HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:08:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...


>If you force the Nazi to deal with people he doesn't like, you have to
>force other people to deal with the Nazi.
>
>        the nazi shop owner can't disallow people he doesn't like
>        from shopping in his store.  i can't disallow the nazi from
>        shopping in my store.

Fine.

        so far, so good

>        but i don't have to go to his store,

Why not?  We're going to force the Nazi store owner to buy from a
Jewish supplier.  Why aren't we going to force the Jewish store owner
to buy from the Nazi supplier?  Why do consumers get exempted?

        we are?  i'm not forcing the nazi to buy stuff from jews
        if he doesn't want to.  what are you talking about? some
        sort of law that forces people to buy items from stores
        owned by people we don't like?

        so there's this guy, owns a widget shoppe.  i don't need a
        widget, so i never go there.  so one day he hangs a swastika
        in the window, so i now HAVE to buy a widget: its the law.

It's "evil discrimination" when a Nazi does it, but "an ethical and
righteous boycott" when "good" people do it.  That's an interesting
set of principles for people who claim that they don't believe in
discrimination on the basis of political beliefs.

        its an evil and discriminatory boycott if a nazi refuses to
        buy from a jewish establishment.  but I'M not about to tell
        him he has to.  and HE doesn't think that its evil.  who am
        i to force him to buy where he doesn't want to?

Note that we can place requirements on govt that we don't place on
"the rest of us", but we've got to be careful to avoid using the
"you've got a govt contract, therefore" club.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:37:05 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

 *** Resending note of 09/08/92 16:09

 >I believe the amount each taxpayer contributes annually to the NEA is:
 >   1/4 of 1 cent

 How about if each taxpayer contributes 1/4 of 1 cent toward the purchase of
 Bibles for use in the public schools?

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:06:50 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: response to Brni

>>Tyrone--who said anything about business controlling your beliefs?
>>They can't throw you in jail--all they can do is fire you.  Don't
>>you think if I put my hard-earned money into owning a business
>>that I should be able to hire and fire whom I wish?
>
>    So they can't throw you in jail, but they can make sure you
>  starve to death for your beliefs.

Really?  If I don't get the job at Sun, I'm going to starve?  I can't
accept the offers from SGI, HAL, IBM, McDonald's, etc?

How is Sun going to keep me from working somewhere else?

How many people really have only one possible employer?

When is the last time someone starved because an employer didn't like
their beliefs?  (I can point to hundreds of thousands of people jailed
because "society" decided to lock them up.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Bosnia conflict
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:37:52 GMT

I'm still in jail for my logic coup, remember.

I hope that the Logic Czar won't mind my stepping in here with a little
discussion about a kind of informal fallacy known as the fallacy of
composition.  The fallacy of composition is committed whenever one assumes
that just because the members of a set have some property, the set itself
has that property.

A common example: Molecules are invisible.  My computer is made from
molecules.  Therefore my computer is invisible.

KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes:
>If we were to pursue a Christian (truly
>Christian) foreign policy, we would empty the treasury to send
>humanitarian aid (like the widow at the poor box), without concern
>for whether that would leave us anything with which to feed ourselves
>(not to mention funding the arts, building nifty new government
>buildings, paying for education, or balancing the budget).

I think that Kerry is committing the fallacy of composition here.  Just
because it would be Christian for each of us individually to send
humanitarian aid to other nations, does not mean that it would be
a 'truly Christian' policy for the government to send aid?  Why?

Well, if each of us were to individually *volunteer* aid, we would
be behaving in a Christian manner.  But if some small group were to
use the taxing authority of the government (which, always remember,
involves Men with Guns) to *force* each of us to send aid, then surely
that wouldn't be a Christian way to behave!

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:10:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 14th amendment jurisprudence

On Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:15:58 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> I think that if a state wanted to make all marriage illegal, there
> would be scant constitutional grounds for striking down the law.
> Shocking, but true. But if the state wants to make, say, interracial
> marriage illegal, no dice. Why? Because that would violate equal
> protection. Same for recognizing only heterosexual marriage.
So should we have separate-sex bathrooms in public buildings??
Why or why not?

> Jamie
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:06:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: little answer to little question

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: little answer to little question

No one has a right to a job.  Once again, people are being fired, for whatever
reason, every day.  Are their rights being abridged?

        i see.  so my homosexual employers can fire me, any day, simply
        because they find heterosexual sex disgusting, and do not
        want an employee who engages is such apalling and just plain
        WRONG behavior.  if this were to happen, and i ended up
        unable to cover my living expenses, i can at least rest assured
        that my rights hadn't been abridged, because i don't have a
        right to keep my job, just because i'm good at it.

I'll reread my copy of the Constitution.  I must have missed all of these new
amendments.

>--KAT

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 08:21:41 EDT
From:         Janet Perry <JPERRY@ERS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
              14 Sep 1992 16:45:31 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

In reply to my message of Mon 14 Sep at 16:45 Robert wrote:
>>The headmaster our our *private Christian* school recently claimed that
we had 90 denominations in attendance.

I'm sorry Robert, 90 Christian denom. is not diversity.

>>When the school atmosphere is Christ centered, the students don't seem to
have such a great need to reconcile themselves to one another.

I agree that the atmosphere propagated by caring, concerned teachers is very
condusive to learning.  But when a certain *type* of person is valued over
another, ie, Christian over non-Christian, or my culture over yours, you no
longer have an atmosphere where everyone can learn.  Where does it stop?  My
denomination is more valued?  My denomination on 11th street?  My Church
School class?

>>Education without biblical values can hardly be considered *whole knowledge*

What's wrong with teaching kids that *ALL* of us are valued beings, who can
contribute as we can, without invoking "Christ" (notice I didn't say "G"od)?

Anyway, the point of my previous posts was that public school can be a place
of learning, but it takes the committment of the parents as well as the
teachers.  Like Missy, I believe it doesn't take a lot of money.  Kids can
be entertain by the Pythygorean theorem if it is done properly.  The money
that is collected for public schools doesn't go just to educate your kids, but
to educate the children of society and the future.

Visit a school--you'll be amazed, one way or another.

>>Robert

--Janet,  teach an adult to read, Call the Literary Volunteers of America, Inc.
          5795 Widewaters Pkwy, Syracuse, NY    315-445-8000
  (Sorry, I won't be available to post on Wed Sep 16, have fun)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:13:35 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful

 *** Resending note of 09/10/92 14:54

 >lying makes of one a liar.  however, there are situations where it
 >becomes harmful, either to oneself or to another, to tell the truth.
 >in these situations, telling the truth is worse than lying, because
 >when you lie, the only one you harm is yourself (by making yourself
 >a liar), but when you tell the truth, you harm another.

 >me, i'm willing to sacrifice to help someone else.  is that
 >bad?

 >brni

 badguys:
 Brni, we know that you are a spy for George Bush.  We are therefore going to
 kill you.

 brni:
 NO, wait!  I'm not a spy ( looking quite honest ).

 badguys:
 Oh, our mistake.  Please go and live happily ever after.  Here's ten dollars.

 MORAL:
 brni told a lie ( a bad thing ) to stay alive ( a good thing ).
 The lie is certainly understandable, but nonetheless it is still wrong (bad).
 Forgiveness ( see John 3:16 ) is a wonderful thing.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:27:01 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Barron v Baltimore

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>Whoa!  I think I disagree with the late Mr. Chief Justice Marshall.
>I think that intent should generally be low on the priority of what
>the Constitution means.  Intent should be used only in ambiguities, and
>even then only when words that have taken on new meaning (such as "lib-
>erty") don't help.  The fifth Amendment takes precedence over the
>entire original Constitution.  And the 5th was written in passive
>voice.  Private property SHALL NOT BE TAKEN.

As a matter of fact, I agree that intent should be low on the list
of interpretive strategies.

But Marshall's approach was not really an investigation of intent.
His claim was that it does not make sense to read the Bill of Rights
as applying to the states, given the rest of the document. (In fact,
I have to say his argument seems pretty shaky to me--but it isn't
an argument about intent, or not strictly that).

The amendments take precedence, in the relevant sense. But Marshall
wasn't suggesting that we let the sections of Article One take
precedence over the fifth amendment. He was suggesting that parts
of Article One illustrate what sort of phrasing is used when
enumerated restrictions are supposed to apply to the states.

 Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:35:01 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

I think I missed something.  Do the pro-gay people out there not believe that
the Bible is a "reasonable" guide to morality?  Or are you expecting us to make
attempt to show that homosexuality is immoral without reference to Christianity
or any other religion?
**************************************

(First of all I am not pro-gay the same way that I am not
pro-abortion.  However, I am for choice in both cases.
In other words, I am pro-gay rights.)

Not quite.  We expect you to show why certain activity should
be considered illegal (like homosexual marriages).  You may
call anything immoral as you wish.  The thing is that *my*
religious beliefs might consider homosexuality moral and
Christianity immoral.  So what are we gonna do now?  Should
we let you impose your morality on me or mine on you.  THAT is
why some of us think *purely* religious arguments or
"revealed truth" should not be the ONLY basis to make things
illegal.

> Jason

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:20:39 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      economic policy debate

Hi, y'all:
I listened to a short NPR discussion of the Bush/Clinton economic debate
currently underway.  According to the discussion, Bush is punching hard on
various specific elements of Clinton's proposed economic policy.  For his
own part, though, Bush is declining (and Teeter says he'll continue to do
so) to get any more specific about his own plan to cut taxes and spending.
I guess we're supposed to trust him:)

Anyway, aside from wondering whether staying vague is a good idea for the
Bushmaster, I find an interesting phenomenon.  One of the strategies the
Republicans are using is to pick on the term "investment", used in the
Clinton proposal.  The word, they say, is just a code word for raising
taxes and increasing spending.  They apparently refuse to acknowledge that
one can spend some money now in order to save/raise revenues later.  But I
must say it sounds good, and probably plays very well in Peoria.

But what I find amusing is this:  during the Senate debate on the
supercolliding superconductor, Phil Gramm made a fairly impassioned plea in
support of the project (oink, oink :)).  In his plea, he said the project
"isn't spending, it's an *investment* in jobs".  Honest.  I saw it on CSPAN
.
Hmmm.
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 13:20:19 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

This is a response to a posting on public versus private education.

Some of the arguments were that private are better  because they
graduate better students.  Allow me to explain why this is wrong.

I attended public school throughout my educational career.
I started in kindergarten and finished with 12th grade.

In fourth grade I was tested for the gifted and talented program
in my parish(I remind people I am from Louisiana and we don't have
counties) and began attending the gifted program in the fifth.
This was the first year of the program and we had students from
both public and private schools.  From what I gather from
friends this is not the norm.  That is one strike against
private schools--they lack the capacity to provide enrichment
for the upper and lower ends of the academic spectrum
adequately.

My gifted program was one of the crucial elements in my education.
It was one of the motivators which prompted me to do everything I
could in education.

My last point is that I went to a public residential college
preparatory school.  It is a school to which one must apply
for admission.  The result is that it has the best and brightest
in the state of Louisiana, students who range from gifted dancers
and musicians to writers, to physicists.  All but two out of my
class of 175 went on to college.  Many went on to private
four-year colleges like Rhodes.  We have SAT scores that could
blow the roof off your house and always have about 30 National
Merit Finalists.

The reason that private schools are similar is not because they
are private, but because they accept students who are
educationally motivated.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 09:35:27 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: War between the Jasons

Hi, Jason:
>Do you believe that religious reasons are ilegitimate because you equate them
>with bigotry, or because you want to keep religion/morality out of government?
>I'm not sure which you believe.

Sort of the second, but not exactly:  I believe that religious doctrine
cannot be used as the basis for specific laws in this country.

>To be honest, I can't think of a single good reason to oppose restrictions on
>gay marriages that doesn't ultimately have its roots in religion either.  I
>would argue that the state ought to promote basic family-values (not to use an
>overused cliche, or anything) morality, which is why the tax code helps out
>married couples in the first place.  Therefore, lifestyles which don't pass
>moral muster ought not to be encouraged.  Of course, this argument still
>assumes the religious opposition to homosexuality, so it fails your standards
>of legitimacy.  On the other hand, would you continue to give benefits to
>married couples with children, since it draws distinctions based on moral
>decisions?  Or do you have another argument that justifies one but not the
>other?

A couple thoughts.  First, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that we
should only support lifestyles that "pass moral muster", because I'm not
sure whose morals are being promoted.  But *my* morals are such that I can
readily make an argument as follows:  married couples should be favored by
our tax code because the marriage represents a long-term committment to
mutual support.  If I thought about it, I could probably figure some ways
in which promoting such mutually-supporting partnerships benefited all of
us.  But that benefit would be equally derived from heterosexual and
homosexual partnerships.  Similarly, I can easily support a tax code that
gives married couples with kids a better break than married couples without
kids.  I need no religious justification for this stance.

So I guess my short answer to your last question is: either give tax breaks
to *all* married couples (homosexual or heterosexual), or give them to no
one.

Ironically (or maybe just interestingly), our current tax code doesn't
necessarily favor the moral high ground (as traditional Christianity might
define it).  At least, I think so -- but will check my tax forms when I get
back to school on Tuesday.  See, in my case, I derive a hefty tax break from
*not* marrying my domestic partner.  Moreover, because of our financial
arrangements and my single-parent status, *getting* married would require
far more paperwork and legal fees than we currently face.

Looking forward to hearing from you again :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:46:20 EDT
From:         "Patrick W. Hamlett" <PWHMDS@NCSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: An easy answer to a little question

On Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:13:51 -0400 Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet said:
>
> If morality is a general qualification for a given privilege, then there is
> nothing inherently wrong with denying homosexuals said privilege.  This is

This is true *only* if a reasonable case that homosexuality is immoral can
be made, a feat *no one* on this list has yet achieved...
Hamlett

> not illegal or unconstitutional.  If we decide to remove moral qualifiers
> from the adoption process, then of course homosexuals will not be the only
> beneficiaries.  We can look forward to allowing adoptions into homes run by
> known pimps, thieves, drug addicts and rapists.  Gosh, if we open it up just
> a little more, even Democrats will be able to adopt!
>
> ---Robert
>
> "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:08:06 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: a real question about international affairs...

Tim:

I do not know the race of the troops, but I do know this.  The incident
occurred when the ANC crowd in question marched *past* the army, with
the *express intent* of overthrowing the military government of the
homeland.

I'm not saying that it was the right thing to do to fire on the
demonstrators.  I'm only pointing out that being fired on in this
situation was inevitable, and that the ANC knew it.

Let me put it this way:  what *could* the government of the homeland
have done at that point when it was clear that the ANC was not going
to stop at the border?  Would *you* have believed them to be unarmed,
given that they *said* they were going to overthrow the government?

Marching unarmed into someone else's governed territory and telling
them you intend to overthrow the government appears to be an entirely
irrational act--and no government deals well with irrational actors.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:34:14 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

>>Rights, rights, rights.  What about responsibilities?  Since we have
>>a Bill of Rights, what about a Bill of Responsibilites? We continually
>>hear everyone who can get airtime scream about their "rights being
>>violated" but we see little about those same people assuring us they
>>themselves are "responsible citizens" in return.

>>So what should be in a Bill of Responsibilities?

>   A Bill of Responsibilities is an interesting concept.  But, of
>  course, that could actually be in diametric opposition to the Bill
>  of Rights and the nature of (what I see as) democratic government.
>  Not that a law stating "Every citizen has the responsibility to
>  vote" would be a bad idea...

I would not make these "responsibilities" compulsary, but I would
accept a general list of things that make up "good citizenship,"
and while I would be uncomfortable making a law requiring voting,
I would have no problems whatsoever saying that voting is the first
requirement for good citizenship. Keeping aware of the issues would
be second.

>          --G. Racz

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
 Vote! To get suckers out of office!
 Vote! To get good people into office!
 Vote! For any reason at all!
     -Disposable Heroes of HipHoprisy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU