HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Quantum Elvis Fluctuations (WAS Re: Is this wrong, or what?)
Date: 29 Jan 93 02:24:50 GMT
Reply-To: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> If you had a son, and had only two choices -- A. He grows up and
|> lives a life
|> essentially the same as Elvis. or B. He grows up and lives a life
|> essentially the same as Feynman -- which would you choose?

I would not choose.  That choice would be my son's.

|> I think there is no argument ....

Then I hope your son survives your coercive meddling in his affairs.

				...jim
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8273 ca.politics:10635 talk.politics.misc:69275
From: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:57:45 GMT
Reply-To: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> In Georgia, they have anti-sodomy laws. Which is a way of saying "We, the
|> State, are going to tell you two (or N) consenting adults what you can or
|> can not do".

If both adults agree to the act of sodomy, then they are consenting.

|> In California, they try to have AB-101 laws, Which is a way of saying "We,
|> the State, are going to tell you two (or N) consenting adults what you can
|> or can not do".

Where did the homosexual agree to be discriminated against because of
his sexual orientation?

|> The two states, and those two laws, are the two sides of the same
|> damn coin.

Only if the nature of what you call consent is the same in both cases.

|> Which is why it is refreshing to see the Colorado voters start to put
|> a stop to this nonsense of "victimology".

The Colorado law prevents Colorado voters from passing a particular kind
of law.  That sounds like coercion.  If they don't want the law, then why
don't they just not vote for it?

The Colorado law also prohibits laws that prevent discrimination against
homosexuals, but it does not prohibit laws that prevent discrimination
against heterosexuals.  Weren't you just complaining about asymmetrical
legislation in the hate crimes legislation discussion?

				...jim
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8363 ca.politics:10712 talk.politics.misc:70255
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups... (Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:24:11 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
>> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
>>>Now, either BOTH cases are valid, or BOTH case are invalid.
>>>
>>No, I don't think so, though I can see how you might reach
>>that conclusion. One is an attempt to restrict the person,
>>while the other is an attempt to restrict the person's use of
>>property. 

>>One can not say that a person and that person's
>>property are the same thing and claim that as a truism. It
>>can be a basis of a philosophy, and if accepted, your point
>>holds; but don't expect everyone to share your philosophy.
>
>Whether or not "everyone holds XYZ" is meaningless here. ...
>You have made an assertion with NO rationale.

I made no assertion; I simply pointed out one of the assumptions that
leads to your two valued choice and mentioned that your point does
not hold if your assumptions are not taken as a given.  I have not
said whether the assumptions were fact or not; I leave that to you
to proclaim.

Mark Runyan
From: steven@netcom.com (Steven Nelson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: SJPD Checkpoints for Seatbelts
Date: 29 Jan 93 04:50:41 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)


The San Jose Mercury News of January 28, 1993 reported the San Jose Police set
up two checkpoints in East San Jose to enforce the seat belt law.  A quote
from the article:

            "In what they called a "saturation enforcement," traffic
	     officers issued 200 to 300 tickets in four hours on Story
	     Road between Capital Expressway and White Road.  They 
	     estimated that 90 percent were for seat belt infractions."

I would encourage all those living in San Jose that feel this is a gross
violation of civil rights to call their council representative.  The
number is (408) 277-4241.  Just remember, a few dozen phone calls on the
same subject to the sleepy city hall of San Jose will look like a major
wave of discontent in the city.

steven@netcom.com
		      
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Stephen finally agrees that Clayton is right!
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:23:39 GMT

In article <1k6okeINN4jj@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
    >>Or hey, how about the way Congress spends money. The majority
    >>must approve that too because it's happening.
    >>
    >Yes, the majority does agree, by default. If you make no
    >effort to change something, or ignore other's trying to make
    >a change, then by default you accept those changes.

So when the pro-NAMBLA-ites post in soc.motts, and there is no outcry, then
the majority of posters must accept the NAMBLA position.

    >But, if you as a citizen benefit from a system that you do
    >not put effort into, then tough luck if something comes along
    >that you don't like. If the majority sit on their hands- then
    >they have no basis of complaint.

So then if the Mafia provides benefit (lower crime rates in a Mafia controlled
area -- no one holds up YOUR liquor store if you're paying protection money
to the mob), then you have no basis for complaint.

So, let's force all homosexuals to stop having sex. They will clearly benefit
from this is terms of health, so they have no basis of complaint.

And of course, you approve of the War On Drugs -- reducing access to drugs
DOES promote the health and welfare of people. So you can't complain about
that either.


Do you EVER think about your absurd positions and the implications thereof???




-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Quantum Elvis Fluctuations (WAS Re: Is this wrong, or what?)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:37:28 GMT

In article <108496@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <1993Jan18.024557.10913@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>What Elvis did [use drugs], for example, is moral. But not
    >>acceptable. I certainly think it sends an unwise message to
    >>put a semiilliterate drug addict on a stamp -- something I
    >>think should be reserved for (when the subject is people)
    >>people who are heroes.
    >>
    >>For example, how about Richard P. Feynman?
    >>
    >Silly Phil. He actually thinks the American population has
    >the foggiest notion of who Feynmann was or what physics is
    >all about, let alone quantum electrodynamics.

You are again, wrong. I don't think anybody (in the general population) knows
about Richard. I would expect you to, but few others.

However, you again missed the point. I believe that a stamp should have ONLY
the portraits of people that are or should be considered heros and worthy
of emulation and standard setting.

Feyman qualifies.

Elvis doesn't.

If you had a son, and had only two choices -- A. He grows up and lives a life
essentially the same as Elvis. or B. He grows up and lives a life
essentially the same as Feynman -- which would you choose?

I think there is no argument ....



-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8310 ca.politics:10668 talk.politics.misc:69894
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:57:20 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <1993Jan21.174013.24519@eos.arc.nasa.gov> kburgess@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Ken Burgess  RCS) writes:
>Where can I hear Rush Limbaugh on local radio or TV.
>
>Thanks

Well, if you really NEED to listen to this idiot, you can hear him on
KNBR (680 AM), weekday mornings from 9 or 10 until noon.  He's the strongest
argument for the urban myth of allowing the media to be controlled by the
left.

And no, I don't think that's correct, but given that there are conservatives
who can espouse their views in an informative, fact-based manner, it's a 
shame that the right's most prominent media spokesperson is extremely
reactionary.  Kinda makes me realize what life would be like living under
an Ayatollah Khomenei-type.

As for TV, I don't know.  There's a rumor that he'll be on TV as soon as
wide aspect televisions become available.  He's constructed in a way that
demands at least a 16:9 aspect ratio, so we can revel in the wide panoramas
that his girth presents to the world (i.e., he's extremely fat).

George Lambert
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8302 ca.politics:10659 talk.politics.misc:69791
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:38:46 GMT

In article <1k1dc2INN8tn@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>in general, always need a place to live.  So when I hear the cries and
>moans of the property owner, I do not feel to badly for them... 

Ah yes, let them eat cake.

Well, we'll have socialists/communists/fascists around for all time
because of this horrid arrogant kind of attitudes.




-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:14:36 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1k4ueaINNooa@morrow.stanford.edu> XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <1k3ubqINN1ri@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
>stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>>There is no moral basis for anything if you wish, to play moral relativity.
>>My position is such that, an individual and a group weigh what is best
>>for all concerned.  What is best can be very fundamental- best wages to
>>live on, health coverage, treating all customers with respect, etc.
>
>But what allows you to compell me to be a member of your "group".

Number one, you live and function ( I assume ) within the social and
political structure of the US.  That for one, makes it someone compelling
to become and belong to the social/political contracts that we based the
operation of our society on.  You of course, are quite free to make change
via democratic processes.

>If I voluntarily join an association which requires that I abide by
>the majority rule of the membership and that groups passes some rule
>to which I object I can at any time relinquish my membership and
>stop receiving member benefits.  If that organization happens to be

That is quite true.  But in the larger sense of the organisation, ie.
government etc. you are bound somewhat more tightly.  And within this
organisation, there are processes in place that protect minorities from
the tyranny of majorities.

>But you can not scratch my back and then demand that I scratch yours
>unless I agreed to do so before you started scratching.  If you as
>an individual have no right to compel me to scratch your back
>without my consent you can not cede this non-existent right to a
>government which you elect to represent you.
>


I am at somewhat of a loss to what it is your are trying to convey. In 
no way do I propose that you must do something without getting benefit
or giving up some purported right.  But you have to agree that we always
compromise in some form.  We agree to give up certain things for the
good of whole.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8386 ca.politics:10730 talk.politics.misc:70465
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:29:14 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1k46gaINNfpq@copland.crhc.uiuc.edu>, by pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan):

> Clayton, no matter how many times you repeat this tired, unworkable
> analogy, antidiscrimination laws and rape are not the same thing.

Perhaps not, though it shouldn't take a genius to understand
why somebody who has been victimized by such laws might feel
as if he/she had been raped.  Role reversal between oppresor
and opressee does not make the oppresion go away.
-- 
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:8387 ca.politics:10731 talk.politics.misc:70466
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:13:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1k46gaINNfpq@copland.crhc.uiuc.edu>, pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Why should a woman have the right to refuse to have sex with any man
# #who approaches her?  Where did he agree to be discriminated against?  
# #In that case, it's rape.  AB 2601 is analogous.  She CAN refuse to
# #have sex -- but only if she decides to be celibate, and have sex
# #with no one.
# 
# Clayton, no matter how many times you repeat this tired, unworkable
# analogy, antidiscrimination laws and rape are not the same thing.
# 
# Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.

Sure they are.  You are insisting that a person has no right to 
decide who they associate with.  A rapist insists that a victim
has no right to say no.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stephen finally agrees that Clayton is right!
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:30:33 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan28.002339.17030@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>So then if the Mafia provides benefit (lower crime rates in a Mafia controlled
>area -- no one holds up YOUR liquor store if you're paying protection money
>to the mob), then you have no basis for complaint.

But this is not the same-  you are doing something, you are paying the
mob- now you can zoom along and make your statement- ah but I am paying
the USA govt mob.... well like I have said before, if you cannot get a 
majority of people to believe you, and stop this, then it will go on.
You are trapped.

>
>So, let's force all homosexuals to stop having sex. They will clearly benefit
>from this is terms of health, so they have no basis of complaint.

You can certainly try and do this.  You will of course have a large battle
on your hands- why?  well I guess gays just mobilize better than most
people, and they can even mobilize lots of support from non-gays.

>
>And of course, you approve of the War On Drugs -- reducing access to drugs
>DOES promote the health and welfare of people. So you can't complain about
>that either.

I do not support it mentally, but I have made no effort to put my
energies towards changing it or promoting it.	
>
>
>Do you EVER think about your absurd positions and the implications thereof???
>
>
Have you ever thought beyond the limited scope of your own reasonings.

Let's face the one glaring reality.  Lots of people on the net complain about
this and that, about being coerced, etc. etc. etc.  They sound like
spoiled childern who can't get their way.  If you want to change it, then
make the effort, get the support, etc.  I cannot stop a majority of people
from passing laws against anything.  But I can make the effort to change them
or stop them in the first place.

And WHAT WE REALLY HOPE FOR IS THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE RATIONAL AND REASONABLE
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8311 ca.politics:10669 talk.politics.misc:69895
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:12:59 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan26.013846.22036@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1k1dc2INN8tn@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>>in general, always need a place to live.  So when I hear the cries and
>>moans of the property owner, I do not feel to badly for them... 
>
>Well, we'll have socialists/communists/fascists around for all time
>because of this horrid arrogant kind of attitudes.
>
>
I am afraid that the arrogance sits squarely with the property owner.

Oh, L. Helmsly (not sure about spelling) now there is an individual
doing her thing to make sure that the little people get what they
deserve.  As long as she gets all she can get.

>

Yes, we'll have all of those greedy, property grabbing types around
for all time, as long as we believe that the only way is to get for
yourself, and to hell with everyone else.

Me, Me, Me-  of course there will be a problem, when that nasty old
state stays out of the way, and some group comes along, tired of the
greedy ones, and takes it from them.
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 01:30:16 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <1993Jan21.195429.6472@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>Quite simple really.  In my experience, people who were athletes were
>not typical of the people I knew in high school (particularly the
>football players).  ...

>Remember when Joe Gibbs (the head coach of the Washington Redskins)
>asked "Who's Ollie North" ?  ... How many people do you know who have
>never heard of Ollie North ?

To be fair (and sticking to the statistical correctness that I've been
demanding of Phil) this is all pretty anecdotal (though it does look
pretty much like my anecdotes).  Similarly, though I don't know
anyone ignorant of who Ollie North is, I'm sure that such people
exist, and a single instance of such a person doesn't really indicate
much about professional athletes as a whole.

Andecotes can be interesting, fun, and entertaining, but that's about
it.

David Chase
Sun
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:56:27 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1k1dc2INN8tn@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>For instance, it would be acceptable for a business, not to pay one empolyee's
>benefits for health insurance, while paying another employees, and give no
>particular reason.  Or pay one employee half the salary of another employee
>for the same job and performance level. In the social contact of any society,
>people look for and expect, to a certain degree, fairness in treatment.

The employer is under contractual obligation to give each employee
exaactly what he or she was promiosed as compensation for their
work.  If one employee prefers to have their medical expenses paid
while another perfers to get an extra $100/month in salary why
should any third party be able to step in and say that these two
employees must have exa tly the same terms to their employment
contract?

A contract of any sort comes into existance only when the terms are
acceptable to both sides.  Why should anyhone else besides the
direct parties to that contract be able to dictate to those parties
what acceptable terms are?

/June
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The socialist/fascist claptrap item #1: the "Social Contract"
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:48:10 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
>> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
>>Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
>>>Hey George, did you sign your "Social Contract"? ...
>>>neither. Hey, how about you Tony? Did you? yeah, I've never
>>>seen this "Social Contract" ion any kind of writing either,
>>>much less signed one.
>>>
>>...It is strange that those very people
>>who most often repudiate the analogy of the social contract
>>do so while using the very advantages that their society
>>gives them.
>
>How sad. Do you really believe this? It's the same concept that the USSR
>used in confisticating and then taxing the Jews that wanted to leave. 

Yep, any one idea taken to extremes can rationalize atrocities, especially
yours.

>I am not allowed to string my own power lines, nor to take back my property
>that the State stole and gave to the power companies so they could run
>power lines across my property.

By your reasoning, you stole resources from your parents, teachers,
and city workers to acquire your property, so what's your problem?

>>>What actually happens of course is that some set of people
>>>gain enough control of the means of coercion to force another
>>>set or sets of people to hand over their property at gunpoint
>>>for the first set to dispose of.
>>>
>>And while you make fun of the analogy of Social Contract by
>>asking for a piece of paper, allow me to ask for a picture of
>>the gun pointing at you. :-)
>
>Oh? Stop paying your income taxes or property taxes. The State WILL come
>and take YOUR property away, without your consent. 

Yep, and you continue to use those resource, services, and facilities
that the government provides you and your family, almost as if you had
contracted for them.

The solution you are so fanatic about is only one of several possible
ways of having groups of people interact with each other, and it has
its problems as well.  

Mark Runyan

P.S. to Phil: Discussion about solutions can be entertaining.
	      Talks regarding ideals can be equally entertaining.  But
	      when you resort to the tactics you use, Phil, it isn't a
	      discussion, debate, or exchange of ideas.  The sad part
	      is, you actually have something worthwhile to say.  At
	      least, it is sad for me, for I can no longer listen to
	      the way you say it.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8282 ca.politics:10643 talk.politics.misc:69431