HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Phil and extremism (was: Rats I'm a Nazi)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:57:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.063431.17286@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
    >Good grief, man - you can't tell the difference between
    >taking an "absolutist" position on the Earth being flat and
    >an absolutist position on "coercion is always wrong"???
    >
    >That the Earth is not flat can be scientifically
    >demonstrated. Period.
    >
    >We obviously disagree on what areas an "extreme" stand should
    >be taken, and where one should not. And I notice now in other
    >threads that I am not the only one to conclude that your
    >knack for viewing lots of different issues in extreme terms
    >damages your credibility in presenting your case.
    >
    >I don't know if this is a trend or what - Cramer became not
    >worth posting to long ago; you seem to be intent on following
    >in his footsteps via your name-calling, bluntly arrogant
    >putdowns, and extreme interpretations of others' arguments.

Thous shalt not kill.

Theft is always wrong.

Women have the right to not be raped.

Pretty damn absolutist of me, isn't it?

Extreme interpretations of other's arguments? Now them is fighting
words.

Most of the posts on this net DO NOT consider the implications of
what they post.

Any attempt to illustrate the implications of what they say is
met at times with "well, that's extreme".

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to take one or two of these extreme
positions and show me what is so damn wrong with it?

NOTE THAT IF MY "EXTREME" POSITIONS ARE WRONG, AND SURELY YOU MUST THEY
ARE WRONG IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM, YOU CAN DISCUSS AND DEBATE THE
WRONGNESS?

But, you see, that would be requiring intellectual honesty -- the openess
to consider just what it is you are stating.

Consider the position I have of not wanting to be taxed to support
the school system.

What an extremist I be labelled!

Of course, when I point out that if I must be taxed because children need
school, then surely I must be taxed to pay for their food, shelter, and
clothes as well, well, that's EXTREMIST!

Or, if "we" can't do without public schools because how can we "trust"
parents to otherwise get their kids educated, and I point out that
the parents seem to do damn well in feeding and clothing and sheltering
their kids, so why not schools, well, that's EXTREMIST.

Well, if you can't discuss it, label it, eh?






-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:04:41 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct9.161547.3098@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
wrote:

> So what if my particular return doesn't go toward defense spending ?
> Someone else's will (I presume).  If our current system is honest, it
> ought to reasonably well reflect the spending priorities of the 
> electorate as a whole.

So, what if Californians in general don't fund defense, should we let them
just eat the big one should they be invaded?
 
> What might work even better would be a check-off proposal like Bush's
> but you get to pick which area of government spending the CUTS are
> going to come out of.  Would you approve of that ?

No, because there are too many people out there that think we spend too
much money on defense, all statistics to the contrary.  We spend 19% of GNP
on defense.  This is MUCH lower than, say, before WWII.
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: THIS ELECTION IS ILLEGIT!
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:47:22 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1992Oct16.201611.20865@odin.corp.sgi.com>, Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide writes:

>I read in a news article this morning that Andre Marrou declined to show up
>in person to the minor party candidates debate last night with the reason that
>he didn't want to share the stage with a bunch of fringe candidates.

I guess Libertarians are making progress!  :-)  I thought we *were* the party
of fringe candidates!  At least from the Republicrats' point of view...

When I first heard about that debate, I cringed at the thought of Marrou being
on the same stage as a representative for Lyndon LaRouche...

>Make of that what you will, but it seems as though there are more than two
>classes of candidates...

In the case of the Libertarians and Andre Marrou, that may be right.  He's
not a Republican, Democrat or billionaire, so he's not on the top tier.  He's
also on all 50 state ballots, so he's not at the bottom either.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
"The word 'politics' comes from the Greek root 'poly,' meaning many, and
'tics,' meaning blood-sucking parasites." -- Andre Marrou
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: WHAT indigenous people?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:49:40 GMT

In article <1bf6k9INNbgu@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >It does depend on how we handle the definition of indigenous
    >people. The Native American people who were here on the
    >arrival of the Europeans, had been here for possibility a
    >very long time, in relationship to our having been here. Many
    >of us measure on lineage here as only a few or less
    >generations. These people can measure it as thousands of
    >years. With that we need to understand 'how long does it take
    >to become indigenous?'

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

If you assert that it gives the Indians a "better" claim to the land or
such, then better think again. Most of South Africa was settled FIRST
by white men -- the bulk of blacks there now are much later arrivals.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6018 talk.politics.theory:4488
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Rats, I guess I'm a Nazi
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:48:29 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Oct8.230458.26805@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >Truth may be out there in some objective form, as I believe,
    >but our conception of it is constantly evolving, as we learn
    >and unlearn more and more from science and personal
    >experience. And our moral values are even more subject to
    >change than our concept of physical reality.
    >
    >Ethical claims are always relative to something. Is this an
    >absolutist claim? Absolutely, relatively speaking. (8-)

No. For example, in changing from a Newtonian view to an Einstein-ian
view of the Universe, we did not invalidate Newtonian physics at the
scale they were being used -- Newtonian physics, as far as men used it,
was valid then, and for most men today is still valid.

Although the conceptual base was immensely changed, the application by
men was of a refinement.


Truth IS -- and our view can always be refined, yes.



But what of the way our schools teach two opposed and contradicting
viewpoints (such as: racism is wrong and bad, affirmitive action is
right and good)?

Our moral values are subject to change as much as they are malleable
to the whim of the moment.


Do what is done in physics -- if you're right, build something per your
physics and see if it works.


Because some people believe in the flat earth model does not mean there
are no absolutes known in physics.

Because some people belive in communism/fascism/socialism/PC(tm) does
not there are not moral absolutes either.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:57:13 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <1992Oct9.230526.19525@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:

>According to recent surveys, some 25% of the residents of the former
>East Berlin would like to return to the 'old days'. [...] there appear 
>to be some folks that think they were better off than they are now.

Is this not the result of the chaos caused by transition from
communism to a more democratic government?  You would only expect some
people to be dissatisified.  You can't (and they shouldn't) fault
their new government for not instantly solving all the problems caused
by their old one.  Some of these same people liked living under
Stalin's rule. 

[What does this have to do with "No on 9"???]

--
dave
manley@optilink.com
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Voluntary school prayer
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:53:31 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <12716@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1)
wrote:
> 
> In article <casseres-101092161221@kip2-21.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
> >In article <12710@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP writes:
> 
> >> What if the legislation explicitly specifies [...] the exact words 
> >> the teacher is allowed to use...
> 
> >This was tried in Arkansas (I think it was) and the courts shot it down. 
> >The argument was that this might be okay if the country had not been
> >flooded with campaigns to restore institutionalized, official, sectarian
> >prayer.  In the climate that has been created, you can say "we will be
> >silent" until you're blue in the face, but every child in the room will
> >know that what it means is "you can either pray now or be quiet so that
> >others can pray."
> 
> Perhaps at first.  After some time has passed I can imagine students using
> the time to pray, to daydream, to sleep, to do last minute homework, to
> make spit-balls, etc.  No one can know what the students are thinking
> and no one is leading them in prayer.  What's the problem?

The problem is it's a government-sponsored religious exercise, expressly
forbidden by the First Amendment, that's what the problem is.

How about a counterproposal:  Parents teach their children the religion of
their choice, including the fact that you can pray wherever you are,
whenever you want, as long as you don't bother other people with it. 
Schools don't do anything at all about it.  What's the problem?

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:08:02 GMT
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.

In article <92281.33271.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>I have no problem with that.  I also think that abortion is a very personal
>decision, and why does Boxer need to get into the wallets of people who
>dislike abortion to fund it for those who want it?  Same government intrusion,
>different ideology.  Yet I'll bet you favor THAT intrusion, don't you?

I would be perfectly happy with this if YOU would allow me to veto other
government activities that I find morally repugnant.  Maybe we should
take Bush's "check off" idea further and allow people to direct their
taxes to different "areas" of government spending.


Guido
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Voluntary school prayer
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:16:54 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computr, Inc.

In article <12710@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1)
wrote:

> What if the legislation explicitly specifies the duration of the
> "moment" and the exact words the teacher is allowed to use.  For
> example: "For the next minute we will be silent."  Some suitably
> harsh penalty would motivate teachers and schools not to violate
> this.

This was tried in Arkansas (I think it was) and the courts shot it down. 
The argument was that this might be okay if the country had not been
flooded with campaigns to restore institutionalized, official, sectarian
prayer.  In the climate that has been created, you can say "we will be
silent" until you're blue in the face, but every child in the room will
know that what it means is "you can either pray now or be quiet so that
others can pray."

I think the courts were absolutely right on this.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:16:15 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <athos-041092160825@kip2-43.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
>
>The US Constitution says that (1) you can't force me pray and (2) you can't
>stop me from praying.  That's all Bruce is saying.  Boxer, on the other
>hand, is saying that you CAN stop someone from praying.  That's against the
>first amendment, unless you have another explanation?

the student would be free to go and pray before school, after school, or
during her lunch period.  the absence of a moment of 'voluntary prayer'
does not inhibit anyone from praying.  while it is possible that a
student may be coerced by her teacher or principal or by what other
children are muttering, this concern is not the most significant one.
a 'moment of silence' is an implicit call for prayer.  this is clear
both to the children, and, more importantly, to everyone else.
the issue is symbolic: should the government, acting through the school,
symbolically condone the practice of religion?  the constitution seems
clear enough on this matter.

regards,
dave
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5944 ca.politics:8537
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: "encouraging tolerance" is a bad goal
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 22:44:27 GMT

Is it then your position, that the public schools are a place where values are to be instilled {or I suppose in your best case scenario} indoctrinated in the minds of the young? 

I cannot agree with that. In my humble opinion, the schoolteacher is not the one to be the social engineer. If and when any kids I may have attend public schools, I do not want the principles of their schoolteacher and her values forced upon them. It is the place of the parent to teach his children values, not a civil servant. Our schools are already having enough trouble teaching the children to read and write. Perhaps this is because of all of this "SECULAR HUMANISM" that you advocate.


Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Genocide war crime trials against the AMerIndians NOW!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:40:08 GMT

Were the people who were living in the Americas when Columbus dropped in
uniformly peaceful?  Wasn't there quite a bit of warfare, slavery, and
that sort of thing?  If so, why is it any worse for Columbus to come over
and kill and enslave than it is for one group already here to kill and
enslave another group?  Columbus was "better" at it, but is that sufficient
reason?  Isn't that like, say, overlooking what's going on with the Serbs
because Hitler was worse?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:15:47 GMT

In article <athos-081092133805@kip2-29.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.170802.3357@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
>wrote:
>> I would be perfectly happy with this if YOU would allow me to veto other
>> government activities that I find morally repugnant.  Maybe we should
>> take Bush's "check off" idea further and allow people to direct their
>> taxes to different "areas" of government spending.
>
>Sure, and if you don't check of "defense" you don't get protected?  I don't
>think so.

Gee Rick, does mean that you think that if we had true democracy, that
people wouldn't pay for defense ?  I think that we have enough people
in this country who believe in defense spending, that funding the DOD
through this method would work just find.  If it didn't, what does
that say about our form of democracy (and about the power of lobbyists
and other forms of corruption) ?

So what if my particular return doesn't go toward defense spending ?
Someone else's will (I presume).  If our current system is honest, it
ought to reasonably well reflect the spending priorities of the 
electorate as a whole.

What might work even better would be a check-off proposal like Bush's
but you get to pick which area of government spending the CUTS are
going to come out of.  Would you approve of that ?

Guido


Xref: sparky ba.politics:6072 ca.politics:8649 talk.politics.misc:51451
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 22:14:06 GMT

In <1992Oct8.170802.3357@island.COM>, Guido Marx writes:

>In article <92281.33271.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LM
>>I have no problem with that.  I also think that abortion is a very personal
>>decision, and why does Boxer need to get into the wallets of people who
>>dislike abortion to fund it for those who want it? Same government intrusion,
>>different ideology.  Yet I'll bet you favor THAT intrusion, don't you?

>I would be perfectly happy with this if YOU would allow me to veto other
>government activities that I find morally repugnant.  Maybe we should
>take Bush's "check off" idea further and allow people to direct their
>taxes to different "areas" of government spending.

Well, sure.  Think about Arabs paying taxes which go to Israeli aid, for
example.  Or pacifists paying for a war effort--particularly when intervening
in a foreign war.  Or single people without children, who pay for the schooling
of other people's children, and for that privilege they get a higher tax
bracket.

I've always wished there was a way to earmark one's taxes to the causes they
favored.  Of course, if that were the case, then there would really be no
"taxation," just voluntary contributions.  I could help the inner cities my
own way.  Rather than the current AFDC system which contains disincentives
for saving money and trying to break the cycle of dependency, I could give my
money to organizations which help people help themselves, such as the United
Negro College Fund.  Perhaps if poor inner city youth know that lack of
finances won't have to prevent a college education, they may try harder.  We
already know of a welfare mother who lost benefits because she committed the
horrible offense of trying to save for her daughter's college education so
they would no longer need welfare.  Nice incentive to succeed, isn't it?  We
have fat cats who are lose their empowerment when people no longer need the
government.  It isn't in their best interests to see people self-sufficient,
so why do we entrust them with policy making?

I was merely trying to point out what I see as a hypocrisy.  Almost all of the
people who are "pro-choice" want government out of the womb...until it's time
to fund the clinic.  Personally, I want government *always* out of the womb.

I'm not a Bush fan, but I'm afraid of a Clinton Administration which will
eagerly sign much of what Congress passes...


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***************************************************************************
FLASH!  Card-carrying Libertarian attempts to solve problems realistically.
        Film at 11.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Subject: Extreme premises (was: School vouchers)
Reply-To: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:46:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.144646.4182@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.010333.27031@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>    >No. This line of logic is extreme and immature. No, the
>    >poster is not saying "too bad", he's saying he disagrees with
>    >your opinion.
>
>Prove it Patti.
>
>Any idiot can write "extreme and immature".
>
>Logic can NOT be "extreme", nor can logic be "immature".
>
>Logic is either right or wrong.
>
>Now, perhaps you'll dmonstrate something other than childish immaturity
>and illustrate just EXACTLY why the logic is "extreme and immature".
>
>This I gotta' see ...

OK Phil. Here was the section of my posting, your quote which you omitted:
><Phil writes> 
>Yes. And the "we" is you and me. Unless you can show me proof that
>every single cent you make over and above that which is needed for bare
>survival, then you too say "too bad" -- too bad about the millions of
>children starving to death now in parts of Africa for example.
>
>Show me proof that any $$$ above the utter bare minimum survival amount
>that you make is donated to those children, and I'll take you out of
the "we".>
>O.K.?

To which I responded. "No, this is not ok" because the premise
of your argument is extreme and immature. The premise of your
argument is as follows:

    The only way a person can support issue X is to put "any
    $$ above bare minimum survival" into efforts supporting
    issue X and supersets of issue X.

This is obviously an extreme premise.(meaning: at one of two ends of 
a scale) This is also an immature premise (meaning: not fully developed,
not considering all the issues) because it does not acknowledge that there
are other issues a person may be interested in, or that there are other 
ways to support an issue, etc, etc, etc.  

I've seen this argument/reasoning/logic/etc used before and
it never contributes to worthwhile discussion.

My intention of the posting was not to start a flame war, but
actually to kill the thread. Sorry for having this issue
disgress even more. Let's get back to discussing real
issues, not name-calling or baiting. Calm down, dude :)
If you have any issues, please respond to me and give the
net a well-deserved break. Thanks.


Patti Jazanoski
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Turn 'biff' off
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:49:43 GMT
Organization: <1b0bbfINN6eo@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>

In article <1b0bbfINN6eo@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
>If the 'biff' bothers you, simply turn it off.
>
>biff n
>
>at your local command line.

EY DID THAT::F>

<WAIK_UP:BIFF>[3400234045]: biff n
/dev/ttyp5: Not owner

KNOW WOT SHUD I DU?

BWT: Y DU U WAN 2 TERN ME OF?  WYH R U AXEING
PEEPUL 2 TERN ME OF?  SHUD EY AX THEM 2 TERN U OF?
WAT ABUOT MY FREEEEEEEDUMB OFF NET UHSOCIASHUN?
WAT ABUOT MEY SLEFFF_ASTEAM?