HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:15:40 GMT

In article <108155@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >>>In Georgia, they have anti-sodomy laws. Which is a way of
    >>>saying "We, the State, are going to tell you two (or N)
    >>>consenting adults what you can or can not do". In California,
    >>>they try to have AB-101 laws, Which is a way of saying "We,
    >>>the State, are going to tell you two (or N) consenting adults
    >>>what you can or can not do".
    >>>
    >>>The two states, and those two laws, are the two sides of the
    >>>same damn coin. Which is why it is refreshing to see the
    >>>Colorado voters start to put a stop to this nonsense of
    >>>"victimology".
    >>>
    >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.

And clearly, no one worries about hetereosexuals.

But, what if "pedophilia" became a recognized legal "sexual orientation"????

Now, Big Brothers or Acme Daycare could not LEGALLY refuse to hire someone
with an admitted preference for children.


Today in the SJMN, there was the continuing story of a woman getting
workmans comp (cost < $50,000 from the company) because she became "disabled"
at the mere sight of a black man (she was mugged by one years ago). So far,
the courts have upheld her disability status.

So, in light of such ludicrous "victimology", I seriously predict that if this
trend is not stopped, pedophilia WILL be a sexual orientation this decade.


-- 
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: 28 Jan 93 23:30:43 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1k80a5INN8s4@morrow.stanford.edu> XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU  writes:
>>>
>>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.
>
>This is utter nonsense.  Would you go to work for someone who made
>it clear that under the terms you were being hired your
>compensation package could be changed at any time without advance
>notice?  I doubt it.  Ans I doubt that many other would either.

If you have the choice to do so.  But let us suppose that thise
employer has the only job you can do.  That otherwise you will be
working a McDonald's. What are you going to do?

You tend look at the world from your position, where what you
state may be true.  But it is not true for everyone.

The position that many of us may be in at the moment- can change,
and very drastically, you can be laid off.  But are we sure that
you have been laid off becuase of financial reasons, or maybe it
is just hiding the real reasons.  

>Stability in our job situation is actually sometimes of greater
>importance to us than the monetary value of the package.  Note that
>unions spend a great deal more of their negotiating time over work
>rule issues including the circumstances under which a union member
>mnay be terminated.  And, of course, salasry and benefits can only
>be changed as part of a newly negotiated contract.  Even exempt
>personel are made promises ab out salary and benefits which are
>covered in the writing in employer policy manuals.  An employer who
>tried to change these policies without the notice promised in the
>policies themse4lves would find themselves in court in short order.

But, then what you are saying is that business X no longer has complete
control and jurisdiction over their own business.  The business must
compromise to the union in order to get people to work for them.

And then you mention court, again somewhere someone has made a 
concession, has suspended their rights in order to give someone 
else something.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8284 ca.politics:10645 talk.politics.misc:69473
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 23 Jan 1993 23:19:49 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov


In article <1993Jan23.214737.19884@netcom.com>, 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|>
|>AB-101 DESTROYS the civil rights of many people -- such as landlords and
|>employers. AB-101 is a law thought of by people that are ALSO afraid of
|>what other people may be doing. 
|>
|>Many people find the thought of two males fucking disgusting.
|>
|>Other people find, say, a devout Christian NOT renting a room to a homosexual
|>because "it's a sin in the Bible" also disgusting.
|>
|>Now, either BOTH cases are valid, or BOTH case are invalid.
|>
|>
|>Please respond to the following:
|>
|>A: I'd like to have sex with you.        A: I'd like to rent your room.
|>B: No thanks, you're not what I want.    B: No thanks, you're not what I want.
|>A: Oh well, too bad.                     A: Discrimination!!!!

Your A & B example is invalid because B on the left is an individual, while
B on the right is a business.  Now if B on the left was a prostitute, then
maybe both examples would be discrimination.


In California, it is against the law to deny housing based on marital status.
If an unmarried couple wants to rent an apartment from a landlord, the 
landlord cannot choose to not rent to them for that reason, even if the
landlord feels that it would be against his religion for an unmarried male
and female to have sex with each other.

If a religious landlord finds this unacceptable, then he can choose to get
into another line of business.

|>
|>Remember, if (for example) YOU want to fuck whatever, then HE gets to rent to
|>whatever.

Again, in this example, "YOU" are an individual, while "HE" is a business.

|>
|>Every single thinsg that the Colorado law struck against ("to have or claim 
|>any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of
|>discrimination.") are names for special, coercive treatements -- things
|>that require under coercive threat of law poepl to do things (hire, rent, 
|>treat) they otherwise wouldn't.

The same things that were used in the 60s and 70s to begin to correct 
discrimination against non-whites, non-Prodestants, and women.

|>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

The act of renting them makes you a business.  If you were to rent to some,
but not others, based on race, color, creed, sex, marital status, or sexual
orientation, that would be discrimination.

--
Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
SRL-1:  STS-59, launch date April 14, 1994
SRL-2:  STS-68, launch date December 1, 1994
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:54:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.021637.21966@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>WHY, repeat WHY do you "think" that the example of professional male
>athletes is not extensible?

Quite simple really.  In my experience, people who were atheletes were
not typical of the people I knew in high school (particularly the
football players).  And people who are professional atheletes have
lived lives which are even farther removed from normal lives than
atheletes in high school.  Remember when Joe Gibbs (the head coach
of the Washington Redskins) asked "Who's Ollie North" ?  This was
during North's trial in Washington D.C.  How many people do you know who
have never heard of Ollie North ?

Guido
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: MICHAEL R IS GOD!  (WAS:
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591

-> From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
-> Newsgroups: ba.politics
-> Subject: MICHAEL R IS GOD!  (Was: SCREW RUSH, RAY T IS GOD!)
-> Message-ID: <14091@optilink.COM>
-> Date: 26 Jan 93 21:56:09 GMT

-> But no, the real God is Michael Krazne.  Long live the king,
-> BRING BACK MICHAEL KRAZNE...  :-)
->
-> Dunbar/Wygant in '96
-> --
-> Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
-> AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
-> "What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992

Mike was a *very* intelligent host, but I found his mannerism rather
boring.  He'd let the caller speak (which is always nice), and then the
caller would hang up, and Mike would either say "I agree" or "I
disagree."  He'd never question the caller, just accept them.  Ray T on
the other hand let's the caller speak until they either 1) say something
really stupid or 2) agree with Ray.  I too fall asleep while listening
to Ray, but it's not because he's boring.

Anyway, I have to believe that Mike will find a new home on the Bay Area
dial sometime soon.
                                                                                   
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Transfer Station BBS (510) 837-4610 & 837-5591 (V.32bis both lines)|
| Danville, California, USA. 400+ MB Files & FREE public Internet Access |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The socialist/fascist claptrap item #1: the "Social Contract"
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:23:29 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <C1JBDH.7Ky@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.

Roads?  I pay gas taxes and other taxes.  Electricity and water?  I pay for
those utilities directly.  Part of my water bill and PG&E bill undoubtedly
goes to the government for providing their services.  The utilities pay for
the delivery of water or electricity, and being a business, they naturally
pass those costs on to us.

In short, I pay for everything the government provides for me.  And I'll bet
that I usually pay *more* than I would for a private-sector alternative.

"Advantages?"  Yes, I use government services--but I've *more than paid for my
fair use* through my tax dollars.  I hardly feel like the benevolent State
has given me all of this out of the goddness of their heart.  I feel that I
would be far better off getting all of my tax money back, NOT using govern-
ment services and using private sector alternatives (assuming, of course,
that the State would *allow* private competition in some areas where it
currently enforces its monopoly).

>>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.  :-)


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
Let's get government out of the womb, out of the bedroom and out of my wallet.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Quantum Elvis Fluctuations (WAS Re: Is this wrong, or what?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:51:50 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan18.024557.10913@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>What Elvis did [use drugs], for example, is moral. But not acceptable.
>I certainly think
>it sends an unwise message to put a semiilliterate drug addict on a stamp --
>something I think should be reserved for (when the subject is people) people
>who are heroes.

>For example, how about Richard P. Feynman?

Silly Phil. He actually thinks the American population has the foggiest
notion of who Feynmann was or what physics is all about, let alone
quantum electrodynamics.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8335 ca.politics:10688
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:19:27 GMT

    >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.

This is, of course, quite fallacious.

A contract is a mutual, non-coerced agreement between two (or more) parties.

If someone held a gun to my head and made me sign a contract, no court in the
land would recognize the validity of the contract.

An aspect of coercion, which is what no one can deny that so-called "anti-
discrimination laws" are, is NOT a valid part of a contract.



If, for example, we had a "law" that required all employers to say, pay Jews
10% less than non-Jews, it should be obvious to anybody that such a law is
wrong and is not nor could it ever be, part of the "hiring contract"
between emplore/employee.




-- 
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 ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8290 ca.politics:10651 talk.politics.misc:69563
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:35:42 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan22.075959.2322@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

&>In Georgia, they have anti-sodomy laws. Which is a way of saying "We, the
&>State, are going to tell you two (or N) consenting adults what you can or
&>can not do". In California, they try to have AB-101 laws, Which is a way of
&>saying "We, the State, are going to tell you two (or N) consenting adults
&>what you can or can not do".

&>The two states, and those two laws, are the two sides of the same
&>damn coin. Which is why it is refreshing to see the Colorado voters start
&>to put a stop to this nonsense of "victimology".

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."

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The socialist/fascist claptrap item #1: the 'Social Contract'
Date: 27 Jan 1993 23:25:02 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

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 can you claim that continuing to use services for which you pay
q usage fee (or taxes) and over which the government claims a
monopoly on providing the service implys any acceptance of the
social contract?  If a private company controlled all the jobs and
services in a town, and outlawed anyone else from coming in to
compete with them, would you say that people who work for the
company have accepted the right of the company to use such tactics?

>>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.  :-)

If you violate the social contract eventually a man in a uniform
will arrive on your doorstep to enforce that contract.  He will be
wearing a firearmn and empowered by those who sanction the contract
to use it on you if you contine to resist.  This is not an issue to
joke over.  Your smiley is not appropriate.

>Mark Runyan

/June
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 26 Jan 1993 19:10:02 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1k3ubqINN1ri@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>There is no moral basis for anything if you wish, to play moral relativity.
>My position is such that, an individual and a group weigh what is best
>for all concerned.  What is best can be very fundamental- best wages to
>live on, health coverage, treating all customers with respect, etc.

But what allows you to compell me to be a member of your "group".
If I voluntarily join an association which requires that I abide by
the majority rule of the membership and that groups passes some rule
to which I object I can at any time relinquish my membership and
stop receiving member benefits.  If that organization happens to be
a community association they can not force me to continue complying
just because I live in the area represented by that community.  I
that group howerver calls itseld a "city council" it can so compell
me.  Why should it have the ability to do something the voluntary
organization could not just becaue it has chosen to call itseld a
"government"?

>You may not agree with the above statements, since you play the role of
>moral absolutist when it comes to individual rights, and there extrapolation
>to private property.  There is no basis (moral) to give anyone civil
>or individual rights.  We have developed these doctrines, becuase they give
>all of us fair overall treatment.  You scratch my back and I will scratch
>yours.

But you can not scratch my back and then demand that I scratch yours
unless I agreed to do so before you started scratching.  If you as
an individual have no right to compel me to scratch your back
without my consent you can not cede this non-existent right to a
government which you elect to represent you.

Xref: sparky ba.politics:8269 ca.politics:10628 talk.politics.misc:69128
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 19 Jan 93 21:13:12 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <lln00iINN7fr@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
> Perhaps because there is a signficant portion of our society that
> would discriminate against homosexuals in employment and housing.
> That portion may not be the majority, but it is enough to do
> some serious damage.  And even if the portion is small, the fear
> of the possibility of discrimination complicates the lives of more
> people than that small portion can directly influence.

The fear of the *possibility*?  That fear won't go away, whether
the law exists or not.  That fear will ALWAYS be present, because
there will be people careful enough, and clever enough, to 
discriminate against homosexuals, without making it obvious.  And
what will you do then?  Exactly what was done when the same problem
appeared in government contractors in the 1960s -- quotas.  How else
can you solve that sort of problem?

> Also, I think it is important that even if the majority of
> the population was afraid of having homosexuals present in
> various compromising situations, I still don't respect their
> viewpoint.  I may acknowledge it if sufficient evidence is
> presented, but in my mind they are just stewing in their own
> ignorant fears.

In short, if someone doesn't agree with you, force your morals
on to them.

> 				...jim


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: rwells@synoptics.COM (Roy Wells)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: SCREW RUSH, RAY T IS GOD!
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:41:08 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: What organization?

In article <4207.58.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp>, neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
> 
> To hell with Rush Limburger, a man so stupid that he actually enjoys
> being the most hated man in America.
> 

Rush takes the prize as the idiot and egomaniac on the right.  But Ray is still 
attempting to win the prize for the stupidist person on the left.

> 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.!
>                                                 

Listens, maybe.  Believes, probably not.

Ray T. is somewhere in never-never land.  His ideal is to have the gov't regulate 
our behaviour.  Hardly my idea of a "free society."  Fortunately, few people will 
ever have any real authority that subscribe to either of these two people's views 
(or at least there will be a check on them if they do...)