredible amounts of
suffering.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leor Jacobi |"I would be as the coyote and the wolf...
East Bay Vegan News| seeking to die in the wild forest alone...
leor@mellers1. | to be eaten by the wolf's fang or the vulture's beak,
psych.berkeley.edu | instead of the slow dying of bondage." -Nez Perce Warrior
bmai...@eyecon.com
don...@omphalos.skepsis.com writes:
Lobsters scream when you put them in the water. I've never
seen a PETA demonstration outside of Legal Seafoods in Boston. Funny.
*********
1. Lobsters don't scream. They don't have vocal chords. It can be
quite unnerving (When I was cooking professionally, I had to have the
janitor do the lobsters), but that sound is the hot water rushing
through their shells.
2. I believe there _was_ a demonstration a few months ago. Something
about a) crowded conditions in the tanks; and b) one of the chefs
demonstrated how to cut up a lobster--and it was still alive.
3. "If it ain't fresh, it ain't Legal!" (motto of Legal Seafoods).
--
****************
Via: Eye Contact BBS telnet: bbs.eyecon.com (204.94.37.2)
Modem:(415) 703-8200 Voice:(800) 949-2668 150 lines
****************
Karsten S Schoellner
>In article <37vqsg$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Leor Jacobi <le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>And that is your opinion.
>You have an opportunitty to convince others of this opinion, howevber
>by using loaded language you will not get very far. believe me now or
>believe me later.
[...]
>Lior, *we* are animals, furthermore *we* are predators.
>we domesticate animal for our pleasure and for purposes of having
>them relieve our burdens. This is why many are refferd to as
>beasts of burden.
We are, and we do. That doesn't mean it's right.
>You may have a particular philosophical bent that does not allow you to
>utilise
>and animals strength and attributes in that way, but you have no right
>to force your philosophy on anyone else.
Who's forcing any philosophy on anybody? Last time I checked,
eating meat was still legal and very few vegetarians were trying to change
it. We are arguing for aour beliefs, which we have every right to do.
If I argue against Clinton's health-care plan, am I imposing my political
beleifs on you? No? Than how is anybody on this newsgroup imposing any
belief on you?
>I see litle difference between an animal rights activist/vega who forces
>their dietary or philosophical opinions on others and anti-choice bigots.
If anybody anywhere held a gun to somebody's head and forced them
to stop eating meat, I'm sure it would make the news. Since I haven't
heard about anythbing of the sort, I assume it hasn't happened - no-one
has yet forced vegetarianism on anyone else, at least not in modern times.
Karsten Schoellner
k...@world.std.com
>LUX ./. owen
>--
>(C) 1994 D. Owen Rowley o...@netcom.com ( also ow...@autodesk.com )
>[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ] Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I
>enjoy and an abundance of all good fortune comes to me for it.
>S9 b g+ l- y?/sb z++/- o++ x+ a-- u* j++|B2 f t w d+ g++ k+ s+ m(+) r- a= p
Joe DeRose
: PETA lies about rodeo.
Melinda, this is getting ridiculous! The only lies going on here are the
ones that keep getting told about PETA. To subjugate any being merely for
the purpose of entertainment is disgusting and offensive. Your defending
the rodeo by saying the bucking strap doesn't cause pain (on the subject
of which I will, for now, take your word) reminds me of the people who
excuse slavery by saying (in contradiction to all available wisdom) that
it was acceptable in light of its time and place, and that the slaves were
treated well.
In reality, if another being (a bucking bronco, or whatever you call them,
for example) is in physical or mental distress, then the ABSOLUTE
*MINIMUM* we must do is refrain from making it worse. Riding the horse
when it is in that state of agitation does not rise to this standard of
"refraining from making it worse."
And if you insist on saying that we cannot assume a horse is in distress
based on its fight-or-flight responses, then I will have to accuse you of
dishonsty, mean-spiritedness, or plain stupidity. Those are, in fact,
exactly the responses that people familiar with these animals use in
identifying a previously-unnoticed threat to the herd or the farm.
: There's so much *real* cruelty to animals in the world, and
: I'd feel much better about PETA if they would stop wasting
: their time with rodeos and zoos and start focussing a
: little more clearly on things like Premarin production,
: inhumane slaughter, and the things which really do cause
: suffering.
How much does it have to hurt before it becomes "*real* cruelty"? How
unnecessary does it have to be?
In the time that I have been a member of PETA, they have focused on
unnecessary pharmaceutical testing, such as dripping perfumes in the eyes
of rapids, tying shaved rats under heat lamps to test the time to burn
with various suntan lotions, and dogs who have their legs forcibly broken
so that veterinary students may practice on them.
The items you've mentioned so regularly are ones that I haven't even
noticed in my PETA literature - although certainly I would share the
opinions you identify as PETA's.
Based on your responses to date, I find you lacking in both information
and compassion. I hope that will change.
--Joe (Atlanta)
D. Owen Rowley
>Melinda Shore <sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>PETA lies about rodeo. I've even seen PETA materials which
>>show a photograph of a mare used in bucking horse
>>competition where they claim that the bucking strap is used
>>to cause pain (wrong) and that it's crushing the horse in
>>the picture's "testicles."
>Are you involved with the rodeo?
yeah melinda-
and have you stopped beating your---
wife :-)
>I have stood next to the horses as the cowboys were tightening the
>bucking strap. The animals are in a state of extreme distress.
And you of course are an expert on animal psychology.
You are perhaps a veterinarian.
lets here your qualifications for making this statement, other than
you think you see what you want to see.
>Whether or not the strap is touching their testicles, the fact that
>rodeos are cruel to animals is trivial to anyone to has ever witnessed
Uh..
i think you missed melindas central point there.
Mares don't have testicles.
>one.
>These barbaric demonstrations of our domination over animals have no
>place in a compassionate society.
And that is your opinion.
You have an opportunitty to convince others of this opinion, howevber
by using loaded language you will not get very far. believe me now or
believe me later.
>>There's so much *real* cruelty to animals in the world, and
>The rodeo is cruel to animals -- if you consider confining, tying up,
>and jerking around an individual who has not given consent to be an act
>of cruelty.
Lior, *we* are animals, furthermore *we* are predators.
we domesticate animal for our pleasure and for purposes of having
them relieve our burdens. This is why many are refferd to as
beasts of burden.
You may have a particular philosophical bent that does not allow you to
utilise
and animals strength and attributes in that way, but you have no right
to force your philosophy on anyone else.
I see litle difference between an animal rights activist/vega who forces
their dietary or philosophical opinions on others and anti-choice bigots.
the worst fascists are the ones who don't realise they are fascists.
Melinda Shore
>In reality, if another being (a bucking bronco, or whatever you call them,
>for example) is in physical or mental distress, then the ABSOLUTE
>*MINIMUM* we must do is refrain from making it worse.
Absolutely. However, you have to be able to determine
whether or not the horse is frightened, in pain, and so on,
first. My assertion is that the PETA people who are
campaigning so vigorously against rodeo and other things
that they construe to be animal abuse are rarely capable of
making that distinction. Responsible stewardship does not
consist of saying "awwwww, wook at the widdle horsie."
Responsible stewardship means learning something about
animals and animal behavior and making informed decisions.
Anyone who complains about squeezing the testicles on a
mare is simply not in a very good position to make
reasonable judgements about what they see, no matter how
well-intentioned they might be.
And yes, it bothers me that because the PETA people
routinely run around saying ridiculous things, it causes
considerable skepticism among the general population
towards animal welfare concerns. Witness the ridicule
posted in other articles in this thread.
Melinda Shore
>for PETA wishes to start a group to work within the gay community,
>primarily educating about the cruelty of the gay rodeo and also about
>leather alternatives.
PETA lies about rodeo. I've even seen PETA materials which
show a photograph of a mare used in bucking horse
competition where they claim that the bucking strap is used
to cause pain (wrong) and that it's crushing the horse in
the picture's "testicles."
There's so much *real* cruelty to animals in the world, and
I'd feel much better about PETA if they would stop wasting
their time with rodeos and zoos and start focussing a
little more clearly on things like Premarin production,
inhumane slaughter, and the things which really do cause
suffering.
Joe DeRose
: And yes, it bothers me that because the PETA people
: routinely run around saying ridiculous things, it causes
: considerable skepticism among the general population
: towards animal welfare concerns. Witness the ridicule
: posted in other articles in this thread.
Much of that ridicule is coming from *you*.
Have you noticed that you fall with the radicals in queer rights - and
with the "assimilationists" (or whatever term would be appropriate) in
animal rights?
--Joe
Melinda Shore
>Much of that ridicule is coming from *you*.
No, dear, it's not. Try reading what I've posted, not what
you *think* I've posted. I've talked fairly consistently
about PETA. I have not ridiculed vegetarians, I have not
ridiculed animal rights activists in general, and I have
not ridiculed those who are serious about dealing with animal
abuse. If I've ridiculed anybody, it's those who complain
about squeezing mare testicles and think they have anything
useful to say about animals.
>Have you noticed that you fall with the radicals in queer rights - and
>with the "assimilationists" (or whatever term would be appropriate) in
>animal rights?
Gosh, no, I hadn't. Thanks so much for pointing it out!!!
hillary...@syntex.com
(snip)
> >You may have a particular philosophical bent that does not allow you to
> >utilise
> >and animals strength and attributes in that way, but you have no right
> >to force your philosophy on anyone else.
> Who's forcing any philosophy on anybody? Last time I checked,
> eating meat was still legal and very few vegetarians were trying to change
> it. We are arguing for aour beliefs, which we have every right to do.
> If I argue against Clinton's health-care plan, am I imposing my political
> beleifs on you? No? Than how is anybody on this newsgroup imposing any
> belief on you?
Hillary adds:
This newsgroup medium is *such* a trip! For a format which
exists for the purpose of discussion, we sure spend a lot of
time arguing about the potential inappropriateness of
expressing opinions! How can we discuss without expressing
opinions? I suggest we try to realize that without the
benefit of vocal inflection, attitudes behind posts are
difficult (at best) to assess. Let's assume the *best* of
each other unless it is very clear that a poster
is being especially rude/nasty.
As a person who eats no red meat (mostly for health; somewhat
on principle) and little fowl/fish, I greatly value vegetarian
and vegan folks because their work and committment has made
it more and more feasible to back away from animal products
completely. It used to be somewhat difficult to lead a busy
life and eat a vegan, vegetarian, or additive-free diet. Due
to the demand by and work of vegetarians and vegans, there are
now many simple, prepared food options and readily available
organics for all of us to enjoy. I may never be vegan, but
I eat less animal products every year and view my vegan
friends as people with healthier and more conscientious
diets than I.
Nick Fitch
(Gary Rients) wrote:
>>I see litle difference between an animal rights activist/vega who forces
>>their dietary or philosophical opinions on others and anti-choice bigots.
>>
>>the worst fascists are the ones who don't realise they are fascists.
>
>Yet people have the right to force on me their ridiculous belief
>that I should not kill another human because it's 'wrong'? IMO
>most humans are more deserving of the fate than most animals are.
>If you believe that it is okay for me to be prevented from killing
>people then you are a hypocrite. I would sooner kill (or allow to
>be killed) a selfish, harmful person than an innocent animal.
>Now where's my sniper rifle...
You know, even after more than 10 years as a vegetarian, I still can't
quite get over the remarkable correlation I've noticed between animal
rights activism and misanthropy.
Followups directed out of soc.motss and ba.motss. If there was ever any
gay relevance in this discussion it's about to get completely lost in the
usual round of "vegetarian weirdo!"/"animal murderer!"/"neener, neener,
neener!" nonsense.
--Nick, sighing...
Bob Another beer, please Christ
>Leor Jacobi (le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>:My original post had little to do with PETA. A friend of mine who works
>:for PETA wishes to start a group to work within the gay community,
>:primarily educating about the cruelty of the gay rodeo and also about
>:leather alternatives.
>Oh god. Oh dear god. Next time I venture into the Lure or the Spike,
>some little twit who thinks hir buttons will serve as adequate armor
>is going to educate me about the virtues of Naugahide.
>Leathermen are ordinarily a meek and mild breed, but the very
>suggestion of replacing their uniforms with some petroleum derivative
>will make them as cruel as they try to look.
Perhaps Jacobi's 'friend' could educate the local chapter of Dykes on
Bikes(tm) about the cruelty of leather too.
Maybe a trip to the 'Adult Bookstore and Rubber Goods' shop on Powell,
near Market, in San Francisco is in order. His 'friend' could pick up
a few items that could substituted for those cruel traditional leather
whips and bonds - just for 'show and tell,' so to say.
Then on a friday night, they could stand outside the Eagle or the
Trocadero in San Francisco, wearing those substitutes, wielding some
battery operated 'whips' and pass out leaflets. Sounds like a plan
for Leor's 'friend,' eh?
>As for the cruelty of the gay rodeo, well what beast would not be
>honored to have one of those handsome studs on its back?
Or, behind them, cattle prods ready for action.
>They are only cruel in that the riders don't consummate their brief
>SM interspecies relationships.
Huh?! You mean they *don't*! My Ghod, I was going to go to the next
gay rodeo in Reno, just to watch that action. I guess I may just have
to cancel my reservations. Well, maybe not. There's always the chance
of seeing those Gay Caballeros 'riding' those wild, bucking PeTA beasts.
Rollin' rollin' rollin' Keep dem doggies rollin' Rawhide! <crack!>
Yee-haw!
>"Honey, I'm more man than you'll ever be and more woman than you'll ever get"
> -traditional queen's retort
Shame on you, John. You needn't be so cruel to Leor.
Bob
---
"Come, let us retract the foreskin misconception and apply
the wire brush of enlightment."
- Geoff Miller
D. Owen Rowley
>>Lior, *we* are animals, furthermore *we* are predators.
>>we domesticate animal for our pleasure and for purposes of having
>>them relieve our burdens. This is why many are refferd to as
>>beasts of burden.
> We are, and we do. That doesn't mean it's right.
And by the same token it doesn't make it wrong.
> Who's forcing any philosophy on anybody?
Those who use terroristic tactics to shut down legitimate animal testing
labs, and those who seek to stop rodeo are
are you one of those people?
Oh and BTW.
I've never been to rodeo myself, its not my idea of fun or entertainment.
I don't particularly like horses and I've never seen a barnyard animal I
liked so much I wouldn't eat it - if I needed food.
now as to liking cowboys and who eats who.
thats another story.
Kenji Matsuoka
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>And yes, it bothers me that because the PETA people
>routinely run around saying ridiculous things, it causes
>considerable skepticism among the general population
>towards animal welfare concerns. Witness the ridicule
>posted in other articles in this thread.
I'd not heard much about PETA before reading this thread
(aside from some mumbled dark asides in my behavioral psych
class last year), and I've come out with an impression of
an extremist organization with no sense of priorities.
Nelson's gerbil story didn't help much, either.
But to be thorn in your side, I'll point out that in *this*
thread, it's PETA that's crying wolf.
--
Kenji Matsuoka ||| Svatyi Bozhe, Svayti Krepkiy,
ke...@max.physics.sunysb.edu ||| Svatyi Bezsmertnyi pomilui nas.
Richard Caley
jd> Based on your responses to date, I find you lacking in both
jd> information and compassion. I hope that will change.
Oh no, looks like we've been invaded by alt.pompous.condescending.gits
again.
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
D. Owen Rowley
Gary Rients <dar...@sage.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>I see litle difference between an animal rights activist/vega who forces
>>their dietary or philosophical opinions on others and anti-choice bigots.
>>the worst fascists are the ones who don't realise they are fascists.
>Yet people have the right to force on me their ridiculous belief
>that I should not kill another human because it's 'wrong'? IMO
I surmise that you are attempting to make sarcasm.
Try reading things in context, and avoid comparing apples and oranges.
In the first place nobody is forcing beliefs , ridiculous or otherwise on
you are anyone. We have a criminal code which prescribes penaltys for a
range of criminal activitys.
Some of those activitys involve the issue
of cruelty to animals. But the upshot of those laws is that they exist to
regualte and benefit human society.
There is also a law of the jungle, or the wild which benefits and regulates
life in the wild.
For the most part humans have been the prey of the wild, and over time
our civilisations have grown to the point where we as humans have risen
on the food chain by the growth and progress of that civilisation.
I'm quite pleased with that situation, if your not, i suggest you buy a
pup-tent and try living on a Savanna.
Its not THAT long ago that your chance of dying by being attacked by a wild
beast were higher than your chance of any other natural demise.
>most humans are more deserving of the fate than most animals are.
That sir is your opinion, and you are perfectly within your rights to foster
that opinion. I just think that you are in the same league with
anti-choice protesters when you use terrorism over persuasion.
have you ever left the path of persuasion in order to *take matters
in your own hands*?
>If you believe that it is okay for me to be prevented from killing
>people then you are a hypocrite.
How twisted can your ill-logic get pal.
I think my position on this is clear, and if i am a hypocrite, i am
one with no blood on my hands. How about you pal.
>I would sooner kill (or allow to
>be killed) a selfish, harmful person than an innocent animal.
>Now where's my sniper rifle...
How dare you smugly stand on ground you claim to be higher moral ground than
mine when you have the nerve to post thinly veiled death threats.
Come and get me asshole. I'm a vietnam war veteran, I'm an uppity faggot
with an attitude about jerks like you, and i don't take any shit from
anybody.
Better make your first shot a good one, and I daresy that
this statement is what seperates you and I. For it is you who are more likely
to wind up facing charges of killing. I will undoubtedly be acting in self
defense should you ever get up the nerve to face me, and I'm ready pal.
You ain't never met a faggot like me before BOY.
Bob Russell
>Und nicht nur die Ficus. (What's the plural of Ficus in German or English
>anyway?)
It's a Latin word, so it should be fici (pronounced feekee). But the
dictionary says ficus or ficuses.
Bob Russell RS...@pge.com
I don't speak for my company, and they don't speak for me.
Bob Russell
>o...@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
>>I see litle difference between an animal rights activist/vega who forces
>>their dietary or philosophical opinions on others and anti-choice bigots.
>
> If anybody anywhere held a gun to somebody's head and forced them
>to stop eating meat, I'm sure it would make the news. Since I haven't
>heard about anythbing of the sort, I assume it hasn't happened - no-one
>has yet forced vegetarianism on anyone else, at least not in modern times.
Perhaps not, but I have heard about people throwing paint on other folks' fur
coats, and bombing animal research centers. Sounds to me like an attempt to
force a philosophical opinion on somebody else. My guess is that the strategy
is to go after the activities that relatively few people participate in first,
then slowly work towards banning leather and the eating of meat. What's the
difference between leather and fur, after all, other than the hair being left
on the hide of a fur?
David M. Lawrence
I was wondering, is sugar vegan? I have heard that it is not and
I really don't understand why. If someone knows, I would really
appreciate it if you could pass on your information to me. Thanks.
Melinda Shore
>Joe DeRose (jde...@cc.emory.edu) wrote:
>: Have you noticed that you fall with the radicals in queer rights - and
>: animal rights?
>A cogent argument, Joe! Are you going to ask her whether any of her
>friends are Commie sympathizers next?
I'm kind of curious about his implication that one ought to
take extreme positions without actually considering them
individually.
T.G. Spencer
Sugar doesn't contain animal products itself, but its production
may not be vegan. The following information is UK specific, but will
help answer your question:
The largest supplier, British Sugar (trading under 'Silver Spoon')
obtains its white (refined) sugar form beet. The beet are transported
form the point of origin in a solution of water and antifoams. Some
of the antifoams in use contain "small amounts of fish oil". "It is not
possible to differentiate the sources of the sugar...once in the factory
the beet are separated from the transport water, washed in clean water
and sliced." Although it would appear that no animal products are used
in the extraction (from the beet) of British Sugar's white sugar, the
company cannot guarantee the same for its brown sugars. "The raw sugars
cane molasses...originate from numerous small factories around the world
many of which may use [as a decolourant] bone char or char of mixed
origin, and the type used may vary from country to country, year to year,
factory to factory."
In contrast, the UK's second largest sugar supplier, Tate & Lyle, is able
to provide "assurance that the use of bone charcoal in the Tate & Lyle
refinery process ceased a number of years ago". "Liquor decolourisation
is now done using synthetic ion exchange resins and activated carbon of
mineral origin." Both Tate & Lyle's white and brown sugars are derived
from sugar cane. "With just one minor exception, all products in the Tate
& Lyle retail range are acceptable for vegans. The one exception is
currently Ready to Roll Icing, which contains a stearate emulsifier."
Billingtons has stated that the production of all its sugars is free of
animal substances.
A bigger problem is finding out the origin of sugar when it is just
one ingredient of a product e.g. cakes. Without contacts inside the
producing company, it is very difficult to find out.
-- Tim
Alex Elliott
>
>And looking at the wild, which creatures do our digestive systems
>most closely resemble - herbivore or carnivore? In fact, the
>meat eater. We have no "cud."
I've heard it said that the animal whose digestive system most resembles
our own (to the point where most digestive medical research is done on
them) is the pig. Pigs are pretty much omnivorous.
People, however, don't normally root for truffles.
Alex.
Paul Roberts
>In article <386m5k$o...@chaos.dac.neu.edu> jwhi...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (john whiteside) writes:
>>Joe DeRose (jde...@cc.emory.edu) wrote:
>>: Have you noticed that you fall with the radicals in queer rights - and
>>: with the "assimilationists" (or whatever term would be appropriate) in
>>: animal rights?
>
>>A cogent argument, Joe! Are you going to ask her whether any of her
>>friends are Commie sympathizers next?
>
>I'm kind of curious about his implication that one ought to
>take extreme positions without actually considering them
>individually.
The point, surely, is that one shouldn't reject a position
out of hand, just because some people perceive it as "extreme".
Robert Coren
>
>I've heard it said that the animal whose digestive system most resembles
>our own (to the point where most digestive medical research is done on
>them) is the pig. Pigs are pretty much omnivorous.
>
>People, however, don't normally root for truffles.
I've been rooting for truffles for some time. Go, truffles! Truffles
are gonna win! Truffles are champions!
--Robert (can you tell that the baseball strike has affected my
brain?)
--
"...and in the Eighth Square we shall be Queens together, and it's all
feasting and fun!" --Lewis Carroll, _Through the Looking Glass_
John Hollister
Leor Jacobi (le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: My original post had little to do with PETA. A friend of mine who works
: for PETA wishes to start a group to work within the gay community,
: primarily educating about the cruelty of the gay rodeo and also about
: leather alternatives.
Oh god. Oh dear god. Next time I venture into the Lure or the Spike,
some little twit who thinks hir buttons will serve as adequate armor
is going to educate me about the virtues of Naugahide. (sp.? well,
it won't be easy refraining from lamenting the fate of the endangered
nauga!)
Leathermen are ordinarily a meek and mild breed, but the very
suggestion of replacing their uniforms with some petroleum derivative
will make them as cruel as they try to look.
As for the cruelty of the gay rodeo, well what beast would not be
honored to have one of those handsome studs on its back? Gay rodeos
are cruel only because they are so disappointingly tame - when you
compare them to, say, a provincial Spanish bullfight where the beast
lets loose a fountain of blood before expiring. They are only cruel in
that the riders don't consummate their brief SM interspecies
relationships.
Nietzsche was right: "Cruelty belongs to the most ancient festive joys
of mankind".
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:Leor Jacobi | "Whenever people say `We musn't be sentimental,' you
:East Bay Vegan News | can take it they are about to do something cruel. And
:leor@mellers1. | if they add, `We must be realistic,' they mean they
:psych.berkeley.edu | are going to make money out of it." -- Brigid Brophy
--
John Hollister bb0...@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu
............................................................................
Gary Rients
>their dietary or philosophical opinions on others and anti-choice bigots.
>
>the worst fascists are the ones who don't realise they are fascists.
Yet people have the right to force on me their ridiculous belief
that I should not kill another human because it's 'wrong'? IMO
most humans are more deserving of the fate than most animals are.
If you believe that it is okay for me to be prevented from killing
people then you are a hypocrite. I would sooner kill (or allow to
be killed) a selfish, harmful person than an innocent animal.
Now where's my sniper rifle...
Gary Rients
dar...@sage.cc.purdue.edu until 10-23
effective 10-23 re...@ce.ecn.purdue.edu (temporarily)
Chuck Narad
In article <383hov$d...@sage.cc.purdue.edu>, dar...@sage.cc.purdue.edu writes:
> >I see litle difference between an animal rights activist/vega who forces
> >their dietary or philosophical opinions on others and anti-choice bigots.
> >
> >the worst fascists are the ones who don't realise they are fascists.
>
> Yet people have the right to force on me their ridiculous belief
> that I should not kill another human because it's 'wrong'? IMO
> most humans are more deserving of the fate than most animals are.
> If you believe that it is okay for me to be prevented from killing
> people then you are a hypocrite. I would sooner kill (or allow to
> be killed) a selfish, harmful person than an innocent animal.
> Now where's my sniper rifle...
scary, gary, very scary. reminds me of a certain religious
group that is so against killing that they have taken to
shooting people in florida...
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Chuck Narad -- diver/adventurer/engineer |
| |
| "The universe is full of magical things, patiently |
| waiting for our wits to grow sharper." |
| |
| -- Eden Phillpotts |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harlan Messinger
: rs...@pge.com (Bob Russell) writes:
: > In article <fj.782...@news.cwi.nl> f...@cwi.nl (FJ!!) writes:
: > >Und nicht nur die Ficus. (What's the plural of Ficus in German or English
: > >anyway?)
: > It's a Latin word, so it should be fici (pronounced feekee). But the
: > dictionary says ficus or ficuses.
: Actually I think both ficus and fici are acceptable Latin plurals for
: this particular word.
My Latin-English dictionary seems to agree with you. Ficus is one of
those feminine, fourth-declension (or is it fifth?) nouns, like manus/manus
and cornu/cornus. But maybe the Romans had trouble keeping it straight, and
some of them pluralized ficus as fici.
However, many Latin nouns used in English, particularly non-technical
ones, have developed anglicized plurals, such as sinuses, podiums,
arenas, and so forth.
john whiteside
: I'm kind of curious about his implication that one ought to
: take extreme positions without actually considering them
: individually.
It's the special package deal. Kind of like getting power windows and
having the power locks and mirrors come with them automatically. Support
gay/lesbian liberation, get animal rights absolutely free of charge!
John Whiteside / jwhi...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Mike Reaser
: I've heard it said that the animal whose digestive system most resembles
: them) is the pig. Pigs are pretty much omnivorous.
: People, however, don't normally root for truffles.
Except at Harris-Teeter or (ObAtlanta:) Harry's Farmer's Market.
--
-- Mike Reaser, Atl., GA B5/6 f+tw+cdvg+k+vs+l+ aka HickBear on IRC
Email - rea...@netcom.com or m...@spdcc.com Work - m...@hprc.atl.hp.com
Ignorance is as much as a method of computer security as Hope is a
method of birth control. -- Lynne Joynes, Kathy Ward
john whiteside
: I ask you to apply that same standard to PETA - which is dealing with
: issues that are just as much an emergency. If indeed you support animal
: rights in general, then *please* type more words about that than about
: how ridiculous you think PETA is.
Ah, but remember that you are operating from an assumption that is not
shared by all -- that animals and people are equivalent.
I'm not bringing that up to debate the option (which is inappropriate in
soc.motss, so if you're going to enter that debate, modify the
newsgroups line). I'm bringing it up to point out that if Melinda (or
anyone else) doesn't share that assumption, then your queer
rights/animal rights comparison is a non sequitur.
It doesn't mean Melinda is inconsistent; if means that she is perhaps
operating from a different base of assumptions that you. (Or maybe not,
she can certainly speak eloquently for herself.)
John Whiteside / jwhi...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
David Stevenson
>
>I'm genuinely annoyed by glb rights activists who make
>erroneous statements, too. Some facts are difficult to
>discover while others are not. I'd say it's somewhat
>easier to learn that mares don't have testicles than it
>is to find out that NAMBLA doesn't advocate butt-fucking
>babies, but neither is terribly obscure.
>
Are mares castrated at birth?
No wonder PETA is upset.
David Stevenson
>
>...or a rocket scientist. None of those qualifications are needed to
>adjudge when a screaming animal is clearly in pain.
>
Given the number of screaming seagulls on the shore, I'd say that
PETA and you have a full time occupation saving these animals
clearly in pain.
Robert Hansen
>In article <fj.782...@news.cwi.nl>, FJ!! <f...@cwi.nl> wrote:
>>(What's the plural of Ficus in German or English anyway?)
>English: Ficuses. Latinisms are *out*.
Oh poo. There goes most of the men I like.
/---------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| ROBERT HANSEN (han...@ohsu.edu) | "When is the next train east to |
| Telecommunications Department | anywhere?" |
| Oregon Health Sciences University | |
| Portland, Oregon USA | Scarlett O'Hara, "Scarlett" |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Paul Roberts
>
>I'd not heard much about PETA before reading this thread
>(aside from some mumbled dark asides in my behavioral psych
>class last year), and I've come out with an impression of
>an extremist organization with no sense of priorities.
Suggestion: get hold of a copy of PETA News and see for
yourself what they are campaigning for these days, and
where they are placing their priorities. Then decide for
yourself whether their priorities are wrong.
Listening to every diatribe on the internet is hardly the
recommended means to form an intelligent assessment of
anyone, or anything.
Paul
Matthew Melmon
> In article <Cxw98...@world.std.com>,
> Karsten S Schoellner <k...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >o...@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
>
> >>Lior, *we* are animals, furthermore *we* are predators.
> >>we domesticate animal for our pleasure and for purposes of having
> >>them relieve our burdens. This is why many are refferd to as
> >>beasts of burden.
>
> > We are, and we do. That doesn't mean it's right.
>
> And by the same token it doesn't make it wrong.
An evil co-worker of mine shared a little piece of dietary science
propoganda with moi, one which runs counter to the sad reality of
American restaurant cuisine. The main point of the article is
that the omnivorous digestive system is not both herbi- and
carni-vore at the *same* *time*, but in fact one or the other
at any given time. The acidic digestive process used on meats
in the stomach is impeded by starchy foods, better digested in
the small intestine (more or less). By weakening the stomach acid,
non-meats prevent the complete breakdown of meat's large proteins,
creating *toxic* medium proteins which cannot be fully absorbed
into the body. Clinical tests of people who eat *only* meat show
no increases in blood pressure or what-have-you, much like people
who eat *only* non-meats - because the digestive system is able
to fully process, if you will, the animal products. In essence,
it is a matter of "pipeling" digestion.
The biggest offending combination? Meat and potatoes.
And looking at the wild, which creatures do our digestive systems
most closely resemble - herbivore or carnivore? In fact, the
meat eater. We have no "cud."
I do, however, think there is something to be said for being a
species capable of *chosing* - for intellectual reasons - not
to inflict pain and suffering on other species where that pain
is unnecessary. And I really, really, really hope that the next
generation of super-computing applications will eliminate the
extremely distasteful requirement of animal testing those products
which will be used to benefit humanity. I'm afraid that I have
relatively little respect for mankind, and don't buy into the
"if we have to kill ten thousand monkeys to prove this drug
won't cause skin spots, then by God, kill the damn monkeys"
line of reasoning. And I'm afraid I consider it a disgusting breach
of medical ethics that larval scientists in high school and
college slaughter frogs and chickens for expirements which do
abso-fucking-lutely *nothing* to further the understanding
of medicine. Anything the little dears could learn from cutting
open a chicken, they can learn from a multi-media presentation
of the very same thing.
--
*X*
I can't decide whether people who can dish it out but can't
take it are no fun at all, or are *HUGE* *HEAPING*
*MOUNTAINS* of fun. -- *Mindy* *Shore*
Paul Roberts
>
>There's so much *real* cruelty to animals in the world, and
>I'd feel much better about PETA if they would stop wasting
>their time with rodeos and zoos and start focussing a
>little more clearly on things like Premarin production,
>inhumane slaughter, and the things which really do cause
>suffering.
Check out the latest issue of Peta News (actually I think it
mat be called Animal Times now). Premarin production is one
of their main campaigns at the moment - certainly much more
heavily featured than anything about zoos or rodeos.
So I guess they are following your advice!
Paul
Nightfly
Have you noticed that you fall with the radicals in queer rights - and
with the "assimilationists" (or whatever term would be appropriate) in
animal rights?
Whooooo, that was HARSH.
Just out of curiosity, is there something wrong with having leftish
politics (or what are conventionally called leftish politics) on one
issue, and rightish politics on another? Or, gee, could it be that you're
just kneejerking?
Shawn Hicks
Heh! You should see me in the desert section in one of the local buffets...
Shawn
john whiteside
: Have you noticed that you fall with the radicals in queer rights - and
: animal rights?
A cogent argument, Joe! Are you going to ask her whether any of her
friends are Commie sympathizers next?
--
John Whiteside / jwhi...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Melinda Shore
>You described yourself as supportive of the animal rights movement - yet
>you are angered by people who err in promoting those issues.
I'm genuinely annoyed by glb rights activists who make
erroneous statements, too. Some facts are difficult to
discover while others are not. I'd say it's somewhat
easier to learn that mares don't have testicles than it
is to find out that NAMBLA doesn't advocate butt-fucking
babies, but neither is terribly obscure.
>You have
>suggested that radical groups like PETA need to move more slowly, with
>more education.
I've never advocated "slowly." I've advocated (and will continue
to advocate) "better-informedly." This doesn't seem to me to
be particularly unreasonable.
>If indeed you support animal
>rights in general, then *please* type more words about that than about
>how ridiculous you think PETA is.
Animal rights issues are necessarily emotional, and I've
been avoiding getting more deeply involved in this
particular discussion than I already am. I was sorry to
see that someone is going around trying to put a stop to
the gay rodeo, because I think it's a wonderful thing for
our community and because so much of the anti-rodeo
propaganda is factually incorrect.
I'm *deeply* disappointed, however, that anything I've said
has been taken as a jumping-off point for ridiculing
vegetarians and others who have a moral commitment to
animal welfare and animal rights issues. Cracks about
"species-ism" and so on leave me feeling vaguely
nauseated.
Joe DeRose
: In article <386m5k$o...@chaos.dac.neu.edu> jwhi...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (john whiteside) writes:
: >A cogent argument, Joe! Are you going to ask her whether any of her
: >friends are Commie sympathizers next?
: I'm kind of curious about his implication that one ought to
: take extreme positions without actually considering them
: individually.
Fair enough - but I wasn't speaking about the extremity of the position.
Rather, I was speaking about the methodology for bringing it about.
You described yourself as supportive of the animal rights movement - yet
you are angered by people who err in promoting those issues. You have
suggested that radical groups like PETA need to move more slowly, with
more education. You have repeatedly ridiculed them for the "testicles on
a mare" caption (which easily could have been due to an accidental switch
in pictures, or any number of explanations which don't involve imbecility
on the part of PETA). Your tone in this debate seems to be, "Go slow -
and consider thoroughly."
Yet in queer rights you seem to recognize the situation for the emergency
that it is. As I think we all try ardently *not* to make errors, you seem
to recognize the occasional, inevitable misjudgment as an unfortunate
stumbling block which could not reasonably be avoided given the urgency of
the issue at hand. Your tone in this debate seems to be, "People are
dying, and we don't need anyone standing around holding up Stop signs
while the rest of us work for justice."
I ask you to apply that same standard to PETA - which is dealing with
issues that are just as much an emergency. If indeed you support animal
rights in general, then *please* type more words about that than about
how ridiculous you think PETA is.
--Joe
Bob Russell
>Matthew Melmon (ma...@apple.com) writes (in
><mattm-19109...@melmon.apple.com>):
>>And looking at the wild, which creatures do our digestive systems
>>most closely resemble - herbivore or carnivore? In fact, the
>>meat eater. We have no "cud."
> Bogus. Most herbivores (non-ungulates) have no cud (an adaptation specially
>evolved for digesting the celulose in grass). Our digestive tracts most
>closely resemble those of other primates, who subsist primarily on fruits
>and leaves.
True. But the great apes will eat any meat they can get their hands on.
Trouble is, they are such poor hunters that they seldom get their hands on any
meat.
ObMotss: except for the Bonobo chimpanzees, for whom casual sex, including
motss sex, is a way of life. Their typical way of greeting one another
includes at least a touch of each others genitals.
Greg Popken
paper and I was wondering if anyone else heard the story.
As best I can tell its about the only situation that really involves the AR
issue and the gay issue.
It seems that two male pink flamingos somewhere in Florida have paired and
built a nest together. And to top it off the pair has stolen and egg from
another flamingo and are caring for it. The people who run the facility
thought about separating the pair and removing the egg. Butafter thinking
it over (and maybe fearful of the combined wrath of P"e"TA and the gay
community) they decided not to. As same sex parenting is slowing becoming
possible for humans perhaps they thought that what's good for the goose is
also good for the gander.(Or something like that :-)
Greg Popken
--
The opinions expressed 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.
are mine. *******************************
D. Owen Rowley
Shawn Hicks <bali...@nevada.edu> wrote:
>: Pigs are pretty much omnivorous.
>Heh! You should see me in the desert section in one of the local buffets...
Is that spoken as a Pig or a person?
anyway.
thank Goddess you wore that leash to the Rio motss.con outing, otherwise
you'ld have probably embarrased us all!
Got a good pix of you panting over -- uh something BTW.
LUX ./e owen
--
(C) 1994 D. Owen Rowley o...@netcom.com ( also ow...@autodesk.com )
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ] Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I
enjoy and an abundance of all good fortune comes to me for it.
S9 b g+ l- y?/sb z++/- o++ x+ a-- u* j++|B2 f t w d+ g++ k+ s+ m(+) r- a= p
D. Owen Rowley
Greg Popken <its...@med.unc.edu> wrote:
> As same sex parenting is slowing becoming
>possible for humans perhaps they thought that what's good for the goose is
>also good for the gander.(Or something like that :-)
Sounds like the 100th Flamingo phenomenon to me.
LUX ./. owen
Éamonn McManus
> >anyway?)
> It's a Latin word, so it should be fici (pronounced feekee). But the
> dictionary says ficus or ficuses.
Actually I think both ficus and fici are acceptable Latin plurals for
this particular word.
,
Eamonn
D. Owen Rowley
Thats only half of it.
As I understand Melindas point ( considering them individually)
it means what you've said plus *that one shouldn't accept a position
out of hand, just because some people perceive it as extreme*.
The New found friend of the queer comunitty, Barry Goldwater,
once said.
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
He was crucified by the press of his day becaus ethey had never heard a
politician say anything so clearly, and they couldn'tfathom what he
MUST *really mean* by it.
Kristin Bergen
Alex Elliott <ell...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>I've heard it said that the animal whose digestive system most resembles
>our own (to the point where most digestive medical research is done on
>People, however, don't normally root for truffles.
What on _Earth_ are you talking about???
C'mon Steph--gimme a hand here...
Sis-Boom-Bah!
Perigord and Piedmontese!
Truffles bring us to our knees!
Go Truffles!
Like, Yay!
Kristin "Jolly Hockey Sticks" Bergen
Joe Clark
> And you of course are an expert on animal psychology.
> You are perhaps a veterinarian.
...or a rocket scientist. None of those qualifications are needed to
adjudge when a screaming animal is clearly in pain.
> >These barbaric demonstrations of our domination over animals have no
> >place in a compassionate society.
>
> >The rodeo is cruel to animals -- if you consider confining, tying up,
> >and jerking around an individual who has not given consent to be an act
> >of cruelty.
>
> Lior, *we* are animals, furthermore *we* are predators.
And *we* have conscience, intelligence, and choice. Many animals have the
latter; squirrels will eat chestnuts most of the time because they're
easier to come by, but they'll also eat a bird if it can be caught. We
*know* what we are doing and can actively choose to do something else. And
to follow your reasoning to the limit, since you advocate subjucating
non-human animals, presumably you would also advocate subjugating humans,
since we are all animals. Or are some more animal than others?
> I see litle difference between an animal rights activist/vega who forces
> their dietary or philosophical opinions on others and anti-choice bigots.
Um, Colorado's Amendment 2 would have been a *law*. Proponents of animal
rights are not trying to pass laws eliminating meat, leather, zoos,
factory farming, animal testing, etc., everywhere and forever. The RRR
would love to pass laws outlawing homosexuality everywhere and forever.
Apples and oranges, kiddo.
> the worst fascists are the ones who don't realise they are fascists.
Oh, stop calling people names.
--
Joe Clark
joec...@hookup.net
joec...@scilink.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Arne Adolfsen
kbe...@acpub.duke.edu (Kristin Bergen) writes:
> In article <386ta9$e...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
> Alex Elliott <ell...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
> >People, however, don't normally root for truffles.
> What on _Earth_ are you talking about???
I wondered about that too. I mean, there I was
last night at Chalet Gourmet (OK, make fun of the
name all you want, but it *is* a superb grocery
store), looking for *stuff* for the dinner I'm
cooking tonight, and I was thinking that maybe
it would be nice to have a pasta course, and if
we were to have a pasta course, maybe it would
be extra-special nice to have spaghetti di
Scheggino -- fresh spaghetti in trout-black
truffle sauce. You should have seen me rooting
about for a 4 ounce fresh black truffle.
And then I saw the price.
<shudder>
So I settled instead -- it was Howard's suggestion,
actually -- on vichyssoise. Followed by a zucchini-
lemon torte. Followed by stuffed, roasted duck with
black peppercorned arborio rice. Followed by the
splendid looking apple pie Howard slaved over all
day yesterday.
> C'mon Steph--gimme a hand here...
>
> Sis-Boom-Bah!
>
> Perigord and Piedmontese!
> Truffles bring us to our knees!
>
> Go Truffles!
>
> Like, Yay!
Rah-rah-rah!
--
-- Arne -------------------------------------------- adol...@mizar.usc.edu
"The French always go from the general to the particular. The Anglo-Saxons
start with a concrete fact and reason from that. They call a cat a cat.
We like to blah-blah-blah." -- Jack Lang (NY Times, 7/7/94)
Busby the Wonder Weasel
>
You've never been to the Eagle on Armpit Night, have you?
************************************************************************
Busby knows that all's pheromones in love and war...
Todd S. Andrews
>In article <38hns6$e...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu>,
>Greg Popken <its...@med.unc.edu> wrote:
>> As same sex parenting is slowing becoming
>>possible for humans perhaps they thought that what's good for the goose is
>>also good for the gander.(Or something like that :-)
and this has what to do with this newsgroup?
--
*POOF*
Peace, Love, & Joy, |The world would be a better place if everyone
tod andrews |had a Happy Penny! (c)
t_an...@oz.plymouth.edu |fighting fire with fire only creates more ash!