HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis' dishonest arguments about rape and self-defense
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:27:10 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec13.221222.18464@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.052932.14834@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[deletions; see comments at bottom]

>> I'm primarily talking about the state of
>> New York, where it's lawful to kill the attacker in order to prevent or
>> terminate a rape, *without* requiring that there be any belief that the
>> victim's life is endangered.
>
>.... because the law presumes that the victim's life is threatened.

It's also justified in the case of arson and, in some cases, burglary.

>> You also consistently fail to address the
>> fact that it's legal to kill the perpetrator when they're fleeing from
>> the crime.
>
>The apprehension of criminals has absolutely nothing to do with
>your bogus rape-pregnancy analogy, which started this thread.

It does have to do with your bogus claim that deadly force is only justified
when someone's life is threatened.

>> You also fail to address the fact that in at least one state, it's
>> legal to blow away someone who's walking down the street with your TV set.
>
>That's irrelevant to your bogus rape-pregnancy analogy.

It *is* relevant to your bogus claim that deadly force is only justified
when someone's life is threatened.

>> And you ignore the fact that, statistically speaking, a rape victim
>> can *not* consider that her life is in jeopardy.
>
>Statistics has nothing to do with the justification for the
>use of lethal force in self-defense:

It does have to do with someone's "reasonable belief" that their life is
in danger during a rape.

>  "Ordinarily a woman is justified in taking human life in protecting
>   her chastity where she has been placed in fear for her life or
>   great bodily harm."

Or even if she hasn't been.

Note that someone has raised doubts as to whether the section of law that
I quoted falls under self-defense or something else.  If something else,
then your comments about the laws of self-defense are irrelevant.  I'm
trying to find out what's what.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: todd@ai05.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
	<07DEC92.11618161.0059@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
	<TODD.92Dec14121806@athena.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
	<1992Dec14.210217.5066@cdf.toronto.edu> <tl6a1a4@zola.esd.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:58:35 GMT


In article <tl6a1a4@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>"Cows are just plants that happen to move around a bit." 
>-- Thant Tessman

Your signature makes it really easy to argue with you!
(maybe we can find a use for all those twelve-week old aborted
fetuses lying around, motorcycle lubricant or something)

Todd
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Itoh Laboratory,			"Be excellent to each other."
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:32:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.155654.10198@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>In article <14DEC92.18471803@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>>
>>>THE BET IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> 
>>>$100, the population being the known posters here in talk.abortion.
>>
>>I don't think so.  Why don't you just choose the population of your home 
>>instead.  I could just as easily call for a vote from all of my friends.
>>
>>This started by talking about the united states government, and the way 
>>democracy works.  I seem to remember saying that if 51% of the population 
>>voted that way, then it would be law (but you seem to have deleted that).
>>I was considering the population of the United States.  If really want to make 
>>this bet, I demand a more impartial population representing a better cross 
>>section of the United States.  Most likely, people who have never heard of 
>>either of us.  Not to mention a much more impartial ballot counter.
>	In all fairness, the point Adrienne was trying to make was that our
>form of government places limitations on pure majority rule, and those
>limitations are codified in our Constitution.  The founders of this nation
>did this in order to assure that minorities could not be deprived of rights
>which, in their view, they posessed by virtue of their status as human beings.
>	A simple majority can't, for example, pass a law censoring all forms
>of expression which oppose government policy.  Such a law would clearly
>violate the first amendment and would be declared unconstitutional.  Alas,
>not all constitutional issues are so clear-cut.  Abortion is one of them.  But
>the fact remains that simple majority opinion is neither a necessary nor a
>sufficient condition for legislation in this country.
>	To return to the bet:  even if an impartially-counted representative
>corss-section of the USA *did* vote to keep you in your chair for three weeks,
>it would still be an unconstitutional imposition on your natural rights.
>That's the point.

Actually, it wouldn't even take a -majority- of US voters to pass a 
Constitutional Amendment mandating keeping Loren in a chair -- it would "only"
take a 2/3 majority of both houses, and ratification by 3/4 of the states.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Another New Hypothetical question for pro choice from Loren
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:41:27 GMT

> =  lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>> = In a previous article, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
LF> = lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
========================================================================
LF> My main reason is that I believe, in my heart, that a person is a human
LF> from the moment of conception.  It is just a human at a different state of
LF> its development.  Believing this, there is no way to get around the fact
LF> that having an abortion is killing an innocent human being.

>> Fair enough.
>> [...]
>> So then, what if I believe that all organized religions are tools of
>> Satan?  Want to try and talk me out of making them illegal?

> Not at all.  If you can convince enough people of that, then it will be made 
> illegal.  

... otherwise known as "the tyranny of the majority".

> Ultimately, the majority has to have what it wants, otherwise, you 
> end up with a small group (Minority) making decisions for the majority.  

You should open your mind to other possibilities.  
Have you ever considered a constitutional democracy?

> In our society, where all people are supposedly equal, the largest group
> must, and will, get what it wants.  Even if it has to resort to revolution.

BTW, what country to you live in?

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:53:50 GMT

> = (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>> = (Satya Prabhakar) writes:

>>Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>and stupid.

> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"?  That's an example of how he's fooled
> the people and the press.  He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a 
> total liberal.

Yeah, sure, Markie.  I guess Limbaugh and Buchanan are more your type of
moderate, hmm?

Why do I get the feeling that Limbaugh deprogramming groups will be
operating in the near future?  Man, try thinking for yourself before it's
too late.

>>He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>>not care for this.
>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.

> Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
> it can be business as usual for us liberals"

I really don't think people consider him a threat, except for the number
of no-lives panting after his every insult.  Why you think business as
usual will change for ANYbody because of Rush the Fool - now _there's_
wishful thinking.  You really consider a TV talk show host to be the
nation's savior, don't you?

Poor boy.  I gotta admit the Republicans haven't given you much to cheer
about.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:50:53 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>>Out of curiosity, do you think there was a gun mounted on top of the
>>bomb with wheels that took out the barracks in Beruit?
>
>Er, the thread so far seems to be one in which we're discussion
>Pentagon weaseling about the truth ("disinformation" and "later
>admitted" are clues to this), NOT whether the troops should have
>fired.

Right! I'd have more respect if they'd tell it just like it is,
especially when the lies are really unnecessary silliness. For
example, when we carried out the bombing raids against Libya,
there was a great perceived need to assure everyone that our
weapons were "smart" and found their targets with a laser-beam
focus :-). Unfortunately, this was not the case and there was
indeed a lot of "collateral damage" in Tripoli. Oh, but that wasn't
caused by us, said Disinformation Story #1: it was caused by those
goofy Libyans firing their missiles and AAA straight up in the
air and it came raining back down on their heads! This story is
good because it emphasizes the infallibility of our weapons, as
well as our racial superiority. Well, this explanation didn't
really hold up, and thus came Disinformation Story #2, the "Iron
Bomb": one plane and its pilot were lost in the operation. The
plane was crippled by AAA, wandered off course and dropped its
ordinance somewhat randomly. But under normal conditions, everything
works perfectly... really! And it could have been worse -- after
all, it was the FRENCH embassy that took a hit, hee hee.

So a few weeks later comes the admission that this is all bullshit
and the bombs' IQs are somewhat out of the "gifted" range. If you
pay close attention to the press, the truth comes out on page C32.
If not, you join millions of others who go around believing
stories #1 and 2, and the disinformation has had its effect. By
the way, the Libyan operation was run by Admiral John Poindexter,
then head of the NSC, and author of the famous "disinformation" memo
where he detailed his strategies in that area.

I'm just so sick and tired of the militaristic progression of the
last twelve years, starting with the shooting down of Libyan fighters,
bombing of Libya, invasion of Grenada, invasion of Panama, and
culminated by the Gulf War and Bush's 90% popularity. It's all an
illusion, as Bush's eventual defeat demonstrates. And here we go again,
on an ostensibly humanitarian mission at least, but the same patterns
of blind acceptance and willing suspension of disbelief are developing.

I really, really hope that the fantasies are true and the US can come
riding in and save that country from the brink of oblivion, now and
for all time. If so, maybe we are really in a New World Order, as
envisioned years ago by supporters of the UN.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64028 alt.rush-limbaugh:11508
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Date: 10 Dec 92 20:36:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec9.010048.3506@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	As to supporting "diversity and tolerance", there will always
>be limits to that. I draw the line at bigots, of whatever creed.

I guess you define "bigot" as "one who vociferously disagrees with Loren."

After reading your posts for a good while now, I would be happy to have 
you boycott me as well.  You know this freedom thing can get out of hand 
sometimes.

Definition of liberal: one who thinks freedom of speech is a good thing, 
                       as long as you don't disagree with him too much.

Ted


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca (Jay Denebeim P025)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:56:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
> 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.

Yes I can.  How about these for instance:

1) The space program has always paid for itself by the worth of the
   technologies developed for it.  A very few are:
   a) Microelectronics without which we wouldn't even be talking.
   b) Telemetry systems that were the basic building blocks of what is
      now saving thousands of lives in the health care industry.
   c) High tech plastics such as Kevlar (used in bullet proof vests)
   d) All sorts of materials science enabling planes, cars, etc to be
      lighter and more energy efficient.

   Each of these has helped our standard of living and quality/length
   of life arguably more than the cost of the program.

2) The end goal is potentially very good.  A fully developed space
   program would enable several things:
   a) Vastically reduced pollution.
      This would be achieved by moving polluting industries into
      orbit, and producing our energy needs on orbit.
   b) Very cheap power.
   c) Room for expansion of the human race.
   d) Cheap materials. (gold etc)

3) Unless we expand our horizons into space our technological culture
   will almost certainly not last another hundered years.  Before you
   say 'good' remember what effect this would have on people, imagine
   the entire world in the same position as Somalia etc.  Not a pretty
   site.  I doubt there will be much relief comming from non-existant
   'little green men'.

Have a nice day
-- 
Jay Denebeim     Address: UUCP:     duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
                          Internet: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us
                 BBS:(919)-460-7430      VOICE:(919)-460-6934
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
X-Xxdate: Wed, 16 Dec 92 08:42:19 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:45:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.223806.28846@rchland.ibm.com> Jared Dahl,
jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com writes:
>we couldn't go back to the moon right now if we wanted too.
>Most of the plans were destroyed in a fire at Nasa.

I'm sorry, but this is a myth. Although it would be impossible to do so
right now due to lack of infrastructure, the plans were not destroyed in
a fire. The Saturn V facilities were altered for shuttle. The
lack of any heavy lift vehicle is the biggest problem.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:18:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.223806.28846@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.231008.14184@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>|> And remember how it was JFK and Johnson that promoted the space program
>>|> during the 60's that ultimately got the US to the moon.  Now, hopefully
>>
>
>HAHAHAHAHA!  Turn of the century?   Get real.  We don't 
>>even have the space station up yet and every plan for a
>>manned mission to Mars includes construction of the ship
>
>	       [stuff omitted]
>
> 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
>
>		Judy

Today, NASA supplies real-time images to Brazil authorities of where
illegal farmers burning down the Amazon.  Brazil dispatches "officers"
(just authorized bureacrats) who shutdown the cutting and slashing.  Of
course this real-time collection and analysis systems were orignally used
by the military 20 years ago, but then nothing the military did helps the
planet 8-).  

Similar efforts are now taking place in Guatamala to help authorities there 
protect a forest preserve.  NASA has used remote-sensing techniques that
they developed for planetary probes on the Earth, such as false-image
infra-red photography.  In Guatamala they are they can calculate the amount
of incursion and destruction by Mexican farmers.  They've helped
archeologist located hidden Mayan cities in the jungle and determine how
such huge populations were supported on such poor land.  Something which
would be of direct usefullness to the peasant farmers of the tropical
region.

If you'd like to know more about NASA, I'd suggest going down to your local
library and READ.

----
"Man is an explorer, forever moving outwards, or dieing inwards."

Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:31:55 GMT

In article <BzC0E9.B52@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
writes:
>In article <71739@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>>Why not just admit it's 2-4 percent, and get on with it?
>
>I say it's broccoli, and I say the hell with it.
>
>In other words: if there are only twelve of us, our points would be no less
>valid.  Instead of anyone admitting anyone else's percentage is right, why
>not just admit it's irrelevant?

I have heard homosexuals using the 10% figure as a means of legitimization. 
If they don't need a percentage to be legitimate, why do so many groups use
this as a legitimizing factor?  It's not as if they can say, "Our current
membership is 10% and STILL GROWING! (Fill in fanfare of bugles and drums)"
unless Clayton's claims that homosexuals recruit others into the practice
have merit.

And if homosexuality is truly a genetic trait, do we see homosexuality in the
same ratios in the animal kingdom?  If it is a genetic trait, the percentages
of population with each sexual preference should be similar in both humans and
animals.  Anybody have any figures?
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64209 soc.motss:52277
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:01:25 GMT
Followup-To: soc.motss

In article <112@bbx.basis.com>, scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:
> In article <1992Dec10.172718.4708@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >Eh? Oh, you mean you want other people to pay higher and higher taxes
> >so that YOU can cheaper health insurance (or even health insurance at all)
> >despite the fact you indulge in high risk activities and/or prefer to
> >spend you money on other stuff.
> 
> While I hate socialized medicine, I always feel compelled to advise those
> who gripe about paying for other's "high risk indulgences" to simply self
> insure and not pay insurance companies for what other people do.  After all 
> if you really believe you live a charmed life (while others are totally
> irresponsible) then you shouldn't expect to have large medical bills.
> Or do you believe that you have "accidents" while others have "consequences"?

Good answer.

and thats not to mention the skewed persepective about indulging in high
risk activitys.

Should people who eat low fat high fiber diets susidize butter eaters,
and fast food junkys?

how about alcohol and tobacco abuse?

neo-synefrine is addictive!


there are no accidents.

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Bob Novak, Incompetent Pundit
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:59:59 GMT

nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>Hey, Bob--you're a fool!
>                                    ... Finally, on the eve
>of the election, Novak grudgingly predicted during a round-table
>discussion with other pundits that Clinton would
>"eke out" a victory by no more than 30 electoral votes, a number
>that was only 170 votes short of the truth (an error of 700%);
>for comparison, the smallest margin any other pundit predicted
>during this discussion was 150 votes.

He did a lot better than John Sununu and John McGlaughlin, each of
whom right before the election predicted a narrow victory for Bush!?!?
Since Sununu had a job in the Executive Branch, as did McGlaughlin's
wife, this myopia can be attributed to a misguided loyalty.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64143 alt.current-events.somalia:469 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10048 alt.politics.bush:14523 talk.bizarre:41541 alt.politics.british:454 alt.president.clinton:1069