HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: This whole Lot thing ...
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:38:47 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct05.133348.10088@brtph560.bnr.ca>, kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy 
Posey P920) writes:
> Let me just clear this Lot situation up for you people.  Lot did THE ONLY
> THING that could have saved his guests AND his family from the Enemy.  If Lot
> had agreed to allow his guests to be victimized then his whole family would
> have suffered the same fate as the rest of the people of that city.  If he
> had refused their demands completely and barricaded the door then his family
> and friends WOULD HAVE BEEN RAPED AND KILLED.  

Nonsense.  The angels would have struck them blind, like theydid in the story.

> The point is that Lot was WILLING to sacrifice his daughters.  

As I have said, this is a definition of righteous I am unfamiliar with.

> God seeing Lot's willingness to surrender 
> himself and his family counted that obedience as righteousness and SAVED LOT'S
> FAMILY INCLUDING HIS DAUGHTERS.  It was not the act of offering his daughters
> to be raped that was righteous, but his willingness to do so.  

And this is not a God I will have setting values for me.

> This O.T. story has nothing to do with 'Family Values'.  

Oh, but it does.

> There are tons of other examples of people doing things in the O.T. that 
> really don't seem like moral behavior.  You've got to read the whole story 
> including the N.T. (that's for you Holzman) for it to make sense.  Also, you 
> can't just
> read it like a textbook.  You have to open your soul and spirit and let it
> speak to you.  I think alot of folks fail to do that and end up angry and
> confused about the true message God is sending.

I've read it.  I'm not impressed.

However, I never cease to be amazed at people who think that I'll come around
to the Christian viewpoint if only I'd read the Bible (including NT) *again*.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920)
Subject: This whole Lot thing ...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP 
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 13:33:48 GMT

Let me just clear this Lot situation up for you people.  Lot did THE ONLY
THING that could have saved his guests AND his family from the Enemy.  If Lot
had agreed to allow his guests to be victimized then his whole family would
have suffered the same fate as the rest of the people of that city.  If he
had refused their demands completely and barricaded the door then his family
and friends WOULD HAVE BEEN RAPED AND KILLED.  The point is that Lot was
WILLING to sacrifice his daughters.  God seeing Lot's willingness to surrender 
himself and his family counted that obedience as righteousness and SAVED LOT'S
FAMILY INCLUDING HIS DAUGHTERS.  It was not the act of offering his daughters
to be raped that was righteous, but his willingness to do so.  This O.T. story
has nothing to do with 'Family Values'.  It has everything to do with trusting
God.  Lot knew that God made him and his daughters as well, and that God had
every right to do whatever with them he pleased.  He also knew that God loved
(and still does love) his daughters and therefore would not allow them to be
harmed unless it furthered His purpose.  And further more if they were hurt
then God would not only heal that hurt but reward them many fold for their
obedience.  But of course we know that God rewarded Lot and saved his house-
hold from destruction.  Excluding his wife who DID NOT OBEY GOD'S COMMANDS.

There are tons of other examples of people doing things in the O.T. that really
don't seem like moral behavior.  You've got to read the whole story including
the N.T. (that's for you Holzman) for it to make sense.  Also, you can't just
read it like a textbook.  You have to open your soul and spirit and let it
speak to you.  I think alot of folks fail to do that and end up angry and
confused about the true message God is sending.

KimmyD

P.S.: I'm wondering if this discussion shouldn't be continued elsewhere.  I
was on vacation for one week and found 70 new messages here when I got back.
Most of that bandwidth seemed to be used in this thread.
From: kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: No Danny, you got it ...
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:20:59 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP

... all wrong again.  I could care less whether you fry or not.  It's not my
problem.  To be honest it gives the evil part of my nature a good deal of
pleasure knowing where you will spend eternity.  I'm not proud of that but
it's the truth anyway.  Yep.  As for your other comments, well, yeah.  I know
you think you're some kinda intelligencia or somethin' but frankly, I'm not
impressed.  What do you say we just go about our lives despising each other.
I think I'd like it that way.  It's an ugly solution but it worked well for
your buddy Cosgrove & I.

KimmyD 
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Racist???  Me????  NOT!!!
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:06:04 GMT

In article <BuwFEJ.4H5@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, svanegmo@laplace.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
> I do not see how equality and freedom are inversely proportional.

By equality I mean forced equality.  

> 
> People have become greatly confused with the concept of equality of races, 
> gender, religion, etc.  Particularly here in Ontario, Canada where the govern-
> ment is pushing through an affirmative action bill that will require that 
> everyone register their race and ethnic origins with the government, and that
> will allow the government to check up on any given company and... you get the 
> point. I personally think it highly offensive.

So do I.  I must point out however, that gender is a reference to the
masculinity or femininity of nouns.  It often has nothing to do the sex of the
noun, e.g. a ship is refered to she even though it isn't female.  People don't
have gender, people have sex.
 
> There is such a thing as equality of opportunity.  There is very little wrong
> with a society and its institutions guaranteeing it.  In a way, a very bureaucr-
> atic one at that, our government currently guarantees that through the 
> Human Rights Commission.  Equality of opportunity implies that people are 
> allowed to live their lives without any form of discrimnation against any aspect
> of their existence.  I live for the time when "white" is only the colour of 
> paper, and that "black" is only the colour of the ink that goes on it (i.e. 
> racial differences in society shouldn't exist or even be considered worthy of
> comment). 

I disagree.  I think a company or a person should be able to discriminate
against anyone he/she/it chooses.
--Ray Cote
     "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
                                                   --Francis H.C. Crick

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:06:33 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep30.105419.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu 
writes:
> Couldn't I say that rape is right under an MR system? Why do we have laws?  
> For the good of society, is the common response.  But why should I care about
> society unless that caring benifits me directly?  Under an MR system there is
> no reason.

Except that caring for soceity does benefit you directly, unless you like
the idea of living in a situation where someone can decide to rape you (or
whatever else) without any sanction.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Xref: sparky talk.rape:2481 alt.folklore.urban:24409
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:36:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <+b_py!c.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
#In article <1992Sep28.030029.6036@engage.pko.dec.com> nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.) writes:
##re:  barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
### How would one show that a recorded "rape" was not an acted simulation? 
##
##	Simple.  Ask the woman.
#
#	Bingo. Now ask the next question: why would anyone market a
#recording of themselves committing a felony which, in combination with
#the woman's testimony, makes an open-and-shut case?
#
#	Urban legend; QED.

QED, I guess, if one does not believe in the existence of
pseudonyms nor masks.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Terminology
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:58:09 GMT

"Date rape" is a rather useless term because it doesn't have a precise
meaning.  That lack of precision has adverse consequences for
discussions by people who don't take the time to eliminate it.

"By-acquaintance rape", rape by people known to the victim, is rather
common.  However, that doesn't imply that rape by people the victim is
socially close to is common, let alone that rape during dates is
common.  The by-acquaintance rape rates don't tell us about rape rates
in these other circumstances because they are very different.  For
example, I'm acquainted with most everyone in my apartment building,
but I'm not friends with many of them, am dating only one of them, and
am not related to any of them; note the difference.

Rape in those circumstances may be common, or it may not be; that
relies on relevant data, and the by-acquaintance rates don't make the
relevant distinctions.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:25:19 GMT

In article <2_+p_qd.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>But why should this discussion have come down to "prove it didn't happen"?

It shouldn't.  However, the advocates of the "it's an urban myth"
theory are the ones who are responsible for that trend in the
discussion.  Nancy B didn't counter with the irrational "prove it
didn't happen" argument and even if she did, she isn't to blame for
bogus responses to that argument.

>That's what gets me. It all started with a two-sentence "I've heard
>that...".

Yes, it did.  And where did it go from there and who did the driving?

We've had tons of irrelevant arguments from people who think its a
myth.  Wouldn't it have made far more sense to ASK Nancy B for the
relevant details instead of making bogus responses to irrational
arguments she didn't offer?

Yes, I know why things don't work that way.  Pointing out that they
do is the windmill I tilt at.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:55:15 GMT



No doubt to everyone's relief, I'm taking this to e-mail until
I have some evidence one way or the other about the lecturer's
claims.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Lot's daughters
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:02:35 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep29.202112.19672@yang.earlham.edu>, 
dsimkins@yang.earlham.edu writes:

> Strangly enough, many of the people in the Bible dont act perfectly.  

My point is that Lot's behavior here is in the context of his being lauded as
"righteous."

> Doesnt the fact that the angels didnt allow it to happen indicate something? 

Such as?

> Is it not possible for some 
> people to see that in some places during certain periods of time, 
> hospitality was a virtue which was not to be ignored?  

But child welfare is, I get it.

> Perhaps Lot 
> considered his children to be property, many modern parents do, but does 
> that mean that he didnt love them?  Does anyone think that he _wanted_ 
> them to be raped?  

I cannot guess about what he "wanted."  I can only speak on what he is said to
have _done_.

> I have seen a couple (and only a couple) reactionary, 
> knee jerk responses to the post which do not convince, but seek to insult 
> my intelligence instead.  All the poster seemed to ask was for some 
> thought to be given to the problem.  If you had been Lot, what would you 
> have done?  Why?  Are you really entitled to claim moral superiority based 
> on the differences between his decision and your own?

I would have told them "no" and stuck to it.  If they forced the door, I would
have defended my family and guests.  Yes, I can claim moral superiority over
Lot.  I would not offer up my children to a mob, nor would I violate my
hospitality.
 
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:34:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.030420.27735@hubcap.clemson.edu> epohl@hubcap.clemson.edu (Erik Alan Pohl) writes:
>I believe there was a case here in S.C. of marital rape- recently
>(covered on the local news and (oh boy) A Current Affair- not that
>that show helps substantiate my argument) where the husband videotaped
>his sexual congress between he and his wife and that congress supposedly
>did not involve consent from the wife.  The wife, after the trial
>where the husband was aquitted, spoke out against marital rape and
>is considered (by some) to be a martyr for the cause.  She was brave
>enough to go to court.  This was videotaped- does it count?
>
   If it is the same case I remember, then it doesn't count for (probably)
two reasons. First is that the tape was not available to the public. It
was produced for private comsumption. The debate centers on the production
of rape/snuff movies and the distribution of such movies.
   The second reason is that the man was aquitted. If there was no rape,
then there was no rape-movie. The case was more complicated. The couple
were into bondage, and that was the content of the movie. Also, the 
couple is (or was) getting divorced, so there may be some reason to doubt
the varacity of the charges.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 07:36:29 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1a2hhcINN86d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.015336.18924@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>I also suspect that people have filmed rapes. That is somewhat
>>different from committing a rape so that you can film it.
>
>I am confused by this statement.

	Refer back to the article from nancy b which started this
thread. The claim was that men were raping women with the specific
intent of videotaping the rapes and _selling_ these tapes, commercially.

	Am I the only one who finds this claim spurious on its face, and
never mind the research? How would one show that a recorded "rape" was
not an acted simulation? There have been fake snuff films, and rape
would obviously be far easier to simulate, unless it was extremely
violent.

						Kayembee
From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Videotaping rapes
Date: 26 Sep 1992 20:34:52 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mrg.phys.cwru.edu

In article <1992Sep26.015336.18924@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>I also suspect that people have filmed rapes. That is somewhat
>different from committing a rape so that you can film it.

I am confused by this statement.  People have certainly videotaped rapes
e.g. there was one such example at Cleveland State University
approximately two years ago.  By the way the victim's expression of
apparent consent "yes, yes" was not viewed by the prosecutor (who wanted
the tape shown) as damaging to his case.

I have read in reasonably respectable journals that some sexual
perversions (e.g. pedophilia viewed by the laws of most states and
myself as rape) are characterized by a desire to record the acts
involved, as well as simply perform them and that pedophiles will
commonly (and somewhat stupidly) photograph, or audio or videorecord
their actions.  I would characterize this neither as raping to record or
recording to rape as it is really both and not either.  
I further understand that such recordings are
sometimes shared "among friends".  Distributed to the public as a
business?  Less common, I would think but some of child pornography is 
likely to qualify.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035 
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:14:54 GMT
Organization: University of Lowell

In article <1992Sep28.235517.24437@cs.ucla.edu>, coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman) writes:
> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
> |The Spanish Inquisition was very un-Christian.  That's not surprising since
> |the Catholic Church at the time was very un-Christian.
> 
> I disagree.  The Inquisition was condoned (at least) by the Catholic church.
> And at that time, the Catholic church *was* Christianity.
> 
> -- 
> --Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Lord High Executioner of Anhedonia-----
> George Bush: He's there.
>                                  He's square.
>                                                    Get used to it.

I think when the inquisition took place the Reformation had already occured,
but I may be wrong about this.  In any case the Church was still un-Christian.
Long before the inquisition the Church had allowed pagan doctrins into the
Church teachings.  
--Ray Cote
     "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
                                                   --Francis H.C. Crick
From: dsimkins@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Lot's daughters
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:21:12 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Sep29.140530.1@fnalno.fnal.gov>, holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.092615.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu 
> writes:
>> and calm the people down.  When talking didn't work he offered his daughters. 
>> He didn't want his daughters to be gang raped, but his guests were more
>> important than him or his family.  Before this could happen the angels grabbed
>> Lot and brought him back inside.  They then blinded everybody outside.  The
>> next morning they destroyed the city.  I hope everyone now understands why Lot
>> would give his daughters to the crowd to be raped.
>> --Ray Cote
> 
> So much for family values and Judeo Christian values.
> 
> The question wasn't why Lot offered his daughters, I understood that.  My
> question is how you can expect me to take seriously a value system that rules
> this to be moral behavior.
> 

Strangly enough, many of the people in the Bible dont act perfectly.  If 
they did, would Jesus really be special?  Doesnt the fact that the angels 
didnt allow it to happen indicate something?  Is it not possible for some 
people to see that in some places during certain periods of time, 
hospitality was a virtue which was not to be ignored?  Perhaps Lot 
considered his children to be property, many modern parents do, but does 
that mean that he didnt love them?  Does anyone think that he _wanted_ 
them to be raped?  I have seen a couple (and only a couple) reactionary, 
knee jerk responses to the post which do not convince, but seek to insult 
my intelligence instead.  All the poster seemed to ask was for some 
thought to be given to the problem.  If you had been Lot, what would you 
have done?  Why?  Are you really entitled to claim moral superiority based 
on the differences between his decision and your own?

David Simkins
dsimkins@earlham.edu
Xref: sparky talk.rape:2475 alt.folklore.urban:24360
From: comp_oper@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Possible UL alert(was Re: Videotaping rapes)
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:02:35 +0900

In article <1992Sep25.224847.24402@engage.pko.dec.com>, nancyb@os2lan.enet.dec.com (nancy b.) writes:
>     Last year there was a TV show that had an episode about a fraternity 
>     that taped rapes, and one of the tapes was found (stolen?).
> 
>     That was the proof that clinched the case, but on the show it seemed
>     like it was the ONLY thing that clinched the case.  The fraternity
>     brothers were VERY smug about the whole thing, saying she'd asked for
>     it or whatever.
> 
>     it was sometime last year, I think.  It had a young-looking police
>     person go undercoover (Somebody on FOX?  What was that show
>     with the young police people?  I forget)

The show was "21 Jump Street".  The frat boys had kept the tape for their own
kicks and showed it to a new frat who turned out to be the victims brother.

-- 
Glenn Wallace					comp_oper@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Northern Territory University
Darwin, Northern Territory,
Australia, World, Universe, etc...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISCLAIMER:
This is not necessarily the views of the management of this establishment:-
We just chain him up in that little cubby hole of his and leave him be!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Holzman: Stop wastin' ...
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:31:06 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP

... my tax dollars and get busy smashin' atoms or whatever useless activity
you get paid to engage in.  Unless I speak to you directly then keep your
mouth shut.  Are you readin' me Cosgrove Jr.?  If not then let's take this
off-line and stop clutterin' up talk.rape.  This is the wrong forum for either
of us to espouse our religious views.

KimmyD
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.folklore.urban