HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dan@netcom.com (Dan Liddell)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:34:44 GMT

ervan@rice.edu writes:

>...Is breaking the arm of a gay person worse than breaking the arm of
>a straight person because the motivation is different?

osiris@athena.mit.edu (Marcel Bruchez Jr.) writes:

>The supreme courts decision on the whole issue of "hate crimes" is not in yet,
>they have agreed to hear a case about whether people who do hate crimes are
>legally punishable more than people who perform random crimes (i.e. do vandals
>spraypainting thier name get a lighter sentence than those who paint "All gays
>must die" on a gay man's door)  ...

Is a "hate crime" the same thing as a thoughtcrime?

For the moment, it looks like they are not quite the same thing. A
hate crime seems to have to be a crime anyway, but with motivation
that is not currently in style.

I find legislation of proper motivation and idealogy odious. I find
public discrimination for private, consensual activities equally
distasteful.

-- 
Dan Liddell   dan@netcom.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.equality:27 alt.politics.homosexuality:9127
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:11:59 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <1993Jan7.093444.28879@netcom.com> dan@netcom.com (Dan Liddell) writes:
>ervan@rice.edu writes:
>
>>...Is breaking the arm of a gay person worse than breaking the arm of
>>a straight person because the motivation is different?
>
>osiris@athena.mit.edu (Marcel Bruchez Jr.) writes:
>
>>The supreme courts decision on the whole issue of "hate crimes" is not in yet,
>>they have agreed to hear a case about whether people who do hate crimes are
>>legally punishable more than people who perform random crimes (i.e. do vandals
>>spraypainting thier name get a lighter sentence than those who paint "All gays
>>must die" on a gay man's door)  ...
>
>Is a "hate crime" the same thing as a thoughtcrime?
>
>For the moment, it looks like they are not quite the same thing. A
>hate crime seems to have to be a crime anyway, but with motivation
>that is not currently in style.

While this is technically true, the "hate" component can elevate a "crime" that
is normally considered a minor offense that would be dealt with by a $100 fine,
into a prison sentence.

The canonical example is spray painting in a public place.  Spray painting
"Lector 77" in an artistic font can get you a $100 fine or at most a "sentence"
that you spend some amount of time cleaning the graffitti off public places.
Spray painting "Death to <<oppressed group>>" in the same place can net serious
prison time.

>
>I find legislation of proper motivation and idealogy odious. I find
>public discrimination for private, consensual activities equally
>distasteful.

Amen

-dk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 20:00:10 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov


In article <C0KBKt.D8y@rice.edu>, ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:
|> My objection is that hate crime
|>penalties (beyond that for the nominal crime) and inconsistent with
|>equality before the law *in general*.  Indulge me for using a couple
|>of symbols to make my point:
|>G - gay man
|>S - straight man
|>x*y - x attacks y without prejudice
|>x!y - x attack y with prejudice
|>
|>My initial comment was that equality before the law should be:
|>G*G = G*S = S*G = S*S = S!G = G!S
|>but that hate crime legislation made it be the case that:
|>G*G = G*S = S*G = S*S <> S!G = G!S 
|>and thus was unequal before the law.
|>
|>Your response was that amendment 2 changed it to be:
|>G*G = G*S = S*G = S*S = S!G <> G!S
|>thus it created inequality.  If that's so, we should simply
|>iron out the last "<>".  Leaving hate crime legislation in place
|>only trades one kind of inequality before the law for another.
|>
|>I ask you again to address my original question:
|>x*y == S!G ?  (meaning, should it be so)
|>I agree that S!G == G!S, regardless.
|>

There is a difference between first degree murder, second degree murder,
and man slaughter.  In addition, in CA there are "special circumstances" 
which is required to receive the death penalty.  Commiting murder while
"laying in wait"  is a special circumstance.

A high school football player looking for a fag to beat up, driving to 
Laguna Beach, going to an area where he knew there were gay bars, finding
someone, and beating him to near death is a hate crime.  (this happened 
Friday)

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:49:15 GMT

jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul) writes:

>In article <7JAN199309294308@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>>
>>	Certainly.  Why not say something like: "No person shall
>>	be deprived of employment, housing, or economic service
>>	simply due to his or her actual or perceived sexual ori-
>>	entation - regardless of what that orientation may be."
>>
>>Any additions or suggestions?  Let me know.

>So, if I didn't want to buy groceries at a certain grocery store
>because the owner was gay, I could be thrown in jail?  This would
>be denying the individual employment.

Tell me please how YOUR decision not to buy groceries from a gay grocer
would deprive YOU of employment, housing or economic service? How do
you get to breaking the proposed legislation by that decision? What do
you mean by your last sentence. It doesn't seem to fit.

al
Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: osiris@athena.mit.edu (Marcel Bruchez Jr.)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<CORWIN+.93Jan6110234@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> <C0G9G0.D5J@rice.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:52:11 GMT

ervan@rice.edu writes...
>The supreme court recently decided in the St. Paul vs.
>X (whose name I have forgotten) case that while destruction of
>property is a crime the particular message that crime carries
>is not crime per se.  It seems to me the same thing is at issue here.
>Is breaking the arm of a gay person worse than breaking the arm of
>a straight person because the motivation is different?

The supreme courts decision on the whole issue of "hate crimes" is not in yet,
they have agreed to hear a case about whether people who do hate crimes are
legally punishable more than people who perform random crimes (i.e.  do vandals
spraypainting thier name get a lighter sentence than those who paint "All gays
must die" on a gay man's door)  This would not imply that the message is a
crime in itself, but that the message may have bearing on the punishment for
the crime.  

An ounce of prevention may be worth many tons of punishment when people's
lives are at stake.

-Marcel Bruchez
osiris@mit.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Subject:  Hate crimes (was Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query)
Originator: ervan@cs.rice.edu
Reply-To: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:30:27 GMT


fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
|> 
|> ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:
|> |> My objection is that hate crime
|> |>penalties (beyond that for the nominal crime) are inconsistent with
|> |>equality before the law *in general*.  Indulge me for using a couple
|> |>of symbols to make my point:
|> |>G - gay man
|> |>S - straight man
|> |>x*y - x attacks y without prejudice
|> |>x!y - x attack y with prejudice
|> |>
|> |>My initial comment was that equality before the law should be:
|> |>G*G = G*S = S*G = S*S = S!G = G!S
|> |>but that hate crime legislation made it be the case that:
|> |>G*G = G*S = S*G = S*S <> S!G = G!S 
|> |>and thus was unequal before the law.
|> |>
|> |>Your response was that amendment 2 changed it to be:
|> |>G*G = G*S = S*G = S*S = S!G <> G!S
|> |>thus it created inequality.  If that's so, we should simply
|> |>iron out the last "<>".  Leaving hate crime legislation in place
|> |>only trades one kind of inequality before the law for another.
|> |>
|> |>I ask you again to address my original question:
|> |>x*y == S!G ?  (meaning, should it be so)
|> |>I agree that S!G == G!S, regardless.
|> |>
|> 
|> There is a difference between first degree murder, second degree murder,
|> and man slaughter.  In addition, in CA there are "special circumstances" 
|> which is required to receive the death penalty.  Commiting murder while
|> "laying in wait"  is a special circumstance.


Yes, but that's a different issue.  Intent and motive are two separate
things.  If a kid runs out in front of my car and I kill him accidently, is
that murder?  No.  Criminal negligence, maybe.  If I know when the
kid comes home from school, what route he walks, and wait for him
to cross the street, then run over him, is that murder?  Yes, of course.

The different degrees of murder measure the nature of the intent.  Many
of those distinctions are reasonable.  However, this is a very different
thing from motive.  Does it matter that I wanted to run over the kid
because he owed me $100 or that his dad fired me yesterday?  I don't
think so.

So, let me ask the main question again: if a straight person breaks
a gay person's arm in order to rob him is that less of a crime than
breaking his arm because he is gay?  The *intent* is the same:
premediated assault.  The *motive* is different.

For the law to measure intent is to judge the severity of the crime
in some sense.  For the law to measure motive is to punish certain
kinds of thoughts.  (Discussing motive in a trial in so far as it
is necessary to demonstrate intent is fine, but that's a separate
issue).


Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Originator: ervan@cs.rice.edu
Reply-To: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:40:47 GMT



Scott Safier writes:
|> Michael R Linksvayer writes:
|> > Show me how
|> >white, straight males have more than equal protection _before the
|> >law_. I agree that straight males have advantages based on some
|> >people's attitudes and customs, but I am talking about _legal_
|> >advantages. 
|> 
|> In Colorado, gays and lesbians are less equal, before the law.  They
|> cannot seek recourse for hate-crimes committed against them.  They
|> cannot seek recourse for discrimination is public services, jobs, or
|> housing.  
|> 
I don't think you have met the challenge here.  If a gay person is 
assaulted, are they denied legal recourse because they are gay?
No.  The Colorado law does nothing of the sort.  What then is a
hate-crime?  The supreme court recently decided in the St. Paul vs.
X (whose name I have forgotten) case that while destruction of
property is a crime the particular message that crime carries
is not crime per se.  It seems to me the same thing is at issue here.
Is breaking the arm of a gay person worse than breaking the arm of
a straight person because the motivation is different?  If the
answer is 'yes', you are advocating inequality before the law.
Banning hate-crime legislation as an additional measure would
seem to create more equality before the law.  (BTW, it is not clear
to me that the Colorado amendment actually does this, but it
doesn't matter for the sake of this argument).

The second point begs the whole affirmative action debate, which
certainly cannot be settled here.  AA is always to some extent
unequal because it selects some groups but not others and rewards
or punishes individuals based on the group they are in regardless
of the crimes done to or by the individual in question.  If AA
were just for blacks and not for women, would women then be unequal
before the law?
I don't think so.  It might be inconsistent in terms of the 
reasons for AA, but that's a different matter.  Failing to have
the same special protection as some other minority group is not
inequality before the law, as it has come to be understood.  If
you think it is, then white straight males don't have equality
before the law and all AA programs should be repealed in the
interest of achieving it.

|> People that murder gay men and lesbians are routinely found "not-guilty" or
|> guilty of a lesser charge by many juries throughout this country.  
|> [and numerous others anecdotes of how gays are treated unfairly]

While all of this is true (as far as I know), it too misses the point.
The question is equality in law, not in outcome.  If particular juries 
refuse to properly apply the law, that does not mean the law itself is
unequal, it only means prejudice is so strong that implementation is
difficult.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:58:20 GMT

tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:

>> We have laws preventing murder, rape and theft.  If someone passes
>> a law making these laws illegal, instances of these crimes will
>> rise.  It obviously ENCOURAGES bigotry.
>> 
>Let  me get  this straight: If we pass a law saying murder is illegal, it
>will encourage people to murder?  I think you had better rethink your
>last paragraph, it doesn't make any sense.

Nope.. I don't think you got it straight. The way I read what was said is
that if a law was passed `making laws'  against murder illegal, then murder
rates would rise. It makes sense to me..

al

Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: janvrin@IASTATE.EDU 
Subject: Clinton and the deficit
Reply-To: janvrin@IASTATE.EDU 
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:09:57 GMT

To paraphrase George Stephenopolus on backing away from the campaign promise
to cut the deficit in half by 1995, 'The problem is a lot bigger than we 
thought was, the situation is much worse than we believed it to be, therefore
we will do nothing about it. '  ??????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Note: this is a paraphase and not a quote.

Points to ponder.  
                ALL APPROPATIONS MUST BE MADE BY THE HOUSE OF REPS.
How many of RR's budget sugestions were publically declared DEAD ON
ARRIVAL by that august body's leadership ? 8?

"I want a divorce "  Graham or Rudman (?) on the association of his name
with the then much publicized, now thwarted  Graham-Rudman deficit reduction
bill.  The G-R bill was passed as a compromise to a balanced budget ammendment.

Number of states which have already voted in favor of the balanced
budget ammendment to the U S Constitition -----     32 (it may actually 
be 33 now).  Number required for a constitional convention-- (2/3)   34
D.C.,Guam, American Somoa, The Vigin Islands, and Puerto Rico don't vote
it... except in committee.  (not in the committee as a whole). :(  :)

For every $1.00 in tax increases, congress spends an additional $1.82.
Therefore the only way to cut the deficit is to reduce taxes. :) 

"I now have more children in public schools than the Clintons and the 
Gores Combined."  Freddy "the Bettle" Barnes 

All points to ponder are from memory.  Check your facts at the door. 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19914 alt.politics.elections:24796 alt.politics.libertarian:3226
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:29:44 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <SJAMESON.93Jan7120740@fergie.atl.ge.com>, sjameson@atl.ge.com (Stephen M Jameson) writes:
> I don't object to Clinton sending his daughter to a private school (although I
> wish he were sending her to one in Little Rock), but I do reject the idea that
> one should publicly espouse, and develop national policy based on, "political"
> principles which are substantially different from those principles which one
> uses to guide one's personal life.  Clinton's "political" principles are going
> to affect our lives, so why shouldn't they affect his and his family's?

This is dangerously close to asserting that, as an establishment white 
male, Clinton therefore also has no moral authority to direct programs 
to address racial discrimination, women's issues, or welfare...
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Wayne Hughes Writes Hateful Email
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:32:41 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

In article <1993Jan8.182603.11865@rigel.econ.uga.edu>, hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes) writes:
> 
> 
>   Pamela Cho chose to publish a private discussion between 
>   the two of us.  I terminated the discussion because she 

Yes, I did.  You blocked my mail intentionally after writing me
that tripe.  At first I thought there was something wrong with
my mail routine.

>   admitted in email that her mind was made up and she thought
>   homosexuality was abnormal.  There is no point in continuing
>   discussion when that sort of impass is reached.

Actually, Wayne Hughes, you drew your own conclusions, and were
pretty nasty about it, too.  I wanted to write you back, and 
try to repair what might have been a worthwhile discussion.

> 
>   She's apparently new around here; most people seem to feel
>   that usenet etiquette requires permission for the publishing
>   of private email.  See news.announce.newusers for a discussion
>   of such things.

Yes, I'm new...and I have never met someone as rude as you anywhere.
How else could I have communicated with you?  You forced me into
a corner with your nasty note.  I was not going to allow you to 
beat me up with your 'private' mail.  You're the unethical one.
You did this to yourself....I don't know why you are so hateful.

>   Whether you think this or not, you should probably consider
>   that your mail to her will be published without your permission.
>   
>   Wayne
> 

Another poster alerted me that you wrote this.  Actually, I am not
surprised.  I guess I should have just allowed you to 'beat me
up' verbally and go wimper away somewhere.  I guess that's what
you figured I would do.  

*****************************************************************

Hey....is this a common trick?  Beat up each other in private mail,
and lock out return mail?  If it is, it's very cheap and disappointing.

-Pamela Cho-
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19559 alt.rush-limbaugh:12941
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:46:56 GMT

In article <C0J286.Eqs@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
}In article <1993Jan8.080551.3519@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <1ihg75INN52p@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}>}Clinton's daughter was in public schools in Arkansas.  It strikes me as
}>}more likely that Clinton resents the decay and neglect of public schools by
}>}recent administrations, and is resolved to make them better (as he did in
}>}Arkansas.)
}>
}>What neglect?
}
}The facts are that the '80s represented an unprecedented increase in public
}spending on socialized education the result of which were simply fatter
}bureaucrats. There was neglect but it occured between the administration and
}the students, not between the public and the school system.
}
}Nationalizing the public education system, as the NEA wants, would only
}make administrators more removed from their responsibility.

Oh, THAT neglect :-)!  I challenged Mike Huben on this because I strongly
suspect he had different neglect in mind.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19881 alt.politics.elections:24779 alt.politics.libertarian:3203 talk.politics.misc:66728
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Date: 8 Jan 1993 17:26:27 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1993Jan8.151711.28097@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
|> In article <1iitb9INN64f@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> Srinivas Sunder,
|> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu writes:
|> >(joseph.m.knapp) writes:
|> >|> Oh my... T-minus 13 days and they're already ganging up on what? 
|> >|> 
|> >|> A little girl.
|> >
|> >Aaaw, gimme a break! It has to be clear to even the dimmest wit that
|> >the person being ganged up on is the girl's Dad and not her; and with
|> >regards to what is certainly an important question.
|> 
|> Excuse me Mr. Sunder, the target may be the president-elect, but the
|> result of the decision does concern Chelsea. The fact is that Repubs
|> are trying to force Clinton into making a pointless symbolic gesture
|> at the expense of his daughter.

Really? Nobody's forcing HIM to do a damn thing for Chelsea other than
make the best judgement as regards her education. All he is being told that
if he truly wants to be a man of the people, he should give every other
parent in that situation a chance to make a similar choice for THEIR kids.
If he feels compelled to make needless symbolic gestures with his kid (which
he didn't, to his credit), it reflects badly on him as a parent. On the other
hand, if he (and all his apologists) can't understand what all this ruckus
is about (it isn't about Chelsea), it reflects poorly on his (and their) ability 
to understand the question being framed. And people who can't understand a
question like that and choose (instead of answering the question) to take shelter
by accusing the questioners of ganging up on a 13-year old are in no position to 
tell the questioners to get help.

I don't recall anyone saying that he should send Chelsea to the DC public
schools, in fact, quite the opposite. The question being asked of Clinton
is this: Now that you understand the dilemma faced by many not-so-affluent 
people living in school districts with lousy school systems, how can you 
not be for giving such people the opportunity to choose between a good school 
and a bad school, like you had?  (apologies for the poor sentence structure)

|> Norman

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc