From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:22:31 GMT

fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:


>In article <C1JAK5.3DC@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>|>
>|>Hmm... don't I remember something about women dressing "seductively" or
>|>"sluttily" NOT being justification for rape?  I guess that a white
>|>guy's presence in an area of town at night would by the same logic
>|>not justify his murder.
>|>
>|>So liberals... what's the deal?  If white guys in bad areas are "asking"
>|>for it, are women who are dressed sexily ALSO asking for it?  Or would
>|>you give the conservative answer and say that NEITHER deserve it.  
>|>Careful.. if you agree with me Hillary Clinton will revoke your membership
>|>in "PCers for the Destruction of America".
>|>
>|>
>|>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

>Why do "conservatives" go off on these tangents?  No one is suggesting that
>violence against white boys is OK.  The only person using terms like 

Yvette clearly indicated she thought it was at LEAST partially
justifiable based on the horrible, dastardly, vicious things whites
have done to every one else in this world.  Go back and read it.


>"asking for it" is Mr Simmonds. The original discussion, if I remember 
>correctly, was about gay bashing.  Then certain people tried to state 
>that gay bashing is not important because white boys get bashed too, if 
>they go into certain parts of town.

What I said is that I object to the use of the term Gay Bashing when
Whites are victims of similar crimes and no one gets up on their
soapbox about "White Bashing".  Would you please show me where I said
Gay Bashing wasn't disgusting, evil and deserving of swift and stern
punishment?  You can't show me because I never said that.  

I have said OVER AND OVER that sickos deserve to get punished for
these crimes... ALL of these crimes.  

>Now Mr Simmonds attempts to use the First Lady's name as an insult.  How
>does that add to the discussion ?

Maybe because I find President Hillary an offensive hypocrit?   

>Gay bashing is wrong.  Just like any kind of violence against another 
>person is wrong.  It would be nice to end all violence against all people,
>but thats an awful big task, and the motive for each type of violence may
>be different.  One motive is not better than the other, or more justified 
>than the other.  But they are different  

>Most gay bashing is performed by adolecent males.  (that should be a safe
>generalization)  Mature adults usually have realized that the world, the
>country, and even their own city, is full of people different than themselves.
>If you struck out at everyone who was different than you, you would have
>no time for anything else.  Also adults tend to realize that striking out
>with violence at those who are different doesnt really change much of anything.

>Adolecent males who go out looking for gays to beat up do it because they
>think that 1) gays are easy targets and 2) that there will be no repercusions
>in doing the gay bashing.  2a) would be that they think that they can get 
>away with it because they think that its socially acceptable.

I proposed a similar analysis earlier.  Congrats for following in my 
footsteps.  

>The only thing that we can do to counter gay bashing is 1) show potential
>gay bashers that we will stand up to them, such as by having organized 
>patrols walking the streets where gay bashing has occured, and 2) show that
>there are repercusions to their actions, that people do get arrested and
>sent to jail, and in places with hate-crime legislation, get a harsh sentence.
>And 2a) is show that its not socially acceptable to bash gays by talking
>about it in person and in the media, and in Usenet.

>If Mr Simmonds and Mr Golberg think that white-boy bashing is a serious 
>problem needing additional attention, I suggest that they analyze the problem,
>determine its causes, and propose a plan of action, hopefully one that
>would not cause any additional violence or break any additional laws.

Mr. Fogarty, the only problem that exists regarding this issue is in
enforcement of existing laws.  The laws are there.  They cannot by 
definition be prejudiced because they have no emotions or opinions.
If you do not like the way they are enforced, attack that aspect of the
system.  

I would appreciate it if you would not make stupid statements implying
I condone the "bashing" of anyone, including gays.... or even you.


>-e
>Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion