HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Death of America 2
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:55:19 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

I'm the starter of this thread.

It looks like I've missed many articles in this thread since
my news server went down for a while.  All I see is that people suddenly
start discussing Canada.

So if you have responses/attacks you want me to see, please email.

About Canada I would say let's not confuse ourselves any further by looking
north and making unrealistic comparisons.  Canada is culturally different.
People there are less likely to abuse the public and so the country can
stand more socialism (and, of course, politicians give them more).  If
we had the same level of big government we'd completely collapse in no
time.

A few years ago when the Chinese were arguing because the Communist Party
would not increase the much needed marketization for fear of losing power
and privileges, some government advocate suggested that the kind of socialism
of Sweden would be nice.  Of course it would be nice, goes the joke, but
where do you find all the Swedes to practice it?

- Karl Wee
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:52:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.202149.13257@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.164903.17224@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>>Trust me, you can't toss out every ethical theory that has a flaw and expect
>>others to take you seriously. 

Why should someone accept a moral theory which contains flaws? (Unless there is
no better alternative and you don't know what the flaws are...but then, the
claim was that he COULD identify the flaws (though as I see it, he didn't even 
understand Rand's ethics, so his criticisms are hardly credible).  If there are 
problems with my ethical system, I want to know what they are.  Are you
really suggesting that we ignore known errors?

I am not agreeing that the arguments made about Rand's ethics are valid, but
the arguments are valid, then we should all take note of them instead of 
pretenting they are unimportant.

>>So far, I don't see how your postivistically
>>logical pragmatism keeps you from killing people. Perhaps we do need abstract
>>ethical considerations, hmmmm?

>I don't think Peter is criticizing Objectivist ethics in itself. What he is
>criticizing is the statement that Objectivist ethics is 'absolute', or
>'provable'. 

he certainly did make that claim, but perhaps you use the term "absolute" and
"provable" in subtly different ways than she did.  Before you you can address
this subject, there is some epistemological ground for you to cover.  Unless
you know what Rand meant by "truth", "knowledge", "context", and "principle",
your evaluation of her statements that her ethical principles are true 
are pretty ineffective.

On a deeper issue, do you think that ANY knowledge is "absolute", ethical
or not?  Just what do you mean by "true" and "absolute"?

>Some have stated that Rand never made this claim, only the claim
>that Objectivist ethics is superior by virtue of being based on reason.

No, she said that her ethical principles were "absolute", but I don't think
she meant what you all do.  Many people attribute to the term "absolute"
some implication of "contextlessness".  Rand did not.

>In any event, it seems to me that Peter's criticism is both true and
>trivial. One can accept Objectivist ethics without requiring that it
>be 'true' or 'provable' in some absolute sense (as, for example, statements
>about the physical world may be provable, or at least falsifiable).

One CAN do so, but one should not, any more than one ought to accept
Christian ethics or nihilist ethics without proof.


--Brian
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5462 alt.politics.libertarian:2629 talk.philosophy.misc:2955 sci.lang:8430
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Death of America
Date: 13 Dec 1992 01:26:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) says:

>Just to add a few more things ... Ontario's provincial tax rate is
>7.5%, but there is an additional 7.5% federal VAT called the Goods
>And Services Tax (GST).  It replaces a previously hidden wholesale
>tax.  People now see it, and complain.  This taking advantage of
>people's inability to count has been spurred on by the Canadian
>Left, and it seems to be working in many quarters ...


      My friends I stayed with in Toronto had interesting things to
  say:

        Their property tax was raised 5% last year.  They felt they
     were "lucky" since they knew others had been raised up to 14%
     more.

        Their income tax was raised almost $20 / WEEK!.  That's a 
     $1000 / year!                            
     
   They receive no interest deduction for house payments.

     >
>Another thing that I have to warn Charles about is that Canadian
>income tax rates include provincial taxes (only Quebec collects its
>own provincial tax like U.S. states do) and I've always seen those
>rates compared against the American federal rate ... add on state
>taxes in many states and it starts to hit or exceed Canadian rates.
>

      I think NOT!  Not from what *I* saw in Toronto.  About the
      only difference I could find between it and L.A. was that 
      the gangs weren't spraying graffiti or littering.

      The gas tax ALONE is a killer.  It effectively DOUBLES the cost
      per gallon.

      I've seen the future.  It's highly bumming to think that the 
      U.S. will be like this by the end of the decade. 

>>you think america's manufacturing base has eroded? in the past few
>The educated populace and investment in facilities is being noticed as
>the country restructures (after all you've written, please don't turn
>around and say you're against free trade!), with upgrades at Amdahl
>and IBM Research in Toronto, DuPont in Kingston, etc. -- real jobs in
>white collar, intellectual capital areas that have long suffered up
>north.  If you go along with the general domestic complaining, you
>are arguing for more chicken-cutting jobs for our university grads.
>

      Upgrades at IBM?  When I was there this summer, they were 
      laying off.

      Oh, oh, I get it.  "Upppggrrraaddddiiiinnnngggg".  Like, eh,
     the "realignment" at HP.  Okay, gotcha. ;)

>gld
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Gary L. Dare
>> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
>> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:09:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <184619@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>In article <Bz01nC.8ys@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
>Nelson) writes: 
>|> 
>|>    Are you saying that "mass", "force",  "acceleration", "speed-of-light-
>|>    in-a-vacuum", etc, are "arbitrary and subjective"?    Randianism
>|>    would do very well indeed to be so "arbitrary and subjective".
>|> 
>
>Completely subjective.
>
>As you well know Peter, the "thing-in-itself" science breaks down
>completely with quantum mechanics, where, not only are things not what
>they used to be -- photons have momenta but no mass -- but they
>deteriorate totally into
>meaningless equations which accurately predict how certain observations
>will be recorded in an observation space looking with a particular device.
>
>How you look determines what you see.  You can't get any more subjective
>than that. 

  I disagree.  "Look", above is defined objectively.  Six physicists
  "looking" at the same dual-slit experiment will "see" the same thing.
  Six clergymen praying will not necessarily get the same answer; six
  theologians reading the same sacred text will not produce the same
  interpretation.  Six economists reading the same economic data will 
  not reach the same conclusion either.


>Now defend your system.  Show us that science has brought about some 
>"true" kind of progress.

  I'm not going to even try to defend that idea of progress because it's
  too subjective and it's off the subject.  Not is it my personal opinion
  that there's any clear sense that science *has* produced that benefit.
  It's not clear to me that the modern human is any "happier" than the 
  the hunter-gatherer, but I can't defend that opinion.

  I'm merely using science as an instance of what I regard to be 
  a good system for defining "true"; a good system of applied
  epistemology.   I've said repeatedly that anyone here is free
  to propose some other system.   The Tim Starr, for instance,
  is apparently satisfied that a system which produces some
  unspecified number of correct predictions in some larger but
  unspecified number of tries is also "true".   But this "evidence"
  would work just as well to prove that Jean Dixon is correct as
  to prove that "Austrian" economics is.
                          

---peter




Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5397 talk.politics.misc:63909
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Death of America
Date: 12 Dec 1992 00:12:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) says:

>
>No worse than Spain or Panama I reckon. 
>
>Getting used to La Guardia doesn't take long when they're supposedly
>there to protect you. Kinda like getting used to practice bombing
>runs off in the distance (flash... count 11 seconds... booom), and 
>the sound of heavy-machine gun fire. 
>
>Most folks won't object.

        Yes.  A tragic comment on America.

>
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Illogical Logic ( Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand )
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:14:53 GMT

In article <Bz9twt.KFF@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
}In article <184629@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
}
}>I'm not sure what "liberalism" is, but I would guess that our society 
}>is in the top ten among killers.
}
}  I agree; in fact we have THE highest number of homicides in the world 
}  (Senate Judiciary Committee report, March 13, 1991).   In sheer *rates*
}  (i.e., per 100K) of violent crime (murder, assualt, rape) we vastly outpace
}  any other major industrialized nation. 

Not if suicide is included.  Then the rates are about even  (The Samurai,
the Mountie, and the Cowboy, David B. Kopel).

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:09:52 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>
>i am not a U.S. citizen, but i consider myself more american than many
>US citizens are. i believe in the ideals upon which this country was
>founded. i moved here from canada, where they are further along the
>path to self-destruction than we are. if you want to see where the
>US will be in five years, look north of the border. especially 
>anyome who covets canada's despicable health care system.

Other than insurance, what else is Canada's so-called "system"?
(BTW, I'm Canadian and have lived and worked in many provinces.)
Factor out geography, low population, its lop-sided distribution,
a monopoly of private doctors just like America ... what else???
Just trying to add perspective here ... we Canadians don't think
much about how we do our health care, and tend to think that there
is more government involved (it's only insurance) than there really 
is when you start to break things down ... by the way, if you know
anyone who works for the Canadian insurance industry in London, ON
they can tell you that our private insurers are glad that they did
not stay in basic medical coverage when they off-loaded it onto the
public sector (do you know who Paul Martin, Sr. was?).

>canada's taxes, welfare-statism and apathy to government intervention
>is sickening. it is really depressing to come down here and find
>that it is getting worse, especially with that professional liar 
>(that's what he is) now running the country.

I think that Charles is referring to our Conservative prime minister,
Brian Mulroney.  You know, the one that the U.S. Republicans and Wall
Street all love.  I just wanted to put in some perspective here, 'cos
Mulroney is not very well loved and this transcends all political
lines.  Mind you, the Canadian and British Conservative Parties are
still a little too "socialist" for most Americans ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: It's a joke son (was Re: You should be a Christian because):
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:43:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.200204.4415@cs.cornell.edu> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.023056.2115@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike 
>|> B. What relevance does your question have anyway?
>
>I want to know whether atheist understand what makes a person 
>a Christian.

Ignorance, fear, superstition... what am I missing here?

JC
--
Jesus is Lard
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:12:18 GMT

jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

>Answer 1:

>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
>is empty.

Fortunately, the hole is also about the size and shape of a large pepperoni
and sausage pizza and a six-pack of Mooseheads.

mark
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:22:08 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec15.200950.62083@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>
>So all the paraphernalia in the "Missionary Section" of LDS
>bookstores is offical and endorsed by the LDS Church?
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu


Well, couldn't imagine it being heretical (for the LDS church that is)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23916 alt.atheism:23741
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 15 Dec 92 11:07:05 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec11.235301.5271@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>		TOP 5 REASONS WHY GOD IS BETTER THAN BEER
>
>5. You don't need an ID

Neither do you need one for beer in many countries.  Tough luck that
you do in the UK and the US.

>4. You can pray all evening and still be okay to drive home. 

Try it.  Then we'll talk again.  :-)

>3. You can get Bibles for free in motel rooms.

But you can't get a god.  :-)

Besides, I've been offered many more free glasses and cans of beer
than Bibles in my life.  It may be because I don't often stop in
motels.  Rooms there cost money, too.

>Beer costs about 6 bucks for a 12 pack.

Bibles are even more expensive -- they don't come in dozens.

>2. It's cool to mention God at your wedding.

My wedding will be without God -- but it won't be without beer.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:39:03 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <lihggkINNf90@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>
>
>
>Anthony G Rose wrote:
>
>>Frank, I am really curious as to why you started responding to these
>>other letters, when you haven't answered my last letter.  We were
>>dialoging so good. Once you get in a box, you just stop!
>
>I told you in my last correspondece. Have you read it? We were just 
>rehashing the same old issues. There was nothing new to talk about it.

You mean that we had gotten to the brick wall where you had to face the
issue at hand, so you decided to hide behind the veil of deception
instead of looking at the Truth?

>I have a feeling that to you this whole thing is just a wresling match, 
>and I don't care to wrestle. There are planty of others you can do it with.

     "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the
      rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of
      this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness
      in teh heavenly places"   Ephesians 6:12

If you meant that this is only a game to me, you are dead wrong!
Spiritually dead wrong!  My love for your soul makes me dialog with you.
We are instructed in Scripture to watch for false prophets, to test all
things, to study, and to contend for the faith.

I have stuyied the LDS church, and in my watch for false prophets, I have
found plenty within it.  When the LDS doctrines don't measure up to the
test, they have to be exposed (Jude 3).  If it was a game to me or I
didn't care, I would stay silent.

>You agreed that the Trinity can't be proven with scripture, why are you still
>trying to prove it?

I NEVER said that!  I said that with our finite minds it is hard to
concept an infinite being.  I said that I would send you an outline
demonstrating over 700 verse supporting the Trinity, but you declined the
FREE offer, because you don't want to open your mind to the other side.

I opened my mind to the other side, and that is why I started studying
the LDS church.  I was searching for Truth within it, but when my
answers wouldn't get answered, and got glossed over, I wondered why
people didn't have answers.  Then I was considered APOSTATE because I
had questions, and no one could answer them.  That was when I realized
the brainwashing deception involved in the church.  If you tell yourself
I KNOW! that this is true.... I KNOW that this is true.... I KNOW that
this is true..... you will convince yourself it is.  But your declining
my offer shows that you are closed to looking at any other position.
I have been open, but your church can't answer legitimate questions.
You won't accept my offer, which can answer them  for you.

>With brotherly love,
>
>		Frank
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten)
Subject: Re: It's a joke son (was Re: You should be a Christian because):
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:02:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.023056.2115@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike 
|> B. What relevance does your question have anyway?

I want to know whether atheist understand what makes a person 
a Christian.

Rod


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Neo-orthodoxy
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:02:17 GMT

ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:

>        Neo-orthodox theologians ...
>
>o	believe they are the true heirs of
>	the Reformation. ['Reformed' churches are seen to 
>	have formalized the insights of Calvin, et al, and
>	lost his (their) dynamism.]

Interesting in light of the fact that religious liberals
believe >they< "are the true heirs of the Reformation".

>o	believe that orthodoxy [= 'Reformed
>	Theology', 1520 - ca 1900 ] R.Catholicism, and
>	liberalism ['liberal Xtianity'] represent dead ends
>	as options in theology.

Liberals of course would believe that neo-orthodoxy, much
like orthodoxy itself, is a dead end.

>o	believe that the Bible is not revelation itself but 
>	is a witness to revelation.

As do some liberals.

>o	believe that revelation is a dynamic concept, God 

Encore.

>o	believe that existentialist philosophy is the best 
>	point of departure for Xtian theology [esp. the
>	existentialism of Kierkegaard].

I would argue that it was/is an unarticulated existentialist
philosophy which engendered relgion "in the first place",
not the other way around.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Christian Ethics: Mixed Messages, was Perfectly Psychotic
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:44:53 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec11.184645.12429@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> 
> We are asked to dabble in the hypothetical:
> 
> >what did Jesus think during this event?
> 
> >LUK 19:45  And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that
> >sold therein, and them that bought;
> >LUK 19:46  Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of
> >prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.
> 
> It's probably safe to suggest Jesus thought, "These sellers don't
> belong in the temple."

Why did he then cast out them? Couldn't he reason with them about it?
I'm implying that Jesus was indeed very emotional, and sometimes
he 'loved less'.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.