HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:50:51 GMT

      I have not written on this newsgroup for some time, mostly because
those who do refuse to trim down the articles.  I rarely feel like wading
through the same intro article five or six times to find the "new"
information.  However, I have just waded my way to the most outrageous
statement I have ever seen on this newsgroup.
      A poster just claimed that he believes the genocide of the American
Indian at the hands of Anglo-Americans was less immoral than that which
was engaged upon the Jews by Hitler!  Why would this be true?
Is is possible because the Jews were an advanced race?  Because they were
white?  Because they spoke the samw language as their oppressors?  Because you
personally know some Jews?  This statement was ludicrous.  The Indian Genocide,
in my opinion, was all the more immoral because it was successful, was engaged
upon predications that even the frontiersmen themselves didn't believe, and
was justified in spite of, not because of, the religious beliefs of the
practitioners.
      Genocide is never moral.  And there are not "shades of grey" when it
comes to genocide.  The systematic destruction of a peoples is immoral and
unconsciounable. (spelling?)  
      
      Additionally, the poster claimed that America prospered far greater than
Europe because it was the pioneer in industrial development.  This is not true.
Most if not all of the industrial advancement in America was on the coattails
of British and German science and technology.  What did allow America to prosper
was the lack of native wars America had to fight.  America never had to rebuild
what was destroyed in war once the Industrial Revolution hit.  The Civil War
ended before the I.R. had a chance to really kick in.  America prospered
for the same reason a life insurance policy pays well--uninterrupted, steady
growth.  Europe had to repair the damages of a number of post-industrial
wars; wars in which the United States saw only one local battle--Pearl Harbor.
      America has prospered til now because it did not suffer.  While this
may sound tautological, it is also true.  America did well, because it was not
involved in doing poorly.
      I do not have a solution to America's woes, but I tend to agree with
Steve in that a renewed faith in God/Diety/moral justifications may be the
best first step our country can take.  Christian morality has not been
tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and not tried.  That
is a paraphrase of a quote to whom I am uncertain to attribute.

                                     Karen


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Genocide
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:51:03 GMT

      Humble Pie time.

This discussion went nowhere.  My fault.  I left the realm of logical
argumentation in my effort to include the destruction of the American
Indian culture (and in fact the American Indian) under the rubric of
genocide.
      I concede that the fact that there are no free American Indian
tribes in the United States, outside of reservations which isolate them from
the rest of the country they once owned, does nothing to support my claim
that the United States of America, as a sovereign state, did willfully and
knowingly conduct a genocide over a period of several hundred years.

Karen

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: One year of YELTSINOMICS!
Date: 10 Jan 1993 17:29:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In TALK.POLITICS.SOVIET, thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi () says:

>I would like to start a discussion on the following topic:
>
>Exactly one year ago, January 2. 1992 the prices in Russia were if
>not set totally free, at least raised three- fivefold.
>
>It was the start of Yeltsinomics (or Gairadonomics).
>
>Why did it not succeed?
>
>Or did it succeed, anyhow?
>
>Or did some instances (like the central Bank of Russia) sabotage the
>whole reform program?
>
>Or are these questions posed in a wrong manner?
>
>asks
>the observer
>Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
>                   urbs fennorum
>
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:21:56 GMT

In article <C0LvAq.1tE@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>what they *should* have done was to make peace with the Indians,
>>giving them their rights, and setting aside *substantial* amounts
>>of land that they would not colonize. they did not do this.
>
>They *did* do this.  Then they broke their treaties and started
>killing and taking land once more.  Look at the treaty with the
>Sioux, and what happened when gold was found in the Black Hills.

well obviously they shouldn't have. still doesn't make it Nazi Germany,
for all the points i explained before.

>>instead
>>they let themselves war with the Indians over territory. that still
>>is not the same thing as systematically rounding up Indians and
>>torturing and killing them.
>
>Unfortunately they did that as well.  Not a pleasant part of
>history, especially because so much of it was politically motivated.

that i was not aware of. if that is true (and i would require some
reference to make sure it was), then i would admit the US is guilty
of more immoral acts than i "credited" them with before. and if they
were rounding them up to try to get rid of *all* the Indians,
i would say they were guilty of genocide. IF.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Delivery)
Subject: Re: ** The Birth of NEW-ISRAEL **
Summary: If I say YHWH, it's hard for me to ignore Who's present. 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Public Access
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:40:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.061138.27321@sequent.com>, 
petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) writes...

>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Jubilation) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Dec30.110333.2305@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, 
>>f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...
> 
>>>In article <29DEC199212460728@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
>>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Jubilation T.) writes:
> 
>>>> So let's bury the ghost of America. And turn to welcome the birth of the 
>>>> nation of NEW-ISRAEL in our land. A nation chosen by GOD and saved by GOD.
>>>> Not because there is any mystical entity which can be called "a nation,"
>>>> but because we each more than any other people, enjoy a personal relation-
>>>> ship with Our Creator -- One-to-One. Amen.
> 
>>>Thank you, Stephen, for saying what needed to be said.  
> 
>>You're very welcome Joe, but I only echoed the leadings of the Spirit.
>>I trust other communications "in the same spirit" are being made all over
> 
>WILL SOMEONE GET ME OUT OF HERE !!!!  What the hell is happening ?
>Are these people for real....

Sure PL, but we aren't worth worrying about.


V.Eller, _Christian Anarchy_ p. 85:

	Kierkegaard, perhaps, has put it best: "Whatever difference
	there may be between two persons, even if humanly speaking
	it were most extreme, God has it in his power to say, 
	`When I am present, certainly no one will presume to be
	conscious of this difference [ie. *any* difference between
	people /GD], because that would be standing and talking to 
	each other in my presence as if I were not present'"
	(_Works of Love_ p.315)

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen    "Would you rather have GOD just lurk or post instead?"
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: ^REPOST^ Straw Poll: Mormon Specific Newsgroup
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:54:47 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

The following is a repost.

-----8<---If--you--cut--here--you--will--ruin--your--monitor--->8-----

I'd like to conduct a straw poll.

Since most of us will be going on break for the holidays
(including me), I'll continue the polling a few weeks into
January so that everyone that wants to gets a chance to
participate.

I will post a summary of the results.

Don't post to the net.  Email your reply to: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
(Replying to this post *should* do the trick.)

-----8<---If--you--cut--here--you--will--ruin--your--monitor--->8-----

Questions:

1a.  Do you think that a separate newsgroup should be created for
     discussing Mormon specific things on Usenet?

1b.  Why or why not?


2a.  If you do think that a Mormon specific newsgroup should be
     created, should it be moderated?

2b.  Why or why not?


3.   If you do think that a Mormon specific newsgroup should be
     created, what hierarchy and name should the newsgroup have
     and why?


4.   (Optional)  Just to get an idea of who is providing feed
     back, what is your religious persuasion?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:26081 alt.atheism:25906
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 13 Jan 93 05:33:30 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu


pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.141526.17765@pdn.paradyne.com> nelson@pdn.paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) writes:

>>Our society was founded on Christian values but has progressively
>>moved away from them.

>I suppose slavery is a Christian value? Please present your evidence
>that "our society was founded on Christian values". Here's some 
>evidence to the contrary:

[940+ lines deleted.]
Boy that was a hefty read.  And I'd love to comment on a few things
I noticed.  
1)  I'm glad we had such a representative sample of five Founding 
Fathers to base all the quotes from, this really give me an accurate 
picture of the prevailing opinion that formed this country.  Can't 
you find any other Founders other than this minority to supply your 
quote file?  Are you saying that these 5 represent the majority opinion? 
2)  You'd better go back and edit out all the duplications.  Just 
because it's big does not make it better.  After purging the duplications 
this file is a little less daunting.  
3)  You'd also better go back and edit out all the quotes where 
Jefferson actually says he admires Jesus and his teachings.  
4)  Many of the quotes merely condemn organized religion, not the 
principles that the religion is based on.  Some, especially from 
Paine do condemn the whole she-bang.  
5)  Based on one of Franklin's quotations, religion/Christianity in 
America must be good since it doesn't beg the State for support.

So, after reading the file I've come to this conclusion:  Some of the
five Founder's you quote, regarded the values that Jesus taught to be in 
themselves good.  These five Founder's regarded the organization of 
Religion that arose around those values to be bad.  Jefferson found 
Jesus' wisdom to be quite profound; I gather that Franklin did too.
Do these provide "evidence to the contrary?"  Hardly.  They do provide
good insights into what they thought of organized Christianity and
what they thought about the values Jesus espoused.  The two opinions
are contary.  They hardly prove that the country was not built around
the values of Christianity, which are necessarily the teachings of
Jesus Christ.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:15:34 GMT

In article <ksand-040193164502@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>> You can't say it's true or false, indeed.  But it's still _valid_.  To be valid
>> logic is not the same as being true or false; valid means that the conclusion
>> follows from the premises.
>OK, if we can't state that a premise is true or false, how could we
>then draw a conclusion about the logical validity of the outcome?

Because "logical validity of the outcome" does not mean that the outcome is
true or false.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: the PENTACLES, people!!!!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:57:25 GMT

In article <2B51BF47.27440@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>I am not up for a discussion about ritual abuse, since it is too hazy
>and not my specialty.
>
>What I disliked whas the use on the front cover illustration of six
>pentacles in a painting where a little child is menaced by abstract
>demons.  The last thing we need is for Ms. Magazine to further convince
>people that what I'm wearing about my neck right now is a demon sign and
>that I worship the devil and abuse kids and animals.  THIS IS WHAT I WAS
>WRITING ABOUT.  A MAGAZINE THAT HAS IN THE PAST PRESENTED ITSELF AS THE
>PICTURE OF LIBERAL TOLERANCE HAS DEMEANED A VERY WONDERFUL SYMBOL
>THROUGH IGNORANCE OF SOMETHING THAT MEANS A GREAT DEAL TO MANY FEMINIST
>WOMEN AND MEN.  THIS was my point in posting, not to start a discussion
>on the dubious nature of ritual abuse.
>
>Blessings,
>Janis  

Janis,

And before I get flamed (not necessarily from you) about my last post
"supporting" Ms., I would suspect that if the magazine errs, it is 
probably not out of maliciousness, but rather ignorance. They are not
a high budget, pc-styled mag like Utne (which is IMO now close to 
garbage -- sold out), but are now in the process of re-searching for
a voice. Rather than trash them, I suggest those concerned write letters
or articles bringing them "up-to-date". 

For those familiar with Z Magazine, you'll note that even though it
appears fairly professional and carries a number of well-known writers,
it is put together by two people on a shoestring budget. Their "errors"
are in some cases due to not having a large budget for doing research
and staying on top of issues. Or on not having an editorial board that
sits down and discusses issues and how the magazine will approach them,
which sometimes creates inconsistency in editorial content.

I think Ms.' heart is in the right place, they just don't know better.

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:32:40 GMT


In article <1993Jan9.082143.4820@news.acns.nwu.edu>, autopsy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Gregory Baumgartel) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan8.210120.16162@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >
|> >Reason cannot explain everything.  I am safe in saying that Mankind does not
|> >know everything and has not been able to reason everything out.  
|> 
|> No, but we're making progress.......
|> 
|> >What are the
|> >reasons for emotions?  I know for sure what I have experienced.  I have felt
|> 
|> Emotions, and conscoiusness itself, are just the way that the biochemical
|> processes within our minds manifest themselves.  There needs to be no divine
|> or spiritual reason for them.
|> 
|> >God's touch and I've glimpsed what visions He would have me see.  These things
|> >are not so easily explained but they are nonetheless, real.  I've never taken
|> 
|> Yes, they are real, as far as our perception allows us to tell.  And they're
|> not easily explained, as the workings of the human mind are far too complex
|> for modern science to explain.  But we're making progress.
|> 
|> >drugs and I haven't touched a drop of alcohol for the 6 years since becoming
|> >a Christian, so my experiences were not delusions.  I've stood up in public
|> >proclaiming the good news of the Word of God.  This is something I would not
|> >have been capable of before.  Where does this power come from?  
|> > 
|> It comes from you.  I think people (believers) need to give themselves more 
|> credit for what they do.  They need to place faith in what's real: themselves.
|> Not the abstractions of religion.
|> 
|> >I tell you, it is the power of God's Spirit.
|> >
|> I think it's the power of your own spirit that you are mistakenly attributing
|> to God.  Believe in yourself.  Have some confidence and esteem.

But who am I?  I know that I am a creation of God.  He is the one who has given
me my talents and my abilities.  Therefore, it is to Him the credit is due.  I've
never been able to manifest my full potential without His Spirit.  I couldn't do
it without Him.  He has made me realize the fullness of my abilities.  He gave me
wisdom and inspiration whereas I only had intelligence.  He has given me 
happiness and love whereas I only had despair.  

I cannot deny the power of God.  He is real and He is alive in my life.
|> 
|> 
|> 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: The 'wave-collapse' of logical reasoning
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:44:31 GMT

In article <ksand-020193180605@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> All X are Y
> Socrates was an X
> Socrates was thus also an Y

> Is this a logical statement?

	No, it's three logical statements, the last of which follows
from the first two by a valid syllogism.  No truth value can be
assigned to any of the statements, but the argument is still valid.
Whether the argument is SOUND or not depends on the truth values of
the premises.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
"There's lots of bread in the freezer!"  "No, I threw it out.  Hard as a rock."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Islam Revealed #1
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:38:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.121557.27615@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>A small question here Ken. What has this to do with soc.culture.jewish?????

It has to do with relations between Muslims and Jews.  (The Christian and
Islamic newsgroups are moderated, so cross-posting there would be harder.)

>To understand why a verse is as it is correctly you may have to look *when* 
>the verse was revealed, i.e. in which context. The Jews and the Christians 
>actively fought against the Prophet.

There's a difference between "don't ally with Jews and Christians who fight
against the prophet", and "don't ally with Jews and Christians, because Jews
and Christians fight against the prophet".  The first does refer to one
situation.  The second applies all the time; the added clause is an accusation
intended to always apply.

That's why the second verse doesn't help.  By saying "Jews and Christians
fight against the prophet", you are giving an explanation for the first clause,
but you are not limiting it in any way.

>Secondly *true* friendship is based on mutual respect and not on mockery. 
>If a person mockers your religion when you are present and you have told 
>this individual that you don't like it when he does it. But he continues,
>then is this a good friend???? You don't have to agree with another persons
>religion but don't mocker it if you want that person to continue to be your 
>friend.

Fine.  You don't like it when I criticize Islam in front of you.  I won't
criticize Islam in front of you.  But do I also have to stop criticizing
Islam in front of everyone else, even if you are not present?  (Such as
writing books?)
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 22:26:41 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world,public

In article <1993Jan11.172645.25442@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
[deletions]
>He offers you salvation and eternal life.  All you have to do is accept Jesus 
>into your life.  The price for sin has already been paid in full.  It is up to
>each and every one of us to cash in on it.

 Who's charging the price for sin? If that person's already been paid
off, why are they still bugging us about it?

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc