HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Fundamental Human Rights
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1993Jan7.223233.8367@news.eng.convex.com>
	<1993Jan9.064227.22812@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <4855@moscom.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:02:30 GMT

In article <4855@moscom.com> jp@moscom.com (Jim Palmeri) writes:
   Good point.  Establishing just what fundamental human rights are
   may be a difficult task, but one that should be undertaken.

   How about we claim that fundamental human rights are "inalienable
   rights"?  Then perhaps we can start by trying to define just what an
   "inalienable right" is?

   Then if we succeed in getting a general consensus as to what might
   be good definition of an inalienable right, we might continue by
   suggesting the the inalienable right of a human being to their own
   life is the primary basic fundamental human right.

   If we can get a consensus on that point, we are on our way.  But not
   without much clear logical thinking.  Thinking that avoids being
   influenced by emotion, culture, and religious conditioning.  

It sounds like the project is completely hopeless.  Since there are
cultures in which human life is *not* considered to be a right in any
sense of the word, I suggest that finding *any* right which is "not
influenced by culture" is impossible.

In addition, although almost all Americans would agree that "life" is
a fundamental right, there are many schools of thought as to what that
right encompasses.  Consider some think that "respect for life"
forbids capital punishment, and some thing that "respect for life"
makes capital punishment for murder mandatory...

Note that although the Declaration of Independence uses "inaleniable
rights", the Constitution doesn't mention them at all, since it is a
practical document, not a propaganda piece.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.economics
From: mmiller@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Miller)
Subject: Ross Perot will be on Larry King Live, Monday, 9pm Eastern, on your CNN cable station
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 20:58:31 GMT

The title pretty much says it all.  Perot will make what I think is
his 2nd TV appearance since the election, to discuss the plans and
organization of "United We Stand, America" which recently was
officially registered as a non-profit organization.

|Mark Miller, computer science   |"Like a government, the operating system   |
|major at C.S.U.                 |performs no useful function by itself."    |
|millerm@cs.colostate.edu        |   --- Operating System Concepts           |
|mmiller@nyx.cs.du.edu           |"Let me ask you something.  Is the         |
|                                |government worth preserving when it lies   |
|                                |to the people?" --- "JFK"                  |
|        "FATHER!...FATHER!...THE SLEEPER HAS AWAKENED!" --- "Dune"          |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists" 
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 21:08:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.223233.8367@news.eng.convex.com>, Harry Foster <foster@convex.COM> writes:
|> In article <1993Jan7.173546.26893@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177) writes:
|> >
|> >Now Mr. Arnold can argue that Amendment 2 was a product of the homophobic,
|> >religious right, just as I can argue that his views are an outgrowth of
|> >a theophobic, aetheistic, socialist. The fact is that the majority rules
|> >in a democratic form of government, and the majority is christian and
|> >heterosexual. Thus the majority has a somewhat homogeneous set of values,
|> >and morals.
|> >
|> John Stuart Mill argued a century ago that:
|> 
|> 	Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate 
|> 	is not enough, there needs to be protection also against the 
|> 	tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feelings; against the 
|> 	tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil 
|> 	penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct 
|> 	on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, 
|> 	and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality 
|> 	not in harmony with its ways.
|> 
|> IMHO, history has shown the effects of the "prevailing opinions" and 
|> the generally accepted social morality when left unchecked.  Recall 
|> Germany and its treatment of Jews.  Recall our own country and the 
|> treatment of blacks in the not too distant past.  
|> 
|> Fundamental human rights should not be up for debate, or left to
|> a majority vote.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Harry Foster	                            foster@convex.com 
|> 	The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye, the more light 
|> 	you pour upon it, the more it will contract.  
|> 						-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

   Recall also some of the things that happened in Rome.  Some time during 
the century or so before the fall, Christians gained a majority in the senate,
and they had a few Christian Emperors.  (Early 300's A.D., I think.... I could
be mistaken.)  Paganism had been the official religion, but with this leadership
it soon became Christianity.  This lead to the first official executions of
non-Christians by Christians AND the first executions of heretical Christians
by Christians.  

   All of this wonderful fundamentalist leadership and Rome still didn't improve.
In fact, some historians count such leadership among the causes of the fall.
Methinks Pat Robertson should read more history.

Just my $.02.
Rod
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
From: jwbailey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Wood Bailey)
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists"
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:58:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.064227.22812@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
 dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.223233.8367@news.eng.convex.com>
 foster@convex.COM (Harry Foster) writes:
>
>>>
>>John Stuart Mill argued a century ago that:
>>
>>	Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate
>>	is not enough, there needs to be protection also against the
>>	tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feelings; against the
>>	tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil
>>	penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct
>>	on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development,
>>	and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality
>>	not in harmony with its ways.
>>
>>IMHO, history has shown the effects of the "prevailing opinions" and
>>the generally accepted social morality when left unchecked.  Recall
>>Germany and its treatment of Jews.  Recall our own country and the
>>treatment of blacks in the not too distant past.
>

[comment by Mr. Laro deleted]

>>
>>Fundamental human rights should not be up for debate, or left to
>>a majority vote.
>
>Ah.  Let's not let the majority _vote_ on what "fundamental human rights"
>include.  Now it sounds like we're moving from Nazi Germany to the U.S.S.R.?
>(I understand they didn't care much for the majority vote, at one time in the
>not too distant past.)
>
>I am still puzzled, though. Exactly who do _you_ propose we permit to
>make that decision.  Or, do we all just "agree" on it?    (sounds like
>we're faced with either a majority opinion, or a decision handed down
>from 'on high' from the cabal.)
>
>My point here:  your statement about "fundamental human rights...." is
>much too abstract for me.  I lack the intellect to accurately decipher such
>broad and sweeping expressions.   I can better understand concepts and
>principles when they are expressed in more specific terms.
>
>So!  Exactly how do _you_ propose we go about the establishment of
>fundamental human rights at this particular time in history?  Or, just
>what _are_ you suggesting?
>

I'm not entirely sure but what Mr. Foster is suggesting, but
I'm a bit mystified by your claim that fundamental human rights are
too abstract for you.  You should go back to Mill's _On_Liberty_,
from which Mr. Foster's citation comes.  Or, if that would take too
much of your time, simply read the first through tenth and thirteenth
through fifteenth ammendments to the U.S. Constitution.  Those
together surely constitute as good a starting place as any.

>>--
>>Harry Foster			                            foster@convex.com
>
>David
>

Clancy Bailey
Dept. of Politics
Princeton University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Oxymoron City (was Re: Fundamental Human Rights)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:45:02 GMT

In article <4855@moscom.com> jp@moscom.com (Jim Palmeri) writes:
>Sombody said:
>>So!  Exactly how do _you_ propose we go about the establishment of
>>fundamental human rights at this particular time in history?  Or, just
>>what _are_ you suggesting?
>
>Good point.  Establishing just what fundamental human rights are
>may be a difficult task, but one that should be undertaken.
>
>How about we claim that fundamental human rights are "inalienable
>rights"?  Then perhaps we can start by trying to define just what an
>"inalienable right" is?
>
>Then if we succeed in getting a general consensus as to what might
>be good definition of an inalienable right, we might continue by
>suggesting the the inalienable right of a human being to their own
>life is the primary basic fundamental human right.

If inalienable rights depend upon a "general consensus" then the right
is not inalienable! It can be alienated as soon as the general consensus
evaporates. Conversely, to say that a right is a right merely because it
is supported by the same general consensus also does injury to the very
nature of inalienability for it was not inalienable before it was declared
inalienable by the general consensus.

Just what IS an inalienable right? The US Declaration of Independence
discusses one possible meaning: it is a right which does not depend upon
the government but which predates the government. Thus, it is "wrong" for
governments to infringe inalienable rights, such as the right to life and
liberty and deliberate infringement constitutes just cause for revolution.

This interpretation is somewhat meaningful in that it posits a socially
defined set of rights and supposes that governments are instituted to protect
these.

The US Declaration of Independence further suggested that inalienable rights
are an attribute of humanity (as opposed to society or culture) thus implying
a universality accross different societies and cultures (not to mention sexes
and races).

Ultimately, though, rights are only inalienable in two senses:

  1) when the character of inalienability is theoretical, only, irrespective
     of the actual circumstances of the holder of the right (as for example,
     we might say that Jews in Nazi Germany had the inalienable right to
     life even though they were slaughtered like pigs).

  2) when the holder of the right has the physical means to defend his right
     apart from any judgement by society or by government (as for example, 
     we might say that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms
     because, as a practical matter, they cannot be taken away by force).

While some might be content with inalienability in the first sense, most 
practical people will strive for the second.



Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:769 alt.politics.homosexuality:9268 alt.politics.sex:582
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Saturday, 9 Jan 1993 20:25:33 EST
From: <IO20746@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists"
 <1993Jan7.223233.8367@news.eng.convex.com>
 <1993Jan9.064227.22812@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>

I think you guys are forgetting what we are talking
about. If I am correct we are talking about the
recent vote of anti-gay policies in Colorado. So
to get us back on track I will state that I feel
this is wrong. Why? Because too many people
discriminate against Homosexuality when they don't
completely understand it. Homosexuality is a natural
occurence, just as much as heterosexuality. For
example, do you wake up in the morning one day and
say "Today I'm going to stay a heterosexual." No.
And the reverse is true. People don't decide to be
homosexual, they just are. People don't decide to be
African in descent, or European or Asian for that matter.
Why must we discriminate against what only nature has control
over?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
From: Harry Foster <foster@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists" 
Originator: foster@magnum.convex.com
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:32:33 GMT
Reply-To: foster@convex.COM (Harry Foster)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan7.173546.26893@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177) writes:
>
>Now Mr. Arnold can argue that Amendment 2 was a product of the homophobic,
>religious right, just as I can argue that his views are an outgrowth of
>a theophobic, aetheistic, socialist. The fact is that the majority rules
>in a democratic form of government, and the majority is christian and
>heterosexual. Thus the majority has a somewhat homogeneous set of values,
>and morals.
>
John Stuart Mill argued a century ago that:

	Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate 
	is not enough, there needs to be protection also against the 
	tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feelings; against the 
	tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil 
	penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct 
	on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, 
	and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality 
	not in harmony with its ways.

IMHO, history has shown the effects of the "prevailing opinions" and 
the generally accepted social morality when left unchecked.  Recall 
Germany and its treatment of Jews.  Recall our own country and the 
treatment of blacks in the not too distant past.  

Fundamental human rights should not be up for debate, or left to
a majority vote.

-- 
Harry Foster			                            foster@convex.com 
	The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye, the more light 
	you pour upon it, the more it will contract.  
						-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists" 
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:32:16 GMT


In article <1993Jan7.173546.26893@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, 
noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177) writes:

|> The fact is that the majority rules
|>in a democratic form of government, and the majority is christian and
|>heterosexual. 

Dont forget white, and male !

|>Thus the majority has a somewhat homogeneous set of values,
|>and morals.

That being "I got mine.  Whats your problem ?"

|>Mr. Arnold (and minority groups around this nation)
|>have a wonderful concept currently working for their cause, it is called
|>polical correctness. 

Its called "justice for all"  and  "equal protection under the law".

|>
|>Now am I the only one that sees a pattern to the type of success stories
|>that are the results of the political correctness tool. Well I may be
|>some kind of nut case that is consumed by conspiracy theories. But I believe
|>that every one of the causes championed by politically correct thinkers
|>is aiding in the destruction of American society's FAMILIES, VALUES, MORALS,
|>and SCHOOLS. 

Make that white male heterosexual American society's families, values, 
morals and schools.

Seriously, I think the problems facing American society today is much more
likely due to the every-man-for-himself attiude that has been the dominate
force of the 80s.

Equal rights for homosexuals does not take away from American society.  It
adds to it.  Homosexuals have always been part of society.  Homosexuals have
always contributed to society.

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:757 alt.politics.homosexuality:9140 alt.politics.sex:560
From: robert@aero.org (R. S. Statsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists"
Date: 7 Jan 1993 19:44:55 GMT
Organization: Your Guess Is As Good As Mine...
NNTP-Posting-Host: halcyon.aero.org

In article <1993Jan7.173546.26893@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177) writes:
|
|Now Mr. Arnold advocates use of a boycott of the state of Colorado, to
|influence the states' citizens views on the issue at hand. 

I agree that a boycott would be shameful and deplorable. I think that 
the detonation of a thermonuclear device outside the office of Coloradans 
for Family Values would be more appropriate.

|If Colorado's citizens feel the need to make laws to
|protect their citizens and businesses from the moral decay of modern society, 
|or if they feel the need to impart socially acceptable values in
|their schools than good for them. 

'The Moral Decay of Modern Society'?? OOOOOOH. I am absolutely
cowed into silence by your vocabulary, Tom. Would you care to
explain how allowing local communities to decide their own civil
rights agendas would lead to 'TMDOMS'? Isn't it JUST POSSIBLE, Tom,
that in those communities, gays and lesbians ARE being discriminated
against? If it were right-wing fascist homophobes like yourself who 
were being discriminated against, would you not demand equal - NOT SPECIAL,
BUT EQUAL - protection under the law?

|Now Mr. Arnold can argue that Amendment 2 was a product of the homophobic,
|religious right, just as I can argue that his views are an outgrowth of
|a theophobic, aetheistic, socialist. The fact is that the majority rules
|in a democratic form of government, and the majority is christian and
|heterosexual. 

And, obviously, homophobic. The government tells you that you can't
discriminate on the basis of race, on the basis of creed, on
the basis of religion, on the basis of gender. Why does not your
'Christian Hetero Majority' scream bloody murder about any of
these? If you're going to use some Biblical argument - itself
a tenuous precept at best given that our country's laws are based on
the Constitution, NOT the Bible - why not deny equal protection
to idolators, Jews, Muslims, adulterers, and all the other
'heathen' ?

|Thus the majority has a somewhat homogeneous set of values,
|and morals. Mr. Arnold may not like this set of values and morals,
|or the laws that this majority makes, and under a democratic system he
|has the right to descent. Mr. Arnold (and minority groups around this nation)
|have a wonderful concept currently working for their cause, it is called
|polical correctness. 

Indeed. It's very nearly as wonderfully subversive a concept as is 
Bible-thumping.

Bottom Line: If the State of Colorado wants to dis-allow the enactment 
of legislation providing EQUAL PROTECTION on the basis of sexual
orientation, it better damned well dis-allow such equal protection
legislation for EVERYBODY.

				R.S.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
From: thumim@nevada.edu (Scrooge McDuck)
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists"
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:21:40 GMT

In article <1ii17nINN2jt@news.aero.org> robert@aero.org (R. S. Statsinger) writes:
>
>Bottom Line: If the State of Colorado wants to dis-allow the enactment 
>of legislation providing EQUAL PROTECTION on the basis of sexual
>orientation, it better damned well dis-allow such equal protection
>legislation for EVERYBODY.
>
Agreed wholeheartedly.  *clap*
Peace.
Jon



Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:775 alt.politics.homosexuality:9362 alt.politics.sex:591
From: jp@moscom.com (Jim Palmeri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Fundamental Human Rights
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:26:28 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY

>
>So!  Exactly how do _you_ propose we go about the establishment of
>fundamental human rights at this particular time in history?  Or, just
>what _are_ you suggesting?

Good point.  Establishing just what fundamental human rights are
may be a difficult task, but one that should be undertaken.

How about we claim that fundamental human rights are "inalienable
rights"?  Then perhaps we can start by trying to define just what an
"inalienable right" is?

Then if we succeed in getting a general consensus as to what might
be good definition of an inalienable right, we might continue by
suggesting the the inalienable right of a human being to their own
life is the primary basic fundamental human right.

If we can get a consensus on that point, we are on our way.  But not
without much clear logical thinking.  Thinking that avoids being
influenced by emotion, culture, and religious conditioning.  

The point is that coming up with the fundamental human rights is not
easy, but it can be done.  Much of the work has already been done by the
philosophers over the ages, and their work is constantly being being
updated by contemporary thinkers as our collective consciousness about
human life continues to evolve.

It may be very possible that a consensus could exist as to what the 
basic human rights are, and those basic human rights might very well
include principles that preclude majority rule on some issues.
-- 
Jim P.   (jp@moscom.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: "American society's values and morals"?  (was 3 Cheers...)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:36:09 GMT


In article <1993Jan7.173546.26893@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, 
noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177) said:

> Now am I the only one that sees a pattern to the type of success
> stories that are the results of the political correctness tool. Well
> I may be some kind of nut case that is consumed by conspiracy
> theories. But I believe that every one of the causes championed by
> politically correct thinkers is aiding in the destruction of
> American society's FAMILIES, VALUES, MORALS, and SCHOOLS.

Tom, you decry the destruction of "American society's... values [and]
morals," yet you do nothing to explain just what they are.  Please
explain what "American society's values and morals" are, why they are
good things, and why their alteration or "destruction" is a bad thing.
Please refrain from citing subjective sources, such as religious tracts,
as controlling authority, since subjective sources are, by definition,
unprovable and unsupportable.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex