From: Scott Brush Area: THE_OASIS To: Narthoniel 4 Oct 92 21:23:08 Subject: Re: MALE PREJUDICES UpdReq Today, I learned from a UCLA student who has contact with such people exactly what the term "Feminazi" means. Originally, it was used by mysogenistic men to condemn the ultra-anti-male feminists who were free in their condemnation of men. It is a union of the words "feminist" and "Nazi". Hence, Feminazi. As time went on, such extreme feminists decided to adopt the term as a statement to their hatred of half the race. I don't mean to suggest that all feminists are like this but only those who like to refer to themselves as "bitch." This is what this young woman has told me. With regard to your lamenting we men's awful dispositions and conceited attitudes, I object to your generalizations. Not all men are like that. What you are communicating is actually a lot of feminist rhetoric that amounts to not much more than wining. I assert that women are as likely to be cruel, intolerant, oppressive, and conceited as men are. They are no better or worse. To perpetuate the belief that it's all men's fault that the world is the way it is will only perpetuate the separation and battle between the sexes. I assert that it is everyone's fault that our civilization has its problems. Everyone who has lived and been involved in western civilization has contributed to its actions and ultimate results. History is a manifestation of what everyone has believed, about themselves and the world around them. Even in the most oppressive times, in the most ignorant lands, the truly wise have flourished and expressed themselves one way or another. The ignorant have caused problems. There is no distinction of gender, either in the Holy Mysteries or in the annals of infamy. Let's stop this finger pointing at entire groups of people, a canon of ignorance and bigotry, and work for a more enlightened humanity. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Scott Brush Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 4 Oct 92 21:25:12 Subject: Re: MALE PREJUDICES UpdReq Please let me know what ROFL stands for. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Dionysia Marqueza Area: THE_OASIS To: Sea Queen 5 Oct 92 18:06:16 Subject: Re: GUNS AND COMMON GOOD UpdReq > For this nation, it is an exception. Most of go to the grocery > store for food. Most people who are hurting for food apply for > welfare, not gun liscences. As I'm sure you can well guess, guns for > hunting necessary food is not what gun control is about. I, for one, > can't see where a mandatory 5 day wait, like the Brady bill > proposes, or a background check, or the requirement of safety > testing in order to be liscenced (like a car), and prohibiting the > sale of unregistered guns through the mail might all be places where > we can prevent enormous loss of life, not to mention crime, without > bringing harm to the people you mentioned. I couldn't agree more :) In this regard, I am -very- pro gun control: although I generally lean towards wanting to *less* legislation of various human activity, it is these sort of "public welfare" venues that I think a government -could- be a good and useful thing. A small point of contention: I have -nothing- that would indicate that any of these measures would *significantly* lower the crime rate. From what I have been able to learn from the local PD, most firearms used in conjunction with a crime were not purchased through any of the legal or quasi-legal channels that presently exist. I think that background checks would be the most effective of the lot, and I generally support the idea, at least tenatively... but not for reasons of crime prevention. There is -currently- a thriving black market in firearms in this country, and I really don't see where these measures are going to do anything to impact that market. True, I think a -small- number of crimes would be prevented, but it seems like a drop in the ocean. In trying to imagine what -I- might find the ideal sort of firearms legislation, a couple of things considered were: * How effective a deterrant would it be if the penalty for the illegal sale of firearms were commesurate with the penalties that are enforced for other crimes committed with firearms? * -Why- aren't children taught at least the bare minimum of gun safety theory in school? As an elective, if nothing else... ...as usual, more questions than answers. I wish I had -the- solution: but I don't. Just the frustration of living in a world where people seem to have a hard time resisting using a tool (ANY tool!) for it's greatest potential for harm. Dio 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Sea Queen Area: THE_OASIS To: Dionysia Marqueza 5 Oct 92 23:45:32 Subject: Re: GUNS AND COMMON GOOD UpdReq >> we can prevent enormous loss of life, not to mention crime, without >> bringing harm to the people you mentioned. > > I couldn't agree more :) In this regard, I am -very- pro gun > control: although I generally lean towards wanting to *less* > legislation of various human activity, it is these sort of "public > welfare" venues that I think a government -could- be a good and > useful thing. > Hear, hear! After all, the whole point of government is to not only protect us from outside harm, but from each other as well. Sad, but necessary. A small point of contention: I have -nothing- that would > indicate that any of these measures would *significantly* lower the > crime rate. From what I have been able to learn from the local PD, > most firearms used in conjunction with a crime were not purchased > through any of the legal or quasi-legal channels that presently > exist. > True, but I was talking about the predominate from of homicide with a gun. The "crimes of passion". Most homicides aren't in conjunction with a crime (like robbery, for instance). Most homicides are along the lines of so-and-so got pissed at his girlfriend and shot her to death, or such-and such- got in a fight in a bar, and went and got their gun and came back and shot the offending party. These are weapons predominately bought through legal means, more often than not even registered. These are the crimes I think can be reduced, though Lord knows not eradicated, by some of the control measures we have been discussing. Not to mention suicides. In trying to imagine what -I- might find the ideal sort of > firearms legislation, a couple of things considered were: > > * How effective a deterrant would it be if the penalty for the > illegal sale of firearms were commesurate with the penalties that > are enforced for other crimes committed with firearms? > > * -Why- aren't children taught at least the bare minimum of > gun safety theory in school? As an elective, if nothing else... > > Good questions, though. Definitely something to consider. :) ...as usual, more questions than answers. I wish I had -the- > solution: but I don't. Just the frustration of living in a world > where people seem to have a hard time resisting using a tool (ANY > tool!) for it's greatest potential for harm. Sad, but true. :( Hopefully, people will begin to look for other alternatives to blowing each other away to settle conflicts. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718