HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:10:49 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: double standards in the twin cities

On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:03:41 EDT Evelyn Duncan said:
>
>
>Who was Tommy Roe's opening act in England in 1962?
>

Who was Tommy Roe?

>
>Evelyn Duncan


james p mc bride
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 09:49:03 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>> >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.
>>
>> Uh, right. Because after all, states don't make laws.

Travis:
>Whuh???

I'll explain for you.
You admitted that "what one believes should not be a basis for law."
You then asserted that states should be allowed to make laws
restricting women's choices, on the basis of what one believes
about fetuses.
I was simply pointing out your mistake.

>Yeah, I thought about that even as I was posting this.  Yes, I know
>there are at least some women who have sex every day, even in America.
>But they are not going to get pregnant every day no matter how pro-
>miscuous they are.

So, you now admit that abortion restrictions ARE interferences
in women's "day-to'day" lives.

>> Consider the following, which is more closely analogous to what
>> you wrote:
>>
>> If you believe that eating pickles is not murder, and that you
>> should be allowed to eat pickles, then if I believe that matricide
>> is not violation, then I should be allowed to choose matricide.

I gave this as an example of an inference so absurd that no
one could possibly believe it. Sad to say....

>Exactly.  I don't refute this at all.

Is Travis being sarcastic again????

>My being allowed to eat pickles
>is not based on whether *I* feel that eating pickles is murder, but
>rather on whether *society* feels that eating pickles is murder.

No, it is based on whether eating pickles IS murder.

I think Valentine tried to explain this, fruitlessly (as it were).

>Society in Louisaiana believes that abortion is murder, however they
>are not being allowed to put their beliefs into practice because of
>FIVE people (O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Blackmun, and Stevens).

"Society" in Louisiana consists of an oppressive majority attempting
to tell others how to live, on the basis of "one's beliefs" and
nothing more.

>> There is no moderately sensible inference contained in that
>> conditional, but it is schematically the same as the one you used.
>I believe you are OBVIOUSLY wrong.

Wrong that the schema is the same, or wrong that the inference
is senseless?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:05:38 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      A little question

I am just curious about something.  Right now I am rehearsing
_Cabaret_ and am dealing with many the issues of the times.

Anyhow, my statement is this, many in the conservative
Right in America hold opinions and beliefs which are nearly
identical with those of the former Nazi party of Germany.
In particular, I am thinking of the position on homosexuality.

With this in mind, how can (and I am asking people who
believe things like this) people wish to take rights away
from people or prevent them from having rights just because
of their sexual orientation?

If this stems from some sort of religious notion, they should
Hindus have their rights abridged?

Aside from the fact that the religious basis of these conservatives
is correct, why shouldn't their rights be abridged?

Json
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 13:02:01 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

-andy writes:
>Nope.  They weren't even around when things got going.  (Rather, the
>only activists then were hunters/fishers.)  Even today, they're
>largely "noise" when it comes to habitat.  We have migratory birds
>because we have hunters.

I must take issue with that last line (what was it Clinton said -- "it's
like the rooster taking credit for the dawn"?).  First off, migratory birds
were around an awfully long time before people were.  Second, a minority of
migratory birds are game species (and we're losing migratory songbirds at
an alarming rate -- mostly because of winter habitat destruction).  Third,
we started losing migratory game birds initially because of things like
over-hunting (for sport, for ornamentation, etc.) and habitat destruction.
Fourth, we *are*, in fact, doing some things to reverse the trend, and
sometimes groups like Ducks Unlimited are helping.  But so are lots of
other groups (the Audobon society, the Nature Conservancy, local citizen
groups, etc.).  Fifth, even when hunting-type groups are involved, efforts
of management officials et al. sometimes focus on the game species so
narrowly that the "big picture" (like the need for habitat protection and
restoration) gets lost.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:54:20 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bush on hurricane Andrew (satire)
              27 Aug 1992 00:17:50 EST from <92price@GW.WMICH.EDU>

After reading this quote from Bush and the Aug. 31 issue of the National
Review (which is very anti-Bush, BTW), I would be surprised if Clinton
loses the election.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:25:54 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: pot and the kettle

Richard,

>3)  Anything which is contradictory to God's word is wrong.
>4)  Homosexuality is contrary to God's word.
>5)  Homosexuality is wrong. (This follows from (3) and (4)).
>6)  Whoever engages in a wrongful activity should be prohibited from
>    adopting children.
>7)  Therefore, homosexuals should be prohibited from adopting children.
>
>        Robert rejects (6)--correctly, I might add.  His new argument for
>prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children is:
>
>6') Anybody who willfully engages in wrongful behavior should be prohibited
>    from adopting children.
>7') Homosexuals should be prohibited from adopting children.  [This follows
>    from (1), (5), and (6').]
>
>        This appears to be a valid argument.  [Logic czar, could I have
>a ruling on this please.]  As such, the only way to question this argu-
>ment is to question the truth of the premises.

Check. It's valid. (I conclude that it is unlikely to be what Robert
intended.)


>        I am afraid that I do not understand this response.  Am I inter-
>preting you correctly in saying that both of the claims are true?  In
>other words: do you believe that either of the following two propositions
>are false?
>
>3')  If 'H' is wrong this is because God prohibits us from doing 'H.'
>3")  If God prohibits us from doing 'H,' this is because H is wrong.
>
>Or, [again I appeal to the logic czar for a ruling on this] another way
>of claiming both (3') and (3") are true is to say:
>
>3*)  'H' is wrong if and only if God prohibits us from doing 'H.'

No, I cannot approve this alleged equivalence.

Standardly we use "if and only if" for the conjunction of a
conditional with its converse; HOWEVER, only when the conditional
is the material conditional. It isn't perfectly clear which kind
of conditional is represented by the "because" in (3') and (3"),
but it is certainly stronger than material (it isn't a truth
functional connective).

Mostly for Richard:
My feeling is that the two "because"s in (3') and (3") are
in fact different kinds. When we raise the Euthyphro question,
we usually mean something like this:

Is a given act wrong because [viz., IN VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT]
the gods disapprove of it, or do they disapprove because [viz.,
FOR THE REASON THAT] it is wrong?

So I would be very wary of conflating the two "because"s into
a single biconditional.

If my interpretation is correct, it is incoherent to answer Yes
to both questions.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:38:45 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RE:drugs
              31 Aug 1992 10:42:53 EST from <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

MacPhil makes an interesting point.

Where *were* all the saints in Congress (since nothing is, apparently
their fault) while the evil Administration was busily destroying
people's property rights to fight drugs?

Hmmmm?

--Missy P 2 B (wondering how George Bush found time to go on vacation,
   since he spent all his time destroying everything on earth and making
   everything worse for the past 4 years, while Congress stood by and
   wept with the people.  Yeah.  Right.)
From: SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET (Sue Clark)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: There They Go Again!
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:52:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Hi again all:

Well, there they go again.  Wasn't there something in the politics rules
about not referring to name calling or belittle of fellow politicos.  I
believe it was Valentine that reminded us of this rule.  We have broken
the 'no religion' rule, but let's not break the 'name calling of other
politicers' rule by calling each other stupid or dumbest, it serves nothing.

Be cool,

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:43:23 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Human Life Amendment

>Hi all:

Hi, Missy.

>I was watching one of the Sunday newstalk shows, and Dan Quayle was
>being interviewed. The interviewer was asking about the administration's
>position on abortion.  Quayle kept saying that he and Bush want
>people to think about abortion, to reflect on it, to come to terms
>with the importance of the action.  The interviewer kept saying,
>"but you support a Human Life Amendment."

>I don't understand why anyone has problems with the idea of a Human
>Life Amendment.  Part of the design of the amendment process is to
>make it very very difficult to get one actually passed.  In the
>process, the national debate is engaged, the people have an
>opportunity to voice their opinions, and the will of the majority
>eventually becomes the law of the land.

>What's wrong with that?

I have not yet seen language for a "Human Life Amendment," but I
assume that it specifies the bounds of Humanity to limit abortion,
making probably the last trimester totally off-limits, and maybe
the middle trimester. This might even limit it to the three standard
exemtions, but I don't know, since I haven't seen anything on it.

This way of handling the issue is different than the Pennsylvania
"Annoy and delay and make it very difficult to get"-type regulation
that the quote from Quayle seems to call for. There does seem to
be a conflict between the two tactics, IMHO.

As for the amendment, I don't think anyone opposes someone trying to
amend the constitution, because, as you said, it is an annoying and
difficult process. I wouldn't mind initiative petitions being passed
around and who knows, I might even sign one, just because I like seeing
the political process moving. I would not, however, vote for such an
amendment, and I don't forsee one passing, because your own numbers
put you well into the minority on this issue.

>--Missy P 2 B

Missy P 2 B, should I take that as clue that you might be changing
your last name? If it means what I think it means, congrats.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
The important thing is never to stop questioning.
              -- Albert Einstein

Disclaimer: The opinions contained in this post are insightful
and brilliant. Obviously, these are not those of the Computer
Department, Administration, Faculty or Student Body of South
Dakota State University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:02:23 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: sinistra, sinistra!
Comments: To: POLITICS <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

'liese:
>dunstan, i think that gm is intending to make the cars they sell in
>*japan* with the steering wheel on the right, so that they'll be like all
>the other cars over there.  not too many americans get into that peculiar
>right-hand-drive vertigo...except for mailmen (postpersons?) and wealthy
>people who want to show off the landrovers they bought whilst on safari
>in kenya.
>                                  * * * anneliese "not to be confused with
>                                        'sinatra, sinatra!'" l.

Yeah, but Jaguars are made in this country for export to USA/the
continent with the steering wheel on the left just as VW, Mercedes,
BMW, Renault, Citroen etc sell cars here with the steering wheels on
the right.

D
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:08:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:42:03 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> Travis thinks that his position with respect to the rape of a woman
> is analogous to Linda's and Pam's position with respect to the
> abortion of a fetus. That means that his point about rape is not
> that it doesn't count as a violation, but that the victim of
> the violation is not a person.
>
> Or have I somehow missed the point again?
>
> Jamie

I guess now's as good a time as any to explain my statement.  This
statement was a sarcastic one.  (Come on, y'all, didn't you catch my
post on what I felt about using deadly force on a rapist??)  I merely
wanted to show that what one believes should not be a basis for law.
Society must come together and make laws that are good for society.
I believe the only true *RIGHTS* which we have are those that make us
able to contribute to society.  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.
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.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:29:00 +0200
From:         HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS.BITNET
Subject:      RE:Re: did i send the wrong stuff?

Robert,
        You didn't really have to repeat the contents of the personal
message on the list. A yes/no kind of answer was enough.
                                                Gilbert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:11:13 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: meaningless phrases

>
>
>Please note:  only people who have actually graduated from college are allowed
>to answer this question.

Allowed? how come only people who graduated?

jcs 'back to school today'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:52:43 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Drugs

>I also saw a 60 minutes report that the driving force in the current war
>on drugs has nothing to do with morality but rather is centered in the
>seizure laws. If you are a minority carrying a lot of cash into an
>airport you are sure to be harrassed. They sent one of their people as
>bait into an airport and he bought a quick turn around ticket with cash.
>He was then approached by drug agents who backed off when they found out
>he was with the media.

I found that 60 Minutes report disturbing, as well.  The guy who had
his $9,000 taken away, even though he was never arrested or charged with
a crime, finds himself having to prove that he's not guilty rather than the
government proving that he was doing something wrong.  Meanwhile, they've
got his cash.  I had known that the seizure laws were a bonanza to local
law enforcement (they split the loot with the Feds), but that was the first
I had seen how they do it (take the loot from the "bad guys" and then make
them prove that they weren't using it for anything illegal).

>My biggest gripe with the current enforcement is that a lot of low life
>people are making a lot of money for turning in their friends. I think
>it is a republican attitude that it is ok to use drugs if you are willing
>to snitch for pay. All of the current efforts are reactive rather than
>proactive and do nothing to change the pattern.

A Republican attitude that it is OK to use drugs if you are willing to
snitch for pay?  I missed that part of the 60 Minutes story.  I wasn't
aware that the Republican Party had taken a stand on the touchy "Is it
OK to use drugs if you are willing to snitch for pay" question.

What would be proactive efforts to stem illegal drug use?  Spraying fields
in South America?  Better interdiction at the borders?  Mandatory wearing
of "Just Say No" t-shirts?  Giving everyone a job?

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:12:15 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

-andy:
>"Give them more species to care about" suggests an obvious strategy.
(stuff deleted that I basically agree with :))

I guess what I'm trying to ask is a deeper question about what kinds of
things folks like to hunt.  If, for example, I want to conserve eastern
migratory songbirds, would making them legal to hunt work?  Would folks
hunt flycatchers?  Seems that this strategy will work better for some
species than others.  But I could be wrong :)

>If there are enough to eat lots of pets in an area, there's enough
>to allow long-term survival IF they aren't pushed out.

Um, not necessarily.  One large-ish local population doesn't always work.

>Preservation excludes/discourages human use, conservation includes/
>embraces it.  To first order, a preservationist prefers that deer die
>from non-man causes while a conservationist either doesn't care or
>prefers that people get something out of that death.  A
>preservationist thinks that the deer on Angel Island should be given
>vasectomies while a conservationist would just have a hunting season.

Interesting.  I guess I'm more of a conservationist than preservationist,
but I think there are probably some gray areas between the two definitions
you've proposed.

>>Where populations are large and growing (and causing major problems!),
>>allowing folks to hunt/sell legally is not something I have a problem with.
>
>What if they're not causing problems?  Why are there factors other
>than "can the harvest be sustained?"

I just used the "problems" bit because that can be one effect of the kind
of "preservation" strategy you oppose (and I also oppose in some cases).

>Nope; legalized hunting will often result in LARGER sustainable
>"harvests".  As a conservationist, that doesn't bother me.  People who
>benefit from having elephants in their "backyards" will be more
>elephant friendly than people who don't care either way, and both are
>significantly more elephant friendly than people who are harmed by
>having elephants in their backyards.  (Elephants are very expensive
>neighbors.)  Friendly neighbors create better habitats which helps
>population.
>
>Legalized hunting pushes poachers out if the money from hunting goes
>to those neighbors.  Said neighbors then have a "no poacher"
>incentive.  (Of course, the poachers can also pay, but then they don't
>have a competitive advantage and enforcement can then tip the
>balance.)

What if the market demand for products is greater than the supply that can
be sustained through legal harvesting?  I think this is probably what I was
trying to ask :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:45:24 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Wrongness revisited

linda:

>A very good, though in parts very technical, examination of the
>difficulties that beset the sociobiological approach to human
>behavior, is Philip Kitcher's _Vaulting Ambition_. Kerry K.
>will remember that I also recommended Kitcher's book on
>creationism, _Abusing Science_.
>I also like the title, "Vaulting Ambition." It's from "Macbeth."

Both of Kitcher's books are very good; "Vaulting Ambition" will be a tough
read (but he does a nice job of working the text out so you can skip the
math).  One thing to bear in mind when you think about biological roots of
cultural phenomena is that biological evolution (the kind that would affect
the genetic basis of various behaviors) is *very* slow.  Cultural
evolution (the kind that affects things like values, morals, laws, etc.) is
*very* rapid.  I would argue that, starting at least at the beginning of
agriculture, the two have become increasingly separated.

But that's just me :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:53:42 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      hoist/foist/schmoist

Ok, so i was the one who started the whole hoist thing,
when Kerry supposed i really wanted foist.  But after checking
them both out in my WordFinder (which is something you should get
Jamie) i have found i wanted neither word, but instead
would opt for "force".

The context is:

I think it is selfish to "force" your beliefs on others, simply
because they are your beliefs.

It would be selfish of me to demand that prayer be necessary in
school just because not having prayer smacks my rightious face...

Its selfish because it makes people do something they wouldn't ordinarily
do, just to make me feel better.  I don't think that its much different
from insisting that everyone eat candy corn    for dinner simply because
its the only thing i will eat.

jenna
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU