HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:39:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <C02758.AK9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
> In article <13722@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #I've already posted, repeatedly, a number of sources that show
# #that men molesting boys are somewhere between 20% and 26% of
# #child molestation.  That's about 5x the number of homosexuals
# #in the population.
# 
# And the U.S. has a high murder rate because the U.S. has a high
# gun-ownership rate, right? Correlation does not mean causation.

No, it doesn't.  But there are some good reasons to think that a
causal relationship exists.  Right now, no one in the popular 
media dares even ask the question.

# Surely you have a better reason for hating homosexuals than the
# above.
# 
# Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326

Hate?  No.  I just don't think the government should tell consenting
adults what they can do in private.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:14:35 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Jim Mason writes:
>|> CNN reports this day that the 'Communitarian Party/coalition' wishes
>|> to make into law the requirement to donate organs upon death. 
>|> 
>|> As with many so-called 'communitarian' initiatives, this proposal
>|> sounds good on the surface. However, it does raise significant
>|> questions about the traditional rights of persons or their 
>|> relatives to control the disposition of their affairs after death.
...
>The only thing more difficult for me to understand than someone not
>wanting to donate their organs is someone telling us we have to do
>so.  I agree with you completeley.

The reports I've seen have all mentioned that you may designate yourself
a non-donor, and that relatives can likewise opt out on your behalf, similar
to making yourself a donor or relatives donating your body after death,
only the presumptions would be reversed.  Instead of the default being
not-donor, the default would be donor.  Mandating donation without recourse
would run into various religious objections.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bonus Pop Quiz Question
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:57:05 GMT

Q: What is the difference between 1984's thought control
   and the current "pornography is violence against women" trend?

A: One is fictional.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:25:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Dec28.173219.5018@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.92Dec24173327@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>><In article <1992Dec22.211751.4626@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>><   In article <1992Dec18.235046.3988@brtph560.bnr.ca> woodstock!chris@mcnc.org writes:
>><   >
>><   >  The Solid Liberals, on the other hand, are unfamiliar to most
>><   >Americans.  Gay rights, Funding of Obscene Art, Support of Flag
>><   >Burning, etc..., are all things which are fairly new, and as a
>><   >result are kinda scary.  
>><   >
>><   >Chris Fulmer                    Bell-Northern Research
>>
>><   Sounds like those "Solid Liberals" (tm) want to enforce the Bill of
>><   Rights, those scoundrels.
>> 
>>	Can Viveiros show where in the Bill of Rights the "right"
>>	to receive taxpayers money for "art" is located?
>>
>>	HINT: The 9th doesn't count.
>
>
>Hint: the Bill of Rights has nothing to say about how the government
>spends its money.
>
>
>Don Pajerek
>
>Standard disclaimers apply.

You get no arguement with me that we have no obligation to fund obscene
art.  I sometimes think artists confuse the need to evoke emotion from
their work with revulsion of same work.  You know, "If they're revolted,
then it must be good art because it created an emotional response".  I'm
basically in agreement with you guys on this one.

And as an aside, I'll show you where "art" is if you show me where
"handgun" is.  It's all in the interpretation (i.e. Supreme Court
unfortunately).

Please, the last was for shock value, not my views on the 2nd amendment.
No flames about this please.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65961 alt.activism:19953
From: triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Date: 1 Jan 93 07:50:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <VEAL.591.725823260@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>       Look, operating under the assumption black holes exist, they exist
>independently of the means by which we detect them, whether or not we
>can see them independently.  We may use an observation to theorize the
>existance of a black hole, but that doesn't make the observation the same 
>thing as the black hole, or the black hole dependent on the observation.
  A thing exists whether 
>we are aware of it or not.
>
one scarcely knows where to begin in critiquing a position as
indefensible as the one adhered to by Mr. Veal, but a brief point
here to start--dogmatic statements about vigourously debated
epistemological questions really don't make a good substitute for
argumentation.

 All actions and decisions of a society are the results of 
>individual actions and decisions.
>
this kind of absurd reductionism will yield you some pretty pathetic
results when you try to understand what social action means, how it
comes about, etc.  just try and total up all the individual
decisions made in any social act without taking into consideration
social structure, power relations, the heuristic grid created by
previous decisions made by the actors involved (and other actors as
well)--you'll get nothing but bad pop psychology.

you might try reading some sociology before you set out to
annihilate it with such a feeble (and worn) argument.

>	Society came from somewhere.  The definition of society is 
>interactions among human beings.  At some point in the past a group of 
>humans started interacting and formed a society.  It's plain silly to 
>suggest society formed and humans appear to interact within it.
>
that someone can believe something like this is either hilarious or
tragic or both.  so there were these primordial humans who were just
kinda rambling around all their lonesomes when all of a sudden they
got the idea to start hanging out together and (yes indeedy!) whip
up the ol' social contract...right.

human beings are part of a primate chain of descent which has 
consisted of social animals for about as far back as
anthropologists care to calculate.  there were never asocial
humans and there never will be (except in libertarian imaginations).
a human being who was not defined through her interactions with
other human beings would not be human--likely she would
be dead, as removing her as a child from society would leave her pretty 
defenseless.  certainly she would have no ability to speak, no
access to any set of symbolic representations/meanings, no more
sense of herself as bright, funny, tall, whatever than that of
a snail.

people are born into social structures and formations.  it can't be
made much simpler than that.

tristan
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:53:02 GMT
Organization: insert anything here

smithw@col.hp.com (W*lt*r Sm*th) writes:
><HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>> In article <13723@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Cl*yt*n Cr*m*r) says:
>> >
>> >The average homosexual: he doesn't like what you say, so he threatens
>> >you with violence.

>Or calls you insane, or a hypocrite, or resorts to foul mouthed tactics 
>etc. Two months ago, I'd have laughed at such a stereotype and generalization. 
>Then I found soc.motss....wouldnt have believed it if someone told me, 
>but seeing is believing.  

	Isn't it sad?  I mean the world was a MUCH nicer place when
good faggots were invisible.  Now, they're *OUT* and - can you believe it?
they're DEMANDING space in society!  IT's horrible, I mean you can't
pick up a publication without seeing words like queer, etc.  Not like
the good old days when people could completely forget they were there.
I mean no one EVER talked about "it", and you never had to hear that
so-and-so got killed and his mutilated body was found with a scrawled
note saying "death to all fags", and you never had to even THINK about it.
Now, they want EVERYONE to feel guilty for all the things that they
SAY happened to them --- but you know what?  I think they made it
all up!  I mean *I* never saw anyone get gay bashed...  and I never
EVER saw anyone get discriminated against...  I'll bet this is all
some plot to get "normal" people to somehow accept them and their
perverse behavior...

	And what's this talk about equality?  I mean they have equal
rights --- I already said so.  I just don't want them working next to me
(will if they do, it's OK I suppose as long as they aren't, well,
you know *obivious* about it, I mean like make UP a story about your
wife, not your *boyfriend* OK), or living next to me (well if they
do I guess it's OK as long as they don't EVER come near my kid or
like have their gay friends over or anything... I mean this is
a NICE neighborhood!) --- why can't they just stay where they belong?
Most of the people here are heterosexual, so that makes it
OUR planet right?

	[Sadly, you don't have to go far to hear this crap.]
	[Let's keep it out of soc.motss, shall we?]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:47:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

I haven't seen all of the thread, so I'm not sure if this has been
addressed/  (If it has, just ignore me.)

Do the opponents of the embargo support Cuba's policy for dealing
with HIV+ people?

The people I've met who oppose the embargo against Cuba supported
boycotts against South Africa.  They boycotted S. Africa because
of apartheid.  They are very uncomfortable discussing the Cuban
quarantine policy, and I can understand why.  

Susan
From: pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 1992 21:16:13 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.unh.edu

mp: Michael Polen

mp: [Weinberger] was not a traitor. He was being tried for obstructing
    justice. He did disagree, but he did not have the courage of his
    convictions to tell the truth in front of the special prosecutor and
    congress. That is against the law. 

Ah, why bother with judges and juries when Mr. Polen can so reliably
detect lawbreakers? Unfortunately for the self-proclaimed Forces of
Truth and Justice: by all accounts even the prosecutors were willing to
let this master criminal slip off on a misdemeanor rap had he been
willing to testify `correctly;' that is, implicate Reagan, Bush, et.
al.  in something or other. Evidently, this game isn't about tracking
down crime anymore (if, indeed, it ever was); the most charitable
interpretation is that the prosecutors were desperately trying to
justify their dismal performance and largely futile existence by
coercing testimony against Big Fish.

mp: Republicans make you a hero for breaking laws against Congress as
    long as they are done in support of Republican agendas.

Yeah, yeah, and Democrats don't give a rat's ass about civil liberties
and separation of powers as long as Republicans are the victims.

Partisan potshots aside, however, I saw that at least one Democrat
senator (Inouye) told Walsh that indicting Weinberger would be a bad
idea. I dare say that you could get numerous Democrats to agree,
although truth serum might be necessary in many cases.
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand                | There are two birds in the tree of life.
-- University of New Hampshire | One eats.
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu          | The other watches.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:48:54 GMT

In article <13746@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#I see.  All the surveys show a certain number, so everyone is lying
#(and with remarkable consistency),

Hmm, the Nature study you like to quote shows the percentage varies by
a multiplicative factor of five, depending on the location. A 500%
variation is "remarkable consistency"? Or did you just read the
headline of the paper?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 30 Dec 92 03:56:06 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <1hqqhvINN5qa@spim.mti.sgi.com>
mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>David Veal) writes:
>|> Mike Polen) writes:
>|>
>|> >There are those of us that won't agree with chris's definitions of
>|> >"Obscene."  Some of us think that pictures of a half-naked male nailed
>|> >to a wooden crossbar is violent and obscene.
>|>
>|> 	Well, it is, which is kind of the whole point to it.
>|>
>You mean we should hang "dirty pictures" up in church also?  Is that
>where obscenity belongs?  Maybe I missed the whole point of your
>"whole point."

        As far as the crucifix goes, it's a violent, horrible, obscene
thing to do to a human being, and even more so for what Christian's
believe was, and is, the son of god.  It's purpose is to serve as a
reminder.  The "whole point" is that it is a constant reminder to
Christians of their state of sin.  You don't have to buy into that,
but it's their wall, which is a considerably different situation than
the government paying for it.  (And, for the record, I oppose the whole
of the NEA and government funding for the arts, not just the obscene
parts.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:15:30 GMT

Bill Anderson) writes:
} Nosy) writes:
} : John Viveiros) writes:
} : <   chris@mcnc.org writes:
} : <   >
} : <   >  The Solid Liberals, on the other hand, are unfamiliar to most
} : <   >Americans.  Gay rights, Funding of Obscene Art, Support of Flag
} : <   >Burning, etc..., are all things which are fairly new, and as a
} : <   >result are kinda scary.  
} : <   >
} : <   Sounds like those "Solid Liberals" (tm) want to enforce the Bill of
} : <   Rights, those scoundrels.
} :  
} : 	Can Viveiros show where in the Bill of Rights the "right"
} : 	to receive taxpayers money for "art" is located?
} 
} Well, certainly the 9th counts; it just doesn't apply to this 
} situation.  I think that hinging government funding of the arts
} dependent on the political content of those arts is a violation
} of the spirit (though perhaps not the letter) of the 1st 
} amendment.

The way I see it, government's funding of art already violates the first
amentment.  Freedom of expression belongs equally to everyone, including
people who find a particular form of art disgusting.  But when their
taxes are used to support that art, they are being forced to support that
artist's point of view.  That is just as much a violation of the concept
of freedom of expression as is forbidding them from supporting a point of
view -- one is just a mirror image of the other.

} Of course there is no requirement that the gov't
} provide money for the arts; but if it does so, it should do so
} without regard to politics.  

Since the essence of government is politics, the idea of government's
funding anything without regard to politics is absurd.

Government has no business funding the arts at all.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Ignorance)
Subject:  Self-Discipline  (re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....)
Summary: Never trust a fat man 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:13:00 GMT

In article <1hafagINNg1e@spim.mti.sgi.com>, 
mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes...

>...You can characterize the reasons for a boycott as being stupid,
>as that is a value judgement.  But boycotts are all stupid or all a good
>idea, as boycott is a methodology, not an issue.  By calling the boycott
>stupid, you place a value judgement on boycotting, not on the reasons 
>behind a specific instance.  It would be like calling the car stupid,
>not the driver.

That settles it then. I can continue to boycott Time-Warner, Snapple,
Apple, all foreign goods, and any other product, service, or risk
where those involved use the income counter to my own well-being. 

Gee, that makes sense. 

Jacques Ellu said (_In Season, Out of Season_ p. 199-200)...

	I have arrived at this maxim: "Think globally, act locally."
	This represents the exact opposite of the present sponta-
	neous [ie natural] procedure... to demand centralized action,
	through the state, through a decision center that sends down 
	the decrees from above, but which can no longer have any 
	success. The human facts are too complex and the bureaucracy
	will become heavier and heavier.


I figure it should be, "Think globally, BUY locally." Then at least you
have some hope of discovering how the goods were produced, and sustaining 
employment in your local community. 

The harder problem is not-to-sell-to, or-work-for, an impersonal system. 

{ Otherwise known as "the Rat and Food Dispenser Rut" }
{ consume -- produce -- consume -- commute -- consume } 

   /                                               \
 -=  Gosh, responsibility is tough, maybe I should  =-
 -=  just leave it up to the priests and officials  =-
   \                                               /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Welfare vs. Workfare
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:23:19 GMT

In article <4103@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:
>>There are a lot of people making a decent living
>>mooching off of the hard-working Americans, and they're likely going to want
>>to eliminate anyone who tells them there is no more free pie.
>
>Yup. Millionaire cattle ranchers, wheat ranchers, logging company owners, 
>land developers, corporate CEOs...  Just to name a few.
>
>FIRST, wean the rich off the welfare rolls, THEN work on the poor.
>MUCH more efficient way to go.
>
I can't think of any instances where the people you just described are
receiving welfare.  Some may be cheats, to be sure, but that is not quite what
I was talking about.  Very few if any rich people are "on the welfare rolls",
as it were.

Oh, OK, I get it now!  You suggest that we don't let entrepreneurs keep what
they stick their necks out for.  They pay the checks, and they take the risks,
but they shouldn't be allowed to keep the profits if their endeavor is
successful.  Gotcha.

Somehow equating Commie-Liberal Pinko Bolshie Socialism with efficiency
doesn't seem to quite add up.  Rewarding laziness is more efficient than
punishing it?  Come now!  You must be joking.

This was a joke, right?

Right?
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
From: patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: $40M, Walsh, Republicans
Date: 31 Dec 92 14:01:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <C03JFH.9yw@boi.hp.com> smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay) writes:
> [deleted]
>
>The good news that these folks are out of the government tempts me to favor
>letting Walsh write his report and go home, but perhaps he can write a more
>complete story if he can continue his investigation into the new administration.I'd like to know the full story.

The most unusual thing about Judge Walsh is that he is "thorough" --
I, like you, would like to know the full story and will await his
final report.  



-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
P.O.Box 273 - Island Station
New York, NY 10044 USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Keywords: Inconsistent, inconsistent, inconsistent
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:06:12 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>How come when your
>candidates lose it's underhanded and surreptitious, and when your guy
>wins, it's just good clean politics.

Oh, that's EASY--the difference is that the Democrats, unlike the
Republicans, don't have dirty tricks squads, wiretaps, plumbers, etc etc.
If you look at the last 30 years of American politics, the Republicans
are winding up in jail at about a 10:1 ratio compared to Democrats. This is
a simple fact--a matter of public record. We don't have a Nixon, an Agnew,
a Sununnu, etc etc etc until you could scream. Democrats, see, are the
good guys. We don't commit felonies to get elected. We don't rifle our
opponents' passport files. We don't lie to Congress. We don't have to
resort to pardoning felons in the middle of the night to save our own
necks.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65714 alt.sex:40498