HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: What is coercion?
Date: 15 Oct 1992 18:52:03 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Oct15.032659.18733@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <12715@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1) writes:
>>Phil: 1: Coercion is the use of force to influence a person.
>>      2: Coerce - to compel by force or threats of force.
>>
>>Al: To coerce is to *compel* someone to do something. 
>
>Perhaps some of you read an article in the paper in the last two days
>about a man acquited of rape -- because the women he was raping asked
>him to use a condom.
>
>It was decided (by our wonderful legal "system") that because the woman
>asked the man to use a rubber, she agreed to the sexual intercourse
>and hence was not rape.
>The woman, of course, was trying avoid possible disease/pregnancy
>aspects of forcible sexual intercourse.
>Outrageous.
>And sadly, an example of use to illustrate coercion.
>How do two (or more) people agree to something?
>When is it persuausion, when is it coercion?
>The boundary line is the individual and his/her property.

I heard this story also, and what really lacks is that we have no idea
about all of the other evidence that was supplied in the trail.  Kennedy
got off - and I think there was a very fine line involved with him being
innocent- plus the entire trail was televised- we had first had information.

Stop trying to bring about your own verdict- we simply do not have enough
information.

>
>
>For an example:
>
>If a person (person A) is persuaded to do something by the promise of sexual
>intercourse from a beautiful partner (person B), that is not coercion.
>
>
>Now, if person B told person A to do the exact same thing, but threatens
>to use a gun on person A if person A declines, NOW we have coercion.
>
Again all of your examples use force via weapons/physical assualt, coercion
can occur without weapons or physical assualt.

Now, if person B (Boss) tells person A (employee) that a said report is
due in 1 hour, or person A will be docked for a days pay-  coercion?

If mother tells daughter she better be home by 11PM or she will have to
answer to Dad, coercion?

And in your example above let's put some parameters on your argument.

If a person (person A) is persuaded [under false pretense] to do something
by the promise [actually a lie by B] of sexual intercourse from a beautiful
partner (person B), coercion?

Now, let talk about situations in which a person (or persons) will not stop
an activity- which is not illegal, but causes other people to be put in a
'lose-lose' situation (as you put it).  Coercion??

How do we handle these situations? Make laws? You don't seem to be very
eager about new laws.

>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:37:30 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.170802.3357@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
wrote:
> 
> In article <92281.33271.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> >I have no problem with that.  I also think that abortion is a very personal
> >decision, and why does Boxer need to get into the wallets of people who
> >dislike abortion to fund it for those who want it?  Same government intrusion,
> >different ideology.  Yet I'll bet you favor THAT intrusion, don't you?
> 
> I would be perfectly happy with this if YOU would allow me to veto other
> government activities that I find morally repugnant.  Maybe we should
> take Bush's "check off" idea further and allow people to direct their
> taxes to different "areas" of government spending.

Sure, and if you don't check of "defense" you don't get protected?  I don't
think so.

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:30:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.015942.12061@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>I agree with June's school voucher argument: it creates two classes 
>of people: parents and non-parents. Parents would get some tax credit 
>for taxes they paid, but non-parents would not.

Note that June's voucher argument also applies to food stamps....

I don't see you "publically run facilities are the only schools that
should get tax money" out there demanding that food stamps be
redeemable only at the govt store.  You seem perfectly happy to let
the private sector provide lots of things bought with public money.
Why are schools different?

>I pay taxes but don't have children in school (possibly won't ever 
>have children in school) What's the benefit to me that we have a 
>decent educational system? So that our next generations won't
>grow up and do even stupider things than we have. 

Note that "decent educational system" doesn't imply "govt run schools
should be the only ones that get tax money".

>The whole purpose of public education is to provide a decent 
>education for everyone and provide people some means to bootstrap.

Right, but that doesn't imply that govt schools are the only
way to do it, even when tax money is involved.

>This voucher system is just people throwing up their hands in
>frustration, and then protecting their own interests (children).

No, it's people saying "there's a good school over there, why
can't my kids go there?"

>It the system isn't working, then it should be fixed, not fled.

The advocates of "fix" have been failing for decades.  How many more
years should we give them?  The "if you don't fix it, we'll screw the
next generation of kids too" attitude is interesting, but should we
really give a tax-money monopoly to such monsters?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Moral Premises--    was Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:37:56 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct11.180812.23103@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <98206@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>Camille Paglia would agree with you.
>>But with one crucial exception: she holds dead homosexual men
>>considerably responsible for the heights to which our
>>civilisation has risen.
>>Somehow I think you would beg to differ!

>Hmm, "She holds dead homosexual men ..."?
>What, both of them!?!?!?  :-)

Where should I start?

Plato? Aristotle? Alexander? Julius? Hadrian? Richard Coeur-de-Leon?
Leonardo? Donatello? Michelangelo? Francis and Anthony Bacon? Newton?**
Somoza? Whitman? Melville? Wilde? Proust? Forster? Orton? Britten?
Bernstein?

What about all the ones we DON'T know of?

**by all accounts Newton was a virgin---makes you wonder?
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Voluntary school prayer
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:26:49 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <casseres-131092105130@kip2-23.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:

>The problem is it's a government-sponsored religious exercise, expressly
>forbidden by the First Amendment, that's what the problem is.

How is it government-sponsored religious exercise when the students
are merely observing a moment of silence?  The teachers are not
leading prayer.  You have no idea what the students are thinking about
during that moment - they may be praying, they may not be praying.
Actually, since students can unobtrusively pray at any time they want,
whether there is a moment of silence or not, by your argument isn't
any government-sponsored school government-sponsorsed prayer? 

--
dave 
manley@optilink.com
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Turn 'biff' off
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:53:19 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

If the 'biff' bothers you, simply turn it off.

biff n

at your local command line.
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Re: An Anonymous Reader's Comments on the Big Flame War
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:13:11 GMT

In article <98740@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>[I received this from someone who wishes to remain anonymous in order to
>protect his career:]

>Other points that would seem to render Clayton's position utterly groundless
[etc]

Gee, this means I can increment the counter on my desk to 5,791 for
netnews readers who feel that Cramer's ranting's are essentially
groundless.  This is news?  When do we get to begin exercising the
self-discipline to simply ignore his posts?  Is this too difficult
for everyone?

It reminds me of a 4 year-old who whines and whines, and everytime he
whines his parents rush over and pay him all sorts of attention, and then
they wonder why he whines all the time.

jb
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Coercion
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:03:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.150621.22776@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Coercion is the use of force to influence a person.

Is coercion ONLY the use (or implicitly, the threat of the use) of force,
or can it take other more subtle forms ?

>Coercion is not trade, nor is it voluntary, mutually desired (note
>the word mutual) transaction(s).

Then does blackmail qualify as coercion ?

>If John wishes to have sex with Mary, Mary makes a decision based
>upon her values. She may say yes based on looks, personality, money,
>fear of loneliness, her current level of sexual desire, or combinations
>of these and other factors.
>
>Her decision is based on the pursuit of happiness -- whether she feels,
>at that moment, whether she will be happier if she says yes.
>
>Note that in it being a voluntary decision, the transaction is based
>upon mutual agreement. And at the conclusion, BOTH parties are happy
>about the transaction.

However, if she says no I doubt that both parties to the transaction
will be happy.  I think that we can all agree that she does indeed 
have the right no decline, even though that might make John unhappy.

>If Mary says no, and John pulls out a firearm and coerces mary into
>a sexual act (rape), then Mary has been coerced.

What if he instead takes out a folder containing photographs of Mary
in a variety of sex acts (said photos taken without her knowledge).
He goes on to tell her that he is going to give these photos to
her parents/spouse/so if she doesn't have sex with him.  Is this
coercion (note: no force or threat of force was used) ?  If she
consents, is it rape ?

Guido

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Decaturville, TN
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:40:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.212909.2737@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
    >"The *first* thing we do, let's "... kill all the lawyers."
    >--William Shakespeare
    >
    >A more noble sentiment I've never heard. But let's spare
    >Hillary...she'll be the best looking first lady in my
    >lifetime! (I was a Johnson baby...)

And JFK was arguably the best looking president. Look at was selection
by looks does!

Oh well, you want a democracy, you got it brother! :-)




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:00:49 GMT

In article <12731@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >Wow! You mean Leibniz and Newton didn't invent the calculus?
    >Can you give us some sources to look up for the Third World
    >origins of the calculus?

Why, of course they didn't!

It was some homosexual, handicapped woman of color living in some
squalid African country, who, in her spare time taken from killing
the European white males invading her country, invented the calculus,
art, poetry, and was developing a way to make men bear babies
and do the housework.

I think she also designed and built the pyramids single-handidly
(after developing a longevity drug made from 2,345 different
species of South American rain forest rare trees -- she also discovered
the Americas in her canoe BTW) but was brutally ignored by the
Egyptian (male) court historians on this matter.

Remember -- you read it here first!




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: Cate3.OSBU_North@XEROX.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Santa Clara Residents:  Do you want info on Measure E?
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:03:36 GMT


     If you would like to get some information about Measure E, 
the cardroom ordiance, send me e-mail with your US address, and 
we'll get something to you fairly quickly.
     If you already know why Measure E is a bad idea, and would 
like to help pass out information, let me know.
     Have a good day.

     Henry III
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6086 ca.politics:8669
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:11:56 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1992Oct8.003010.18500@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.015942.12061@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:

>>This voucher system is just people throwing up their hands in
>>frustration, and then protecting their own interests (children).

>No, it's people saying "there's a good school over there, why
>can't my kids go there?"

OK, great. Al Gore's kids and Dan Quayle's kids go to that school over there.
I want my kids to go there too, and at public expense.

Oh, I'll only get to have SOME of the tuition funded at public expense? Gee,
which schools can I now afford with my snappy new voucher coupons. Oh, now
I see. I can send my kid to these newly degraded "private" (used to be
public) schools.

UNLESS YOU PLAN TO FULLY FUND ALL TUITIONS, VOUCHERS ARE WRONG. 

	1) They are a costly way to provide the illusion of egalitarianism.

	2) They will trash the public school system.

	3) They will be a de facto method of funding religious education,
	   which violates the spirit of church/state separation.

I cannot for the life of me understand why people support school vouchers
unless they wish the above three items to come true. And if that's the
case, I will fight you with everything I've got.

								     MPA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Moral Premises--    was Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:42:38 GMT

In article <98457@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct11.180812.23103@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>In article <98206@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
    >>writes:
    >>
    >>>Camille Paglia would agree with you. But with one crucial
    >>>exception: she holds dead homosexual men considerably
    >>>responsible for the heights to which our civilisation has
    >>>risen. Somehow I think you would beg to differ!
    >>>
    >>Hmm, "She holds dead homosexual men ..."? What, both of
    >>them!?!?!? :-)
    >>
    >Where should I start?
    >
    >Plato? Aristotle? Alexander? Julius? Hadrian? Richard
    >Coeur-de-Leon? Leonardo? Donatello? Michelangelo? Francis and
    >Anthony Bacon? Newton?** Somoza? Whitman? Melville? Wilde?
    >Proust? Forster? Orton? Britten? Bernstein?


What? You forgot Hitler and the Kaiser and J. Edgar Hoover ...

And Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and Tinkerbelle ...

In your dreams ...



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Indians *DID* discover Columbus...
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:14:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Oct15.220706.29220@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.183019.14691@tandem.com> pearson_steven@tandem.com (Steven R. Pearson) writes:
>>
>>What Columbus discovered was of course much bigger.  He and those who
>>followed brought knowlege of a huge land that was previously unknown to many.
>>He was the first to bring lasting knowlege of America to Europe.
>
>I for one liked the editorial cartoon I saw the other day, captioned
>"October 12, 1492".  A Native American Indian is grousing as he works
>in his straw hut, "The coconut milk's gone sour, my fishing net is torn,
>and now my knife is broken! What *else* could go wrong with this day?"
>As he is saying this, his wife is staring out the window at three
>ships appearing on the horizon. :-)

Or as Stan Freberg put it:

Columbus:  I'd like to take a few of you back to prove I discovered you.

Indian:  What you mean discover us?  We discover you.

Columbus:  How's that?

Indian:  We discover you on beach here.  It's all how you look at it.

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories                    |K: Natives.  They may be hostile.
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U |
    Palo Alto, CA  94304	       |C: Well, we're all a little hostile
				       |   now and then.  Some of us are
    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com	       |   able to sublimate.  Others just
    (415)857-7572		       |   can't adjust.
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Voluntary school prayer
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:42:50 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <casseres-101092161221@kip2-21.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>In article <12710@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP writes:

>> What if the legislation explicitly specifies [...] the exact words 
>> the teacher is allowed to use...

>This was tried in Arkansas (I think it was) and the courts shot it down. 
>The argument was that this might be okay if the country had not been
>flooded with campaigns to restore institutionalized, official, sectarian
>prayer.  In the climate that has been created, you can say "we will be
>silent" until you're blue in the face, but every child in the room will
>know that what it means is "you can either pray now or be quiet so that
>others can pray."

Perhaps at first.  After some time has passed I can imagine students using
the time to pray, to daydream, to sleep, to do last minute homework, to
make spit-balls, etc.  No one can know what the students are thinking
and no one is leading them in prayer.  What's the problem?

--
dave
manley@optilink.com
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Al and Phil define coerce [was Re: Coercion]
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:33:58 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

---
| Problem:
---

Phil: 1: Coercion is the use of force to influence a person.
      2: Coerce - to compel by force or threats of force.

Al: To coerce is to *compel* someone to do something. 

---
| Authoritative reference:
---
Merriam-Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: 
 "1: to restrain or dominate by force
  2: to compel to an act or choice
  3: to enforce or bring about by force or threat"

---
| Analysis
---

In Phil's first definiton he incorrectly used "to influence" instead
of "to compel".  The very definition of influence (...producing an
effect without apparent exertion of force...) disallows this usage.
Phil's second defintion is similiar to MW9 definition 2 but modifies it
by requiring force or threats of force. 

Al is using defintion two.

BTW:

compel
 1 : to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly
 2 : to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure
 
We can now continue obtaining the definition of every word
used in each definition or simply note that to compel does
not require physical force or violence. 

Neither does coerce.

--
pedantically yours,

dave
manley@optilink.com




Newsgroups: ba.politics