Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!wjh12!talcott!gjk
From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Flame Broiled Veal
Message-ID: <176@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Dec-84 22:20:21 EST
Article-I.D.: talcott.176
Posted: Fri Dec  7 22:20:21 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Dec-84 02:14:15 EST
References: <139@gcc-opus.ARPA> <878@ihuxx.UUCP>, <168@harvard.ARPA> <880@ihuxx.UUCP> <161@talcott.UUCP> <187@harvard.ARPA>
Organization: Harvard
Lines: 52

Odd # of >'s: Marie desJardins
Even # of >'s: Me
> > Why don't you leave these men alone?  You don't know that they did anything
> > but hunt deer.  And since deer are not endangered species, they haven't
> > hurt you, your relatives, or your friends.  In fact, they haven't hurt
> > anyone.
> 
> Except the deer.  (This statement isn't meant to start an argument,
> rather to remind everyone that every argument has an opposing side.
> E.g. the deer, who would probably prefer to live, given a chance.)

Now you're being hypocritical, since you don't object to slaughtering cows
in the stockyards.  You may say, "killing for food is different from
killing for sport,"  to which I would reply:  since our concern here is the
deers' rights, we should note that a deer doesn't particularly care why
it's being killed.

> > I don't consider hunting deer to be very pleasant, or even
> > worthwhile, but that doesn't mean that there should be such name-calling.
> > 
> > What men do in their spare time is *their* business.
> 
> But not women.  ( only about .01 :-) )  Yeah, that's what I say too.
> You know?  Like, if a man wants to go out and rape a woman in his spare
> time, that's HIS business.

Thanks for making me out to be a sexist, Marie (yes, I guess this is
net.flame, but libelous insinuations are uncalled for).  In case you
didn't notice, it was an allusion to the gay rights movement.  Frankly, I
think homosexual relations are really gross, but hey, it doesn't affect me,
so why should I care?   Of course, this applies equally to women as
well as men.

> I think this argument bears a lot of similarity to the smoking in public
> argument.  It seems that at least a number of people (myself included)
> are opposed to neither cigarette smoking nor deer hunting.  But a large
> number of those people are opposed to cigarette smoking in public places
> (which offends their senses) and public displays of dead animals (which
> offends their sensibilities).

Cigarette smoking in public offends more than my "senses." I happen to be
allergic to it.  But if I saw someone driving down the highway smoking a
cigarette, it wouldn't bother me in the least.  You must remember that your
principal objection was (and I quote):  "WHY DID THEY HAVE TO KILL THE DEER
IN THE FIRST PLACE?"  And I don't think it's any of your business.
---
			Greg Kuperberg
		     harvard!talcott!gjk

"Madam, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the
question whether the white race will survive."  -Leonid Breshnev, speaking
to Margaret Thatcher.