HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:50:43 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <SYNTH.92Jul30140808@deepthought.unm.edu>, synth@deepthought.unm.edu (Synth F. Oberheim) writes:
> 	<SYNTH.92Jul29195010@deepthought.unm.edu>
> 	<1992Jul30.084348.9059@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
> Lines: 20
> 
> 
> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> 
> dc> synth@deepthought.unm.edu (Synth F. Oberheim) writes:
> 
>>> If it's a visualization of sex either with protest from the woman or with
>>> the woman being oblivious to any act taking place, it's a rape fantasy.
> 
> dc> Olivious is not rape.
> 
> Having sex with someone who is drugged up, unconscious or incapacitated
> is not rape ?

Yes it is. HHowever,oblivious does not mean any of those things. Oblivious means
does not care, isn't bothered by. You don't believe me, pull out Webster's.

Their fantasies of sex with women where the women are protesting are rape
fantasies. Their fantasies where they do not bother to fantasize that their
partner is willing to perform is one where not all details are filled in, and
not a rape fantasy.

DC



Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Rights
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 20:58:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.160413.3196@a.cs.okstate.edu> boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN) writes:
>I love that term too.  Lesbigay rights.  Sounds like "Let's be gay" rights to
>me.  I thought that humorous.  What about letsbestraight rights?

I like the sound, too.  Why settle for boring straight, let's be gay!  :)

>And what are all these "rights" people keep talking about anyway?  I wonder if
>half the things people say is their "right" really is.  I imagine the Bill of
>Rights has been expounded and expanded on by case-law (I'm no law student, so
>I probably don't know what I'm talking about here) and this is where people
>get their extra "rights" not covered therein.
>
>I occationally hear people bark about how their "right" to this or that has
>been infringed upon.  I can't think of specific examples, but most of the time,
>what they're yap'n about makes me go, "Hey, that's not really a _right_, is it?"

Well, I don't know.  I think you might express some outrage if you
were denied a job, or housing, or custody of your children, or a
promotion because you're heterosexual.  Or if your state said to you
and your girlfriend, "Sorry, but you two can't get a marriage license
because you're a man and a woman.  Only couples of the same sex are
allowed to marry."  Or if you were booted out the military, although
you have an excellent record because someone learns you're (gasp!)
straight.

You might just be a tad pissed off.  You might think that if lesbigay
people aren't being fired, denied marriage licenses, or booted out of
the military for their sexual orientation, why should you as a
straight be.  It might just seem to you that these people have rights
that you don't have.

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,misc.test,alt.postmodern,sci.classics
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: The Writings of Socrates (Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court)
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Keywords: pompous ignorance
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:32:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.185618.14266@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.151507.9098@Princeton.EDU>
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>EN:
>>My experience with the Socratic method of teaching law is limited,
>>because I avoid bullies and toad-eaters.  I am of course experienced in
>>teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.  
>
>I interrupt this fascinating debate between my two favorite culture
>mavens only to announce that the above pearl is hereby entering my
>collection of exemplary samples of Edward G. Nilges' wit and wisdom.

Mikhail, sweetie-pie, you promised to withdraw from interaction with me
after I kicked your butt last fall.  I am quite aware, of course, that
"the writings of Socrates" may be infelicitous unless we use Derrida's
"writing" such that Socrates wrote-through Plato, and I am aware that it
is lese-majesty to say of a Real Stud like Socrates that he soiled
himself with writing.  But your pedantic little sniggering is even more
infelicitous.  


Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
Subject: Re: Free will
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:50:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.125508.10715@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina) writes:
>From: frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina)
>Subject: Re: Free will
>Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:55:08 GMT

>   I still disagree that there is a conflict. The kind of demterminism you  
>need to destroy free will doesn't exist at all on the microscopic level or  
>in a macroscopic living system. Use whatever laws of physics or biology  
>you wish; you will havbe no idea what I will do next. You could apply  
>psychology, sociology, or any other socxial science but they arfe far from  
>deterministic. 
>    The physics in a biology text offers no determinism either. It  
>predicts nothing about the organism's action. Physics is still at peace  
>with free will.
>---
>Vince

		Nob,
	              To deny that the  "kind of determinism you need to 
destroy freewill" does not exist purely on the supposition that our known 
physical and social sciences are unable to predict human action, is indeed 
fallacious.  The question you must ask you Nobby self is whether if we knew 
every physical aspect of the human body, would we then be able to predict 
human action.  Current Neurology suggests that we just might?  

		Yours Tony (using neils password so don't blame him Nob.)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:31:34 EDT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Jul27.054647.26559@StarConn.com> 
agray@StarConn.com (Andrew J. Gray) writes:

>I'm new to this group, and to the subject matter in general (seems I've
>got QUITE a lot of catching up to do...)
>
>Anyhow, I just read another feeble attempt to prove the existence of God
>(Spinoza), in my quest for a cogent discussion of ethics.  The work I
>just read was in fact titled "Ethics", but strikes me as more or less a
>vehicle for Spinoza to say that God "must necessarily exist".

Note that Spinoza's "Deus sive Natura" has virtually nothing in common with
the fideistic conception of a personal deity; in particular, it is wholly
bereft of free will.

>Can anyone provide pointers to a discussion of ethics that is NOT based
>on Judeo-Christian mythology?

Yes -- Spinoza's _Ethics_.  You might try reading some exegetic works as
well, as it is justly considered as one of the most difficult philosophical
texts ever written.  I recommend books by Joachim, Wolfson, Gueroult,
Curley, and Bennett as representative of the scope and range of possible
interpretations.  Short of that, you might look at the Encyclopedia of
Philosophy for concise, reliable sound bites.

Finally, there's always the incomparable discussion of ethics (and
politics) contained in _La Philosophie dans le boudoir_ by marquis de Sade.

>Andrew Gray
>agray@starconn.com

regards,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."


Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
Summary:  If God defines good, then we can't identify God.
Keywords: good God ethics definition
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:48:34 GMT

     In article <1992Jul29.152255.9383@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com
(Peter Cash) writes:

=By the way, is an action good because God says it is, or does God say it's
=good because it _is_ good? 

     For me, one of the things that distinguishes God with a capital G from
god with a small g, is that God is good, whereas gods are simply powerful,
or immortal, or some other loosely defined but divinely-thought-of adjec-
tive.

     What I'm getting at is that IF an action is good only "because God
says it is," then we have pretty much no way to distinguish God from a less
good powerful being, for the simple reason that we don't know which power-
ful being to go to to ask whether a thing is good or not.  If we approach
one "God" and ask Her/Him if She/He is good, we've discovered something
only if we already knew whether She/He were God in advance.

     I can't imagine God wanting a world whose inhabitants don't know what
things are good and what are not, simply because they haven't figured out
who God is.

                                     ---Kevin Simonson
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: intro to phil
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:29:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.215955.11057@cis.umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:

   >article 1486 discusses a good intro to philosophy.

  Sorry, but you're quite wrong about this. Article 1486 discusses prawns
and crawfish, as far as I can see.

   >I recommend
   >Atlas Shrugged and For the New intellectual by Ayn Rand, a contemporary
   >neo-aristotelian in radical opposition to Kantian nihilism and the use of
   >philosophy to symbolize misery.

  This is a good recommendation! Another good one is "You can still save your
soul from eternal perdition" by Dr A.Zowinger.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Re: The philosophical basis for Affi
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:44:46 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

 
> clearly wrong, but what seems to be the case, instead, is that
> democratic captialistic societies are moving toward socialism.
> 
Yeah, Yeah, and that's why the ex-USSR wisely fell behind to join
the slow moving caravan :->
> Affirmative action is a small part of this pressure, and to the
> extent that we focus on it alone, we are ingoring more important
> questions.
> 
The real question is :->
 
whether the article one should read this:
 
[ARTICLE ONE]
CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION....
(the Constitution of USA)
(Congress, law, establishment, religion)
 
or that:
 
[ARTICLE ONE]
CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION -
except of its own as it shall be ESTABLISHED by LAW made by CONGRESS....
(the Constitution of USA)
(Congress, law, establishment, religion)
 
(wouldn't that be more picturesque ? :->)
 
> doug
****
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum)
Subject: Re: intro to phil
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:34:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.032958.4078@sics.se>
   torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

|    >I recommend
|    >Atlas Shrugged and For the New intellectual by Ayn Rand, a contemporary
|    >neo-aristotelian in radical opposition to Kantian nihilism and the use of
|    >philosophy to symbolize misery.
| 
|   This is a good recommendation! Another good one is "You can still save your
| soul from eternal perdition" by Dr A.Zowinger.

Nonsense! Mysticism! Philosophy must be used to define a code of values
to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that 
determine the course of his life here on earth, the only place there is.

To that end, a better recommendation would be Professor Richard Watson's
	
	The Philosopher's Diet: How to Lose Weight and Change the World

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Ostrum                                            cbo@cs.toronto.edu  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	One further suggestion: if you undertake the task of 
	philosophical detection, drop the dangerous little catch
	phrase which advises you to keep an "open mind".
		-- Ayn Rand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Sweeping Generalizatino Alert!
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:54:46 GMT
Organization: Bureau of Sweeping Generalizations!
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Lee Story) writes:

>resolved by "the pinnacles are...", as any third grader will tell you.
>To move beyond the idiosyncracies of natural language and accept the
>broader meaning of his prohibition would seem to demand that we accept
>something very like monotheism a priori.  A peculiar position for
>Mikhail!

Hmmmm. I certainly don't know any third graders who 
would speak like that. Rather precocious, eh?

---
Dano
1st Warning Department
Sub-Assistant 3rd Class to the
Junior Associate Undersecretary
Petty Offenses Division
Bureau of Sweeping Generalizations
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Subject: intro to phil
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:59:55 GMT

	article 1486 discusses a good intro to philosophy. I recommend
Atlas Shrugged and For the New intellectual by Ayn Rand, a contemporary
neo-aristotelian in radical opposition to Kantian nihilism and the use of
neo-aristotelian in radical opposition to Kantian nihilism and the use of
philosophy to symbolize misery. Her colleague, Leonard Peikoff, in his
Ominous Parallels, clearly outlines the basics of the history of philos-
ophy as part of his comparison bet/contemp. America and pre-Nazi Ger.
all these books are very clearly written so reader can know whether or
not he agrees. 
	Mainstream of contemp. phil. is product of mind not connected to 
real, like drunk in sleazy bar. This is accurate, not wild. Analysis is
words diconnected from real and post-existentialisms are emotions 
disconnected from real. Evil. Destroy mind, via conceptual disintegra-
tion, then life falls apart. Faith and skepticism incomplete alterna-
tives. Reason and objectivity the needed third alternative.
	Religion or faith is standard accepted by most, even skeptics.   
Dogmatists claim divine omniscience or ignorance are only alternatives.
Skeptics agree but take ignorance, like dostoyevsky:if no God, everytrhing  
permitted. Or nothing permitted. 3rd alternative:certainty is contextual.
Establish logical context by reasoning about perception of real. Then
claim:within certain context, judgements are absolute. Not divine, out-
of-context absolutes, but contextual absolutes. Not skepticism nor dog
matism but objectivism: choice to be logical about real.  
	Those confused but not yet destroyed by kantian nihilism should considerthat bad situations don't cause bad philosophy. Choice to evade reasoning 
about real causes nihilism. See nazism
	Most philosophy splits existence, then constructs bizarrely elaborate
symbol-system to connect poles of contradiction. Many intellectually trap
buted in pseudo-rational attempt to overcome contradictions. But existence 
is identity, not contradiction. Real philosophy is elaborate, difficult
but much, much less than mainstream of contemp. phil. 
	Kant-I have limited knowledge therefore, to make room for faith.
	Rand-Something exists of which I am conscious. i must discover its
identity.
	make your choice
	Caution-consider tart observation of Rock chanteuse Marianne Faithfull-
"We've been trying to get high without having to pay." Alternative-realist-
ic happiness. Stephen Grossman.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
From: agray@StarConn.com (Andrew J. Gray)
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:07:18 GMT
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133
Keywords: ethics spinoza god proof judeo christian

In article <1992Jul29.150408.5032@beaver.cs.washington.edu> simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:
>     In article <1992Jul27.054647.26559@StarConn.com> agray@StarConn.com
>(Andrew J. Gray) writes:
>=just read was in fact titled "Ethics", but strikes me as more or less a
>=Can anyone provide pointers to a discussion of ethics that is NOT based
>=on Judeo-Christian mythology?

>     Spinoza came from a Jewish background, and was certainly familiar with
...
>     Andrew, did Spinoza make any mention in "Ethics" of his reasons for
>bringing up God in a treatment of the subject?
>
>                                     ---Kevin Simonson

The Spinoza text I was reading is an abridged version, from an
anthology, but it is entitled "Ethics", and the first chapeter is called
"Of God".  Following the first chapter, he lays down a foundation for
ethics that is built on what he says in the chapter "Of God".  So,
perhaps something is missing from my text, but it looks like Spinoza is
using God as a basis for Ethics.
 
 It is my firmly held (though as yet unfounded :-) belief that Ethics is
 independent of deity, so Spinoza was not helping...

 Note:  I have been corrected from several people regarding Spinoza's
 background.  I apologize for the inaccuracy, and I apologize for the
 use of the term "Judeo-Christian", as it has offended some.

 Regards,
 Andrew Gray
 agray@starconn.com
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:1451 talk.religion.misc:12597 rec.arts.books:12939
From: khan@davidsys.com
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Sufi Master Hisham Kebbani
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:30:14 PST
Organization: DAVID Systems Inc, Sunnyvale CA





              INVITATION TO BASK IN THE LOVE AND 
                        THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUFI MASTERS!


      Whether you are from a Muslim background or a non-Muslim
background [Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, etc.],
you will experience unusual spirituality when you come to
our friendly gatherings. 

      Sufism deals with a universal truth, and cleansing 
of the Spiritual Heart, the Essence of every human being.

                 SHAIKH HISHAM KEBBANI
                 Naqshbandiyya Sufi Order
                 of Bukhara, Central Asia.

                 Phone: [415] 941-7916
                        [408] 425-1382 Dr. Wm. Sperrling
                        [408] 749-8322 Khalid Khan

      Weekly meetings at San Francisco South Bay [Silicon Valley]
and Oakland locations. 

      ALL INVITED, WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION, TO JOIN IN
OUR HALAQA, EVEN IF YOU TEND TO DISAGREE WITH THE SUFI
WAY OF APPRECIATING THIS UNIVERSE.




Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
Summary:  Were any of Spinoza's ideas about God really Judeo-Christian?
Keywords: ethics spinoza god proof judeo christian
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 15:04:08 GMT

     In article <1992Jul27.054647.26559@StarConn.com> agray@StarConn.com
(Andrew J. Gray) writes:

=                                                           The work I
=just read was in fact titled "Ethics", but strikes me as more or less a
=vehicle for Spinoza to say that God "must necessarily exist".
=
=Can anyone provide pointers to a discussion of ethics that is NOT based
=on Judeo-Christian mythology?

     Spinoza came from a Jewish background, and was certainly familiar with
the Christian ideas of his day, but my impression was that his idea of God
didn't have anything to do with Judeo-Christianity.  In fact, if my memory
serves me, that God amounted to nothing more than a personification of the
forces of nature.  No divine characteristics, no sense of good, justice,
etc., that "Judeo-Christian" thought usually attributes to God.

     I may have misunderstood the man.  If Spinoza was less original than
I'm making him out to be, please let me know.

     Andrew, did Spinoza make any mention in "Ethics" of his reasons for
bringing up God in a treatment of the subject?

                                     ---Kevin Simonson
From: euanor@eua.ericsson.se (Patrik.Norman)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: HELP! Stranger in my bed...
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:41:47 GMT
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden

Hello!
In the middle of the eighties I read a small part from a book
called "Stranger in my bed". The authors name was Beverly Slater
and the plot was about a woman who loses her memory after a car
accident. She had big problems to return to her husband and 
children that she didn't remember at all...
(I belive that the book is based on a true story)

However, I have tried so hard to get this book (both in english
and swedish) but without success. 1989 I found the title in
Australia under philosopy but they didn't have any copies :-(

So now a really long shot. Does anyone have a copy that I can
buy or lend? If so, please reply to me, prefable with email.

Cheers,
       Patrik


Email: euanor@eua.ericsson.se
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Free will
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:58:55 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1992Jul22.125508.10715@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu (Vincent Frisina) writes:

>   I still disagree that there is a conflict. The kind of demterminism you  
>need to destroy free will doesn't exist at all on the microscopic level or  
>in a macroscopic living system. Use whatever laws of physics or biology  
>you wish; you will havbe no idea what I will do next. You could apply  
>psychology, sociology, or any other socxial science but they arfe far from  
>deterministic. 

It doesn't matter whether I or anybody else can predict what you will do 
next, all that matters is whether your choice of what to do next is entirely 
unconstrained.

>    The physics in a biology text offers no determinism either. It  
>predicts nothing about the organism's action. Physics is still at peace  
>with free will.

Are not biological systems ultimately constructed from atomic or sub-atomic 
particles?  Are not these particles subject to the laws of physics?  are not 
the laws of physics deterministic?  (excepting *possibly* quantum theories)

+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Subject: Re: intro to phil
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:40:38 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul22.215955.11057@cis.umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>	article 1486 discusses a good intro to philosophy. I recommend
>Atlas Shrugged and For the New intellectual by Ayn Rand, a contemporary
>neo-aristotelian in radical opposition to Kantian nihilism and the use of
>philosophy to symbolize misery. Her colleague, Leonard Peikoff, in his
>Ominous Parallels, clearly outlines the basics of the history of philos-
>ophy as part of his comparison bet/contemp. America and pre-Nazi Ger.

For a comparison between Weimar Germany & associated philosophy, and 
contemporary America, try also Allan Bloom's _Closing of the American Mind_.

>	Mainstream of contemp. phil. is product of mind not connected to 
>real, like drunk in sleazy bar. 

Is all such profound that I've forgotten how to use articles or noun forms.

>This is accurate, not wild. 

!!

>	Kant-I have limited knowledge therefore, to make room for faith.
>	Rand-Something exists of which I am conscious. i must discover its
>identity.
>	make your choice
>	Caution-consider tart observation 

Girl-watching is a fine third option.

Tom

******************************************************************************
 Tom Price  |  Obscure Dropout  |  tp0x@cs.cmu.edu  |  Simplicity, simplicity
******************************************************************************