HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:51:22 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <fnal talk.rape:6411>,  writes:
> I think when the inquisition took place the Reformation had already occured,
> but I may be wrong about this.  In any case the Church was still un-Christian.
> Long before the inquisition the Church had allowed pagan doctrins into the
> Church teachings.  
> --Ray Cote

As I pointed out before, the reformation doesn't let Protestants off the hook. 
Protestant England and Scotland engaged in those same activities you condemn in
the Catholics.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: This whole Lot thing ...
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:30:11 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct05.202930.16751@brtph560.bnr.ca>, kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy 
Posey P920) writes:
> Well I quess you didn't get the point.  This is not a lesson in morality
> here.  It's a question of obedience.  Is it moral to offer your daughters to
> a crowd of horny degenerates?  Of course not!  Is it moral to trust God and
> obey him?  Absolutely.  Let's look at an even more extreme example.
> 
> In Genesis God tells Abraham to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice.  Now
> God had already promised that Isaac would be the father of a great nation that
> would someday produce the Messiah.  Abraham reasoned that because God had
> created Isaac, he could just as easily raise him from the dead.  Therefore he
> was willing to obey God's commandment.  Of course God saw Abraham's 
> willingness to obey and prevented the sacrifice in the end.  Much in the 
> same way that he prevented the violation of Lot's daughters.

We generally call someone who pulls stunts like this a sadist.

> No, I doubt you could successfully debate this issue, since history proves it
> to be the only course of action that could have resulted in NO CASUALTIES.
> Of course you'll have to find somebody else to duke it out with as it ain't
> worth the effort on my part. 

Of course, the story is myth, not history.  Nor is it shown that other
approaches wouldn't have worked.

> Jeff, I got a news flash for ya.  God sacrificed His son for you.  He sent Him
> to a hideous, shameful and agonizing death as payment for the crimes that YOU
> have committed.  Even though He was innocent and didn't deserve to be 
> punished, He spent 3 days in hell to atone for YOUR sins.  Think about it 
> man.  If I were you I'd check myself out just in case this Christianity 
> thing is for real.

Oh, that'll convince him.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Xref: sparky talk.rape:2474 alt.folklore.urban:24359
From: comp_oper@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Possible UL alert(was Re: Videotaping rapes)
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:56:25 +0900

In article <1992Sep25.151924.12450@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <qm0nvdc.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.041618.4869@engage.pko.dec.com> nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.
com (nancy b.) writes:
>>>
>>>          Tonight I attended a lecture and slide show by sociologist Dr.
>>>          Gail Dines on images of violence against women in the media.
>>>
>>>	[...]
>>>
>>>          One example she gave was a new form of video porn playing off of
>>>          the rape theme.   Women are forced into vans where they are
>>>          raped.  The rape is videotaped.  The videotape is sold for
>>>          profit.
>>
>>	Yeah, right. Sheesh.
> Sounds like a reincarnation of the snuff film UL to me.
> 
> Anyone actually SEEN one of these films.
> -Ekr

The local paper last Saturday (2 days ago) reported the sentencing of three
men in Sydney, New South Wales for rape.  The main alleged culprit was the
womans ex-boyfriend out for revenge for the breakup of the relationship. While
the ex-boyfriend and another man raped the woman, a third man was video-taping
the rape for the alleged purpose of blackmailling the woman into not saying
anything.

I find it curious that this thread seemed to have started at the same time as
this newspaper report.

-- 
Glenn Wallace					comp_oper@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Northern Territory University
Darwin, Northern Territory,
Australia, World, Universe, etc...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISCLAIMER:
This is not necessarily the views of the management of this establishment:-
We just chain him up in that little cubby hole of his and leave him be!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:52:44 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct2.135807.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu 
writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.125524.1@fnalno.fnal.gov>, holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov 
(Daniel B. Holzman) writes: 
>> As a Witch, I can only point to your condoning of my execution as yet another
>> reason that your "moral" system is none that we should be teaching our
>> children.
> 
> When did I condon your execution? When Judaism first came about it was
> necessary to execute witches.  Otherwise the true religion would have become
> polluted.  

You just did it again.  You not only condoned the killing of Witches, you have
characterized it as "necessary."  I am a Witch.  You may not feel it is
"necessary" to kill me anymore, but you find it justifiable to kill me and
people like me to keep "true religion" [now there's a laugh] from being
"polluted."  You could easily so decide again.

The point here is that you subscribe to a "moral" system which says that it is
OK to kill someone because thjey might "pollute" your religion.  I can't take
this seriously as a system under which my children should be raised, any more
than I would permit my children to be raised under a system which says that
Jews and Blacks must be killed to keep them from "polluting" the "White race!"


> It happened to the Catholic Church (become polluted that is). 
> Rather than your execution, I'd like to see your conversion to Christianity.

You're funny.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:54:19 GMT

You wrote: 
> I am new to this group so I may not understand the reference to "moral
> relativism".  However, I can not see how the name "moral relativism" could
> be applied to any value-system that says "there is no right and wrong".

What I meant by "there is no right or wrong" is in MR there is no absolute
measure of right and wrong.  However to the individual there might be right and
wrong.

> Without knowing a real description of what "moral relativism" refers to, I
> would probably use that term to describe my own value-system.  Under my
> value-system there *is* right and wrong, and it is determinable primarily
> from the individual context.  Rape is clearly "wrong" because it involves
> a violation (or several) of another person's rights, and more obviously
> because it often involves physical (and certainly emotional) harm to another
> person.

Under a relativistic moral system someone might disagree with you.  Check out
"Sea-Wolf" by Jack London.  It's the old story of might makes right.

> I don't need JCV to tell me rape is wrong "'cause it just is", I can
> figure that out from the situation.  (and it includes "date rape" and rape-in-
> marriage (if one can define that) that may not be included under verbose
> value-systems like JCV)
> I would think that the difference between JCV and what I interpret "moral
> relativism" to mean is not that one says "this is right and this is wrong"
> while the other says "there is no right or wrong", but rather the difference
> is that JCV states that "this is wrong" without explanation (other than divine
> inspiration?) while "moral relativism" (or whatever I'm really talking about)
> offers the explanations and lets people figure out for themselves what those
> explanations make "right" or "wrong".

Couldn't I say that rape is right under an MR system? Why do we have laws?  For
the good of society, is the common response.  But why should I care about
society unless that caring benifits me directly?  Under an MR system there is
no reason.
--Ray Cote
     "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
                                                   --Francis H.C. Crick
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Lot's daughters
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 17:46:49 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Sep30.201147.26553@spdc.ti.com>, hughes@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Susan Hughes) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep30.111833.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep28.235826.24541@cs.ucla.edu>, coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman) writes: 
|> >> He could have done what was right.  Lot was a scumbag.  The status of the
|> >> deity who put him up to all of this is left as an exercise for the reader.
|> >> 
|> >> Mike
|> >
|> >So what you you have him do?
|> >--Ray Cote
|> 
|> In Texas, we'd have Lot and the male angels fight to the death to defend
|> his daughters; death being better than sacrificing two innocent girls.
|> Decency/Chivalry and other archaic concepts.

As I recall the story, the assailants wanted to rape Lot's male guests,
not his daughters.  So presumably your Texas chivalry would have
Lot and his daughters fighting to the death to defend his guests;
death being better than sacrificing two innocent men.  Is that what you meant?

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Xref: sparky talk.rape:2484 alt.folklore.urban:24422
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Possible UL alert(was Re: Videotaping rapes)
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:12:55 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep25.151924.12450@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu 
(Eric Rescorla) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep25.041618.4869@engage.pko.dec.com> 
> nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.) writes:
> >>
> >>          Tonight I attended a lecture and slide show by sociologist Dr.
> >>          Gail Dines on images of violence against women in the media.
> >>
> >>	[...]
> >>
> >>          One example she gave was a new form of video porn playing off of
> >>          the rape theme.   Women are forced into vans where they are
> >>          raped.  The rape is videotaped.  The videotape is sold for
> >>          profit.

I understand the rapists wait under the ladies cars at the mall, then slash 
their Achilles' tendons to incapacitate and immobilize them before dragging 
them to the van.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman)
Subject: Re: Lot's daughters
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 23:58:26 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
[story of how Lot offered his daughters to be gang-raped]
|This mob of people showed up at the house later and demanded
|that Lot hand over his visitors.  What could he do?

He could have done what was right.  Lot was a scumbag.  The status of the
deity who put him up to all of this is left as an exercise for the reader.

Mike

-- 
--Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Lord High Executioner of Anhedonia-----
George Bush: He's there.
                                 He's square.
                                                   Get used to it.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Lot's daughters
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:15:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.020542.9017@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.092615.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>> I hope everyone now understands why Lot
>>would give his daughters to the crowd to be raped.
> 
> Sure, it's worse to rape male angels than to rape women.

OK I guess people still don't understand.  It would have been more wrong for
Lot to throw his guests to the wolves than to throw his daughters to them.  As
I said, he went out first, thereby putting himself in danger.
--Ray Cote
     "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
                                                   --Francis H.C. Crick
From: pashley@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Montykins)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: 5 Oct 92 06:49:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <7171@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bradn@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Bradford H Needham) writes:
>>the varacity of the charges.
>      ^
>
>Hurry, Hurry, Hurry!  Only a few vowels left!

Well, if one doesn't mind being new-age/politically-correct/etc,
there's always "vyracyty" . . .

 -Paul "Monty" Ashley

obPedanticity: I suppose someone's going to claim the ellipsis
should have been _inside_ the quotes?
-- 
"Am I a drunken loon? Whoo! Whoo!"        | pashley@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
     -- David Letterman                   |  [Not a UCSD employee]
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:16:15 GMT

nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.) writes:
: 
: > How would one show that a recorded "rape" was not an acted simulation? 
: 
: 	Simple.  Ask the woman.

Pah! Linda Lovelace says that she was forced to make the films that she
did. 

Asking the person might, or might not, get a truthful answer. It would
depend on the person, and the situation where the question was being
asked.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 23:55:17 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|The Spanish Inquisition was very un-Christian.  That's not surprising since
|the Catholic Church at the time was very un-Christian.

I disagree.  The Inquisition was condoned (at least) by the Catholic church.
And at that time, the Catholic church *was* Christianity.

-- 
--Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Lord High Executioner of Anhedonia-----
George Bush: He's there.
                                 He's square.
                                                   Get used to it.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: csmith@blackplague.gmu.edu (Blackplague)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Followup-To: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: George Mason University-IDO
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:50:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.050136.7254@engage.pko.dec.com>,
nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.) wrote:
> 
>           re:  dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
> 
> 
>           >  What I want to know is if the original author will retract her
>           > statments if she can't come up with any evidence for the
>           > existance of these films?
> 
>           What I want to know is if you will retract your statements if you
>           can't come up with any evidence that the films (films =
>           videotapes of real rapes circulating as porn or intended to
>           circulate) don't exist.  Your citation referred to snuff films,
>           despite the title.  If your goal is to convince the masses that
>           videotapes of real rapes circulating as porn or intended to
>           circulate as porn don't exist, please provide the evidence.
> 

This is not fair.  Proof of the existence of such a film is trivial.  I.e.,
hold the film in your hand and say "Here it is."  Proof of the
NON-existence of any such film is virtually impossible.  The only valid
method would be to collect and document each and every film in existence
and show that none of them fit the category.  Considering the respective
dificulty of these two proofs, I feal that the burden of proof lies on you
to show evidense for the existence.

Blackplague
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Subject: Re: No Danny, you got it ...
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:46:29 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Oct05.222059.18254@brtph560.bnr.ca> kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920) writes:
>I could care less whether you fry or not.  

Now there's a real Christian sentiment...  :{


As for you, Dan, I assume you realize you've very effectively
destroyed any claim you may or may not have to moral relativism, both
on a rational and emotional level. You may not care, and being an
(agnostic) moral absolutist myself, I'm hardly criticizing that aspect
of your argument; I simply want to flag a point I made in the moral
relativism thread about a month ago.

                                  Cordially,

                                         -g


Yeah, this was relevant to rape, honest!  (Just read my lips...)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 05:33:32 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Sep29.001853.12666@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <+b_py!c.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.030029.6036@engage.pko.dec.com> nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.) writes:
>>>re:  barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
>>>> How would one show that a recorded "rape" was not an acted simulation? 
>>>
>>>	Simple.  Ask the woman.
>>
>>	Bingo. Now ask the next question: why would anyone market a
>>recording of themselves committing a felony which, in combination with
>>the woman's testimony, makes an open-and-shut case?
>>
>>	Urban legend; QED.
>
>Not so fast.  By that same "proof", no one sells cocaine because doing
>so is admitting a major crime.

	Bad analogy. If they videotape themselves selling coke and then
market the video, _then_ you've got an analogy. Though still a poor one,
since videos can't tell coke from baking soda, or even sugar.

>Yet, people do.  Note also that Barry
>assumes that the rapist is necessary identifiable in the video.  Heck,
>he's assuming that both the victim and the attacker are identifiable.

	This is pointless logic-chopping. Fine, maybe they wore masks.
Hell, maybe they used a Cray and made it look like George Bush was the
rapist - I'm surprised no one has brought up this possibility :-).

	You're right, Andy, no one can prove a negative, and since it's
you arguing with me, it probably means I'm getting sloppy. But why
should this discussion have come down to "prove it didn't happen"?
That's what gets me. It all started with a two-sentence "I've heard
that...". No mention was made of masks, image processing, or major
international conspiracies :-). Why bother? Let the _originators_ of such
bunkum present some detail - let 'em stack the house of cards above
the first story, and then see if it stands up.

	I did blow it. The only appropriate response was from Terry
(somebody), with the bit about hiding under the van and slashing the
Achilles tendon :-). Treating two-line anecdotal scare stories as
anything worth arguing about is a mistake, and I made it.

						Kayembee
From: hughes@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Susan Hughes)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Lot's daughters
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:11:47 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Sep30.111833.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.235826.24541@cs.ucla.edu>, coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman) writes: 
>> He could have done what was right.  Lot was a scumbag.  The status of the
>> deity who put him up to all of this is left as an exercise for the reader.
>> 
>> Mike
>
>So what you you have him do?
>--Ray Cote

In Texas, we'd have Lot and the male angels fight to the death to defend
his daughters; death being better than sacrificing two innocent girls.
Decency/Chivalry and other archaic concepts.
--Sue
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 01:43:33 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1a2hhcINN86d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.015336.18924@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>I also suspect that people have filmed rapes. That is somewhat
>>different from committing a rape so that you can film it.
>
>I am confused by this statement.  People have certainly videotaped rapes
>e.g. there was one such example at Cleveland State University
>approximately two years ago.  By the way the victim's expression of
>apparent consent "yes, yes" was not viewed by the prosecutor (who wanted
>the tape shown) as damaging to his case.
>
The difference here, I believe, is that in a "snuff" film, or in this case, a
rape "snuff" type film, the idea is not so much that a person has raped and
decided to record it for posterity, but that the idea is first and foremost to
get a video camera, and then perform the deed.  Presumably, if the power to
the camera was cut off, the rapist/murderer/etc. would actually stop his rape
or murder, since the actions are not incidental to the filming of the actions.

>I have read in reasonably respectable journals that some sexual
>perversions (e.g. pedophilia viewed by the laws of most states and
>myself as rape) are characterized by a desire to record the acts
>involved, as well as simply perform them and that pedophiles will
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the key.  If the acts would be committed regardless of the availability
of recording materials, the movie/tape/pictures are not "snuff".  


-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) *  kbos@carina.unm.edu * Make outs, not walks!
Keeper of the R.S.BB FAQ, and Junior Stathead {tm} * Yay!  Gary Blickhan's back!
Be kind...don't disillusion the RBI-lovers. * Net.Agent, "Doublin" David Rossing
I'd rather see Doug Dascenzo pitch than suffer through Roger McDowell's batting.
Newsgroups: talk.rape