HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:18:36 GMT

jmoody@netcom.com (Jim Moody) writes:

>budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:


>>>
>>>   Okay, Ace, the ball is in your court.  Please give us a list of
>>>the places in this country where I, as a white man, am in danger of
>>>being murdered just because I am a white man.  And, if it's not too
>>>much trouble, I'd like to see references.
>>>


>>ask reginald denny (truck driver) about Normandy St. in south
>>central Los Angeles, among other places...
>>--
>>David Leung-tak
>>"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
>>"A day without sun is night.
>The point is not that there isn't hatred, nor is it that there isn't 
>anger and resentment in non=white communities that can boil over into
>violence and aggression.  Of course there is.  But in the end white
>males are statistically less likely, given there numbers in the 
>population, of being attacked and injured in a violent attack.  Gays are
>being attacked in disproportionate numbers given their representation
>in the overall population.  When that happens you start to ask why, because
>something is skewing the statistical curve. 

>And if, as I believe is that case,  Gay men and women are being attacked
>for the simple reason that they are gay and in contact with non=Gay males,
>then something is SERIOUSLY amiss.  The same argument can be made for 
>women being attacked, usually by males.  These are, in my opinion, hate
>crimes.  Hate crimes strike at the very root of society because they are
>so totally irrational.  If I am driving around in a black neighborhood in
>the middle of a riot I can at least understand, as Reginald Denny does,
>that there were some extentuating circustances in my beating.  If I am
>simply walking down the street and am set upon and beaten because I am Gay, or
>black, or Jewish, or foreign, or female, then all of us must look on each
>new encounter as one fraught with danger and society changes.

>"
>-- 
>Jim Moody	jmoody@netcom.com	(415) 978-3289
>===================================================================
>    "The mystery does not get clearer by repeating the question"
>         "nor is it bought by going to amazing places"*
>                                                          Rumi
>==================================================================     


I think the one thing everyone is overlooking here is that one of the
prime motivations for violence is the perceived "weakness" of the
victim.  ie. Women are "weaker" than men.. they make good victims.
Gays are stereotypically "weaker" (more effeminate) than straight
men, and therefore make good victims.  

The sort of people who enjoy perpetrating violent crimes against others
will always find someone they perceive as weak.  This is NOT really
racism or prejudice in that sense.  


Just a thought,


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  



P.S. Don't think I'm denying that crimes due to racism don't exist too...



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:24:02 GMT
 <1993Jan19.193411.3636@advtech.uswest.com> <93020.184628KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1993Jan21.213829.24794@advtech.uswest.com> <93022.170546KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <#jl3d9a@rpi.edu> <93023.075047KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <2cq31_

In article <2cq31_g@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) says:

>So then your primary concern is not the "life of the child" but the
>notion of enforced responsibility?  This seems to be Holtsinger's
>position as well.

You're trying to imply that I want to punish people for having sex, I think.
(At least, that's the implication which I am inferring. :)  You're not going
to get me to say that, because it's not true.  My primary concern is that
it's wrong to sidestep any consequences an action may have by taking an
innocent life.  I'm more concerned with the taking of life for convenience's
sake; not in trying to force people to do what I want.

>Do you wish to outlaw smoking?  What about dangerous sports?  If you

Smoking in public places is irresponsible, and IMHO should be restricted, yes.
I'm not sure why you bring dangerous sports into this, unless you're concerned
with innocent bystanders possibly being injured or killed by the players.

Of course, the more analogies we bring into abortion discussions, the better!
Now we have kidneys, slavery, smoking, sports, umm... I seem to remember a
private swimming pool analogy, too.  Fun, fun, fun!  :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:49:20 GMT

cjk@netcom.com writes:

>In article <20JAN199316224332@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan20.002350.17373@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
>>|vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>|] elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>>|] 
>>|] >The man was brutally beaten beyond recognition until he died because he was gay.
>>|] >Gay killing" is an appropriate term.  So are "murder," "hate crime," and 
>>|] >"terrorism."  To make less of this man's murder than it was is to say
>>|] >that he was less important because he was gay.
>>
>>	True.  But wouldn't making /more/ of this man's murder imply that
>>he was more important because he was Gay?  Murder should be treated as 
>>murder.  Hate crimes laws tend to ensure that it is not treated as such,
>>but as more.
>>
>	It should be handled like a murder.  All murders are *hate* crimes.
>The fact that he was gay should not make any more important or any less
>important.  When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..
Actually, I'm gonna have to disagree with you to an extent.  Murders
are committed for other reasons.  You might be a little more accurate to
say that hate murders of gays are no more or less important than hate
murders of others.  


>cjk@netcom.com


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:03:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.212300.9323@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> In <C1CFKw.4r8@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan17.225747.26775@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> >>Can you point to any laws in our society which permit a person's bodily
> >>resources to be taken away without their consent?
> >
> >Easily.  Forced fatherhood and child support without the consent of the
> >father to the birth.
> >
> >Unless, of course, you don't consider a person's mind and body (muscle
> >power) to be a bodily resource.
> 
> I don't consider a person's wallet to be a bodily resource.
> --

Must be nice not to have to work (and use one`s mind and/or body) 
to have money!


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14932 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13585 alt.politics.clinton:21049 alt.politics.bush:16301 alt.politics.homosexuality:10141
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 23:17 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1jph2dINNe57@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
|kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
|> 
|> Not only that, but Paul prefaced his opinions with the disclaimer that they
|> were NOT the word of God, but his own under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
| 
|True.  Of course, to Christians, that's hardly something to be taken 
|lightly.   

	Thilly boy.  Of course that just depends on what kind of Christian
a person is.




|> Strange, although this is clearly NT and has not been superseded, most
|> Christians no longer forbid women to speak in church, nor insist on head
|> covering, nor any of the other "moral" laws Paul spoke of.
|> Perhaps is it the realization that abandoning outdated cultural norms is
|> NOT AT ALL the same thing as abandoning Christianity.
| 
|The items you mention, in terms of morality, are not nearly on the 
|same level as sexaul morality.  

	...according to Paul.  Even so, does that give Paul-believers
the right to disregard them just because he stressed them less?  He still
stressed them.

	Now, I have no problem with this... deciding what can be dropped 
and all that.  But most Christians will claim they do.  And, they get
mad at me for ignoring more of Paul than they do.  :[

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:30:27 GMT

In article <1jpbfqINNbig@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>> >"Most" Christians can look at a law that prohibits multi-fabric 
>> >clothing and see that it is ceremonial, and laws about sexual relations 
>> >and see that they are about morality.  
>> "Everybody knows it" is not an acceptable answer.
>Then I guess it is fortunate that the NT clears up the issue, by 
>saying that Christians are not under the letter of the Mosaic 
>Law, and that it re-states which things Christians should follow. 
>What does "sexual immorality" mean to you?  
It doesn't include homosexuality.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: cjk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:09:05 GMT

In article <jhansen.727720299@convex.convex.com> jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) writes:
>In <1993Jan21.060221.18670@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:
>
>>	It should be handled like a murder.  All murders are *hate* crimes.
>>The fact that he was gay should not make any more important or any less
>>important.  When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
>>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..
>
>Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen.  Case in point being Judge
>Hampton's sentencing a man to a lesser degree because the victim was
>gay.  This occurred two or so years ago in Dallas.  The bastard was just
>re-elected this November.


I would like to see a direct quote from the court transcripts that back up
this claim.  Please quote in context too!

cjk@netcom.com

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: eab@msc.edu (Edward Bertsch)
Subject: Re: Broken Promises/Anit-Clinton sentiment growing
Organization: Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Minneapolis, MN
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:27:11 GMT

"5.  Open up the US to the Haitian refugees.  He has already said that he
 will send them back."

thank God for that.  The last thing we need right now is more people
looking for a handout.  When are people going to get it into their
heads that America is in bad shape, and it's time to start taking
care of our own business and stop being the world's welfare organization?

(note: I'm not saying this to defend Slick Willie - I voted Libertarian)
--

Edward A. Bertsch (eab@msc.edu)   Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
Operations/User Services          1200 Washington Avenue South
(612) 626-1888 work               Minneapolis, Minnesota  55415
(612) 645-0168 voice mail         [DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS; NOT MSCI'S]
From: loweaa@g222-03.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Anthony A Lowe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:Re: Pot anyone?
Date: 24 Jan 1993 01:20:32 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
NNTP-Posting-Host: g222-03.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <C1A6Hy.G6x@ms.uky.edu>  writes:
> In article <1jo3uuINN64u@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
> loweaa@o231-23.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Anthony A Lowe) writes:
> > 	Hey yall! Here is one we did not catch before the election. It  
> > starts with Bill and his appointment to the Attorney General. Well she  
> is  
> > a firm believer in the legalization of pot for medicinal uses. So she  
is  
> a  
> > hippy feminist who still is not read the research proving the couple  
of  
> > hundred of chemicals in each joint does more damage than a pack of  
> > cigarettes and THC does permanent brain damage, the good part is  
Bill's  
> > response. He says that if he were to smoke pot today he would inhale.  
> > Watch for smoke in the White House!
> Sorry my friend, but you are wrong.  All studies showing that pot does  
> brain damage have been proven wrong.  They were li ke the stuidies that  
> said LSD changed your DNA...propoganda.  Also, cigarrettes do much more  
> damage to the system than marijuanna.  In fact, marijuanna usage can  
> reduce a cigarrette smoker's risk of lung cancer.  You see, your  
> conservative fascist views are not only based on an incorrect idealism,  
> they are based on incorrect data too.

	Well I guess someone else has been suckered into the lies put out  
by researchers that will do anything for the government to but pot for  
them. Here let me explain something to you. You see the only way to really  
prove that pot does brain damage is to take two people, have one of them  
smoke pot and the other stay clean. After a couple of years cut their  
brains open and see if any damage has been done. Now I am not getting in  
line for this one, how about you? 
	Now to cigarettes. Where the hell did you hear that pot helps cure  
lung cancer? Lets do some simple calculations now. The cause of lung  
cancer is smoke. You smoke marijuana. That means smoke goes into your  
lungs and causes cancer! Are you still with me? I would hate to loose you  
now. Well what is our result. Smoking marijuana causes cancer. Now if you  
still do not believe me then next time you have a joint take two dish  
detergent bottles fill them with cotton. Now cut the top of the cap off  
and stick a joint inside the hole of one and then stick a cigarette inside  
the hole of the other.  Now light up and squeeze the bottles and it will  
"smoke" them and you will get to see all of the fun stuff that goes into  
you when you smoke.  Any Questions?
	Now my last point is on how you tried to make your point. If you  
spent more time thinking and less time shooting off your opinions then you  
may be coherent. Besides who is going to believe a person who can not even  
use a spell checker? Oh yeah and by the way. conservatism and fascism are  
opposites
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:58:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.191924.22566@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>If you suggest to others that you are X, then, it is
>logic that the other would assume that you also do all
>the things that X's do. 

No, it's not.  That's the most illogical thing I have heard in years.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cjk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:03:51 GMT

In article <21JAN199321310961@zeus.tamu.edu> gadson@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <C1722E.MtA@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes...
>| 
>|>When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
>|>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..
>| 
>|Boy, that's tellin' em!  Like these ridiculous laws about the
>|sentencing of people who attempt to kill the President.  I mean, why
>|should *his* lifestyle choice be considered more important than
>|*mine*?  Let's judge people on the basis of who they are, not what
>|they do!  etc., etc.
>
>	So, I don't understand.  Are you saying that we should or
>shouldn't consider some people more or less important that others, 
>and if we should, on what should this be based, who they are or what
>they do?

Some governments have already tried that [valuing some people over others
because of what they do]  We used to call them Fascists and Nazis.

cjk@netcom.com

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14759 alt.politics.clinton:20856 alt.politics.bush:16233 alt.politics.homosexuality:9989
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 00:12:02 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1jmp5mINNptg@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> 
> >And I'd love to believe that most homosexuals are tolerant, loving, open-minded people.
> >The net posters give me absolutely no reason  to believe this, though.  Who's more 
> >tolerant and open-minded?  Tim Pierce, or Mark Christensen?  Who's more 
> >likely to resort to foul language and personal attacks in their posts? 
> 
> Ask yourself this, you bastard.  Who has better reason to?

Love you too, honey...;-)  Who has better reason to?  I'd like to think that 
resorting to such things is a measure of experience and maturity.  Who should 
have more experience with people being nasty and attacking them for no reason? 
Who should know better than to fall into that same approach?   But for too 
many of the gay posters in this forum, foul language, personal attacks, and
such witty comebacks as "duh" seem to be the attitude-of-choice.  I don't 
see anything close to that from people like Mark Christensen, vengeance, or 
some of the other Christian-types who respond to you.  You, Melinda, and 
others go on and on about how much Christians "hate" homosexuals, how Colorado 
is the "hate state", etc; yet I see no one here "hating" you; I just see 
a lot of nastiness being directed at anyone who doesn't think that homosexuality 
is ok.  You've certainly made it clear that you don't think mainstream 
Christianity is ok; yet do we see Mark responding with personal attacks 
and swears directed at you?  No doubt, there are rude, arrogant, intolerant 
people of all types; but the percentages here tell me something, Tim.  

Walter
 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14678 alt.sex:42737 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13327
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 19 Jan 93 22:49:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <Treble-190193120015@asc438.asc.slb.com> Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble) writes:
>In article <C13wFz.1nz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D.
>Adams) wrote:
>> 
>> tdarcos@digex.digex.com (Paul Robinson) writes:
>> 
>> >I'm trying to see where the claim of unequal protection is raised.
>> >This is an act to forbid granting *special* priveleges to a certain class.
>> >If anything, the laws granting to some class on the basis of race, or
>> >color, or sex or any other thing should be fair game to be attacked on
>> >equal protection grounds.
>> 
>
>Does anyone else find it intriguing that one could become a minority by
>behaving a certain way?  If I, a white man, stand in the midst of my black
>friends, it isn't difficult to discern that I am not black. However, if I
>stand among my white friends, some of whom are gay, it becomes difficult to
>discern.
>
>Behavior-based privileges?  Is this not dangerous territory?  Where does
>the defining line fall?  If a homosexual decides to abandon the gay
>lifestyle, then does that person become an nonminority. (I know the
>inherent gene argument will surface, but the jury is still out on that.)
>
>Deciding minority status on the basis of behavior opens the door to chaos
>in our legal system.  Suppose a person wants a job and is turned down.  If
>that person claims to have been rejected due to homosexuality, does the
>person have to prove it?  How?  In front of the judge and jury?
>
>treble@qasc.slb.com "My debate teacher said that whoever resorts to name
>calling first loses the debate because they ran out of ideas."
>The opinions expressed by this writer do not reflect the views of his
>employer.

This is interesting...You mean that if gay-rights groups have their way, 
and get homosexuality recognized as a valid minority, qualified for 
Afirmative Action, all I have to do (as a white-male-of-european-heritage) 
is to CLAIM to be gay and I am in line for set-aside jobs or can get 
extra points on my employment application?

How would anyone at my prospective place of employment know if I were 
gay or not?

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:44:18 GMT

In article <93024.034039KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.173939.18362@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) says:
>
>>>>But it's ok to deal with the consequences of a rapist's act by taking
>>>>an innocent life?
>>>
>>>In my opinion, yes, since it wasn't any deliberate act of the woman to cause
>>>the situation.
>>
>>Normally, in our systems of law and morality, the only time deliberateness
>>becomes an issue is when the intention of the deliberate act is to cause the
>>proscribed result. If a hunter were to accidentally shoot another hunter in
>>the woods, thinking that the movement in the bushes was a deer, then the
>>issue of deliberateness does not come into play (although the issue of
>>recklessness would)...
>
>But the hunter -is- responsible for the consequences of his own recklessness,
>no?  

Not every unwanted pregnancy is the result of "recklessness", though. Nor
is some degree of recklessness on the part of the victim, IMO, absent from 
EVERY case of rape. That's why I see the rape exception as being so glaringly
inconsistent when coming from the "she's responsible because she recklessly 
had sex" crowd. Recklessness and consent are only vaguely related to each
other. The presence or absence of one is no guarantee of the presence or
absence of the other.

>To extend the analogy (oh boy, another fun analogy!), what if the hunter
>were to dispose of the body of his unintended victim, so that it wouldn't be
>found by the authorities, so nobody would know what he'd accidentally done.
>Would that be okay?

It would be a concealment of evidence. No, I don't think it would be "okay",
but at the same time it wouldn't alter the fact that the homicide was 
accidental.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion