HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:20:35 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
| [ Heinlein pans altruism .... ] 
| 'Taint altruism that makes these men (and women) risk themselves in war,
| according to Heinlein. It is identitying with humanity in general, and
| with their own unit in particular. He discusses the philosophy of
| soldiering and citizenship at length in ST.

Heinlein and Rand use an extremely unsophisticated view of
altruism -- either because of the peculiarities of their psyches,
or because they needed a straw man to knock down.  It's obvious
that altruism, as communal feeling, had an important role to
play in our evolution -- was necessary to our survival -- or
it would have been bred out of our species, and all the other
species which exhibit it.  We'd all be as selfish as Rand et al.
want us to be.

Unfortunately for their philosophies, which seem to express
what is called the "latent" period in childhood development,
we are biologically programed to have very strong communal
feelings -- generally associated with our sexuality.  The
anti-altruists appear to be anti-sexual, which is why I
mention the latent period.  We can't be happy and entirely
selfish at the same time, especially after the onset of
puberty.  (With some individual exceptions; with five 
billion individuals, there's at least one of almost 
everything.)

Confronted by these facts, Rand, and Heinlein too, I guess,
retreat and redefine altruism as self-hatred.  But now they
are irrelevant, since just about everyone agrees with them,
even most "altruists."
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:02:44 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul30.004737.5571@cs.brown.edu> ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:
>In article <Bs3oJH.6F6@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>   Look, I have a policy of not
>>   using smileys because intelligent and perceptive readers don't need
>>   them
>
>Unfortunately, this is simply not true.  I recognized that the statement 
>was not intended as fact, but it did not appear to be humor either.  I
>interpreted it as severe sarcasm intended to tick off its target.
>
>Network news does not transmit tone of voice or other non-textual cues.  If
>you want humor smileys are required unless you post to rec.humor.*
>
>
>Tony Davis
>ted@cs.brown.edu

    Especially when we consider that other posters already noted that
    they "got" the original posting, this one by Tony Davis is almost
    *too* good . . . 


---peter
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:34:27 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <19920729124523ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>So, do you know God better than the apostle Paul?
>
>Since Paul states that it is preferable  to remain celibate than to
>get married, he would seem to be a rather poor judge of that which
>is natural.

But a rather good judge on how to live a holy life.

>>Should we ignore the other apostles who affi                           rmed
>>Paul's teaching, and ignore all of the believers through the centuries who
>
>In fact, the Pauline teachings were at odds with what the disciples
>and followers who actually knew Jesus were teaching in Jerusalem. Paul
>himself admits this in his letters, when he whines bitterly about those
>who were teaching a gospel different from what Paul was teaching.

Who knew Jesus best?  All of the Gospels repeatedly mention Peter.  
Peter affirmed Paul's teachings and called his writings Scripture.  

Link Hudson.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:50:09 GMT

In article <25050@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes:
}I wrote: 
}
}Come on, now.  Ask the pope how old the Earth is.  What do you think he will
}say?
}
}Chris responded: 
}
}>I'm no fan of JP2, but I suspect he'd first plead incompetence to answer
}>and direct the question to a scientist. If pressed, he'd probably say, 
}>"About 4 billion years."
}>He may be a conservative on some issues in the RC church, but he
}>is no biblical literalist. Look to some of the more fundamentalist
}>evangelical sects for that sort of belief.
}
}Not a chance.  Neither he nor the rest of the Church establishment would
}dare offend the many believers who still accept this nonsense.  Just

Oh yes he would.  Or at least, earlier ones have.  They have taken in the
past the most unreasonable (;-) position that the bible tells about God's
relationship to Man and isn't a textbook.
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:53:43 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <LAURAF.92Jul24082753@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.022711.12904@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>You are absolutely right, Tim.  Not all religions are right.  I continue to read and
>pondered the bible and found that Jehovah's Witnesses are the ONLY religion that
>follows and patterns their life after the bible.  So too, I have just run across
>an interesting statistic: JW are growing in number whereas most other religions
>are losing members.

And Tuberculoses (sp?) is growing in victims as other diseases are being
reduced. All this means is that JW is a more contagious form of
Christianity, however contagious!=correct.

>We are under an obligation to preach to good news of the kingdom and make
>disciples.  How can we accomplish such a goal with an individual who doesn't
>want to listen or just wants to argue?  

Someone who is arguing is listening, if I didn't believe any one listened
to arguments I wouldn't bother posting them :)

>Wouldn't it be better to move on the
>someone who does want to listen?  What is accomplished in an argument where
>two people are adamant about their stance?

A good example of natural selection in action, JW can spread faster than
other religions because it only attacks the people most suceptible to it.
Corey and others who understand reason are immune to the subtle threats
(believe or go to hell) that are used to convert people.

>None of JW want to see Corey make such a stand against Jehovah.  However, if
>that is what he wants, what else can we do?

Explain logically where he is wrong, if you are unable to do this then ask
yourself why you are unable to logically defend what you believe.

>...and where is the contradiction?  I accept the bible as Jehovah's word, far
>superior to that of mans.  If man disagrees with the bible, he is wrong!  If one
>can show me that any of JW teachings are in disagreement with the bible, I will
>listen.

But is the bible wrong if it disagrees with itself?

>Who said we refuse to talk with Corey?  

You just did a few paragraphs back.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:23:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <22557@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>FYI Jesus HATED every sin not excluding homosexuality.  

Lets pretend for a second that there is no question about the existance
of god. 

How do you know that homosexuality is a sin? 
How do you know that its ok to not keep kosher?
How do you know its ok for women to evangelize (sp?)

Don't tell other people that a passage applies to them when you conviently
ignore the commandments only paragraphs away.

>It was the pain
>                ^^^^^^^^^
>of sin for which he sufferred on the cross.  Why continue to embrace any
>sin, it hurts Him?  Repent!  ...and not in vain.  Is it hypocritical to
>accept Him and then wholeheartedly continue to forsake what He did on 
>the cross?

It is hypocritical to eat pork and cheeseburgers while driving gay
teenagers to suicide for there "sins".

>The man who says "I know him" but does not follow his commandments
>is a liar and the truth is not within him.

How true..
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Michigan
	<1992Jul24.022711.12904@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
	<LAURAF.92Jul24082753@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Jul24.192301.21979@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
	<LAURAF.92Jul28113337@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Jul29.100505.15139@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:52:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.100505.15139@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:

   >God does not intervene directly in mans affairs; he does so only through 
   >the bible!

   But Laura, the Bible is a book telling of how God intervened directly in Man's
   affairs!

   I give up.

(Yes, I took the bait on this comment.)

But Paul, the bible is a book telling us how God intervened directly in Man's
affairs back then not now!!!  The bible was written aforetime for our
instruction today.  Why would GOD have any reason to involve himself in our
affairs today if we already have an instruction book per se?  Tell me, how many
times have you heard the phrase: "if all else fails read the instructions"?

Laura
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The "Get a Clue" Discussion
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:10:20 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az


In article <l7bma3INNgv@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>
>A position I admire also, Mr. Carroll. And while the patriotic music
>dies in the dawn's early light and you are still on the podium, I would
>merely ask that you incluce *all* people, not just men, in your
>eloquence.

This is political correctness of the shabbiest sort.  No one could have
failed to understand that Mr. Carroll, in writing "men", meant "human
beings, regardless of sex"[1].  This is a perfectly valid use of the
English language, and Mr. Carroll's comments are not diminished by
it.

[1] Websters II New Riverside, Office Edition


-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:14:22 GMT

lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.215656.20946@macc.wisc.edu> stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock) writes:
>>
>>But, while a homosexual orientation by itself is not a sin (to the 
>>extent that it is not under one's control), it _is_ considered a 
>>physical defect, and so we may conclude that Jesus was not a 
>>homosexual, either in practice or "merely" in orientation.

>Mind presenting some evidence for this view point? 

>If homosexuality was a defect rather than beneficial evolution would
>have removed it long ago. There is simply no way a trait that results
>in 10% of the population not reproducing will survive unless it enhances
>the survival chances of the population as a whole.

  does this mean then that you worship the sanctity and certainty of
the great god "evolution"?  to claim it is authoritative would be to do so.
do you really have this much faith in evolution?
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Did Jesus Claim to be God (Finally?)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:55:04 GMT

In article <MIB.92Jul29123512@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>My claim is that the Davidic kings were NOT regarded as adopted sons
>of the deity, and this is a notable distinction between them and other
>Near Eastern kings.
This is the relevant issue, so I've deleted the rest of it.

Regrettably, I can't really address it, because I'm in Palo Alto
and all my books are in Philadelphia. Guess we'll just have
to agree to disagree on this one, or at least wait until my stuff
arrives.


-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:51:26 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Jul31.171610.25425@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>> [...]
>
>> No - God provided a way for one's innocence to be publically displayed.
>> Today how is this done?  Is it unheard of for a man or a woman to 
>> falsely accuse their spouse of unfaithfulness????????
>
>Why did God abandon such a foolproof method?

Who said God abandoned the method?  [Christians are to confess
their sins - there is no condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus.  We are to live lives worthy of God's calling -
we are not to let the sun go down while we are angry, nor sin
while we are angry.  We are under a new convenant, for the
priesthood has changed.]  You may want to check and see what Jewish
custom has to say about this law and their observance of it.

>Why is this method not available and employed today? As far as I'm
>aware, even the most zealous (in terms of Torah observance and the
>accompanying traditions) Jewish society does not have such a rite.

Do the most zealous Jewish people have the temple and so perform
the sacrifices as perscribed in the OT?

Christians are not under the sacrifical system of the OT, for Jesus
completed this once and for all.

>I'm afraid the whole thing sounds all too similar to "If she admits
>heresy, we'll burn her at the stake. If she denies heresy, she's
>lying so we'll torture her. If she confesses under torture, she's
>telling the truth and we'll burn her at the stake."

Good analogy - NOT.  Who said there was torture in this passage (Num 5),
if she was not guilty?

As I've said in previous posts, she only bore her guilt, if she had any,
and was exonerated, if she had no guilt.

>Cheers
>
>Simon

Good to hear from you again, Simon.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:48:00 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Gregg Skinner states:

>>The tool "False until shown true" is used all over
>>the place and I find it a bit odd that you should be so singularly surprised
>>and ignorant of its existence.
>  
> Of this tool I am well aware.  I don't think you apply it correctly,
> though.  I read in your post not "false until shown true," but "false
> because not shown true."  I think the latter is a stronger statement.
> This is a subtle distinction, but worthy of note.

Gregg since you accede to the definition "false until shown true," I think I
can clear this up the situation.  It is true that I consider the second
statement to be a trivial, logically required corollary of the first.  If a
you accept that a positive assertion is "false until shown through", and that 
assertion has not been shown true, then is considered false.  Further it was 
specifically considered "false because [it was] not shown true". These the two 
phrases also take the same symbolic logic representation.  Let us define a 
truth function ST="Shown True".  Now for all positive assertions "a" we can 
represent:
		"false until shown true," 
as:
		For all a, if a has not yet been shown true, then it is to be 
		considered false 

or symbolically stated:

		For all a: ~(ST(a)) -> ~a

and we can also represent:

		"false because not shown true."
as
		For all a: a is to be considered false because it has not been
		shown true

or symbolically stated:

		For all a: ~(ST(a)) -> ~a

Thus I conclude that they are logically equivalent.  If you can come up with
a good counter argument showing my logic invalid, or a good counter example, I
will withdraw my assertion, else I will stand by it.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    In starting any thesis, it seems to me, one should put forward as one's
    point of departure something incontrovertible; the expression should be
    simple and dignified.
				Diogenes
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:46:33 PDT

In article <1992Jul28.204812.14677@athena.cs.uga.edu>, on 28 Jul 92 20:48:12 GMT,
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>
>In article <MIB.92Jul28141358@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>
>>But, Paul himself does not identify the natural with God's wishes,
>>and, in fact, he is *wrong* about whether gay sex is natural.
>
>So, do you know God better than the apostle Paul?

Since Paul states that it is preferable  to remain celibate than to
get married, he would seem to be a rather poor judge of that which
is natural.

>Should we throw away
>all of his teaching, and throw away all of the Scriptures...           our

If you did, you would get a more accurate picture of what Jesus
actually taught and what his original disciples actually believed.

>Should we ignore the other apostles who affi                           rmed
>Paul's teaching, and ignore all of the believers through the centuries who

In fact, the Pauline teachings were at odds with what the disciples
and followers who actually knew Jesus were teaching in Jerusalem. Paul
himself admits this in his letters, when he whines bitterly about those
who were teaching a gospel different from what Paul was teaching.

>>The only conclusion is that Paul opposes the twisting of our natural
>>sexual inclinations in an unnatural way.  Since we now know that
>>people have a variety of different natural sexual inclinations, rather
>>than a single natural inclination for all people,
>
>All of us are "naturally" corrupted by sin.  Following our "natural"
>instincts and going with the flow would lead us into all kinds of immorality,
>fornication, lying, cheating, stealing, maybe eventually murder.
>
A totally pagan doctrine which is not taught anywhere by Jesus nor is
it to be found within the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul's gnostic background
is showing.

>
>Link Hudson.
>
    ====Jack====
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Laura's attitude
Date: 29 Jul 1992 00:12:59 GMT
Organization: Have a Day
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Laura Falk) writes in various posts:


  respect to the bible and JW organization.  Everything made sense and was clear.
					      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  There were no confusion involved.  The fact that everythings around us had a
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Of course this is appealing. You don't have to think for yourself,
you don't have to make any value judgements at all, it is all done
for you, why, you don't have to do much but simply and obediently
follow the orders of others, preferably older and wiser men. That's
a good girl. We don't want you to have to "think" or anything. . .
Now, rest easy, all is taken care of.

   Living forever sounds too good to pass up; especially on a paradise
   earth where one does not have to deal with Satan's system!!  I love life,
   don't you?

Oh yes! I love life too! What a wonderful club to belong to!!

Especially when one is drugged by ideology all the time. It's nice
not to have to think for oneself, it is oh-so-much-better to have
other wiser people do our thinking for us, isn't it? And we can
always read our little book for ANY question we might have, you see:
it has aaalllll the answers. Nap time now. . . . .Yes, little Corey
has woken up and don't worry, that's it, you just go back to sleep.

   God does not intervene directly in mans affairs; he does so only
   through the bible!

And you can tell it's true, 'cause it's got a cute li'l exclamation
mark at the end of it: that's our <secret> signal! Tee Hee!!!

   If one has never had a beginning or an end, then one can logically
   conclude that this one is perfect or of a nature that man cannot
   comprehend.

Interesting how that rhymes: "end and comprehend". Wait!
AHHHHH! I can't get it out of my head! Help! Help! HELP!
ARRGGHHH!

Dano


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc