HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:56:33 GMT

In article <11006@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, hawes@ds15.scri.fsu.edu (Fred Hawes) writes:
> And Coleman's right, the Catholic church *was* Christianity at the time.
> They certainly believed in Jesus Christ.  Further, they have a better
> pedigree than any Protestant churches, Jesus Christ *himself* started
> the Catholic church...
> 

Had the Catholic Church stuck to Jesus' teachings we wouldn't have needed the
Reformation.  Furthermore, while it is debatable as to whether Peter was the
first pope, it is not debatable that the second pope came around several
hundred years later.
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: This whole Lot thing ...
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:08:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.162018.18849@netcom.com>, boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
> So in other words, it was ok to tell the crowd that they could rape
> his daughters because he knew god wouldnt let them?  makes me wonder
> what he would have done if he didnt know that god would protect them,
> would he have acted so 'morally'?

If he didn't know God (that's with a G) would save him and his family then he
probably would have shoved them out the door while he cowered inside.

> 
> It is very debatable that this was his only course of action.  I
> personally would have thought him a better man if he had decided
> to scarifice *himself* to allow his family and guests time to
> escape the crowd.  (or at least have his family slip them out
> back to avoid the mob).

The house was surrounded.

> 
> No, I do not agree that Lot was a man of good morals.  If god
> requires me to sacrifice my daughters to a mob, he can politely
> go to hell.
> 

God didn't require him to sacrifice his daughters.  Yet you athiests are trying
to say that He did.

> 
> ....jeff

--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: don@chester (Don McCoy)
Subject: Re: What about date rape? (was: Prostitution as a cure...)
Organization: University of Delaware, College of Marine Studies
Distribution: talk.rape 
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:41:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.145323.18214@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>   What about date rape?
   ----[a few lines deleted]
>   In at least some of the date rape cases I hAve heard of, it seems that
>the situation was one where the attacker very much desired sexual activity,
>but consent was not forthcoming. It seems to me that these cases could be
>subject to interference by the proximity of prostitution.
>
   ----[rest of article deleted]

	Now let's see:  Your premise is that if these needs were
satisfied by some acceptable means, then the incidence of sexual
assault would decrease accordingly.  Your conclusion states that
prostitution should therefore be legal since that would satisfy
the needs of many potential rapists.  Did I get that right?

	This seems to be a valid argument (i.e. the conclusion
would be true *IF* the premise is true).  However, I do not 
believe that your premise is true.  From what I know about 
rape, including date rape, it more to do with the intent to do
violence to another then it has to do with the release of sexual
tension.  

	I'd like to suggest that this desire to hurt someone else
is a result of hatred of the self turned outward.  Those who have
no respect for themselves will not have respect for others. When
someone is very horny but their partner does not wish to have
sex, there is no justification for forcing it upon them.  **No 
matter how horny you are.**

	Case in point.  Let's say I'm pissed at someone; and i 
mean really justifiably pissed.  No matter how angry I am, I have
no right to, say, murder them.  I am responsible for my actions,
even though that person was "asking for it" by being a complete
and total asshole.  Is this a good analogy?

..don...

disclaimer:  forgive me if I babble, for I am not well-read on the 
subject of rape, though I have discussed it with several friends
who were raped.  This post is here to engender discussion on
the topic, not flame wars.  If you think I'm an idiot, tell me
so via e-mail.  If you have something on the topic to say, say it
here.

Thanks to those of you who resist the urge to flame-at-will.
Many of you are clearly thoughtful beings who deserve to be 
thanked for your efforts.  Thank You.
From: john@bnr.ca (John Ledford)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: How to stop a rape
Summary: Karate
Keywords: kill, death, dismemberment
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:34:46 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Inc.

In article <1992Oct12.080926.27015@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:


>I can think of a few things just from common sense, such as, don't rush
>the attacker (unless, perhaps, you really know what you are doing),
>especially if you see that he has a weapon; yelling "fire!" (not "help");
>probably carrying some mace around would be a good idea.  It seems that
>at least a small number of rapes and muggings could be stopped if more
>people had some awareness of how to deal with these crimes.  I would bet
>that sometimes people do nothing to stop it because they don't know what
>to do.


Karate is also an excellent way to learn to defend yourself, or in this case,
stop someone else. In my karate class about 1/3 of the people there are 
women learning self defense. There are also other great benefits in karate. 
If you are interested, then you should call around to the local dojo's (
schools) and talk to the sensei (teacher) about what good it will do you.


Later,
john

__

The horrificness, I have no EMAIL account. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!

Any questions call (919) 992-7099  8 am - 4 pm Mon-Fri.
Xref: sparky talk.rape:2562 alt.feminism:2189
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:13:19 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: talk.rape
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#I think Playboy *does* portray women just as sex objects (interview responses
#notwithstanding), and I'm sure it is offensive, 

%Please spell out for me why _Playboy_ is offensive.

In article <1992Oct7.163050.9941@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu 
(Richard Lynch) writes:

>Forgive me for not specifying at that particular point "offensive TO SOME
>PEOPLE INCLUDING MACKINNON".  I belive 

Please explain why is it so offensive for them.

#Aside:  I'd sure go for a no-parole and/or death-penalty for rapists, tho.
#There's way too high a % of repeat offenders.  I forgot the #, sorry.]

%Have you ever heard about "The Scottsboro Boys"?
%(This is not a rhetorical question.)

>Heard of them, yes.  Remember who the hell thay were, no.

Never mind.

There was a NightLine program yesterday about a man who was convicted of
rape (it was her word against his).  When DNA testing became available in
1988 he asked that the evidence would be re-examed, and the prosecutors 
blocked his way till now.  Now the DNA test showed that it was not him.

A death penalty will *screw* people like him, while "the good guys" will
be able to walk around it because the jury will refuse to execute
them when they are not *sure* about such nice guys.

It is pretty interesting that people returning today to the traditional
methods that were tried in the Deep South 50 years ago (e.g. death penalty
for rapists in Alabama) without educating themselves about the past.
 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Hillel                                        gazit@cs.duke.edu

There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: This whole Lot thing ...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:31:15 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>If you visit Sodom some day you'll find a bunch of ruins.  It certainly lends
>creadance to this "myth."
>--Ray Cote

That only lends credence to the destruction (or abandonment) of a city that was
possibly called "Sodom" at some point in the past.  It gives absolutely no
weight to the story of individuals as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (the
PC term, I believe 8-)

There is a fairly well-known myth/story about the Trojan War and the destruction
of Troy.  If you "go there" today, you'll find ruins.  Does that mean that all
the interaction of the Greek gods described in the myth/story was true?  Of
course not.

(It doesn't mean it can't be true, either; it simply says it is possible that
it could have happened something like what was described:  a city was destroyed
and such-and-such happened to these people at that time)

Now maybe if at those ruins you found a name-plate with Lot's name on it... 8-)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane)
Subject: How to stop a rape
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:09:26 GMT


Sorry if this topic has been discussed before (is there a faq for this
group?), but I've never heard anything about how a bystander can stop
a rape that is in progress.  I'm sure that, just as it is for a victim,
there is no one correct way for a bystander to successfully stop a rape.
However, I would think that there are some actions that would work
better than others and some actions that should be avoided.  Obviously,
it also depends on the environment -- on a dark street, inside a building,
etc.  I suppose that sometimes a rapist would flee as soon as he realized
someone else was present, but I think that in many cases this would not
happen.

I can think of a few things just from common sense, such as, don't rush
the attacker (unless, perhaps, you really know what you are doing),
especially if you see that he has a weapon; yelling "fire!" (not "help");
probably carrying some mace around would be a good idea.  It seems that
at least a small number of rapes and muggings could be stopped if more
people had some awareness of how to deal with these crimes.  I would bet
that sometimes people do nothing to stop it because they don't know what
to do.

Jim Cochrane
cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: This whole Lot thing ...
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:13:08 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct9.100831.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu 
writes:
> God didn't require him to sacrifice his daughters.  Yet you athiests are 
> trying to say that He did.

I'm not an Athiest, as has been established in previous conversation.  If you
want an example of requiring someone to sacrifice his kids, look to Abraham.  I
know that YHVH backed off, but Abraham didn't.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Prostitution as a cure for rape
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 09:43:33 GMT

In article <BvqMMx.Fq0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> shulick@navajo.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>
>If prostitution were legal in every state in USA, do you suppose the rapes
>committed would drop drastically?  Most rapes occur because of sexual
>deprivation, and thus aggression builds up, etc.  So if sex could be purchased
>in every state, wouldn't rape level drop?

At the risk of spoiling your innocence, I'll tell you that sex can
indeed be purchased in every state.  

And no, I don't think rape levels would drop because rape has very
little to do with sexual deprivation and much to do with power and
violence.
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Right to Kill
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:02:49 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Oct6.035441.598@scott.skidmore.edu>
gschlesi@scott.skidmore.edu (gabriel schlesinger) writes:

>Another point to back up the last one is this.  You just said that you
>would be willing to kill the author of a new version of Mein Kampf, by
>your logic it would therefore be the author's right to kill you
>because you are a stated danger to him.

So?

>-Gabe (just playing a bit of Devil's Advocate)

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."

Get the picture?
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Descartes
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:04:41 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <Bw4D0z.8t7@news.iastate.edu> rjk@iastate.edu (Russell J Kraemer) writes:
>From: rjk@iastate.edu (Russell J Kraemer)
>Subject: Descartes
>Date: 14 Oct 92 16:12:34 GMT

>Howdy....

>I'm in a low level (read quick over view, not much deep discussion) class
>in philosophy here at ISU, and we are currently studying Descartes.
>I've followed him well enough to do quite well on the quizs for the class,
>but I'm afraid I've been left with a nagging question that I'm hoping some of 
>you can help me think through.

>My problem lies in meditation 3... in reading it, I belive that
>Descartes is trying to logicaly prove the existence of God.
>However, breaking his reasoning into my words, I think he is saying
>that (paraphrased) It is imposible to imagne a being such as God
>could exist, ie something all powerful and all good is not within
>human imagination, therfore he must exist.  I must say that I feel
>that that is a pretty terrible proof, so am I missing something?

>Also, we rather briefly mentioned someone named Hobbes, who I have
>heard of in the past, but never read.  I would like to fix that,
>so can someone reccomend some of Hobbes's (sp) writing that I might
>study? Title should be sufficent, as our library list of him as
>an author is rather long, I'm just looking for a good place to 
>start.

>Thanks




>-- 
>rjk@iastate.edu                 

>I think therefore I.......shoot, was I saying something?

Well, actually, if my memory serves me right, Descartes' argument is 
roughly that:

1. I have an idea of an absolutely perfect being.
2. How do I account for the presence of this idea in my finite mind?
3. A cause must have "more reality" or "perfection" than the effect.
4. Therefore, God must have caused me to have this idea.

I think that's it. A bit more plausible that your rendition, but, of course,
still an unsound argument.

  
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Allan Bloom Died
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:32:08 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:25:06 GMTLines: 17

In <1992Oct10.022506.5128@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu writes:

>   For those of you who do not know, Allan Bloom died yesterday.      
> His death is a terrible loss to this university, the University
> of Chicago, and to the field of political philosophy as a whole.

Sympathy & regrets to his family, friends, students, colleagues & others in his
life.

His Plato translations were important; however he is probably best-known for
his less scholarly, "The Closing of the American Mind."  His later work
popularized the views of Leo Strauss, who would have been aghast at the idea of
his own views being *popularized*.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: Good Luck
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:30:05 GMT

In article <fburdette-151092095028@fburdette.worldbank.org> fburdette@worldbank.org (Franklin P. Burdette) writes:
>To Saint Jude:
>
>With Love All Things Are Possible
>
>	This paper has been sent to you for good luck. The original in is New
>England. It has been sent around the world nine times! The luck has now
>been sent to you. You will receive good luck within four days of receiving
>this letter provided you, in turn send it on.
>
>	This is no joke. You will receive good luck in the mail. Send no money.
>Send copies to people you think need some good luck. Do not send money as
>fate has no price. Do not keep this letter. It must leave your hands within
>96 hours.
>

  I send this good luck letter on to Mikhail Zeleny on the occasion
of his discussion, or whatever one might call it, with Hakki Kocabas.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Fear of the process of dying.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:42:32 GMT

It seems that death is something that only the living worry about, not being
of much concern to those who are dead.  Maybe we should take a cue from them.

I like to think of death as non-existence.  What would it be/feel like to not
exist?  Of course, it is impossible to experience non-existence because it is
a contradiction in terms to BE non-existent.  I don't think that one could be
conscious of not being conscious.  I imagine death to be much like before one
becomes alive (whenever that is).  Any theory of death must take into account
the period prior to the beginning of life.  We don't have any memory of pre-
existence because we didn't exist (this is why I doubt that I will live on
after death).

This calls into question the definition of what it means to be alive, what is
a person.  If we limit ourselves to a materialistic universe, then what makes
a person unique is not just the stuff they are made of but primarily the
ORDER of this stuff.  When you die, the order is lost and hence the
individual. Maybe more precisely, you die WHEN the order is lost. Your stuff
continues to exist in different forms as it is recycled within the universe. 
So in one sense, the eternal cycle found in Eastern philosophies is a
meaningful analogy.

Personally, I don't think that order can exist independent of material.  More
precisely, order is a property of material.  I am not trying to debate this,
just explaining my assumptions.  There is no soul, or such, that exists after
our body "dies."  On the contrary, we live on past death only in our deeds
and in the thoughts of others.

Should one fear death?  I don't think so.  It is a humbling experience to
know your own mortality, that at some future time you will cease to exist. 
But I think that this shouldn't and doesn't render life meaningless.

Some say that life is somehow less if only matter exists, that people can be
reduced to just matter.  But if the whole range of human emotion and
experience is just matter, then matter must be something more than we give
credit for.  I find life more amazing when considered without magick (the
supernatural), to think that nature has achieved the current level of
-- 
Give a man a fish and he eats for a night.
Give a man a gun and he will take care of himself.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: pww9211@zeus.tamu.edu (WINFREY, CHIP)
Subject: re:GOOD and EVIL
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:46:00 GMT

In article <11OCT92.15555611.0065@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, CXAD@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CXAD) writes...
>In article <1b9lo8INNjbv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis) writes:
>>
>>The doctor was about to perform a life-threatening delicate operation.
>>The members of the patient's family gather around the doctor.  One of
>>them said, "With God's help the operation will be a success".  The
>>doctor said, "Don't say that.  If the patient lives, you'll thank God.
>>If the patient dies, you'll blame me."  HE WHO TAKES CREDIT FOR THE
>>GOOD, MUST TAKE BLAME FOR THE BAD!!  Even God cannot escape this
>>responsibility.
>>--
>I assume this is an argument that God is "personally" responsible
>for the evil in the world, and thus can't be all Good.
> 
>I would put forward, however, that God is responsible for giving
>humans the choice to choose between Good and Evil, but is not
>to be identified with the choices we make.  Ford Motor Co. may
>make the car, but that doesn't make them liable for every car
>accident (but give the US legal system a few years ...)
> 
>Tony D

    I can't believe I'm getting into a debate over God, but here it goes.
    Did God create the evil 'choice' from which to choose.  If God
    is the author of everything, he must in some way be the author of
    evil in some form.  Otherwise, evil existed prior to, or without
    God's invovlement.  The Ford example is a glaring false analogy.
    Cars aren't alleged to have free will (although mine does), and I
    doubt you could liken their behavior to 'choosing between good and
    evil.'  I know the point you are trying to make, but this example
    doesn't work.

    I've often wondered why people feel that God couldn't have created
    a world in which Man was unable to choose to act evilly.  People
    seem to think that in this scenario man would have been deprived
    of some fundamental freedom, the freedom to choose evil.  I don't
    see it as any more of a constraint than my inability to choose to
    fly, or my inability to choose to be six feet tall.  I would simply
    realize I was unable to choose to commit evil, and go on with my life.

    However, until someone comes up with a remotely reasonable argument
    for the existence of God, not to mention his alleged omnipotence,
    omnibenevolence, and omniscience, arguments over whether "He" is
    responsible for evil are grossly premature.

___________________________________
Chip Winfrey  pww9211@zeus.tamu.edu

"Can God make a rock so heavy that
 even He can't pick it up?"