HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 3.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:40:07 GMT

In article <34077@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.050719.333@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>
>>Probably only because discriminatory intent is PRESUMED in such cases, not
>>because intent is not a necessary requirement for a discrimination charge,
>>_per se_.
>
>You are once again incorrect.  The standards of proof constructed in
>the courts in equal pay for equal work cases do not require proving
>intent; I have never seen an explicit or implicit statement of
>presumption of intent in these cases.

Well, in the case of race-based distinctions, discriminatory intent is 
certainly a prerequisite for a ruling of EP-violation:

	In evaluating the race-neutrality of an attorney's explanation, a 
	court must determine whether, assuming the proffered reasons for the 
	peremptory challenges are true, the challenges violate the Equal 
	Protection Clause as a matter of law.  A court addressing this issue 
	must keep in mind the fundamental principle that "official action will 
	not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially 
	disproportionate impact. . . .  Proof of racially discriminatory 
	intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal 
	Protection Clause."  Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing
	Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 264-265 (1977); see also Washington 
	v.  Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 239 (1976).  " `Discriminatory purpose' 
	. . . implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of 
	consequences.  It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected . . . 
	a particular course of action at least in part `because of,' not 
	merely `in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable 
	group."  Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 
	U. S. 256, 279 (1979) (footnote and citation omitted); see also 
	McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279, 297-299 (1987).  A neutral 
	explanation in the context of our analysis here means an explanation 
	based on something other than the race of the juror.  At this step of 
	the inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor's
	explanation.  Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the
	prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race 
	neutral.

	(_Hernandez v. New York_, Supreme Court docket #89-7645)

Why do you suppose gender-based distinctions would be any different?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Jane Austen as a role model for eliminating sexism ... NOT!
X-To: C.J. SILVERIO
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:01:00 GMT

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes...
CS> "I am going tomorrow where I shall find a man who has not one agreeable
CS> quality, who has neither manner nor sense to recommend him.  Stupid men
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
CS> are the only ones worth knowing, after all."   Jane Austen
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

CJ, you seem to be fairly genuine in your wish to end sexism, (although I do not
agree with many of your choices of people to attach that label upon...), so why
do you do yourself such an injustice as to quote such offensive sexist comments
as these?  (Perhaps you are correct in saying that she isn't "elitist," but this
certainly *is* offensive)

Now, *before* you fire up your flamethrower and jump all over me, please think
about how you would have reacted if my .sig quote was something like this:

"Never give a woman the floor - unless she has her back up against it"

or more to the point:

"Stupid women are the only ones worth knowing" (and surely, *someone* has said
this, at one time or another).


The existence of sexism against women should *hardly* justify such petty
"revenge" as this - it might "feel good" to "get back at men for all those
things they say about us," but it doesn't really get us anywhere closer to
resolving the differences and disagreements between men and women.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Did you know that clones never use mirrors?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 21:03:37 GMT

In a previous article, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) wrote:
> 
>By the by Loren, last week I posted a copy of the U.S. 
>Constitution for you.  Did you see it.  You still seem 
>to be somewhat confused about how the U.S. government works.

I didn't see it, but don't worry.  I have my own copy, But, I would be 
interested in an online copy.  Could you tell me what subject line it is 
under, or just send it to me, please.  Thanks. 

Anyway.  I am not confused about what I posted.  I still believe that in 
this country the majority has absolute power power over what is law, and 
what is constitutional.  It may not be as direct as a majority vote, but the 
government that is elected bt the people (or in the case of judges, appointed 
by elected officials) makes laws, and ammendments to the constitution.

This specific thread started with someone saying that even if the majority 
wanted to they couldn't legally strap someone to a chair for 3 weeks.  This, 
however, is what happened to Japaneese Americans during WWII.  They weren't 
strapped to chairs, but their freedom was taken away just the same.  The 
government could not have gotten away with this without the support of the 
majority, and the same thing could happen again if the majority would support 
it.

>Just out of curiosity, what are you studying there at Clark?

I was studying Computer Science, but I graduated.  Alumni can keep their 
accounts as long as they are in use.

>Do you by any chance remember what your SAT scores were?
>Could you post them?

I do remember them.  I also remember my GRE scores.  These things, however, 
are completely irrelevant.  I did well enough to move onto higher education.  

Do you by any chance happen to know your IQ?  
Would you mind posting it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: my favorite one-liner of the week
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:39:08 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes to
loren:

->Shape-changer strikes again.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:44:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.161128.17605@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes...
[Riiiiip]
>KD> Good luck.   It was reported today in the Chicago Sun Times that a 2nd
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>KD> trimester fetus has been successfully saved after VERY premature birth.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please provide a full citation for this. My professional opinion is
that this is not possible.


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 13 DEC 92 08:52:31 GMT

In a previous article, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
>>In a previous article, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>If someone is raping you, occasionaly causing permanent injury, but
>>>not physically threatening you, you must put up with the assault if
>>>you cannot make them stop without killing them?  No matter how much
>>>agony you go through?
>>
>>That is an oxymoron.  There is no such thing as a non threatening assult, and 
>>rape is also physically threatening.  
> 
>Let me restate.  I made a mistake.
> 
>If someone is raping you, occasionally causing permanent injury, but
>not physically threatening your life, you must put up with the assault 
>if you cannot make them stop without killing them?  No matter how much
>agony you go through?

That doesn't change anything.  Rape itself is a violent and threatening 
assault.  
> 
>>Someone can not be raping and assulting me without putting my life in danger.
> 
>No?!?  What are YOU made of that you'd die merely from being raped?

I am made of flesh and blood (And bone,...), and therefore am susceptible 
to any STD's (including HIV).

Also, assuming there is no chance of a STD (Which is probably how you intended 
the question), rape is a violent act, which generally includes beating 
physically beaten, which could also lead to death.  

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51854 soc.men:21113 alt.dads-rights:2932
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 13 Dec 92 09:57:55 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1992Dec12.222611.95075@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> In <1992Dec12.040358.6377@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes...
>>DP> Evidence?  Other sources posted here over the years claim that far
>>DP> more women than men are activists on both sides of this issue.
>>
>>Hmmmm...I'm not sure about that claim.  If you believe the quotes of some rather
>>misandrist "Pro-Choice" activists who yell the following about the "Pro-Life"
>>movement:
>>
>>"4-6-8-10  Why are all your leaders men?"
>>
>>....you'd almost believe that there were more *men* in the "Pro-Life" movement,
>>at the very least.
> 
> Why would you believe that?  The chant is talking about leaders, and you're
> talking about members.

Just take a quick look at the Pro-Lifers.  Every time I've seen a demo on
TV, the spokesMAN for the group is just that, a man.  The leaders of the
local Pro-life group are local businessMEN.  When you see picketers at the
local clinics, a large percentage of the group are men.  


Yep, looks like a large percentage of the Pro-life leaders are men, all right!

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:59:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) writes:
|>From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
|>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
|>> 
|>>>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
|>>>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's
question:
|>>>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
|>>>someone who prefers suicide.
|>> 
|>> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
|>> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.
|>
|>
|>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.
             
Maddi is killing unborn children! Wow! How did you find this out?
Is this true, Maddi!?! How many have you killed?

(PS If your comment was aimed at atheists in general, then I think 
it is high time you learn that not all atheists are Pro-Choice/Pro-War/
Pro-Deathpenalty/Pro-IceHockey or anything else:  we just don't
believe in your god. Everything else is up to the individual.
Such overgeneralizations just makes you look stupid.)

Brian /-|-\
=============================================================
The Truth is still the Truth 
even if you choose to ignore it.
John 14:6
=============================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:20:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.182720.23688@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>> >ABORTION IS MURDER
>> >no elaboration required.
>> 	And no tiresome thought processes, either.
>> 	It's amazing.  Do this clueless geek actually think he's the
>> first person ever to jump in here and yell ABORTION IS MURDER in all  
>caps?
>> Does he really expect anything aside from flames like this one?  Is  
>there a
>> point to this sort of juvenile behavior?
>> 	Pinkboy.
>> 
>> The_Doge
>> 
>
>Well actually I do have my reasons for oppossing abortion, but since most  
>of the pro abortion crowd is so illogical and unreasonable I just thought  
>I'd come down to their (your) level.

I'm sure most of the unreasonable ProChoicers appreciate it. Just seeing
you sink down to the level of Doug Holtsinger makes me feel better that
I have my reasons for supporting abortion rights, that I can talk about
it with a lot of people without losing my temper like a lot of people on
both sides, and that I don't have to sink down to *your* level to support
abortion rights.

Lost Boy

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: David Anderson's inadequate definition of murder.
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:11:29 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec16.190927.26788@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes in response
to the claim that abortion is murder by the latest pro-force newbie
Karl Rominger:

>Well, just a little.  While abortion does take a life, 
>murder is by definition the *illegal* taking of a life.
>Therefore, since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder.

You're ignorance is showing, David.  Killing cattle for beef is taking
a life.  Is that murder?  You need to understand that murder involves
taking the life of a legal person.  Last time I checked, the legal
definition of person did not include /z/e/f/s.

SJM
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:39:28 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 <1992Dec12.211049.26996@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.223329.28942@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>>
>>Children are closer relations then parents?
>
>Children are genetically related to their parents.  Parents are
>usually not related to one another, except probably in Mr. Cameron's
>family.
>
>Mr. Cameron, if you insist on putting in your two cents, you might want
>to consult your cerebral cortex before doing so in the future.
>
>If you are only posting to illustrate your complete and total
>ignorance, then you are doing a magnificent job.

The same comments might be addressed to you.  Some idiot said that children
are a person's closest relatives, ignoring the fact that a person's
relationship to their parents is just as genetically close as their
relationship to their children.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: A question for Suzanne.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 15:14:27 GMT


Suzanne,

It was really interesting to find out that you and I have something in common. 
We both have fathers who are ill and who would greatly benefit from having a
transplant.

You mentioned that your father is waiting to receive a kidney transplant from
a dead human being, and you didn't seem opposed to that.  I hope he will find 
one soon.

How do you feel about my father getting a tissue transplant from dead aborted 
fetuses?  My family is hoping that after Clinton reverses the ban on fetal 
tissue research, this procedure will be perfected and will be made available 
to people like my father who are suffering from parkinson's disease.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinions since we seem to be in a similar 
situation.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:18:38 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f 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 <BzErHD.3xA@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.095755.6204@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.222611.95075@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>> In <1992Dec12.040358.6377@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>"4-6-8-10  Why are all your leaders men?"
>>>>
>>>>....you'd almost believe that there were more *men* in the "Pro-Life" movement,
>>>>at the very least.
>>>
>>> Why would you believe that?  The chant is talking about leaders, and you're
>>> talking about members.
>>
>>Just take a quick look at the Pro-Lifers.  Every time I've seen a demo on
>>TV, the spokesMAN for the group is just that, a man.  The leaders of the
>>local Pro-life group are local businessMEN.  When you see picketers at the
>>local clinics, a large percentage of the group are men.
>>
>>Yep, looks like a large percentage of the Pro-life leaders are men, all right!
>
>Why is that surprising?
>
>As long as women insist on having all the reproductive rights, and sticking
>men with all the bills, you should expect that a goodly number of men will
>take the other side of this issue out of self-defense!

Klue time, Karl - the religious fundamentalists trying to take away our
rights to abortion, birth control, and freedom of religion are *not* going
to drop their crusade if you get what you want regarding men's rights.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: What happened to the FAQ for this group?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:36:01 GMT


I looked for it on pit-manager.mit.edu, and I couldn't find it.  
I remember seeing it there (in 3 parts) a few months ago.  What happened?

Can someone send me the most recent copy?  Please respond via email,
as I am not currently reading this group.
--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Law vs. religion
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:54:05 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Dec16.210953.8183@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
: You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
: Here are a few
: 
: "Thou shalt not kill"
>
>This is based on self-interest.

	Actually, it's more like "Do not commit murder". Legislators
have been forbidding murder for over 4 millennia now, and that's a
longer time than any of the halfway-reliable (as opposed to
mythical/fictional) history in the Bible.

	I also notes that the Bible specified numerous instances in
which "murder" is not only OK, but commanded, as in the death penalty
and war.

: "Thou shalt not steal"
>
>Ditto

	Ditto also. The Bible states that it is OK to wage wars of
conquest and to plunder conquered towns for various valuable items,
such as livestock and people. And if that isn't theft, then what is?

: In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
>
>Tough to show that this is both based on religion and being proper
>legislation.  One might as easily argue that it's intent is to ensure
>that all employees and businessmen will have at least one day off each
>week.

	It also means that one can't shop either. Bummer.

	Why isn't it Wednesday or Friday that the shops have to be
closed?

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's hallucinations about kidney transplants.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 00:52:10 GMT

In article <475@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.003222.20795@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>#From article by smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias):
>## ...says that Suzanne Forgach writes...
>## the usual [truth] including a deleted denial that
>## people die waiting for kidney transplants, 
>#
>#My own father has been waiting for a kidney transplant for over
>#a year, and is in far better health on dialysis than he was only
>#18 months ago before his kidneys completely failed.
>
>Are you under the impression that your father is everyone, Suzanne?
>
A year is not particularly long either. Lets see how he is after, say,
5 years on dialysis...

>## an observation that some
>## insist on a cadaver rather than live donor, 
>#
>#My own father has refused to allow any of his children to be tested
>#for tissue compatablity.  He will refuse any organ donation from us,
>#and insists on waiting for a cadaver kidney.   This is not uncommon.
>
>You haven't shown that it's uncommon.  You've merely asserted that
>your father won't let his family donate a kidney for him.  
>
But... don't you know????
*EVERYBODY* wants to be *JUST* like the Forgasm family....

>## and a statement that
>## giving a kidney is much more dangerous than receiving one.
>#
>#This is true.  Do your research.  Donating a kidney is much more major
>#surgery, involving opening up your rib cage, than receiving one, which
>#only involves appending the third kidney in the space below the rib cage.
>
>Beth Bartley has answered this point rather well.  
>
>## I wonder when Suzanne last approached her mother with specific
>## acknowledgment or thanks for supporting her when she was a /z/e/f/.
>#
>#We have very warm relationship, thank you very much.
>#
>#
>## The more I learn about that family the more I begin to understand how
>## Suzanne can say the things she says.  
>#
>#You're just envious you weren't brought up in such a healthy family
>#atmosphere.
>
>Healthy?
>
>I'd say a family that teaches its children that it's perfectly
>acceptable to force one's mother to contribute her life and
>health before one's birth but unacceptable to allow one's child
>to contribute a non-essential paired organ after birth is anything
>but healthy.
>
>[rest of Suzanne's tripe deleted]
>
>Susan


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion