HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Morally Right (Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:32:37 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13193@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>if I quoted from another part of the [Bible] to 
>argue that certain other practices [hint, hint] can't be morally defended,
>and similarly, people should be free to make their own decisions
>based on that, you would doubtless call me a "homophobe" and
>suggest that the right of free association is somehow "different."

Except that some of those "certain other practices" can't be morally
attacked, either.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHINING IS ANGER THROUGH A VERY SMALL OPENING)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Summary: Clarification  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 24 Nov 92 05:22:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov24.023237.5631@BofA.com>, dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman)                                    writes...
>In article <1992Nov21.001452.16468@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov20.222910.12581@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                   writes...
>>>Finite, but with rapidly increasing limits: Food production is, for
>>>example, finite. But that limit also increases rapidly with technology
>>>Overpopulation is only a problem if the population increases _faster_
>>>that the rate of production.
>>
>>The problem is that it is, and it has been for quite a while. I read not
>>to long ago that the world supply of grain is at its lowest levels in 
>>several decades.
>>> 
>It is very much like winter in North America these days.  Visit the 
>grocery store nearest you.  Notice how many finite bananas, pineapples,
>strawberries and bags of flour are available.  Fresh ones.  Finite 
>does not imply a shortage.

That's true, but it misses the point. I'm saying that with the
population increasing ever faster there will come a time (how far in the
future is anyone's guess) when the limits of finite resources will be
reached. IT WILL HAPPEN! It might not be in our lifetime, but it will
happen. Unless we somehow, someway, slow down the population growth.

  A low level of grain production, the lowest
>in decades is nothing in itself to be alarmed about.  Things like this
>depend on weather, the preferences of buyers, the policies of governments,
>and a lot of other things.  What is the alleged reason why there is
>less grain today than there was two decades ago?

More war, more drought, more people, less production. Not necessarily
in that order.
> 
> Daniel Brockman             tel 415-953-0406, fax 415-622-2892
> San Francisco 94104 USA    email uunet!odinba!dan dan@bofa.com
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Summary: Head in a hole  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:18:20 GMT

In article <BxyExr.4I1@lincoln.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)                         writes...
>In article <1992Nov16.184439.19349@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>>In article <adams.721933831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>There's too many people here already.
>>>But that is NOT my situation.  And as for you not having any kids, fine.
>>>Your choice.  Now please allow me mine.
>>What do you mean that not your situation?? Are you trying to imply
>>There's too many people and it's time to limit. Your view of the world
>>is very narrow (i.e. focused on yourself). "*I* have my kids; *I*
>>can afford them. So everything is fine". That still does not counter my
>>argument that we have an overpopulation problem on Earth AS A WHOLE!
> 
>There is no overpopulation problem. 
>People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
>contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
>advancement, generally.

I'm sure that all those countries in Africa will be glad to hear that.

>Arguments concerning the alleged population problem usually center
>around the myth of finite resources.

Until someone manages to actually generate "cold Fusion" then 
everything in the world is finite.

[rant rant rant deleted]

>Of course, those who push the population problem usually have an
>agenda which requires it. For example, many leftists are weded to
>the idea of controlling population because it is a convenient
>bridge to controlling people, generally.

I think you are on to something now. It's all a communist PLOT!
> 
-Garrett
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7360 ca.politics:9846
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:11:37 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov17.191945.3176@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> In article <lg826qINNah8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> :In article <1992Nov12.230416.16881@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# :#... The German State tried to protray the Jews as doing such things
# :#as murdering children for religious rituals.
# :
# :#That would be horrible and disgusting if true. But it of course was not true.
# :
# :#Homosexuals have sex with people of the same sex. Many people find that
# :#disgusting and revolting. But, what homosexuals do IS TRUE.
# 
# Part of growing up and becoming an adult is learning that the world
# cannot always be the way we want it; that other people have different
# ideas and tastes; and LEARNING TO TOLERATE THOSE DIFFERENCES.
# 
# There are many things I find disgusting and revolting. However,
# I accept that not everyone believes the same as I do and I have
# learned tolerance.
# 
# I would argue that people who cannot tolerate something because they
# find it personally disgusting HAVE NOT YET GROWN UP; they are still
# emotional babies.
#  
# Since we only allow adults to vote, perhaps these people should
# not be allowed to vote.
# --
# Bob Silverman

I completely agree.  I am completely willing to tolerate homosexuals.
They, for some reason, are unwilling to tolerate people who 
disapprove of homosexuality.  Hence, their constant yammering for
the passage of antidiscrimination laws.

There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.  Tolerance
means that you are prepared to live and let live.  Homosexuals 
already have that in California; the laws are written to allow
them to do as they please in private, to make asses of themselves
in public, etc. -- all the rights of a straight person.

But they aren't content with that -- they have to have laws to
shut up people that don't approve.  They want us all shut up, and
forced to pretend approval.

There is a difference.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7151 ca.politics:9591 talk.politics.misc:60367
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:47:31 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Nov15.203834.10109@udel.edu> carroll@balin.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.230416.16881@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>Correct. The German State tried to protray the Jews as doing
    >>such things as murdering children for religious rituals.
    >>
    >>That would be horrible and disgusting if true. But it of
    >>course was not true.
    >>
    >>Homosexuals have sex with people of the same sex. Many people
    >>find that disgusting and revolting. But, what homosexuals do
    >>IS TRUE.
    >>
    >>Big difference.
    >>
    >>
    >Not really.
    >
    >The German state tried to take an entire race of people, and
    >portray them as subhuman, evil beings that had to be
    >discriminated against in order to preserve society. They did
    >that by making up phony statistics and propogating lies
    >claiming that the Jews did various horrible things.
    >
    >It's rather a lot like your crusade against gays.

Oh? I'm making up lies about homosexuals?

Tell me -- do homosexuals have sex with other men? Do homosexuals
have bath houses where they have sex with multiple (dozens) of
anonymous partners in a single night?

    >>To hate/dislike/shun/whatever some group because of things
    >>they are supposed to do but in reality don't, is one thing.
    >>To hate/dislike/shun/whatever a group because of things they
    >>actually do is another case.
    >>
    >If you hate a person or a group of people because of
    >something they do in private, which has absolutely no affect
    >on you, that's sick. And trying to force the government to
    >get involved in your perverse hatreds is even worse.

There is a man (or couple) that has been driving up and down I-80
for 5-6 years now kidnapping little blond girls. He (or they) has had
absolutely no effect on me, yet I can hate that sick man (or couple).

Same for various mid-east tyrants, Ted Bundy, most politicians (except they
DO have an effect on me) and so on.

You have taken a stupid position.

In addition, I NEVER advocate coercive interference. You either are too
stupid to comprehend what I posted, or you are a malicious asshole.

    >But you don't even do that - you try to incite other people
    >to hate homosexuals on the basis of things that they DO NOT
    >do.

Wrong again knee-jerk breath. Homosexuals DON'T have sex with other
men? And just what is this incitement?

Try to think, not react like an emotional moron.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7163 talk.politics.misc:60416
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:12:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <168A0F53B.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>       Altruists had *better* be in the majority.  We *were* discussing
>the majority.

Altruists need not be in the majority.  You could, for example, have
a majority made up of altruists and people who agree with

   "I'll give if everyone else gives, but not if they don't".

This would majority could conceivably vote for more taxes and more
government services, yet not support services.  Admittedly, these same
people could also join charitable organizations, but that is not the
same as "everyone".

Go read some game theory (_Game Theory_ by Poundstone is pretty light,
and you get to read all about John Von Neumann's life and the bomb,
too).  Look up "Stag Hunt".

David Chase
Sun
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The usual
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:22:49 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <102357@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <1992Nov17.180532.5228@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >Dislike which is irrational and rarely open to
    >self-inspection, to be precise.

Oh? And then just why is homosexuality rational? It is certainly anti-survival.

    >Ask yourself how many homosexual individuals who find the
    >concept of heterosexuality disgusting.

Why does this have anything to do with symmetry? If I find say, people
that torture small mammals disgusting, is that an invalid reaction just
because "they" don't find people that DON'T torture small mammals O.K.?

For the most part, people that indulge in practices that most other people
find disgusting don't find the majority disgusting.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7257 ca.politics:9692 talk.politics.misc:60868
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Election '92
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:41:22 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <5599@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
> 	Up here on Main Street USA we held our own cute little election,
> which was basically to put in office either the old white guy who wants to
> build 25 new residential developments, or the old white guy who wants to
> build 26 new residential developements. I couldn't decide so I voted

Why should you care about their race?  Or is this just your typical
liberal attempt at promoting race hatred?  (By the way, how many
black people ARE there in Grass Valley?  Last time I was there, it
seemed like a limousine liberal's dream -- ethnically homogenous.)

> for my son Andrew, who just wants someone to build a school that has a
> playground with some grass on it. If deer could vote they probably would
> have followed Andrew's lead, since residential developments aren't really
> Bambi-friendly.
> 
> 	I bring up the school/grass issue because Nevada County voters
> turned down yet another school bond issue, leaving many students with
> crowded classrooms and nowhere to learn annoying social habits. The
> post-election analysis revealed that most Nevada County voters are old
> retired white guys, who I guess figure they already did the school thing
> and just want a rest. I should mention that one bond issue did pass,
> Measure G, which provides funds to pave the golf-cart trails at the
> Grass Valley Country Club. 

What?  You are upset?  It's for the public good, or the voters
wouldn't have passed it! :-)  Seriously, this is what's wrong with
democracy -- it tends towards liberalism/fascism.  The only difference
is whether the government uses its resources to help government
employees working in welfare offices, or helps developers who are
already rich.  (The poor are completely irrelevant to both forms
of statist power that you love so much).


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:03:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.191945.3176@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
    >Part of growing up and becoming an adult is learning that the
    >world cannot always be the way we want it; that other people
    >have different ideas and tastes; and LEARNING TO TOLERATE
    >THOSE DIFFERENCES.
    >
    >There are many things I find disgusting and revolting.
    >However, I accept that not everyone believes the same as I do
    >and I have learned tolerance.
    >
    >I would argue that people who cannot tolerate something
    >because they find it personally disgusting HAVE NOT YET GROWN
    >UP; they are still emotional babies.
    >
    >Since we only allow adults to vote, perhaps these people
    >should not be allowed to vote.
    >
    >To paraphrase Jefferson: "It does me no harm for someone to
    >say he is an atheist. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks
    >my leg".
    >
    >If only others were similarly tolerant [but not just
    >concerning atheism].

Tell me, have you grown up yet? Then I guess you tolerate the following
wonderful different ideas and tastes:

1. Saudia Arabian treatment of women.
2. Iraqi treatment of Kurds.
3. European treatment of Turks.
4. Lack of democracy in the PRC.
5. Sutee in India.
6. Slavery (it still exists in the world you know).
7. Murder on female infants in parts of rural China.
8. Massive ecological destruction by the ex-USSR.
9. Use of disposable diapers.
10. People who don't recycle.
11. Large fast muscle cars that get 10 MPG but are fast to drive.
12. Marriages where the wife is expected to stay home and just have kids.
13. American Indian cultures that place below the status of horses.
14. Brazilian cities where parentless street children and killed by the
    police with the tacit approval of the locl neighborhood.

and so on and so on ...

Guess in your world view, since I find these many of these
things disgusting and intolerable (not all, num. 9-11 are O.K.),
then I'm not "all growed up".

To tolerate evil is to encourage evil, to not speak out is moral
cowardice.

God help us all if another Hitler comes to power and there are lots of
people like you around ...



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: At last, we're almost there!
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:16:41 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Nov21.023931.21982@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <102608@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>It is unfortunate, however, that his reasons for avoiding gay
>>people are totally groundless. But if he wants to deceive himself,
>>that's his business.

>Oh so close!!!! [...] In the pursuit of happiness, subjectivity IS the
>priority.

>I don't like lima beans. Are my reasons groundless? After all, the stores
>stock and sell lima be beans so certainly SOME people out there like
>them. They aren't poisonous. I just can't stand them.

So, do you refuse to associate with lima-bean-eaters?

You can, but if you do, your reasons are groundless.

>There is a HUGE gulf between "no overt rational reason" for disliking
>homosexuals, and the "unfortunately ... groundless" remark.

Yep, like the difference between not liking homosexuals, and not liking
homosexual activities.

Capiche?

[...]
>It's not groundless, it's not fear, hate, or a phobia -- it's the way we
>all like and dislike different things.

But avoiding people who like doing things you hate is totally groundless,
unless they attempt to get you to do these things.

>[...]

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7358 ca.politics:9838 talk.politics.misc:61488
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Saying something once or 100 times does not make it so
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:24:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov20.210136.12741@pb2esac.uucp>, jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.175111.597@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# #Sure -- after all, if you don't believe that it is totally moral to
# #discriminate, then you accept that it is O.K. to use coercion on people.
# #You seem unwilling to examine the consequences of your position.
# 
# No, it is precisely because I have examined the consequences of
# encouraging everyone to discriminate against everyone at will
# that I find that more frighteneing than what us Evil Liberals
# advocate.
# 
# jb

What law encourages "everyone to discriminate against everyone"?
There is a difference between "allow" and "encourage."  Our laws
currently allow you to engage in sodomy with a consenting adult.
Does that mean our laws "encourage" this?

Though I'm not surprised you would think this -- it's a position
I've heard conservatives take with respect to condom distribution
and repeal of sodomy laws.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
From: J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Don't blame me, I voted....
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:47:45 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

Reprinted from Letters To The Editor (paper not known)

  When inflation reaches 10 percent, and interest rates hit 20 percent,
don't blame me - I voted Republican.
  When your employer has a choice between paying his or her taxes and
paying you, don't blame me - I voted Republican.
  When small businesses go under by the hundreds, don't blame me - I
voted Republican.
  When the "tax-suckers" outnumber the taxpayers in this country,  don't
blame me - I voted Republican.
  When you look at your tax bill and realize that you are the "rich" inan
"tax the rich," don't blame me - I voted Republican.
   When the government increases taxes not only on what you make during your
life, but also on what you leave to your heirs, don't blame me - I voted
Republican.
   When the schools teach African History and Indian History, but not American
History, don't blame me - I voted Republican.
   When your teen-age doughter can choose to have an abortion without your
knowledge, but can't choose what school to send her to, don't blame me - I
voted Republican.
   When you remember the last Democratic administration of this country, which
was also voted in simply because you got mad at a Republican president, don't
blame me - I voted Republican.
   When 1996 rolls around, and you reconsider what you want in a president,
perhaps you'll join me in voting Republican.

David C. Fernau, San Jose
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7293 ca.politics:9758