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.