HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman)
Subject: Re: walking someone to their car
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:47:45 GMT

flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>against women is commonplace.  But even if there is an increased risk, if it's
>substantially less than the decrease to the woman's risk, it makes sense for
>the man to accompany her.

Why? This assumes some sort of social utilitarian view, that decreasing someone
elses risk by assuming more risk to myself is good. I'm not arguing that one
shouldn't walk women to their cars etc., but I'm arguing with your assumption.
I'll walk women I know to their cars, because I have decided that decreasing
their risk substantially is worth the increased risk to myself, because I don't
like to have bad things happen to people I know. I don't walk women I don't know
to their cars (under most circumstances) if it increases my risk because I,
in my non-altruistic little value scheme, don't care, on any but the 
intellectual and most shallow emotional levels, what happens to them.
Your argument implies that if there is a 1% chance of the woman being attacked
if alone, a .1% chance of us being attacked if together, and a .3% chance
of me being attacked alone, that I should escort her, since that results
in a net of about .2% of one or both of us being attacked, substantially
lowering her risk. But I argue that, unless I get something out of it,
it doesn't make sense for me, after all, it is *MY* risk being increased.
(By getting something out of it, it could be the warm fuzzy feeling I get
from helping someone, it could be the decreased risk to my emotions, if the
woman is a friend of mine, it could be the increase in my self-esteem from
helping make society a nicer place or whatever. Just decreasing her risk
isn't enough.)
-- 
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
	silber@cs.uiuc.edu
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:38:20 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Samuel Green (query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: 	
: 	Sorry to rant, but, there are a lot of people out there that wave
: guns around and do not understand that a gun was designed to kill, not
: disarm, not injure, not permanantly maim, but to KILL. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I still contend that
handguns are designed to STOP, not to kill.  The distinction is kind of 
subtle, though, since a handgun stops in a manner that is quite likely to
cause death; nevertheless, stopping the attacker is the object, killing
him is not.  The attacker's state of health after the fact is largely 
irrelavent.

: 	Again, you cannot take the issue too seriously.

Agreed.  The only ethiical use of deadly force, and I certainly won't 
argue that handguns are not deadly force, is in the gravest extreme, when
you have every reason to believe that the alternative is your own death.
But I contend that, given such a situation, it is reasonable to use deadly
force, and furthermore, that it is reasonable to be prepared in advance 
for such a situation, in the fervent hope that it will never happen.  By
prepared, I mean both mentally (willing to defend oneself) and physically
(having the means to defend oneself at hand.)

: 	Sam

--Dan

--
"Master... Master...                       (To The Tune of Metallica's)
	Master of Science is your degree.  ('Master of Puppets')
	You're too dumb for a PhD.              loki@acca.nmsu.edu
	Should have studied for the GRE!    dftaylor@cechem.colorado.edu
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Men--expendible?
Date: 12 Aug 92 09:25:42 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <10292@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:

> 
>>and a draft! I knew mister he-man dorkhead Reagan wanted to
>>feel tough so he started a registry, but a draft?
> 
> It was mister he-man peanutbrain Carter who did it.  Get your damn morons 
> straight!  How else are we going to win the winter Olympics?

It was Carter who did it, Congress who approved it, the Supreme Court that
found it lawful, the public who thought it was a good idea, and the males not
yet turned 18 who had to comply.


DC
From: ttaylor@starl.miami.fl.us (Thelma Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:09:59 EST
Organization: Starlight BBS Miami Fl

There is something here that needs to be said....there has been young children
getting handguns and killing people.What about the people who are old that gets
beat to death? You know abuse goes on right in peoples homes,children,wives are
beat and abused by people they love.I know I have been in there shoes.Sometimes
the outside is safer than the inside.I believe that being in groups can help in
many ways.guns really isnt the answer....a person having a gun can be good and
bad....learning to use a gun and taking care of the gun...Guns can kill....I'v
been shot at by my mother and I know,at the age of 7 to the teens years.This
world is so messed up it seems that our sense of values are gone.What we need
is more people who is concerned and have a neighborhood watch program in areas
where there are crimes.People needs to get involved and we the people can make
a didifference in this worlI believe in
difference in this world I believe in
this with all my heart. 

                T Taylor
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: lioness method
Distribution: na
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:59:23 GMT

booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>While the lioness method paper does contain some generalizations,
>such generalizations seem to be on the side of caution.

They're on the side of caution in the sense that they're saying to people,
don't assume that this or that bad thing will not happen.

They're NOT on the side of caution in that they don't seem to be concerned with
the effect they will have on people who are raped in different circumstances.
They're quite un-cautious about this.

They're not on the side of caution in that they don't seem to worry about the
need of rape victims and potential rape victims to feel that they have a choice
in how they live their lives.  The paper tells them what to do and says that
they're a fool if they do otherwise ("you MUST decide HERE and NOW").
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dkmiller@unixg.ubc.ca (Derek K. Miller)
Subject: Re: Statistic info
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:15:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.092420.3019@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>>>>  "If there was no way you could get caught for the crime of rape, would you
>>>>   do it?"
>>>>
>>>>   75% of the college boys who were asked said YES.
>>
>>   Any guess as to the %-age of "boys" saying YES to
>>      "Would you steal if you wouldn't get caught?"
>>      "Would you speed if you wouldn't get caught?"
>>      "Would you spit on the floor if you wouldn't get caught?"
>
>I'd prefer someone to cover the floor with spit three inches deep rather than
>to rape someone.
>
>>   How about:
>>      "Would you rape if you wouldn't get caught, but you knew
>>       the victim would hate it?"
>
>But if they don't know the victim will hate it, it will still have the same
>effect.  It's scary that people are eager to rape.  It's not comforting to
>think that this is probably just because they don't know of the trauma it
>will cause, because there's nothing on the way to becoming a rapist that
>automatically informs people of this.  It's scary to know that the only thing
>stopping them is fear of the law, because we all know that there will be
>circumstances under which this fear is not present.  And then these college
>boys will rape.
>
>I just can't get upset about people's willingness to spit on the floor.

This is pure hypothesis, but I can't see how someone asking the question would
ask it in the form of "rape." Likely the question, if posed, would be of
the form: "If a woman told you quite forcefully that she did not want to have
sex, would you go ahead anyway?"

This doesn't make a difference in the end result - which is rape - but I
don't think that 75% of college boys would like to consider themselves
rapists OVERTLY.

Just a theory.

      :=:=> Derek K. Miller                 dkmiller@unixg.ubc.ca
      Researcher, Alma Mater Society        thegrodd@tz.ucs.sfu.ca
      University of British Columbia, Canada
From: nickyg@apricot.co.uk (Nicky Glover)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Forget it.
Date: 20 Aug 92 10:26:47 GMT
Organization: Apricot Computers Limited

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.063315.24538@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:

[...]

>> 	Well, tyhis will be my last post in this thread, as several things
>> have become obvious.  Several things that, while they might be appropo to
>> discuss via e-mail, if I cared to invest the time on an irrelevant
>> argument, are pointless to discuss in this forum.
>> 	I have noticed, and I wonder if anyone else has also, that DC seems
>> only interested in telling people that they are wrong.  Even if a person
>> dissagrees with him on a matter of opinion, he will insist that they are
>> wrong.  Even if a person repeatedly points out that it is a matter of
>> opinion, or personal choice, DC will post several hundred lines of
>> arguments that will say that you are still wrong.  I feel that an opinion
>> can be prooven neither right nor wrong, but, apparently DC disagrees with
>> me on that too.
>> 	DC, I must ask you:  Why must you feel the need to prove some
>> irrelevant point to everyone who disagrees with you?


>Let me explain quite clearly what would happen if I found out you gave me an
>involuntary escort. I would confront you while we were out on the street. If
>need be, I would call the police from the nearest pay phone. While they were
>talking to you, I would continue on my way unbothered. Now, would you do the
>same actions the next night or not? How long until you finally gave up your
>forceful guardian role on me?


>> 	DC, if you do not care to risk your self for someone else, then
>> fine.  I hope that the majority of people out there do not feel the same as
>> you.  But, I cannot say what the majority thinks, because no one has posted
>> to this thread, except for once, other than you or I.  And, they dissagreed
>> with you to some extent.  I vaguely recall you responding to them telling
>> them in essence, that they were wrong.  I might guess that a few people who
>> may have otherwise posted decided not to, due to the possibility of you
>> posting huge follow ups and attempting to get them into an argument that is
>> pointless.

>> 	3)  If anyone ever tells him one of his arguments does not fit,
>> pretty much all he says is "Your examples just go to furthur proove my
>> hypo."  C'mon, DC, not EVERYONE on the net who responds to your posts could
>> be such total loosers that they are 100% wrong ALL of the time.  I only
>> recall one thread (the handguns one) in which you agree with someone, and





 
dc - another chance for you to argue.  You are a complete a***h***
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 08:37:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.033224.2052@nmsu.edu> loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer) writes:
>dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu wrote:

>is perfectly legal to carry a loaded firearm, concealed, within reach of the
>driver, while in your car, home, or place of business.  check your local laws.

In Oklahoma, state law makes it illegal to carry a loaded firearm in your
vehicle.  Not sure, but I seem to recall something about shotguns could be
carried loaded, but not chambered, in the trunk of the car.  This may be my
imagination though.

I also remember thinking it odd that the law didn't specify what exactly con-
stituted an unloaded gun if the weapon in question was an automatic with a 
clip.  I used to carry my (blush) .22 Ruger next to my driver's seat, the
chamber empty.  A full clip of ammo was in the slide, but not driven home.  In
order to fire the weapon, the clip would have to be pushed up into the grip and
a round chambered.  This clearly doesn't take much time or effort.

I spoke to a couple of police officers, and they said it'd be a judgment call
on the part of the arresting officer, and then a judgment from the judge (imagin
that!).

-- 
Grant Boggs
boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:36:59 GMT

	In effort to reduce bandwith I'll just make my statements.  I'm
sure that anything I respond to will be remembered by DC, who posted it.

	The rapist profile:  Flirted?  Most people that I know will say
that one thing that they notice is that I hardly flirt.  Innuendo and game
playing with people is just not my style.  Also, most people will mention
also that they have noticed that I am particularly careful of making a play
for a woman, unless she gives me explicit consent to do so.  I have passed
up a few opportunities to have a bit of fun with some rather nice people
because I would not risk assuming their intent was anything other than just
pleasantries.  Most of my friends (male ones, at least) criticixze me for
this, but...  Gotta be me. :)
	As far as the cops fabricating evidence for a charge, there is a
bit of difference between faking a drug bust, and arresting someone who has
several witnesses willing to testify about my stating that I was going to
make sure that the person gets home safely or to wherever they were going
without incident.
	Also, what charges could they arrest me on?  Ok, you did mention
resisting arrest, but, I am pretty sure that I would be able to get off of
that, since all I would do when faced with the cops is:
	1)  Explain what I was doing.
	2) If the cops still wanted to arrest me, ask what charge.
	3)  Get into the squad car EVEN IF they did not give me a charge.
I am willing to deal with a violation of my constitutional 'rights' if it
means avoiding a hassle later on.

	I still see no charges of rape or attempted rape being able to be
applied... After all, I made no moves towards her, and, no one could proove
anything about my intent, except for the fact that I stated that I was
going to make sure the person got to their destination safely.
	Anyways, it seems that what I would face if I went to trial over
this would be a trial on either resisting arrest charges, or some very
vague charge that would not even be worth the time to prosecute.  Remember,
the police and judges will probably have a fairly good idea of what was
going on, and they would also have a pretty good idea that I was not a
threat to the person.  It would be dropped. 

	The current events thing:  I was referring to LA after the jury
verdict and the riots.  A lot of everyday people believe that it was a case
of the cops looking out for their own, if not outright racism in police and
judicial administration.  If any of these charges ever did reach the trial
stage, then the jury would probably be more sympathetic to the defendant
now, rather than the police.  Hell, I know it is a different deal (racism
and rape and all that) but, the rioting and fallout from that has changed
the level of trust placed in police.

	Anyway, suffice it to say that in MY opinion, there would be no
flack other than a minor annoyance of being arrested and having the charges
droppped, to this.  I will risk that to make sure someone is safer.  
	Sam
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:41:56 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug12.171700.11453@ncar.ucar.edu>, sheehan@pagosa.scd.ucar.edu (Tim Sheehan) writes:

> 
> Based on my experience, I offer the following suggestions:
> 
> <deleted>
> 
> 4) If someone is going through a dangerous area, or driving in 
> dangerous conditions, have them call when they get home.
> 

You do realize that this one is solely for the peace of mind of the person who
is already home. Figure, if they get stopped or raped along the way, what are
you going to do? Go looking for them when they don't call? IF you find them,
the event they needed to be protected from is probably long over.

DC
From: varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: Statistic info
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:20:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.235053.29883@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.150948.113@news.uwyo.edu> gooseman@news.uwyo.edu writes:
>>
>>
>>     "If there was no way you could get caught for the crime of rape, would you
>>      do it?"
>>
>>      75% of the college boys who were asked said YES.

   Any guess as to the %-age of "boys" saying YES to
      "Would you steal if you wouldn't get caught?"
      "Would you speed if you wouldn't get caught?"
      "Would you spit on the floor if you wouldn't get caught?"
   How about:
      "Would you rape if you wouldn't get caught, but you knew
       the victim would hate it?"
  (There's a lot of "she'll love it" fantasies that enter into
  the response to the original question.)

>    Any peer-reviewed referrence for this? I have seen this stat before, but
>have never seen in in a journal. You know what they say, 98% of stats are
>made up.

    You MADE THAT UP!!!  It' really 99.44%.  I've read it somewhere...
You know - "It's 99.44% pure" - weren't they talking about pure BS?
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: genetics (was Re: Walking her to the car.)
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:25:58 GMT

query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>It is pretty much a fact:  Your average male is genetically given a higher
>ability to fight than your average woman, while potentials may differ.

There is no evidence that the difference in women and men's strength in our
society is genetic.  It could be entirely cultural.

*NOTE* I said NO EVIDENCE.  Responding with "come on, surely it's genetic" is
not a valid counterargument (though it's the one I usually get).
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Ataylor's "quote" source.
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:49:44 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug12145505@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> <In article <1992Aug12.023721.9347@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> 
> < Well, it took some doing, but I have found the material Ataylor is claiming I
> < said. Here it is (one page down):
> 
> 	You found SOME material I quoted.
> 
> <   In article <VwuLoB2w164w@cellar.org> hacksaw@cellar.org (Hacksaw) writes:
> 
> 	Correct. I have misattributed some text by "Hacksaw" to
> 	Cosgrove. This is an error I apologize for.

Error? You are trying to pass this off as an error??? You take a post from
someone in a different state, on a different network, and place it here as
proof that I have said things you claim I have said, and you apologize for the
error???

Try apologizing for the LIE! Did you really think that I would not remember
what I had written, or were you hoping I couldn't find the original? (It was
old, and I had to jump onto another system in another city to find it, but I
did find it.)

Tell me, how could this have been 'error'? You knew it was not mine! You had
the post in front of you. What led you to believe I wrote it? Was my address at
the top? My 'DC' at the bottom?

Nope.

Error. Yeah, right.

DC
From: jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx P825)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: genetics
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:29:50 GMT
Reply-To: jcmarx@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <1992Aug18.151822.9550@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Aug18.114639.18196@brtph560.bnr.ca>, jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx) writes:
|> 
|> > |> 
|> > |> Only if you equate ability to fight as being dependent entirely on muscle and
|> > |> size.
|> > |> 
|> > |> You know it is amazing how few of those muscle-atheletes ever win the Hevy
|> > |> Weight Crown, or any kick-boxing competitions.
|> > |> 
|> > |> And I would put ANY of them up against Chuck Norris.
|> > |> 
|> > |> Or Franco from my old Karate school. (Little guy, could break several ribs on
|> > |> the first puch, and had.)
|> > |> 
|> > |> Strength is somewhat genetics. What you do with it is entirely a personal
|> > |> decision.
|> > |> 
|> > |> DC
|> > |> 
|> > |> 
|> > 
|> > With regard to your little friend (who breaks ribs on first punch): Imagine
|> > what he could do if he were, say two to three times stronger - or
|> > put him up against a previous body builder gone kickboxer - Van Damm (sp?).
|> > Sure, I'd love to see Norris vs. John-Claude...
|> 
|> Notice you had to introduce someone with self-defense training before you were
|> willing to put them up against Franco.

Although this is drifting from the thread, I will elaborate; I was trying to say
that if Franco was so awesome the way he was, imagine what he would be like if
he were two-three times stronger. To give you an example of an expert fighter
who was/is a bodybuilder, I mentioned John-Claude. Since we're already off the
the subject, though, might as well carry it on out; if Franco WERE to go up
against a well developed bodybuilder, he had better be able to do more than
break ribs on the first blow, cause the first blow is all he's gonna get...


|> He was not much bigger than most
|> women--so what stops them from getting pumped and trained to kill also?

I never said women could not get pumped up and be trained to fight. The issue
was genetics. A woman pumped up/trained vs. a man pumped up/equally trained will
|> 
|> 
|> > 
|> > As far as "those muscle-atheletes" ever winning the Hevy Weight Crown or
|> > any kick-boxing competitions - I could just as easily say, Hey, I'd like to
|> > see some of those Karate jocks bench press 500lbs.
|> 
|> Indeed, and that would be in line with my arguments quite well. Training in an
|> area makes you better than  those without training in that area.
|> 

No argument here, in fact, that was my point. Let us mark this day that we
actually argeed on something...

And now we return to talk.rape...

JC
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: seiffe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Erica Seiffert)
Subject: Re: Sam wishes it were so.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:14:44 GMT

DC,

	Hate to burst your bubble,  but I for one am a woman who has 
escorted a male to his car, house, etc... I also am a person who believes
in putting myself on the line for another, even you, if need be.
	I believe in helping other people, because it's this selfish attitude
of all for one (one=me) that has gotten us the dangerous society in the
first place. If I get killed or maimed, or raped because I've helped
another, so be it. I was once in a situation where somebody didn't help
me. I learned that I couldn't depend on someone else for help, however,
I swore that I would do whatever it took to keep myself safe as well as
help someone else keep safe. This viscious cycle of selfishness has 
to stop some where. If you call me fool because of my alturism, fine.
I've been called worse names by people worse than you. 	If you don't
believe in alturism, well than I sincerely hope that your kids (should
you have any now or in the furture) don't adopt that attitude.
	It's a small world DC. If we don't all start learning to realize
that humankind is one big family, than we deserve to go the way of the
carrier pigeon and let the cockroaches take over.

-ems
*************************************