HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:58:46 GMT

In article <BZS.92Nov20195544@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>Don't you think it's a bit trite to say, in effect, that it's not that
>they have too many people, they just can't grow enough food (e.g. due
>to drought) to feed them all? It's a rather subtle distinction.

Not really: I'm making a distinction between how much food is _currently_
being grown, and how much reasonably could be grown. (For example, if
there is a civil war going on, and the farmers can't grow anything as
a result, it's pretty clear the problem isn't overpopulation, despite
the fact that "they just can't grow enough food... to feed them all.")

>Particularly when the drought seems to be caused by a desertification
>trend that may well continue chronically for the next few thousand
>years.

That is certainly a real cause of overpopulation, but only on local scales:
There is no resulting, long-term, global reduction in food production.

>Even poor agricultural technology creates a relative overpopulation
>problem. You can't just wave your hand and say "but for a few billion
>dollars and a decade in agricultural developement there is no
>overpopulation problem". But for a few billion dollars we could buy
>them all a big mac, thick shake and fries, etc.

For a few billion, we could buy them all food, for about a year. A few
billion on agricultural techonolgy would make a permenant change. As
I said, I think "overpopulation" applies only when the area can't
reasonable produce enough food for the population. The countries
that now suffer from famine could all, reasonably, produce enough
food; they simply aren't doing so at the moment.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7261 ca.politics:9701
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Saying something once or 100 times does not make it so
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:51:11 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Nov19.030202.13238@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
    >In article <1992Nov18.222815.26131@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>If you or I do something that other people consider
    >>disgusting or wrong, then it is totally moral for another
    >>person to shun or avoid me or not hire me etc.
    >>
    >According to you. Others disagree.

So others think they have the right to dictate moral decisions for
other people. You agree with this? You answer was slippery -- after
all, I belive that the Holocaust happened, but others disagree. You
have avoided taking a position. Why?

    >>For example, if I was a big-time big-game hunter as a hobby,
    >>would PETA be wrong to not hire me for a computer job?
    >>
    >Yes, IMO.
    >
    >>After all, what harm have I done to them?
    >>
    >Excellent point - none.
    >
    >>Yet, as they would find my hobby most upsetting, it would be
    >>torture for them to be forced to hire me.
    >>
    >Too bad for them. Some of my current hobbies might upset some
    >of my employers as we speak. At my company, we haven't yet
    >been convinced of the ultimate wisdom of letting irrelevant
    >things like this dictate our hiring practices. Your company
    >may be different, I have no idea.

So when it is discovered that you, an otherwise perfect employee,
buys cats at the pound and tortures them to death each night, your
company has no right to decide it no longer wants you as an employee?

    >Clayton loves to repeat unsubstantiated claims over and over
    >regarding gays. You also love to repeat over and over and
    >over again "It is totally moral to discriminate...",
    >apparently in the belief that either we haven't heard that
    >this is your opinion, or in the belief that some of us will
    >just cry "Uncle" at hearing it pronounced as Truth by you so
    >often and accept it.
    >
    >We will not.
    >
    >Get it?

Sure -- after all, if you don't believe that it is totally moral to
discriminate, then you accept that it is O.K. to use coercion on people.
You seem unwilling to examine the consequences of your position.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7203 talk.politics.misc:60578
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Morally Right (Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:16:41 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov13.215545.13729@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
> In article <1689E685.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)                        writes...
# #       For a starving man to take the bread of a rich man without his
# #permission *is* theft, and should be considered so under the law.  If the
# #rich man has refused to give the bread to the starving man then, as far
# #as I'm concerned he is morally in the right and if *I* was on the jurt
# #I wouldn't vote to convict him, regardless of the law.  (But that gets
# #into FIJA.)
# # 
# Legally right? Yes. Morally right? Definantly not. If you look in the
# Bible you will find in Matthew 25:41
# 
# 	"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you
# who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
# For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you
# gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,
# I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and
# you did not look after me."
# 	[I work with a very religious person. This is a quote from Jesus.]
# 
#       I prefer to stay away from any religious discussion, but I never
# discount Jesus just becuase he is religious. I re-thought what I posted
# last night and decided that you can't legislate morality, so therefore
# I withdraw my comment from before. But to withhold help from someone who
# needs it, cannot be morally defended.
# 
# #David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group

Complete agreement.  It can't be morally defended.

By the way, if I quoted from another part of the same book to 
argue that certain other practices can't be morally defended,
and similarly, people should be free to make their own decisions
based on that, you would doubtless call me a "homophobe" and
suggest that the right of free association is somehow "different."
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7202 ca.politics:9614 talk.politics.misc:60577
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:13:05 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <lg826qINNah8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.230416.16881@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# #... The German State tried to protray the Jews as doing such things
# #as murdering children for religious rituals.
# 
# #That would be horrible and disgusting if true. But it of course was not true.
# 
# #Homosexuals have sex with people of the same sex. Many people find that
# #disgusting and revolting. But, what homosexuals do IS TRUE.
# 
# Sushi-eaters eat RAW FISH.  Many people find that disgusting and
# revolting.  But, what sushi-eaters do IS TRUE.
# 
# I often find that it helps to keep a sense of proportion about what is
# "disgusting".  As a rule, I prefer my fish cooked, but some of my best
# friends are sushi-eaters.  Perhaps I am just exceptionally tolerant.
# 
# David Chase
# Sun

Eating raw fish disgusts me also.  It also makes a little concerned
about the health aspects.  But so what, it's their life.

If someone wanted to come into the schools and encourage the 
practice, or worse, traumatize the kids in a way that seemed 
likely to encourage the practice, I would be pretty upset.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Election '92
Date: 21 Nov 92 02:06:00 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <13218@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Why should you care about their race?  Or is this just your typical
>liberal attempt at promoting race hatred?  (By the way, how many
>black people ARE there in Grass Valley?  Last time I was there, it
>seemed like a limousine liberal's dream -- ethnically homogenous.)
 
Oh please Clamer, give the liberal thing a rest will ya? Jeeez.

In case you hadn't noticed, white males decide most of what happens in
this country. Been that way for a long time. And the older they get,
the more powerful they get. No studies needed here, just buckets and
buckets of empirical evidence. Now, does this sound like an equitable
way to run a society? I submit that it is not.

I happen to be a white guy, and pretty soon I'll be an old white guy. But hey,
maybe I don't HAVE to act like these dinosaurs who are stuck with the status
quo, and using their power to destroy the Grass Valley environs just to get
rich. Maybe I can be a white guy who doesn't want only white guys in
power.

You're right, Nevada County is the whitest in California. Some of us up 
here are aiming to change that. The first step is sending a message of
tolerance and openess to all comers. Except, of course, to intolerant
white guys, of which, unfortunately, this county draws a bumper crop.

								MPA
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Election '92
Date: 22 Nov 92 05:47:25 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.

In article <1992Nov21.175424.1707@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

	[ examples of some black leaders deleted ]

>Yep, sure, right, us white males, we own and control everything.

Such sarcasm cuts us to the quick.  "Everything"?  Is that what Michael
was saying?  Hmmm, let's go back and take a peek:

>In article <5630@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
>    >In case you hadn't noticed, white males decide most of what
>    >happens in this country.                       ^^^^

Now, "most" didn't used to mean "all", but I haven't updated my
dictionary in the past few years, so it's highly possible they went
and changed the definition right out from under me and it now means
"all" , as Phil alludes to.  Dang, I'm always the last one to hear about 
these things...

jb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Republicans are demanding a recount.  They can't believe they
got *that* many votes..."   -- Jay Leno
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7309 ca.politics:9778
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The usual
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:02:36 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1ejobqINNjc0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >Are people so narrow minded and ignorant and selfish that we
    >must inact legislation in order to protect people from the
    >actions of others. It appears that the answer is yes.

And there you have it. Being narrow minded, ignorant, and selfish
are NOT illegal. Indeed, they are subjective judgements (gee, what do you
mean, you don't like my work of art depicting a man urinating into a
representation of you most hold deity! narrow minded bigot ...).

But some facists just have to have coercive laws aimed at things they don't
like.

And then they wonder why they in turn are hit with laws against their
favorite whatevers.

    >It is one thing to dislike a piece of clothing or the color
    >of a dish, but to dislike (and vehemently) something which is
    >part of a persons physical, mental, or emotional states is
    >bordering on bigotry. And I am not talking about disliking
    >someone becuase they are murders, crazy, etc. etc.
    >
    >I am talking about disliking someone becuase they are fat,
    >maybe ugly to you, the color of their skin, the color of
    >their hair, etc. etc.
    >
    >Disliking someone because they are gay, is irrational...

So you believe that disliking something that is part of "a persons physical,
mental, or emotional states" is bordering on bigotry?

Well, you don't seem to like me because of my mental and emotional
states, you little bigot you.

Or do you really like me but have been just too shy? In that case,
since you like me, can I borrow $1,000?

You couldn't construct a coherent logical position if your life depended
on it.

So we can't like/dislike somebody for their appearance, physical, mental,
or emotional states.

WHAT'S LEFT? Their aura's?




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:38:57 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <102837@bu.edu>, by kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star):
> In article <13314@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.  Tolerance
>>means that you are prepared to live and let live.  Homosexuals 
>>already have that in California; the laws are written to allow
>>them to do as they please in private, to make asses of themselves
>>in public, etc. -- all the rights of a straight person.

> Except marriage; taxation and insurance equity; adoption procedures w/o
> regard to sexual orientation; default inheritance rules; ...

Good point.  You left out military service.

Anyway, these are all examples of legislated discrimination.

Funny how most people will tolerate discrimination
when it's the other guy getting the shaft...
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7193 ne.politics:3030 ca.politics:9609 talk.politics.misc:60568
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ne.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:33:31 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Nov17.160219.7791@m5.harvard.edu>
borden@m5.harvard.edu (David Borden) writes:

>We don't have an overpopulation problem yet.  We could have one someday, in
>fact we will if things don't get under control

(Hi Dave!)

This reminds me of an alarmist yet totally physically reasonable argument
for controlling the human population:

Remember that the supply of water on the Earth is by and large fixed, and
that our bodies are composed largely of water.

If you calculate the total mass of water on earth, and you extrapolate the
current population growth (2-3% per annum) you arrive at a distinctly
STARTLING conclusion:

If we continue breeding at the same rate, in about 500 years all of the
earth's ocean water will be contained in human bodies.

Brian
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7331 ca.politics:9803 talk.politics.misc:61310
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:03:30 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13314@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.  Tolerance
>means that you are prepared to live and let live.  Homosexuals 
>already have that in California; the laws are written to allow
>them to do as they please in private, to make asses of themselves
>in public, etc. -- all the rights of a straight person.

Except marriage; taxation and insurance equity; adoption procedures w/o
regard to sexual orientation; default inheritance rules; ...

>There is a difference.

Apparently.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: The World
	<1992Nov20.211820.6977@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1992Nov20.222910.12581@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:55:44 GMT


From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
>Starvation in Africa is the result of civil war, poor agricultural
>technology and drought. I don't think population is a major problem.

Don't you think it's a bit trite to say, in effect, that it's not that
they have too many people, they just can't grow enough food (e.g. due
to drought) to feed them all? It's a rather subtle distinction.

Particularly when the drought seems to be caused by a desertification
trend that may well continue chronically for the next few thousand
years.

How will you know when an area has an overpopulation problem, other
than when the conditions that exist, and are likely to exist for a
long time to come, cannot support the number of people living there?
I'll agree that sometimes conditions are such that it is only a
short-term disaster and perhaps we can usefully separate out the
problems until something else changes.

Even poor agricultural technology creates a relative overpopulation
problem. You can't just wave your hand and say "but for a few billion
dollars and a decade in agricultural developement there is no
overpopulation problem". But for a few billion dollars we could buy
them all a big mac, thick shake and fries, etc.

Unless you only allow for an overpopulation problem when you cannot
think of any solution, no matter how hypothetical or unlikely to
happen, you have to admit that these two go hand in hand and are
really the same thing.

Civil war aside, and in many of these cases that is only a mitigating
factor adding to the other factors (and in some cases likely the
result of such deprivation) it's all relative, either you have too
many people or too little food, there's little doubt that fixing one
problem helps the other.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7218 ca.politics:9627 talk.politics.misc:60630
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:13:48 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <13190@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

[by analogy with homosexuality]

>Eating raw fish disgusts me also.  It also makes a little concerned
>about the health aspects.  But so what, it's their life.

>If someone wanted to come into the schools and encourage the 
>practice, or worse, traumatize the kids in a way that seemed 
>likely to encourage the practice, I would be pretty upset.

Then you need not be upset, since your own numbers demonstrate that
gays (gay men, to be specific) don't traumatize children any more
than the norm.  In general, a gay man is less likely to be a child
molestor than a heterosexual man.  I wish you'd quit hinting at that
which your own numbers show to be false.

As to "encourage", if a kid knows (s)he is gay, I see nothing wrong
with a teacher providing an example (existence proof, if you will)
that gay people need not be terribly different from anyone else.

David Chase
Sun
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The usual
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:22:29 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Nov18.222249.25549@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <102357@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>Dislike which is irrational and rarely open to
>>self-inspection, to be precise.

>Oh? And then just why is homosexuality rational? It is certainly anti-survival.

No, no, I'm not claiming that ANY sexuality is rational. Merely that
inherent dislike of an alternate sexuality is irrational.

And there ARE advantages to homosexuality, as long as reproduction still
occurs (think of the future when all pregnancies might be brought to
fruition completely outside the womb).

>>Ask yourself how many homosexual individuals who find the
>>concept of heterosexuality disgusting.

>For the most part, people that indulge in practices that most other people
>find disgusting don't find the majority disgusting.

Exactly. Morality can't seem to escape normality, at least in the eyes of
the majority.

Brian
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Incredibly stupid left-wing BS
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:12:19 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1ejubeINNl73@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >If you had been listening lately a panel of scientist have
    >come out and said that we need to look at population as a
    >serious problem and a threat to our well being.

Uh, which set of authority figures was that? The same group that said in
1965 we'd have worldwide starvation by now? The ones that said AIDS was
not a health threat in 1984? Perhaps the ones that said traveling to the
moon was impossible? Or that the world would only need a dozen or
so computers?

    >Private property has been one of the main foundational
    >structures for war in this world. The have nots will always
    >being trying to get what the haves have. This is a long and
    >ingrained process that has been going on for 1000's of years.

Wow -- and I thought Lenin was dead!! Silly me. Why, private property
also causes theft. After all, no private property, no theft! And flies
cause garbage too! Main foundational structure for garbage I believe ...


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7197 talk.politics.misc:60571 alt.politics.elections:24031 co.politics:2143 alt.politics.clinton:17350 alt.politics.democrats.d:611
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:47:27 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.030928.29734@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> Frank Crary,
>fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU writes:
>>I think you mean 85%...

>Sorry....us physicists don't add, subtract, multiply, or divide....
>we differentiate and integrate.  :-)

Sounds like you have something in common with the poor and
most social workers. ::-))
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7296 ca.politics:9761 talk.politics.misc:61134