HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: morton@rtpnet06.rtp.dg.com (John R. Morton)
Subject: Re: Obscenity law (US)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 05:18:31 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation. RTP, NC.

[someone writes]
>> > _If_ the law is written correctly... but isn't it more likely, in
>> > real life, that the local politicians would [* * *] simply write
>> > the laws so as to prevent all smut from ever being purveyed
>> > legally anywhere within the borders of their fine town?  [wdstarr]

	Yes, and fill up the whore houses at night. 
	The bible belt Masters have always believed in a duplicity
	that is neither comfortable, nor desirable , but
	nonetheless, super installed into them...
	They must at all costs preserve the wickedness levels associated
	with women, lest they perish.
From: accy043@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: Obscenity Law Soln
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:55:23 GMT

Forget about all this argument over zoning and law.

No law is definite, it is the courts job to "interpret the law" in making
judgements.  No matter what changes to the law you make the activity will still
continue underground.  Trying to change peoples atitudes to this material will
not work.

Change how you bring up your children.

"Show me a boy at 7 and I will show you the man"
From: robert@aero.org (R. S. Statsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: What has Happened to this Group?????
Date: 29 Dec 1992 23:46:42 GMT
Organization: Psychedelic Suburbia
NNTP-Posting-Host: halcyon.aero.org

When this newsgroup was new it was one of the most hilarious,
entertaining additions to the alt hier(an)archy to be seen 
in a while. What the hell has happened? Have we chased away
all the prissy prudish little white-bread debutante feminazis? Now
all there seems to be is dreadful boring verbiage about obscenity
laws and capital punishment.

I'm outta here. comp.ai.neural-nets is a RIOT compared to this.

			R.S.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Gay Rights
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:23:32 GMT

      Well, tomorrow night, January 4th, 1993, the city of Lafayette
votes on the "gay rights bill" to determine whether individuals can be
legally protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
      The city council has already approved the amendment to the city
civil rights ordinance to include sexual orientation in its language.
If the entire bill is passed tomorrow night, Lafayette becomes the first
city in the state of Indiana to do so.  I shall keep you posted as to the
results of the matter.
      I would like to hear your comments on this, for or against, but
only if you can phrase your arguments intelligently.  No flames please.
Respond away!  (Keeping my fingers crossed for passage)

                                           Karen


Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: accy043@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: Whos to blame?
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:44:26 GMT




This has got to be one of the saddest postings I have read.

We should all ask ourselves -

"What did I do to help prevent this"
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Death penalty
Date: 27 Dec 92 20:50:06 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

endora@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Ken McCamish) writes:

<in response to a previous posting>

>>Excellent idea!  Explain exactly why thieves should NOT get their hands cut
>>off!  You have to admit that a strong punishment is a great deterrent.  If
>>they get their hand(s) cut off, they are responsible for their situation.
>>I will not allow myself to feel sorry for them.  They deserve it!

>Yeah, those five-year-old kids who lift a lolipop from the candy stand while
>their mothers are in line at the local Kroger's need to be taught a lesson.
>eegads!

Ken:  I believe the term is "reducio ad absurdum" but my grasp of Latin is
poor.  If you cannot see the difference between a five year old shoplifter
and a 35 year old breaking into your home, pointing a gun to your head and
shouting "give me all your money" you don't deserve to be wasting a spot at
Purdue.

If you have some point to make, make it, if you think anybody discussing
capital punishment plans to kill five year olds you are the dangerous one.

tom
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Death penalty
Date: 27 Dec 1992 21:51:05 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <1992Dec27.205006.1309@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>Ken:  I believe the term is "reducio ad absurdum" but my grasp of Latin is

reductio

-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
From: dise@decoy.uoregon.edu (David Casti)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Age of Consent Laws
Date: 28 Dec 1992 17:44:23 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dise@decoy.uoregon.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line65.uoregon.edu

In article <1hndreINN4o1@pith.uoregon.edu> castib@pdaxs.techbook.com (Bill  
Casti) writes:

OOPS!!  That was posted from the wrong account!  Please make all replies to  
dise@decoy.uoregon.edu.

Thanks.
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Musings
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:29:38 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Dec21.184304.10766@microsoft.com>, fritzs@microsoft.com 
(Fritz Sands) writes:
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
> Path: 
> 
news.larc.nasa.gov!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!fritzs
> From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
> Subject: Re: Musings
> Message-ID: <1992Dec21.184304.10766@microsoft.com>
> Date: 21 Dec 92 18:43:04 GMT
> Organization: Microsoft Corporation
> References: <1992Dec14.164811.1@woods.ulowell.edu>
> Lines: 10
> 
> In article <1992Dec14.164811.1@woods.ulowell.edu> moranc@woods.ulowell.edu 
> writes:
> | But aren't we "supposodly" free to be as stupis as we want to be without
> | being assaulted or raped?
> | 
> | cindy
> 
> No.
> 
>    Fritz
> 
You're right Fritz...you're WRONG Cindy.
Stupid (or ignorant) people in society will more likely be
abused because they are easy marks!  So why be SO stupid
that you leave yourself open for that abuse!  Get smart, Cindy.

mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Sex, and Statutory Rape
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:50:34 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center


      Since my diatribe on the death penalty brough such a tumultuous
barrage of responses, I thouth I would follow up with another new one.
Unfortunately, I do not possess any "controversial" views on this one,
so I doubt it will elicit much of a response.  However, this one, unlike
the death penalty, is more on the subject.

      A case recently (last month) came before the Indiana courts.  What
makes it interesting is that it essentially negates a set of laws on Indiana
record.  A 24 year old male was having consensual sex with a 16 year old female.
Consensual in the sense that they both said yes.  No rape, no force, just
good old-fashioned premarital, one person under eighteen sex.
      Her father discovered the relationship, and its sexual nature, by 
accidentally coming home from a weekend trip a little early.  Mistake!  So,
this wigged out Dad decides to bring charges of statutory rape.  Now it gets
interesting:  the girl/female/woman/minor (all these words were used in the
trial) discovered that she was pregnant by said statutory rapist.  This fact
was admitted into court as well, the prosecution believing it would cast the
"rapist" in an even worse light--that of an irresponsible rapist.  Well, the
plan backfired. 
      The minor got an abortion.  And the defense turned the tables on the
prosecution.  Here is the rub:  If she was able to receive an abortion, on
her own, of her own choice, and under her own judgment, and that abortion
is considered legal, THEN it cannot be illegal for her to engage in sex
in the first place.  For the law to make her partner guilty based solely upon
his age is ludicrous.  
      So here is the argument.  She is sixteen.  The law does not make her 
having sex a crime.  It makes her 18+ partner guilty.  But it is legal for him
to have sex with someone over 18.  She can have sex with someone under 18 and
there are no statutory rape charges.  So the crime is only a crime, if one of
the participants (and only one) is of an age that is legally accountable.  The
court cried foul.  If the consequences of an action may be legally acted upon
by the participant, without further legal consequences, then the original
action cannot be illegal.  Indiana has finally moved into the 19th century!
(Pun/irony/sarcasm intended.)

      I agree with the outcome of this case.  Any similarities between the 
characters depicted here, and my own life, are purely coincidental.  I am
not underage, nor are any of my partners.

                                              Karen
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Death penalty
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:15:54 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1g5chbINNp0c@news.aero.org>, robert@aero.org (R. S. Statsinger) 
writes:
> In article <Byyyyu.K2w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) 
> writes:
> |
> |      Many have responded to my "kill the killers" posts, most with well
> |thought out answers, points and elucidations.  I thank you all for the
> |debate.  I wish to respond to a few of the points that have been made
> |regarding me personally, and not merely the subject/issue of the death
> |penalty.
> |
> |I do believe in revenge.  I want killers dead.  I want rapists executed.
> 
> Well, gee. This would put us right up there with such distinguished
> places as Iran, Iraq, Libya......
> 
> I suppose you also believe that thiefs should have their hands cut off....
> Sheesh.
> 
> 		R.S.
> 
Excellent idea!  Explain exactly why thieves should NOT get their hands cut
off!  You have to admit that a strong punishment is a great deterrent.  If
they get their hand(s) cut off, they are responsible for their situation.
I will not allow myself to feel sorry for them.  They deserve it!

mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Musings
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:43:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec14.164811.1@woods.ulowell.edu> moranc@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
| But aren't we "supposodly" free to be as stupis as we want to be without
| being assaulted or raped?
| 
| cindy

No.

   Fritz

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: jamesh@netcom.com (James Hightower)
Subject: Re: Sexuality: Me Tarzan, You Jane
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 03:47:58 GMT

hicks@pulsar.rtp.dg.com (Linus Hicks) writes:


>The following is quoted without permission from "Keeping the Love You
>Find, A Guide For Singles" by Harville Hendrix, Ph.D.

>Our sexuality is a highly personal and central aspect of our identity,
>and it plays an unparalleled role in our relationships. We like to
...
>fleeting, unguarded moments, so pigeonholed are our ideas about sexual
>behavior. As Jamake Highwater notes in "Myth & Sexuality," even what
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
             And I thought I had left that nickname behind in grammer
school!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Hightower		jamesh@netcom.COM 	...Don't try this at home!
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 02 Jan 93 12:10 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600007:000:1997
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  2 12:10:00 1993


Dear mwmv@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu,
 
Presumably you did not read my lengthly response to John before your
reponse.  Please do, and see if you still want to ask the same questions,
like "Where the hell are people supposed to live if not on undeveloped
land?"
 
Regarding your concern about over-population, I certainly agree that
this is a valid concern.  However, I believe that our more serious
problem is how the few consume massive amounts of resources (land,
energy, raw materials, etc.) while the many live in abject poverty.
Note for instance how North America and Western Europe produce about
80% of the world's garbage, yet only contain 20% of the world's
population.  (I don't have the exact figures in front of me.)
From my point of view, the problem of over-population is essentially
a social justice problem.  The problem is not lack of resources but
rather their just distribution.
 
It is also a problem of not taking women's concerns seriously.  Women
around the world only have too many children when: (1) They lack
economic empowerment and see their only role for self-fulfillment is
in bearing children.  (2) They are socially discriminated against by
being constantly kept pregnant by their husbands so to trap them to
their home and to make them undesirable for other men.  (3) They do
not have adequate education nor access to birth control.  However,
recent experience has shown that women in third world countries very
quickly reduce their number of children when they gain economic
empowerment, overcome discrimination and have education and access
to birth control.  I remember reading where women in Bangladesh who
previously had 10 and 12 children now are having only 2 or 3 children
-- the amount in "developed" nations -- in the course of less than
20 years after they became empowered.
 
Hope you continue with this discussion mwmv@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu.
 
Dale
 
P.S.  What's your real name (or handle)?  It's a little more personal
than your network address.
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 02 Jan 93 18:38 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600011:000:952
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  2 18:38:00 1993


Hi ted@nmsu.edu,
 
You make many excellent points, and also have friends who live in these
idyllic intentional communities.  And they were able to do it within
"the system".  I also agree that it is sometimes too easy to simply
blame "the system" for one's problems, as though there was a hidden
conspiracy out there.  (Maybe there is one?)
 
But, I am wondering why we hear so little about this type of life-
style from the mainstream media and politicians?  Why don't we get
more opportunities to learn about these low-impact life styles and
to learn the skills, which you noted, required to organize them?
We certainly hear lots about sexy sports cars, high powered Wall
Street careers, and the "Life Styles of the Rich and Famous".
Could it be that this media bias is part of the system which only
values us for our labor and purchasing power?
 
Dale
 
P.S. I would be nice to address you by your name (or handle) rather
than your network address.
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:46:03 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <JMC.92Dec31103613@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Dean Alaska ends up with:
>
>     The point is that ownership of land is not a free ticket to
>     do things that harm people or the environment.
>
>I'm not a private property absolutist and go along with the Stanford
>rule that prevents me from raising hogs on my house lot.  I am
>relieved to discover that the Green program in itself is no more
>restrictive than this.
>
>Surely, there must be more to it - like not letting me drive my
>car to San Francisco.  Fess up.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

The program is not specific about any actions so there is nothing to
fess up about.  In that sense it is neither more nor less restrictive.
I think the main contention in property rights
issues will be economic and political.  All the scientists in the
world agreeing that wetlands need to be protected isn't going to
mollify someone who bought property in good faith and finds it is
essentially unusable.  This is a political problem.  I don't think
the constitution protects harmful uses of property, even when those
uses were not once considered harmful, but compassion and fairness
indicate that such a property owner deserves consideration, IMO.
-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: galler@cs.mcgill.ca (Michael GALLER)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:18:01 GMT

In article <1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de> arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras) writes:
>
>	I hear from Rush Limbaugh (the right) and All Things Considered
>(far left) that many environmentalists are anti-property rights.  Would

I laughed out loud when I read this. Only by the standards of
a Rush Limbaugh listener could a public affairs program like
All Things Considered be labelled "far left"...!

Have American conservatives really been able to marginalize
what, in every other western democracy, are taken to be centrist
liberal-democratic views? Or is it just by constant repetition 
of these labels they hope to position their own views in the
centre?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:50:23

In article <1992Dec30.224714.29832@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!copper!vexcel!dean
   From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
   Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
   Date: 30 Dec 92 22:47:14 GMT
   References: <1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de>
   Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
   Lines: 32

   In article <1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de> arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras) writes:
   >
   >	I hear from Rush Limbaugh (the right) and All Things Considered
   >(far left) that many environmentalists are anti-property rights.  Would
   >anyone care to guess at what percetage of "greens" are against property
   >rights?  Is it in the party line?
   >
   >Mike Arras
   >arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de

   "Against" and "for" are simplified positions.  The position of the USA
   Greens (from their program) is that private property should carry the
   responsibility that it not be used in a way that is harmful to other
   people or the environment.  Since this responsibility should be
   legally binding, people would be prevented from doing things that
   they might want to do if it harmed others.  Also, private property
   should be the result of a persons labor or whatever value they put
   into it.  Property with natural value should be used for the good
   of all.  Forests and rivers would not be privately owned under this
   idea, since they are not the work of any person.  These lands
   would be _locally_ controlled (Greens support decentralization),
   not centrally controlled from Washington, D.C.  Of course, this is
   a long-term goal and I presume that use of such lands would still
   have limitations based on ecological sustainability and such.

   I have no idea what percentage of people who consider themselves
   "Green" support these principles.
   -- 
   ==============================================================================
   A thought for the holidays:
      "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	   - Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com

"not be used in a way that is harmful to other people or the environment"

is an ambiguous phrase.  Suppose you and I happen to buy adjacent
empty lots.  You build a house on your lot right away, and I don't.
Ten years later I propose to build on my lot.  You say I can't,
because it harms you in that it will spoil your view, and moreover
your children are in the habit of playing on the lot.  You also find
some gopher holes in the lot and ask where will the gophers live if I
build on the lot.

For this reason, human rights include property rights.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:28:41

Let's be tolerant.  Perhaps laughing out loud intimidates people in
Montreal.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: why another party, was Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:34:13 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1438@bridge2.NSD.3Com.COM>, camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer) writes:
|> 
|> In article 1i009kINNb64@fido.asd.sgi.com,
|>   livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

[I am restoring what Mr Spitzer deleted]

|> > So we already have the rules we need to prevent the kind of harm
|> > you were thinking about?   All we need is to adjust thresholds
|> > in the currently existing laws?

[end of restored text]

|> >
|> > Then what do we need a new party for?
|> 
|> Because there is no other party whose design, platform, and bylaws
|> reflect Green values.  More specifically, in the USA,
|> all the existing national parties (yes, even the National Libertarian
|> Party, the 21st Century Party, and the New Party) use an elite-oriented
|> command structure, in which policy is formed by a small group of elites
|> and handed down the ranks.  Only the Greens use grassroots consensus-
|> oriented decisionmaking in which *everyone* has a say.  Only the Greens
|> (in California) have "binding none-of-the-above" for office races.
|> Only the Greens test each policy proposal for conformance to the Green
|> Values (which Mr. Ladasky has already listed in this newsgroup).

I think it's clear, when you look at the three lines Mr Spitzer
deleted, that he did not in fact answer the question I asked.

In fact, I have received not a single answer to the question I
originally asked, but rather a series of evasions.

My conclusion is that this is not a group in which one can ask
questions about green policy and expect to get a straight answer,
so I will unsubscribe.

jon.