waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1pi9jkINNqe2@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >>>How long does it [the motto] have to stay around before it becomes the |> >>>default?  ...  Where's the cutoff point?  |> >>I don't know where the exact cutoff is, but it is at least after a few |> >>years, and surely after 40 years. |> >Why does the notion of default not take into account changes |> >in population makeup?      |>  |> Specifically, which changes are you talking about?  Are you arguing |> that the motto is interpreted as offensive by a larger portion of the |> population now than 40 years ago?  No, do I have to?    I'm just commenting that it makes very little sense to consider everything we inherit to be the default.  Seen any steam trains recently?
>DATE:   Tue, 20 Apr 1993 18:13:09 GMT >FROM:   R. Bruce Rakes <bruce@cortex.dixie.com> > >mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes: > >>I always thought that the Pope was a bear. > >>You know, because of that little saying: > >>Does a bear shit in the woods? >>Is the Pope Catholic? > >>There MUST be SOME connection between those two lines! > >And I always heard it: > >Is the bear Catholic? >Does the pope ???? > >Oh nevermind! >--  >R. Bruce Rakes, Software Systems Manager >Elekta Instruments, Inc.  8 Executive Park W, Suite 809, Atlanta, GA 30329 >Voice:(404)315-1225 FAX:(404)315-7850 email: bruce@elekta.com >   Anyone from Alabama knows it should be:  Is "The Bear" Catholic? Does a Pope shit in the woods?
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >I want to know how this omniscient being is going to perform >the feat of "definitely" terming actions right or wrong.  If you were omniscient, you'd know who exactly did what, and with what purpose in mind.  Then, with a particular goal in mind, you sould be able to methodically judge whether or not this action was in accordance with the general goal.  >>>I don't think you've show the existence of *any* objective moral system. >>They exist, but in practice, they are difficult to perfectly emulate. >>I mean, you understand the concept of an objective system, right? >I thought you were explaining it to us.   I certainly don't >understand what you are explaining.  In an objective system, there are known goals.  Then, actions are judged as either being compatible with these goals, or not.  Simple.  The problem with most systems in current practice is that the goals differ.  That is, the goals of each society are different.  Note that an objective system is not necessarily an inherent one.  >>The concept of innocence is dependent on whether certain actions are >>"right" or "wrong," and this depends on the moral system.  But, if >>we have an objective system, then someone can be deemed innocent or >>not quite easily by an omniscient person.  Anyway, I think I cleared >>up the recursive definition of "murder," because no one is complaining >>about it. >I don't think it solves anything to speculate where we would be >if we *did* have an objective moral system.  The question is >still whether you can even say what one is.  I've said it many, many times.  >And for what it's worth, I don't think you cleared up *anything* >concerning murder.  Which part do you have a problem with?  >>>What do you mean by "harmed?"  Is it harm if you have to spend >>>your existence metabolising food for another species? >>Oh, most moral systems would be considered only within a species.  It >>is okay for us to enslave other animals, right?  But not humans... >>Of course, ideally, perhaps we wouldn't even have to bother any other >>animals... >One the first point, it's wrong to enslave humans according to my >persoanl moral system.  On the second point, I'm a vegetarian.  But, we can enslave the animals, right?  But just not kill them?  Or are you a vegetarian for health reasons?  >So, are you a vegetarian?  No.  I fail to see how my *personal* views are relevant, anyway.  >Is it wrong to eat animals in your personal moral system?  Of course not.  It seems perfectly valid to kill members of other species for food.  It might be nice, though, if the other animals were not made to suffer.  For instance, a cow in a field lives out its life just about the same way it would in the wild.  They seem happy enough.  However, the veal youngsters aren't treated very well.  >How about an "objective" moral system?  I don't know.  What is the goal of this particular system?  There is no inherent system.  >How about a "natural" moral system.  Nope.  Again, it seems okay to kill other species for food.
In article <1r2j7d$6e1@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >In article <1993Apr17.041535.7472@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes: >|> According to Jerry Mander's _In the Absence of the Sacred_ (good >|> book, BTW), the Great Binding Law of the Iroquois Confederacy >|> also played a significant role as a model for the U.S. Constitution. >|> Furthermore, apparently Marx and Engels were strongly influenced >|> by a study of Iroquois society, using it as the prime example of >|> a successful, classless, egalitarian, noncoercive society.  Mander >|> goes on to say that both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would do well >|> to study the original document, figure out where each went wrong, >|> and try to get it right next time. > >That's fascinating.   I heard that the Chinese, rather than >the Italians, invented pasta.  That's fascinating.  I take it that you're expressing skepticism at the idea that those ignorant savages could have influenced the Constitution of the people who stole their continent.  You could be right, but it sounds plausible to me.  Is there any reason that you dismiss it out-of-hand?  Here's some more:     Recent scholarship has shown that in the mid-1700s Indians were not    only invited to participate in the deliberations of our "founding    fathers," but that the Great Binding Law of the Iroquois Confederacy    arguably became the single most important model for the 1754 Albany    Plan of Union, and later the Articles of Confederation and the    Constitution.  That this would be absent from our school texts,    and from history, and from media is not surprising given the devotion    Americans feel to our founding myth: Great men gathered to express    a new vision that has withstood the test of time.  If it were    revealed that Indians had a role in it, imagine the blow to the    American psyche.    ...       By 1754, when most of these men and others gathered to creat the    Albany Plan of Union, the first try at confederation, they invited    forty-two members of the Iroquois Grand Council to serve as advisors    on confederate structures.  Benjamin Franklin freely acknowledged    his interest in the Iroquois achievement in a famous speech at    Albany Congress: "It would be a strange thing...if six nations    of ignorant savages[sic] should be capable of forming such a union    and be able to execute it in such a manner that it has subsisted    for ages and appears indissoluble, and yet that a like union should    be impractical for ten or a dozen English colonies."       According to Grinde, Franklin convened meetings of Iroquois chiefs    and congressional delegates in order to "hammer out a plan that he    acknowedged to be similar to the Iroquois Confederacy."  Grinde is Professor Donald Grinde,Jr., of the University of California at Riverside whose book _The Iroquois and the Founding Fathers of the American Nation_ addresses this issue.
In article <C63AEC.FB3@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:  >The "R Us" thing is trademarked.  I don't know if Charles >Lazarus is dead or alive, but I'd be careful, because with >a name like Lazarus, he might rise again just to start a >lawsuit.  	The "R Us" is not trademarked, but the "Backwards R Us" is, I  believe.    ---    Speaking of proofs of God, the funniest one I have ever seen was in a   term paper handed in by a freshman.  She wrote, "God must exist, because   he wouldn't be so mean as to make me believe he exists if he really   doesn't!"  Is this argument really so much worse than the ontological   proofs of the existence of God provided by Anselm and Descartes, among   others?
In article <11855@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:   >In article <116003@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:  >>This supports nothing. I have no reason to believe that this is  >>piece is anything other than another anti-Islamic slander job. >>I have no respect for titles, only for real content. I can look >>up this article if I want, true. But I can tell you BCCI was _not_ >>an Islamic bank. Seeing as I'm spending my time responding to >>propaganda (in responding to this little sub-thread) I really >>don't feel a deep need to do more than make statements to the >>effect that the propaganda is false. If someone wants to discuss >>the issue more seriously then I'd be glad to have a real discussion, >>providing references, etc.   >  But you must admit that this is a more thorough argument >  supporting a proposition than your 'it's propganda because I say >  so'.  I hope you can see why we might not find this argument  >  compelling.  If you want to refute a point, then do so, but do it >  right.    Well, again, I am doing as much as the poster I was replying too. I am quite busy and really don't have the time to respond in full scholarly form to every accusation that is flippantly made by someone who's  being clearly antagonistic.   >  And have you ever considered that perhaps these people actually >  believe what they say?  That they are not just spreading >  propaganda?    I have considered it. But if someone spreads falsehoods out of ignorance then they are still spreading falsehoods. Those falsehoods generally do not come out of nowhere but are produced by people who know that what they are saying is (at _least_) not the whole truth. I still consider such spreading of falsehoods propaganda on some level.   > I'm not in a position to say, since I know nothing >  about the situation.  That does not, in my estimation, qualify me >  as having my head up my ass.   Bob, I never accused you of having your head up your ass! It takes me quite some time in dealing with someone before accusing them of having their head up their ass. I was accusing the original poster (Benedikt, I believe) of being so impaired.   Cheers,
I saw a 3 hour show on PBS the other day about the history of the Jews. Appearently, the Cursades(a religious war agianst the muslilams in 'the holy land') sparked the widespread persecution of muslilams  and jews in europe. Among the supporters of the persiecution, were none  other than Martin Luther, and the Vatican.  Later, Hitler would use Luthers writings to justify his own treatment of the jews. > Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence?
On 20 Apr 93 13:38:34 GMT dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,) wrote: >In article 11853@vice.ICO.TEK.COM, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: >|> >|>  Yet I am still not a believer.  Is god not concerned with my >|>  disposition?  Why is it beneath him to provide me with the >|>  evidence I would require to believe?  The evidence that my >|>  personality, given to me by this god, would find compelling?  >The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.  >But think about it for a minute.  Would you rather have someone love >you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to >love you.     The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward >Him.  He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself. >Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.  I and many others on a.a have described how we have tried to find god. Are you saying our efforts have not been sincere?  For all the effort I have put in, there has been no outward nor inward change that I can perceive.  What's a sincerely searching Agnostic or Atheist supposed to do when even the search turns up nothing?  >Simple logic arguments are folly.  If you read the Bible you will see >that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic". >Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation.  Yet some think it is >the ultimate.  If you rely simply on your reason then you will never >know more than you do now.   To learn you must accept that which >you don't know.  How do you "accept that which you don't know"?  Do you mean that I must believe in your god in order to believe in your god?
In article <healta.140.734925835@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) wrote: > At the time Ezekiel was written, Israel was in apostacy again and if I'm not  > mistaken, Tyre was about to make war on Israel.  Like I said, the Prince of  > Tyre was the human ruler of Tyre.  He was a wicked man.  By calling Satan  > the King of Tyre, Ezekiel was saying that Satan is the real ruler over Tyre.  Tammy, is this all explicitly stated in the bible, or do you assume that you know that Ezekiel indirectly mentioned? It could have been another metaphor, for instance Ezekiel was mad at his landlord, so he talked about him when he wrote about the prince of Tyre.  Sorry, but my interpretation is more mundane, Ezekiel wrote about  the prince of Tyre when we wrote about the prince of Tyre.   Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr22.130421.113279@zeus.calpoly.edu>, dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes: > > REMEMBER: Einstien said Imagination is greater than knowledge!!  Then Einstein should have had lunch with me at the Tien Fu on Castro Street yesterday, when they handed me a fortune cookie that said "He who has imagination but not knowledge has wings, but no feet".
In article <1r1cl7INNknk@bozo.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes: >Anyway, since I seem to be the only one following this particular line >of discussion, I wonder how many of the rest of the readership have >read this book?  What are your thoughts on it?    I read it when it first came out, and the controversy broke. Put my name on the waiting list at the library (that way if the book was really offensive, none of my money would find its way to the author or publisher), and read it, "cover to cover" (to use a phrase that seems popular here right now).  And I *liked* it. The writing style was a little hard to get used to, but it was well worth the effort. Coming from a similar background (Rushdie grew up in Bombay in a muslim family, and moved to England; I grew up in New Delhi), it made a strong impression on me.  (And he used many of the strange constructions of Indian English: the "yaar" at the end of a sentence, "Butbutbut," the occasional hindi phrase, etc.)  At the time I still "sorta-kinda" thought of myself as a muslim, and I couldn't see what the flap was all about. It seemed clear to me that this was allegory.  It was clear that he described some local prostitutes who took on the names and personae of Muhammed's wives, and had not (as my grandfather thundered) implied that Muhammed's wives were prostitutes; in short, every angry muslim that had read even part of the book seemed to have missed the point completely.  (And I won't mention the fact that the most militant of them had never even seen the book. Oops, I just did!)  Perhaps in a deep sense, the book is insulting to Islam, because it exposes the silliness of revealed religion - why does an omnipotent deity need an agent? She can come directly to me, can't she? How do we know that Muhammed didn't just go out into the desert and smoke something? And how do we know that the scribes he dictated the Quran to didn't screw up, or put in their own little verses? And why can Muhammed marry more than four women, when no other muslim is allowed to? (Although I think the biggest insult to Islam is that the majority of its followers would want to suppress a book, sight unseen, on the say-so of some "holy" guy. Not to mention murder the author.)  >Over the years, when I have made this point, various primarily muslim >posters have responded, saying that yes indeed they have read the book >and had called it such things as "filth and lies", "I would rank >Rushdie's book with Hitler's Mein Kempf or worse", and so on.  I had much the same response when I tried to talk about the book. A really silly argument - after all, how many of these same people have read "Mein Kampf?" It just made me wonder - what are they afraid of? Why don't they just read the book and decide for themselves?  Maybe the reaction of the muslim community to the book, and the absence of protest from the "liberal" muslims to Khomeini's fatwa outrage, was the final push I needed into atheism!  -s
Another one rescued from the bit bucket...  Over the years the furor over this book has been discussed on a.a. and elsewhere on the net.  Generally, the discussion comes down to the contention on the one hand that TSV contains such blood libel against Islam as to merit, if not death, than at least banning and probably some sort of punishment; and on the other that Rushdie, particularly as a non-muslim in a Western country, had every right to write and publish whatever he chose, regardless of whether some muslims find it offensive, without fear of persecution or death.    I am naturally inclined to the latter position, but find myself in an interesting position, because I think this is a fine book, only incidentally concerned with Islam, and moreover I'm damned if I can find anything malevolently offensive in it.  Over the years, when I have made this point, various primarily muslim posters have responded, saying that yes indeed they have read the book and had called it such things as "filth and lies", "I would rank Rushdie's book with Hitler's Mein Kempf or worse", and so on. Unfortunately, these comments are usually generalities, and attempts to follow up by requesting explanations for what specifically is so offensive have met either with stony silence, more generalizations, or inaccurate or out-of-context references to the book [which lead me to believe that few of them have actually read it].  Corrections and attempts to discuss the text in context have been ignored.  Anyway, since I seem to be the only one following this particular line of discussion, I wonder how many of the rest of the readership have read this book?  What are your thoughts on it?   --  Jim Perry   perry@dsinc.com   Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC These are my opinions.  For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
In article <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> (reference line trimmed) |>  |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> [...] |>  |> >There is a good deal more confusion here.   You started off with the  |> >assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit |> >here, you finished up with a recursive definition.   Murder is  |> >"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself |> >requires an appeal to morality. |>  |> Yes. |>  |> >Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little.   Now you are |> >asking what is the "goal"?   What do you mean by "goal?".   Are you |> >suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere, |> >and we form our morals to achieve it? |>  |> Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and |> propogation of the species.    I got just this far.   What do you mean by "goal"?    I hope you don't mean to imply that evolution has a conscious "goal".
bobbe@vice (Robert Beauchaine;6086;59-323;LP=A;YAyG) Pontificated:  > >  I guess I don't understand the problem.  I've never had any >  problem swearing and using the name of "god" in the same sentence. >  Comes quite naturally, as a matter of facxt. >  I would guess that you either mean that you don't have a problem swearing aligance to a non-existant being or that you are being deliberatily dense (considering what group this is).    It doesn't come "quite naturally" to nonbelievers such as myself or even to followers of other religions.  Would you say it would be quite natural if you were forced to swear by "Allah" or "Budda"?
In <11836@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:  >In article <C5L1Ey.Jts@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike  Cobb) writes: >>In <11825@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)  writes: >> >> >>>  Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance.  Ignorance of the >>>  existence of any god.  Don't fall into the "atheists don't believe >>>  because of their pride" mistake. >> >>How do you know it's based on ignorance, couldn't that be wrong? Why would it >>be wrong  >>to fall into the trap that you mentioned?  >>  >  If I'm wrong, god is free at any time to correct my mistake.  That >  he continues not to do so, while supposedly proclaiming his >  undying love for my eternal soul, speaks volumes.  What are the volumes that it speaks besides the fact that he leaves your  choices up to you?  >  As for the trap, you are not in a position to tell me that I don't >  believe in god because I do not wish to.  Unless you can know my >  motivations better than I do myself, you should believe me when I >  say that I earnestly searched for god for years and never found >  him.  I definitely agree that it's rather presumptuous for either "side" to give some psychological reasoning for another's belief.  MAC >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   >Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   >They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, >and sank Manhattan out at sea.  >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  -- ****************************************************************                                                     Michael A. Cobb  "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois     class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana           -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
In article <C5s9zM.9E0@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) wrote: >  > In article <C5LH4p.27K@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes: > > JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu () writes: > > : YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE > > : PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!! > >  > >   What do you mean "be prepared" ?? Surrounded by thumpers like yourself > > has proven to be hellish enough . . . and I'm not even dead yet !! >  > Well here's how I prepared.  I got one of those big beach > umbrellas, some of those gel-pack ice things, a big Coleman cooler > which I've loaded up with Miller Draft (so I like Miller Draft, > so sue me), a new pair of New Balance sneakers, a Sony > Watchman, and a couple of cartons of BonTon Cheddar Cheese > Popcorn. >  > I haven't decided what to wear yet.  What does one wear to an > eternal damnation? >  > Dean Kaflowitz  Dress casual. Only in heaven is there a dress code (black tie and self-important expression)