HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rkrii@cco.caltech.edu (Roberk Kim Rickenbrode II)
Subject: Re: Rio and streetkids
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:23:18 GMT

{Friedman} Those kids were shoved out of the way so the environmentalists
 	   wouldn't be bothered by them.  To my mind, that makes them
           partially responsible.

As a student who attended the Global Forum in Flamengo Park in Rio de Janeiro,
I have felt this responsibility. I will never forget being told, on the 
beach at the opening ceremony, that many of the children were shipped to parts
unknown, with fates undetermined.  I can tell you that I saw a lot of the city,
and few of Rio's share of Brazil's millions of streetkids. Where were they?
What happened?  

More immediately visible were the omnnipresent soldiers (in tanks, jeeps, 
and helicopters) protecting us from their own people.  Or the "fast" lanes 
cordoned off for the dignitaries that played hell with Rio's already
nightmarish traffic (and you think LA is bad). Or the effort to clean up
Rio's streets by arresting those with a record, aggravating Brazil's 
overcrowded prison system and leading to a lottery of death (as in
Shirley Jackson's short story).


All of this was partially my fault because I went to the conference. It is
something I have not dealt with yet.

{jaguar} I don't believe that the environmentalists ASKED the Brazilian gov't to
       do away with the kids...more that the Brazilian gov't did away 
       with the kids because they didn't want dignitaries and press from
       around the world to see them, i.e. give Brazil a bad reputation.
	Do you have proof the it was at the behest of the environmentalists,
       cos we *know* how much they hate people...right?!?

{Friedman} I never said it was at the behest of the environmentalist.  Please
          don't put words in my mouth.  It's a very immature debating topic.
	  What I do contend is that eny environmentalist with two brain cells to
	  rub together knew this would happen and that their precious Rio
	  conference was important enough that they did not care.

I guess I only have one brain cell, because I really didn't know enough 
about Brazil to even imagine the things I saw and heard.

However, ignorance is no excuse.

Robert Rickenbrode {rkrii@coil.cco.caltech.edu}

Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Preferred Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:11:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.142313.14038@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:


>In article <veal.122@utkvm1.utk.edu>, veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul23.123832.18186@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>|> 
>|> >In article <archer.132@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>|> >>And if you are interested in bias, try being the only literate person in a 
>|> >>public school system that reveres jock-dom and football above all else.  I'
>|> >>ve shed my share of plasma on the field of bias.
>|> 
>|> >Yes, I agree, that's far more tragic than being denied housing,
>|> >employment, or the right to walk down the street in peace.  Enough of
>|> >this whining about racism, sexism, heteroexism... the real enemy is
>|> >sports fandom...  Yeesh.
>|> 
>|>      This, I like.  "My form of discrimination is worse than your form of 
>|> discrimination!" 

>You don't mean you actually think that being annoyed because
>you're an intellectual and everyone else in your school is 
>a jock is equivalent to being denied the ability to support
>yourself because of the gender of the person you fall in love with?

You cannot know how others have suffered, or why, because you have not been 
them.  Do not belittle the suffering of others.  

I was not annoyed, I was beaten senseless on a fairly consistent basis.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:31:24 GMT

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>So it is the governments responsibility to prevent a golf club from letting
>me invite to lunch whomever I want to freely associate with?  I assume
>you don't believe that (please correct me if I'm wrong).  So the questions
>boil down to who decides what the rules are when two peoples rights come
>into conflict.  Libertarians?

I don't know what happened there - I know of no libertarian who would
say that an insurance company can't make such as those, and especially
that the job og the government would be to forbid that.  Mr. Archer,
there are other insurance companies.  You can make or not make a
contract with that particular insurance company.
-- 
"One night I stayed up playing poker with a tarot deck. I got a full house 
and four people died." -- Wright
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:21:37 GMT

  You're setting up a straw man again.  If an insurance company offers you
such a preposterous contract, you can tell them where to file it.  If the
government makes such a preposterous law, tough; you're stuck with it anyway.

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:11:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.193642.10579@news2.cis.umn.edu> elliott@a8.ima.umn.edu  
(Frank Elliott) writes:
> >Not without laws that require such discrimination.  In the south, there were
> >many businesses that would have ignored the "Jim Crow" laws, if they had  
been
> >allowed to by the law and the racists. It was because of the local  
governments
> >that they were not able to do so.
> >
> 
>  This is the most self-serving piece of disinformation I've read in a while.
>  Discrimination is possible without laws to impose it.  Remember anything
>  from your highschool civics class?  It's called _de facto_ discrimination,
>  as opposed to _de jure_ discrimination.  Many black men were thrown in
>  jail under false rape charges and were later lynched without a trial.
>  An law unrelated to race was applied to have them arrested,
>  and a law against murder was not applied to those who lynched them.
>  Even minor charges such as loitering or vagrancy were used as an excuse
>  for imprisonment.

Mind keeping with the subject? The discussion was on the economic aspects of  
_private_ discrimination.  I know the difference between de facto and de jure  
but you don't seem to understand their usage in this context and threw them in  
to show how with it you are.  Your emotional diatribe does nothing to disprove  
what I'm saying.  Think about what you said.  "black men were thrown in jail".   
Who did it? Seems to me it was the government violating their rights and  
committing violence or in the case of lynchings not doing its job. What does  
that have to do with businesses ignoring the Jim Crow laws? That  
"disinformation" was well documented by Thomas Sowell.  Who made up those laws  
in the first place?  The government. Do we see a trend here?  


>  I grew up in the South in the 1960's, I know the history of race relations
>  there. I'm also aware of the fact that most blacks didn't leave the South
>  and head for the more prosperous North because they were faced with
>  discrimination in employment and housing.

Again, so what?   I grew up in the South too even earlier. Your implying they  
left because of the violence and that certainly was a factor for some. All? I  
doubt it. So what does it have to do with the economics of the situation which  
was the point of this discussion? The government was instrumental in the  
violation of their rights! Can't you see that? 

Laws to protect _every one_ from the threat of violence and coercion are  
needed.

[liberal clap trap deleted]


--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: LaRouche on Pirot Withdrawl
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:59:32 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <112-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.com> covici@ccs.covici.com writes:

>I am glad you are checking it out  -- but you should realize that the 
>ADL is a -- to put it mildly -- rather biased source of information.  
>These are the gangsters who have been largely responsible for framing 
>up Mr. LaRouche, what would you expect them to say.

While not being a supporter of the ADL or any similar organization, I must
object to your 'gangster' charactorization as you objected to my connecting
LaRouche and the Liberty Lobby.

I would also question your assertion that LaRouche was 'framed.' I would
agree, however, that prison is the wrong place for the man - little or
nothing he says can be translated into concrete English, and he should
probably be in a mental home getting treatment for his condition, including
his raving paranoia - an area, I might add, where he appears to have a great
deal in common with the anti-semitic neo nazis, who share his belief in
strange cabals and secret organizations running the world.

-- 
Josef Kramer, a man whose incumbency earned him the sobriquet "The Beast of
Belsen," treated the uncontrollable epidemic of diarrhea at Belsen with a
prescription of starvation. "If you don't eat," he said, "you don't shit."
"The more dead Jews you bring me," he noted, "the better I like it."
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:38:32 GMT

In article <archer.132@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>And if you are interested in bias, try being the only literate person in a 
>public school system that reveres jock-dom and football above all else.  I'
>ve shed my share of plasma on the field of bias.

Yes, I agree, that's far more tragic than being denied housing,
employment, or the right to walk down the street in peace.  Enough of
this whining about racism, sexism, heteroexism... the real enemy is
sports fandom...  Yeesh.
 
>Then don't associate with them.  Why would you want to?

Because they own the property, manage the employment pool, and otherwise
control that which Propertarians believe compose "liberties" in this
society.  If you don't associate with them, you live in a refrigerator
carton and sell the Street Sheet for a living.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: ji@cs.columbia.edu (John Ioannidis)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:03:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.033657.27846@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>A representative of a small software concern once told one of my co-workers
>that they would not sell their package to anyone involved in the making
>of weapons.  Should this be permissable?  
>

Duh? Permissible by *whom*? It's like telling me that I don't have the
right to refuse working for IBM because they require me to deposit
some of my precious bodily fluids.

What is this doing in soc.motss anyway?

/ji

                                ______ 
 "Intellectuals trying to       \    /  ji@cs.columbia.edu  
  out-intellectual other         \  /   B5 f+ w++ cd g+(+) k+? sv r- p+
  intellectuals" (Fritz the Cat)  \/       ... It's all greek to me!


Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Followup-To: figure it out yourself
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:29:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.033657.27846@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>A representative of a small software concern once told one of my co-workers
>that they would not sell their package to anyone involved in the making
>of weapons.  Should this be permissable?  

I don't care. Should posts like this be posted to soc.motss? No!

Learn how to use your software. A hint: it's the "Newsgroups" header.
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/   Delicious & Nutritious breakfast cereals shot from guns!
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 07:00:44 GMT
Organization: Messina Software

rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:

>In article <18783@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>But the rest of the commumity also gets those same services which are also paid
>>for by that same business person.  So, neither owes the other anything.

>Individualism: "neither owes the other anything"
>Communitarianism: "everyone owes everyone"
>I'll take the latter any day, thank you.

REALLY???  Okay, this is an authentic curiosity - Why?


t.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Keywords: bias
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:49:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.230400.3498@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>
>>And just what exactly does this mean?  To me it looks like you're trying
>>to make yourself out to be something more than you are.
>
>Oh boy. A flame attempt. I'm amused.
>
This was not an attempt at a flame.  In fact I have yet to attempt a
flame on the net.  If for some reason I do there will be no mistaking
it.  But instead of diversion how about answering the question?

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d,alt.society.revolution
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: political prisoner Alan Berkman is free!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:51:25

These outfits often demand prisoner of war status for their
"soldiers".  I don't understand why the U.S. Government doesn't
grant prisoner of war status to any group that requests it for
its members and any member who requests it for himself.  Sorry,
these groups never request anything, they demand it.  Whatever.

Then there would be no need for an expensive trial, and the prisoners
of war could be put in a prison camp for the duration of the war.
Maybe it would be even more regular if Congress would declare war
on any group that requests it.  Sorry, demands it.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:24:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.220842.27283@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)  
writes:
> 
> I find it hard to believe that anyone (not necessarily you, rogerl)
> could reflect on the racism in America up thru the 1940's and claim
> with a straight face that we'd all be better off if the court cases
> and civil rights laws since that time had not occurred.  Dare I ask
> someone to elaborate on this? 

I think Thomas Sowell has done so a number of times.  If you look at the  
historical record you will see that such abominations like "separate but equal"  
were imposed by the government you are advocating as the solution. Sowell has  
pointed out that businesses often ignored the laws until forced by the  
government to segregate.  People who advocate government control keep assuming  
that they or people who think like them will always be the ones in charge. 


--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)

Xref: sparky alt.activism:13388 talk.politics.misc:35680 alt.individualism:4519
From: rjbodkin@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ronald Bodkin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarian history (was Re: Libertarian (little l) sociali
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:09:53 GMT
	<Br9G5I.4A@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <BrMF6s.83y@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<62383@cup.portal.com>
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science

In article <62383@cup.portal.com> atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
   So Ceaucescu, Honecker... couldn't be any better off.
   Imagine my surprise.

	Given their lack of abilities and the quite cushy lifestyle
(and power) they enjoyed for many years, they doubtless were benefited
by choosing to be dictators.
		Ron
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13641 soc.motss:32798 talk.politics.misc:36309 alt.individualism:4681
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 28 Jul 1992 16:18:19 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Jul23.164330.800@auto-trol.com>, katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
|> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
|> : dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
|> : 
|> : :                       I do not believe that all store-owners in the south
|> : : would sell to afro-americans if they had any way to avoid it.  
|> : 
|> : And, why should they have to? Why should I be required to sell my goods,
|> : which I own until you pay me for them, to you if I do not wish to do so?
|> : There are others that will sell to you, if I do not - maybe I do not like

Because as a business person you have protection and support from the community.
Your police/fire protection, the roads, parking, etc are all paid for by
the community, including blacks.  If you want to spend their taxes, they have
a right to expect you to deal with them.
|> 
|> But all too recent history proves that it's not true. The reality of the
|> South in the 1950s is that there often was no one else that would sell to
|> Blacks.  
|> 
|> : "white monkeys" in my store. Now, if no one will sell to you, then you
|> : have a reason for complaint.
|> : 
|> But under libertarianism, there would be no one to complain to, and no 
|> mechanism for complaining.  And that's exactly why libertarianism, while 
|> wonderful in theory, would in reality be a nightmare for minorities.  
|> 
|> 
|> Kathy
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:58:21 GMT

In article <archer.127@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
>of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
>statist government.

Actually, what I seem to notice is that almost every libertarian I know
is a white heterosexual middle-to-upper class male.  Why is this, you may
ask?  Because these people have never seen how terrible people can be
to each other.  Since they have never experienced bias, they do not see it
anywhere.


>I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept that.

I find it hard to believe that an american business would pay women as much
as men if they were not afraid of a lawsuit (even with the fear of a lawsuit,
they pay them less).  I do not believe that all store-owners in the south
would sell to afro-americans if they had any way to avoid it.  

The amount of hate that I see for being a gay man, in my day to day life,
convinces me that given a choice, many many people would be biased against
me.

All the evidence that I have seen for libertarianism is history which has
been rewritten to make libertarianism seem like the answer.

In an ideal world, libertarianism might work (just like communism might
work).  However, given the current situation with haves and have-nots, 
libertarianism would give white heterosexual males the freedom to return
to the exploitive days of the past.


As a philosophy, libertarianism is perfect.  However, if you think that
the general population would behave in a rational manner, you have had your
eyes shut to human nature for your entire life.



FWA


Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: st1g9@rosie.uh.edu (Lee Preimesberger)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:22:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.193642.10579@news2.cis.umn.edu>, elliott@a8.ima.umn.edu (Frank Elliott) writes...
# This is the most self-serving piece of disinformation I've read in a while.
# Discrimination is possible without laws to impose it.  Remember anything
# from your highschool civics class?  It's called _de facto_ discrimination,
# as opposed to _de jure_ discrimination.  Many black men were thrown in
# jail under false rape charges and were later lynched without a trial.
#[...]
# Laws to protect the civil rights of blacks were and are needed, and
# as a white southerner I am _most_ grateful people like the Freedom Riders
# who risked their lives to get such laws passed.  They made the world that
# I grew up in a somewhat better place, though there is obviously a great
# deal to be done.

	I believe that laws assuring fair trial and equality before law have
been around, oh, say 200 years or so (hint hint).  What was lacking was
the will to enforce them in this instance.

	Frank, if you truely believe that the world can be magicked to
perfection by a wave of a politico's pen, you are sadly mistaken.

	Ideas must be changed.  Laws are bullshit.

			  Lee Preimesberger
st1g9@jetson.uh.edu ----- Undergraduate Scum ----- University of Houston, USA
      "They went around and around.  Nobody smiled.  They just went
              around and around." - _Breakfast of Champions_
                                --+--
	Public key removed in hopes of getting the Hell out of VMS.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism