Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

GAYS for ANIMAL RIGHTS

29 views
Skip to first unread message

Leor Jacobi

unread,
Oct 8, 1994, 4:38:32 PM10/8/94
to
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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

unread,
Oct 8, 1994, 5:59:22 PM10/8/94
to
Subject: GAYS for ANIMAL RIGHTS
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

unread,
Oct 9, 1994, 7:32:42 PM10/9/94
to
In article <CxDJq...@taligent.com>,

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

unread,
Oct 9, 1994, 10:13:55 PM10/9/94
to
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.

--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton j...@crl.com KD6TTL '92 K75RTA co-moderator, sci.med.aids

Joe Clark

unread,
Oct 10, 1994, 11:32:21 AM10/10/94
to
> 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
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

unread,
Oct 10, 1994, 1:38:05 PM10/10/94
to
In article <377008$f...@agate.berkeley.edu>,

Leor Jacobi <le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Are you Gay? Are you interested in Animal Rights Issues or Activism?
>If so, contact: [...]

>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

unread,
Oct 10, 1994, 3:26:27 PM10/10/94
to
Mark Thorson (e...@netcom.com) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Oct 10, 1994, 12:13:47 PM10/10/94
to
Subject: Re: GAYS for ANIMAL RIGHTS
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

unread,
Oct 10, 1994, 10:11:51 PM10/10/94
to
Nelson Minar (nel...@grasshopper.santafe.edu) wrote:

: 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

unread,
Oct 10, 1994, 5:01:21 PM10/10/94
to
In article <CxGt2...@taligent.com> Jeffrey J Barbose <bar...@netcom.com> writes:
>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

unread,
Oct 10, 1994, 5:51:20 PM10/10/94
to
In article <CxGt2...@taligent.com> Jeffrey J Barbose <bar...@netcom.com> writes:
>
>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".

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

unread,
Oct 11, 1994, 7:33:40 AM10/11/94
to
In article <37cs97$d...@crl2.crl.com> d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
>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

unread,
Oct 11, 1994, 8:39:47 AM10/11/94
to
In article <37cs97$d...@crl2.crl.com> d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye)
writes:

>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

unread,
Oct 11, 1994, 9:27:05 PM10/11/94
to
Melinda Shore (sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu) wrote:

: 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!!

unread,
Oct 13, 1994, 3:51:55 AM10/13/94
to
Riz...@fasecon.econ.nyu.edu (Emily Rizzo) writes:
>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.

unread,
Oct 11, 1994, 10:41:40 PM10/11/94
to

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

unread,
Oct 12, 1994, 11:26:28 AM10/12/94
to
In article <37gt5q$22...@theory.tc.cornell.edu> sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu
(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

unread,
Oct 12, 1994, 7:42:17 PM10/12/94
to
In article <Rizzoe.332...@fasecon.econ.nyu.edu> Riz...@fasecon.econ.nyu.edu (Emily Rizzo) writes:
>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

unread,
Oct 13, 1994, 5:20:01 PM10/13/94
to
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>
> 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.
>--

And PETA's refusal to follow up on DAK's Progress Report is
yet another confirmation of your point.

Greg Parkinson

unread,
Oct 12, 1994, 8:29:18 PM10/12/94
to

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

unread,
Oct 13, 1994, 12:50:13 AM10/13/94
to

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

unread,
Oct 12, 1994, 8:40:52 PM10/12/94
to
In <37hs8p$10...@theory.tc.cornell.edu> sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

> 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

unread,
Oct 15, 1994, 12:03:51 PM10/15/94
to
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.

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

unread,
Oct 13, 1994, 10:15:51 PM10/13/94
to
In article <dwyman.40...@halcyon.com> dwy...@halcyon.com (Doug Wyman) writes:
>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

unread,
Oct 13, 1994, 4:01:57 AM10/13/94
to
In article <37hs8p$10...@theory.tc.cornell.edu> Melinda Shore,

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

unread,
Oct 17, 1994, 8:09:09 AM10/17/94
to
I didn't intend for my announcement/query to turn into a flame war, but
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

unread,
Oct 18, 1994, 7:54:24 AM10/18/94
to
In article <37vqsg$1...@agate.berkeley.edu> le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu (Leor Jacobi) writes:
>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!!

unread,
Oct 18, 1994, 7:26:51 AM10/18/94
to
Small in-crowd reference:

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

unread,
Oct 18, 1994, 10:44:09 AM10/18/94
to
In article <37ouh7$6...@omphalos.skepsis.com>, don...@omphalos.skepsis.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
|> 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

unread,
Oct 18, 1994, 2:44:32 AM10/18/94
to
In article <37tsga$q...@theory.tc.cornell.edu>,
Melinda Shore <sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <37tph5$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

unread,
Oct 18, 1994, 9:15:36 AM10/18/94
to

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

unread,
Oct 18, 1994, 8:26:31 PM10/18/94
to
o...@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:

>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

unread,
Oct 18, 1994, 3:52:55 PM10/18/94
to
Melinda Shore (sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Oct 18, 1994, 3:33:45 PM10/18/94
to
In article <37vqsg$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Leor Jacobi <le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <37tsga$q...@theory.tc.cornell.edu>,
>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

unread,
Oct 18, 1994, 6:13:45 PM10/18/94
to
In article <38192n$s...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> jde...@cc.emory.edu (Joe DeRose) writes:
>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

unread,
Oct 17, 1994, 8:59:54 AM10/17/94
to
In article <37tph5$s...@agate.berkeley.edu> le...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu (Leor Jacobi) writes:
>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.

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

unread,
Oct 19, 1994, 11:14:51 AM10/19/94
to
Melinda Shore (sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Oct 19, 1994, 11:35:06 AM10/19/94
to
In article <383d5b$1...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> jde...@cc.emory.edu (Joe DeRose) writes:
>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

unread,
Oct 19, 1994, 11:20:16 AM10/19/94
to

(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

unread,
Oct 19, 1994, 2:53:44 PM10/19/94
to
In article <383hov$d...@sage.cc.purdue.edu>, dar...@sage.cc.purdue.edu
(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

unread,
Oct 19, 1994, 1:42:22 PM10/19/94
to
bb0...@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (John "The Gay Caballero" Hollister) wrote:
>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

unread,
Oct 19, 1994, 1:57:28 PM10/19/94
to
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.

> 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

unread,
Oct 19, 1994, 2:47:49 PM10/19/94
to
In article <381hap$q...@theory.tc.cornell.edu>
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

unread,
Oct 19, 1994, 5:40:09 PM10/19/94
to
In article <38192n$s...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, Joe DeRose (jd) writes:

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

unread,
Oct 20, 1994, 12:22:50 AM10/20/94
to
In article <383hov$d...@sage.cc.purdue.edu>,

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

unread,
Oct 20, 1994, 9:44:35 AM10/20/94
to
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.


Bob Russell RS...@pge.com
I don't speak for my company, and they don't speak for me.

Bob Russell

unread,
Oct 20, 1994, 9:57:59 AM10/20/94