HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:25:00 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

In article <1993Jan21.060221.18670@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:
>In article <20JAN199316224332@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan20.002350.17373@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
>>|vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>|] elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>>|] 
>>|] >The man was brutally beaten beyond recognition until he died because he was gay.
>>|] >Gay killing" is an appropriate term.  So are "murder," "hate crime," and 
>>|] >"terrorism."  To make less of this man's murder than it was is to say
>>|] >that he was less important because he was gay.
>>
>>	True.  But wouldn't making /more/ of this man's murder imply that
>>he was more important because he was Gay?  Murder should be treated as 
>>murder.  Hate crimes laws tend to ensure that it is not treated as such,
>>but as more.
>>
>	It should be handled like a murder.  All murders are *hate* crimes.
>The fact that he was gay should not make any more important or any less
>important.  When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..
>
	If so, it would ignore a lot of legal precedent.  Motivation is
routinely considered in both charging and sentencing.  The only real difference
among manslaughter and the various degrees of murder is the mental state of
the culprit; in all cases, a person has been killed.
	In addition, I don't particularly have a problem with making punishment
more severe for "hate crimes" as long as the action itself is already criminal.
For example:  I don't think it's unreasonable to make the punishment harsher
a vandal who spray-paints Nazi symbols on someone else's property vs. someone
who spray-paints a happy face on someone else's property.  In either case, a
crime (vandalism) has already been committed.
	Spray-painting your own property, of course, is your business.
The_Doge
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:39:39 GMT

In article <93023.075047KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <#jl3d9a@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) says:
>
>>>No, that's what you're inferring.  Big difference.  What I'm -clearly-
>>>saying is that it's not OK to side-step consequences of an act by taking
>>>an innocent life.

Abortion IS a possible consequence of an unwanted conception. Why do you 
consider it a "side-step"?

>>But it's ok to deal with the consequences of a rapist's act by taking
>>an innocent life?
>
>In my opinion, yes, since it wasn't any deliberate act of the woman to cause
>the situation.  

In the normal case of an accidental pregnancy, however, while the sex act may
be "deliberate", the INTENTION of the sex act was not to conceive a child.
Normally, in our systems of law and morality, the only time deliberateness
becomes an issue is when the intention of the deliberate act is to cause the
proscribed result. If a hunter were to accidentally shoot another hunter in 
the woods, thinking that the movement in the bushes was a deer, then the 
issue of deliberateness does not come into play (although the issue of
recklessness would). On the other hand, in the case of a woman shooting
her unfaithful husband, i.e. _intentionally_ killing him, the issue of 
deliberateness DOES come into play -- it would be the difference between
voluntary manslaughter (a so-called "crime of passion") or murder.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: cjk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:25:36 GMT

In article <21JAN199321415827@zeus.tamu.edu> gadson@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <C176zM.Kut@unix.portal.com>, drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson) writes...
>| 
>|Now the Supreme Court says that a hate crime law is wrong because, as I 
>|understand it, while you can prosecute an action, you can't prosecute a  
>|motivation for a crime. Murder is Murder, why the person did it is irrelavent
>|in the eyes of the laws. We can't make some motivations worse than others
>|because then some motivations become less worse. Then we would have to judge
>|a crime by its motives while the body is just as dead.
>
>	I'm not saying I disagree for the moment.  But it has occurred to 
>me that the definition of murder depends on motive.  Murder is killing 
>without a sanctioned motive.
>
>	Thus, we do consider motive in defining crime.

	Motive, Method, and opportunity is used to prove a crime was 
committed by somebody.  Not define the crime.  The crime is already
defined else they wouldn't be on trial.  
>
>	However, once we determine that the motive was not valid, then
>the action of killing is called "murder".  Once it is murder, then if we
>make further arbitrations as to the motive of the killing, we would be
>prosecuting for a crime beyond murder.

	The suspect is on trial because of the crime they committed, not
because of the motive, or the method, or the opportunity.  But in some
instances, method is a seperate crime.  I.E, Use a blow-dryer, go to
prison. :-)
>
>	In principle, this would seem to give special rights to the victim
>based on the motive.  Interestingly, these special rights would apply
>to the victim regardless of his sexual orientation, since the murderer's
>motive may be independent of the reality of sexual orientation.
>
>	But, if the hate crime is defined by the status (orientation)
>of the victim himself, and not the actual motives of the killer, then
>a special right is being granted.
>
>	I guess it all depends on whether we think granting this type of 
>special right is warranted in hopes of curbing violence against a group,
>in this case, Gayfolk.


The whole problem I have with "hate" crimes, is what is the protection
for the _alledged (innocent til proven guilty).  It is way to easy
to charge somebody with an unsubstantiated hate crime.

How can you have a crime against an emotion?  Sure, we recognize hate as
a negative emotion, but an emotion it is.  Are we now going to legislate 
how people feel?  rather than react?  Or along with how they react?

Laws are passed to restrict peoples behaviors to those behaviors which 
are acceptable to the common sense of society.  Are we now  looking
to pass laws that restrict peoples attitudes as measured against *the what*?

People, please consider what you are saying here.  

cjk@netcom.com

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15266 alt.sex:43311 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13956 alt.politics.correct:6387 alt.politics.equality:176 alt.politics.homosexuality:10354 talk.abortion:58167 alt.politics.clinton:21339
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 27 Jan 1993 00:03 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <C1FL7D.sE@unix.portal.com>, drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson) writes...

|I stand corrected Gadson re: motive is what defines whether a killing is murder or say self defense. But putting someone in jail for more time because of who
|they killed is not so much a statment that the victum was more important to 
|society than others. It says that that particluar motivation or reason for the 
|killing is more repulant and less consistant with societies views of itself and
|requires extra to stamp out an attitude such as that.
| 
|Political assisinations are not just murder of someone important, it is treason,
|and telling the people of a democratic country that you know better than they dowho is a good guy to have in service.

	Excellent points.

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politic
From: yal@cltr.uq.oz.au (Yvette Lian)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:29:56 GMT

In article <saqZXB6w165w@dithots.Gwinnett.COM> gwp@dithots.Gwinnett.COM writes:
>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>> ]As for accusing "elitist white men" of racism, discrimination and
>> ]oppression... I try to avoid generalisations like that.  They take me
>> ]nowhere.  And more importantly, they're just another barrier to
>> ]establishing better relationships between groups.
>
>And to avoid a group because "it takes you nowhere" is just as to ignore
>that groups concerns. Why does it take you nowhere? It's part of the 
>challenge to make relationships better. You must include ALL groups for
>any approach to work. To ignore one vs another is the problem to begin
>with. Your statement only contributes to the existing problem.

Read again.  I try to avoid generalisations like that, because they take me
nowhere.  Don't you think the term "elitist white men" is slightly
offensive?  Do you not also think that any white man might then think that
he's been included in this group and then react unfavourably to those he
sees to be using this terminology?
And in answer to your question - it takes me nowhere because it's simply
adding to the problem in the way I outlined above.


--
Yvette Lian
yal@lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au 
FIDO: 3:640/352 
IRC nick: Maxine2
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Frequently Aksed Questions (FAQ)
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:17:59 GMT
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <1993Jan12.182510.46350@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>When is the Rush Limbaugh Show on?      Noon - 3pm Eastern time (live radio)

On a related note, a suggestion to add to the FAQ:

What time do you call to get on the tv show?
(obviously not 1am Pacific  :-)

Agitator
  #->

 "They put on quite a production in New York a few weeks ago.  You might
  even call it slick...And they call me an actor."  --Ronald // Reagan
 ------------ R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G --------------//-----------
 IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?     \\ // Only AMIGA!
 ================================ Bring Back the Caltech \X/ Cannon!! ===
 Roderick Lee, HMC '91    "The Professional Agitator"   agitator@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:26:43 GMT

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>In article <1993Jan24.115550.22354@athena.mit.edu> grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg) writes:

>>In article <john.727818706@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
>>writes:
>>
>>>Do you really believe that there are not large areas of the major cities
>>>where one's skin color (especially a white skin color) makes one
>>>a target of violence? If so, I'll give you a few addresses to walk around. 
>>>If you survive, drop us a line:
>>>  most of Washington, DC

>I guess, then, that most white people who live in Washington, DC,
>should consider themselves targets.  If, that is, "most of" the area
>is such a demilitarized zone.  Gosh ... has the National Guard been
>notified yet?

>>I could add to that... If you have a chance, Tim, also visit
>>Harlem, NYC; and while you are in New York, you also may want
>>to take a stroll on the streets of South Bronx, Brownsville,
>>Crown Heights and East New York. Choose a place you like most
>>and go there, because I am afraid you won't be able to visit
>>anything else after this trip.

>That's amusing.  I'm from New York.  On a recent trip back to NYC, I
>drove down and ended up parking in Harlem because traffic downtown was
>so terrible.  Then I had to walk about twenty blocks downtown to find
>a subway station because I was too disoriented and unused to uptown
>geography.  Did I feel out of place?  Hell, yes -- I was the only
>white person I saw.  Did I feel stared at?  Sure.  Unsafe?  Not on
>your fucking life.

>I grew up in Brooklyn and have traveled throughout most of it,
>including the areas you name.  I lived until I was eighteen on the
>fringes of the projects.

>Probably, these personal observations will be muttered off by Moore
>and company as "coincidences."  That's fine, since he seems to think
>that the ashes cause the flame.  I'm perfectly happy to conclude that
>neither of you have a clue of what you're talking about.

Of course you are perfectly happy to conclude this.  It justifies your
screwy interpretation of reality.  

You are a uniquue case.  Just because YOU HAVEN'T been attacked doesn't
mean that other whites aren't.


Let me reverse your logic... what if I said I was openly gay and that
I had never been attacked or felt threatened.  Therefore, by Tim's
logic, NO GAYS are ever threatened or attacked.  Duh!

Hello McFly?



>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 




Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14738 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13381 alt.politics.clinton:20836 alt.politics.bush:16222 alt.politics.homosexuality:9977
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Christians & Homosexuality (Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 23:18:57 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

[lengthy post by Mike deleted] 

Mike, 

*Excellent* post.  Nothing to add or comment on, I just wanted 
to say it's one of the better ones on the subject I've read. 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:09:30 GMT



Everyone please note that Yvette said that whites are attacked in 
"minority" neighborhoods because of all the horrible crimes we've 
inflicted on these groups.  ie. We deserve it.


Have a nice day,


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14874 alt.politics.clinton:20979 alt.politics.bush:16273 alt.politics.homosexuality:10072
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:30:22 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

gadson@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> 	And, the alleged Pauline prohibitions against homosexuality
> are Pauline doctrine, not /necessarily/ Christian doctrine.  
> After all,
> Paul never met Jesus.  He just saw a big light that blinded him.
> Isn't Satan the angel of Light?
> 	Anyway, Christians who follow the more liberal teachings
> of St. Paul are straying from what is strictly defined as Christianity.

What is "strictly defined as Christianity".  I'm curious to know what 
you consider to be it, if Paul doesn't fit it.  Frankly, it's hard to 
take seriously a discussion of Christianity with someone who thinks 
Paul was really seeing Satan when he saw the 'light'.  Do you consider 
yourself Christian, and if yes, what do you base your beliefs on?  

> I'd be a bit inclined to call that hypocritical if a follower of Christ
> uses the authority of Paul to ignore selected Mosiac Laws.  G-d
> doesn't deal lightly with such ilk.

See Acts ch15 to see that it was the general church, and not just Paul, 
that shared the view on the Law. 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- your name may vary)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:04:13 GMT

I know I'm gonna get flamed, especially given the double-jeopardy
distribution.  But I don't care.  After being yelled at by an evangelical
screaming at the top of his lungs this weekend, I feel justified.

What: <1993Jan24.195017.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>
Who:  cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ ... massive bandwidthectomy ... ]

>	Oh, I see.  Let's not follow the Christian guidelines becuase it might
>actually have some morality to it!!!

I've got a better idea.  Let's not follow the Christian guildelines because
they are based on archaic and misguided pseudostandards, many of whose
proponents would be more than happy to impose upon me by force of law.

> If you have sexual intercourse, it should
>be to conceive a child.

See what I mean about archaic standards?  Would you like to defend this
stand?  You can begin by explaining why a sex drive still exists after
childbearing years.  Then you can defend your implied stand that a
married couple must never have intercourse again after they have
all the children they want.  My aunt and uncle, who are past safe
childbearing age, would be amused by your defense, I'm sure.

> The fact that sex is used for pleasure is sin--it
>should never be used for self-gratification!

Truth by brute force.  I don't buy it, I don't agree with it, and I've
never seen a convincing argument of its validity.

>	Oh, but I forgot--we don't follow Christian doctrine and morality. 

It's my option.  Christianity had some good ideas, but they got corrupted
somewhere down the line.  IMO of course.  But if you doubt it, consider
those "Christians" who say that it's okay to bomb abortion clinics, or
lie to women if it means "saving a baby," and then turn around and talk
about absolute moral standards and all sin being equal in the eyes of God.

Incidentally, some of us are more evolved than to require the threat
of eternal damnation to be decent people.

>Guess that shows that Christians ARE the better people because of their value
>of life--rather than selfish, gratification-seeking hypocrites!

Uh-huh.  And I bet you would *never* have sex unless you were prepared
to have a child.  Which means that after you get married and have your
1 or 2 or however many kids you have, you'll never have sex again.

Here's another question for you: is masturbation ethical?
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush's E-mail address?
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:44:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

70277.2502@compuserve.com


-- 
David De Trolio                     (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We can have increased revenue in the United States without punishing
those who have obtained economic success and personal achievement.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:31:39 GMT
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 <1993Jan21.060221.18670@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:

>	It should be handled like a murder.  All murders are *hate* crimes.
>The fact that he was gay should not make any more important or any less
>important.  When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..

Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen.  Case in point being Judge
Hampton's sentencing a man to a lesser degree because the victim was
gay.  This occurred two or so years ago in Dallas.  The bastard was just
re-elected this November.

--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:14:12 GMT

In article <C1J7tK.6uq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.010754.16914@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: And what's wrong with having fun (yes, fun)? And why be so prissy
: about sex and not about anything else? So one can gorge oneself on
: tasty pastries (say), with that not being a sin? After all, it's
: self-gratification, isn't it?
>
>   As a matter of fact, gluttony _is_ a sin.

	But it is not as bad as abortion, right?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:31:30 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <C1421H.6vB@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
> In <1993Jan15.102431.483@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com sez:
>>
>>Since neither the beloved Earl Warren nor the honorable Thurgood Marshall
>>had ANY legal experience, therefore -- by your own words -- neither was
>>"a qualified Justice."
> 
> Paul, it's a marvel how you can continue to display your ignorance so
> prominently. 
> 
> Try looking for the article I posted last week -- the one where I
> pointed out that Marshall served as *both* a judge on the federal
> Second Circuit *and* as Solicitor General before being appointed to
> the Supreme Court.
> 
> Leaving that aside, though, the idea that the winning counsel in
> _Brown v. Board of Education_ had no legal experience is just too
> exquisitely stupid for words.

Yup, you're right.  I took someone else's word for it, instead of checking it 
out personally.  Nonetheless, sonny, methinks you gloat too much.

Speaking of "ignorance", you're halfway there yourself.  After all, YOU
are wrong on Earl Warren.  Thus your argument that "Thomas wasn't much of a
judge, therefore was not qualified" falls apart; surely you've been apprised
of this already?  Talk about "display[ing] your ignorance prominently"...


------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh