HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Homos in school, too?  What next?
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:41:50 GMT
Organization: insert anything here

murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>This is perfect, though, and a perfect example of where discrimination might
>be justified, in _my_ view.  Teachers are role models for children; that's a
>fact we all have to agree on.  Having homos for role models is WRONG!

	So to whom do gay teens look to?  Certainly not you.
You *are* aware are you not that 30% of all suicides among teens
are due to orientation issues.  The kids feel that their family,
friends, schoolmates and society at large hates them so they kill
themselves.  But I suppose in your eye, that's OK.

	I'm curious as to how you'd react if one of your kids
ended up being gay or lesbian.  

>Would I make a distinction?  I might in the case of a "closeted" homo where
>such an individual does not make it obvious to the children.  However, at the
>first instance of a show of affection for a member of the same sex, I'd fire
>that sucker!

	And for a straight teacher who shows affection for a member
of the opposite sex?  You are aware of course that molestation occurs
7 times more often per capita among heterosexuls... (this is the case
because a lot of molestation occurs as incest).

BBC
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school (WHY JONNY CAN'T READ MUSIC)
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 23:00:07 GMT

In article <gRomPB1w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:

   That's baloney (<tm> M. Dukakis).  All the lessons you learn from sports and
   music are grand (team work, et.al.) but you don't need them taught in school;
   they can well be taught in other venues like sandlot baseball and garage
   bands.  "Complete redesign of society," indeed.  Redesign society to teach
   teamwork.  Pshaw!

Again, we see Mr. Murphy's position.  It seems to me that he is
agreeing that bands and music have virtue; he just wants them done in
"other venues".  What he never explains is why certain things should
be done in schools and others should not.  His division seems entirely
arbitrary, as if he were flipping a coin.

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Acceptable medical care (was Re: Sex ed in school)
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 05:20:22 GMT

In article <5659@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

   In article <1992Aug18.225439.23955@odi.com>, dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes:
   > As both the standards and the price of "adequate medical care" go up,
   > should only wealthier and wealthier people be considered suitable
   > people to have children?

   Do I understand you to say that as medical care gets better, a 
   decreasing percentage of the population gets what is considered
   "acceptable care"? In spite of the fact that the care available
   at any particular level has gotten better?

That is what would happen if everyone had to pay for such care
without any kind of insurance or coverage, yes.

   I suppose the law of increased expectations applies  . . .

Exactly.  Care sufficiently adequate as to pass the "it's moral to
have a baby" was obviously at a much lower level two hundred years
ago.
From: mzraly@ra.cs.umb.edu (Michael S. Zraly)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school (WHY JONNY CAN'T READ MUSIC)
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:55:01 GMT
Organization: UMass/Boston Dept. of Math & CS

campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>
>Johnny can't read because he spends all his time watching TV.
>Take away the TV's and you'd see a marked improvement in
>school performance.
>
>	[...]

My wife had an interesting conversation with a friend of hers from
California last weekend.  She (my wife's friend) is a divorced mother
of one boy.  The father was apparently illiterate, unfaithful, and very
anti-intellectual and socially conservative.  He's now back in
Kentucky, evading child support.

She has been on welfare and will, this fall, enter college under the
auspices of California's GAIN program to study accounting.

What's the link with television?  Well, this woman has always been a
voracious reader, and culturally very literate.  Before she kicked her
husband out though, she could not pass that on to her boy.  The husband
would *not* *allow* public television to be watched in the house, and
discouraged reading.  When he wasn't working, which was often, he would
sit at home watching any old dumb show on TV.  Now that he is gone she
tries to read to her boy -- he's about 3 or 4 -- and he won't stand for
it.  He will scream.  He will pick up the book and throw it.

But he likes TV.  And when the mother has to get something done,
cooking, laundry, whatever, only the TV seems to quiet the child
sufficiently to let her complete her chores.  The TV has become a
sedative.  My wife gently criticized all this, and her friend just
said, "Wait till you try raising a child!"

>We have no television in our home.  I have never owned one.
>My older son, who is now ten, is a voracious reader, and reads
>well above his grade level.  Would he be reading as much, or as
>well, if we had a TV?  I doubt it.

>I firmly believe that the single thing we could do that would
>improve academic performance more than any other single thing
>is to abolish television.

Yea, verily.  But it is a powerful medium.  How does not having a TV
affect your boys relations with his peers, given that TV is such a
large part of popular American culture?

-- Mike

-- 
Mike Zraly		C is for cookie; that's good enough for me
mzraly@cs.umb.edu		-- Cookie Monster
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Hypocrasy test: (was Re: Abortion: What does God say?)
Organization: The World
Distribution: ne
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:43:05 GMT


One hypocrisy that always bugs me is when we find out, for example (a
real example) that PCB pollution in the Great Lakes is causing all
sorts of fetal deformities and lowering of average IQ's among those
exposed in the womb, but where are these Operation Rescue types? Why
aren't they sitting in at the offices of the FDA (who refuses to even
test for many of these chemicals, let alone cut into the profits of
the local fish industry) or the docks? Where's the concern?

In Somalia, right now, there are a few hundred children dying per day
of starvation and disease caused by famine and endless war. One can
only imagine what the fate of hundreds if not thousands of expectant
mothers and their children is in this situation. In the NY Times today
they describe how the standard practice is now to allocate grave areas
next to relief centers so they can quickly dispose of bodies of people
who die waiting for their ration.

We all know about Serbia and Bosnia/Herczegovinia.

But organizations like OR and other anti-abortion groups seem to only
have energy for those acting out of free-will. Those who are doomed to
a horrible, horrible fate, poisoned in the womb, starved to death by
famine and war, seem to be of no concern.

Say what you like about the so-called "liberal-left", but at least
they are consistent in their concerns about such matters and will run
out to protest any of these injustices with the same moral fervor.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Hypocrasy test: (was Re: Abortion: What does God say?)
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:43:45 GMT
	<BswL19.97n@world.std.com> <1992Aug17.141134.18481@m5.harvard.edu>
	<Bt5Eo4.FIx@world.std.com>
Distribution: ne
Organization: The World


I think one thing that seems to disturb Americans as they learn about
the world is that virtually all of it is chock full of horrible,
systematic and institutionalized discrimination, nation by nation.

In fact, about the only thing that can be said for the US's versions
are that in general, when pointed out, we tend to agree that they're
wrong and embarrassing (whether we are willing to lift a finger to fix
it is quite another question.) In most other countries, if you asked
the average person, they would not see anything that needs to be
fixed.

In most countries such racism and discrimination is simply considered
to be the natural order of things. That's the way it always has been,
and that's the way it always will be.

Take this whole thing in Serbia/Bosnia/etc. What are they fighting
over?

Well, if history is at all accurate, whoever "wins" will make the
others' lives utterly miserable and barely worth living. They'll make
it generally illegal to work for the govt, to hold any but the most
menial jobs, schools will be separated, most likely churches will be
razed or activity of the others' religions severely curtailed, etc etc
etc.

And even if it's not completely true, it's what people BELIEVE will
happen, and the main reason they are willing to fight and die over who
gets control. They don't expect some sort of melting pot at the end of
this tunnel, they expect (if they lose) their lives and the lives of
their children etc. to be utterly destroyed as a result.

It's hard to name a country which does not have a sizeable portion of
the population which is not systematically discriminated against in a
way that, for all our problems, would hardly be tolerated here, and we
have trouble conceiving of in its sheer acceptance as the normal way
of life rather than something to strive against, even if slowly and
oftentimes unsuccessfully.

Wake up and smell the coffee, it's a mess out there. Worse, those
involved do not believe for a minute that this is something that needs
repair.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:01:35 GMT
Followup-To: ne.politics
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <BZS.92Aug13021630@ussr.std.com>, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> But courts and lawyers (some of the slimiest bastards also) and judges
> trying to solve family problems?

How do you like the idea of a lawyer actually TAKING A CHILD away
from a parent and adopting the child himself?

That is the underlying situation in the current case
in Florida of a child who has been resently "given standing in
court to sue his parents for divorce."

The childs "lawyer" is also:
 (a) his foster parent.
 (b) a person who wants to adopt him.


> Who's idea was *that* anyhow? No doubt some lawyer who wasn't doing
> too well on the ambulance chasing side of things.

Can you say conflict of interest?

> And, no, I've never been personally involved in such a thing.

Well, get to it. Get married, have some kids, and then at
least you will be putting yourself at risk!

> ... about laywers ...
> Not that it's her fault particularly, it's just pathetic to watch when
> it happens and it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see that the
> system is only making it worse and sucking them both to their dooms.
> 
> I don't know how to cure it though.

How about a system of family courts that don't require lawyers?
Kind of a combination of arbitration and small claims?

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 18:27:37 GMT

In article <F2yJPB1w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:

   No, a mother who cannot afford adequate medical care should not be having 
   babies.

I really cannot believe that you said this.  So only well-off people
should have kids.  What a great solution.  Well, flaming is easy to
do.  If your philosophy is as screwed up as this, I guess there's no
point in trying to discuss anything with you.
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: FYI: Choice and Bean
Keywords: abortion rights, political action
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:27:57 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: insert anything here

cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:
>You also claim that she is "anti-gay rights legislation" (peculiar choice
>of hyphenation..typo??) Without any meat to your assertion , we can only
>assume a middle of the road position. Again can anyone flesh out these
>statements?

	Who you callin' "we"?

	Anti-gay rights legislation, means just that: against legislation
that allows gay and lesbians to have the same rights as priveleges as
the other people in this country (you know, the right to work without
being harassed or fired for being gay, the right to have a place to live
without being harassed or evicted for being gay, the right to choose
how your estate will be divided without having your family override the
will, the privelege of allowing the people closest to you visit you
in the hospital, etc...).

	There is no "middle of the road".  You either support equality
or you don't.  All being clueless means is that you haven't made the choice
yet.

BBC
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Abortion: What does God say?
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
	<warren.713537536@beloved> <GORDON.92Aug11153806@gandalf.think.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:23:40 GMT

In article <GORDON.92Aug11153806@gandalf.think.com> gordon@gandalf.think.com (gordon linoff) writes:

References to these films are quite irrelevant anyway, since Mr.
Lavallee obviously opposes RU486, and nobody can make a heartwrenching
film about the abortion of a few-celled embryo.

I wonder if Mr. Lavallee is aware how often first-trimester
miscarriages happen to healthy, fertile women.  Very often they can't
tell that it happened at all; the symptoms are just like a menstrual
cycle.  Is each one of those a tragedy that we should feel very sad
about?
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 22:54:39 GMT

In article <5631@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

   >    No, a mother who cannot afford adequate medical care should not be having 
   >    babies.
   > 
   > I really cannot believe that you said this.  So only well-off people
   > should have kids.  What a great solution. Well, flaming is easy

   That wasn't me, but why not? Having a child is an enormous commitment.
   What moral objection is there to asking people to consider whether they
   can provide for their children before they decide to have them?

Let me put it this way.  One hundred years ago, nobody was able to
obtain what we now consider "adequate medical care"; there were no
antibiotics, vaccines, etc, etc, etc.  Does this mean that nobody
should have had children?

As both the standards and the price of "adequate medical care" go up,
should only wealthier and wealthier people be considered suitable
people to have children?

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: exile@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Heresiarch)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Followup-To: ne.politics
Reply-To: exile@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Organization: The Torch of Chaos and Doubt
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:06:26 GMT

i believe that the biggest problem with sex ed in schools is this:

sex ed generally does a good job abou;t teaching how babies are made,
or better yet how babies aren't made (contraceptions).  these days
aids prevention is sometimes part of the curriculum, and this is also
a good thing.  in fact, sex ed generally covers the details of
anatomy, growing up, and how not to die of embarassment at on's first
gyn exam.

what's clearly missing from this list is how to have good orgasms.
without this information, how dare they call it sex ed?  sheesh.
--
<SIG>___________________________________________________________________
It's an old wall, Avon.  It waits.  I just hope you reach it
before you die.                                                    </SIG>
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: War's a funny thing
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:21:50 GMT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes:

> 
> No.  At the time, we did what was right.  We finished what we started out to
> do which was free Kuwait in concert with the United Nations and our allies
> 
> You really think that what we did was right?  Or do you say that it came
> to an "incomplete conclusion", as you said earlier?

No, I don't think it is right to fight to keep the cost of a commodity
artificially low.  However, once committed, the incomplete conclusion is just
as wrong.

I'm WAY out of my league in talking of economics but there is something fishy
when gas costs some $4 a gallon in Europe but $1 here.

BTW, speaking of incomplete conclusions and Vietnam, did anyone else shudder
like I did when presented with a map of Iraq with the 32 parallel plainly
marked as a border below which Iraq shall not fly its aircraft?

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Subject: Re: Hypocrasy [sic] test: (was Re: Abortion: What does God say?)
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA
Distribution: ne
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:49:48

In article <1992Aug12.180730.8725@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

	   Warren, for how many of the people you've prevented from
   having an abortion have you gone back and adopted their kids once they
   had them?

That's a little like asking him for how many of the people he has pulled
from car wrecks has he gone back and payed to repair the cars.

I'm a moderate on this issue.  I think the birth-control pill
(technically an abortion I believe) is OK and the "abortion pill" is
OK but I have a little trouble stomaching third-trimester abortions.
I had the occasion to see a video of a late 2nd-trimester abortion and
it was truly shocking.  The fetus had visible eyes, fingers, toes,
nose, etc.  In fact it was beginning to look cute.  The doctor reached
in to get the legs first. The arms were next.  He used some kind of
clamping tool (a forceps maybe?).  He then went after the torso and
finally he grabbed the head out (which burst just as it came out).  He
then assembled all the parts together to make sure he got everything.
It was damn effective propaganda by the pro-life crowd.  I think there
is probably some consensus that can be reached here that noone will be
happy with but which most everyone will be able to live with.
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Homos in school, too?  What next?
Summary: I think beastiality is natural.  Can I bring my dog?
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:07:49 GMT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

> 	Gack.
> 
> 	I tend not to question things I feel strongly about,
> but having Brian Murphy *agree* wqith me is enough
> to make any sane person reflect.
> 
> 	How can I set this straight?
> 
> 	Ah yes -  Biran I forgot to mention
> that I strongly support the hiring of out gays and lesbians as teachers
> to support diversity in our communities.
> 
> 	There - that should do it.

Heh!  And after I just got done with my previous post!  Yep, I guess that
should just about do it!

This is perfect, though, and a perfect example of where discrimination might
be justified, in _my_ view.  Teachers are role models for children; that's a
fact we all have to agree on.  Having homos for role models is WRONG!

Would I make a distinction?  I might in the case of a "closeted" homo where
such an individual does not make it obvious to the children.  However, at the
first instance of a show of affection for a member of the same sex, I'd fire
that sucker!

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: exile@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Heresiarch)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school (WHY JONNY CAN'T READ MUSIC)
Reply-To: exile@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Organization: The Torch of Chaos and Doubt
	<1992Aug17.210014.28270@spdcc.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:11:09 GMT

the united states is the only industrialized country that teaches
eight years of arithmatic in school.  japan and germany move kids
right along to calculus if they are ready for it.  if they don't have
aptitude for higher math, then they are tracked to learn other useful
skills that will serve their lives as working adults.  like beer
brewing.
--
<SIG>___________________________________________________________________
It's an old wall, Avon.  It waits.  I just hope you reach it
before you die.                                                    </SIG>
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Followup-To: ne.politics
Organization: The World
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:16:30 GMT


Ya know, I'm not worried about schools which try to perform roles
which families are supposed to. It's less than ideal, but I'm not sure
it won't help overall. Stopping it won't suddenly re-create warm,
loving families. At worst it's a symptom, not a disease.

But what scares the hell out of me are COURTS which try to do this.

Now there's one bad match.

Consider your typical child-custody suit or similar family problems.

How often is pursuing a legal solution satisfactory to even one of the
parties let alone both, let alone just doesn't cause animosity beyond
all comprehension?

Now that's a real problem we've gotten ourselves into.

I don't really lose a lot of sleep over johnny getting a condom or a
free meal or a lecture on what sex is, he'll live to make up his own
mind, I have faith in most johnny's or janes to do the right thing, or
survive their errors.

But courts and lawyers (some of the slimiest bastards also) and judges
trying to solve family problems?

Who's idea was *that* anyhow? No doubt some lawyer who wasn't doing
too well on the ambulance chasing side of things.

And, no, I've never been personally involved in such a thing.

But boy I've sat and watched some lollapaloozas. And every time it got
a crank more bitter all I saw was some lawyer make another fee.

Few things sadder than watching some poor woman barely able to feed
her kids but so caught up in bitterness and paying a lawyer 25% of her
pay from the local k-mart every week to "get back at the jerk". I've
personally watched that happen.

Now there's a "real healthy" situation, you betcha.

Not that it's her fault particularly, it's just pathetic to watch when
it happens and it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see that the
system is only making it worse and sucking them both to their dooms.

I don't know how to cure it though.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: ne.politics