HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:10:17 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <lm0nu9INN9jt@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>|> Which is why it is refreshing to see the Colorado voters start to put
>|> a stop to this nonsense of "victimology".
>
>The Colorado law prevents Colorado voters from passing a particular kind
>of law.  That sounds like coercion.  If they don't want the law, then why
>don't they just not vote for it?

Good question.  This is likely to be answered around the same time as
you explain why the Bill of Rights contains language like "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".  I'll give
you a clue - it removes temptation from legislators.  This is the
single most important purpose of the Bill of Rights.  (Not that it's
worked so well.)

>The Colorado law also prohibits laws that prevent discrimination against
>homosexuals, but it does not prohibit laws that prevent discrimination
>against heterosexuals.  Weren't you just complaining about asymmetrical
>legislation in the hate crimes legislation discussion?

This is certainly a defect in Colorado's Amendment 2.  If the amendment
is successfully challenged on equal protection grounds, you will find
that the next version of it contains language mentioning sexual
orientation and not homosexuality and bisexuality in particular.  That
is likely to be unassailable on the same or any other grounds.

Personally, I don't know if it will be struck down by the courts.
Colorado can make a good argument that Amendment 2 addresses specific
local ordinances which mentioned only homosexuality and bisexuality,
and was drawn in order to invalidate those ordinances.  There were and
are no local ordinances which protect heterosexuals (as a class) from
discrimination, and there won't be in the future.  The courts may find
that argument lacking, in that localities would still have a theoretical
ability to pass such ordinances.

If that happens, Amendment 2 (and many other similar state
constitutional amendments which will be on the ballot in coming years)
will be reworded around something neutral like "sexual orientation".
I will bet that such wording passes muster both with the electorate
and the judiciary.

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The socialist/fascist claptrap item #1: the "Social Contract"
Date: 28 Jan 93 23:06:59 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan28.003944.19095@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <C1JBDH.7Ky@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
>    >Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>I am not allowed to build my own roads.
>
>I am not allowed to string my own power lines, nor to take back my property
>that the State stole and gave to the power companies so they could run
>power lines across my property.
>
>I am not allowed to buy water rights and have it shipped to my home.

And why are you not allowed to do all of the things that you listed?

>
>But you know, I bet if I bought a helicopter (and avoided the roads), and
>bought a generator (and avoided the power companies), and collected rainwater
>(to avoid the water companies) I don't think I could stop paying taxes.

No- you of course need the permission of someone- to fly, and you have to
get a license to do so.  You need something to run your generator on, so
where will you get the fuel- but of course, from the subsidized gas station.
And keep in mind that your rainwater could be polluted pretty badly.

And your right- you probably couldn't stop paying taxes.

Of course- will ignore the fact that some by some unknown process- you got
money to buy everthing, you got permission to get a license, and you were
somehow trained to fly a helicopter. All of this appearing out of some
black hole- hmmm!  social convention, social agreement, no no it couldn't
be that.

>    >>
>    >And while you make fun of the analogy of Social Contract by
>    >asking for a piece of paper, allow me to ask for a picture of
>    >the gun pointing at you. :-)
>
>Oh? Stop paying your income taxes or property taxes. The State WILL come
>and take YOUR property away, without your consent. If you resist, they
>will knock you to the ground and place you in jail. If you strongly
>resistx, they will shoot you.
>
>Like that poor kook up in Idahoe -- he used no roads, no electricity,
>no water. And paid no taxes.

How did he get there in the first place, if he didn't use roads?

>
>And they shot him dead.
>
>
So who was this poor guy- was this one pointing guns at people.
Living in a house, where did that come from, and where did the
land come from, and who sold him all of this stuff anyway?

>
>Social Contract? Just another name for the concept of "just lie back and
>enjoy it" during an act of social intercourse rape.
>
>

That you joyfully participate in.  Without you would be the little girl
they found locked in a closet- without any edukation, or social contact.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8338 ca.politics:10690 talk.politics.misc:69966
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 27 Jan 1993 19:43:10 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan27.080426.5286@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <lmbsbpINNpk1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
>    >In the case of anti-discrimination in employment and housing
>    >laws, the majority of society decides which they would
>    >prefer:
>    >
>    >1. Any employer or property owner may discriminate against
>    >any applicant for any reason. 2. An employer or property
>    >owner may choose which of many applicants they employ/house
>
>Wrong.
>
>Are you REALLY this stupid or just really dishonest?
>

More slogans- more name calling.

>The passage of the above laws DOES NOT indicate that the majority of
>society approves of them. Indeed, the majority do NOT approve of them.
>Colorado just affirmed that if you are really dense.

This is true- it actually shows how stupid and lazy the majority of
Americans are.  They really don't care, until it affects them 
directly, then will hear 'em screaming.  But to take part and make
active decisions- ho ho ho, there is a Santa Claus.

>
>What else do you believe along these lines? That the majority wants to
>drive at a maximum of 55 MPH. They must according to you because that law
>is on the books.

Well it is nice to know that we may actually derive laws, based on
rational decisions.  We know that the number of traffic fatalities
has fallen because we do not allow people to go bombing down the
highway at 90mph.  You can built the best cars in the world, but if
people are behind the wheel, then you just reduced all of its'
technical wizardry to the competence level of the driver.

And yes, a whole new arena has opened up the war over rights, that
is called the technological revolution- in some aspects it has helped
in others it has created new problems.

>

>Or hey, how about the way Congress spends money. The majority must approve
>that too because it's happening.
>
>


Yes, the majority does agree, by default.  If you make no effort to change
something, or ignore other's trying to make a change, then by default you
accept those changes.

Now go ahead and rant/rave about PC, Nazi's or whatever.

But, if you as a citizen benefit from a system that you do not put effort
into, then tough luck if something comes along that you don't like.  If
the majority sit on their hands- then they have no basis of complaint.

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The socialist/fascist claptrap item #1: the "Social Contract"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:39:44 GMT

In article <C1JBDH.7Ky@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
    >Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
    >>Hey George, did you sign your "Social Contract"? Nope, me
    >>neither. Hey, how about you Tony? Did you? yeah, I've never
    >>seen this "Social Contract" ion any kind of writing either,
    >>much less signed one.
    >>
    >Nope, you didn't sign any piece of paper, nor did you
    >explicitly agree to any form of contract. And yet you
    >continue to use roads, electricity, and water that the
    >government provides you. It is strange that those very people
    >who most often repudiate the analogy of the social contract
    >do so while using the very advantages that their society
    >gives them.

How sad. Do you really believe this? It's the same concept that the USSR
used in confisticating and then taxing the Jews that wanted to leave. The
emigrating Jews had to "reimburse" the State for all the "benefits" the
State gave them.

I am not allowed to build my own roads.

I am not allowed to string my own power lines, nor to take back my property
that the State stole and gave to the power companies so they could run
power lines across my property.

I am not allowed to buy water rights and have it shipped to my home.


But you know, I bet if I bought a helicopter (and avoided the roads), and
bought a generator (and avoided the power companies), and collected rainwater
(to avoid the water companies) I don't think I could stop paying taxes.



    >>What actually happens of course is that some set of people
    >>gain enough control of the means of coercion to force another
    >>set or sets of people to hand over their property at gunpoint
    >>for the first set to dispose of.
    >>
    >And while you make fun of the analogy of Social Contract by
    >asking for a piece of paper, allow me to ask for a picture of
    >the gun pointing at you. :-)

Oh? Stop paying your income taxes or property taxes. The State WILL come
and take YOUR property away, without your consent. If you resist, they
will knock you to the ground and place you in jail. If you strongly
resistx, they will shoot you.

Like that poor kook up in Idahoe -- he used no roads, no electricity,
no water. And paid no taxes.

And they shot him dead.



Social Contract? Just another name for the concept of "just lie back and
enjoy it" during an act of social intercourse rape.



-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:08:57 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1k4tkrINNo5q@morrow.stanford.edu> XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <1k1dc2INN8tn@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
>stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>>For instance, it would be acceptable for a business, not to pay one empolyee's
>>benefits for health insurance, while paying another employees, and give no
>
>A contract of any sort comes into existance only when the terms are
>acceptable to both sides.  Why should anyhone else besides the
>direct parties to that contract be able to dictate to those parties
>what acceptable terms are?
>
>/June


That is not my point- if a employer is to have full decision making power over
his business- then it is quite OK for him/her to discriminate at any given time.
If for instance he decides that he doesn't like employee A, even though A's 
work is excellent, he can do things like, stop paying their health benefits or
maybe reduce their salary at any given time.

So the point is- if we have non-discrimination laws, then they become part of
the contract between employee and employer.  And therefore the employer cannot
simply fire or cause trouble for an employee if at a later date the employer
discovers that A is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or a mormon.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:16:11 GMT


9AM - Noon on KNBR 680 AM

JZ

Xref: sparky ba.politics:8319 ca.politics:10674
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: SCREW RUSH, RAY T IS GOD!
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 

To hell with Rush Limburger, a man so stupid that he actually enjoys
being the most hated man in America.

If you want a REAL political talk show, check out Ray Taliafero on KGO
810 AM Monday-Friday mornings 1-5am.  I know that the time is bad, but
hook your receiver to a vcr and tape the whole show that way while you
sleep.

When Rush was on KFBK in Sacramento years ago, his local nemesis was
Uncle Ray.  Ray, who is much smarter than the average bear, handled
Rush's verbal attacks the correct way:  he ignored them and said he had
never heard of Rush Limbaugh.  This stance continues to this day.

No, I don't work for KGO.  But if I did, I be quick to get rid of those
other political bafoons Bill Wattenberg, Jim Eason, Jean Rusco and that
evening idiot (whatever his name is).

Yes, the beautiful black woman in the sky listens to Ray T.!
                                                
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Transfer Station BBS (510) 837-4610 & 837-5591 (V.32bis both lines)|
| Danville, California, USA. 400+ MB Files & FREE public Internet Access |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8382 ca.politics:10728 talk.politics.misc:70439
From: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 29 Jan 93 02:19:09 GMT
Reply-To: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
|>     >In the case of anti-discrimination in employment and housing
|>     >laws, the majority of society decides which they would
|>     >prefer:
|>     >
|>     >1. Any employer or property owner may discriminate against
|>     >any applicant for any reason. 2. An employer or property
|>     >owner may choose which of many applicants they employ/house
|>     >provided they do not use any of a short list of fixed
|>     >criteria in that decision. Currently that list usually
|>     >contains race, creed, etc.
|>     >
|>     >It seems that the majority of society would prefer the
|>     >consequences of case #2. They view the ignorant whining of
|>     >some employers or property owners as being less worthy of
|>     >consideration than the real needs of those who might be
|>     >discriminated against.
|> 
|> The passage of the above laws DOES NOT indicate that the majority of
|> society approves of them. Indeed, the majority do NOT approve of them.
|> Colorado just affirmed that if you are really dense.

Nowhere did I state that I was using the passage of laws as the
basis for my statements.  It is my impression that the majority
of Americans actually do favor outlawing discrimination based on
race.

The Colorado case is irrelevant to the point I was making here.
I admit that in the small section of my posting that you quote
above, it is not clear that I was not including sexual orientation
in this part of the discussion.  But the very next paragraph talked
about adding it to that list and so should have implied to you that
I was only talking about the standard list of categories which every
state seems to have already outlawed as a basis for discrimination.
(i.e. race, creed, gender)

In the case of Colorado, they did not outlaw all laws controlling
the acceptable bases of discrimination, they were explicitly singling
out homosexuality (and bisexuality and a couple of other labels).
There may have been some vocal support from people who would not want
any anti-discrimination laws, but I believe that the majority who voted
for the Colorado amendment were doing so because they felt that
homosexuality in particular should not be considered an inappropriate
basis for discrimination.  Actually I feel that the majority voted
for the amendment because they had been scared into believing that
homosexuals were receiving "special rights" over and above the rights
they themselves had as heterosexuals.  And they would have voted for
a law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation if they
felt that the law could or would not be misused to give the minority
groups an unfair advantage.

				...jim
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:04:26 GMT

In article <lmbsbpINNpk1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
    >In the case of anti-discrimination in employment and housing
    >laws, the majority of society decides which they would
    >prefer:
    >
    >1. Any employer or property owner may discriminate against
    >any applicant for any reason. 2. An employer or property
    >owner may choose which of many applicants they employ/house
    >provided they do not use any of a short list of fixed
    >criteria in that decision. Currently that list usually
    >contains race, creed, etc.
    >
    >It seems that the majority of society would prefer the
    >consequences of case #2. They view the ignorant whining of
    >some employers or property owners as being less worthy of
    >consideration than the real needs of those who might be
    >discriminated against.

Wrong.

Are you REALLY this stupid or just really dishonest?

The passage of the above laws DOES NOT indicate that the majority of
society approves of them. Indeed, the majority do NOT approve of them.
Colorado just affirmed that if you are really dense.

What else do you believe along these lines? That the majority wants to
drive at a maximum of 55 MPH. They must according to you because that law
is on the books.

Or hey, how about the way Congress spends money. The majority must approve
that too because it's happening.



-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 26 Jan 1993 20:51:16 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan26.011540.18960@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <108155@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>    >Yeah, it's a damn shame they decided to use the the phrase
>    >"homosexual or bisexual orientation" instead of a simple,
>    >all-inclusive "sexual orientation."
>
>At first, I was going to agree to your point, even though it is a sarcastic
>rejoinder.
>
>However, I now disagree.
>
>The voters were clearly upset over the "victimology" status being sought by
>homosexuals.
>

No, I believe the voters were hoodwinked by the TFVC.  It is on their
agenda to make sure that no laws exist to protect gays, lesbians, bisexuals,
and if at all possible to make laws forbidding the discussion of, of portrayal
of, and to even make the law state that it is all immoral.

>And clearly, no one worries about hetereosexuals.
>
>But, what if "pedophilia" became a recognized legal "sexual orientation"????
>

But what if "necrophilia" became a recognized legal "sexual orientation"????

Well- this is just as ridiculous as the "pedophilia" example. 

Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are involved with other adults, and therefore
are involved in consentual agreements.

At this time, and I doubt that it will change in the future, pedophilia does
not involve the consentual arrangement of adults, i.e. this persons that are
able to make decisions for themselves.

And as far as necrophilia goes- well I do not believe that will ever be
a sexual orientation either- even though a few people might want it.  It
also does not involve the mutual consent of each individual.


I will concede that for myself I do not particularly like the 'sexual
orientation' usage.  Simply because people seem to go off on tangents
and start making statements that pedophiles and rapist are just a
sexual orientation.  I suppose it needs to be made very specific.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8376 ca.politics:10722
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Moral Defintion/Confusion ( Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Date: 28 Jan 93 23:20:05 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan28.025956.18426@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1k4lgfINN9sn@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:

>>Let's change it a little and see if discriminating in these cases
>>seems rational.
>
>>	a. typical white housewife
>>	b. black man poorly dressed.
>>	c. a jew in typical orthodox wear.
>
>>There is no reason for me to think or say that I will not do
>>business with b. or c., it just doesn't make sense.
>
>Well, I agree that you should do business with them, but your method
>of dealing with them will be different.
>
>For example, if you run a high class jewelry store that doesn't sell
>anything with a pricetag under $10,000 are you really going to be
>interested in talking to anyone - black or white - who is poorly
>dressed?  If you run a restaurant are you going to inform the jew that
>today's special is barbequed ribs?  If you run a prostate care clinic
>are you going to offer the housewife a free examination?
>


Well this shows you that maybe you have made a discrimination based
upon lack of information.  There are many eccentric rich people who
go around poorly dressed.  I met many of them in Palo Alto, and have
one in the family.

Just because someone is Jewish does not mean they do not eat pork.
I have Jewish friends who eat pork, and ride in VW's.

Now on the last one, you have the correct facts- so you probably
would not offer a free prostate examination to a woman.
I could stretch the last one, and say that 'woman' involved is actually
a person who is a transsexual, but never completed the physical trans-
formation.

But, please look carefully at your other statements.  You have made
assumptions based upon irrational ideas.  Poorly dressed, Jewish 
person in a restuarant.  This is no different than simply saying,
well, they are black and why are they in my nice clothing store,
or I know they are gay, and I don't want those kind in here.
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:28:12 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

Well, speaking as a former athlete, I think that the
solution to the problem is to have the state declare
homophobia to be a disability.  Following this would
be legislation granting "equal access" to these most
damaged of people, resulting in separate bathrooms
for use by homophobes until they are cured of this
horrible blight.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8287 ca.politics:10649 talk.politics.misc:69529