HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.)
Subject: Videotaping rapes
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 05:16:30 GMT

          Tonight I attended a lecture and slide show by sociologist Dr.
          Gail Dines on images of violence against women in the media.

          In a discussion of trends in pornography, she described how the
          industry is creating new, 'better', and different ways to portray
          women that will continue to satisfy the consumers of porn. (I
          believe the way she put it was "You can only show a woman with
          her legs spread apart so many ways...")

          One example she gave was a new form of video porn playing off of
          the rape theme.   Women are forced into vans where they are
          raped.  The rape is videotaped.  The videotape is sold for
          profit.

          Dr. Dines said that a group of men doing this in New York (City?)
          were convicted of rape, and that in Keene, New Hampshire, the
          police were able to infiltrate a group before they actually began
          raping women for video porn.  *I would be interested in more
          specific info on either of these cases*.   After the lecture I
          was talking with a woman about her experience and how to deal
          with the local District Attorney, and Dr. Dines had left by the
          time we finished.

          The reason given for why the men decided to videotape actual
          rapes instead of acted ones, was that women couldn't adequately
          fake the fear and terror of a real rape.

          I wondered how they  knew that...

                                                  nancy b.

          =================================================================
               Damn my soul  that remembers  and clutches to  this pain.
                    -- Melissa Etheridge
                       "The Late September Dogs"
          =================================================================

++++++++++++++


>   The importance to the argument (as it relates to t.r) is that if
> something distracts from the problem (rape), then it interferes with all
> attempts to solve the problem.

	Thanks for explaining that.

	It's intriguing to see the energy with which some people were 
	vociferously denying their existence, to the point of not
	even reading my post where _I_ asked for more specific
	info.  

	But if that's (the above) really your motivation, fine.

	I honestly hope that the videotaping of real rapes for porn
	is just UL...  

						nancy b.


          =================================================================
               Damn my soul  that remembers  and clutches to  this pain.
                    -- Melissa Etheridge
                       "The Late September Dogs"
          =================================================================

Xref: sparky talk.rape:2498 alt.folklore.urban:24477
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:25:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

I set follow-ups to alt.folklore.urban.  This meaningless
drivel has nothing to do with rape.

In article <1992Sep29.153245.10136@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

[text deleted]

#   I'll repeat my challenge: Prove that the films exist or retract your
#claim.

This is ridiculous.  Her "claim" was that she heard a speaker
describe something.  What would you accept as proof that 
she heard someone else say something?  Why do you think 
that she is at all interested in meeting your challenge?
She owes you nothing.

Some people have expressed curiosity as to whether or
not Dr. Dines was describing real events.  I'm planning
to look into the cases that were referenced.  I'm willing
to inform people what I find out.  I will post the results
in a.f.u. and in t.r.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: Fear of the process of dying.
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 17:36:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.040054.18481@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>
>Death is like that--after you're dead, your friends go on having fun
>without you. (In fact, the whole world goes on without you--such cheek!)
>After you're dead, you can't go to movies, you'll miss the latest political
>developments, and you won't appreciate all the neat scientific discoveries
>that are going to be made after your demise. You're shut out--you can't
>participate. 
>
>It's as though you were playing one of those games where people are
>eliminated one by one--only you get tagged "out" first, and the game still
>has a long way to go. But it goes on without you.

 When being becomes too heavy, the lightness of death is a frightening
thing.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III


>-- 
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
>Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School


"A man is a philosopher of genius only when he succeeds in transmuting 
the primitive and merely natural vision into an abstract idea belonging 
to the common stock of consciousness...The golden apples drop from the 
same tree, whether they be gathered by an imbecile locksmith's 
apprentice or by a Schopenhauer."
                                                       -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fear of the process of dying.
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:08:40 GMT
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona

lunatic@diku.dk (Philip Hoelgaard) writes:

   > But how can a rational human being be anything else than
   > terrified when in the process [of dying]? Does he/she stop being
   > rational? 

Being rational means that your actions advance your goals.  What goals
are advanced by being terrified while dying?

Terror is not a rational response, unless it serves the cause of
staying alive.  Usually it does not.

	-- Bill
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: Good and Evil
Summary:  Interchangeability of good and evil bothers me.
Keywords: good evil definition
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 23:06:39 GMT

     Article <9210022308.AA13261@bowfin.cs.washington.edu> quotes Peter
Dolan:

=In article <1992Oct1.150543.3846@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
=simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:
...
=>      I'm not sure that this follows.
=>
=>      Consider the isomorphism isomorphism with good for one-to-one
=mapping
=> and natural numbers to time.
...
=Actually, I don't see how what I was saying interferes with the
=inductability of infinite sets.  In your example the following things are
=assumed:  A set of natural numbers, a set of even numbers, and a rule for
=mapping the one onto the other.

     The more I think about this, the more it looks like we might not be
in disagreement.  The point I was trying to make was that just because
_one_ algorithm for finding out what was good and bad (waiting until the
end of the universe and performing the calculations Peter specified),
might take a significant period of time, doesn't mean that there doesn't
exist another algorithm that can determine it in a shorter period.

=        This is basically just the argument that the morality depends upon
=only its antecedants which is fine, an act that comes from the source of
=good is good (by definition), and an act that comes from the source of
=evil is evil(by definition)

     The one major problem I have with this method of defining good and
evil is that I get the feeling that the class of all evil things and the
class of all good things could be completely interchanged, and we'd come
up with a system that worked just as good.  We could take the source of
all good things and call Her/Him evil, and take the source of all evil
things and call Her/Him good, and the whole universe would be tipped on
its ear.

     Peter, am I reading you wrong on this?

                                     ---Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: pww9211@rigel.tamu.edu (WINFREY, PHILIP WAYNE)
Subject: Re: This whole abortion thing.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:38:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.170222.812@news.eng.convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes...
>In article <NX5TRB2w164w@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us> heather@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us (Heather Freeman) writes:
>>Could someone please come up with a good argument against the following:
> 
>>        Complete access to abortion should be maintained because if it
>>        is restriction or eliminated the chances of women going to back
>>        alley abortionists would be greatly increased. Thus, more likely 
>>        that not, both the woman and the unborn child would die.  It is a 
>>        choice between two evils- one life or two, and the logical answer
>>        is one. Maintain the status of unlimited abortion


    The argument seems to rest on this assumption:  It's a bad idea
    to outlaw something if a lot of people are going to break the
    new law.  If you assume here that abortion is an evil, and should
    be outlawed, arguing that people may as a result endanger their
    lives by breaking the law is beyond the responsibility of the
    conscientious lawmaker.

    The woman who seeks an illegal abortion would be a criminal and
    responsible for any injury to her or her unborn child.

    Hopefully, such a scenario will not come to pass.
From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:59:28 GMT
	<18vl90INNl59@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona

ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis) writes:

   > What is wrong with the definition of `freewill' as `action
   > without antecedent(s)'?  The concept of `action dependent upon
   > antecedents' is not at all difficult to understand.  [ . . . ]

The notion of `action without antecedents' makes perfect sense, but it
is more closely related to what is usually called "perversity" than to
what is usually called "free will".

You are entitled to define "free will" as `action without antecedents'
if you wish, but every time you write about it you will have to begin
by stating your definition, or else people won't know what you're
talking about.  And even then you won't really be writing about the
problem of free will, but rather -- in a confusing way -- about the
problem of perversity.

	-- Bill
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: God
Date: 25 Sep 92 19:59:56 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Sep24.191831.19719@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wkretz@nyx.cs.du.edu (William Kretz) writes:
>From: wkretz@nyx.cs.du.edu (William Kretz)
>Subject: God
>Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 19:18:31 GMT

>God is real unless declared an integer.

>Later,
>        The Boogie Man

God is real unless integers are declared unreal.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: htcric01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Info on Mill as a Radical libertarian needed
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:51:36 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

I am a politics student and I need to turn in a paper soon and the question is
the following:

John Stuart Mill is sometimes called a "radical libertarian". Is the term
accurate ? In your answer explain and critically analyze his views on liberty."


The bulk of the question is straightforward, but I need some input to tackle
the radical libertarian bit to crack a first.

Any help will be appreciated !
James
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Prev. and Present.  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:58:17 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> >Article <10292269.6021.18322@kcbbs.gen.nz> quotes Hakki Kocabas:  
> >  
> > =You still haven't answered my big question: If I am not Satan then  
> > =who is ?  
> > =Be invasive in sanity, and answer me Oh josh !  
>   
> And then a Kevin answered  
>   
> >      Maybe there is no Satan.  
> >  
> >      Although I'm perfectly willing to consider the possibility that   
> Hakki  
> > is Satan.  
>   
> Are you also perfectly willing to start a campaign to get me burned on   
> the stake :-> or shower fire on me :-> setting up inquisition courts to   
> legalize your acts :->  
> I am baaaaaaack :->?  
>   
> >---Kevin Simonson  
> >  
>   
> Perhaps. And then there are some of us who would set you up on an throne   
> of riches, ask you for your wise and faultless advise, and sacrifice   
> small, nervous mammals to you. :}  
  
and declare me sacred :->  
that would even be worse, as Kirkegaard would cry...  
yo-yo  
yo-yo-yo  
yo  
   
>   
> Heather  
>   
>   
>   
> -----  
> Heather Freeman, Princeton High School BBS  
> DNS: heather@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us      UUCP: ...!princeton!phsbbs!heather 
> Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for this message.  
>
From: heather@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us (Heather Freeman)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Prev. and Present.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 00:05:31 EDT
Organization: Princeton High School, Princeton, New Jersey

In regards to the previous post, I was just dittoing what 
ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu was saying. :} Nietzsche off of three hours sleep, 
unaided seems no simple task. <:}

Also, Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:
>Article <10292269.6021.18322@kcbbs.gen.nz> quotes Hakki Kocabas:
>
> =You still haven't answered my big question: If I am not Satan then
> =who is ?
> =Be invasive in sanity, and answer me Oh josh !

And then a Kevin answered

>      Maybe there is no Satan.
>
>      Although I'm perfectly willing to consider the possibility that 
Hakki
> is Satan.

Are you also perfectly willing to start a campaign to get me burned on 
the
stake :-> or shower fire on me :-> setting up inquisition courts to 
legalize
your acts :->
I am baaaaaaack :->?

>---Kevin Simonson
>

Perhaps. And then there are some of us who would set you up on an throne 
of riches, ask you for your wise and faultless advise, and sacrifice 
small, nervous mammals to you. :}

                                Heather



-----
Heather Freeman, Princeton High School BBS
DNS: heather@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us      UUCP: ...!princeton!phsbbs!heather
Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for this message.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: fxpcd@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Peter Dolan)
Subject: Re: Good and Evil
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:31:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.230639.17324@beaver.cs.washington.edu>  
simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:
(A whole bunch of stuff deleted)
>      The more I think about this, the more it looks like we might not be
> in disagreement.  The point I was trying to make was that just because
> _one_ algorithm for finding out what was good and bad (waiting until the
> end of the universe and performing the calculations Peter specified),
> might take a significant period of time, doesn't mean that there doesn't
> exist another algorithm that can determine it in a shorter period.
> 
> =        This is basically just the argument that the morality depends  
upon
> =only its antecedants which is fine, an act that comes from the source  
of
> =good is good (by definition), and an act that comes from the source of
> =evil is evil(by definition)
> 
>      The one major problem I have with this method of defining good and
> evil is that I get the feeling that the class of all evil things and the
> class of all good things could be completely interchanged, and we'd come
> up with a system that worked just as good.  We could take the source of
> all good things and call Her/Him evil, and take the source of all evil
> things and call Her/Him good, and the whole universe would be tipped on
> its ear.
> 
>      Peter, am I reading you wrong on this?
> 
>                                      ---Kevin
Hee hee hee (nope you read me fine).  You just caught me in the  
contemplation of a thousand different morality sources, all battling it  
out, trying to be the ones to end the universe so they can "win".
	I really like the idea about a better algorithm giving the answer  
sooner, then the end of the universe, but, that algorithm would have to  
exist outside of the morality sources we've been talking about, because if  
these sources are constantly interfering (otherwise, when the universe  
ends, the final act will contain a whole variety of morality fields, and  
nobody gets to win) then these constantly interfering actions have to be  
taken into account, which means the algorithm has to include them, which  
(by my current operating definitions of include) implies that the  
algorithm encompasses these sources.  Hey.  Let's pretend this algorithm  
predicts that if a sufficient group of entities act according to a  
particular behavior code, then one group wins, otherwise its the other  
(assuming a duality, which we don't have to).  We can even call this  
behavior code morals.  Thus we have true good and evil which is (or  
whatever) which comes from the morality sources interfering (be it thru a  
person, or otherwise) and we have local morality which makes the  
conditions of victory possible for whichever source you happen to be  
aligned with.
	Just some thoughts.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: "The Force" as God  (WAS:  Re: the m
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:50:09 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
>Article <10292269.6021.18322@kcbbs.gen.nz> quotes Hakki Kocabas:  
>   
> =You still haven't answered my big question: If I am not Satan then  
> =who is ?  
> =Be invasive in sanity, and answer me Oh josh !  
  
And then a Kevin answered   
  
>      Maybe there is no Satan.  
>   
>      Although I'm perfectly willing to consider the possibility that Hakki  
> is Satan.    
  
Are you also perfectly willing to start a campaign to get me burned on the   
stake :-> or shower fire on me :-> setting up inquisition courts to legalize  
your acts :->   
I am baaaaaaack :->?  
  
>---Kevin Simonson  
>   
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: Good and Evil
Keywords: good evil god
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 14:53:38 GMT

     Article <1992Sep30.002052.5691@news.cs.brandeis.edu> quotes Tox:

=the one problem i see with the way this argument is running is that we have
=defined God as being entirely good, thus necessitating (spelling) the
=existance of a devil.

     Why does God "being entirely good" imply the existence of a devil?

                                     ---Kevin Simonson
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: Fear of the process of dying.
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 17:32:30 GMT

In article <009618BD.0CFEA920@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> gcv2010@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>
>Just out of curiosity, what is "being dead"?  This implies some state after the
>current state of living.  As far as I know, it's simply "death".

  There are two types of death:

    1.) Death as the end of being.
    2.) Death as the biological phenomena.

  So, "_being_ dead" is an impossibility in the first sense of death.
  Therefore, "Being dead" is the ontical state of organic material left after
  one has "passed on."    In the second sense, the ontical sense, the 
  being of "being dead" comes from the world.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School


"A man is a philosopher of genius only when he succeeds in transmuting 
the primitive and merely natural vision into an abstract idea belonging 
to the common stock of consciousness...The golden apples drop from the 
same tree, whether they be gathered by an imbecile locksmith's 
apprentice or by a Schopenhauer."
                                                       -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fear of the process of dying.
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:27:23 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Oct2.111644.13419@odin.diku.dk>, lunatic@diku.dk (Philip Hoelgaard) writes:
> I do not fear being dead.
> 
> But how can a rational human being be anything else than terrified when in
> the process [of dying]? Does he/she stop being rational?

	Morbid question, yes; but one I've thought about myself.  Here's a
possible answer: 
	Strictly speaking, we *can't* experience actual death. 
And when the preceding moment comes, we either won't realize
it is the end (after all, we've never died before :) or we will
instinctively resist the idea that we're dying (because of our instinct
for self-preservation we will cling to the contrary).  Therefore it's
unlikely we will actually "experience" the process as such.
	In other words it'll literally be over before we know it.
-- 
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Enlightenment
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:57:34 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Oct1.083915.295@news.wesleyan.edu>,
RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:
>In <92274.144941SXZ104@psuvm.psu.edu> <SXZ104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>     Follow these steps and thou shalt reach God.
>> 1. Fasting
>> 2. Thinking
>> 3. Waiting
>> 
>> UNITY.
>
>Either that, or thou shalt reach a state of starvation-induced ketosis, which
>could cause lethargy, mental confusion, and bad breath.

this describes my typical morning.  'god' is indeed the first word that
often comes to mind.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc