Help needed - Animal Rights Information
Bill Irwin
>Hi. I am interested in starting an Animal Rights Group on my campus (Central
>Michigan University) and I was hoping that someone out there could help give
>me some guideance as to how to go about starting one...getting information...
>and anything helpful hints that anyone can give! All is appreciated. Thank
>you. Sincerely, Jon.
I can help. Don't start one. Animals don't have rights, since most live in
nature, they live by the nature cycle. That cycle is birth, life and then
death. In their life they consume other animals and plants. Such is what humans
do. To start up a Animal Rights group is to admit guilt to being a part of the
natural cycle of life and that you want out. Not understanding the nature cycle
is what destroys the environment now. Look at all the cities that took animal's
homes. Large tracts of land that have been converted to concrete and steel
jungles with very little wildlife in it. If you want to help animals, don't
going around claiming they have rights when they don't. If you look at the
rabbits living in the wild as an example. If they breed and too many live, then
they compete for resources and some die painfully from starvation, while others
get disease and die. Every so often, there is a population "crash" in the
rabbits. If humans were to hunt them, they would not have these "crashes", and
there would be ample supply of food.
-Bill
********************************************************************************
From WRI...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu Rush "CounterParts" Rules!!!!!!!
Advertising photography major Support the NRA, not Brady!!
Rochester Institute of Technology "The land of Ice and Snow!"
********************************************************************************
Novumian
wri...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bill Irwin) writes:
"If you look at the
rabbits living in the wild as an example. If they breed and too many live, then
they compete for resources and some die painfully from starvation, while others
get disease and die. Every so often, there is a population "crash" in the
rabbits. If humans were to hunt them, they would not have these "crashes", and
there would be ample supply of food.
-Bill"
Whatever, dude. Why don't we do that with humans? Hmmmmm....
---------------Eric S. Piotrowski---------------
Novu...@aol.com
Piot...@virtu.sar.usf.edu
"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed
forever. The urge for freedom will eventually
come."
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
--------- Annoying Commie Sympathizing ---------
--------- Feminist Vegetarian ---------
Russell Lawrence
> In article <94103.220...@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>, <347...@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> writes:
>>Hi. I am interested in starting an Animal Rights Group on my campus (Central
>>Michigan University) and I was hoping that someone out there could help give
>>me some guideance as to how to go about starting one...getting information...
>>and anything helpful hints that anyone can give! All is appreciated. Thank
>>you. Sincerely, Jon.
>
> I can help. Don't start one. Animals don't have rights, since
> most live in nature, they live by the nature cycle.
This statement doesn't make much sense to me. Would you please
explain why "natural cycles", as you envision them, would have
a bearing on human ethical obligations towards non-human animals?
> That cycle
> is birth, life and then death. In their life they consume
> other animals and plants. Such is what humans do. To start up
> a Animal Rights group is to admit guilt to being a part of the
> natural cycle of life and that you want out.
This doesn't make sense either. The recognition of animal
rights doesn't necessarily entail "guilt" of any kind, nor does
it somehow imply that we wish to extricate ourselves from
"nature".
> Not understanding
> the nature cycle is what destroys the environment now. Look at
> all the cities that took animal's homes. Large tracts of land
> that have been converted to concrete and steel jungles with
> very little wildlife in it. If you want to help animals, don't
> going around claiming they have rights when they don't. If you
> look at the rabbits living in the wild as an example. If they
> breed and too many live, then they compete for resources and
> some die painfully from starvation, while others get disease
> and die. Every so often, there is a population "crash" in the
> rabbits. If humans were to hunt them, they would not have these
> "crashes", and there would be ample supply of food.
Ron Baker's book, _The American Hunting Myth_, explains how/why
sport hunting practices in the US have caused population
problems, rather than preventing them. After you've read it,
we can discuss your objections.
For information on the real cause of destructive population
overshoots in one of the most popular targets of sport hunters,
see McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
--
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
ru...@wpg.com
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <1994Apr17.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, by
>wri...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bill Irwin):
>> In article <94103.220...@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>,
><347...@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> writes:
>>>Hi. I am interested in starting an Animal Rights Group on my campus
>(Central
>>>Michigan University) and I was hoping that someone out there could help give
>>>me some guideance as to how to go about starting one...getting
>information...
>>>and anything helpful hints that anyone can give! All is appreciated. Thank
>>>you. Sincerely, Jon.
>>
>> I can help. Don't start one. Animals don't have rights, since
>> most live in nature, they live by the nature cycle.
>This statement doesn't make much sense to me. Would you please
>explain why "natural cycles", as you envision them, would have
>a bearing on human ethical obligations towards non-human animals?
Because Humans are part of nature....and "ethical obligations" only
exist to a person on an individual basis, so your statement is
irrelevant to anything or one, except yourself.
>> That cycle
>> is birth, life and then death. In their life they consume
>> other animals and plants. Such is what humans do. To start up
>> a Animal Rights group is to admit guilt to being a part of the
>> natural cycle of life and that you want out.
>This doesn't make sense either. The recognition of animal
>rights doesn't necessarily entail "guilt" of any kind, nor does
>it somehow imply that we wish to extricate ourselves from
>"nature".
AR, by it's very design, *is* an extrication from the cycle of nature.
Nature does not contain, or does it need to, any "Animal rights"...
..AR is designed by those humans who like to think they are above
and better than nature, which is arrogance and hypocrisy at it's
best, or more accurate, it's worse.
>> Not understanding
>> the nature cycle is what destroys the environment now. Look at
>> all the cities that took animal's homes. Large tracts of land
>> that have been converted to concrete and steel jungles with
>> very little wildlife in it. If you want to help animals, don't
>> going around claiming they have rights when they don't. If you
>> look at the rabbits living in the wild as an example. If they
>> breed and too many live, then they compete for resources and
>> some die painfully from starvation, while others get disease
>> and die. Every so often, there is a population "crash" in the
>> rabbits. If humans were to hunt them, they would not have these
>> "crashes", and there would be ample supply of food.
>Ron Baker's book, _The American Hunting Myth_, explains how/why
>sport hunting practices in the US have caused population
>problems, rather than preventing them. After you've read it,
>we can discuss your objections.
While you're at it, read all the millions of other publications and
yearly reports by Wildlife Commissions on how many species of wildlife, both
hunted and non-hunted, only exist today thanks to hunters and the role they
serve as both predators and conservationists.
>For information on the real cause of destructive population
>overshoots in one of the most popular targets of sport hunters,
>see McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
>Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
>Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
For *factual* information, review history and see how regualated hunting has
done more to help Wildlife than it ever did to hurt it. Then compare the
monies and time hunters provide to help conserve and re-establish wildlife
habitat, and compare it with what the AR groups do with their resources of
man-power and income. You'll find the majority of the AR use their resources
of money and man-power to donate to politicians, stage rallies, protests, and
all kinds of bullshit, and very little is actually gained for the benefit of
any animals, wild or domestic. Seems most major AR groups today find
themselves spending more money and man-power on lawyers and other legal fees
than on anything else. The end results of most AR expenditures of time and
money is for the AR's to be able to say "We Won, We're so righteous", and
all the while the animals end up losing, if not immediately, in the long run.
AR is made up of hypocrisy, fantasy, self-righteousness, arrogance, ignorance,
and unrealistic ideals. AR attempts to "fix" nature, which in itself is
asinine because nature isn't broken, on the basis that humans are above the
laws of nature. Nothing, no matter how intelligent or advanced, is beyond
the laws of nature.
Joseph K. Carlson
>In article <1994Apr17.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu>,
>wri...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bill Irwin) writes:
>"If you look at the
>rabbits living in the wild as an example. If they breed and too many live,
>then
>they compete for resources and some die painfully from starvation, while
>others
>get disease and die. Every so often, there is a population "crash" in the
>rabbits. If humans were to hunt them, they would not have these "crashes", and
>there would be ample supply of food.
>-Bill"
>Whatever, dude. Why don't we do that with humans? Hmmmmm....
Because animals aren't equal to people. And as far as humans being killed
as population control, hell, I think that's happening with the gang wars,
the civil wars in the eurpopean and middle east areas, and diseases are
doing a good job too...cancer, aids, etc.
Nature attempts to take care of populations and is only hindered by humans
attempting to intervene by trying to stop nature from doing it's job.
Life *and* death is reality...deal with it.
Dan Sorenson
>rabbits living in the wild as an example. If they breed and too many live,
>then they compete for resources and some die painfully from starvation,
>while others get disease and die. Every so often, there is a population
>"crash" in the rabbits.
>Whatever, dude. Why don't we do that with humans? Hmmmmm....
We would, but as you remember as civilized people we
started outlawing warfare, sent grain to those starving in deserts,
and otherwise foiled the natural checks of nature. Russ, would you
care to elaborate on our foiling nature's grand scheme?
As we all know, there would be no starvation if only we
didn't have kids during periods of famine! Russ, of course, will
back this using deer as the model.
Kids these days... You give them an inch and they'll
take a species, and show no sense of humor doing it...
--
* Dan Sorenson, DoD 1066 vik...@iastate.edu z1...@exnet.iastate.edu *
* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
Roger L. Tinkoff
Joseph> In article <2ounb9$a...@search01.news.aol.com>, novu...@aol.com
Joseph> (Novumian) says:
>> In article <1994Apr17.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu>,
>> wri...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bill Irwin) writes:
>> "If you look at the rabbits living in the wild as an example. If they
>> breed and too many live, then they compete for resources and some die
>> painfully from starvation, while others get disease and die. Every so
>> often, there is a population "crash" in the rabbits. If humans were
>> to hunt them, they would not have these "crashes", and there would be
>> ample supply of food. -Bill"
>> Whatever, dude. Why don't we do that with humans? Hmmmmm....
Joseph> Because animals aren't equal to people.
I'm sorry man, but that is *no* answer. *Why* aren't animals equal to
humans when it comes down to who deserves to live and who doesn't, for
what reasons? Explain yourself. And don't get off the subject, I want
a direct answer. Any kind of answer other than that will be worthless.
-rogt
Novumian
"Because animals aren't equal to people"
I have an idea -- let's run in circles until we get neausous and
projectile-vomit!! (Again, I ask: What separates us???)
"Nature attempts to take care of populations and is only hindered by humans
attempting to intervene by trying to stop nature from doing it's job."
Like, say, hunters going in a murdering all the animals' natural predators so
they can have their heads on their den walls?
Russell Lawrence
> In article <CoH8B...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>From article <1994Apr17.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, by
>>wri...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bill Irwin):
>>> most live in nature, they live by the nature cycle.
>
>> This statement doesn't make much sense to me. Would you please
>> explain why "natural cycles", as you envision them, would have
>> a bearing on human ethical obligations towards non-human animals?
>
> Because Humans are part of nature....and "ethical obligations" only
> exist to a person on an individual basis, so your statement is
> irrelevant to anything or one, except yourself.
I disagree with this preposterous claim. First, the fact that
humans are part of nature has no bearing whatsoever on our
ethical decision-making. Surely rape and murder are "natural"
acts, and yet such activities aren't excusable. Second, many
ethical obligations are enforced by society, so your notion that
ethical obligations only exist on a personal basis is bizarre.
Third, even if your notion were truthful, you're begging the
question to argue that our discussion of ethical obligations is
irrelevant.
> ...
> AR is made up of hypocrisy, fantasy, self-righteousness,
> arrogance, ignorance, and unrealistic ideals.
Yet, you're the person who has consistently refused to support
his claims with verifiable facts.
Sue Bishop
Once again, Russell is misquoting and misinterpreting Dr. McCullough's
writings. Funny thing, those of us who have actually talked to Dr.
McCullough have a totally different view, except for Russell who
refuses to discuss what Dr. McCullough told him or even to acknowledge
if he ASKED Dr. McCullough about hunting.
BTW, Dr. McCullough thinks that hunting is very necessary to control
the white-tail deer numbers in this country. If you don't believe me,
you can ask him. He's at Berkeley and continues to research Cervidae
and population control of the deer herds.
Sue
Sue Bishop
> In article <1994Apr17.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu>,
> wri...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bill Irwin) writes:
>
> "If you look at the
> rabbits living in the wild as an example. If they breed and too many live, then
> they compete for resources and some die painfully from starvation, while others
> get disease and die. Every so often, there is a population "crash" in the
> rabbits. If humans were to hunt them, they would not have these "crashes", and
> there would be ample supply of food.
> -Bill"
>
> Whatever, dude. Why don't we do that with humans? Hmmmmm....
>
Humans have the ability to control their populations. However, by some
arrogance, during the last two previous presidents, by presidential decree,
we have refused to provide birth control aid to third world countries who have
repeatedly asked for it. Why? Well, it was a religious decision. Strong
supporters of these presidents had deep religious convictions against
birth control.
Sue
Novumian
sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop) writes:
"Humans have the ability to control their populations."
I was referring to the outright killing of already-living humans, not
necessarily birth control (I'm all for that)..
._____Eric S. Piotrowski__...@aol.com_____.
| "The oppressed cannot remain oppressed forever. |
| The urge for freedom will eventually come." |
|______________________-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr__|
Russell Lawrence
> In article <CoH8B...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> For information on the real cause of destructive population
>> overshoots in one of the most popular targets of sport hunters,
>> see McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
>> Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
>> Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
>
> Once again, Russell is misquoting and misinterpreting Dr.
> McCullough's writings. Funny thing, those of us who have
> actually talked to Dr. McCullough have a totally different
> view, except for Russell who refuses to discuss what Dr.
> McCullough told him or even to acknowledge if he ASKED Dr.
> McCullough about hunting.
Sue Bishop wants us to rely on private telephone conversations which
can't be verified, instead of relying on the PUBLISHED evidence
which is available for all to see. Here's the actual text of
McCullough's statements about destructive overshoots from the
aforementioned volume:
Destructive overshoot occurs in situations where
artificially low population sizes result in "accumulation"
of resources in a living, dynamic sense. (Note, however,
that vegetation damage can occur under other circumstances;
see stochasticity below). These include cases where
populations have been heavily overexploited, new habitat has
been created, or introductions to favorable habitat have
occurred...
Figure 7 shows the destructive overshoot curve for the
George Reserve white-tailed deer population that comes
from an experiment that I am currently conducting. This
population was purposefully overexploited to reduce it to a
residual population size of 10 in 1974-1975. The population
was not exploited at all in the following four years to
allow unimpeded population growth. Population growth, if
adjusted for different starting sizes, virtually duplicated
the growth of the original introduction of size animals in
1928, a much celebrated example of deer population growth in
a favorable environment (McCullough, 1982). The population
reached an estimated 121 in 1980-1981, which greatly exceeds
the equilibrium of K of 176.
The purpose of the experiment is to show that the overshoot
is traceable to an "accumulation" of food resources and
that, as the accumulation is used up, the size of the
kill that is required to bring the residual population
to 130 subsides over time from a value greatly above the
equilibrium value to the equilibrium value.
However, it should be noted that high population
fluctuations at K are not universal, since they are caused
by a variation in the environment. Thus, in highly variable
environments, population fluctuations at K are extreme,
while in highly stable and predictable environments a
stable equilibrium of residual populations may well occur.
Therefore, vegetation damage by unhunted populations of deer
is not inevitable; for stable environments, equilibrium
between residual populations at K and vegetation can be
maintained. Also, in extreme environments where bad years
are frequent (as for example at the northern extremes of
the deer range where severe winters are frequent), the
population may be reduced so frequently that it seldom or
never reaches K, and it may be continually expanding from
low levels with few density dependent effects. Similar
patterns may hold for other extreme environments, for
example, deep snow in mountainous regions, and drought in
xeric areas.
From McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
--
Russell Lawrence
> the white-tail deer numbers in this country. If you don't believe me,
> you can ask him.
Here's what McCullough says about the alleged necessity of
hunting in his PUBLISHED statement on this subject:
"Is Hunting Necessary"
"To many wildlife biologists and resource managers, it is an
article of faith that deer populations need to be hunted. That
a hunting harvest is sustainable is not the same thing as being
necessary. Certainly, the damage to vegetation that results in
lowering K and the productivity curve of a given management unit
is a good argument in favor of hunting. Indeed, the George
Reserve deer population is a classic case. This research area
is managed as a natural area for research, and the deer population
is harvested only because of the destruction that resulted when
it was not controlled. Deer are the only animals (or plants) on
the Reserve that are artificially controlled."
"However, it does not follow that all deer populations should
be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
deer populations have no problem."
"Second, in extremely fluctuating environments, hunting is not
necessary because environmental variation regularly results in
the population being below K. The very characteristics that make
ad hoc management for hunting necessary in such environments make
it unnecessary to hunt at all.
"Third, hunting in moderately fluctuating environments is not
necessary if a good complement of effective natural predators is
present. The selectivity of natural predators (more correctly
stated as the vulnerability of the prey) is a more exact way to
retain equilibrium values of residual populations. Hunting can
accomplish the same end, but because of its lack of selectivity,
a higher kill is required than for natural predation to achieve
the same end. Stated another way, natural predators are better
at reducing chronic mortality than are human hunters, because
the former remove the vulnerable individuals most likely to
succomb to chronic mortality factors. Thus there is very high
substitutability of predator kills for chronic mortality, while
for human hunting, chronic mortality is somewhat more additive,
although still substitutable to a considerable extent.
"As professionals, wildlife biologists and managers must
distinguish between cases where hunting is necessary and where it
is not. It is possible to recognize the legitimate interests and
necessary roles of human hunters without becoming apologists or
advocates for the recreation. Bias toward hunting in situations
where hunting is not necessary can only result in loss of
credibility. Professional integrity demands that no side of a
controversy be given favor on biological grounds that cannot be
justified by the biology of the case under review. If hunters are
favored because they pay the costs of management through license
fees and special taxes, let that be the justification, and not an
indefensible position that hunting is necessary in cases where it
is not. p 239-240
From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
_White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
Harrisburg, PA, 1984.
Jeff Smith
on Mon, 18 Apr 1994 19:31:47 EDT,
Joseph K. Carlson <Joseph> writes:
>In article <CoH8B...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>
>>From article <1994Apr17.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, by
>>wri...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bill Irwin):
>>> In article <94103.220...@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>,
>><347...@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> writes:
>>>>... Sincerely, Jon.
>>>
>>> I can help. Don't start one. Animals don't have rights, since
>>> most live in nature, they live by the nature cycle.
>
>exist to a person on an individual basis, so your statement is
>irrelevant to anything or one, except yourself.
Please explain "ethical obligations" and why they shouldn't include
obligations to anyone (or thing) other than yourself.
>
>AR, by it's very design, *is* an extrication from the cycle of nature.
>
>Nature does not contain, or does it need to, any "Animal rights"...
>...AR is designed by those humans who like to think they are above
>and better than nature, which is arrogance and hypocrisy at it's
>best, or more accurate, it's worse.
All sense of whether the AR philosophy is valid aside, the above
statement does not make sense. AR attempts to view other life on
a more equal basis with humans, how is this arrogance? Just because
we *can* subject animals to our will does not imply that we naturally
ought to.
>While you're at it, read all the millions of other publications and
>yearly reports by Wildlife Commissions on how many species of wildlife,
>both hunted and non-hunted, only exist today thanks to hunters and the
>role they serve as both predators and conservationists.
Little exaggeration, I presume. Please name the millions of other
publications and reports, and indicate which species have been brought
back from the brink by the activities of hunters. (And is it the
same set of species that was brought to that brink by hunting?)
Limbaugh's book is very big on this type of reasoning: that if any
thing in nature is not exploitable by humans, it is "natural" (and
right) that it should fade away.
>For *factual* information, review history and see how regualated
>hunting has done more to help Wildlife than it ever did to hurt it.
Um...OK. You're just going to write that & walk away, eh? Please
provide evidence of this bold conclusion.
>Then compare the monies and time hunters provide to help conserve and
>re-establish wildlife habitat, and compare it with what the AR groups
>do with their resources of man-power and income. You'll find the
>majority of the AR use their resources of money and man-power to
>donate to politicians, stage rallies, protests, and all kinds of
>bullshit, and very little is actually gained for the benefit of
>any animals, wild or domestic. Seems most major AR groups today find
>themselves spending more money and man-power on lawyers and other legal
>fees than on anything else. The end results of most AR expenditures of
>time and money is for the AR's to be able to say "We Won, We're so
>righteous", and all the while the animals end up losing, if not
>immediately, in the long run.
AR groups are tiny compared to the various hunting lobbies; to point
out they are not able to exert similar clout is obvious. As far as
donating money to politicians, compare AR & hunting interests to see
who's miles ahead. Your conclusion about animals loosing is wholly
unsupported.
>AR is made up of hypocrisy, fantasy, self-righteousness, arrogance,
>ignorance, and unrealistic ideals. AR attempts to "fix" nature, which
>in itself is asinine because nature isn't broken, on the basis that
>humans are above the laws of nature. Nothing, no matter how
>intelligent or advanced, is beyond the laws of nature.
That's a long list of accusations: perhaps you could go into why you
feel so strongly that AR-ers hold these delusions? As to the AR fix;
do you really think sapient humans not (ab-) using animals in
unnecessary ways goes against nature? Tell me how this applies to,
say, a pigeon shoot.
No one is saying anyone is beyond the laws of nature, only that we
have more control over our behavior than other animals.
-Jeff Smith
je...@vnet.ibm.com
Bob Another beer, please Christ
>>> For information on the real cause of destructive population
>>> overshoots in one of the most popular targets of sport hunters,
>>> see McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
>>> Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
>>> Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
>> Once again, Russell is misquoting and misinterpreting Dr.
>> McCullough's writings. Funny thing, those of us who have
[...]
No Sue, Russell *contines* to *weasel* on the issue.
>Sue Bishop wants us to rely on private telephone conversations which
>can't be verified, instead of relying on the PUBLISHED evidence
>which is available for all to see. Here's the actual text of
>McCullough's statements about destructive overshoots from the
>aforementioned volume:
Right Russell. Care to to tell the readership about YOUR private
conversation wiht Dr. McCullough? I doubt it. You continue to claim that
Sue's arguments, "can't be verified."
A note to the NEW readship. Russell claimed that Sue didn't
understand Dr. McCullough's paper. Sue claimed that Russell didn't.
Sue and another reader *called* Dr. McCullough and explained the
argument. Dr. McCullough agreed with Sue. Russell implied that
Sue was a liar. Then, Russell called Dr. McCullough himself. He
claims that he promised Dr. McCullough he would not disclose the
conversation. Anyone that believes that, is a moron.
Russell, you weasel. I'll bet Sue would provide Dr. McCullough's
phone number! Would you like to provide his phone number? I doubt it,
weasel. After all, YOU implied that she lied when she said that she
had contacted him, right? Yes, right, Russell.
Come on Russell, provide the number and let's see if the conversations
can be verified!
You pal,
Bob
---
"Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception and
apply the wire brush of enlightenment."
- Geoff Miller
Russell Lawrence
From article <bhatchCo...@netcom.com>, by bha...@netcom.com (Bob "Another beer, please" Christ):
> A note to the NEW readship. Russell claimed that Sue didn't
> understand Dr. McCullough's paper. Sue claimed that Russell didn't.
> Sue and another reader *called* Dr. McCullough and explained the
> argument. Dr. McCullough agreed with Sue. Russell implied that
> Sue was a liar. Then, Russell called Dr. McCullough himself. He
> claims that he promised Dr. McCullough he would not disclose the
> conversation. Anyone that believes that, is a moron.
Here's another note for the new readership: For insights into
the credibility of Bob Christ (alias Roberta Hatch), check out
the recent round of postings under the subject heading "Pastor"
in rec.pets.dogs.
Sue Bishop
For the uninformed, Dr. McCullough is on the staff at Berkeley. He also
is available by phone if you want to ask him his viewpoint on hunting.
He DOES consider it necessary to control the numbers of White-tail Deer
in this country, Russell's misinterpretation to the contrary, but then
Russell has his own agenda to push.
Sue
Russell Lawrence
> For the uninformed, Dr. McCullough is on the staff at Berkeley.
> He also is available by phone if you want to ask him his
> viewpoint on hunting. He DOES consider it necessary to control
> the numbers of White-tail Deer in this country, Russell's
> misinterpretation to the contrary, but then Russell has his own
> agenda to push.
Again, here's McCullough's own WRITTEN statement on the
"necessity" of hunting:
"Is Hunting Necessary"
--
Joseph K. Carlson
Tinkoff) says:
Ok, "man", first explain to me the reasons why any form of life has any rights
greater or lesser than others. To make it easier for you to comphrehend, it's
the same reasoning Veggies/ARs use to say that plant's have lesser rights
than animals or humans to live.
As far as my belief goes, everything has a right to live, including myself,
and in a realistic sense, that means I take another life, wether it
be vegetable or animal, in order to continue my own life.
Also, realistically speaking, I usually value human life over animal life and
animal life over plant life, but that's only due to emotional and/or
psychological reasons of my own personal beliefs/opinions.
Anyone with any moderate grasp of reality does the same.
>-rogt
Joseph K. Carlson
>In article <94108.21...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>"Because animals aren't equal to people"
>I have an idea -- let's run in circles until we get neausous and
>projectile-vomit!! (Again, I ask: What separates us???)
Asked and answered in my previous response to Mr. Tink....give you a hint,
it has *alot* to do with your grasp of reality.
>"Nature attempts to take care of populations and is only hindered by humans
>attempting to intervene by trying to stop nature from doing it's job."
>Like, say, hunters going in a murdering all the animals' natural predators so
>they can have their heads on their den walls?
When you get to reality, you'll be able to determine the difference between
"Murder" and "Hunting".
The majority of the hunting community consume what they hunt, and having an
animal head, or the entire animal mounted, does not prevent this from happening
in modern taxidermy techniques. The meat is utilized the same as it would be
if the animal were not mounted.
Now go "Murder" some plants and have a salad, and next time you carve a pumpkin
for display on your porch at halloween, count yourself in as along the same
lines as those of us with animal mounts on display in our houses.
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <94108.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>> In article <CoH8B...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>>From article <1994Apr17.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, by
>>>wri...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bill Irwin):
>>>> I can help. Don't start one. Animals don't have rights, since
>>>> most live in nature, they live by the nature cycle.
>>
>>> This statement doesn't make much sense to me. Would you please
>>> explain why "natural cycles", as you envision them, would have
>>> a bearing on human ethical obligations towards non-human animals?
>>
>> Because Humans are part of nature....and "ethical obligations" only
>> exist to a person on an individual basis, so your statement is
>> irrelevant to anything or one, except yourself.
>I disagree with this preposterous claim. First, the fact that
>humans are part of nature has no bearing whatsoever on our
>ethical decision-making. Surely rape and murder are "natural"
Since when is Rape natural? Humans are the only specious I know of that
can commit Rape. Animals are only able to respond to sexual senses when
it's mating season, and even then, the female has to agree to the males
advances before any mating can happen.
And your definition of "Murder" is shaky in that it's only percieved as
murder by those that disagree with it. Taking an animals life for
use as food is not murder. If you call it that, then you also have to
call taking a plants life for food "Murder" also.
>acts, and yet such activities aren't excusable. Second, many
>ethical obligations are enforced by society, so your notion that
>ethical obligations only exist on a personal basis is bizarre.
Bullshit, Russ. Sure, the majority of humans share alot of the same
ideals on ethics and morals in general, but in detail, each one of us
defines our own standards of both. As I stated before, Morals and Ethics are
only defined to each of us as individuals.
>Third, even if your notion were truthful, you're begging the
>question to argue that our discussion of ethical obligations is
>irrelevant.
It is irrelevant, because we are each authorities on our own standards of
exactly what ethics and morals we hold. We may share alot of the same
or similar standards, but specifics are dictated individually by the person
in question.
>> ...
>> AR is made up of hypocrisy, fantasy, self-righteousness,
>> arrogance, ignorance, and unrealistic ideals.
>Yet, you're the person who has consistently refused to support
>his claims with verifiable facts.
Russ, you more than prove *all* the criteria in the above statement by pure
example.
Now hurry, go rape a plant of it's fruit and murder some vegetables for your
salad!
I can only contend that the person who coined the phrase
"Get a grip on reality" had someone very similar to you, Russ, in mind.
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <1994Apr19.2...@desire.wright.edu>, by
>sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>> In article <CoH8B...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> For information on the real cause of destructive population
>>> overshoots in one of the most popular targets of sport hunters,
>>> see McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
>>> Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
>>> Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
>>
>> Once again, Russell is misquoting and misinterpreting Dr.
>> McCullough's writings. Funny thing, those of us who have
>> actually talked to Dr. McCullough have a totally different
>> view, except for Russell who refuses to discuss what Dr.
>> McCullough told him or even to acknowledge if he ASKED Dr.
>> McCullough about hunting.
>Sue Bishop wants us to rely on private telephone conversations which
>can't be verified, instead of relying on the PUBLISHED evidence
>which is available for all to see. Here's the actual text of
>McCullough's statements about destructive overshoots from the
>aforementioned volume:
Well, Russ, she's trustworthy, you are not...besides, if what she says isn't
true, why couldn't anyone just call Dr. McCullough and ask?
Once again, you've been shown using your mis-representation of the facts as a
decietful attempt at backing your claims.
(Russ's droning on of Dr. McCullough's published material, the only part that
Russ can seem to twist to somehow appear to support his own claims, deleted).
Russ, if what Sue claims is incorrect, please call Dr. McCullough and see
if he indeeds supports hunting of whitetail deer as a population control,
(as I suspect someone of his intelligence does), and please report to us his
answer...truthfully please, if you're capable of that.
As far as the record goes, I believe what Sue says is indeed correct.
So Russ, why won't you tell us of your discussions with Dr. McCullough that
you allegedly had...or you just blowing hot air, as usual, as I suspect?
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <1994Apr19.2...@desire.wright.edu>, by
>sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>> BTW, Dr. McCullough thinks that hunting is very necessary to control
>> the white-tail deer numbers in this country. If you don't believe me,
>> you can ask him.
>Here's what McCullough says about the alleged necessity of
>hunting in his PUBLISHED statement on this subject:
Ok, Russ, since you can't seem to be able to interpet it correctly, let's
see if we can help you out.
> "Is Hunting Necessary"
> "To many wildlife biologists and resource managers, it is an
> article of faith that deer populations need to be hunted. That
> a hunting harvest is sustainable is not the same thing as being
> necessary. Certainly, the damage to vegetation that results in
> lowering K and the productivity curve of a given management unit
> is a good argument in favor of hunting. Indeed, the George
> Reserve deer population is a classic case. This research area
> is managed as a natural area for research, and the deer population
> is harvested only because of the destruction that resulted when
> it was not controlled. Deer are the only animals (or plants) on
> the Reserve that are artificially controlled."
Sounds like the good Doctor supports hunting so far...
> "However, it does not follow that all deer populations should
> be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
> can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
Thanks to Human encroachment causing loss of habitat, most environments are
no longer stable enough to sustaing equilibrium.
> populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
> point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
> yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
I'd also bet that these same areas have an abundance of animal predators
such as wolves and cougars to help sustain the deer populations.
Not all areas have such predators, Russ, and many that do have such predators
do not have a high enough population of predators to have much impact upon the
population of the deer.
So I'd still say that Doc supports hunting as a population control...the
examples given here are subject to exception, but that is not the majority
of areas, not even close.
> Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
> situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
> deer populations have no problem."
So where are these parks in question? And I'd bet the woodland surrounding
the park boundaries are indeed hunted areas.
> "Second, in extremely fluctuating environments, hunting is not
> necessary because environmental variation regularly results in
> the population being below K. The very characteristics that make
> ad hoc management for hunting necessary in such environments make
> it unnecessary to hunt at all.
So in other words, let the deer starve and die of disease when populations
get too high? What's the difference if a hunter kills a deer or disease/
starvation does?
> "Third, hunting in moderately fluctuating environments is not
> necessary if a good complement of effective natural predators is
> present. The selectivity of natural predators (more correctly
*BINGO*....show me an environment in North America, or any forests and
deer habitats encroached upon by man with a "good complement of effective
natural predators"....bet you can't do it.
> stated as the vulnerability of the prey) is a more exact way to
> retain equilibrium values of residual populations. Hunting can
> accomplish the same end, but because of its lack of selectivity,
> a higher kill is required than for natural predation to achieve
> the same end. Stated another way, natural predators are better
> at reducing chronic mortality than are human hunters, because
> the former remove the vulnerable individuals most likely to
> succomb to chronic mortality factors. Thus there is very high
> substitutability of predator kills for chronic mortality, while
> for human hunting, chronic mortality is somewhat more additive,
> although still substitutable to a considerable extent.
> "As professionals, wildlife biologists and managers must
> distinguish between cases where hunting is necessary and where it
> is not. It is possible to recognize the legitimate interests and
Read that 1st sentence in this section again, Russ. That's what
regulated hunting is, and it seems the good Doc does indeed support it.
> necessary roles of human hunters without becoming apologists or
> advocates for the recreation. Bias toward hunting in situations
> where hunting is not necessary can only result in loss of
> credibility. Professional integrity demands that no side of a
> controversy be given favor on biological grounds that cannot be
> justified by the biology of the case under review. If hunters are
> favored because they pay the costs of management through license
> fees and special taxes, let that be the justification, and not an
> indefensible position that hunting is necessary in cases where it
> is not. p 239-240
Show me human habitats that encroaches upon Deer habitat (i.e. 99.99% of
North America), and I'll show you a deer population that does not have
substantial animal predators to keep a healthy population of deer.
>From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
>_White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
>Harrisburg, PA, 1984.
Thanks for proving Sue's claim, Russ...it is very apparent that
Dr. McCullough supports regulated hunting.
Joseph K. Carlson
Leave it to Russ to go witch hunting and dirt digging into another group
in attempt at getting the spotlight off of his credibility onto another's.
Well Russ, maybe you've got more credibility in your fantasy land, but in
reality, well....nada.
"Now go murder a carrot and tater, you veggie murderer You!"
Reality is alot like MTV..some people just don't get it.
Joseph K. Carlson
(Sue Bishop) says:
>In article <Con3...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>> From article <bhatchCo...@netcom.com>, by bha...@netcom.com (Bob r
>"Anothe
>beer, please" Christ):
>>> A note to the NEW readship. Russell claimed that Sue didn't
>>> understand Dr. McCullough's paper. Sue claimed that Russell didn't.
>>> Sue and another reader *called* Dr. McCullough and explained the
>>> argument. Dr. McCullough agreed with Sue. Russell implied that
>>> Sue was a liar. Then, Russell called Dr. McCullough himself. He
>>> claims that he promised Dr. McCullough he would not disclose the
>>> conversation. Anyone that believes that, is a moron.
>>
>> Here's another note for the new readership: For insights into
>> the credibility of Bob Christ (alias Roberta Hatch), check out
>> the recent round of postings under the subject heading "Pastor"
>> in rec.pets.dogs.
>>
>For the uninformed, Dr. McCullough is on the staff at Berkeley. He also
>is available by phone if you want to ask him his viewpoint on hunting.
>He DOES consider it necessary to control the numbers of White-tail Deer
>in this country, Russell's misinterpretation to the contrary, but then
>Russell has his own agenda to push.
Isn't that Russell's motto? "To hell with the facts, push the agenda!"
Russell Lawrence
> In article <CoIzC...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>I disagree with this preposterous claim. First, the fact that
>>humans are part of nature has no bearing whatsoever on our
>>ethical decision-making. Surely rape and murder are "natural"
>
> Since when is Rape natural? Humans are the only specious I know of that
> can commit Rape. Animals are only able to respond to sexual senses when
> it's mating season, and even then, the female has to agree to the males
> advances before any mating can happen.
And you claim to be an observer of wildlife? Take a gander at ducks
if you don't believe that non-human animals engage in rape.
Please explain how you distinguish "natural" acts from "unnatural"
acts.
Roger L. Tinkoff
Joseph> Because animals aren't equal to people.
>> I'm sorry man, but that is *no* answer. *Why* aren't animals equal
>> to humans when it comes down to who deserves to live and who doesn't,
>> for what reasons? Explain yourself. And don't get off the subject,
>> I want a direct answer. Any kind of answer other than that will be
>> worthless.
Joseph> Ok, "man", first explain to me the reasons why any form of life
Joseph> has any rights greater or lesser than others. To make it easier
Joseph> for you to comphrehend, it's the same reasoning Veggies/ARs use
Joseph> to say that plant's have lesser rights than animals or humans to
Joseph> live.
That's the question I asked you, but if you insist...
I believe that life forms *with* nervous systems, that are capable of
feeling pain when they are messed with have more rights than those with
*no* nervous systems, which are incapable of feeling anything. How many
more times will I have to explain this?
Joseph> As far as my belief goes, everything has a right to live,
Joseph> including myself, and in a realistic sense, that means I take
Joseph> another life, wether it be vegetable or animal, in order to
Joseph> continue my own life.
But when killing something to preserve your own life is unnecessary, as
in the case of meat, this argument goes to hell.
Joseph> Also, realistically speaking, I usually value human life over
Joseph> animal life and animal life over plant life, but that's only due
Joseph> to emotional and/or psychological reasons of my own personal
Joseph> beliefs/opinions.
Fine, but should animals have to die becuase of your beliefs?
Joseph> Anyone with any moderate grasp of reality does the same.
You're bringing in another "most people agree with me" argument here. I
will ignore this.
-rogt
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <94112.17...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>> In article <CoIzC...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>>I disagree with this preposterous claim. First, the fact that
>>>humans are part of nature has no bearing whatsoever on our
>>>ethical decision-making. Surely rape and murder are "natural"
>>
>> Since when is Rape natural? Humans are the only specious I know of that
>> can commit Rape. Animals are only able to respond to sexual senses when
>> it's mating season, and even then, the female has to agree to the males
>> advances before any mating can happen.
>And you claim to be an observer of wildlife? Take a gander at ducks
>if you don't believe that non-human animals engage in rape.
Apparently you can't tell between normal mating and rape...Not
that it surprises me, considering yourself.
>Please explain how you distinguish "natural" acts from "unnatural"
>acts.
It's a scientifically proven *fact* that animals in the wild will *only*
attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only then if the Female
accepts the male. That's the reason of Bucks growing antlers, of male
bird plumage being more colorful than the female, and sparing between
males; to win favor of a female. Hell, I remember that as a key point
in all the animal behavior classes I ever took during college, and even
from back in biology in high school.
Neither ducks, nor any other animals, except humans, rape. What you've
percieved to call rape is what the ducks call mating. Sure it may look
harsh, but if the female doesn't accept the male, they won't mate. The male
may attempt to continue to try to win her favor, but until she accepts, they
will not mate. And you will only see an animal in the wild interested in
mating when it is triggered by a scent given off by the female, the time
of year, or a combination of both factors.
Rape is not an act of mating, as you have mistakenly assumed and/or implied,
but rape is an act of Violence.
I can't believe you said Ducks mating rape....You're even more ignorant than
I've ever given you credit for. I always have known you were ignorant to the
facts of wildlife in general, but this one takes the cake.
Joseph K. Carlson
>In article <94112.17...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Joseph> Because animals aren't equal to people.
>>> I'm sorry man, but that is *no* answer. *Why* aren't animals equal
>>> to humans when it comes down to who deserves to live and who doesn't,
>>> for what reasons? Explain yourself. And don't get off the subject,
>>> I want a direct answer. Any kind of answer other than that will be
>>> worthless.
>Joseph> Ok, "man", first explain to me the reasons why any form of life
>Joseph> has any rights greater or lesser than others. To make it easier
>Joseph> for you to comphrehend, it's the same reasoning Veggies/ARs use
>Joseph> to say that plant's have lesser rights than animals or humans to
>Joseph> live.
>That's the question I asked you, but if you insist...
>I believe that life forms *with* nervous systems, that are capable of
>feeling pain when they are messed with have more rights than those with
>*no* nervous systems, which are incapable of feeling anything. How many
>more times will I have to explain this?
Explain all you want...when you can prove it, then I'll accept it, until then
it's just you invalidating views and theories that don't coincide with your
own.
>Joseph> As far as my belief goes, everything has a right to live,
>Joseph> including myself, and in a realistic sense, that means I take
>Joseph> another life, wether it be vegetable or animal, in order to
>Joseph> continue my own life.
>But when killing something to preserve your own life is unnecessary, as
>in the case of meat, this argument goes to hell.
Not if I choose to eat meat as part of my diet to survive, of which I do.
Who are you, or anyone else, to tell me it's wrong to eat meat because you
believe it's wrong? Who are you to try to push your ideas and beliefs on me,
or to judge those that believe differently than you as wrong? You have a
rude awakening coming if you go thru life with your attitude.
>Joseph> Also, realistically speaking, I usually value human life over
>Joseph> animal life and animal life over plant life, but that's only due
>Joseph> to emotional and/or psychological reasons of my own personal
>Joseph> beliefs/opinions.
>Fine, but should animals have to die becuase of your beliefs?
If I don't believe it's wrong, which I don't, what's the point? Your beliefs
are fine for you, and I'm not attempting to push mine on you, so don't push
yours on me, or anyone else. Your beliefs don't mean squat to me.
>Joseph> Anyone with any moderate grasp of reality does the same.
>You're bringing in another "most people agree with me" argument here. I
>will ignore this.
No, just making the vivid observation that you tend to live in a fantasy world
where nothing ever dies, nothing is ever hurt, and everything is peachy keen,
where as I live in, and deal with, reality.Your ideas and views are all nice an
well, but they don't make it in the real world...this isn't Never Never Land,
it's the real world...deal with it.
>-rogt
cs...@trentu.ca
>In article <CoqG1...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>
>>From article <94112.17...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
>><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>>> can commit Rape. Animals are only able to respond to sexual senses when
>>> it's mating season, and even then, the female has to agree to the males
>>> advances before any mating can happen.
>attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only then if the Female
>accepts the male. That's the reason of Bucks growing antlers, of male
>bird plumage being more colorful than the female, and sparing between
>males; to win favor of a female. Hell, I remember that as a key point
>in all the animal behavior classes I ever took during college, and even
>from back in biology in high school.
>Neither ducks, nor any other animals, except humans, rape. What you've
>percieved to call rape is what the ducks call mating. Sure it may look
>harsh, but if the female doesn't accept the male, they won't mate. The male
>may attempt to continue to try to win her favor, but until she accepts, they
>will not mate. And you will only see an animal in the wild interested in
>mating when it is triggered by a scent given off by the female, the time
>of year, or a combination of both factors.
Rape is not an act of mating, as you have mistakenly assumed and/or implied,
>but rape is an act of Violence.
Last year, I studied the mating behaviour of Betta splendens, or Siamese
Fighting Fish. The male chases the female. She then hides among algae,
debris, plants, etc. If he catches her, whether or not she is ready to mate,
he attacks her. It's not exactly what you would call mating...but it is
definately violent. He bites her, sometimes even removing part of her fins.
The lab setup we had had enough algae, etc. for the females to hide, but oc-
casionally...
And the female was definately not in heat. Female Bettas change their pig-
mentation when in heat. For these fish, in the wild (Thailand mainly),
the males are adequately spread apart, and there is enough debris for the
females to hide, that such attacks probably would be greatly avoided, but
I'm not sure...
Is this not attempted rape?
Cybele
Russell Lawrence
From article <94113.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
> In article <CoqG1...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>From article <94112.17...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
>><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>>> In article <CoIzC...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>>>I disagree with this preposterous claim. First, the fact that
>>>>humans are part of nature has no bearing whatsoever on our
>>>>ethical decision-making. Surely rape and murder are "natural"
>>>
>>> Since when is Rape natural? Humans are the only specious I know of that
>>> can commit Rape. Animals are only able to respond to sexual senses when
>>> it's mating season, and even then, the female has to agree to the males
>>> advances before any mating can happen.
>
>>And you claim to be an observer of wildlife? Take a gander at ducks
>>if you don't believe that non-human animals engage in rape.
>
> Apparently you can't tell between normal mating and rape...Not
> that it surprises me, considering yourself.
You're unfamiliar with the facts, JKC.
>>Please explain how you distinguish "natural" acts from "unnatural"
>>acts.
>
> It's a scientifically proven *fact* that animals in the wild will *only*
> attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only then if the Female
> accepts the male...
How do you think a scientist could prove such an absolutist claim?
Some birds engage, not only in rape, but in masturbation as well.
> Neither ducks, nor any other animals, except humans, rape.
>
> I can't believe you said Ducks mating rape....You're even more
> ignorant than I've ever given you credit for. I always have
> known you were ignorant to the facts of wildlife in general,
> but this one takes the cake.
When I have some time, I'll post references about sexual violence
in birds. Meanwhile, would you please explain the difference between
"natural" and "unnatural" behavior?
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <94113.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>> In article <CoqG1...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>>From article <94112.17...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
>>><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>>>> In article <CoIzC...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>>>>I disagree with this preposterous claim. First, the fact that
>>>>>humans are part of nature has no bearing whatsoever on our
>>>>>ethical decision-making. Surely rape and murder are "natural"
>>>>
>>>> Since when is Rape natural? Humans are the only specious I know of that
>>>> can commit Rape. Animals are only able to respond to sexual senses when
>>>> it's mating season, and even then, the female has to agree to the males
>>>> advances before any mating can happen.
>>
>>>And you claim to be an observer of wildlife? Take a gander at ducks
>>>if you don't believe that non-human animals engage in rape.
>>
>> Apparently you can't tell between normal mating and rape...Not
>> that it surprises me, considering yourself.
>You're unfamiliar with the facts, JKC.
No, you're unfamiliar with Nature and Wildlife in general, Russ.
>>>Please explain how you distinguish "natural" acts from "unnatural"
>>>acts.
>>
>> It's a scientifically proven *fact* that animals in the wild will *only*
>> attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only then if the Female
>> accepts the male...
>How do you think a scientist could prove such an absolutist claim?
>Some birds engage, not only in rape, but in masturbation as well.
Provide me with an example, Russ. Either A) You can't, or B) You'll
provide an example that you, or someone else, mistakenly interpeted the
act of mating as rape.
Birds, being structurally built as they are, often appear to be rough in
mating. The reason being is that because the male must stand upon the
back of the female and balance so as to be able to copulate successfully.
As far as your idea of birds being able to masturbate, well that's just
so far out of reach it's ridiculous. I've never heard of any animal
that masturbates, besides humans. Me thinks you've been sniffing too
much of that glue from all the books you read to get your "experiences"
of Wildlife.
>> Neither ducks, nor any other animals, except humans, rape.
>>
>> I can't believe you said Ducks mating rape....You're even more
>> ignorant than I've ever given you credit for. I always have
>> known you were ignorant to the facts of wildlife in general,
>> but this one takes the cake.
>When I have some time, I'll post references about sexual violence
>in birds. Meanwhile, would you please explain the difference between
>"natural" and "unnatural" behavior?
No, Russ, I won't. The topic at hand is "Do animals, (besides humans),
commit rape?"...the answer is no, but you seem to claim otherwise, please
provide some proof, besides your word. And while you're at it, quit trying
to change the topic at hand, it's getting to be a real pathetic attempt on
your part at avoiding the issue.
Sure animals mating is sometimes, what we as humans would call, very rough,
but the fact remains that no mating will occur *unless* the female allows it
too.
Humans are the only animals that commit rape, or are even interested in
sex without a particular scent or time, or combination of the two.
Animals do not rape, Russ. Pure and simple. Just because you think that
animals mating are rough about the act, doesn't mean it's rape...it only means
that you don't understand animal behavior very well at all.
Joseph K. Carlson
You're correct in your description, but Bettas will also act this way against
others of the same sex, especially male Bettas.
Maybe that's why they're called Siamese fighting fish. You're mistaken
to believe it's rape. I've bred Bettas many times as a hobby, and Bettas are
naturally aggressive towards one another, be it the same or different sex.
The fact still remains, the males will not mate, or what you mistakenly
like to call "rape", unless the female is ready to spawn.
Female Bettas, when in a small tank of close quarters, will frequently
be harassed by Male Bettas and aggressive female Bettas, and Males will
always harass and attack others of it's species when the opportunity arises,
but this is only due to there inherent nature, not because of attempts at
rape.
>The lab setup we had had enough algae, etc. for the females to hide, but oc-
>casionally...
>And the female was definately not in heat. Female Bettas change their pig-
>mentation when in heat. For these fish, in the wild (Thailand mainly),
>the males are adequately spread apart, and there is enough debris for the
>females to hide, that such attacks probably would be greatly avoided, but
>I'm not sure...
You're correct about the natural areas where Bettas are found, and the
water is generally cloudy/muddy, as well as many hiding places for both
sexes to avoid each other.
>Is this not attempted rape?
No, it is not. It's aggressive behavior that is inherent in Bettas, and
attacks by Males are quite common against both sexes of their own kind.
I have a 20 gallon tank and I've had 3 female Bettas and a male Betta, and
only when the female was in close proximity to another female or male, would
a conflict occur, and the lesser dominant one would flee to another area of
the tank. The only time mating would occur is if the female accepted the
male, and not any other way. Once the female and male mated, the female
fled to safety, not because of fear of being raped, but because of the
inherent nature of Bettas to be aggressive towards their own kind.
Male Bettas will often fight to the death if they aren't given plenty of
space to flee from one another. Under your mis-guided interpetations, I
could see as how one not familiar with Betta behavior could also conclude
that they may be attempting to "rape" each other, but this simply is not
the case.
The fact is, only man commits rape, an act of violence and not an act of
mating as Russ would like it to be compared too, animals do not rape.
Aggressive behavior in mating is often the norm for animals, but it is never
rape. Only when the female accepts the males advances will mating happen,
and not before.
Take a few advanced animal behavior classes and you'll learn this, as well as
clear up many other misconceptions of those unfamiliar with animal behavior
so prevelant to those who witness animal behavior and don't realize what is
actually taking place.
On a side note, have you ever seen any Bettas from the wild? They aren't near
as colorful, nor have such large fancy fins as the ones you find in pet stores.
The ones you see in pet stores are results of selective breeding to attain
such results. Bettas in the wild are not nearly as easy to determine between
males and females as those that are the result of selective breeding you find
in the pet stores and most aquariums.
Also, female Bettas aren't as agressive as the males, and I've even seen
females get along well when raised together from a young age. The Males, on
the other hand are extremely agressive, not only towards their own kind, but
even towards other species of fish.
>Cybele
Russell Lawrence
From article <94114.16...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
> As far as your idea of birds being able to masturbate, well
> that's just so far out of reach it's ridiculous. I've never
> heard of any animal that masturbates, besides humans.
I'll humor you, JKC. Since you've never heard of masturbation
among non-human animals, the possibility is simply nonexistent.
Russell Lawrence
JKC writes:
jkc> It's a scientifically proven *fact* that animals in the wild
jkc> will *only* attempt mating when the female is in heat, and
jkc> only then if the Female accepts the male...
In article <CoqyK...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
rl> How do you think a scientist could prove such an absolutist claim?
rl> Some birds engage, not only in rape, but in masturbation as well.
From article <94114.16...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
jkc> Provide me with an example, Russ. Either A) You can't, or
jkc> B) You'll provide an example that you, or someone else,
jkc> mistakenly interpeted the act of mating as rape.
In other words, any evidence that doesn't support your claim must be
erroneous. Clearly there's no need for any further research and
discussion, since you already know everything there is to know.
You told us previously that "it's a proven fact that animals in the
wild will only attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only
then if the female accepts the male." How did scientists manage
to prove this absolutist claim?
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <94114.16...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>> As far as your idea of birds being able to masturbate, well
>> that's just so far out of reach it's ridiculous. I've never
>> heard of any animal that masturbates, besides humans.
>I'll humor you, JKC. Since you've never heard of masturbation
>among non-human animals, the possibility is simply nonexistent.
Instead of humoring me, Russ, why not prove one way or the other? My bet
is you effectively can't.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
=========================================================================
Joseph K. Carlson "Life & Death are reality...deal with it"
Systems Operations, C.A.C. "Live to Fish & Hunt, Hunt & Fish to live"
*"Want to help all Animals, Domestic & Wild? Defeat the AR Movement!"*
Joseph K. Carlson
>JKC writes:
>jkc> It's a scientifically proven *fact* that animals in the wild
>jkc> will *only* attempt mating when the female is in heat, and
>jkc> only then if the Female accepts the male...
>In article <CoqyK...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>rl> How do you think a scientist could prove such an absolutist claim?
>rl> Some birds engage, not only in rape, but in masturbation as well.
>From article <94114.16...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>jkc> Provide me with an example, Russ. Either A) You can't, or
>jkc> B) You'll provide an example that you, or someone else,
>jkc> mistakenly interpeted the act of mating as rape.
>In other words, any evidence that doesn't support your claim must be
>erroneous. Clearly there's no need for any further research and
>discussion, since you already know everything there is to know.
Translation for those that aren't familiar with Russ's tactics:
"Gee, I don't have any information to prove animals commit rape, so I'd
best think of some response that allows me to not have to prove it!"
Nice try, Russ. What's a matter, couldn't find those alleged "sources"
of yours to prove aminals do commmit rape? Not surprising.
Thanks for admitting that animals do not commit rape and that you have
no reliable sources providing evidence that they can.
>You told us previously that "it's a proven fact that animals in the
>wild will only attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only
>then if the female accepts the male." How did scientists manage
>to prove this absolutist claim?
Simple...put a female that's been fixed in the presence of a male
that has not, and see if the male succeedes in "raping" the female.
Chances are, the male won't be interested in the female because she can
no longer be in heat, and if he does show a sexual interest in the female,
she won't allow him to mount her, let alone "rape" her.
Sorry Russ, read any reliable Animal Behavior textbook, and you'll find
that animals do not rape, only humans are capable of that.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Russell Lawrence
JKC writes:
jkc> As far as your idea of birds being able to masturbate, well
jkc> that's just so far out of reach it's ridiculous. I've never
jkc> heard of any animal that masturbates, besides humans.
In article <CosoG...@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I'll humor you, JKC. Since you've never heard of masturbation
rl> among non-human animals, the possibility is simply nonexistent.
In article <94114.22...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
jkc> Instead of humoring me, Russ, why not prove one way or the
jkc> other? My bet is you effectively can't.
In our recent discussion concerning matrilinear family groups in
deer, you dismissed the observations of respected experts without
even bothering to examine the evidence. Isn't it likely that
you'll behave the same way in this case? If not, please tell us
what kind of proof you'd be willing to accept.
Russell Lawrence
JKC writes:
jkc> It's a scientifically proven *fact* that animals in the wild
jkc> will *only* attempt mating when the female is in heat, and
jkc> only then if the Female accepts the male...
In article <CoqyK...@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> How do you think a scientist could prove such an absolutist claim?
rl> Some birds engage, not only in rape, but in masturbation as well.
In article <94114.16...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joseph K. Carlson writes:
jkc> Provide me with an example, Russ. Either A) You can't, or
jkc> B) You'll provide an example that you, or someone else,
jkc> mistakenly interpeted the act of mating as rape.
In article <Cosp2...@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> In other words, any evidence that doesn't support your claim
rl> must be erroneous. Clearly there's no need for any further
rl> research and discussion, since you already know everything
rl> there is to know.
In article <94114.22...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joseph K. Carlson writes:
jkc> Translation for those that aren't familiar with Russ's tactics:
jkc>
jkc> "Gee, I don't have any information to prove animals commit
jkc> rape, so I'd best think of some response that allows me to
jkc> not have to prove it!"
You explained to us, in advance, that any evidence that I present
will be mistaken. As I said, this clearly indicates that I'd be
wasting my time to submit documentation.
In article <Cosp2...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
rl> You told us previously that "it's a proven fact that animals in the
rl> wild will only attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only
rl> then if the female accepts the male." How did scientists manage
rl> to prove this absolutist claim?
From article <94114.22...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
jkc> Simple...put a female that's been fixed in the presence of a male
jkc> that has not, and see if the male succeedes in "raping" the female.
jkc> Chances are, the male won't be interested in the female because
jkc> she can no longer be in heat, and if he does show a sexual
jkc> interest in the female, she won't allow him to mount her, let
jkc> alone "rape" her.
If your statement about male sexual interest is a truthful one,
then any experiment that involves neutered females won't prove
your claim. The fact that a particular male may not be interested
in a particular female in a particular instance doesn't mean that
no male will ever attempt to copulate by force.
In any case, you didn't answer my question. I asked you how
trained scientists had managed to prove your claim that [all]
male animals will only attempt mating when a female is in heat.
Please answer the question. And while you're at it, please
explain how you would prove your notion that rape is impossible
unless the female submits.
jkc> Sorry Russ, read any reliable Animal Behavior textbook,
jkc> and you'll find that animals do not rape, only humans are
jkc> capable of that.
Please cite a "reliable Animal Behavior textbook" of recent
vintage that makes this claim.
Allen
JK...@psuvm.psu.edu "Joseph K. Carlson" writes:
>Sorry Russ, read any reliable Animal Behavior textbook, and you'll find
>that animals do not rape, only humans are capable of that.
I think that perhaps there is a slight confusion in terms
here.
It is certainly true that a lot of animals have group sex,
gang up and force themselves upon females. Some animals
(eg baboons) also commonly masturbate, eat their semen
afterwards etc... Penguins are capable of acting extremely
violently towards their companions.
When Russell said that ducks committed rape, perhaps you
believe that this meant that ducks where acting immorally,
because 'rape' is a word that is commonly used to denote
something reprehensible in human society.
I don't think Russell was passing any judgement when he used
the term 'rape'. He was, IMHO, just describing the normal
sexual behaviour of groups of male ducks forcing themselves
onto females in turn.
>Joseph K. Carlson
--
- Allen
__________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________AEC...@mayfair.demon.co.uk
Donald Graft
My parrot masturbates against my hand. Over to you, JKC. (Oh, that's
not really masturbation, he thinks he's mating with you.)
Donald Graft
Joseph K. Carlson
I didn't so much as dismiss the observations of the "experts" you used
to back your claims, but rather dismissed the theory as a whole becaused
it was based on the idea "If deer were not interuppted", and that's not
a realistic rational at all. Deer are bothered and interuppted every day,
not just by hunters, but by natural predators, auto collisions, etc., so
even it the theory could be proven true, it could only apply to deer
protected and enclosed, and then even that would be "interuppting" the
deer, in itself.
That's a fantasy theory that could never happen, so therefore, why is it
even worth researching and reporting on?
And as far as your basis of not providing sources to back you
"Birds masturbation" claim, that's just a cop-out on your part in attempt
to save face.
If you have *any* reliable sources at all to back your claim, please
share it with us.
Otherwise, admit it isn't anything more than something you said and that
you have no reliable sources to back it up.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Joseph K. Carlson
(Allen) says:
>In article <94114.22...@psuvm.psu.edu>
> JK...@psuvm.psu.edu "Joseph K. Carlson" writes:
>>Sorry Russ, read any reliable Animal Behavior textbook, and you'll find
>>that animals do not rape, only humans are capable of that.
> I think that perhaps there is a slight confusion in terms
> here.
> It is certainly true that a lot of animals have group sex,
> gang up and force themselves upon females. Some animals
> (eg baboons) also commonly masturbate, eat their semen
> afterwards etc... Penguins are capable of acting extremely
> violently towards their companions.
Do you have sources to back up what you've said above? If so, please
post them, I'd be interested in looking further into your claims, because
I've studied wildlife/animals as a hobby for quite awhile now, and although
I don't study as much about "exotic" animals as I do the ones in the
local vicinity, but I've never heard of animals having "group sex".
I've learned of primates that do masturbate, but unless animals are
reading the papers now and imitating humans, they don't commit rape.
> When Russell said that ducks committed rape, perhaps you
> believe that this meant that ducks where acting immorally,
> because 'rape' is a word that is commonly used to denote
> something reprehensible in human society.
Or more likely, Russ confuses wildlife mating behavior of animals
as rape, because it is often aggressive compared to human mating.
You can't judge animal mating behavior by human mating behavior,
because it's two different species and different factors are
involved between the two.
> I don't think Russell was passing any judgement when he used
> the term 'rape'. He was, IMHO, just describing the normal
> sexual behaviour of groups of male ducks forcing themselves
> onto females in turn.
Male ducks *do not* force themselves upon females at all. The females
choose whom they wish to mate with, usually just one Male duck, and then
once her eggs are fertilized, she goes into the nesting stage.
Your claims at "Duck Gang Bangs" is almost as laughable as Russ's
"Birds masturbate" claim!!
>>Joseph K. Carlson
>--
> - Allen
>__________________________________________________________________________
>_______________________________________________AEC...@mayfair.demon.co.uk
Joseph K. Carlson
Your parrot masturbates against your hand? *snicker* Ummm...ok, please
describe in detail exactly what happens.
(and technically, if it is masturbation, he requires *you* to do it, so
what would he do on his own? Or do you buy him XXX toys?)
Make it good while you're at it, because either A) You're confused about
the parrots behavior, or B) you're lying, so make it a whopper and entertain
us!
Do you build a nest together then after you're both done, or does the parrot
just smoke a cigarette?
Seems to me you'd better read up on your parrot, Don. I've raised several
parakeets, helped raise 3 parrots, and many other birds, and if you're
interpeting imprinting behavior with actual sexual behavior, you're in the
dark about bird behavior.
Back to you Don! (P.S. thanks for an "amusing" post..*chuckle*)
>Donald Graft
Joseph K. Carlson
So in other words, you're admitting you can't answer the challenge to provide
any proof of your "Bird Masturbation/Animals rape" claim, because none
exists. Thanks for admitting you don't have such proof.
If you have genuine proof, then post it, and if I don't accept it, I'll be
sure to provide valid reasoning as to why I don't, but you'll still
prove that you had something to at least back up your claims.
Continuing on as you are, you may as well just say "I made it up".
Since you made the claims, you should be able to provide some type of
proof-like reasoningor sources to defend your claims, unless you
did just make it up.
C'mon' Russ, I'm Challenging You! Post *anything* reliable to
support your claims that "birds masturbate & Animals commit rape".
I've seen you back down before, so I won't be surprised if you do it
again.
>In article <Cosp2...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>rl> You told us previously that "it's a proven fact that animals in the
>rl> wild will only attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only
>rl> then if the female accepts the male." How did scientists manage
>rl> to prove this absolutist claim?
>From article <94114.22...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>jkc> Simple...put a female that's been fixed in the presence of a male
>jkc> that has not, and see if the male succeedes in "raping" the female.
>jkc> Chances are, the male won't be interested in the female because
>jkc> she can no longer be in heat, and if he does show a sexual
>jkc> interest in the female, she won't allow him to mount her, let
>jkc> alone "rape" her.
>If your statement about male sexual interest is a truthful one,
>then any experiment that involves neutered females won't prove
>your claim. The fact that a particular male may not be interested
>in a particular female in a particular instance doesn't mean that
>no male will ever attempt to copulate by force.
Ok Russ, put 10 males in with one fixed female...she still won't be raped.
What do you mean if the females are neutered it won't prove my claim?
When an animal is fixed, it's sexual reproduction organs are still there,
they just won't reproduce or go into heat, therefore the male would
not be sexually interested in the female because there isn't any
scent to "turn on" the male. If animals commit rape, as you claim,
it wouldn't matter if the scent wasn't there, the ability for sexual
intercourse still is, so the male would be able to "commit rape" upon
the female, that is, if your claim that animals commit rape were true,
which it isn't.
>In any case, you didn't answer my question. I asked you how
>trained scientists had managed to prove your claim that [all]
>male animals will only attempt mating when a female is in heat.
Do yourself a favor, Russ, take a few Animal Behavior classes, it'll
be on the Second, if not the First Exam.
>Please answer the question. And while you're at it, please
>explain how you would prove your notion that rape is impossible
>unless the female submits.
You just keep making more asinine statements, don't you, Russ?
Look at what you just said above; If the female submits, thereby giving
consent, it is not rape. Keep in mind, we're talking in terms of
animals here, not humans, so don't even attempt at a comparison of
"date rape" or any other inane attempts at such. Rape, and date rape,
are applicable to Humans only, because animals do not commit rape.
>jkc> Sorry Russ, read any reliable Animal Behavior textbook,
>jkc> and you'll find that animals do not rape, only humans are
>jkc> capable of that.
>Please cite a "reliable Animal Behavior textbook" of recent
>vintage that makes this claim.
All of them do, Russ. Maybe not in my exact words, but to the same effect.
Humans are the *only* creatures on Earth that are interested in sex
at any given time.
Animals are *only* interested when the female is in heat and gives off a
scent that attracts the male, and/or at specific times of the year.
And then, only when the female has decided who she wants to mate with,
will mating occur. There is no rape in the animal world, only in the
human world.
And common sense comes into play a little too here, Russ. If you didn't
have the capabilities to hold things, say you had wings instead of arms,
and assuming you're not a virgin, how easy do you think it would be for
you to copulate with a woman if she were not willing to cooperate?
Damn near, if not, impossible!
But then you're the one who claims "birds masturbate", so maybe you know
something the rest of the world doesn't, so please share...but then again,
and more likely, you're just full of manure on this specific issue.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Dan Sorenson
>In article <94114.22...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>jkc> Instead of humoring me, Russ, why not prove one way or the
>jkc> other? My bet is you effectively can't.
>In our recent discussion concerning matrilinear family groups in
>deer, you dismissed the observations of respected experts without
>even bothering to examine the evidence. Isn't it likely that
>you'll behave the same way in this case? If not, please tell us
>what kind of proof you'd be willing to accept.
For what is it worth, Russ is likely correct here. Chimps have
this terribly annoying view that diversity is bad and will, upon
overcoming the dominant male, not only kill his offspring but also
literally rape all other males he can get his twanger to, just to
show dominance. Then there are the cases of stallions masturbating
in their stalls and horse breeders wondering why His Macho Nibs isn't
quite so interested in Her Ovulating Highness during the day. While
we might not attach the same reasons to animal behavior that we do to
human behavior, the same behavior does exist.
Though I am reluctant to say it seeing as how it will not
produce a wonderful debate, Russ is right here.
--
< vik...@iastate.edu Dan Sorenson "Sleipnir is dog food. His >
< gaits are lousy, he bucks, and he bites. His sole saving grace>
< is jumping between worlds, and that's not a joyride either. >
< Give me a Harley-Davidson any day." -- Randy Barnes "Sleipnir" >
Sue Bishop
> From article <94112.17...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>> In article <CoIzC...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>>I disagree with this preposterous claim. First, the fact that
>>>humans are part of nature has no bearing whatsoever on our
>>>ethical decision-making. Surely rape and murder are "natural"
>>
>> Since when is Rape natural? Humans are the only specious I know of that
>> can commit Rape. Animals are only able to respond to sexual senses when
>> it's mating season, and even then, the female has to agree to the males
>> advances before any mating can happen.
>
> And you claim to be an observer of wildlife? Take a gander at ducks
> if you don't believe that non-human animals engage in rape.
>
Yep, I've also observed ducks. However, it's all part of their natural mating
pattern and the hen can just fly away, she doesn't however.
> Please explain how you distinguish "natural" acts from "unnatural"
> acts.
You are the one who brought up 'rape' as being natural, YOU are putting
your own twist of 'natural'. Makes me wonder about your social life.
Sue
Joseph K. Carlson
Sorenson) says:
>In <CosyF...@wpg.com> ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>In article <94114.22...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>>jkc> Instead of humoring me, Russ, why not prove one way or the
>>jkc> other? My bet is you effectively can't.
>>In our recent discussion concerning matrilinear family groups in
>>deer, you dismissed the observations of respected experts without
>>even bothering to examine the evidence. Isn't it likely that
>>you'll behave the same way in this case? If not, please tell us
>>what kind of proof you'd be willing to accept.
> For what is it worth, Russ is likely correct here. Chimps have
>this terribly annoying view that diversity is bad and will, upon
>overcoming the dominant male, not only kill his offspring but also
>literally rape all other males he can get his twanger to, just to
>show dominance. Then there are the cases of stallions masturbating
>in their stalls and horse breeders wondering why His Macho Nibs isn't
>quite so interested in Her Ovulating Highness during the day. While
>we might not attach the same reasons to animal behavior that we do to
>human behavior, the same behavior does exist.
I've never learned of any animals that commit rape, and I've
never learned of any birds that masturbate.
I agree that some animals, especially primates, do masturbate, but
I've yet to ever hear of a bird masturbating until Russ made that claim.
As far as the rape goes, the only animals suspected of possible rape are
primates, but as of all I've read and studied so far, it's never been
proven effectively. Maybe Russ can provide something that I've not
read about animals committing rape, but until someone provides something,
I'm going to go by what I've learned so far. As far as the chimps you
mentioned raping one another, I've read a few theories that it's a case of
rape, but more researches believe it's just an act of aggression to prove
dominance over fellow chimps, and although it does sexually excite the
chimps in question, the actual act of rape isn't committed.
Anyone else have any sources pertaining to any of the above topics?
Unlike Russ, I'm more than willing to learn about something I don't know,
but until somebody can produce some reliable sources, I'm going by what
I've read so far.
Russell Lawrence
From article <94115.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
Russell Lawrence writes:
>>In our recent discussion concerning matrilinear family groups
>>in deer, you dismissed the observations of respected experts
>>without even bothering to examine the evidence. Isn't it likely
>>that you'll behave the same way in this case? If not, please
>>tell us what kind of proof you'd be willing to accept.
>
> I didn't so much as dismiss the observations of the "experts"
Yes, you did. In a series of articles, you attempted to discredit
the authorities whom I cited.
> but rather dismissed the theory
> as a whole becaused it was based on the idea "If deer were
> not interuppted", and that's not a realistic rational at all.
I agree that your interpretaion of my claim isn't rational.
> Deer are bothered and interuppted every day, not just by
> hunters, but by natural predators, auto collisions, etc., so
> even it the theory could be proven true, it could only apply
> to deer protected and enclosed, and then even that would be
> "interuppting" the deer, in itself.
>
> That's a fantasy theory that could never happen, so therefore,
> why is it even worth researching and reporting on?
The role that hunting plays in _increasing_ deer reproduction
rates isn't a fantasy notion at all, but is well-documented
and well-researched by wildlife biologists.
> And as far as your basis of not providing sources to back you
> "Birds masturbation" claim, that's just a cop-out on your part
> in attempt to save face.
>
> If you have *any* reliable sources at all to back your claim,
> please share it with us.
Barber, Theodore Xenophon. _The Human Nature of Birds_.
St. Martin's Press: New York, 1993.
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <94115.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>>>In our recent discussion concerning matrilinear family groups
>>>in deer, you dismissed the observations of respected experts
>>>without even bothering to examine the evidence. Isn't it likely
>>>that you'll behave the same way in this case? If not, please
>>>tell us what kind of proof you'd be willing to accept.
>>
>> I didn't so much as dismiss the observations of the "experts"
>> you used to back your claims, ...
>Yes, you did. In a series of articles, you attempted to discredit
>the authorities whom I cited.
No, Russ...I discredited the feasibility of their studies..it was too
idealistic to be of any use in the real world.
>> but rather dismissed the theory
>> as a whole becaused it was based on the idea "If deer were
>> not interuppted", and that's not a realistic rational at all.
>I agree that your interpretaion of my claim isn't rational.
Seems I wasn't the only one who interpeted your claim that way, Sue did also
I believe, as well as a few others who followed up to it.
>> Deer are bothered and interuppted every day, not just by
>> hunters, but by natural predators, auto collisions, etc., so
>> even it the theory could be proven true, it could only apply
>> to deer protected and enclosed, and then even that would be
>> "interuppting" the deer, in itself.
>>
>> That's a fantasy theory that could never happen, so therefore,
>> why is it even worth researching and reporting on?
>The role that hunting plays in _increasing_ deer reproduction
>rates isn't a fantasy notion at all, but is well-documented
>and well-researched by wildlife biologists.
The deer reproduce more regularly because hunting allows near optimum
conditions for the deer to remain healthy and within limits of available
habitat support.
If no predation factor were present, the deer would not reproduce regularly
because of competition for habitat and food, but eventually the reproduction
would be substantial enough to overpopulate, resulting in starvation.
Check out the situation of the Deer in Valley Forge Federal Park...their isn't
any hunting allowed (as of now, there may be, I'm not sure, but it's doubtful)
where dead deer are starting to be found...cause of death, starvation and/or
disease due to malnutrition.
So you've helped to prove hunting is helpful for deer..Thankyou.
>> And as far as your basis of not providing sources to back you
>> "Birds masturbation" claim, that's just a cop-out on your part
>> in attempt to save face.
>>
>> If you have *any* reliable sources at all to back your claim,
>> please share it with us.
>Barber, Theodore Xenophon. _The Human Nature of Birds_.
>St. Martin's Press: New York, 1993.
I'll be looking into it...thankyou for providing a source and I'll be sure
to report what I find out, and please be reassured that I'll not "twist" the
findings to suit my views.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Russell Lawrence
> In article <CovwA...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>
>>From article <94115.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
>><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>>Russell Lawrence writes:
>>>>In our recent discussion concerning matrilinear family groups
>>>>in deer, you dismissed the observations of respected experts
>>>>without even bothering to examine the evidence. Isn't it likely
>>>>that you'll behave the same way in this case? If not, please
>>>>tell us what kind of proof you'd be willing to accept.
>>>
>>> I didn't so much as dismiss the observations of the "experts"
>>> you used to back your claims, ...
>
>>Yes, you did. In a series of articles, you attempted to discredit
>>the authorities whom I cited.
>
> No, Russ...I discredited the feasibility of their studies..it was too
> idealistic to be of any use in the real world.
You disputed my statement that adult deer live in matrilinear
family groups and I subsequently cited a dozen texts proving that
you were mistaken. Do you agree that some deer do, indeed, live
in matrilinear family groups? Yes or no?
>>> but rather dismissed the theory
>>> as a whole becaused it was based on the idea "If deer were
>>> not interuppted", and that's not a realistic rational at all.
>
>>I agree that your interpretaion of my claim isn't rational.
>
> Seems I wasn't the only one who interpeted your claim that way,
> Sue did also I believe, as well as a few others who followed up
> to it.
You're appealing to the opinions of individuals who may not
understand the facts. We witnessed similar behavior just a
week or so ago when you proclaimed that Rich Young had
refuted the sources dealing with social organization among
deer.
Does the phrase "argumentum ad populum" mean anything to you?
>>The role that hunting plays in _increasing_ deer reproduction
>>rates isn't a fantasy notion at all, but is well-documented
>>and well-researched by wildlife biologists.
>
> The deer reproduce more regularly because hunting allows near optimum
> conditions for the deer to remain healthy and within limits of available
> habitat support.
>
> If no predation factor were present, the deer would not
> reproduce regularly because of competition for habitat and
> food, but eventually the reproduction would be substantial
> enough to overpopulate, resulting in starvation.
>
> Check out the situation of the Deer in Valley Forge Federal
> Park...their isn't any hunting allowed (as of now, there may
> be, I'm not sure, but it's doubtful) where dead deer are
> starting to be found...cause of death, starvation and/or
> disease due to malnutrition.
I'm intimately familiar with the scientific research dealing
with deer population dynamics. If/when you're ready to discuss
the issues point by point, I'd be happy to oblige. We can
begin with the relationship between caloric intake and
fertility/fecundity rates and then proceed to a discussion
on population overshoots.
>>> And as far as your basis of not providing sources to back you
>>> "Birds masturbation" claim, that's just a cop-out on your part
>>> in attempt to save face.
>>>
>>> If you have *any* reliable sources at all to back your claim,
>>> please share it with us.
>
>>Barber, Theodore Xenophon. _The Human Nature of Birds_.
>>St. Martin's Press: New York, 1993.
>
> I'll be looking into it...thankyou for providing a source and I'll be sure
> to report what I find out, and please be reassured that I'll not "twist" the
> findings to suit my views.
I'm glad to hear it. I'll keep a copy of Barber's book on my
desk just the same.
Dan Sorenson
>I've never learned of any animals that commit rape, and I've
>never learned of any birds that masturbate.
One wonders how they could! When you remove the feathers,
ol' Foghorn's "equipment" is certainly nothing to crow about.
I'd be very leery of any claim that he can find it, let alone use
it, unless he's rubbing the roost or some such. As for animals that
rape, the mating habits of the common domesticated ferret come
very close to this. The male tends to bite whatever happens to be
the lust of his loins by the scruff of the neck, thereby preventing
escape. Of course, being a ferret he has, at most, three brain
cells functioning at any one time and might just start humping
your teddy bear or another male, but this behavior certainly does
qualify under the "rape" scenario.
>I agree that some animals, especially primates, do masturbate, but
>I've yet to ever hear of a bird masturbating until Russ made that claim.
I hadn't either. I think I'll forward this to an ornathologist
I happen to know. She enjoys these things, I suspect.
James M Hoskins
>
>I'm intimately familiar with the scientific research dealing
>with deer population dynamics. If/when you're ready to discuss
>the issues point by point, I'd be happy to oblige. We can
>begin with the relationship between caloric intake and
>fertility/fecundity rates and then proceed to a discussion
>on population overshoots.
If you were addressing a group of students at a high school
in Ohio who had an interest in deer and your expertise regarding
the scientific literature related to deer population dynamics,
and one of the students asked you:
"Russell, you've pointed to scientific literature that states
deer live in matrilinear family groups. When these groups are
disrupted, as you noted, deer tend to have higher rates of
fertility. Hunting is one thing which can disrupt these matrilinear
family groups. What do you think, based on what you've read in the
scientific literature; if all deer hunting were stopped and then
absent the disruptive effect hunting has on these matrilinear family
groups, would the deer population in Ohio go up or down?"
How would you answer the student?
--
Russell Lawrence
>> the term 'rape'. He was, IMHO, just describing the normal
>> sexual behaviour of groups of male ducks forcing themselves
>> onto females in turn.
From article <94115.22...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
> Male ducks *do not* force themselves upon females at all. The
> females choose whom they wish to mate with, usually just one
> Male duck, and then once her eggs are fertilized, she goes into
> the nesting stage.
If this is true, then we would expect the female to cooperate
with the male(s), would we not? And this cooperation would be
evident, not only in the mating behavior, but in subsequent
nesting behavior.
> Your claims at "Duck Gang Bangs" is almost as laughable as Russ's
> "Birds masturbate" claim!!
Do you regard ducks as monogamous or polygamous?
Russell Lawrence
In article <Cosp2...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
rl> You told us previously that "it's a proven fact that animals in the
rl> wild will only attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only
rl> then if the female accepts the male." How did scientists manage
rl> to prove this absolutist claim?
JKC writes:
jkc> Simple...put a female that's been fixed in the presence of a male
jkc> that has not, and see if the male succeedes in "raping" the female.
jkc> Chances are, the male won't be interested in the female because
jkc> she can no longer be in heat, and if he does show a sexual
jkc> interest in the female, she won't allow him to mount her, let
jkc> alone "rape" her.
rl> If your statement about male sexual interest is a truthful one,
rl> then any experiment that involves neutered females won't prove
rl> your claim. The fact that a particular male may not be interested
rl> in a particular female in a particular instance doesn't mean that
rl> no male will ever attempt to copulate by force.
From article <94115.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
jkc> Ok Russ, put 10 males in with one fixed female...she still
won't be raped.
This doesn't prove your absolutist claim.
jkc> What do you mean if the females are neutered it won't prove
jkc> my claim? When an animal is fixed, it's sexual reproduction
jkc> organs are still there, they just won't reproduce or go into
jkc> heat, therefore the male would not be sexually interested
jkc> in the female because there isn't any scent to "turn on"
jkc> the male. If animals commit rape, as you claim, it wouldn't
jkc> matter if the scent wasn't there,
This premise is faulty. Let's assume that a given individual
is driven into a sexual frenzy by odors, and that he subsequently
rapes nearby females. Would you argue that this individual
is incapable of committing rape, simply because he doesn't commit
rape in the absence of scents?
jkc> the ability for sexual
jkc> intercourse still is, so the male would be able to "commit
jkc> rape" upon the female, that is, if your claim that animals
jkc> commit rape were true, which it isn't.
This argument doesn't make much sense. Please explain why it
wouldn't matter if the scent isn't there.
> ...
rl> Please answer the question. And while you're at it, please
rl> explain how you would prove your notion that rape is impossible
rl> unless the female submits.
jkc> You just keep making more asinine statements, don't you, Russ?
jkc>
jkc> Look at what you just said above; If the female submits,
jkc> thereby giving consent, it is not rape.
Let's review what you claimed previously:
==================================================================
jkc> ... and if he does show a sexual interest in the female, she
jkc> won't allow him to mount her, let alone "rape" her.
==================================================================
What you're saying here is that sexual union is always impossible
unless the female submits willingly. Can you prove this claim?
jkc> Keep in mind, we're talking in terms of animals here, not
jkc> humans, so don't even attempt at a comparison of "date rape"
jkc> or any other inane attempts at such. Rape, and date rape,
jkc> are applicable to Humans only, because animals do not commit
jkc> rape.
I agree that a sexual act isn't rape if the female's
participation is voluntary. This has no bearing on your claim
that sexual union is impossible unless the victim submits. Of
course, if somebody slams violently you in the butt in some dark
alleyway, then we'd have no recourse but to believe that your
participation was purely volontary.
jkc> Sorry Russ, read any reliable Animal Behavior textbook,
jkc> and you'll find that animals do not rape, only humans are
jkc> capable of that.
rl> Please cite a "reliable Animal Behavior textbook" of recent
rl> vintage that makes this claim.
jkc> All of them do, Russ. Maybe not in my exact words, but to
jkc> the same effect.
Have you read all of them, Joseph? How many are there, BTW?
Please name one that supports your claim.
jkc> Humans are the *only* creatures on Earth that are interested
jkc> in sex at any given time.
This has no bearing on the issue of rape.
jkc> Animals are *only* interested when the female is in heat and
jkc> gives off a scent that attracts the male, and/or at specific
jkc> times of the year.
This has no bearing on the issue of rape.
jkc> And then, only when the female has decided who she wants
jkc> to mate with, will mating occur. There is no rape in the
jkc> animal world, only in the human world.
Prove it.
jkc> And common sense comes into play a little too here, Russ.
jkc> If you didn't have the capabilities to hold things, say you
jkc> had wings instead of arms, and assuming you're not a virgin,
jkc> how easy do you think it would be for you to copulate with a
jkc> woman if she were not willing to cooperate?
Easy enough.
Russell Lawrence
> In article <CoqG1...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> And you claim to be an observer of wildlife? Take a gander at ducks
>> if you don't believe that non-human animals engage in rape.
>
> Yep, I've also observed ducks. However, it's all part of their
> natural mating pattern and the hen can just fly away, she
> doesn't however.
No, the hen can't just fly away. She may be bound to the area for
various reasons.
>> Please explain how you distinguish "natural" acts from "unnatural"
>> acts.
>
> You are the one who brought up 'rape' as being natural, YOU are putting
> your own twist of 'natural'. Makes me wonder about your social life.
Please explain the difference between "natural" and "unnatural"
behavior.
Dan Sorenson
>> It's a scientifically proven *fact* that animals in the wild will *only*
>> attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only then if the Female
>> accepts the male...
>How do you think a scientist could prove such an absolutist claim?
>Some birds engage, not only in rape, but in masturbation as well.
Russ, this struck me as a strange claim, so I asked a
friend of mine who is an ornathologist. She has no knowledge
of any birds who masturbate, and is most interested in your
references for that claim.
Just as a jab, you wouldn't claim that *you* saw this
without the backing of several papers, so I suppose her
claim is quite reasonable given your careful citations?
Mail her if you want: tn...@isuvax.iastate.edu is the
address. Please enclose the message so she knows the context
of my question and your claim.
Allen
JK...@psuvm.psu.edu "Joseph K. Carlson" writes:
[...]
allen> I don't think Russell was passing any judgement
allen> when he used the term 'rape'. He was, IMHO, just
allen> describing the normal sexual behaviour of groups
allen> of male ducks forcing themselves onto females in
allen> turn.
jkc3> Male ducks *do not* force themselves upon females
jkc3> at all. The females choose whom they wish to mate
jkc3> with, usually just one Male duck, and then once
jkc3> her eggs are fertilized, she goes into the nesting
jkc3> stage.
jkc3> Your claims at "Duck Gang Bangs" is almost as
jkc3> laughable as Russ's "Birds masturbate" claim!!
Well, I don't have my scientific references handy,
but you may wish for now to check _The New Yorker_
magazine, Nov. 29th 1993, 'Talk of the town
section', which carries an interview with a
British zoologist responsible for the BBC
wildlfife documentary _The Nature of Sex_.
He explains that some wildlife scenes that might
be susceptible to misinterpretation by the public
were edited out, and he takes as an example the
behaviour of mallards, for which he uses the term
'rape', and hastens to add that duck and human
behaviour should be judged on their own terms.
jkc3> Joseph K. Carlson
James M Hoskins
In article <Cp0Ft...@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence <ru...@wpg.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>Self-stimulation of the cloaca is a common activity among the
>members of some bird species (notably members of the parrot
>family) if/when they're forced by humans to live solitary
>lives in cages without companions. Not surprisingly, cloacal
>self-stimulation is often preceded by solitary courtship behavior
>such as pecking and cooing at mirrors. The term "foreplay" is an
>appropriate description for this activity, but I should mention
>that this behavior may be an intelligent response to sheer
>desperation. Birds are sexual, social animals and they deserve to
>live in the company of their own kind.
[...]
>One more point: Several AR advocates have pointed out that they
>have witnessed masturbatory behavior among birds in their own
>households. I wasn't surprised when one of the hunters in the
>anti-AR camp (JKC) responded to their comments with derisive sexual
>innuendos. Is there a connection between human sexual/social
>taboos and the inability of some humans to come to grips with
>sexual behavior in non-human animals?
I agree with you Russell, social animals deserve companions.
Two possible conclusions could be drawn from your observations
above; 1) that folks from the "anti-AR camp" (JKC3 and Dan Sorenson)
only keep or have observed bonded contented sexually satisfied
captive bird pairs, and 2) the "several AR advocates" you refer to
are keeping solitary birds which, as you say, are leading lives of
"sheer desperation."
Before you go off the deep end and start to attribute sexual hang-ups
to the "anti-AR camp" maybe we all should consider looking at ourselves
a little more clearly while we coo in the mirror.
----
Russell Lawrence
Here's another conclusion:
It's possible that the aforementioned folks from the anti-AR
camp may not be observant at all. JKC, for example, has
assured us that he's watched many, many deer in his lifetime,
and yet, he's never seen evidence of matrilinear family
groups. My friend Dan Sorenson considers himself to be
an expert on animal agriculture, but the only water use that
he's observed in conjunction with beef production is the
water that cattle drink to quench their thirst.
Incidently, we have a bird in my household who's living a caged
life of sheer desparation. Is this condition bad? Yes, it is.
However, it's not as bad as the alternatives.
> Before you go off the deep end and start to attribute sexual
> hang-ups to the "anti-AR camp" maybe we all should consider
> looking at ourselves a little more clearly while we coo in the
> mirror.
This statement doesn't make sense to me, James. Please explain.
Russell Lawrence
JKC writes:
jk> It's a scientifically proven *fact* that animals in the wild
jk> will *only* attempt mating when the female is in heat, and
jk> only then if the Female accepts the male...
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> How do you think a scientist could prove such an absolutist
rl> claim? Some birds engage, not only in rape, but in masturbation
rl> as well.
From article <viking.7...@raquel.agron.iastate.edu>, by vik...@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Russ, this struck me as a strange claim, so I asked a friend
ds> of mine who is an ornathologist. She has no knowledge of any
ds> birds who masturbate, and is most interested in your references
ds> for that claim.
ds>
ds> Just as a jab, you wouldn't claim that *you* saw this without
ds> the backing of several papers, so I suppose her claim is quite
ds> reasonable given your careful citations?
Absolutely. I've personally witnessed masturbatory behavior
in numerous species of confined mammals and birds, but I will
restrict my discussion to the published observations of scientific
experts.
ds> Mail her if you want: tn...@isuvax.iastate.edu is the
ds> address. Please enclose the message so she knows the context
ds> of my question and your claim.
Self-stimulation of the cloaca is a common activity among the
members of some bird species (notably members of the parrot
family) if/when they're forced by humans to live solitary
lives in cages without companions. Not surprisingly, cloacal
self-stimulation is often preceded by solitary courtship behavior
such as pecking and cooing at mirrors. The term "foreplay" is an
appropriate description for this activity, but I should mention
that this behavior may be an intelligent response to sheer
desperation. Birds are sexual, social animals and they deserve to
live in the company of their own kind.
I'll try to post a long list of citations in a few days.
Meanwhile, take a look at the following two texts:
Birmelin I and Wolter A. The New Parakeet Handbook. Barron's:
Hauppauge, NY, 1985. Cited in Barber, TX. The Human Nature
of Birds. St. Martin's Press: New York, 1993. Incidently,
Barber's book provides a good introduction to some of the recent
scientific discoveries dealing with avian intelligence. I think
you'll find it to be both interesting and surprising.
One more point: Several AR advocates have pointed out that they
have witnessed masturbatory behavior among birds in their own
households. I wasn't surprised when one of the hunters in the
anti-AR camp (JKC) responded to their comments with derisive sexual
innuendos. Is there a connection between human sexual/social
taboos and the inability of some humans to come to grips with
sexual behavior in non-human animals?
--
Russell Lawrence
>>Absolutely. I've personally witnessed masturbatory behavior
>>in numerous species of confined mammals and birds, but I will
>>restrict my discussion to the published observations of scientific
>>experts.
>
> particular statement before. As we all know, solitary confinement
> leads to a great many irregularities in behavior.
I agree. Such behavior probably occurs far less frequently in
wild, unhunted populations. Moreover, observation in the wild
might be difficult since non-human animals often display a sense
of privacy. Catching the behavior in wild settings would require
a *lot* of patience as well as a hidden, remote-controlled
viewing device.
Side note -- Another problem is the impact that our own
inhibitions may have on what we can and cannot "see" as
observers... not to mention the behavior that we, as "owners" of
domestic animals, will or will not permit among the individuals
living within our domain. To illustrate, four-legged Fido will
typically be harshly reprimanded if he engages in masturbatory
behavior in his american master's presence. Ditto for Winged
Polly. No problem. They both wait until the master's gone.
> Since my
> ornathologist friend spent most of her research time watching
> birds lay eggs, fight, die, and otherwise live in the wild
> blue yonder she might enjoy this little aside you've discovered.
It's not my discovery. Ask any non-inhibited person who's ever
lived with parrots, including budgerigars (aka parakeets). :-)
Dan Sorenson
>Absolutely. I've personally witnessed masturbatory behavior
>in numerous species of confined mammals and birds, but I will
>restrict my discussion to the published observations of scientific
>experts.
Confined, then? My mistake -- I had not caught that
particular statement before. As we all know, solitary confinement
leads to a great many irregularities in behavior. Since my
ornathologist friend spent most of her research time watching
birds lay eggs, fight, die, and otherwise live in the wild
blue yonder she might enjoy this little aside you've discovered.
--
* Dan Sorenson, DoD 1066 vik...@iastate.edu z1...@exnet.iastate.edu *
* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
Joseph K. Carlson
>In article <Cosp2...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>rl> You told us previously that "it's a proven fact that animals in the
>rl> wild will only attempt mating when the female is in heat, and only
>rl> then if the female accepts the male." How did scientists manage
>rl> to prove this absolutist claim?
>JKC writes:
>jkc> Simple...put a female that's been fixed in the presence of a male
>jkc> that has not, and see if the male succeedes in "raping" the female.
>jkc> Chances are, the male won't be interested in the female because
>jkc> she can no longer be in heat, and if he does show a sexual
>jkc> interest in the female, she won't allow him to mount her, let
>jkc> alone "rape" her.
>rl> If your statement about male sexual interest is a truthful one,
>rl> then any experiment that involves neutered females won't prove
>rl> your claim. The fact that a particular male may not be interested
>rl> in a particular female in a particular instance doesn't mean that
>rl> no male will ever attempt to copulate by force.
>From article <94115.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>jkc> Ok Russ, put 10 males in with one fixed female...she still
>won't be raped.
>This doesn't prove your absolutist claim.
Only you couldn't see how it could.
>jkc> What do you mean if the females are neutered it won't prove
>jkc> my claim? When an animal is fixed, it's sexual reproduction
>jkc> organs are still there, they just won't reproduce or go into
>jkc> heat, therefore the male would not be sexually interested
>jkc> in the female because there isn't any scent to "turn on"
>jkc> the male. If animals commit rape, as you claim, it wouldn't
>jkc> matter if the scent wasn't there,
>This premise is faulty. Let's assume that a given individual
>is driven into a sexual frenzy by odors, and that he subsequently
>rapes nearby females. Would you argue that this individual
>is incapable of committing rape, simply because he doesn't commit
>rape in the absence of scents?
If you introduced the scents, it isn't a natural environment, therefore,
it couldn't be a valid example.
I'm not talking about "what if's" where scents are introduced to
encourage mating behavior, I'm talking in a natural environment.
Your "what if" invalidates this, as well as your earlier example of
"undisturbed Deer" theory.
>jkc> the ability for sexual
>jkc> intercourse still is, so the male would be able to "commit
>jkc> rape" upon the female, that is, if your claim that animals
>jkc> commit rape were true, which it isn't.
>This argument doesn't make much sense. Please explain why it
>wouldn't matter if the scent isn't there.
>> ...
>rl> Please answer the question. And while you're at it, please
>rl> explain how you would prove your notion that rape is impossible
>rl> unless the female submits.
>jkc> You just keep making more asinine statements, don't you, Russ?
>jkc>
>jkc> Look at what you just said above; If the female submits,
>jkc> thereby giving consent, it is not rape.
>Let's review what you claimed previously:
>==================================================================
>jkc> ... and if he does show a sexual interest in the female, she
>jkc> won't allow him to mount her, let alone "rape" her.
>==================================================================
>What you're saying here is that sexual union is always impossible
>unless the female submits willingly. Can you prove this claim?
Other than in humans, and *maybe* primates, how could it be possible?
>jkc> Keep in mind, we're talking in terms of animals here, not
>jkc> humans, so don't even attempt at a comparison of "date rape"
>jkc> or any other inane attempts at such. Rape, and date rape,
>jkc> are applicable to Humans only, because animals do not commit
>jkc> rape.
>I agree that a sexual act isn't rape if the female's
>participation is voluntary. This has no bearing on your claim
>that sexual union is impossible unless the victim submits. Of
>course, if somebody slams violently you in the butt in some dark
>alleyway, then we'd have no recourse but to believe that your
>participation was purely volontary.
Again, your "what if" doesn't make it. Try to talk in a realistic
view of what is in nature, and not your "what if" theories.
>jkc> Sorry Russ, read any reliable Animal Behavior textbook,
>jkc> and you'll find that animals do not rape, only humans are
>jkc> capable of that.
>rl> Please cite a "reliable Animal Behavior textbook" of recent
>rl> vintage that makes this claim.
>jkc> All of them do, Russ. Maybe not in my exact words, but to
>jkc> the same effect.
>Have you read all of them, Joseph? How many are there, BTW?
I've read at least six...and I'd bet that's about 6 more than you have.
>Please name one that supports your claim.
So far, all I've read do.
>jkc> Humans are the *only* creatures on Earth that are interested
>jkc> in sex at any given time.
>This has no bearing on the issue of rape.
It most certainly does! Animals are only interested in sexual behavior
during a specific time or times.
>jkc> Animals are *only* interested when the female is in heat and
>jkc> gives off a scent that attracts the male, and/or at specific
>jkc> times of the year.
>This has no bearing on the issue of rape.
It most certainly does, when animals are the main concern of the topic!
Next you'll try and say "Animals have no bearing on this issue" !
Cmon' Russ.
>jkc> And then, only when the female has decided who she wants
>jkc> to mate with, will mating occur. There is no rape in the
>jkc> animal world, only in the human world.
>Prove it.
You're the one who contended that animals commit rape as the opening
of this thread. You prove they do, then I'll prove you wrong.
>jkc> And common sense comes into play a little too here, Russ.
>jkc> If you didn't have the capabilities to hold things, say you
>jkc> had wings instead of arms, and assuming you're not a virgin,
>jkc> how easy do you think it would be for you to copulate with a
>jkc> woman if she were not willing to cooperate?
>Easy enough.
Yea right...please explain how Russ...in detail.
Joseph K. Carlson
>In article <767270...@mayfair.demon.co.uk>, AEC...@mayfair.demon.co.uk
>>> I don't think Russell was passing any judgement when he used
>>> the term 'rape'. He was, IMHO, just describing the normal
>>> sexual behaviour of groups of male ducks forcing themselves
>>> onto females in turn.
>From article <94115.22...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>> Male ducks *do not* force themselves upon females at all. The
>> females choose whom they wish to mate with, usually just one
>> Male duck, and then once her eggs are fertilized, she goes into
>> the nesting stage.
>If this is true, then we would expect the female to cooperate
>with the male(s), would we not? And this cooperation would be
>evident, not only in the mating behavior, but in subsequent
>nesting behavior.
If they approve of the male duck in question, they will cooperate. That does
not neccessarily mean the eggs will be fertilized, so the female may again
be approached by other male ducks, of which to choose from, and approve of
another for mating.
>> Your claims at "Duck Gang Bangs" is almost as laughable as Russ's
>> "Birds masturbate" claim!!
>Do you regard ducks as monogamous or polygamous?
Ducks, as with most animals, will continue mating until her eggs are
fertilized, and a successful hatch is raised. If her eggs are not fertilized,
or if her brood dies early, or if sufficient time of mating allows, the hen
will breed again.
Wether ducks are monogamous or not is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Rape isn't committed, and monogamy or lack thereof, has not bearing on that.
And I'm still waiting for your proof that Birds masturbate Russ, so until
you answer the question put to you, I wouldn't consider it wise to ask other
questions just to avoid answering the one directed you..it just doesn't make
you look credible.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Joseph K. Carlson
(Allen) says:
Agreed on the judgement of behaviors being judged on their own terms, but
being that rape is an act of violence by definition, and mating is an act of
reproduction and of which, the female chooses her mate(s) by the desirable
genetic traits he posesses, thereby approving of him for mating, it is
impossible for animals to commit rape.
Because animals are agressive, (hell, most humans are somewhat agressive in
sexual intercourse that isn't rape), doesn't make it a case of rape, and to
judge it as such is an error.
>jkc3> Joseph K. Carlson
>--
> - Allen
>__________________________________________________________________________
>_______________________________________________AEC...@mayfair.demon.co.uk
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <1994Apr26.0...@desire.wright.edu>, Sue Bishop writes:
>> In article <CoqG1...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> And you claim to be an observer of wildlife? Take a gander at ducks
>>> if you don't believe that non-human animals engage in rape.
>>
>> Yep, I've also observed ducks. However, it's all part of their
>> natural mating pattern and the hen can just fly away, she
>> doesn't however.
>No, the hen can't just fly away. She may be bound to the area for
>various reasons.
Please give some "various reasons", Russ. And again, you're basing your
stance on "what if" theories. Unless the female duck is bound, gagged and
legless and wingless, I can't see as how she's bound anywhere.
>>> Please explain how you distinguish "natural" acts from "unnatural"
>>> acts.
>>
>> You are the one who brought up 'rape' as being natural, YOU are putting
>> your own twist of 'natural'. Makes me wonder about your social life.
>Please explain the difference between "natural" and "unnatural"
>behavior.
Please answer to the topic in question, Russ. You're attempts at avoiding the
issue by your "please explain blah blah blah" is growing old, and is a pathetic
attempt at making it appear you're strengthening your stance by doing so. It's
obvious, lame, and not working.
BTW, still waiting to hear your explination on how "birds masturbate".
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <94116.20...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>> In article <CovwA...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>
>>>From article <94115.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
>>><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>>>Russell Lawrence writes:
>>>>>In our recent discussion concerning matrilinear family groups
>>>>>in deer, you dismissed the observations of respected experts
>>>>>without even bothering to examine the evidence. Isn't it likely
>>>>>that you'll behave the same way in this case? If not, please
>>>>>tell us what kind of proof you'd be willing to accept.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't so much as dismiss the observations of the "experts"
>>>> you used to back your claims, ...
>>
>>>Yes, you did. In a series of articles, you attempted to discredit
>>>the authorities whom I cited.
>>
>> No, Russ...I discredited the feasibility of their studies..it was too
>> idealistic to be of any use in the real world.
>You disputed my statement that adult deer live in matrilinear
>family groups and I subsequently cited a dozen texts proving that
>you were mistaken. Do you agree that some deer do, indeed, live
>in matrilinear family groups? Yes or no?
I disputed your statements because *all* of the research you chose to use to
support your claims were not done in realistic settings. It may be harder to
provide support that deer live in matrilinear groups in a natural set
environment, but in order to prove that such family groups do exist, that is
what would be required. Deer in a penned up situation or on a sanctuary
setting are not comparable to deer that live in the wild and are subject to
predadation, habitat restrictions, etc.
So No, I don't believe deer life in matrilinear family groups in a realistic
environment.
Deer naturally like to travel in numbers for safety reasons, and yes, an off
spring may indeed be in the company of brothers and sisters, mothers, but for
no other reason than the fact that there are safety in numbers.
>>>> but rather dismissed the theory
>>>> as a whole becaused it was based on the idea "If deer were
>>>> not interuppted", and that's not a realistic rational at all.
>>
>>>I agree that your interpretaion of my claim isn't rational.
>>
>> Seems I wasn't the only one who interpeted your claim that way,
>> Sue did also I believe, as well as a few others who followed up
>> to it.
>You're appealing to the opinions of individuals who may not
>understand the facts. We witnessed similar behavior just a
>week or so ago when you proclaimed that Rich Young had
>refuted the sources dealing with social organization among
>deer.
And we also witnessed either you also believed that as truth, or if
what you claim that you did know it wasn't true, that you are a
practicer of decietful tactics to further your own views.
>Does the phrase "argumentum ad populum" mean anything to you?
Does the phrase "decietful and twisting the facts" mean anything to you?
Apparently it doesn't, because you continue to choose to do both on a
regular basis.
>>>The role that hunting plays in _increasing_ deer reproduction
>>>rates isn't a fantasy notion at all, but is well-documented
>>>and well-researched by wildlife biologists.
>>
>> The deer reproduce more regularly because hunting allows near optimum
>> conditions for the deer to remain healthy and within limits of available
>> habitat support.
>>
>> If no predation factor were present, the deer would not
>> reproduce regularly because of competition for habitat and
>> food, but eventually the reproduction would be substantial
>> enough to overpopulate, resulting in starvation.
>>
>> Check out the situation of the Deer in Valley Forge Federal
>> Park...their isn't any hunting allowed (as of now, there may
>> be, I'm not sure, but it's doubtful) where dead deer are
>> starting to be found...cause of death, starvation and/or
>> disease due to malnutrition.
>I'm intimately familiar with the scientific research dealing
>with deer population dynamics. If/when you're ready to discuss
>the issues point by point, I'd be happy to oblige. We can
>begin with the relationship between caloric intake and
>fertility/fecundity rates and then proceed to a discussion
>on population overshoots.
Sorry Russ, I'm not going to bother trying to knock down your fantasy
theories with realistic facts. It's been done numerous times on here
before with the topic above, and you're so full of yourself and your
pompous attitudes, that you don't even realize it.
You really should base your emphasis on reality and not so much on
theories of "what if's".
>>>> And as far as your basis of not providing sources to back you
>>>> "Birds masturbation" claim, that's just a cop-out on your part
>>>> in attempt to save face.
>>>>
>>>> If you have *any* reliable sources at all to back your claim,
>>>> please share it with us.
>>
>>>Barber, Theodore Xenophon. _The Human Nature of Birds_.
>>>St. Martin's Press: New York, 1993.
>>
>> I'll be looking into it...thankyou for providing a source and I'll be sure
>> to report what I find out, and please be reassured that I'll not "twist" the
>> findings to suit my views.
>I'm glad to hear it. I'll keep a copy of Barber's book on my
>desk just the same.
You do that. You'll need some basis for twisting facts to suit your views.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Joseph K. Carlson
>Here's another conclusion:
That's because both Mr. Sorenson and Myself are on "Realistic Time", not on
your "Fantasy-what if theory Time."
>Incidently, we have a bird in my household who's living a caged
>life of sheer desparation. Is this condition bad? Yes, it is.
>However, it's not as bad as the alternatives.
>> Before you go off the deep end and start to attribute sexual
>> hang-ups to the "anti-AR camp" maybe we all should consider
>> looking at ourselves a little more clearly while we coo in the
>> mirror.
>This statement doesn't make sense to me, James. Please explain.
Now why doesn't that surprise me? Russ, You're as predictable as a known
politician..and getting to be just as loathsome with the similar tactics and
techniques you employ.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Joseph K. Carlson
>JKC writes:
>jk> It's a scientifically proven *fact* that animals in the wild
>jk> will *only* attempt mating when the female is in heat, and
>jk> only then if the Female accepts the male...
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> How do you think a scientist could prove such an absolutist
>rl> claim? Some birds engage, not only in rape, but in masturbation
>rl> as well.
>From article <viking.7...@raquel.agron.iastate.edu>, by
>vik...@iastate.edu
>(Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Russ, this struck me as a strange claim, so I asked a friend
>ds> of mine who is an ornathologist. She has no knowledge of any
>ds> birds who masturbate, and is most interested in your references
>ds> for that claim.
>ds>
>ds> Just as a jab, you wouldn't claim that *you* saw this without
>ds> the backing of several papers, so I suppose her claim is quite
>ds> reasonable given your careful citations?
>Absolutely. I've personally witnessed masturbatory behavior
>in numerous species of confined mammals and birds, but I will
>restrict my discussion to the published observations of scientific
>experts.
So in other words, you happend to mis-interpet what was actually happening
as masturbation. Thanks for admitting that your mis-interpetations of
animal behavior is your basis for your claim "birds masturbate".
>ds> Mail her if you want: tn...@isuvax.iastate.edu is the
>ds> address. Please enclose the message so she knows the context
>ds> of my question and your claim.
>Self-stimulation of the cloaca is a common activity among the
>members of some bird species (notably members of the parrot
>family) if/when they're forced by humans to live solitary
>lives in cages without companions. Not surprisingly, cloacal
>self-stimulation is often preceded by solitary courtship behavior
>such as pecking and cooing at mirrors. The term "foreplay" is an
>appropriate description for this activity, but I should mention
>that this behavior may be an intelligent response to sheer
>desperation. Birds are sexual, social animals and they deserve to
>live in the company of their own kind.
Funny, I've raised several birds from chicks over the past years and I've
never seen one masturbating as you claim. Hmm, maybe the only do it
in private.
>I'll try to post a long list of citations in a few days.
>Meanwhile, take a look at the following two texts:
>Birmelin I and Wolter A. The New Parakeet Handbook. Barron's:
>Hauppauge, NY, 1985. Cited in Barber, TX. The Human Nature
>of Birds. St. Martin's Press: New York, 1993. Incidently,
>Barber's book provides a good introduction to some of the recent
>scientific discoveries dealing with avian intelligence. I think
>you'll find it to be both interesting and surprising.
So far, nothing but imprinting behavior has been discussed, not
any masturbation behavior at all...I'll read on.
>One more point: Several AR advocates have pointed out that they
>have witnessed masturbatory behavior among birds in their own
>households. I wasn't surprised when one of the hunters in the
>anti-AR camp (JKC) responded to their comments with derisive sexual
>innuendos. Is there a connection between human sexual/social
>taboos and the inability of some humans to come to grips with
>sexual behavior in non-human animals?
I've seen *one* AR that said his bird masturbates, Mr. Graft. Not
"several" as you claim, Russ. And I also pointed out that the behavior
he described was an imprinting behavior, not masturbation.
"Several"?....My word Russ, even when you're called on your decietful tactics
you *still* resort to them, without remorse or regret. You're about as
belivable as Clinton...let me guess..you didn't inhale either, right?
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Joseph K. Carlson
I'm still wondering who Russ's "several AR advocates" are...Only one
that I know of.
>Before you go off the deep end and start to attribute sexual hang-ups
>to the "anti-AR camp" maybe we all should consider looking at ourselves
>a little more clearly while we coo in the mirror.
And Russ is so in love with himself and his idealistic pompous ways, that I'm
sure he's got plenty of mirrors in his habitat to "Coo" at.
>----
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <viking.7...@raquel.agron.iastate.edu>, by
>vik...@iastate.edu
>(Dan Sorenson):
>> In <Cp0Ft...@wpg.com> ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>Absolutely. I've personally witnessed masturbatory behavior
>>>in numerous species of confined mammals and birds, but I will
>>>restrict my discussion to the published observations of scientific
>>>experts.
>>
>> Confined, then? My mistake -- I had not caught that
>> particular statement before. As we all know, solitary confinement
>> leads to a great many irregularities in behavior.
>I agree. Such behavior probably occurs far less frequently in
>wild, unhunted populations. Moreover, observation in the wild
*ALL* animals in nature are hunted, wether it be by man or another animal,
the end result is still the same.
When you get out of your fantasy idealistic world, you'll see that.
I've several videos my family and myself have taken of animal behavior that
you'll probably only ever read of. I've mating of Wild Turkeys on tape, of
Bucks sparring and the dominant buck mating with the doe that was sparred over,
of grouse matings, and alot of other general animal behaviors that were all
taped in a wild setting...not in a sanctuary or penned up environment that
the researchers in your sources like to idealize as "natural animal behavior".
>might be difficult since non-human animals often display a sense
>of privacy. Catching the behavior in wild settings would require
>a *lot* of patience as well as a hidden, remote-controlled
>viewing device.
It's been done and it's not as hard as you imply..*if* you're at all familiar
with nature and experienced at being in the wild instead of just reading
about it.
>Side note -- Another problem is the impact that our own
>inhibitions may have on what we can and cannot "see" as
>observers... not to mention the behavior that we, as "owners" of
>domestic animals, will or will not permit among the individuals
>living within our domain. To illustrate, four-legged Fido will
>typically be harshly reprimanded if he engages in masturbatory
>behavior in his american master's presence. Ditto for Winged
>Polly. No problem. They both wait until the master's gone.
So now you're doctor Dolittle and the animals probably told you this, eh?
>> Since my
>> ornathologist friend spent most of her research time watching
>> birds lay eggs, fight, die, and otherwise live in the wild
>> blue yonder she might enjoy this little aside you've discovered.
>It's not my discovery. Ask any non-inhibited person who's ever
>lived with parrots, including budgerigars (aka parakeets). :-)
I've owned several parakeets for the past 8 yrs..not once has any
tried to "masturbate".
Russ, do yourself a big favor and learn the difference between imprinting and
what you believe is masturbation. For once, learn the truth and not just what
you'd like to hear.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Russell Lawrence
> And I'm still waiting for your proof that Birds masturbate
> Russ, so until you answer the question put to you, I wouldn't
> consider it wise to ask other questions just to avoid answering
> the one directed you..it just doesn't make you look credible.
Did you read the book by Barber that I cited previously?
Barber, Theodore Xenophon. _The Human Nature of Birds_.
St. Martin's Press: New York, 1993.
--
Russell Lawrence
>>wish for now to check _The New Yorker_ magazine, Nov. 29th
>>1993, 'Talk of the town section', which carries an interview
>>with a British zoologist responsible for the BBC wildlfife
>>documentary _The Nature of Sex_.
>
>>He explains that some wildlife scenes that might be susceptible
>>to misinterpretation by the public were edited out, and he
>>takes as an example the behaviour of mallards, for which he
>>uses the term 'rape', and hastens to add that duck and human
>>behaviour should be judged on their own terms.
>
> Agreed on the judgement of behaviors being judged on their
> own terms, but being that rape is an act of violence by
> definition, and mating is an act of reproduction and of which,
> the female chooses her mate(s) by the desirable genetic traits
> he posesses, thereby approving of him for mating, it is
> impossible for animals to commit rape.
Your notion that females always choose their mates is an
assumption. Not a fact.
Russell Lawrence
> In article <Coxrw...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>From article <94116.20...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
>>> was too idealistic to be of any use in the real world.
>
>> You disputed my statement that adult deer live in matrilinear
>> family groups and I subsequently cited a dozen texts proving
>> that you were mistaken. Do you agree that some deer do, indeed,
>> live in matrilinear family groups? Yes or no?
>
> I disputed your statements because *all* of the research you
> chose to use to support your claims were not done in realistic
This isn't true, JKC. It's obvious to me, and perhaps to other
readers as well, that you didn't read any of the cited materials...
much less all of them.
> ...
>>I'm intimately familiar with the scientific research dealing
>>with deer population dynamics. If/when you're ready to
>>discuss the issues point by point, I'd be happy to oblige. We
>>can begin with the relationship between caloric intake and
>>fertility/fecundity rates and then proceed to a discussion on
>>population overshoots.
>
> Sorry Russ, I'm not going to bother trying to knock down your
> fantasy theories with realistic facts. It's been done numerous
> times on here before with the topic above, and you're so full
> of yourself and your pompous attitudes, that you don't even
> realize it.
When you're ready to discuss the issues in a factual/rational
manner, please let me know.
>>>>> And as far as your basis of not providing sources to back
>>>>> you "Birds masturbation" claim, that's just a cop-out on
>>>>> your part in attempt to save face.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have *any* reliable sources at all to back your
>>>>> claim, please share it with us.
>>>
>>>>Barber, Theodore Xenophon. _The Human Nature of Birds_ St.
>>>>Martin's Press: New York, 1993
>>>
>>> I'll be looking into it...thankyou for providing a source
>>> and I'll be sure to report what I find out, and please be
>>> reassured that I'll not "twist" the findings to suit my
>>> views.
>
>>I'm glad to hear it. I'll keep a copy of Barber's book on my
>>desk just the same.
>
> You do that. You'll need some basis for twisting facts to suit
> your views.
Let me know when you're ready to address Barber's discussion of
masturbation by birds.
Russell Lawrence
> In article <Cp0Ft...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) says:
>>I'll try to post a long list of citations in a few days.
>>Meanwhile, take a look at the following two texts:
>
>>Birmelin I and Wolter A. The New Parakeet Handbook. Barron's:
>>Hauppauge, NY, 1985. Cited in Barber, TX. The Human Nature
>>of Birds. St. Martin's Press: New York, 1993. Incidently,
>>Barber's book provides a good introduction to some of the recent
>>scientific discoveries dealing with avian intelligence. I think
>>you'll find it to be both interesting and surprising.
>
> So far, nothing but imprinting behavior has been discussed, not
> any masturbation behavior at all...I'll read on.
This is a bizarre claim Did you read the relevant passages? They
pertain to masturbation Not imprinting behavior.
Russell Lawrence
JKC writes:
jkc> Sorry Russ, read any reliable Animal Behavior textbook,
jkc> and you'll find that animals do not rape, only humans are
jkc> capable of that.
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Please cite a "reliable Animal Behavior textbook" of recent
rl> vintage that makes this claim.
JKC writes:
jkc> All of them do, Russ. Maybe not in my exact words, but to
jkc> the same effect.
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Have you read all of them, Joseph? How many are there, BTW?
From article <94121.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
jkc> I've read at least six...and I'd bet that's about 6 more
jkc> than you have.
Would you mind giving us the author and titles of one or two texts
that allegedly supports your claim?
rl> Please name one that supports your claim.
jkc> So far, all I've read do.
You didn't answer my question. Please name one or two of the
books that support your claim. Perhaps you've misinterpreted
them in some way.
Paul Keck
>From article <94121.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>>
>> own terms, but being that rape is an act of violence by
>> definition, and mating is an act of reproduction and of which,
>> the female chooses her mate(s) by the desirable genetic traits
>> he posesses, thereby approving of him for mating, it is
>> impossible for animals to commit rape.
>
>Your notion that females always choose their mates is an
>assumption. Not a fact.
Russell's right on this one (I don't know about the masturbation part).
Forced copulation takes place in nature. It is defined as copulation
against the female's will (i.e. she tries to get away, is held, and
inseminated). It happens, folks. She's not cooperating.
The book I mentioned in the other thread, John Alcock's _Animal Behavior:
and evolutionary approach_ also has a chapter dealing with how far we should
apply evolution to human behavior. Considering the interest on this group
in being "above nature", maybe some of you folks would like to read it.
Alcock deals with the "rape is purely an act of violence" issue, basically
saying no, it's often an act performed by young males, not pair bound, with
little hope of gaining normal matings, mostly perfomed against women who are
likely to conceive. Read it for yourself, though, I'm not telling which way
I lean on this one. ;-)
Paul Keck
Michael Schooler
HH88ONPNVHg&n (K/
N-
* Tp!@Pp!@T/
N->>x(Od(O(O4(OM
L
This essay is in response to many of the opinions that have
been stated over Usenet dealing with animal rights. First of all,
many of the arguments posted tend to start out with an issue
about this topic, but wind up turning into insignificant
arguments in which two parties attack each other for reasons
that have nothing to do with the issue of animal rights. Many
of these arguments dwindle down to nothing more than one
party attacking the other for meaningless things like bad
grammar and flaws in personal character. In order for us to
educate each other about both sides of these issues, we must
continue to present our reasoning for our beliefs throughout
the argument.
One issue that is often brought up with the topic of animal
rights is the general morality of humans eating animals. It is
my belief that we may reap the benefits of the world we live
in to continue as a species. Many animal activists argue that one
of the reasons that humans eat animals is because they view
them as insignificant, and feel that they are separated from
their ways of life. They argue that man should look at the
similarities we have with other species in order to gain respect
for the other species that he must share the planet with. But
by believing that we should not eat other animals, man is
actually separating himself from these aspects of nature in
which the activists would like us to recognize. Many species of
animals depend on other species for their food source. Should
we protect these weaker species because it is cruel for them to
have to suffer and be eaten? I believe that it is instinct for
man to eat other animals as well as use them for many other
things. Native Americans killed buffalo for food as well as
many other benefits that they could use from the animal. We
are just more sophisticated of a species in the way that we go
about doing so. In the same way that we are able to harvest
crops, we have learned to raise animals for a food source. It
might be just as cruel of us to eat plants as it is to eat animals.
We do not know how intelligent plants are or if they can feel
pain. They might just lack the structure to show how advanced
they are. This idea seems ridiculous to most, but it is just as
difficult determining if plants have emotions as it is for animals.
I believe that as long as it does not hurt our environment, that
the raising of animals for food is correct.
But there are many issues to deal with within the topic of
animal rights. Many animal rights activists are against animals
in captivity at places like zoos. I believe that zoos actually help
animals by educating people about them and how they may
help protect some of the species. Many zoos are nonprofit
organizations that as well as educating people, actually help
endangered species so that they will eventually be able to
survive when they are put back into the wild. I do not believe
in killing animals if it is going to hurt the natural ecosystem.
Many animal rights activists do believe in killing animals in
order to balance a previously unbalanced ecosystem regardless
of the pain inflicted on the individual animals. In doing this
they are contradicting some of the principles in which they base
their beliefs. I feel that there should be limits put on hunting
because it hurts the species. The hunters usually strive to kill
the largest and strongest animals which damages the species
process of natural selection. I have different opinions on some
of the different issues dealt with under animal rights.
I feel that for the most part, animal activists are popular
right now. Many of them are idealistic, and fail to realize that
humans are animals as well, and that just because we are more
sophisticated does not mean that we are separate from "nature".
There are many other things than "morality" to be considered
when dealing with these issues.
Joseph K. Carlson
Keck) says:
>ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>>From article <94121.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Joseph K. Carlson
><JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>>>
>>> Agreed on the judgement of behaviors being judged on their
>>> own terms, but being that rape is an act of violence by
>>> definition, and mating is an act of reproduction and of which,
>>> the female chooses her mate(s) by the desirable genetic traits
>>> he posesses, thereby approving of him for mating, it is
>>> impossible for animals to commit rape.
>>
>>Your notion that females always choose their mates is an
>>assumption. Not a fact.
>Russell's right on this one (I don't know about the masturbation part).
>Forced copulation takes place in nature. It is defined as copulation
>against the female's will (i.e. she tries to get away, is held, and
>inseminated). It happens, folks. She's not cooperating.
I disagree and so does all I've ever read and witnessed on the topic.
Why then, is such emphasis placed upon the males impressing the
females, especially with birds, for approval? Turkeys, Grouse,
Swans, Geese, Ducks, Woodcocks, Peacocks, and *all* other birds go thru
a courtship behavior in attempts at impressing a female in hopes of
mating. When the male has won favor with the female, then mating will
occur, not before. One species of song bird builds a nest for the female,
and she mates with the one whom built the nest she chooses.
As far as your theory on "young males" committing rape, this also contradicts
with all I've experienced and read. With birds, a female that is being
pestered by a male she is not impressed with, will usually fly away or
actually attack the male. I've witnessed Wild Turkey hens flog the piss
out of young jakes when they attempted to mate with her and she didn't
approve. I've also witnessed the same behavior in Whitetail Deer.
>The book I mentioned in the other thread, John Alcock's _Animal Behavior:
>and evolutionary approach_ also has a chapter dealing with how far we should
>apply evolution to human behavior. Considering the interest on this group
>in being "above nature", maybe some of you folks would like to read it.
>Alcock deals with the "rape is purely an act of violence" issue, basically
>saying no, it's often an act performed by young males, not pair bound, with
>little hope of gaining normal matings, mostly perfomed against women who are
>likely to conceive. Read it for yourself, though, I'm not telling which way
>I lean on this one. ;-)
I'll be sure to get his book when I get to the library. This is the first
instance I've heard of any reliable source that contradicts what I've
read so far.
>Paul Keck
Joseph K. Carlson
Tinkoff) says:
>In article <66...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, ww1...@sdcc2.ucsd.edu (Michael Schooler)
>writes:
>Michael> flaws in personal character. In order for us to educate each
>Michael> other about both sides of these issues, we must continue to
>Michael> present our reasoning for our beliefs throughout the argument.
>Sounds good to me.
>Michael> One issue that is often brought up with the topic of animal
>Michael> rights is the general morality of humans eating animals. It is
>Michael> my belief that we may reap the benefits of the world we live in
>Michael> to continue as a species. Many animal activists argue that one
>Michael> of the reasons that humans eat animals is because they view
>Michael> them as insignificant, and feel that they are separated from
>Michael> their ways of life. They argue that man should look at the
>Michael> similarities we have with other species in order to gain
>Michael> respect for the other species that he must share the planet
>Michael> with. But by believing that we should not eat other animals,
>Michael> man is actually separating himself from these aspects of nature
>Michael> in which the activists would like us to recognize.
>I don't know too many veg/AR people who think that. My argument is that
>there is no need for killing animals for food when we have ways of
>getting food from sources which do not involve killing. There is no
Food sources that do not involve killing? Only thing that fits that bill
is fruit, and then even that could be argued that you're killing the offspring
of the plant.
>inherent *need* to eat meat. The fact that there are many veg*ans who
>are completely healthy proves this. The only reason people eat meat is
>for the taste, to which they have become accustomed if they were raised
Wrong. I choose to eat meat because it's my right to do so. I value
the meat I eat realizing a life was given in order for me to partake of
such a meal. Yes, meat is tasty and I do enjoy the flavor, but I also
enjoy participating in nature by playing my role as the predator in the
predator/prey relationship. I think to many AR's don't participate in
nature, and that is their right, but I choose to be an active participant
and not just a passive observer, and I believe it's wrong for AR's to
judge my decision as wrong simply on what they believe.
I do not judge Veggies as wrong, although I think they're missing a good
part of life, but I still don't view them as wrong in choosing not to
eat meat as their diet.
>in a society where meat-eating is acceptable.
>Michael> Many species of animals depend on other species for their food
>Michael> source. Should we protect these weaker species because it is
>Michael> cruel for them to have to suffer and be eaten? I believe that
>Michael> it is instinct for man to eat other animals as well as use them
>Michael> for many other things.
>Debateable.
All opinions and beliefs are debatable.
>Michael> Native Americans killed buffalo for
>Michael> food as well as many other benefits that they could use from
>Michael> the animal.
>Yeah, so did many other cultures. Not that I'm accusing you of using
>this for an argument, but just becuase the *American* Indians did it
>does not make it accepatble, to me anyway.
Understood, but do you judge anyone as wrong or inferior because they choose
to do so?
>Michael> We are just more sophisticated of a species in the
>Michael> way that we go about doing so.
>Well, I think that humans should take this sophistication one step
>further and move beyond the need to enslave animals for food. This
>won't happen overnight, and making it illegal to eat meat won't do it.
>This will be something that humans will have to learn over time.
Again, you're basing your beliefs and opinions as optimly correct, and
this, by no means, is the case.
>Michael> It might be just as cruel of us to eat plants as
>Michael> it is to eat animals. We do not know how intelligent plants
>Michael> are or if they can feel pain. They might just lack the
>Michael> structure to show how advanced they are. This idea seems
>Michael> ridiculous to most, but it is just as difficult determining if
>Michael> plants have emotions as it is for animals.
>Wrong. Reasons plants cannot feel pain:
*THAT's Debatable*
>1) No nervous system
>2) They do not repond to external stimuli in any way that indicates
> that they are capable of any feelings, physical or emotional.
> This "they can't feel pain as *we* know it" is crap. Until
> somebody comes up with *conclusive* evidence that they feel
> pain, assuming that they feel pain and have no way of telling us
> is just sci-fi.
You already are familiar with the arguments against everything concerning
the plant/pain issue. Just because you choose to ignore them does in no
way make those arguments invalid.
>Michael> I believe that as
>Michael> long as it does not hurt our environment, that the raising of
>Michael> animals for food is correct.
>Sorry to load up and strap on the flame thrower, but what you mean is,
>as long as it doesn't hurt *your* environment. The animals use the same
>environment as us. You don't get to trade your concern for animal
>rights for environmental consciousness.
Life is *always* a trade off..and the above is no exception.
>Michael> I believe that zoos actually help animals by educating people
>Michael> about them and how they may help protect some of the species.
>I agree with you here. Zoos do serve to preserve some species, and not
>enough members of a given species are held in captivity to seriously
>undermine the natural developement of the species. And yes, they do
>serve to educate many people.
Agreed.
>Michael> I do not believe in killing animals if it is going to
>Michael> hurt the natural ecosystem.
>But lets face it, you don't have a problem killing them if it's for
>food. Not that I'm coming down on you for *that*, but you should be
>consistent. Killing animals in large amounts can't be OK for one reason
>and not OK for another. And before anybody else decides to pull some
>extreme stiuation out, like "what if a pack of cattle was breaking into
>your house...", don't bother.
There is a definite distinction between killing species that are endangered and
killing species that are not. It's a reality that you seem to wish to ignore.
>Michael> of the principles in which they base their beliefs. I feel
>Michael> that there should be limits put on hunting because it hurts the
>Michael> species. The hunters usually strive to kill the largest and
>Michael> strongest animals which damages the species process of natural
>Michael> selection.
The above is totally incorrect. The majority of today's hunters choose to
take the first legal animal that gives the opportunity. There are very few
"trophy" hunters today, especially compared with past history.
It's a myth that hunters kill only the biggest and best of a species. Sure,
every now and then someone gets an exceptional animal, but even so, the
animal in question is usually near the end of it's lifespan and also, more
often than not, most animals that would qualify as "trophy" animals die of
old age, mainly because they've learned to adapt and outsmart it's predators.
>What you say here seems to make sense. But for the most part, most of
>the killings are done by slaghterhouses, not hunters.
I would agree that more animals are killed in slaughterhouses, but again,
I don't view this as wrong.
>Michael> I have different opinions on some of the different
>Michael> issues dealt with under animal rights. I feel that for the
>Michael> most part, animal activists are popular right now. Many of
>Michael> them are idealistic, and fail to realize that humans are
>Michael> animals as well, and that just because we are more
>Michael> sophisticated does not mean that we are separate from "nature".
>Michael> There are many other things than "morality" to be considered
>Michael> when dealing with these issues.
>I don't think that veg/AR is just "popular" right now. I think that
>just more people are starting to wake up and see exactly what it is that
>humans have been doing for a long time, and have just been desensitized
>to.
I'd have to disagree. There are more hunters today than in the past years,
and the numbers continue to increase anually for the most part, and the fact
that more people are being pressured to be "Politically Correct" is the
main reason for the seemingly increase in AR/Vegan views, and nothing
more. And realisticly speaking, Political Correctness is just a bunch of
bullshit that is pushed by people to try to paint a prettier picture of
reality, and nothing more.
>-rogt
Dan Sorenson
>>Russell's right on this one (I don't know about the masturbation part).
>>Forced copulation takes place in nature. It is defined as copulation
>>against the female's will (i.e. she tries to get away, is held, and
>>inseminated). It happens, folks. She's not cooperating.
>I disagree and so does all I've ever read and witnessed on the topic.
I suggest you buy a couple of domesticated ferrets that have
not been "clipped." After copulation you will find the male to have
blood on his jaws and the female to have blood on her neck. Make
your own conclusions, but the fact remains that she is held by a bite
that draws blood, is inseminated, and not released until the male
decides to release his bite. Sorry, but there it is.
Now of course we do have a difficult time deciding if that
ferret rapes from the same reasoning that a human male rapes, but that
is rather beside the point of arguing whether or not it happens.
Roger L. Tinkoff
JKC> In article <ROGT.94M...@godflesh.esd.sgi.com>,
JKC> ro...@esd.sgi.com (Roger L. Tinkoff) says:
>> inherent *need* to eat meat. The fact that there are many veg*ans
>> who are completely healthy proves this. The only reason people eat
>> meat is for the taste, to which they have become accustomed if they
>> were raised
JKC> Wrong. I choose to eat meat because it's my right to do so. I
JKC> value the meat I eat realizing a life was given in order for me to
JKC> partake of such a meal. Yes, meat is tasty and I do enjoy the
JKC> flavor, but I also enjoy participating in nature by playing my role
JKC> as the predator in the predator/prey relationship. I think to many
JKC> AR's don't participate in nature, and that is their right, but I
JKC> choose to be an active participant and not just a passive observer,
JKC> and I believe it's wrong for AR's to judge my decision as wrong
JKC> simply on what they believe.
So, as you like to say, thank you for admitting that my point was valid.
You just admitted that you eat meat for the taste. I don't speak in
public what I want becuase "it is my right to do so". I do it becuase I
like to and it feels good. If it happens to be legal then that is all
the better. As for judging, you are the only one who mentions it. I am
not trying to judge anybody. I am merely stating my opnions and facts,
between which I am careful to make a distinction.
JKC> I do not judge Veggies as wrong, although I think they're missing a
JKC> good part of life, but I still don't view them as wrong in choosing
JKC> not to eat meat as their diet.
I don't judge meat eaters as wrong. I may not like the practice, but I
can't stop others from doing it if they want to. My only hope is that
humans will stop doing it on their own.
Michael> Native Americans killed buffalo for food as well as many other
Michael> benefits that they could use from the animal.
>> Yeah, so did many other cultures. Not that I'm accusing you of using
>> this for an argument, but just becuase the *American* Indians did it
>> does not make it accepatble, to me anyway.
JKC> Understood, but do you judge anyone as wrong or inferior because
JKC> they choose to do so?
Again, I am not judging anybody. I am merely stating my opinions.
Michael> We are just more sophisticated of a species in the way that we
Michael> go about doing so.
>> Well, I think that humans should take this sophistication one step
>> further and move beyond the need to enslave animals for food. This
>> won't happen overnight, and making it illegal to eat meat won't do
>> it. This will be something that humans will have to learn over time.
JKC> Again, you're basing your beliefs and opinions as optimly correct,
JKC> and this, by no means, is the case.
Yeah? So what? Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for the
above to happen? If so, why? If you can't tell me *why* you think that
myself and others who share some of my beliefs are living in a "fantasy
world", then it just looks like you either don't understand what I am
saying or you are deliberately baiting me. You don't seem like a dumb
person, so I would ask you why you choose to do the latter.
>> 1) No nervous system 2) They do not repond to external stimuli in any
>> way that indicates that they are capable of any feelings, physical or
>> emotional. This "they can't feel pain as *we* know it" is crap.
>> Until somebody comes up with *conclusive* evidence that they feel
>> pain, assuming that they feel pain and have no way of telling us is
>> just sci-fi.
JKC> You already are familiar with the arguments against everything
JKC> concerning the plant/pain issue. Just because you choose to ignore
JKC> them does in no way make those arguments invalid.
Well, please refresh my memory as to the arguments I am ignoring. Hell,
just point me to another thread in which these arguments are posted. I
guarantee that I will have no problem picking them out/apart. If you
can come up with a truly convincing argument that supports the assertion
that plants can feel pain or *anything*, I will go right out and order and
eat a 15-piece bucket of the Colonel's finest.
Michael> I do not believe in killing animals if it is going to hurt the
Michael> natural ecosystem.
>> But lets face it, you don't have a problem killing them if it's for
>> food. Not that I'm coming down on you for *that*, but you should be
>> consistent. Killing animals in large amounts can't be OK for one
>> reason and not OK for another. And before anybody else decides to
>> pull some extreme stiuation out, like "what if a pack of cattle was
>> breaking into your house...", don't bother.
JKC> There is a definite distinction between killing species that are
JKC> endangered and killing species that are not. It's a reality that
JKC> you seem to wish to ignore.
What is the distinction? I'm sure that the animals being killed see
none. This is a reality *you* seem to choose to ignore.
>> What you say here seems to make sense. But for the most part, most
>> of the killings are done by slaghterhouses, not hunters.
JKC> I would agree that more animals are killed in slaughterhouses, but
JKC> again, I don't view this as wrong.
I give up trying to convince you otherwise.
Michael> I have different opinions on some of the different issues dealt
Michael> with under animal rights. I feel that for the most part,
Michael> animal activists are popular right now. Many of them are
Michael> idealistic, and fail to realize that humans are animals as
Michael> well, and that just because we are more sophisticated does not
Michael> mean that we are separate from "nature". There are many other
Michael> things than "morality" to be considered when dealing with these
Michael> issues.
>> I don't think that veg/AR is just "popular" right now. I think that
>> just more people are starting to wake up and see exactly what it is
>> that humans have been doing for a long time, and have just been
>> desensitized to.
JKC> I'd have to disagree. There are more hunters today than in the
JKC> past years, and the numbers continue to increase anually for the
JKC> most part, and the fact that more people are being pressured to be
JKC> "Politically Correct" is the main reason for the seemingly increase
JKC> in AR/Vegan views, and nothing more. And realisticly speaking,
JKC> Political Correctness is just a bunch of bullshit that is pushed by
JKC> people to try to paint a prettier picture of reality, and nothing
JKC> more.
Can you really not see the difference between people trying to put on an
act to make them feel better about themselves and people who are trying
to make some changes for the better by sticking by beliefs which really
*mean* something to them? Get this straight, man. Nobody is trying to
judge you or push anything on you. By posting to this newsgroup, you
opened yourself up to hearing our opinions. I can't help it if you
don't like them, but stop accusing us of all kinds of crap because you
don't like our views. On second thought, accuse all you like, becuase
we are capable of defending ourselves with facts, not accusations. And
facts will win out every time.
-rogt
Russell Lawrence
From article <94122.18...@psuvm.psu.edu>, <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> Paul Keck writes:
>> Russell Lawrence writes:
>>> JKC writes:
>>>> Agreed on the judgement of behaviors being judged on their
>>>> own terms, but being that rape is an act of violence by
>>>> definition, and mating is an act of reproduction and of which,
>>>> the female chooses her mate(s) by the desirable genetic traits
>>>> he posesses, thereby approving of him for mating, it is
>>>> impossible for animals to commit rape.
>>>
>>>Your notion that females always choose their mates is an
>>>assumption. Not a fact.
>
>>Russell's right on this one (I don't know about the
>>masturbation part). Forced copulation takes place in nature.
>>It is defined as copulation against the female's will (i.e.
>>she tries to get away, is held, and inseminated). It happens,
>>folks. She's not cooperating.
>
> I disagree and so does all I've ever read and witnessed on the
> topic.
Perhaps the authorities whom you've consulted so far were simply
unfamiliar with such behavior. It's a big world out there, and
just because one expert is unfamiliar with a given type of behavior
doesn't mean that it can't exist.
> Why then, is such emphasis placed upon the males impressing the
> females, especially with birds, for approval? Turkeys, Grouse,
> Swans, Geese, Ducks, Woodcocks, Peacocks, and *all* other birds go thru
> a courtship behavior in attempts at impressing a female in hopes of
> mating.
You say that "*all* other birds" engage in such-and-such behavior.
Would this include rain forest birds that may still be unknown
to western scientists? If your answer is "no", then perhaps you
should rephrase your statement in terms that aren't absolute.
On the other hand, if your answer is "yes", then readers will
quickly surmise that such a position is unfounded.
Let's suppose that most female birds participate in courtship
rituals. This wouldn't mean that rape _never_ occurs.
> When the male has won favor with the female, then mating will
> occur, not before. One species of song bird builds a nest for the female,
> and she mates with the one whom built the nest she chooses.
The fact that male and female animals cooperate in one instance
doesn't mean that _all_ males and _all females will cooperate in
every case.
>>The book I mentioned in the other thread, John Alcock's _Animal
>>Behavior: and evolutionary approach_ also has a chapter dealing
>>with how far we should apply evolution to human behavior.
>>Considering the interest on this group in being "above nature",
>>maybe some of you folks would like to read it. Alcock deals
>>with the "rape is purely an act of violence" issue, basically
>>saying no, it's often an act performed by young males, not
>>pair bound, with little hope of gaining normal matings, mostly
>>perfomed against women who are likely to conceive. Read it for
>>yourself, though, I'm not telling which way I lean on this one.
>>;-)
>
> I'll be sure to get his book when I get to the library. This
> is the first instance I've heard of any reliable source that
> contradicts what I've read so far.
Would you mind citing a few of the texts which support the
absolutist position that you were advocating previously?
James M Hoskins
>>>Forced copulation takes place in nature. It is defined as copulation
>>>against the female's will (i.e. she tries to get away, is held, and
>>>inseminated). It happens, folks. She's not cooperating.
>
>
[ferret rape accounts deleted]
Rue, in _The Deer of North American_, (pp. 274-5) writes about observing
nine bucks chase a deer down a hill until she fell. She was pushed up
by the bucks who used their antlers to prod her up whenever she would
fall again. She was mounted by three of the bucks and there was no
fighting among the bucks. However, this "gang rape" (Rue's terminology)
occurred in a fenced-in area of several thousand acres, where an
"exceedingly large deer herd had built up."
--
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <94122.18...@psuvm.psu.edu>, <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> Paul Keck writes:
>>> Russell Lawrence writes:
>>>> JKC writes:
>>>>> Agreed on the judgement of behaviors being judged on their
>>>>> own terms, but being that rape is an act of violence by
>>>>> definition, and mating is an act of reproduction and of which,
>>>>> the female chooses her mate(s) by the desirable genetic traits
>>>>> he posesses, thereby approving of him for mating, it is
>>>>> impossible for animals to commit rape.
>>>>
>>>>Your notion that females always choose their mates is an
>>>>assumption. Not a fact.
>>
>>>Russell's right on this one (I don't know about the
>>>masturbation part). Forced copulation takes place in nature.
>>>It is defined as copulation against the female's will (i.e.
>>>she tries to get away, is held, and inseminated). It happens,
>>>folks. She's not cooperating.
>>
>> I disagree and so does all I've ever read and witnessed on the
>> topic.
>Perhaps the authorities whom you've consulted so far were simply
>unfamiliar with such behavior. It's a big world out there, and
>just because one expert is unfamiliar with a given type of behavior
>doesn't mean that it can't exist.
Maybe you should read your and listen to your own words above, and not just on
this topic, but all topics from the past and in the future.
Granted, some "experts" may classify agressive mating behavior as rape, but
seeing that rape is not an act of mating, but rather an act of violence, the
interpetation as such is errored and invalid.
Secondly, rape is a term coined by humans on the act of violence that happens
to be a sexual assualt, not an intentional attempt at mating, and thereby
are judging animals guilty of an offense that's only capable of humans.
>> Why then, is such emphasis placed upon the males impressing the
>> females, especially with birds, for approval? Turkeys, Grouse,
>> Swans, Geese, Ducks, Woodcocks, Peacocks, and *all* other birds go thru
>> a courtship behavior in attempts at impressing a female in hopes of
>> mating.
>You say that "*all* other birds" engage in such-and-such behavior.
>Would this include rain forest birds that may still be unknown
>to western scientists? If your answer is "no", then perhaps you
>should rephrase your statement in terms that aren't absolute.
>On the other hand, if your answer is "yes", then readers will
>quickly surmise that such a position is unfounded.
You're just nitpicking in an attempt to gain a foothold with that asinine
comment, Russ. Of course I was referring to "known" species behavior, and
logical conclusion would dictate that any birds yet unknown would behave in
a similar mating pattern.
>Let's suppose that most female birds participate in courtship
>rituals. This wouldn't mean that rape _never_ occurs.
So now even active participation of mating of both the Male and female
can be classified as rape? You're not making sense Russ...but that's not
much of a surprise in itself.
>> When the male has won favor with the female, then mating will
>> occur, not before. One species of song bird builds a nest for the female,
>> and she mates with the one whom built the nest she chooses.
>The fact that male and female animals cooperate in one instance
>doesn't mean that _all_ males and _all females will cooperate in
>every case.
Correct...many times if the female doesn't accept the male, she leaves in
search of one she does approve of..rape isn't an option.
>>>The book I mentioned in the other thread, John Alcock's _Animal
>>>Behavior: and evolutionary approach_ also has a chapter dealing
>>>with how far we should apply evolution to human behavior.
>>>Considering the interest on this group in being "above nature",
>>>maybe some of you folks would like to read it. Alcock deals
>>>with the "rape is purely an act of violence" issue, basically
>>>saying no, it's often an act performed by young males, not
>>>pair bound, with little hope of gaining normal matings, mostly
>>>perfomed against women who are likely to conceive. Read it for
>>>yourself, though, I'm not telling which way I lean on this one.
>>>;-)
>>
>> I'll be sure to get his book when I get to the library. This
>> is the first instance I've heard of any reliable source that
>> contradicts what I've read so far.
>Would you mind citing a few of the texts which support the
>absolutist position that you were advocating previously?
Most certainly. I'm at the office and they're in my library at home,
so when I can, I'll be happy to provide citations. It's mostly on
mating behavior, rape isn't discussed in detail, because it doesn't happen.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Joseph K. Carlson
Sorenson) says:
>Joseph K. Carlson <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>Russell's right on this one (I don't know about the masturbation part).
>>>Forced copulation takes place in nature. It is defined as copulation
>>>against the female's will (i.e. she tries to get away, is held, and
>>>inseminated). It happens, folks. She's not cooperating.
>>I disagree and so does all I've ever read and witnessed on the topic.
> I suggest you buy a couple of domesticated ferrets that have
>not been "clipped." After copulation you will find the male to have
>blood on his jaws and the female to have blood on her neck. Make
>your own conclusions, but the fact remains that she is held by a bite
>that draws blood, is inseminated, and not released until the male
>decides to release his bite. Sorry, but there it is.
I happen to have ferrets as pets, and I'm very familiar with their
behavior, having read up on it before and since I got them.
The behavior you describe is true in the mating of ferrets, as well as
many other mammals. Hell, even humans tend to be aggressive during
mating at times in the heat of passion. I think you have misinterpeted
the behavior completely.
The fact that the males are only sexually interested in the female when she is
in heat is evident that rape doesn't occur. The fact that the mating is
aggressive does not constitute rape. The fact that a fixed female and an
un-neutered male, when put in the same vicinity, and the female will evade any
mating attempts given by the male and the male will usually not even attempt
it in the first place, is evidence that rape doesn't occur.
Ferrets are of a rough nature, they often bite and appear to be fighting
during rough housing in play, but the fact remains that they are not fighting
in violence, as many observers unfamiliar to ferrets believe, they are
doing so in play. And, yes, often in rough play some minor injuries will
occur, but that does not make it a fight of violence.
Ferrets in the wild, better known as Pole cats, are the same way, but even
then, the female often refuses to be mated until she is ready and she
willingly submits, and then only with the male(s) of her choosing.
The Discovery channel occasionaly runs a good documentary on ferrets in
the wild (Pole cats), and it goes into great detail at showing all the
behaviors common, including mating behavior. I believe it's entitled
"Night Bandits" or something sounding similar. I highly reccomend viewing
it if you get a chance. You'll see that there is no rape involved in the
mating behavior.
> Now of course we do have a difficult time deciding if that
>ferret rapes from the same reasoning that a human male rapes, but that
>is rather beside the point of arguing whether or not it happens.
Again, you are judging animal behavior according to human behavior, which isn't
valid. And again, you are describing a mating behavior, and rape is not
a mating behavior, it is an act of violence. Agressive mating behavior
is not rape.
>--
>* Dan Sorenson, DoD 1066 vik...@iastate.edu z1...@exnet.iastate.edu *
>* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
>* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
>* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
Joseph K. Carlson
jhos...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) says:
>[ferret rape accounts deleted]
I'm not familiar with behavior of animals in captivity stresse situations as
I am with animals in the wild.
As far as this discussion goes, initially it dealt with animals in the wild,
and so far the only discussion of alleged animal rape has all been with
animals in captivity or domesticated.
Russ's argument that rape is natural isn't valid if he's attempting to
attribute it to animals in an unatural surrounding such as captivity.
I've been researching this topic somewhat so far, and all I've found of
alleged animal-rape is examples of animals in captivity, none whatsoever
in the wild.
Maybe animals in an unatural habitat, (i.e. captivity) do commit rape,
and according to what I've read so far, it may very well be the case.
Now, if that is the case, then Russ is correct in his claim that animals do
commit rape, but only in a captivity environment; by the same token, I am
also correct in my belief animals do not commit rape, but only animals in
a natural environment.
Russ, I suspect you'll read this, so I ask you in all seriousness, because
I wish to know the truth about this topic; Do you have any cases or
examples of animals allegedly committing rape in the wild? I ask this
question of anyone following this thread also.
>--
Joseph K. Carlson
>From article <94122.23...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joseph K. Carlson writes:
>> In article <ROGT.94M...@godflesh.esd.sgi.com>, Roger L. Tinkoff
>writes:
>>>Wrong. Reasons plants cannot feel pain:
>>
>> *THAT's Debatable*
>>
>>>1) No nervous system
>>>2) They do not repond to external stimuli in any way that indicates
>>> that they are capable of any feelings, physical or emotional.
>>> This "they can't feel pain as *we* know it" is crap. Until
>>> somebody comes up with *conclusive* evidence that they feel
>>> pain, assuming that they feel pain and have no way of telling us
>>> is just sci-fi.
>>
>> You already are familiar with the arguments against everything
>> concerning the plant/pain issue. Just because you choose to
>> ignore them does in no way make those arguments invalid.
>Such arguments are deemed invalid by most (if not all) contemporary
>scientists and ethicists, not because someone has decided to simply ignore
>them, but because they have no empirical foundation. Reactions
>don't necessarily indicate feelings.
And lack of reactions don't necessarily indicate lack of feelings either.
>Do you truly believe that plants feel pain, JKC? And if so, is
>your belief consistent with the scientific evidence at your
>disposal concerning the nature of pain?
To answer the first part of your question, Russ, I really don't know if
plants can fell pain, but I do believe it's a distinct possiblility.
To the second part of your question, I guess my answer to the first
question answers the second as best as possible.
>Not too long ago, another anti-AR participant in this forum
>voiced his support for the concept of plant pain, but when I
>asked him if he would consider giving financial support to
>the mythical Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Plants
>(SPCP), he admitted that the whole idea of such a society seemed
>laughable to him. Do you agree with him on this last point?
Yes.
>Is the idea of such a society truly laughable?
Yes it is laughable...and in my point of view so is the AR movement and
it's basis.
That only means I don't think it neccessary to have a Plants Right movement
or an Animal Rights movement, because I don't believe either have rights on
a basis equal to Humans, and it doesn't mean that I don't believe in the
distinct possiblity that plants may feel pain.
I wish to purpose a question to you, Russ, in your own style;
If it were proven that plants can and do indeed feel pain, would you
change your views towards plants and animals, and if so, in what ways?
Be careful what you say to answer this question, because it hinges on
the major reasoning behind the AR and Vegitarian philosophies.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Joseph K. Carlson
Tinkoff) says:
First, let me say that I eat meat for the same basic reasons you eat vegetables
...for sustainance, for taste, and because I choose to do so.
Secondly, you come off as making a judgement of meat eaters by your remarks,
and I can't see as how you can defend your stance as you do without
insinuating judgement on those who eat meat.
>JKC> I do not judge Veggies as wrong, although I think they're missing a
>JKC> good part of life, but I still don't view them as wrong in choosing
>JKC> not to eat meat as their diet.
>I don't judge meat eaters as wrong. I may not like the practice, but I
>can't stop others from doing it if they want to. My only hope is that
>humans will stop doing it on their own.
Because you judge it as wrong..correct? What other reason could you
hold the hope "that humans will stop doing it on their own" ?
>Michael> Native Americans killed buffalo for food as well as many other
>Michael> benefits that they could use from the animal.
>>> Yeah, so did many other cultures. Not that I'm accusing you of using
>>> this for an argument, but just becuase the *American* Indians did it
>>> does not make it accepatble, to me anyway.
>JKC> Understood, but do you judge anyone as wrong or inferior because
>JKC> they choose to do so?
>Again, I am not judging anybody. I am merely stating my opinions.
Opinions that inherently cause judgement, wether you intend to or not.
>Michael> We are just more sophisticated of a species in the way that we
>Michael> go about doing so.
>>> Well, I think that humans should take this sophistication one step
>>> further and move beyond the need to enslave animals for food. This
>>> won't happen overnight, and making it illegal to eat meat won't do
>>> it. This will be something that humans will have to learn over time.
>JKC> Again, you're basing your beliefs and opinions as optimly correct,
>JKC> and this, by no means, is the case.
>Yeah? So what? Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for the
>above to happen? If so, why? If you can't tell me *why* you think that
>myself and others who share some of my beliefs are living in a "fantasy
>world", then it just looks like you either don't understand what I am
>saying or you are deliberately baiting me. You don't seem like a dumb
>person, so I would ask you why you choose to do the latter.
I'm not quite sure where you're coming from in this last remark, and not
that it makes any difference, because my original statement that you are
basing your beliefs and opinions as optimly correct and that this is
by no means the case, is correct; Your response reinforces it.
>>> 1) No nervous system 2) They do not repond to external stimuli in any
>>> way that indicates that they are capable of any feelings, physical or
>>> emotional. This "they can't feel pain as *we* know it" is crap.
>>> Until somebody comes up with *conclusive* evidence that they feel
>>> pain, assuming that they feel pain and have no way of telling us is
>>> just sci-fi.
>JKC> You already are familiar with the arguments against everything
>JKC> concerning the plant/pain issue. Just because you choose to ignore
>JKC> them does in no way make those arguments invalid.
>Well, please refresh my memory as to the arguments I am ignoring. Hell,
>just point me to another thread in which these arguments are posted. I
>guarantee that I will have no problem picking them out/apart. If you
>can come up with a truly convincing argument that supports the assertion
>that plants can feel pain or *anything*, I will go right out and order and
>eat a 15-piece bucket of the Colonel's finest.
I'll answer you the same as I did Russ. I don't know if plants feel pain
or not, there are good arguments to both sides, and because you choose to
ignore or invalidate one side because it's not yet to be totally proven
doesn't invalidate the argument itself. I do believe it's a distinct
possiblity that plants can and do feel pain, maybe not on a level as we
can yet comphrehend, but the possiblity is still there, and it hasn't been
totally proven one way or the other. Either way, it doesn't matter to me,
I will still eat both meat and vegetables. In a realistic view, neither
animals nor plants have rights equal to humans and never will, wether the
AR movement succeeds or not.
>Michael> I do not believe in killing animals if it is going to hurt the
>Michael> natural ecosystem.
>>> But lets face it, you don't have a problem killing them if it's for
>>> food. Not that I'm coming down on you for *that*, but you should be
>>> consistent. Killing animals in large amounts can't be OK for one
>>> reason and not OK for another. And before anybody else decides to
>>> pull some extreme stiuation out, like "what if a pack of cattle was
>>> breaking into your house...", don't bother.
>JKC> There is a definite distinction between killing species that are
>JKC> endangered and killing species that are not. It's a reality that
>JKC> you seem to wish to ignore.
>What is the distinction? I'm sure that the animals being killed see
>none. This is a reality *you* seem to choose to ignore.
The animals see none because they are animals. That's just another
point of why animals don't have rights equal to humans.
>>> What you say here seems to make sense. But for the most part, most
>>> of the killings are done by slaghterhouses, not hunters.
>JKC> I would agree that more animals are killed in slaughterhouses, but
>JKC> again, I don't view this as wrong.
>I give up trying to convince you otherwise.
Thanks.
AR terrorism, protests, arsons aren't trying to push AR views on non-ARs?
Yea, right.
And AR "facts" as you like to call them, are not facts, but rather opinions,
views and ideals based purely on emotions and little, if any, on reality.
Russell Lawrence
> In article <ROGT.94M...@godflesh.esd.sgi.com>, Roger L. Tinkoff writes:
>
> *THAT's Debatable*
>
>>1) No nervous system
>>2) They do not repond to external stimuli in any way that indicates
>> that they are capable of any feelings, physical or emotional.
>> This "they can't feel pain as *we* know it" is crap. Until
>> somebody comes up with *conclusive* evidence that they feel
>> pain, assuming that they feel pain and have no way of telling us
>> is just sci-fi.
>
> You already are familiar with the arguments against everything
> concerning the plant/pain issue. Just because you choose to
> ignore them does in no way make those arguments invalid.
Such arguments are deemed invalid by most (if not all) contemporary
scientists and ethicists, not because someone has decided to simply ignore
them, but because they have no empirical foundation. Reactions
don't necessarily indicate feelings.
Do you truly believe that plants feel pain, JKC? And if so, is
your belief consistent with the scientific evidence at your
disposal concerning the nature of pain?
Not too long ago, another anti-AR participant in this forum
voiced his support for the concept of plant pain, but when I
asked him if he would consider giving financial support to
the mythical Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Plants
(SPCP), he admitted that the whole idea of such a society seemed
laughable to him. Do you agree with him on this last point?
Is the idea of such a society truly laughable?
--
Dan Sorenson
>I happen to have ferrets as pets, and I'm very familiar with their
>behavior, having read up on it before and since I got them.
Then let me cut to the chase:
>The behavior you describe is true in the mating of ferrets, as well as
>many other mammals. Hell, even humans tend to be aggressive during
>mating at times in the heat of passion. I think you have misinterpeted
>the behavior completely.
If you don't mind, forceful sexual acts are my working
definition, not whether Tuco happened to think Angel Eyes was a
Commie Pinco Bitch that needed to be "taught a lesson." I
cannot think any animal has enough brain power to consciously
determine that forced sex is an act of domination. It might be
an instinctive thing, but particularly with ferrets ascribing this
to conscious thought is literally an appeal to ignorance.
Now then, would you care to tell me why Tuco "mated" with
Bonnie, Angel eyes (females) and in addition also mated with
The Ferret With No Name and my motorcycle boots?
I think rape is an perfectly operative term here.
Perhaps not one I would originally ascribe the behavior to, but
certainly a perfectly operable term.
Roger L. Tinkoff
JKC> First, let me say that I eat meat for the same basic reasons you
JKC> eat vegetables ...for sustainance, for taste, and because I choose
JKC> to do so.
Um, eating meat (or anything esle, for that matter) *is* a choice. It
makes no sense to say "I choose to do this because it is my choice".
JKC> Secondly, you come off as making a judgement of meat eaters by your
JKC> remarks, and I can't see as how you can defend your stance as you
JKC> do without insinuating judgement on those who eat meat.
You just won't leave this alone will you? I think that you must feel
guilty about eating meat deep down inside, as you seem to feel as though
you are constantly being judged. Either that or you cannot come up with
a convincing rebuttal, so you cop out by saying that you are not being
argued with, you are being "judged". Get off it.
>> I don't judge meat eaters as wrong. I may not like the practice, but
>> I can't stop others from doing it if they want to. My only hope is
>> that humans will stop doing it on their own.
JKC> Because you judge it as wrong..correct? What other reason could
JKC> you hold the hope "that humans will stop doing it on their own" ?
OK, if you say that my thinking something is wrong means that I am
"judging it as wrong", then so be it.
>>>> 1) No nervous system 2) They do not repond to external stimuli in
>>>> any way that indicates that they are capable of any feelings,
>>>> physical or emotional. This "they can't feel pain as *we* know it"
>>>> is crap. Until somebody comes up with *conclusive* evidence that
>>>> they feel pain, assuming that they feel pain and have no way of
>>>> telling us is just sci-fi.
JKC> You already are familiar with the arguments against everything
JKC> concerning the plant/pain issue. Just because you choose to ignore
JKC> them does in no way make those arguments invalid.
>> Well, please refresh my memory as to the arguments I am ignoring.
>> Hell, just point me to another thread in which these arguments are
>> posted. I guarantee that I will have no problem picking them
>> out/apart. If you can come up with a truly convincing argument that
>> supports the assertion that plants can feel pain or *anything*, I
>> will go right out and order and eat a 15-piece bucket of the
>> Colonel's finest.
JKC> I'll answer you the same as I did Russ. I don't know if plants
JKC> feel pain or not, there are good arguments to both sides, and
JKC> because you choose to ignore or invalidate one side because it's
JKC> not yet to be totally proven doesn't invalidate the argument
JKC> itself.
OK. If you don't know whether plants feel pain or not, you have to
assume that they do not, until you observe something that indicates that
they do. You keep accusing me of ignoring the other side of the
argument, but you haven't presented it. You can't/won't even tell me
where I can read about it myself! Anyway, my offer above still stands,
if you can convince me.
JKC> I do believe it's a distinct possiblity that plants can
JKC> and do feel pain, maybe not on a level as we can yet comphrehend,
JKC> but the possiblity is still there, and it hasn't been totally
JKC> proven one way or the other. Either way, it doesn't matter to me,
JKC> I will still eat both meat and vegetables. In a realistic view,
JKC> neither animals nor plants have rights equal to humans and never
JKC> will, wether the AR movement succeeds or not.
Are you majoring in any science perhaps? In case you aren't, let me clue
you in on the scientific method. You say "I do believe it's a distinct
possiblity that plants can and do feel pain, maybe not on a level as we
can yet comphrehend". What reasons do you have to believe that plants
can feel? What behaviors in plants have you or anybody in the
scientific community observed that even *remotely* suggests that plants
can feel? To cast it in the context of the scientific method, I ask you
three questions:
1) What OBSERVATIONS lead you to belive that plant feelings are
possible?
2) If you observed anything, what HYPOTHESIS can you make as to how/why
plants feel anyhting? Since they lack the one system which makes all
life on Earth with "feelings" feel (a nervous system), we have to
rule that out. Do you know something about neurobiology that the
rest of the world doesn't know? Please enlighten us.
3) If you came up with any kind of hypothesis, how would you go about
proving or disproving your hypothesis?
You see, you can't assign any validity to a scientific claim which has
no foundation. Just becuase "it hasn't been disproved" does not mean it
is in any way valid, unless some evidence had been observed and recorded
that suggests that it may have some validity.
You want to start an argument over whether or not minerals have
feelings?
JKC> There is a definite distinction between killing species that are
JKC> endangered and killing species that are not. It's a reality that
JKC> you seem to wish to ignore.
>> What is the distinction? I'm sure that the animals being killed see
>> none. This is a reality *you* seem to choose to ignore.
JKC> The animals see none because they are animals. That's just another
JKC> point of why animals don't have rights equal to humans.
They see no distinction becuase being killed is being killed, whether you
are human or animal. They don't have *any* rights, let alone rights
equal to humans, becuase many people think that animals are too dumb to
feel pain, or at least they don't feel enough so that we should feel bad
about it or anything.
>> Can you really not see the difference between people trying to put on
>> an act to make them feel better about themselves and people who are
>> trying to make some changes for the better by sticking by beliefs
>> which really *mean* something to them? Get this straight, man.
>> Nobody is trying to judge you or push anything on you. By posting to
>> this newsgroup, you opened yourself up to hearing our opinions. I
>> can't help it if you don't like them, but stop accusing us of all
>> kinds of crap because you don't like our views. On second thought,
>> accuse all you like, becuase we are capable of defending ourselves
>> with facts, not accusations. And facts will win out every time.
JKC> AR terrorism, protests, arsons aren't trying to push AR views on
JKC> non-ARs? Yea, right.
Well, terrorists and arsonists are radicals whose true commitment to any
set of morals or beliefs I question. They seem more like people who are
out for an excuse to do some crimes, and they in no way represent *my*
views. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with protestors,
whose protests are more to convey information to the public, information
which will certainly not be offered up by companies that have a purely
*financial* interest in animal exploitation.
JKC> And AR "facts" as you like to call them, are not facts, but rather
JKC> opinions, views and ideals based purely on emotions and little, if
JKC> any, on reality.
Whatever you say. Also, I don't know what the offical "AR" beliefs are,
which you incorporate into your strawman arguments against my views. I
in now way represent "The AR Movement", whatever that is.
-rogt
chickadee
a proponent of many aspects of deep ecology.
In article <66...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
ww1...@sdcc2.ucsd.edu (Michael Schooler) writes:
>
> HH88ONPNVHg&n (K/
> N-
> * Tp!@Pp!@T/
> N->>x(Od(O(O4(OM
>
> L
>
> This essay is in response to many of the opinions that have
> been stated over Usenet dealing with animal rights. First of all,
> many of the arguments posted tend to start out with an issue
> about this topic, but wind up turning into insignificant
> arguments in which two parties attack each other for reasons
> that have nothing to do with the issue of animal rights. Many
> of these arguments dwindle down to nothing more than one
> party attacking the other for meaningless things like bad
> grammar and flaws in personal character. In order for us to
> educate each other about both sides of these issues, we must
> continue to present our reasoning for our beliefs throughout
> the argument.
Good pt ;)
> One issue that is often brought up with the topic of animal
> rights is the general morality of humans eating animals. It is
> my belief that we may reap the benefits of the world we live
> in to continue as a species. Many animal activists argue that one
> of the reasons that humans eat animals is because they view
> them as insignificant, and feel that they are separated from
> their ways of life. They argue that man should look at the
> similarities we have with other species in order to gain respect
> for the other species that he must share the planet with. But
> by believing that we should not eat other animals, man is
> actually separating himself from these aspects of nature in
> which the activists would like us to recognize. Many species of
> animals depend on other species for their food source. Should
> we protect these weaker species because it is cruel for them to
My own philosophy is this: Respect the Life that gives you continuing
Life. Our survival is based upon the death of other creatures, whether
it be plant or animal. Mother Earth sustains us, so be mindful of
that.
i try not to make distinction between the value of human and non-human
life. Nature and non-human animals all have significant, intrinsic
value. Taoists perceive nature to be the great manifestation of
Tao...which they learned from in becoming closer to Tao.
For now, i have chosen not to eat meat (knowingly at least). i just
simply 'converted' myself to a vegetarian. i don't know completely
why, although i have been a vegetarain since last Sept. i know that i
do not wish to support the animal industry for one thing. Eating the
flesh that is so unrecognizable from the animal from whence it came
makes it difficult for me to find respect for that animal. Probably i
have a bias towards animals, but i think that's natural.
> have to suffer and be eaten? I believe that it is instinct for
> man to eat other animals as well as use them for many other
No, i don't believe it is our 'instinct'. Scientific evidence tends to
lean
towards the belief that man was originally a herbivore. Just to list a
few facts:
Teeth
Carnivores (meat-e for short)- have long canines for ripping at flesh
Herbivores (veg-e for short)- have molars to grind plant food, canines
small or nonexistent
Man-Canines small. Many molars. This could mean that humans are
omnivores, but it would be likely that meat would be rare.
Jaws
Meat-e- Wide opening jaws, can't move sideways
Veg-e- Can't open wide, but move side to side for grinding
Man- Can't open jaws wide, but can grind veggies and seeds w/side to
side motion.
Claws
Meat-e- Long claws to tear flesh
Veg-e- No claws. Usually hoofs or hands
Man- very dexterous hands
These are just a few examples. Look at other primates. They are
herbivores that very rarely eat any meat.
> things. Native Americans killed buffalo for food as well as
> many other benefits that they could use from the animal. We
> are just more sophisticated of a species in the way that we go
> about doing so. In the same way that we are able to harvest
> crops, we have learned to raise animals for a food source. It
> might be just as cruel of us to eat plants as it is to eat animals.
> We do not know how intelligent plants are or if they can feel
> pain. They might just lack the structure to show how advanced
> they are. This idea seems ridiculous to most, but it is just as
> difficult determining if plants have emotions as it is for animals.
> I believe that as long as it does not hurt our environment, that
> the raising of animals for food is correct.
> But there are many issues to deal with within the topic of
> animal rights. Many animal rights activists are against animals
> in captivity at places like zoos. I believe that zoos actually help
> animals by educating people about them and how they may
> help protect some of the species. Many zoos are nonprofit
> organizations that as well as educating people, actually help
> endangered species so that they will eventually be able to
> survive when they are put back into the wild. I do not believe
Teach ppl what? How do you learn appreciation from viewing an animal
imprisoned? Wild animals have the right to live and die wild. If ppl
want to learn about animals, ecology, etc, go to the your backyard,
park, state/nat'l forest or park. There is more than enough right
around us to learn appreciation of Mother Earth.
> in killing animals if it is going to hurt the natural ecosystem.
> Many animal rights activists do believe in killing animals in
> order to balance a previously unbalanced ecosystem regardless
> of the pain inflicted on the individual animals. In doing this
> they are contradicting some of the principles in which they base
> their beliefs. I feel that there should be limits put on hunting
> because it hurts the species. The hunters usually strive to kill
> the largest and strongest animals which damages the species
> process of natural selection. I have different opinions on some
> of the different issues dealt with under animal rights.
> I feel that for the most part, animal activists are popular
> right now. Many of them are idealistic, and fail to realize that
> humans are animals as well, and that just because we are more
> sophisticated does not mean that we are separate from "nature".
> There are many other things than "morality" to be considered
> when dealing with these issues.
Yes, we are not separate from nature, but i am not sure that your
reasoning backed this statement....
chickadee
________________________________________________________________________
_____
"...We learned to be patient observers like the owl. We learned
cleverness from the crow, and courage from the jay, who will attack an
owl ten times its size to drive it off its territory. But above all of
them ranked the chickadee because of its indomitable spirit."
--Tom Brown, Jr., _The
Tracker_
"All this new stuff goes on top
turn it over turn it over
wait and water it down.
From the dark bottom
turn it inside out
let it spread through, sift down,
even.
Watch it sprout.
A mind like compost."
--Gary Snyder...poet, mountaineer
________________________________________________________________________
______
Russell Lawrence
In article <Cp7JH...@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Perhaps the authorities whom you've consulted so far were simply
rl> unfamiliar with such behavior. It's a big world out there, and
rl> just because one expert is unfamiliar with a given type of behavior
rl> doesn't mean that it can't exist.
In article <94123.20...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joseph K. Carlson writes:
jkc> Maybe you should read your and listen to your own words
jkc> above, and not just on this topic, but all topics from the
jkc> past and in the future.
jkc>
jkc> Granted, some "experts" may classify agressive mating
jkc> behavior as rape, but seeing that rape is not an act of
jkc> mating, but rather an act of violence, the interpetation as
jkc> such is errored and invalid.
Some experts would classify a sexual act among animals as rape
if the female is unwilling to participate, Joseph.
Getting back to the original argument, rape occurs in nature
among non-human and human animals, but few of us are willing to
endorse the naive argument that the occurrence of a given event
in "nature" can relieve us of our own ethical responsibilities
vis-a-vis similar events under our own control. For example,
ducks may rape ducks, but this doesn't mean that it would be ok
for humans to rape humans. Likewise, the fact that cougars hunt
deer wouldn't imply that it's good for humans to hunt deer.
Paul Keck writes:
pk> The book I mentioned in the other thread, John Alcock's _Animal
pk> Behavior: and evolutionary approach_ also has a chapter dealing
pk> with how far we should apply evolution to human behavior.
pk> Considering the interest on this group in being "above nature",
pk> maybe some of you folks would like to read it. Alcock deals
pk> with the "rape is purely an act of violence" issue, basically
pk> saying no, it's often an act performed by young males, not
pk> pair bound, with little hope of gaining normal matings, mostly
pk> perfomed against women who are likely to conceive. Read it for
pk> yourself, though, I'm not telling which way I lean on this one.
pk> ;-)
jkc> I'll be sure to get his book when I get to the library. This
jkc> is the first instance I've heard of any reliable source that
jkc> contradicts what I've read so far.
rl> Would you mind citing a few of the texts which support the
rl> absolutist position that you were advocating previously?
jkc> Most certainly. I'm at the office and they're in my library
jkc> at home, so when I can, I'll be happy to provide citations.
jkc> It's mostly on mating behavior, rape isn't discussed in
jkc> detail, because it doesn't happen.
Do these authorities actually state that rape never happens?
You've convinced us that you don't believe it happens, but
there are credible experts who disagree with you.
Donald Graft
>Granted, some "experts" may classify agressive mating behavior as rape, but
>seeing that rape is not an act of mating, but rather an act of violence, the
>interpetation as such is errored and invalid.
>
>Secondly, rape is a term coined by humans on the act of violence that happens
>to be a sexual assualt, not an intentional attempt at mating, and thereby
>are judging animals guilty of an offense that's only capable of humans.
First, JKC engages in a lengthy debate of whether rape is observed
in animals. Now, when cornered, he eliminates it by saying such rape
is not possible BY DEFINITION.
Second, the dictionary speaks of forcible sexual intercourse (it also
speaks of crime and persons, but those can be left aside for the purpose
of deciding whether empirically animals rape). This notion of "act of
violence" is feminist rhetoric and has little to do with the meaning
of "rape" in the context (before JKC decided to change it).
>
>>Let's suppose that most female birds participate in courtship
>>rituals. This wouldn't mean that rape _never_ occurs.
>
>So now even active participation of mating of both the Male and female
>can be classified as rape? You're not making sense Russ...but that's not
>much of a surprise in itself.
He didn't say that. Then you insult him. He is saying that whether they
normally engage in non-rape courtship is no indicator that rape doesn't
sometimes occur.
>>> When the male has won favor with the female, then mating will
>>> occur, not before. One species of song bird builds a nest for the female,
>>> and she mates with the one whom built the nest she chooses.
>
>>The fact that male and female animals cooperate in one instance
>>doesn't mean that _all_ males and _all females will cooperate in
>>every case.
>
>Correct...many times if the female doesn't accept the male, she leaves in
>search of one she does approve of..rape isn't an option.
And sometimes the male forces his insemination, yes?
>>> I'll be sure to get his book when I get to the library. This
>>> is the first instance I've heard of any reliable source that
>>> contradicts what I've read so far.
>
>>Would you mind citing a few of the texts which support the
>>absolutist position that you were advocating previously?
>
>Most certainly. I'm at the office and they're in my library at home,
>so when I can, I'll be happy to provide citations. It's mostly on
>mating behavior, rape isn't discussed in detail, because it doesn't happen.
Then it's hard to see how they can support the absolutist position.
Donald Graft
Donald Graft
>Russ, I suspect you'll read this, so I ask you in all seriousness, because
>I wish to know the truth about this topic; Do you have any cases or
>examples of animals allegedly committing rape in the wild? I ask this
>question of anyone following this thread also.
JKC, didn't you rule out rape by definition just a few posts ago?
Changed your mind because you found some powerful new argument?!
Donald Graft
Joseph K. Carlson
>In article <Cp7JH...@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Perhaps the authorities whom you've consulted so far were simply
>rl> unfamiliar with such behavior. It's a big world out there, and
>rl> just because one expert is unfamiliar with a given type of behavior
>rl> doesn't mean that it can't exist.
>In article <94123.20...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joseph K. Carlson writes:
>jkc> Maybe you should read your and listen to your own words
>jkc> above, and not just on this topic, but all topics from the
>jkc> past and in the future.
>jkc>
>jkc> Granted, some "experts" may classify agressive mating
>jkc> behavior as rape, but seeing that rape is not an act of
>jkc> mating, but rather an act of violence, the interpetation as
>jkc> such is errored and invalid.
>Some experts would classify a sexual act among animals as rape
>if the female is unwilling to participate, Joseph.
And just how, without the female outright telling you so, would you be
able to determine the difference between a female sexually mating as
being unwilling if agressive mating behavior is the norm?
>Getting back to the original argument, rape occurs in nature
>among non-human and human animals, but few of us are willing to
>endorse the naive argument that the occurrence of a given event
>in "nature" can relieve us of our own ethical responsibilities
>vis-a-vis similar events under our own control. For example,
>ducks may rape ducks, but this doesn't mean that it would be ok
>for humans to rape humans. Likewise, the fact that cougars hunt
>deer wouldn't imply that it's good for humans to hunt deer.
Hogwash, Russ. That's your opinion, nothing more.
>Paul Keck writes:
>pk> The book I mentioned in the other thread, John Alcock's _Animal
>pk> Behavior: and evolutionary approach_ also has a chapter dealing
>pk> with how far we should apply evolution to human behavior.
>pk> Considering the interest on this group in being "above nature",
>pk> maybe some of you folks would like to read it. Alcock deals
>pk> with the "rape is purely an act of violence" issue, basically
>pk> saying no, it's often an act performed by young males, not
>pk> pair bound, with little hope of gaining normal matings, mostly
>pk> perfomed against women who are likely to conceive. Read it for
>pk> yourself, though, I'm not telling which way I lean on this one.
>pk> ;-)
>jkc> I'll be sure to get his book when I get to the library. This
>jkc> is the first instance I've heard of any reliable source that
>jkc> contradicts what I've read so far.
>rl> Would you mind citing a few of the texts which support the
>rl> absolutist position that you were advocating previously?
>jkc> Most certainly. I'm at the office and they're in my library
>jkc> at home, so when I can, I'll be happy to provide citations.
>jkc> It's mostly on mating behavior, rape isn't discussed in
>jkc> detail, because it doesn't happen.
>Do these authorities actually state that rape never happens?
Honestly no, but there is no mention of rape. Agressive mating behavior
is the closest, and that's not rape.
>You've convinced us that you don't believe it happens, but
>there are credible experts who disagree with you.
As there are credible experts who provide evidence and teachings that
can be concluded from that rape doesn't happen.
I can understand how some people, you, others, and some experts, can
interpet sexual behavior in some animals as rape when it's aggresive
behavior, but considering the factor that the only criteria for mating
behavior to be triggered is scent and/or time of year, I don't believe
it could be classified as rape. Rape is an act of violence by definition,
and it's only goal is to inflict harm/humiliation. Mating behavior in
animals, wether agressive or not, is to successfully produce offspring.
The two are not the same, and you cannot judge animal behavior by
human criteria. It's like comparing apples with potatoes.
The closest any species has come close to rape by definition is
reported behavior of some primates, but there is little documentation
that I can find to verify this behavior, and what little I have found
states that it is done by male primates to other males in order to show
dominance, and again, it's a theory. No one, to my knowledge, has ever
actually witnessed rape according to this theory, but have described
behavior indicating that rape, or rape-like behavior does occur in
primate social groups.
As I stated before, Russ, I do not believe rape happens with respect to
animals in the wild, because as of yet, I've not seen much evidence to
support it does occur, and what evidence that has been presented is
"iffy" at best.
Don't get me wrong either Russ, if I can find anything, or presented with
anything, that proves to a reasonable degree that rape does occur in respect
to animals in a natural evironment, I'll modify my opinions.
Until then, I'll continue to disagree that rape occurs in the animal
kingdom, because nothings been shown that proves it does occur.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>ru...@wpg.com
Dan Sorenson
>> Now then, would you care to tell me why Tuco "mated" with
>>Bonnie, Angel eyes (females) and in addition also mated with
>>The Ferret With No Name and my motorcycle boots?
>That behavior is typical of most animals when sexual phermones
>are present. One female in heat can rub that scent on any other
>animal or object leaving the scent behind. Whitetail does do this
>in response to a buck scrape that's active, as do many other animals that
>use scent as the main trigger of mating behavior. I've witnessed bucks in
>the wild that have been so "turned on" by scent that they would probably
>have mounted anything in the vicinity that was remotely similar to a doe.
>This is mating behavior, not rape behavior, plain and simple.
I disagree. The only pheremones present on my motorcycle
boots are excreted by that rare breed, Harley-Davidsonis Sportsteris.
Granted, motor oil, road grime, and bug splatter aren't much by way
of sexual turn-ons for some creatures, but given that Tuco mounted
my boots with the same gusto and teeth he mounted the other male
and female ferrets, this certainly appears to be a forceful act.
Furthermore, do not males excrete pheremones of their own? Indeed,
male ferrets have scent glands that would do an inspired skunk
proud. Tuco would have to have no olfactory senses to not detect
that my boots and The Ferret With No Name were, in fact, not females
in heat. In addition, Bonnie was not in heat and Angel Eyes had
been spayed months before.
Logically, pheremones don't cut it. Now I don't grant
Tuco the brain-power necessary to commit rape as an act of
violence, but as one of domination he might have the capacity.
>When this topic was first brought up, it was in reference to animals in the
>wild, where as most of the discussion since has been on domesticated animals
>or animals in captivity. Domestication and captivity do influence animal
>behavior to a great degree, and therefore cannot be easily applied to
>the original claim by Russ that "Rape is natural" with respect to animals
>in the wild.
So now domesticated animals are so much different from their
wild cousins that they often pause, sit in a "time-out" corner, and
share tea and crumpets rather than engage in violent or forceful
acts? Render unto us a break, Joe. The social structure of both
wild and domesticated animals is based mainly upon power. This
is true no matter if you're talking about Chinchillas or convicts.
Forceful sexual acts are a part of this, and perfectly natural so
far as the animals are concerned. See, they don't necessarially
have a government, policemen, and a court system regulating
what is acceptable behavior.
>Again, let me re-state, rape, by definition, is an act of violence, not
>an act of mating. Agressive mating behavior is by no means the same as
>rape. Mating behavior's objective is reproduction, rape's objective is
>violence. And again, applying human terms as criteria for
>judging animal behavior is invalid, because they are not the same.
By your definition, all rapists verify that their victim is
either on the pill, already pregnant, or else they pause somewhere
in the struggle and don a condom. Rape is not merely an act of
violence -- you can simply cuff her across the chops and be done
with it right there if that is the case. Rape is more about
domination, hence a forced sexual act. Sex is often about more
than reproduction, else you'll be hard-pressed to explain why Tuco
mated with my boots and The Ferret With No Name, or why bulls
regularly mount each other when in a common herd.
There are numerous cases of alpha males chasing down and
mating with females while a non-alpha male humps away in the
bushes, eyes cast about in worry. I believe National Geographic
even has these scenes on video, if that's your thing. *That* is
sex for procreation only. The alpha male is, at best, forcing
procreation which is not at all far from rape.