HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: poly-wired?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:38:48 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Aug10193530@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug10.211702.22086@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>    I feel the difference between monogamy and polyamory is the *option*
>> of other relationships (of whatever sort). Monogamy is about declaring to
>> a partner "No matter how much you love me, you are *not allowed* to love
>> anyone else without getting in heaps of trouble and probably breaking
>> up with me". Not a very loving thing to say, is it?
>
>  To some people it's about the most loving thing you can say to another
>person.  Don't forget that freedom of partner(s) (or many other things)
>is not a prerequisite for happiness for many people, and that some/many
>religions say that polygamy, polyamory, anything non-monogomous is not
>only wrong, but against the commandments of their (various?) 
>[Gg]od{ess}(s).

I guess I'm about to make another one of those nasty value judgements,
but any religion or moral system that ignores the basic idea that one
should do unto others as one would have them do unto one isn't, IMHO,
particularly moral.  In this case, if a system says that freedom for
me should be important but not freedom for my partner (or happiness
for me but not happiness for my partner), its practitioners have
_already_ stuck themselves where the sun don't shine, and may well
have folded themselves until they were all points into the bargain.

>  I'm pro-poly myself, but I think it's unwise to condemn others when
>they disagree with your theories of life, loving, freedom, and
>happiness.  I'd say the same (and do) to those darn mono-types hyping
>their way of thought.

I'm glad to read that.  I don't know how you're able to keep up with
chiding all the novelists, songwriters, screenplay, play, and short
story authors, politicians, advertising copy writers, the Pope, and
parents telling their children how the world works.  The monoamorous
types sure outnumber the polyamorous types on this planet of clowns
(in wet shoes), so if you're striving for a balanced approach you'd
be better off focussing your attention on them: not only are there
more of them, they don't even consider _our_ theories to be viable,
while _we_ are willing to live and let live with the monoamorous
types so long as they don't take our children from our custody,
damn us into their [Hh]ell(s) (and try to speed us on our way there).

Bob

-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
Welcome to Difficult Listening Hour...
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: "poly" label and other people
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:04:04 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <920811124137@desire.ftp.com> fks@ftp.com writes:
+
+Mutal masturbation and very sorts of rubbing are completely safe if neither
+person has breaks in the skin. Are they sex?  :-)

I've heard of this refered to as 'outercourse', as opposed to
'intercourse'.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: poly-wired?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:10:15 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Aug9191748@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug9.161703.16536@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>How many relationships really begin with an explicit monogamy
>>manifesto??).
>
>  Most of them, I'd say.  People tend to get very upset when you assume
>otherwise [...]

Are you saying that there's an implicit explicit monogamy manifesto?


>>   *Even if* I wasn't Poly for myself, I can't reconcile loving someone
>>with not encouraging and supporting them to be Poly themselves. I mean,
>>when I say I love someone, I'm saying (among other things) that I want to
>>increase all good & happy things in their lives, and that means (among
>>other things) helping & encouraging them to have as many other loves as
>>they want.
>
>  So even if they don't want to be poly, you'd want them to be anyway?

Personally, I wish they could all be California girls, but other
than helping them to opportunities I'm not planning to do anything
about it...  I think the operative worlds in Joe's statement were
"want," "helping," and "encouraging."  My best guess is that what
he really _wants_ is for them to have enough choices so that they
can all be free and happy.

>This sounds like all too many christians (not all, not all, hold the
>flames :-)) I've run into -- they *know* the answer to life, it's not
>what I think it is, and they're going to try to make sure that I get a
>good chance to be blinded by their light as well.  Why don't you just
>encourage them to be happy and make their own choices and life, rather
>than what *you* deem is best for them?  I may believe that poly is for
>me, but I don't think that it then becomes what is "good & happy" for
>everyone.

Do you have a problem with christians saying, "I am incredibly happy
and fulfilled since I saw the light; if you have any desire to explore
christianity I'd be more than happy to help and support you in your
explorations."  I think I've tried what I think Joe is saying, and it
came down to helping and encouraging a lover to be involved with
another so that she would know that option was open to her.

Bob

-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
Welcome to Difficult Listening Hour...
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop)
Subject: Re: When did your feelings for polyamory start?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:39:06 GMT


	i don't really care much for 'zealous outreach', what do u mean?

	annemarie
	asuccop@u.washington.edu
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:59:56 EDT
From: Sonja Kueppers <SEK@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Polyamory and Marriage

In article <171lanINNeof@agate.berkeley.edu>, mshort@minestrone.Berkeley.EDU
(Michael Short) says:
>
>Did a state of polyamory happen only after your marriages? Or was it more a
>recognization of a 'First among equals'? Are all of you
>polygamist/polyandrous?

In a fit of stupidity, I told him I'd be willing to be monogamous.
(This wasn't volunteerism on my part; it was a condition of our
continuing relationship.) It was only after our engagement that we
realized that this was all an enormous miscommunication, and he didn't
*actually* expect me to be monogamous for the duration.
What a relief.  (I'd been nonmonogamous before I'd started seeing him.)
Of course, I can say now that I realized subconsciously at the time that
he was such a reasonable person that it *must* have been a misunderstanding,
but I'm not so sure.  I think I may have just been being stupid.

Anyway, at this time, we have no interest in having a more equal
relationship with other partners; we put each other first.  Other lovers
come after that.  This sounds harsh to some people, but it's very important
to us that we know we're number one for each other.  We're happy with this
solution.

Of course I also have meaningful relationships with other people -- but
I don't make important life decisions with them.  In deciding where
to go to gradutate school, for example, I'm limited to schools that are
either:
1) Where John is
2) Where John is willing/able to move to

All of my partners are not necessarily as committed to this lifestyle as
I am.  However, all partners I've had and will have will be fully
aware of my lifestyle, and comfortable with it.  I prefer to have
relationships with other polyamorous people, because it's easier.

-Sonja
------
SEK@psuvm.psu.edu SEK@PSUVM.BITNET
Love is not enough.  It must be the foundation, the cornerstone --
but not the complete structure.  It is much too pliable, too yielding.
                                            - Bette Davis
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:16:01 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 616@usenet.ins.cwru.edu, cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen) writes:
>In the first place, the Ancient Egyptians did _not_ use many slaves. 

So a little slavery is OK? If I murder just a little will you be an apologist
for me as well?

>Egypt was rather isolated from the rest of the world for much of its history. The
>pyramids were built by local peasants, and were largely "make-work"
>projects for the times when the peasants would have been idle.  
>

Truly the perspective of the master race. I'm sure the peasants had nothing
better to do and just up and voluntered for such fun work. Perhaps it was
the working conditions they enjoyed, the high pay, or just the honor
of moving boulders for their god incarnate. But since they had help
from space aliens it probably wasn't as hard as we think today.

>In the second place, slavery did make some sense, but was always recognized
>as a very dangerous institution.  

It's called the risk reward ratio. High risk gives a high pay off--slaves.

>Spartacus was far from being the only
>slave rebel the Romans (who DID use lots of slaves) had to deal with; at
>several points, the entire island of Sicily was under the control of rebel
>slaves.  

Yeah, slaves get uppity sometimes. But that's the cost of doin' business.

>Technology was what put an end to slavery, not humanitarian
>impulses.
>-- 

I get the feeling it would ruin your day if slavery was stopped because of
humanitarian impulses. 
From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:09:28 GMT
Subject: Re: No Hetboys, Death to Breeders
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

> 
> Hmmmm....
> 
> All I can say is that it would depend on the nature of the entire area.  If 
> the entire area were gay-owned and simply refused to sell or rent to the 
> hetboys, that would be one thing.  But if the streets through the Zone were 
> still public property, I don't think that you can justify a "NO BREEDERS" 
> prohibition in the area.  Likewise, I don't think that the rest of the 
> community could force the locals to sell only to non-breeders.


          The only way that a gay-owned area could refuse to sell to 
non-gays is by explicit agreement by all involved. Any other sort 
of coercion; ostracizing, refusal to do business with those who choose
to sell to non-gays, would be an initiating of force. 

          This whole agrument seems to be the same as that put forth by
the white supremacy (they call themselves 'separatist') movement. They
want to buy up all the available property in the northwest for their 
all-white bastion. The real issue is that they would be screwing 
themselves by eliminating a whole pool of talent, potential customers
and good neighbors. 

          So -- the real issue is ....what would be the benefit in 
having an all/white, all/black, all-gay or all-anything community? It 
could be done -- but why? 

-reykjavik   

                                     "you get what you settle for..."
                                                          Louise
From: fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Age of Consent
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:07:53 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In <1992Aug13.170358.26920@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:

>>  Those who are incapable
>> of personal responsibility need protection.
>The trick is making that determination.  I've got fully "adult" neighbors that
>I could make a case for incapacity on
[...]

Exactly.  That's why I support "age-of-consent" laws, because they give an
objective standard that relates fairly well, if not perfectly, to maturity.
The alternative is some sort of government certification "You are Now Mature"
and I don't think anybody wants that.

Note that this does not mean I support the AGES in the consent laws.  I think
they're much too high, for almost any given law.

ben
fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
will be president for food
From: saqx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:13:33 EDT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Distribution: world
Organization: Cornell University

In article <10948@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>,
bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: 
 
> And when the finger has been infected so long that it is gangrenous??  Or would
> you wait until the whole body was beyond saving before you would take action??
> The government in this country is far beyond the simple infection state.
> 
> bill

I think this is a bad analogy.  My beef with the government is not a matter
of utility, as the infection analogy relies upon.  The previous author stated
that it would be more sensible to attempt to heal the finger than amputate
it.  Instead of taking an apologetic stance, Bill should have attacked this 
twaddle by pointing out that in the case of government, the finger should
never have been there in the first place.  No, this does not mean that there
should be no government at all.  Rather, we should eliminate the many and
various ways the government has of sacking the economic pie.  Sure, we 
should streamline the government, but not by making it more efficient at 
what is (fundamentally) an immoral act.  Hack it down to its minimum
necessary function.  One consequence of this would be a stronger economy,
sure.  But that's not the *reason* for reforming.  

-- 
##############################################################
#                                                            #
#  RNJX@vax5.cit.cornell.edu                                 #             
#  Jeff Wilson                                               #
#  Cornell University                                        #
#  Department of Chemistry                                   #
#  --SF author in the making--                               #
#                                                            #
#  Is what you're living for worth dying for?                #
#                                                            #
##############################################################
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Reply-To: pandit@ssd.intel.com
Organization: SSD Intel Corp.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:17:29 GMT

In article l8lp43INNmnr@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>In article 17951@iWarp.intel.com, pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,) writes:
>>But slaves aren't cheap, and, when forced, won't do as much work as willing, 
>>compensated laborers will.  There is more the question of what "slavery" means. 
>
>So people have gone to the great expense of buying and keeping slaves for
>thousands of years for no reason? You test the limits of my little old
>irrational mind. Why would anyone keep slaves if it was not worth the return? 
>Certainly they had no moral qualms. It must have been economic.

All I'm saying is that the moral prohibition against slavery has some basis in 
economics, practicality, logic, and common sense.  It is not a completely arbitrary 
thing that some one came up with out of thin air and managed to convince every one 
else of. 

I would also ask, again, for your definition of slavery.  I think you'll find that 
every thing that distinguishes slavery from free trade of goods and labor between 
people (e. g. forcing people to stay in one place and work) makes it less economical.

---
|  Milind S. Pandit                           |  Standard disclaimers apply.  |
|  pandit@iwarp.intel.com                     |-------------------------------|
|  Operating Systems Engineer, iWarp Program  |   Who knows what evil lurks   |
|  Intel Corp., Beaverton, OR                 |     in the hearts of men?     |

Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Reply-To: pandit@ssd.intel.com
Organization: SSD Intel Corp.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:12:04 GMT

In article l8l2m1INNgao@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>In article 616@usenet.ins.cwru.edu, cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen) writes:
>>In the first place, the Ancient Egyptians did _not_ use many slaves. 
>
>So a little slavery is OK? If I murder just a little will you be an apologist
>for me as well?

No, no, no.  The whole point that we are trying to make is that there are many 
reasons not to engage in slavery other than that it is morally wrong.  In other 
words, even *if* you consider slavery/murder morally acceptable, that doesn't mean 
you are going to be eager to engage in it.

>>Technology was what put an end to slavery, not humanitarian
>>impulses.
>>-- 
>
>I get the feeling it would ruin your day if slavery was stopped because of
>humanitarian impulses. 

Not mine.  But I wouldn't count exclusively on humanitarian impulses for anything.

---
|  Milind S. Pandit                           |  Standard disclaimers apply.  |
|  pandit@iwarp.intel.com                     |-------------------------------|
|  Operating Systems Engineer, iWarp Program  |   Who knows what evil lurks   |
|  Intel Corp., Beaverton, OR                 |     in the hearts of men?     |

Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5244 talk.politics.misc:39704
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: 'Helpful' government (was Re: Private Discrimination)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:22:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.143550.24560@s1.gov>,
lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.132002.4962@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>lp> Loren I. Petrich
>>  As I recall, the number of kids' deaths that could have been avoided if the
>>  kid was in a child seat on the plane was <10 over a decade. Obviously, the
>>  FAA failed to do a life/life analysis of their new rule.
>
>        Does that mean that they are _supposed_ to be careless about
>safety in the supposed interest of economics? How many families would
>be driven into cars, anyway?

It means that any parent who is worried about the potential risk
should be free to buy another ticket and bring their safety seat.
It is not "careless" to decide not to spend money on things which
you believe have a low risk.  It is impossible to protect all
individuals from all risks without infinite cost.  Each individual
should be free to decide their own cost/risk trade-offs.  For minor
children I would much prefer to see the parents who love them make
such decisions on their behalf than a "disinterested" government
bureaucrat who will lose no money for every risk he forces someone
else to suppress but will gain tremendously for every life he can
point to as having been "saved" by his edict.

>        And let us not forget the possibility of injury. If you've
>ever had any experience with a little kid, you know how they like to
>wiggle and squirm around. A little kid isn't likely to heed warnings
>of turbulence or rough landings, and wouldn't even recognize either
>thing if it happened. And there isn't enough room between each seat and
>the one up front in the typical airliner. So it's VERY easy for a kid
>on a parent' lap to get a bad bump on the head.

This may be a valid reason for suggesting that it is better to use a
safety seat than to carry a child on your lap but it is *not* an
argument for *compelling* other people to abide by your evaluation
of the amount of risk involved.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Reply-To: pandit@ssd.intel.com
Organization: SSD Intel Corp.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:58:58 GMT

In article l8ig4gINNgao@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>I would say it's a complete psychotic break, but it's realy just
>wish fullfillment. It's this word "rational" that's the problem.
>Everyone's idea of what is rational is different. I think slavery
>is extremely rational. Get a lot of work for cheap. It's work for
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>many many civilizations which is an existence proof for its usefulness.
>Use up someones labor until they die. Slaves breed so we can get more 
>slaves that way. Or we can always wage a war or sail to africa to buy a few more.
>Seems very rational. Slavery may be wrong but's not irrational.

But slaves aren't cheap, and, when forced, won't do as much work as willing, 
compensated laborers will.  There is more the question of what "slavery" means.  Some 
slaves in this country lived almost exactly the same lives after they were freed, 
because they were willing to work for what their owners provided for them.

I forget what the original thread was, but since libertarian philosophy is explicitly 
against coercion, no one should fear that slavery might exist in a libertarian world 
just because it is economical or there is rationale for it.

---
|  Milind S. Pandit                           |  Standard disclaimers apply.  |
|  pandit@iwarp.intel.com                     |-------------------------------|
|  Operating Systems Engineer, iWarp Program  |   Who knows what evil lurks   |
|  Intel Corp., Beaverton, OR                 |     in the hearts of men?     |
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Age of Consent
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:03:58 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <fulton.713720588@copper> fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)  
writes:
>  Those who are incapable
> of personal responsibility need protection.
> 

The trick is making that determination.  I've got fully "adult" neighbors that  
I could make a case for incapacity on and I've seen children that are adult in  
some things and not in others.  And what determines a parents rights and  
responsibilities? "Spare the rod and spoil the child" or "child abuse"?  
"mentally ill" or "homeless"?

--
Barry Wise
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: Tax Evasion...a justifiable idea?
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:41:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.005938.14442@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> c3q@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:

}Option 1: pay no taxes.
}(Of course, doing so is illegal, but legality just means that the masses or the
}mob-elected dictators declared something to be so).

}Option 2: As I am protected by the police and military (institutions which are
}necessary and serve everyone), I should pay a percentage of my true taxes
}reflecting the percentage of the budget spent on them.

}Option 3: I should pay all taxes and wait for a Libertarian president.

}My feeling is that Option 2 is the most easilly defended, but that Option 1
}could be defended as a retaliatory blow (provoked by the many unconstitutional
}government incursions into my private life).  Either way, I think you'd have to
}be stupid to tell Big Brother your intentions.

i agree that option 2 is is probably the easiest to defend from an
ethical point of view, but actually doing this is much more likely to
get you thrown in jail than paying no taxes at all.

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."