From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... THOUGHTCRIME! (Semi-Long)
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion 
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 17:32:39 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)

I made followups to this post alt.abortion.inequity and talk.abortion.
I'm not sure if there is much interest in this in the soc groups.  But
since I have no idea where Will originated this post from, I figured 
I should leave the Newsgroups alone.  

ws>In article <1992Sep26.010732.2804@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
DK>king@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...

ws>Note: Quoted Out of Context ... AGAIN

I have on numerous occasions when quoting you, posted your entire article
in question.  I don't know if I did or didn't in this case because you
leave no reference to my article.  I have no plans to try and re-locate
my previous article when you go and make it as difficult as possible to
do so.  If it really was posted out of context like you claim, I will
go ahead and repost your entire post.  I believe your post alone is enough
to convince people of the dangerousness of your position.  So if you 
want me to re-post your original post in its entirety, I'll be more than
happy to.

DK> It would be tough to come up with a more convincing argument for spousal
DK> notification than this one here.  I'll be archiving this post just so I
DK> can remember this argument um... was that FOR spousal notification.

ws>Yes, Dan, it *was*, but my comments were *only* meant to be taken within a
ws>*very* hypothetical context.  And unless you have *really* misunderstood me,
ws>you will realise that I believe that *all* violence is wrong, and is *never*
ws>justified!   But if you believe that it can't happen, or that it cannot
ws>be done by "normal" people, then I would say that you are incorrect.  Indeed,
ws>even "normal" people, when pushed beyond the breaking point, (as shameful as
ws>it is to admit, we *all* have one), are just as capable of it as anyone.

I refuse to force a woman into the position of being required to inform you
of something that you have said could drive you to violence.  I have made
no claim regarding if I do or don't believe you could be this violence. 
I don't believe I know enough to make this judgement.  But I will not
force a woman that does have more information about your violent 
tendencys into that position.  

ws>Can you honestly tell me that you have *never* thought "I'm going to beat up/
ws>smash in/kill/etc that stupid idiot" if you were in a situation where you
ws>have been insulted, or betrayed, etc. ; you did not, of course, commit actual
ws>violence, but letting out your anger through your *thoughts* is a powerful
ws>healing mechanism which often helps to prevent actual violence from happening.
ws>Crossing the line is another matter entirely, but most of us have never
ws>committed violence, but only the true saint has never ever had violent
ws>*thoughts*, and even *they* have probably done so as well.

You have missed the point of my reply.  There is a chance you would act
violently like you said you might, and there is a chance you will not.  I
am not capable to make that determination from where I am.  I am not going
to force a woman, against her judgement into a position where she will
need to find out your violent tendencys.  I have seen no justification 
for putting any woman in that kind of risk from you or anyone that 
might tend to get violent.  It ain't worth it.

ws>I was referring to the fact that I just *knew* that people were going to
ws>accuse my *thoughts* of being *actual violence*, as you seem to have done.

ws>This is what I mean, when I say that you have made yourself my judge, jury,
ws>and executioner on the charge of Thoughtcrime.

It is not up to me to be judge, jury or executioner.  I would much rather
leave it to the partys involved if they want to be put into circumstances
that could send you into a violent rage.  I would want women to have as 
much information as they desire before making a decision regarding if 
they should inform you of an abortion.  I want law to stay out of the 
business of forcing a woman into this position.  And I have seen no
justification for trading the potential risk to the woman for some 
un-workable spousal notification legislation.  

ws>I was speaking QUITE figuratively, Dan.  *She* herself often said "There are
ws>times when I thought of killing you," which I thought were quite extreme,
ws>but I knew that she was only speaking from anger, *not* from any intention
ws>of committing violence.  When I spoke similarly, I meant the exact same
ws>thing.
 
And I oppose legislation that would force you to tell others about her 
abortion.  See I am just as willing to protect you from her as I am
willing to protect her from you.  However, since I see no one pushing
for legislation to put you in that position, I guess I don't push for
it as hard as I do my opposition to spousal notification.

ws>Sure, but I'll bet the back forty that you at least *thought* of it.  My
ws>only crime was talking about it in public, *just* to make the point that this
ws>sort of situation can be *very* stressful.  I was *not* attempting to show
ws>any sort of "control," over anyone, as you seem to have.  Indeed, the only
ws>place where "control" comes into play is the fact that one loses control
ws>over *ONESELF*.  Oftentimes, people who have lost self-control, or control
ws>over their situation, will attempt to control someone whom they view as
ws>causing the situation.  This *is* wrong, and while it did *not* happen to me
ws>(although you have misinterpreted what I said to mean that I did attempt to
ws>do so), it *can* happen, and something MUST be done about it.

I never claimed you committed a crime.  I think you posted something 
extremely stupid and despicable as an argument for spousal notification.  
I saw your argument as a valid argument against spousal notification. 
My impression was that you were looking to control the woman.  What is
your point in pushing spousal notification if you are not out to control
the woman?  Using force of law to make a woman do something she doesn't
want to do is control.

DK> for reminding us what kind of Neanderthal still exist out there.  Just

ws>Look, I came out, honestly and openly with the fact that I *dared* to have
ws>violent *emotions*.  You and about five others, slammed me and called me
ws>"Neanderthal," "sexist," "anti-women," "walking time bomb," and a thousand
ws>other names. 

I still have your original post.  What you said, was that if your SO did 
not show you the proper respect, and not inform you in what you believed 
was a timely manner, you would be tempted to kill her.  I have no problem
believing that a man that would be drawn to violence when a woman does not 
show him the respect he believes he deserves is a sexist.  

ws>Yet I am going to respond to you all in a cool, calm, rational, and
ws>non-warlike manner, in spite of the fact that I probably *ought* to flame
ws>you all to Kingdom Come for being so insulting.

ws>No offense meant, but now tell me who the Neanderthal is?

Oh thats an easy question.  Why it is you Will Steeves.

ws>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"

Dan King
Xref: sparky soc.women:17079 alt.abortion.inequity:4060 talk.abortion:38700 soc.men:16967