HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve.gustafson@tfd.coplex.com (Steve Gustafson) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Dangerous Ideas
Date: 20 Jan 93 16:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ky/In PC User's Group - Louisville, KY - 502-423-8654
Reply-To: steve.gustafson@tfd.coplex.com (Steve Gustafson) 

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) sic ait:

RP>What is the difference between a good ruler and a bad ruler? It's
  >not the power, as that is identical. It is the idea set driving the
  >use of the power.

I would tend to disagree.  Less power in the hands of rulers is good;
more power is bad.

A bad ruler's rule is bad precisely because his bad ideas require much
greater use of force to implement than the good ruler's ideas do.  Bad
rulers typically have Big Ideas about how they are going to remake human
beings after their own image.  Because people have a human nature that
is ineradicably contrary and dooms most of these Big Ideas to failure,
the Big Ideas lead to snoops and spies, to prison camps, and other
typical hallmarks of a Bad Ruler's rule.

Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon basically believe that all
heterosexual sex acts are rape of one sort or another, because economic,
class, and status differences always exist between the two participants,
and because of these differences "consent" is impossible.  In all sexual
acts, one participant must always dominate the other.  (Why this is not
true of lesbian sex, I am not sure I have ever heard their explanation.)

The most important of these differences is the power that our society
allegedly gives all men over all women; a claim I find impossible to
believe.  (Every day, the media bring further word of the vast power
that women wield over men.  The fact that these claims are widely
circulated is but one testament to that power.)

At any rate, this all-heterosexual-sex-is-oppression doctrine sounds
like yet another of those Big Ideas that couldn't be put into practice
without secret sex police and concentration camps.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . steve.gustafson@tfd.coplex.com hanc litteras scripsit.
                
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.abortion
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: DODie supports Kolker in coerced abortions?
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:19:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.214336.11746@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.162008.11584@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.004906.298@Princeton.EDU> 
>>datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>> I hope that this latest piece of bilge suffices to demonstrate
>>>> that this scum is *not* pro-choice, and that you will retract your
>>>> statements that he is.
>>
>>> Sh-yeah... don't you know by now that when [Holtsinger] sinks his 
>>> little mental claws into a distortion, he's loath to let go of it even
>>> when proven wrong?
>>
>>Kolker supports the legal availability of abortion, and contrary
>>to what you and Mark Cochran have stated, he does not support
>>forced abortion or forced sterilization:  
>>
>>   "Frankly I am not in favor of involuntary anything (including
>>    sterilization), niether am I in favor of being taxed to support these
>>    discultured primitives.  Let'em starve, a *give* away sterilizations 
>>    for free."
>>                    rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
>>                    <C0ytpq.3CG@world.std.com>
>>
>>
>>That makes him pro-choice.  I hope I won't have to repeat
>>myself again.
>>
>Why? Getting tired of lying DODie?
>his form of coercion is essentially the same as yours. You would use
>laws to force women to remain pregnant, or go to jail. He would use
>laws to force women to abort, or starve.
>I'm shocked that you would condone such an attitude DODie. It's even
>more repuslive then your usual antics.

this discussion may have started out as political theory, but it has degenerated
into the inevitable abortion flame-war. please keep the "DODie supports
Kolker in coerced abortions?" crap out of talk.politics.theory.

thanks.

follow-ups to talk.abortion.

--
charles
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal to End Poverty
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:47:06 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <C1C22w.1Eo@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
writes:
>As for racism and bigotry, not one word in my proposal suggested that race
>was a condition for the restrictions to apply, only NEED. Get it? I also
>stated that if such restrictions fell on people of color
>disproportionately, it is only because of historically accidental
>conditions [...]

oops!  sorry!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Subject: Replacing entitlements with obligations
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:07:44 GMT

I was thinking about inaugural speeches calling for sacrifice and abandoning
the idea we can get something for nothing. This (naturally :-) led to
thoughts about funding the new health care system we have been promised.

It occurred to me that a funding mechanism 180 degrees opposed to the current
concept of entitlements is possible, and would be in perfect harmony with
the tone of the inaugural address.

Instead of entitlements, we would have "obligations". The health care system
would be funded by a special targeted tax. The tax rate would (by law)
automatically rise and fall with the cost of the health care system.

I think this would inspire a deep and abiding watch-dog-like interest on the
part of the taxpayers in how well the system works, how well it is being
administered, and how much waste exists in the system. It might even lead
people to decide an Oregon style rationing system is a good idea.

I don't really know if this is a good idea or not (and I am fairly certain
it will NOT wind up as the funding mechanism), but I thought it was an
interesting idea, so I thought I would post it just to see what sort of
reaction it gets.
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,sci.econ
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Has the government has weaseled out of paying debts?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:42:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.172229.9639@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan25094346@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>	In constant-dollar terms, they were cheated and 
>>	did NOT receive full payment of US debt.
>
>They weren't cheated -- they guessed wrong.  Or do you consider people
>who buy bonds at high interest rates and watch inflation fall below
>expected levels to be ripping off the government?

it is always the responsibility of the investor to assess over-all risk,
including inflation risk. but you are leaving out the causal link here--
the government's ability to control inflation through its monopoly on
currency. as such, they have the ability to decide to "rip off" their
creditors in the future if they so decide (though to their eventual
peril). watch for this to start happening in the next few years.

-=-
charles
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Back to Homeschool (was: Style vs substance)
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:48:32 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <C1Bo95.H55@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> [...] The
>assumption is the authoritarian one that all children
>automatically hate school.  There is a contrary anarchist
>view that humans naturally desire to acquire information and
>abilities, so they would be attracted to effective
>schooling, although not necessarily to schools.
>
>"School" actually is more about how certain people are kept
>in order, rather than how they are trained and informed.
>Otherwise they would not be compulsory, and would have much
>different characteristics than they now do.

sadly, no authoritarian conspiracy is necessary.  educators impress
order _in order to_ accomplish the slightest something.  given charge
of 25 kindergarteners, the anarchist teacher will within a week have
them marching in rank and silence to the lunchroom, simply to forestall
nervous exhaustion.
>
>lz:
>| I agree that children are often far more capable than we give them credit
>| for. Perhaps we need to qualify this discussion with an age? I don't claim
>| to have all the answers, but in my opinion, fit parents remain the most
>| likely candidates for providing love and protection and direction to 
>| children.

it is not a matter of what children are or are not 'capable' of.
from the earlist possible age, the sheer volume of children in
each classroom requires the teacher to interact with -- and
perceive -- them as a mass.  social interaction in this
situation is necessarily impersonal and authoritarian.
while liberal reformists go about trying to convince educators
to 'make the material relevant', they do not realize that
the structure of interaction and communication is at least as
important as what is being communicated.  particularly at
younger ages, children don't just 'engage with the material' --
the material and the teacher who teaches it are indistinguishable.
engagement will not occur if there is no one there to engage
with.

in the mass class, emotion is denied: in elementary school when
the wailing child is sent away to the school psychologist, and
again in high school when the teenager's sometimes wildly directed
spirit is quashed 'for the sake of the rest of the class' instead
of being cajoled and wrapped around the subject.  education becomes
lonely.  it becomes impossible for the child to _exist_ within
the class, to involve _herself_ in it -- she must consent to
_behave_.  as a tutor at an inner-city school, i get kids who
would probably like not to be there in the first place staying
around during their free period to learn geometry.  it is not
because they suddenly find geometry either meaningful or even
necessary means, but that they feel themselves, sense their
own presence, with me.  children won't want to go to school if
they can't bring themselves there.

regards,
dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation ? (was: A Modest Proposal to End Poverty)
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:49:44 GMT

In article <CEDMAN.93Jan24160246@capitalist.princeton.edu> cedman@princeton.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>In article <C1DG2E.BLL@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>   We live in a world with 3 times the population it can support well, and in
>   a country with at least 1.5 times such population.  Taxing responsible
>   people to support an increase in people who require public support is
>   what is unaffordable.

>The rest of your statements notwithstanding, how do you justify that
>figure for the US ? After all, the US has little more than one tenth
>of the population density of eg. Germany. And while Germany is
>certainly much closer to overpopulation than the US is, it equally
>certainly hasn't yet reached the point where population pressure has a
>serious impact on the quality of life of its residents. But 80 million
>people live comfortably in a country where by your meassure only about
>5 million could.

For one thing, average population density is misleading.  The population
density on the central part of the eastern seaboard is quite close to that
of Germany.  

But the factors which caused a higher quality of life in crowded cities
have been replaced; there is no longer the need for large numbers of low-
paid workers in a single location, or for that matter much of anything
else in a central location.  Before WWII, there was a concentration of
banks in downtown Manhattan so that the money could be transferred; now
it is mostly done on computers.  In the 19th century and early in this,
there had to be a concentration of factory workers, large department 
stores, etc.  The automobile, the telephone, and the computer have
changed this.  Downtowns are only maintained by government action.

Germany IS overpopulated.  The concentrations of people in the cities
is no longer an advantage.  Having to wait for a public vehicle is
automatically a reduction in the quality of life; it was a transient
phenomenon of the industrial development which caused the need for a
dense population, which could not be well served by foot and private 
vehicles.	
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5742 talk.abortion:57564
From: Spartan@cup.portal.com (Rich Clark MacKinnon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal to End Poverty
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 12:58:32 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world



Conan writes,

>There is NO compulsion in anything I propose. All choices to be made by free
>will. The basic choice is give up reproduction or starve or improve one's
>condition so that reproduction is affordable. 

This would imply that the taxpayers are ethically and morally exempt from
their deeds because the indigent women are presented with a choice.
Reproductive rights vs starvation is not a choice.  It's coercion.

Rich
Date: Thursday, 21 Jan 1993 12:52:38 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: this has been bothering me for awhile...
 <ISBELL.93Jan21083552@panther.ai.mit.edu>

ok, the vp gets sworn in before the prez.  so gore gets sworn in, and
then bush dies.  gore becomes the 42nd president, whoever succeeds the
vice-prez (speaker of the house?) becomes vp, and then clinton gets
sworn in as the 43rd president? what becomes of gore? he gets the shaft?

bob vesterman.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal to End Poverty
Keywords: Poverty,Welfare,Abortion,Birth-Control A Modest Proposal
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:36:10 GMT

rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
]
] There are two ways of eliminating poverty from our society. One way is to
] promote economic growth with a resultant expansion of the middle class with
] a general lifting of the standard of living. This will produce a reduction in
] both relative and absolute poverty. Clearly this is the best approach since
] it is win-win and avoids the zero sum scenario.

Don't You just Hate it when wimp Liberals go
espousing More Liberal Dogma....

Why NOT go to the HEART OF THE MATTER!

OUTLAW POVERTY NOW!!!!!


We could then engage in a Real War On Poverty,
and anyone Caught in Poverty would be SHOT!

Its Working to Win the War On Drugs!!!!!

ciao
drieux


ps: who brings these wimp liberals out?????


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27793 alt.pagan:16014 alt.folklore.urban:35141
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Runes < was: Peace Symbol >
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:41:38 GMT

In article <2B676386.19659@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>I'll post a ref for this if anyone wants it, but if you go to a univ.
>library and look up runes, you should find it easily.  It's not exactly
>a bone of contention.

Try _Runes: An Introduction_ by Raplh Elliot.

Blessings,
Janis again


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27632 alt.pagan:15892 alt.folklore.urban:34894
From: cspot@cats.ucsc.edu (Christopher Edward Hilker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:16:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


u0d05@keele.ac.uk (PG Herzberg) writes:

>theory three: Apparently it is semaphore. If you split it up into
>three component parts you get 0,| and Y(inverted) the O stands for
>whole and the other two are semaphore for  N and D (ie total Nuclear
>Disarmament). (This sounds very silly I know but it wasn't me who
>dreamed it up).

This is the theory I have heard. The corrolary to this theory is that
an inverted peace symbol represents unilateral disarmament (U-D).

C.

-- 
hilker!chris (cspot@cats.ucsc.edu)

Life is fair. There, I said it. If anyone asks, you can tell them I did.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/27/93   God's Promise in James 5:16
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:19:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Confess your faults one to another,
	and pray one for another,
	that ye may be healed.
	The effectual fervent prayer
	of a righteous man
	availeth much.

	James 5:16
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:28:05 GMT

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu  writes:

> In article <1993Jan20.162021.19364@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:

> >Actually, you won't find Christ condemning either homosexuality
> >     or abortion (even though this act was somewhat prevalent at
> >     the time-- funny, isn't it?).

> I don't really have any info. on abortion among Jews in the 1st century,
> but I do know that the Jewish leadership knew that homosexual acts were
> sins.  Jesus did not specifically mention the topic in the record we
> have inthe gospels.  But he does condemn "porneia" the general term
> for homosexuality.  Jesus also quoted and recognized the authority of 
> the books of the old Testament that speak against homosexual acts.

Please specify the exact passage for "porneia."  In the meantime,
     I will try to find it myself.
     
Also, though Jesus quoted and recognized the Old Testament's
     authority, he nevertheless broke several of the laws
     (consider when he didn't stone the prostitute-- tsk,
     tsk.)

> Link Hudson.

SRM
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27809 alt.atheism:27208 soc.culture.jewish:26330
From: lance@wolves.Durham.NC.US (Lance A. Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Why G-d - Is it a trademark ? ( was Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d)
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:39:27 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX

In article <gre253-270193152508@152.83.8.10> gre253@its.csiro.au (Steve Green) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Jan24.052500.9493@cs.tulane.edu>
>> david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann) writes:
>
>G-d instead of God throughout the article!
>
>What's the story? Is God a registered trademark?

No, not a registered trademark.  Mr. kaufmann is probably of the Jewish
faith.  As I understand it, they do not pronounce or write the full name of
G-d out of respect (and maby some other things).

>
>Maybe the christians are cashing in - again.

Sorry, missed.

Lance
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gre253@its.csiro.au (Steve Green)
Subject: Why G-d - Is it a trademark ? ( was Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish
Organization: Comms group, ITS branch, CSIRO
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:26:26 GMT


> In article <1993Jan24.052500.9493@cs.tulane.edu>
> david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann) writes:

G-d instead of God throughout the article!

What's the story? Is God a registered trademark?

Maybe the christians are cashing in - again.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27150 alt.pagan:15683
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Living forever (Was: ankh (you very much?))
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:13:39 GMT

In article <C17v1B.KCy@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Cecilia Henningsson) writes:
>[Here was a mess of attributations. I couldn't disentangle it.]
>
>>>>>Don't be silly. I'm quite able to have children. I have--much to
>>>>>my regret--no intention to live forever.
>>>>Well, I wouldn't be caught dead living forever!  -- Robert
>>>Well, I just quote Woody Allen (I think is the author of this one):
>>>        I want to live forever, or die trying.
>
>Woody Allen? Heck no! It's Vila in the eminent BBC sf-series
>_Blakes_7_.  He is also the one to say: "There isn't a lock in the
>universe I can't open if I'm scared enough." You don't need to ask his
>profession, do you? :)

Did this guy also say something like, "Other people's property comes
naturally to me."?

Blessings,
Janis  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: haefner@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner)
Subject: Peace Symbol
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:19:42 GMT


Recently several articles have been on the ankh and I thought I would
ask if anyone has information on where the "peace symbol" is derived
from. I have heard that its origins are occultic and was used by some
ancient pagan societies. Is this true? If so, who? Anyone care to 
offer some reliable info?


Thanks,

Mark



Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27510 alt.slack:3905 alt.peeves:19574 alt.discordia:778
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.peeves,alt.discordia
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:22:26 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

In article <fYjGSUn@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>And let us not, oh brethren, forget the all time *HATE*-mongering classic,
>spoken by the god-man himself, yes that's right, and *JESUS* said:
>Luke 14:26

Yes, another Paul Harvey.  What else can you remove from its context?
What other grammatical constructions can you not recognize besides
hyberbole?  This particular passage in Luke has a cross reference
in Matthew 10:37.  Are you too lazy to read this one or does hiding
the truth from yourself a pleasurable pasttime of yours?

Paul, I use to answer your posts several months ago.  Have you ever
wondered why I have since choosen to ignore you?  It is not because
your wisdom is so superior that it refutes all arguments; but rather 
because your wisdom is folly and that trying to show you this has
been a waste of time.   You are not teachable.  You are not willing
to learn anything.  You seem content in your ignorance.  Who am I
to try to disturb that?  Whatever makes you happy, so be it.


Sincerely,



Brian Ceccarelli
----------------
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns