HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Sex Discrimination in the Death Penalty?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:50:07 GMT

re: burning bed

In article <1992Jul22.104724.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
)You're worried about playing FAIR all of a sudden?  Murder is still
)murder no matter how it's done.

Self defense isn't murder.  However, killing someone in their sleep is
*obviously* not self defense.

) I don't see how placing one's self in
)a more dangerous position (making sure he's awake) makes justifiable
)homicide more or less justifiable.

In many states, there are the rulings that indicate that people who have shot
an intruder in their house are guilty of manslaughter if they didn't have
reason to believe they were in imminent danger.  I think this is carrying
it perhaps a bit too far, though I *do* think shooting a fleeing burglar in
the back, for example, should not be legal. However, it seems really, really,
really  obvious to me that there is no legitimate question of self defense
involved in killing someone while they are asleep.  Sleeping (or even snoring
loudly) is not immediately life-threatening to persons in the immediate
vicinity.

It's really rather scary that burglars seem to have more legal rights to not
be shot than husbands, apparently.

)One does what one has to do to 
)stay alive.  Anyway, women have been killing men while they sleep
)throughout the ages.  To decide whether they were moral in doing it,
)one has to look at the reasoning behind the act, not the method,
)unless the method was deliberately cruel.  === Al Sparks

Ethically or morally a person may or may not be justified in killing someone
in their sleep.  If they get caught, though, they should expect to do time -
at least in any society that believes in a rule by law (IMO).  For instance,
assasinating Hitler might be considered by some to be a moral act, but it
certainly shouldn't be legal.  [This thread has gone on too long
without a mention of the Nazis! :-)].
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 06:03:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.052034.19261@colorado.edu> fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>In article <7mFRoB1w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
>>
>>I'm not sure of other locations, but here in Washington, paternity tests
>>which were made after the 'dad' had begun his support, demonstrated that
>>the putative father wasn't actually the dad.
>>
>>It is a wise thing to demand paternity testing. 
>>
> Yes indeed. I hazily recall a famous case in florida where it was determined
> that the man wasn't the father after child-support had been ordered. Upon
> trying to get this reversed, the judge essentially told him, tough luck,
> the judgement has been made and you're going to pay.
>
> I think this demonstrates just how dangerous this 'doing things for the
> welfare of the child' can get. It incourages courts to stick the bill
> for raising the child on anybody they can get.
>
>-kelvin
>

 Oops, I forgot to mention a couple of important details which makes this
 case even *more* grossly unfair. The two were married at the time with
 kids of their own. The father, I believe, had just been was stationed
 overseas with the military when the mother became pregnant while having
 an affair with some other guy. Her husband natually assumed that she
 had gotten pregnant just before he left and that the child was his,
 and only found out differently during or shortly after a divorce.
 Makes no difference says the judge. You accepted responsibility for the
 child as if he was your own. Tough luck.

 Does this mean that married men should insist on DNA testing before
 accepting responsibility for children born to their wives?

-kelvin

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:10:23

I regret that this article must be a flame.

jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>   No man should be dehumanized by the removal
>   of his "Right To Not Support".  Be that 
>   financial support to minor children anything
>   else.  Slavery should be outlawed!

Slavery is outlawed.  Child support is not, in and of itself, slavery.

There is no "right not to support".  What we have in the United States
amounts to an inconsistent and incomplete "right to be left alone".
We all have the right to keep our zippers zipped.  If we don't, there
are consequences.  The right of the child to be supported supercedes
any choice you might like to make -- because you had a choice, and the
child did not.

>     Social Security provides for people who
>   are over 65 -- it should further provide for 
>   the minor children.

You broke it, you bought it.  There is no reason why you, as a presumed
payer of social security, should be required to support any children not
your own.  Likewise anyone else paying into social security.

>     This forced relationship between a man and 
>   a child will only be a source of abuse -- 
>   like babies in garbage cans.

Both parents had a choice.  Sexual intercourse has well-understood risks.
The child, as I said above, had no choice.  I respect and would fight
for your right to be left alone -- your zipped is your personal property
in your personal space and noone but you should be allowed to unzip it.
But once you have done that you have taken responsibility for any kids
born as a result, and I will fight even harder for their right to be
supported than for your right to have been left alone -- had you chosen
that.

>     Every human should have the choice of who
>   he will or will not support!!

No.  Every human has a choice of who he will or will not *create*.
Deception and error are irrelevant to this.  You helped make a child,
you can bloody well help support it.  You had your chance to make a
different choice.  Now stop whining and get your shoulder to the wheel.

Uncheerfully,

--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
From: cherkaue@ee.rochester.edu (Brian Cherkauer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: topless?
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:29:15 GMT
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science

In article <1992Jul23.023038.13965@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes...
>KB> Sorry boys, you'll have to learn to live with a woody, this woman is taking

>I take it, then, that you do NOT object to men calling women "girls"?

The objection to the term "girls" is that it is demeaning.  Karen used
the term "boys" in an intentionally demeaning manner.  I would assume
that she would have no objection to using the term "girl" to
connote lack of maturity in a female, but rather objects to the
use of the word "girl" as a substitute for "woman," as it may interpreted 
as an insult to the object of the reference.  

If you mean to be insulting, by all means use insulting words.
If you do not mean to be insulting, then do not use insulting words.
This is merely the nature of communication.  It has very little to
do with "feminism."

-Brian
   cherkaue@ee.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: samurai@uriel.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Subject: Re: Garvin Hallucina (2)
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:58:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.020328.1621@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will  
Steeves) writes:
> Mathemagician writes...
> MA> Bully for you.  I was raped by a woman and sexually assaulted by
> 
> I know that this isn't strictly my business, but I am going to blatantly
> admit my ignorance as to how a man can be raped.  I am *not* saying that

Rape does not constitute penis-in-vagina forced sex.

Men can rape men. Women can rape men.

- db

--
-------
I always thought that NeXTStep was very good in its approach to color since
the tasteless are protected from their own stupidity. -- Jason Breckenridge
(I know Jason, Jason is a close personal friend of mine, and I am not Jason!)
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:35:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul23.045823.14145@unixg.ubc.ca>, schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:

> What do y'all think of this proposal?  Is it a long-needed stroke for
> women's economic justice?  Or is it another example of the New Women's
> Liberation, by which women are liberated from the economic consequences
> of their choices (with the gallant aid of the nearest male wallet)?

It makes me wonder why any man in his right mind would get married.

Terry
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Hate speech okay, Supreme Court says
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul16.232508.9821@fid.morgan.com>
	<1992Jul17.152504.14930@Princeton.EDU>
	<BrppGo.66s@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:21:47 GMT

<In article <1992Jul17.152504.14930@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
<>In article <1992Jul16.232508.9821@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
<>You're quite welcome.  I think I understand what the problem is: by
<>"free speech", I mean that there are no content-based restrictions on
<>speech.  You mean that anyone can say anything at any place and any
<>time.
<
<This is just the SC's garbage little scholasticism.  The restriction on
<shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is content-based.  Gulf war
<restrictions on journalism were content-based.

	Once again, Nilges displays his howling ignorance of the
	concept of "prior restraint". It is NOT illegal to shout
	"fire" in a crowded theater, however if there is no fire
	and the act of shouting causes injuries and/or damages,
	the shouter may be held liable for the act. 

	Nilges argues in favor, metaphorically speaking, of 
	slapping duct tape over the mouths of theater-goers who
	*might* shout "fire".

	One cannot help but wonder just how loudly Nilges would
	squeal if his "anti-fascist" dream law were applied
	to *his* speech/writings/etc.

<And if you broaden
<speech to include Fascist performance art like cross-burning, you also
<break down the distinction between form and content, for in a cross
<burning the medium is the message.  Otherwise, the klan could get the
<same message across using desk top publishing, but nooooo...., they (and
<shitass little Viktora) must be able to "say" what they want to say
<by means of acts.

	Nonsense; the act of crossburning on someone else's
	property is still quite illegal in several different ways
	including but not limited to "criminal trespass".

	Perhaps Nilges could show exactly how the S.C. decision
	voids *any* of those laws?
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.discrimination,soc.women,misc.legal
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Sex Discrimination in the Death Penalty?
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:48:24 GMT


A recent (about a year ago) ACLU article on the death penalty mentioned
that men were about 7 times more likely to be executed compared to
women, for similar crimes.  Similar comparisons by race were somewhat
lower, something like 4 times more likely for non-whites vs. whites.

This was part of an article explaining why the ACLU is against the
death penalty, partly because it is the least consistently imposed
sentence.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Xref: sparky soc.men:13573 alt.folklore.urban:19465
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:17:40 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

>Yes, there is no relationship. Please read the FAQ. The subject has been
>thrashed many times. We are still waiting for more info from our most hopeful
>lead in England - HRS4. Unfortunately, he has been silent on the subject for
>months now.

Geeze, you suppose he's been SNUFFed OUT!?!?!

Terry "I need some Alkaseltzer" Wood
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Garvin Hallucina (2)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:31:23 GMT

In article <zrpm4c-@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

)
)So no, I haven't had a woman sodomise me nor have I been tied up and
)been threatened with castration if I don't perform.  Such things do
)not encompass the entireity of "sexual contact without the consent of
)one of the parties" which is, in my definition, rape.

Actually, I don't agree with this definition.  I think there is a need
for a different term than 'rape'  to describe unwanted intercourse that
didn't involve force, threats, or taking advantage of someone who was
incapacitated, which is more or less the legal definiton of the term.
Unfortunately, I don't have any specific suggestions.

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: louis@Tandem.com (Louis Meadows)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: Tandem Computers
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:40:24 GMT

In article <nancyo.712373787@sfu.ca>, nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
|> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
|> 
|> >       Prehistorically -- kids were NOT supported by
|> >    the genetic father -- no one even knew who he was
|> >    -- the community supported them.
|> 
|> These communities you refer to would have been heavily composed
|> of a child's mother's relatives, and it would have thus been
|> more advantageous for the maternal relatives to ensure the
|> survival of the child than for a man who might or might not
|> have been the father to.
|> 
|> We live in a society where DNA testing should eliminate this
                              ^^^^

Nancy,

  Thats a wonderfull thought, But as far as I know it's still very very hard to get DNA tests done.   We are still in the dark ages of BLOOD tests that are unable to prove who the father is.   I think at best the blood test proves there is 95 percent chance that you are the father.  They CAN prove you are not the father in some cases, however you need the mother to consent to a blood test.  


  Louis, father of ??? (two or more I hope).

  Email: Meadows_louis@tandem.com

  Vmail: (408) 285-4269





|> uncertain paternity, and it would thus be (if he is able)
|> in the father's best interest to support his child.
|> 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: FERMILAB
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:50:23 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Jul25.224748.24971@u.washington.edu>, 
jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
> No man should be dehumanized by the removal of his "Right To Not Support".  
> Be that financial support to minor children anything else.  

From whence do you derive this 'right to not support'.  Do you feel you have a
right to not pay taxes?

>   Social Security provides for people who are over 65 -- it should further 
provide for the minor children.

SS is paid into by the people it pays out to.  Shall children work to pay into
SS?

>   This forced relationship between a man and 
> a child will only be a source of abuse -- 
> like babies in garbage cans.

Unless the man chooses to accept the responsibility inplicit in bringing a
child into the world.

>   Every human should have the choice of who
> he will or will not support!!

Child abandonment remains a crime.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13782 soc.women:14191 misc.legal:14982 alt.child-support:2257 alt.dads-rights:1607 alt.abortion.inequity:2698
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:11:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: hemlock.1992Jul21.121146.20096

In article <1992Jul20.065625.2628@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Risk of pregnancy I can deal with. Risk of being taken for a ride on 18+
>years of child support without any say in the matter is unconscionable.
>
Hmmm.  That's funny.  Which of these things is more 
likely to affect someone named 'Kevin'?

muriel
standard discalimer
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:10:43 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul27.175023.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov  
(Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
+ In article <1992Jul25.224748.24971@u.washington.edu>, 
+ jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:

+ >   Every human should have the choice of who
+ > he will or will not support!!
+ 
+ Child abandonment remains a crime.

In which case the woman should be told ahead of time that she'll be
going it alone.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:45:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.231823.29183@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
)One of the moderators soc.feminism told me that they had very few complaints
)about the way that group is moderated.  I found that surprising.

They must not be counting people (like me) who left the group due to
problems with the moderation, I suppose.

Actually, one of the moderators that I personally find more trustworthy was
complaining not too long ago about some of the abuse she recieved when she
rejected postings, so I'm not entirely sure that they really 'don't get
complaints'.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 12:37:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.233429.11235@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>ken bell writes
>> [kids] are dependent, 
>> and as such have a right to depend on their parents 
>                                              ^^^^^^^
>                                              WRONG!
>    Kids have a right to be supported -- but from their
>    community -- NOT from their "genetic link".
>       Individuals should have the right to NOT support
>    any kid -- but the community has already decided
>    that they want to support all kids.  Besides all
>    kids SHOULD be supported by something that wants
>    to support him -- otherwise he'll be abused.

	I have to agree with the point here.


Case 1:	I am "obligated" to pay child support per my divorce/first
	marriage.

Case 2: I am remarried.  We have one daughter and another child on
	the way (That's right folks. The operation worked).  Now
	theoretically I am obliged to care for my kid(s) by at
	least not abusing them (which is simply to leave them alone)
	and provide minimal substistance as far as food.

	If I am negligent in these duties, DSS or someone will get
	called.  They will come, take my kid(s) away, and take
	care of them.  *I* will not be required to pay for this
	service or pay "child support".


	Quite a difference.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:40:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.121146.20096@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.065625.2628@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Risk of pregnancy I can deal with. Risk of being taken for a ride on 18+
>>years of child support without any say in the matter is unconscionable.
>>
>Hmmm.  That's funny.  Which of these things is more 
>likely to affect someone named 'Kevin'?

Sorry, sloppy wording. As context indicates, I was discussing the economic 
CONSEQUENCES of pregnancy versus the economic CONSEQUENCES of involuntary
parenthood. I should have made myself clearer.

								- Kevin
From: me@isnext9.msu.edu (My Account)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:27:32 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <1992Jul23.071620.9912@fulcrum.oz.au> steve@fulcrum.oz.au  
(Steve Taylor) writes:
> In <62588@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
> 
> >I've heard
> >that there is a group of bored rich people who like to make urban  
legends
> >come true.
> 
> Damn. My irony detector's gone out of whack again. Is this a good self
> referential joke orjust the silliest posting I've read all week?
> 
> 
> 							Steve
Yes
=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"All tools and engines on Earth are only extensions of man's limbs and  
senses."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: 2/3 of shoplifters ar
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:01:07 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Jul25.191233.25220@zooid.guild.org>, goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
|> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes...
|>>And anyway, shoplifting a pack of Pampers(tm) is much more morally defensibl
|>>than shoplifting a semi-automatic weapon so you can take over the neighborho
|>>drug trade.
|> 
|> That is QUITE stereotypical, Duane.

And quite a bit funnier than your reply. So, what's your point?

"Come on man, spit it out!" - Ren Hoek

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Xref: sparky soc.men:13963 soc.women:14398 alt.child-support:2330 alt.dads-rights:1684 alt.abortion.inequity:2782