HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morality and the Public School
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:18:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

I agree with your comments.  

I posted the Gabler quotes partly for their entertainment value, and
partly to illustrate that some of the people who are opposed to
teaching values in school object to far more than teaching
tolerance of minorities.

(These people are not just random lunatics, by the way.  Their
organization, Educational Research Analysis, is a leading force
in drives to censor textbooks and revamp curricula.)

Susan

"When a student reads in a math book that there are no absolutes,
suddenly every value he's been taught is destroyed.  And the next
thing you know the student turns to crime and drugs." - Mel
Gabler.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:45:08 GMT

Note followup-to: This thread doesn't have much to do with sex
or limbaugh anymore (did it ever?). talk.politics.misc and
alt.society.civil-liberty added...

In article <1993Jan6.222856.27434@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>In article <C0FsE6.1Bz@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
>>mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
>>>is a major task, and the Colorado amendment is a step in the
>>>right direction. It seems that the amendment may have been
>>>written to appeal to bigotry (mentioning only same-sex
>>>orientations, rather than simply any sexual orientation) but its
>>>effect is to increase freedom and equality under the law. Life
>>>is ironic sometimes, isn't it?
>
>As many have pointed out, IF it prohibited any discrimination law based on
>sexuality, instead by singly out homosexuality, it slashes back to right,
>instead of seeking the middle ground.  A bad law is a bad law.

Yes, and the bad laws are the antidiscrimination laws. 

>sexuality of the victim or perpertrator, cannot we come up with
>anti-descrimination laws of equal universality?
>
>I mean for such an enlightened society has changed its description of
>people from Negroes, to Colors, to Blacks, to African Americans, can't we
>figure out a catch-all law to prohibit descrimination?

I suppose we could. How about "Don't discriminate against
anyone, for any reason, damnit!" Of course small print would
have to define 'discriminate' and 'reason'.  Even if this could
be done satisfactorily I would be against it because I do not
think laws are appropriate tools for combatting discrimination
and it would set off a horrendous mass of lawsuits that would
do serious damage to the economy.

>Nah.  That's a head in the sand approach.  Descrimination does happen, I've
>seen it with my own eyes.  A universal law stating no one can claim it 
>would just exacerbate the problem

I've seen it happen too. I've seen lots of nasty things happen.
People often treat each other shittily. Do you think there
should be a law against being an asshole? I don't.

>"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."

I agree wholeheartedly. Discrimination is one area where
government can govern not at all.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the
laws." - Tacitus
-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:07:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.174811.3015@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>From porthos!walter!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watmath!graceland.uwaterloo.ca!shallit Tue Jan  5 12:30:20 EST 1993
>
>In article <1992Dec29.150908.2994@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>>>My guess is that what is being sought is acceptance, not tolerance.  The 
									^^^
>>>problem is that living a gay lifestyle is not OK (my values).  That is not
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>to say that homosexuals are inherently evil, but that God did not intend us 
>>>to function this way.  Nor did he intend for us to be sexually active 
>>>outside of marriage, indulge in "immoral" behavior, ....  
>

Later, he says..

>And it was hateful people like you that caused the death of my Lord.  I 
>suggest you read about how he died Mr. "I hate any and all intolerant, 
>closed minded, ignorant, basterds who don't think like me", it might open
						             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>your eyes to a world so wonderful that you won't have to hate anymore.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

And yet you indicated your hatred in the excerpt from the first article.

Do you have to hate? If not, then why do you?

>I'll keep you in my prayers.

I'll keep you in mine.

>
>Bill Buoni
>my opinions are mine and do not represent those of my employer!

Lost Boy

******************************************************************
* "It's hardest to do what is easiest for us."   -Amanda Coleman *
******************************************************************
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:47:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Nathan Engle writes:

>    Excuse me for mentioning this, but aren't you now suggesting that 
>there would be some relationship between school choice dollars and 
>taxes? I thought that about 4 paragraphs ago you were saying that 
>nobody was claiming that such a relationship should exist.

I said that a voucher to the parents of a student should not be
considered a tax refund since it will bear no relation (or an inverse
relation?) to the amount of taxes they pay and that fewer students in
the public schools should mean lower taxes for all taxpayers.

>    If they're not interested in taking advantage of the opportunity in 
>public schools, why is it going to be any different when they transfer 
>over to private schools?

Because the voucher isn't the whole cost and the parents will have
to make up the rest.  It's also usually more inconvenient to
attend a private school.  So, only motivated parents are going to
actually take advantage of the opportunity.

>The public schools have their problems, but I 
>don't think that lack of motivation or placing a low value on education 
>is one of them.

You're entitled to your opinion.  My opinion is that most middle
school and high school students have low motivation.

>The values school children carry into the classroom have 
>a definite tendency to reflect the values that the parents display at 
>home,

No argument there.

>and I'm not convinced that unmotivated kids are going to be any 
>better students in private classrooms than they are now in public ones.

The unmovivated kids/parents aren't going to bother to switch unless/
until conditions in their deteriorating school become obviously
intolerable.

>    I'm sure it would go a long way. I would imagine that the gap between 
>public and private schools would become even more pronounced, and with the 
>departure from public schools of the last students who really care I would 
>imagine that the peer group values in public schools would become even 
>worse than they are now.

Can't get much worse in a lot of inner-city schools!?

>I certainly can't argue with the fact that it 
>would result in change, but I'm not sure that I would call it progress.

It would likely be an acceleration of the current trend.  Don't tell me
that which public school their children will attend doesn't play a
large role in where a lot of people choose to live.  Don't tell me
there's not already a tremendous gap between some public schools and
other public schools and private schools.

If this trend became really obvious, maybe the unmotivated parents of
the deteriorating schools might find some motivation!?
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: "My Cabinet" by Clinton (was Re: Affirmative action is dead)
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:48:09 GMT

In article <C06zzr.E3t@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob)
writes:

>  What is the final total of homosexuals in Clinton's cabinet?

There's an admitted non-lesbian.




-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Columbus and Indians: Whats the point?
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:44:16 GMT

Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
: car@access.digex.com (Mr. Blue) writes:
: >Why does this subject get debated so much? 
: 
:     I dunno about anybody else, but I get a kick out of debating it 
: because there are so many outrageous misconceptions on both sides which 
: can be put to rest by refering to archaeological remains. 
: 

The indians sold Manhatten for $24, right?  For fun, if they had put that
$24 into an interest bearing savings account, they'd be worth Trillions
today.  And $24 was worth a _tad_ more than it is today :)  

I have only gripe with the PC crowd...  Presenting archaeological remains
as evidence is one thing, but the movement is attempting to rewrite history
where there is no historical record (at least written).  

And when ANYONE tries to rewrite history, there's an alterior motive at
work :)

: 
: --
: Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
: Psychology Department               Indiana University
: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13260 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11859 alt.politics.clinton:19819 alt.politics.bush:15679 alt.politics.homosexuality:9158
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:52:55 GMT

sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>In article <C0AzLt.DD2@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1993Jan2.235727.5838@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>>>>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>>>>>> In article <1992Dec29.233922.2539@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>>>Look, whatever your opinion of secular reasoning, religiously
>>>>justified 'reasoning' has a pretty poor history as well.  The Catholic
>>>>church is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths alone.  Look
>>>                                       ^^^^^^^^^
>>>>at Hezbollah for a good example of religious 'reasoning'.
>>>>
>>>>-Howard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Shouldn't that be millions?
>>
>>Millions should be used in reference to those wars started since 
>>"the Age of Reason".  No matter how you add the numbers, more people
>>have been killed by the judicious application of science in support
>>of secular reasons for killing than have been killed by all wars of
>>religion combined.

>  You should choose your classifications more carefully.

>   If you consider dogma-based philosophies, which admit no logical
>challenge or doubt as to precepts, as a synonym for religion, then
>most of those killings were religiously inspired; just not by one
>of your most acceptable religions. And those religious zealots have
>been more than happy and willing to use the fruits of science in
>the fulfillment of their goals.


Oh please!  Godel has proved that there exists _NO_ logical system
which is logically self-sufficient - thus *ALL* systems are 
dogma-based philosophies.  According to your definition, *EVERYTHING*
is religion, and all deaths are attributable to religion.  Let's 
try keeping religion to a somewhat more modest definition.  A religion
must posit the existence of a Supreme Being, at the very least.
I will certainly accept those which are polytheistic as religions,
but your definition is pure balderdash.


>-- 
>Jeff Sicherman
>up the net without a .sig

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 05 Jan 93 18:04:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec31.181358.17099@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
| 
| That is the whole problem. Teachers in sex ed. and drug ed. classes are
| told not to tell children what is right and wrong, to just present the
| facts. This has the opposite effect of what they intend.

This assumes that the purpose of sex ed and drug ed classes is the 
spread of propoganda rather than information.

I expect you to start a chant of "ignorance is strength" any time now.

   Fritz
From: Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Women as "Objects"
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:58:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: ASC-Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: asc438.asc.slb.com

Women (er, feminists) don't want to be treated as objects, but want the
right to treat unborn babies as objects...."it's just a lump of flesh"

A fetus at ten weeks has fingerprints....count 'em...ten fingers, ten
toes...

If my mother hadn't had an abortion years ago, I would have a little
half-brother or half-sister.  I wonder what he or she would have been like?

Still grieving over the loss,
John Treble

treble@asc.slb.com "My humble, but accurate, opinion does not necessarily
reflect that of my employer. I get full credit for my insightful and witty
comments!"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Abort, Retry, Ignore?)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: The Bedrock Royal Order of Water Buffaloes
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:46:38 GMT

What: <1993Jan4.192724.25322@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Who:  glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)

>>  = John Sanger

>>It has been widely observed that the Sea Otter demonstrates such behavior.
>>I was at the San Diego Sea World Sea Otter exhibit and observed along with
>>about 40 other people, the servivors of the Exxon Valdiz disaster freely
>>performing felatio on each other while floating around on their backs in
>>their tank.
>
>I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
>of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
>her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
>in nature"?

No, which points to the idea that it is equally inappropriate to say that
homosexuality is immoral because it is *not* found in other species.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:52:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan8.205023.28080@guinness.idbsu.edu> jahn@guinness.idbsu.edu writes:
>
>Why does any of this matter?  Getting upset about two homosexual
>adults doing whatever they want and like to do in the privacy of
>their own home is about as crucial an issue as whether someone puts
>cream in their coffee or not.  If you happen to be religious in
>such a way as to believe they are going to hell for their behaviour,
>then, ... why not just leave it at that?  Why should you care if
>you believe they are going to hell, and why should THEY care if
>YOU think they are going to hell?  It's none of your business.

It does make a difference if I have to deal with them working for me.
If I don't like what types of behavior someone engages in, I should be
allowed to not hire them.  I shouldn't be forced to accept this as an
alternative lifestyle.  Another example is drug testing.  I don't like 
drug testing.  I don't think companies (except in certain areas) should
drug test.  I AM EMPHATICALLY AGAINST FEDERALLY MANDATED DRUG TESTING.  
BUT, I am not against any employer who freely WANTS to drug test (if
proper care is taken for false-positives).  I think he/she should be
allow to test for <insert your drug here> if they like.  If it's stupid,
they won't attract good workers.  They will eventually change or they 
will just have to deal with not having certain people working for them.
Why is it that people who want to engage in unpopular activities feel 
that they MUST be accepted by the rest of society? 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13041 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11553
From: bkm10@ccc.amdahl.com (Brian K Moss)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:03:36 GMT
Reply-To: bkm10@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian K Moss)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1993Jan1.175300.4206@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield) writes:
>Even the devil may quote scripture to serve his own purposes. (I've
>alwass wanted to say that)
>
>Yes. the bible does say that homosexuality is wrong. However, Christ
>said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone.". I doubt either
>one of you are perfict. I know I'm not.

If you will read the rest of the story (where's Paul Harvey when you need
him?), you will find that Jesus makes a very intolerant statement in the
end when he says to the woman, "Go and sin no more."

> 
>It's high time that we start accepting ALL people, Black, white, red,
>gay, ect, as human beings worthy of our respect and love.

I agree with you here, well partly. It is high time that we learn to love
as Christ loved, but that love must also include the need to tell others
the impending danger of an unrepentant heart towards sin. I would not be
loving someone whom I knew to be driving towards a cliff if I did not
warn them to turn back. Likewise, it is not love to merely scream at them
as they pass by, "You sick idiot! You're heading straight to your grave!"

*************************************************************************
Brian K. Moss
Smile! God loves you and I'm trying....                     John 3:16
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13268 alt.sex:41268 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11868 alt.politics.correct:6107 alt.politics.equality:33
From: lrabe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee A Rabe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:27:59 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University


>(Most straight people do not appear to be aware that there are sodomy laws
>in place in about 50% of states in the U.S. Straight people in these
>states have the legal advantage of being able to kiss their SO's without
>committing a felony.)

Just 'cause I'm studying law this quarter:

FYI: in most state laws that prohibit sodomy, sodomy is defined as "sexual 
practices that involve the sexual organs of one party and the mouth or
anus of the other."  So, yes, homosexual sex IS included in here, but so is
ANY kind of oral or anal sex.  So be careful next time you get/give a blow
job in a state with these laws....

Of course, they tend not to prosecute heterosexuals....

TopCat
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:11:59 GMT

>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>>However, like I said, science at least offers proof of some of its
>>basic phenomena.  Religion offers none.

>And you can't prove the existence of color to a blind man.  The proof
>of science, like that of religion, is only useful to those who have
>eyes to see.

That is absolutely false!  Just because something cannot be directly
percieved does not mean that it's existence cannot be proven.  Scientific
instruments can allow evidence of the world to be percieved quite effectively.
How do you think it is that we non-color blind people know about UV and 
infrared light?  How do we know about radio waves and atoms?  It's not by
faith...it's by science.

--Brian
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Self-similar
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:36:59 GMT

In article <5085@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
| 
| All the same "forms" that the public school teachers have to file
| would have to be done and processed by a similar, but private, army
| of administrators?
| 
| Maybe you're right - if government money comes with strings attached,
| it's simply not worth it.  I've been just kind of assuming that the
| money from heaven [...] would flow with no strings attached.

If the vouchers are not stringless and are not payable to any private
(sectarian or non) school then I would oppose such a plan.  But, perhaps 
we should remember the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.  
We should also remember the cases of Hillsdale and Grove City Colleges.  
Hmm...

But are we stuck with just pouring money down the rat hole of public
education?  Maybe local communities could just repeal or roll back their
property taxes and cut public school teacher salaries.  The public school
teachers would then go on strike and the community could just let the 
strike drag on forever.  Those who own homes or rent should see a big 
drop in their property taxes.  That money would become available to pay
for some of the cost of educating the children.  Parents would find 
alternatives:  first they would fill the private schools and then they 
would form education co-ops (e.g. they could pool their property tax 
savings and hire tutors for specific subjects).  

Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush