HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:22:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: To Missy: On Wrongness
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:  To Missy

>How do you know that you "ought" to have an aversion to something?

        The classical definition of "knowledge" is "justified, true
belief."  [Note: There are some philosophical problems with this
definition, but they should not raise any difficulties for purpose
of this discussion.]  So one knows that one ought to have an aver-
sion to something when 1) one believes that one ought to have an
aversion, 2) this belief is justified, and 3) the belief is true.

        The first question to answer is when it is true that one
ought to have such an aversion.  I believe that I have already
answered this.  The aversion is evaluated according to its direct
and indirect relationship to other desires and aversions.  To the
degree that people desire an aversion to X, then an aversion to X
is good.  Indirect relationships concern whether the consequences
of X are objects of desires or aversions (rather than X itself).
An aversion to X is useful if it helps to bring about states of
affairs which are desired, and if it prevents bringing about states
of affairs to which people have an aversion.

        Take, for example, a drug addiction.

        First, one may have an aversion to being an addict
itself--to being a person with a particular type of desire.  Second,
the urge itself brings about states of affairs which, in turn, are
aversive or makes it more difficult to bring about states of affairs
which themselves are desired.  To the degree that health is impaired,
the agent looses the ability to do things which will fulfill other
desires.  Also, many side effects of drug addiction are themselves
directly unpleasant.  Having the urge and not acting on it (avoiding
some of the unpleasant consequences involved in that course of action)
is itself extremely unpleasant--even painful.  Think about how hard
it is go stick to a diet.  This is child's play compared to the will-
power it takes not to fulfill a desire for a drug.  All things con-
sidered, a drug addiction is a bad thing.  Whereas an aversion to
being an addict will motivate the agent against actions likely to
bring about an addiction, it is good to have such an aversion.  Any
worthy parent, I judge, recognizes the value of giving a child an
aversion to getting hooked on drugs.

        This is the types of things which are required for it to
be the case that people ought to have an aversion to X to be true.
Knowledge depends upon one's beliefs being justified.  I do not
think that it is necessary to go into theories of justification.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:19:02 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Gore on the Environment

>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

Amidst the latest flurry, a couple of puzzling remarks.

>>> Democrats are behaving like their caricature of Republicans; now we
>>> know why.

Why?

>> I think the environment is the most important issue.
>
>Really?  How many hunting licenses and tags has Leader bought?  (Hint:
>a "0" response demonstrates that "think" doesn't translate to action.)

Please explain.

Are you saying that anyone who has not owned a hunting license couldn't
be acting on a concern for the environment?

I wonder how many hunting licenses Jacques Cousteau has.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 23 Aug 1992 13:11:22 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: PRESUMED GUILTY: INNOCENT VICTIMS OF CURRENT WAR ON DRUG
              POLIC IES
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              22 Aug 1992 18:36:37 CDT from <U45301@UICVM.UIC.ED U>

On Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:36:37 CDT Mary Jacobs said:
>SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE
>CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT 75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM

Good idea!  I forwarded it as is to this address.  Perhaps if they get
tired of paying for junk mail received on Compu$erve [sic] they'll
tell you to quit posting 1700+ lines of junk mail over the networks...
just make it ftp'able somewhere instead and interested parties will
retrieve it as they see fit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:56:13 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      empty vessels

Mp2b:

Did god tell you that george is being treated unfairly or did you make
that decision yourself? Just want to know who I should continue the
discussion with. Also, if you don't know what richard is reading, how
do you know that it is inaccurate?

Just for the record, I think that congress shares the shame of the
administration for the attack on personal liberties. What is your
stance on this issue by the way? Your response doesn't provide any
insight into your thought process or do you use the same thought
process that Robert has followed? Which commandment says "steal from
the people and give to yourself or those who voted for you"?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:07:15 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      I spell robert C-O-R-R-E-C-T

 *** Resending note of 08/28/92 13:01

 >Robert has done an excellent job of illustrating why I am turned off by
 >organized religion.

 Who said I was organized?

 >Robert quote #1: "The bible says that we should not murder. Killing an
 >intruder is not murder".

 I don't think these are exact quotes, but it doesn't really matter.
 Killing an intruder is not murder, it is self-defense.

 >Robert quote #2: "Abortion is always murder but we could accept it in
 >cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother".

 >Situational ethics?

 No, just dealing with reality.  You are being like KAT on this issue.
 Would you let everyone on a sinking ship drown, just because your
 lifeboat would only hold 2 or 3?

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:15:56 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Order restored
              26 Aug 1992 19:22:37 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Jimbo:

I have asked this of others before, and I will ask it again.  Could we
PLEASE keep the straight theology off the list!  Please note that
I *only* discuss theology here when I am asked to do so, and
against my will.

Or explain why the hateful, bigoted post you just wrote ridiculing the
most deeply held beliefs of certain people on this list qualifies
as political discussion.

Thank you.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 24 Aug 1992 15:36:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Say What??!?

>   You'd probably be a little sensitive too if YOUR relatives were beaten
>   to within an inch of their lives in government and church schools for
>   speaking their native language. It wasn't all that long ago.

no, not that long ago. up until the late 1960's children were punished in the
schools in new mexico (where i finished my last yr. of high school) for
speaking any language but english. non-english was of course mostly spanish, but
also some navajo.

>   Diane

-linda
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Clarification Request
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:19:02 GMT

I think that Jamie's reconstruction of Travis's position on 
rape as violation was quite clever.  Much like Nietzche's, Travis's
brilliant aphorisms sum up far more than the casual reader may
realize.  Positions that on the surface seem contradictory can
only be reconciled through the efforts of genuine scholarship.

But unlike so many other great philosophers, Travis isn't dead.
We have the rare opportunity to consult this keen and penetrating
intellect directly.  We need not be subject to the vagaries of
theory-laden interpretations.

Travis, if I may be so bold as to ask a few questions...

1. Why is it that rape is not a violation of the woman?

2. Are women humans?

3. Should our laws grant women certain rights, among which is the right
    not to be raped?

4.  Let's suppose that a man has raped a woman.  Should our courts
     punish him?

I ask these questions in a spirit of humility (difficult for an egotist
to sustain, but not so hard for an egoist) and pursuit of true understanding.
But I know that in the smallness of my ivory tower intellectual elitist
outlook, I am probably not even asking all the important questions.  So
here's hoping that, in addition to these questions, Travis will be willing
to fill us in with any pertinent details on the topic.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:49:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

Me:
>>I guess now's as good a time as any to explain my statement.  This
>>statement was a sarcastic one.
Jamie:
> Oh. Very funny.
Hmmm...lemme guess, you made a sarcastic response...

Me:
>>I merely
>>wanted to show that what one believes should not be a basis for law.
Jamie:
> So, for example, the fact that you believe that abortion is murder
> is no basis for laws restricting abortion. I get it.
Right.  That's why I oppose a constitutional amendment outlawing
abortion.  It should be up to the states.

Me:
>>I believe the only true *RIGHTS* which we have are those that make us
>>able to contribute to society.
Jamie:
> Glad to see someone willing to explain.
> I believe, personally, that we have rights for the most part
> which PROTECT us from having to contribute to society all the
> time. Sure, contribution is good. But I don't want to have to
> be engaged in it constantly. That's why I'm jealous of my rights.
Notice I said ABLE to contribute.  I.e., I believe that the majority
cannot interfere with certain minority rights such as trying to per-
suade the majority of its view.

Me:
>>Also, I might include the general right
>>to live in peace without fear of the government, qualifying it by
>>emphasizing "general."--i.e. not in every case.
Jamie:
> That sounds better, to me.
> So, for example, women being able to live in peace without fearing
> that the government might prevent them from having abortions.
1) Do you think that prohibition of abortion is an interference in
   a woman's day-to-day life?  I don't think *any* women are that
   promiscuous...
2) This is why I said I "might" include...because it can be taken out
   of hand very easily.  There is a line which people must agree on.

Me:
>>If you believe that abortion is not murder, and that you should be
>>allowed to choose to abort, then if I believe that rape is not a vio-
>>lation of one's body, then I should be allowed to choose to rape.
Jamie:
> Er, that doesn't exactly follow. Could you explain the reasoning
> more explicitly?
Well, exchange "you", "abortion", and "murder" in the first part with
"I", "rape", and "violation" in the second part.  Pretty clear to me.

> Jamie
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:06:00 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: double standards in the twin cities

>On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:38:42 CDT fred said:

Right  B)

>>Music trivia question: When the monkees toured in 1969, who was their
>>opening act?

>That's easy:  Jimi Hendrix

>Who was Tommy Roe's opening act in England in 1962?

The Beatles

>Evelyn Duncan

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
"Will you still need me?
 Will you still feed me?
 When I'm sixty-four?"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:38:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Tenez la gauche

>For the record, the reason we drive on the left is so that when my
>carriage passed yours on the highway, my postillion had his sword hand
>nearest to yours should he try some dirty tricks. So we're right and
>you're wrong. Nyah.

dunstan, what happened if driver was a lefty (macphil?).

also, sounds dumb, cause if the driver gets slashed, who would control the
vehicle?
sounds like our system is an improvement. the passenger has both hands free
and if he gets disemboweled, at least the vehicle would remain under control.
probably why we call the passenger side, "riding shotgun".

>Dunstan.

- linda  this is not helping regain my appetite.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:12:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Nattering Nabobs of Negativism

Hi all!  I just got back to school after wrapping up my internship, so I hope I
didn't miss much.

I just finished watching a discussion on CNN about whether or not the media
have been biased against Bush during this campaign.  While I thought Bush's
media coverage was relatively fair prior to either party's convention, it seems
to me irrefutable that the media have abandoned all pretense of objectivity
since the Democratic Convention.  Take, for example, Newsweek's coverage of the
GOP convention.  It ran four "opinion" articles related to the convention.
Since Newsweek purports to be an unbiased purveyor of news, I would expect
these articles to be roughly balanced between liberal and conseravtive writers.
Instead, the magazine printed:
        one article calling the GOP convention "A Festival of Hatemongering and
                Fear."
        one article accusing George Bush of lying to the nation.
        one article on the GOPs divisive tactics and hypocrisy, and...
        one article about how Perot should get back into the race.
Now regardless of what you thought of the GOP convention, I don't see how that
can possibly be considered "neutral" coverage.

Of course, I'm also leaving out any references to the innumerable interviews
where reporters soft-pedaled Clinton and the Democrats and tried to crucify any
Republican they could get their hands on since I don't have any transcripts for
direct quotes.  Again, the bias seemed obvious to me, but maybe I'm just
paranoid.

Seeing as how not less that 75% of practicing journalists have voted Democrat
in every election from 1964 to 1984 (my statistics stop there), liberal bias in
the media certainly doesn't seem too difficult to imagine.  I can't see how the
media get away with this lopsidedness without someone raising more of a fuss.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:24:56 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: morals

>
>One more thing.  I am confused by your use of the figure "300 million."
>There is no need for 300 million people to adopt, since, according
>to Planned Parenthood's figures, there are only 34,000 children
>waiting to be adopted in the US, and there are 1.6 million abortions
>per year in the US.  An additional 450,000 children are wards of the
>state, having been taken from their parents (but not, somehow,
>awaiting adoption--I don't know why this is, but that's what
>the Planned Parenthood statistics say.  Ask them what's going on here,
>not me.)  Anyway, none of these approach a need for 300 million
>adoptions.
>
>Could you clarify this?

Probably not. I thought i saw a post where you corrected robert
on his number of abortions performed thus far. I obviously
read it wrong.

Another question though, that i just thought of. Should people who
are capable of having children be able to adopt?

and kerry, do you think that homosexual couples should be allowed to
adopt?

Jenna
>
>Thanks.
>       --Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:05:50 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: pot and the kettle

 *** Resending note of 09/01/92 06:15

 ...much deleted

 >And THIS, Robert, my friend, is the word of God and cannot be
 >disputed.

 >-KAT

 Well, friend, just where was the Word of "G"od in that post?  I didn't
 see any of it.  What I did see was a lot of Catholic policy.  A policy,
 I might add, that conflicts with scripture.

 The Bible authorizes divorce, but ONLY, in cases of immorality (adultery).
 Annulment?  Can you give me a scripture reference for this?

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:06:46 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: morals

jcs:

One more thing.  I am confused by your use of the figure "300 million."
There is no need for 300 million people to adopt, since, according
to Planned Parenthood's figures, there are only 34,000 children
waiting to be adopted in the US, and there are 1.6 million abortions
per year in the US.  An additional 450,000 children are wards of the
state, having been taken from their parents (but not, somehow,
awaiting adoption--I don't know why this is, but that's what
the Planned Parenthood statistics say.  Ask them what's going on here,
not me.)  Anyway, none of these approach a need for 300 million
adoptions.

Could you clarify this?

Thanks.
       --Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:10:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: did i send the wrong stuff?

>       Linda,
>               Was that the post about the lime jello bath and
>guacamole dip rub?

oh, robert w.,
how did you know i had a *passion* for guacamole? and i look pretty good in
green too  ;).
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: nope
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:28:38 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

>As an Anabaptist, I cannot use deadly force for any reason.  As for
>other Christians, I can only say that I think the imperative is to
>use every other means possible before resorting to deadly force, and
>even then to do so only if life is in imminent danger.

On this point, Anabaptists appear to agree with Presbyterian
orthodoxy.  (They call it the "all men are our brothers" theory; I
call it "lie back and enjoy it".)  Methodists officially agree with
the "lesser" standard.  I really doubt that all Christians agree with
one of the two.

Robert appears to be under the misconception that killing someone
stops lawsuits.  It doesn't.  The lawsuits even have a name; they're
called "wrongful death" suits.

-andy

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:27:06 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      MATH 101

 KAT,

 Divide your 82k figure by about 20 years.

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:58:32 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Using deadly force against dead horses

>What troubled me was the idea that someone might use deadly
>force to protect his or her property. Even then, I have agreed
>that it might sometimes be justifiable (though not legal, as
>I understand it).

I find it interesting that people are concerned about Joe Blow blowing
away a burglar going for Joe's TV in Joe's "castle", but few blink at
armed armored car and bank guards.  Said guards don't have guns to
protect themselves so much as they have guns to raise the stakes of
robbery, much of which consists of making said protection necessary.
This is seen as a good thing.

It appears that some property is more equal than others.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:13:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: meaningless phrases

>Instead of becoming a vegetarian, you should have just sued your mother.

>After all, this is America.

>--Missy P 2 B

missy, you did not know my mother. she's been dead 3 years now, and i'm still
afraid to get on the wrong side of her :).

anyway, i believe in avoiding most kinds of confrontation, esp. if it has to do
with lawyers and rooms with lots of walnut panelling.

-linda  (actually, she was an indescribably dear woman)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:15:18 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Fired for an abortion...

>From:         TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET
>
>Was this suit filed in state or federal court??
>-Travis

As macphil wrote, it was filed in the 29th district court.

The suit is between citizens of the same state. So original
jurisdiction belongs in a state court.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:21:08 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

 *** Resending note of 08/26/92 09:22

 >God is not bound by Jamie's lack of faith--only Jamie is.
 >
 >(But God's not thrilled with the situation, either.)
 >
 >--Missy P 2 B

 Technically, "G"od cannot be bound.  We have no *real* disagreement.

 But, what if Jamie gets a terminal illness and prays for healing?  What
 good does it do if, while he prays, he doesn't believe?  Of course, "G"od
 could go ahead and heal him if it was within his will.  However, as a
 general principle, would you not think that "G"od would be somewhat
 pressed to answer an empty prayer?

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU