HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:13:21 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      pot and the kettle

 Jamie,

 From one that sees nothing wrong with reverse discrimination, I have a
 hard time accepting criticism of my answer concerning perversion.  Just
 so you can think you're having fun: Homosexuality(perversion) is wrong
 because it is contradictory to "G"od's word.

 By the way, did you ever figure out that "coining" money was a federal
 and not a state level endeavor?

 ---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:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:43:43 -0900
From:         "ACAD2A::ASCER" <ASCER@ALASKA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bosnia

So has any one wondered what will happen if this conference fails?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:57:00 CDT
From:         Pam Leader <SYSPL@UOKMVSA.BITNET>
Subject: Re: pregnancy and childbirth

>
> As many women's groups will tell you, most Caeserean births are not
> performed to save the life of the mother and the child.  They are
> performed to save the doctor time and effort.  On this and other
> issues, I recommend "Without Moral Limits:  Women, Reproduction, and
> the New Medical Technology," by Debra Evans.
>
> --Missy P 2 B

 Thanks for the reference. I have read that "most" are not necessary.
 However, this does not negate the fact that pregnancey and childbirth
 are detrimental to health, and are not just an inconvenience.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:39:58 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      I don't know why you'd feel warm

The only thing I disagreed with is the spelling of Gennifer.

Dave
BTW, what list was that from?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:29:18 CDT
From:         the annoying will inherit the earth <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The City on the Hill

>>Sorry to tell y'all this, but according to Forbes (?), Sioux Falls,
>>South Dakota is the most livable city, aka the Shining City on the
>>Hill.  I'm going there today to get replacement glasses.

>  Um, and how many of the Forbes editors actually live there?
>None, you say?  Astonishing.

They judged this by crime rates, employment rates, etc etc, or some
such set of statistics. If they were judging by the number of cool
bands (if Chord on Blue is still together, one. Flag With Hank RIP),
the number of cool record stores (one, although Disc Jockey in the
mall isn't bad. Isn't good, but isn't bad ...), or the weather, then
I would doubt that Sioux Falls would get out of the center of the
list. Heck, the best book store runs two weeks behind on the Village
Voice and I still don't know where to get a New York Times out here.

Besides, the Forbes people have to be close to what they whine about.
Midwesterners can talk years about a five-dollar cup of coffee or the
homeless people sitting outside the World Trade Center, but if you
have to publish a magazine, you sort of need more stories than that.

>  Not that I would doubt what they said for a minute....

>                                      -Tim

Well, Tim, why don't you come out? Right now, the weather is exactly
like the weekend I visited you, Jenna and Jamie.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
We'll dance the dance of days
   in pensive prelude to the night
   and try to guess the meaning,
   if any, of what we do.
              --Amy Francis, "Together With Ourselves"

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty, or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:20:00 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>>Nope.  They weren't even around when things got going.  (Rather, the
>>only activists then were hunters/fishers.)  Even today, they're
>>largely "noise" when it comes to habitat.  We have migratory birds
>>because we have hunters.
>
>I must take issue with that last line (what was it Clinton said -- "it's
>like the rooster taking credit for the dawn"?).  First off, migratory birds
>were around an awfully long time before people were.

So?  Without the flyway habitat preservation programs done by hunters,
they would have disappeared.

>Second, a minority of migratory birds are game species (and we're losing
>migratory songbirds at an alarming rate -- mostly because of winter habitat
>destruction).

No one has successfully managed to do what Kerry insists is standard
practice, namely skew a habitat in favor of a few species.  True,
"game" management practices PICK habitats that support game species,
ignoring those that don't, but those species that share those habitats
benefit (contrary to Kerry's claim).  Hunters' support for game
habitats doesn't stop anyone from supporting other habitats.

I'm not claiming that hunters have done everything that "should"
be done, but that they've done much of what HAS been done.

>Third, we started losing migratory game birds initially because of things like
>over-hunting (for sport, for ornamentation, etc.) and habitat destruction.

No, sport-hunting hasn't had any extinction effect.  MARKET hunting
has.  Surely we don't have to discuss the difference.

We all do habitat distruction, so ....

>Fourth, we *are*, in fact, doing some things to reverse the trend, and
>sometimes groups like Ducks Unlimited are helping.  But so are lots of
>other groups (the Audobon society, the Nature Conservancy, local citizen
>groups, etc.).

If we look at the spending and the actual results, we see who's the
dog and who's the tail.  The hunting groups have been spending
hundreds of millions of dollars a year for decades.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:00:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: (no subject given)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

>Jamie wrote:
>>>And maybe I'm starting to see Jimbo's point. Robert's Christian
>>>respect for human life leaves a bit to be desired.

>And Robert responded:
>> You see Bimbo's point because you're in basic agreement with it.  Instead
>> of an honorarium, "Logic Czar" appears to be some new form of mental
>> disorder.

>And Bimbo wrote:
>I just wanted to make clear to the relative newcomers to the POLITICS
>world that Jamie and I are sworn enemies.  We disagree on a wide variety
>of substantive issues.
>
>The only reason that it might sometimes _appear_ that we are on the
>same side is that we take a very similar approach to political issues...
>namely, that rational discourse is the proper way to reach understanding.
>
>We both have this silly habit, see, of stating our positions clearly
>and without equivocation or appeal to authority.  We have particular
>political positions and are willing to explain why.

        I've got an idea.  Let us consider the relative merits of
basing one's position on political issues on reason (you know, logic,
true premises, disjunctive syllogisms, and all that).  Now, where to
begin such a discussion.  We could ask that people give their reasons
in favor and against appealing to the principles of logical discourse.
But, then, asking for reasons is, well, question-begging, isn't it?
There's the alternative.  This holds that any proper-functioning person
can immediately and directly perceive the truth of the matter.  This
sure is a whole lot simpler than this appeal to reason stuff, and it
certainly must give us the right answers.

        Umm, well, what do you do if two people who claim to directly
perceive the truth of the matter directly perceive two different truths?

        That's obvious, one of them obviously must not be functioning
properly.  He must be a "complete ASS," or a "bimbo," or some other breed
of defective human being.

        Well, okay, but which one?  How do we tell which one?

        Simple, you fool.  A properly functioning person can immediately
tell which individual is not functioning properly.

        Uh, then, don't we have to know which person is functioning properly
before we can tell which person is functioning properly?

        Sorry, you fail.  You appealed to logic.  You must either be a
complete ASS, or a bimbo.

        Never mind.

                                                Richard A. Fyfe
                                                rf35@umail.umd.edu
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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:27:13 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: 128 tax hikes

Missy J:
>Since somebody posted from The New Republic (lately known as "Even the
>Liberal New Republic" in media circles, due to the number of times
>they have ticked off the really far left, especially regarding
>Israel), could anybody out there answer a trivia question for
>me?  (I think this is politics, but it might turn out not to
>be.)

Um, I was the one who posted the summary.  Let me also note (for -andy's
benefit, I think, although I honestly don't remember who wrote what after
terrorizing my new zoology students with a full discussion of their term
paper assignment . . .) that I included all the relevant attributions
precisely to indicate the relevant grains of salt . . .

>The editorial column used to be (haven't seen it for a while; it
>might have changed) headed "TRB."  Does anyone know what TRB
>stands for or what it means? (Or maybe *who* it is?)  I've always
>wondered this.

It still is.  I've been wondering the same thing since I started reading
it a year ago.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:57:15 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It Ain't Over Yet Jamie

From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>

> Jamie,
>    I still have to respond to you to clarify things.  It has been a busy
> week at work and I had to get out of the office during lunch, so I have not
> been able to respond yet.  Don't make too much fun of me over the weekend
> Jamie.

The least you could have done is to tell us what you had for
lunch today.     :-)

Remember your last promise?  You said you would study your
position on homosexuality issues and then report back to
the group.  Maybe you did answer and I missed it.  Can you
send me a copy?

> Carl--------+

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:08:09 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

Jamie:

If the state defines "marriage" as a legal union between a man and
a woman, then your argument of discrimination is wrong.

--Missy P 2 B
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Logic Coup!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:28:12 GMT

Since no one has complained (well, no one important, just a couple
of Christians, isn't that amusing?) I'm going to maintain my rule
for a couple more days.

For the next 15 hours, Modus Ponens is a fallacy.

After that, we're going to have 'free fish night'.

Bring the kids!

--Jimbo



Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: the war on personal liberties
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:23:24 GMT

>If you are really going to start picking on spelling and grammar,
>I am going to start correcting every mistake I can find. 

Sense of humor check!

Missy, I was being obnoxious and viciously criticizing a grammatical
error in my OWN posting.  Get it?

O.k., so maybe it isn't funny.

--Jimbo



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:47:25 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Deadly Force

>From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> >From Jamie
> >My impression is that you may legally use deadly force to
> >protect your person, but not your property. So you may
> >shoot someone to protect yourself against rape, if that's
> >your only defense, but not to protect your carpet.
>
> Many, quite a few, several, at least a couple of states have what has become
> known as the "Make My Day" law.  Basically, they provide for a legal defense
> for using deadly force when a homeowner fears for his/her safety.

So Robert agrees with Carl that to qualify as a user of deadly force,
you have to be a homeowner. Maybe if you own a really big home you
should be allowed to use deadly force indiscriminately! Ross Perot
is allowed to use molotov cocktails. Donald Trump we're not sure
about.

More to the point, I'd like to know if any states allow the use
of deadly force to protect PROPERTY, as well as personal safety.

> If I an awakened in the middle of the night by an intruder, I will not ask
> that he fill out a form describing his reasons for being in my home.  I will
> not wait while he partakes of my wife or 8 year old daughter.  When he violate
> the sanctity of my home, he left his rights outside.

Let's see. Why is it that we are supposed to be interested in what
Robert would do if someone entered his house in the middle of the
night?
Are we supposed to infer another one of Robert's Rules? "If I
would do it in the middle of the night, then it must be all right."
For the sake of you tender readers, I won't speculate on what
might follow (via modus ponens, plus universal instantiation, Evelyn)
from this newest rule.

>I have no difficulty
> justifying my use of deadly force.

If you have no difficulty, let's see a justification. Sheesh.

> Someone mentioned a person being sued by a wounded (surviving) criminal.  All
> I can say is, BAD SHOT(s).

Ah. And now Robert's views begin to seep through the cracks....

The law requires you to use less than deadly force if that's all
that is necessary. Robert suggests that if you've only wounded the
person you made a mistake.

I guess I'm glad Robert doesn't make our laws.

And maybe I'm starting to see Jimbo's point. Robert's Christian
respect for human life leaves a bit to be desired.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:42:03 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

We already know that according to Travis, raping a woman is
not violating her.
That was a revelation to many of us.

Now Travis offers some new insight into his mental processes. But this
time the inference needed is more subtle, so your Logic Czar is going
to help youse out.

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

Remember, here is what happened. Linda said that she does not agree
with Travis that abortion is murder, because

> i do not believe that human life begins at conception.

Ok, that's clear enough. If a fetus is not a person, then abortion
is not murder. We've all heard this position before, and we've
probably all thought about it a bit.

But here is what Travis said:

>> > >  I do not believe that
>> > >raping a woman is a violation of their bodies.  The evidence is not
>> > >there.

Once we got past the initial shock, I think most of us readers
assumed that Travis had some problem with the concept of
"violation." But it now appears we misinterpreted.

Pam Leader:

>>   Travis,  if you were raped, would you feel like your body had not
>>   been violated? Perhaps not if you were raped by a woman. How bout
>>   if you were raped by a man?

And Travis:

>If you were aborted, would you feel (assuming you could) that you were
>murdured???

Now let's think this through carefully.

Of course, Pam and Linda and I and most of us have trouble imagining
OURSELVES being aborted, because we think that fetuses are not persons,
and it is not easy to imagine oneself as something other than a person.
But in any case, we think the question is irrelevant. If Pam or Linda
or I were killed, it might be murder. But we think that it is impossible
to murder a fetus, because a fetus is not a person. (It's as though
someone like Travis objected to the olympic decathlon by asking,
"How would you feel if you were a discus or a javelin?")

Travis thinks that his position with respect to the rape of a woman
is analogous to Linda's and Pam's position with respect to the
abortion of a fetus. That means that his point about rape is not
that it doesn't count as a violation, but that the victim of
the violation is not a person.

Or have I somehow missed the point again?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:39:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: i am so dismayed

> i just got the catalog from national wildlife federation. you know, the gift o
> with cards you can buy and coffee mugs and tee-shirts all with wolves on
> them and stuff.
>
> (personal note: i love wolves-incredibly interesting species)
>
> anyway, do you know what they make the cards and notepaper and giftwrap out of
>
> "post-consumer fibers".
>
> somehow i feel dismayed when i hear and read pc-isms from organizations of whi
> i think highly. every time i hear unnecessary jargon, i feel like i'm being
> given a load of bull.

Actually, I think they're trying to reassure you that they're really
using the stuff you put in the recycling bins.  As I understand it, lots
of things labeled "recycled" are actually made from industrial waste,
including by-products that have never been part of another product.  So
somebody hit on the term "post-consumer" to designate stuff that was
actually collected and reprocessed.  Apparently it makes a difference to
some people.  Me, I'm just glad it didn't hit the landfill.  I'm
reminded of a comment by Arthur Clarke, something like "There is no such
thing as waste, only raw materials we're too stupid to use."

Best,
Peter

> -linda  (looking for my bi-focals)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:43:36 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

jcs:

I don't think I understand the question.  Are you asking if it is more
selfish to "have children you can't take care of" and "[foist]..morals
on others" than to kill for the sake of convenience?

Are you really asking *that*?

If so, please define "selfish."  Thanks.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:08:07 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

From today's Chicago Tribune:

If life does not seem fearsome enough, perhaps
you haven't tried any of these seven unusual fears:

1. Euphobia - fear of good news
2. Geniophobia - fear of chins
3. Homilophobia - fear of sermons
4. Linonophobia - fear of string
5. Macrophobia - fear of prolonged waiting
6. Levophobia - fear of things on the left
7. Kathisophobia - fear of sitting down


I can see some definite political jokes in #s 3 and 6...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:52:58 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

>jcs:
>
>I don't think I understand the question.  Are you asking if it is more
>selfish to "have children you can't take care of" and "[foist]..morals
>on others" than to kill for the sake of convenience?
>
>Are you really asking *that*?
>
>If so, please define "selfish."  Thanks.
>
>--Missy P 2 B

Other kerry, robt mentioned that its selfish to have an abortion. i mentioned
that its even more selfish to make others do what _you_ want them to
do.

its silly to actually discuss "abortion". we will never agree because
we are seeing it from two different sets of values, morals, etc.

however, i do feel that to demand that I do what You want, is not a good
thing.  In fact, i would say that it is a "bad thing".

I believe there is nothing more selfish than telling someone
what to do, based on your own ideals, espeically when their
actions don't affect you in the least...
(ie., prayer in schools, homosexual marriage, mixed marriages, sodomy)

I know i will probably get flamed and a ton of mail saying that
"oh so, if i tell you not to kill your mother, i'm stepping on your toes"
and i'd just like to preempt those stupid comments right now by saying
that i don't make anyone do anything they aren't morally comfortable with.
and personally, i'm not comfortable with having people tell me how, when
and why.

jcs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:38:27 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: morals
              31 Aug 1992 10:44:14 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

> Robert does indeed say that atheists should not be able to adopt.  He
> does not advocate removing children from their homes except when the
> safety of the child is at stake.  He also admits that atheists may be
> excellent *worldly* parents imparting all the values for successful
> socialization and employment.

OK, how about muslims.  Could a baby from a christian family
be adopted by a muslim family.  After all muslims think Jesus
was NOT the son of God and some on this list think even their
God, Allah, is a different God.  (And you guys thought you got
away with THAT.   :-)

So Robert admits that atheists are excellent worldly parents but
should not be allowed to adopt because *Robert* does not think
they should be able to.  If THAT isn't imposing (by force) your
own morals to others, I don't know what is.

> He would also ask:
> "What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"

The "world."  (There, there was a couple more votes for you. :-)

>> I wonder if Robert would agree to the notion that minor children
>> of atheists parents should be able to hire a lawyer to sue
>> their parents in order to get out of a godless household.

> No, not unless the child's safety is at risk.  If the child has the
> wisdom to know s/he is living in a "G"odless household, the parents
> have failed to impart their misfortune upon their child.  In this
> case, the child will overcome the burden of ungodly parents anyway.

(Let me play this silly game with Robert for just a bit more.
Remember, the more I keep him engaged in "debate" the less
he would make damage in the society at large.)

But what if the child wants to attend Church and he is not
allowed to?  Should our Christian police, equipped with laws
passed by Christian lawmakers, who were elected by Christian
voters be able to force the parents to let the child attend
church?

And I don't see why your concern about living with godless
parents is limited to adopted kids.  What sin did the biological
child has committed?  Why are you condemning that innocent child?

--KAT

> ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)