View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:28b70f8c143d48cb5d5c962e0e80@news.digitalmars.com...
>
> I didn't object to furry fandom, mike.  Just one image there that perhaps 
> has been removed since?
>

If you're referring to the one with the guy "laying down" with a male (or 
are they all hermaphrodite as the one diagram would seem to indicate?) 
human/fantasy-creature hybrid, that's drawing's still there, and I've been 
unoffended by worse.

My biggest concern with it is that the one character is one of those 
creatures that seems to have two torsos at right-angles to each other. I 
can't even image the sorts of back problems that must create for them in old 
age, or just how their biology is able to actually *fill* both torsos with 
useful organs. ;-)
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
John Reimer wrote:
> Hello bearophile,
> 
>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile

> At first, I thought this alias was innocent enough, but after visiting 
> your much promoted site (promoted in the D community), I'm not so sure 
> what to think.  I almost blanched at some of the content and greatly 
> regretted having visited it.
> 
> Of course, it is equally people's right here to support you in your 
> freedom to display such things (while providing the links here).  If 
> they do, however, it speaks volumes about peoples general apathy to the 
> downward spiral of society where increasingly indecent content is seen 
> as normal and harmless. This is a great shame, and I'd be sorry to see 
> that people don't care anymore.

John, I think you make a valid point that the D community should check 
that any site which is officially linked to, provides reasonable 
indication when you are leaving the technical section, particularly when 
there's potential for offense. (For example, linking to a terrorist 
website might be damaging for D).

But in other respects, if you're arguing from a Christian perspective, I 
don't see how bearophile's apparent acknowledgement of the truth of 
Romans 1 is anything but beneficial. He's no different from any of us. 
Rom 3:23.

-Don.
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Christopher Wright wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> John-
>>
>> I think you have a good point (not the original, that I will ignore
>> for the moment)
>>
>> Why should people not of the Judeo-Christian world view be allowed to
>> publicly state their view that people of the Judeo-Christian world
>> view should not be allowed to publicly state their views?
>
> Because Christianity has no insights to provide to the design of a
> programming language.

reply to BCS:
Please refrain from using that loaded " Judeo-Christian world view " 
term. there is no such thing.
Christianity has in common with Judaism as much as it has with Islam or 
Buddhism. maybe even more in common with Islam than with Judaism:

A millennium ago, Europe was in the midst of the dark ages while all 
scientific advances were made by Islamic scholars (know Algebra?), and 
the christian world went on holy crusades to fight the evil 
"barbarians", now a millennium later the wheel had turned and the 
Islamic world is in its own dark-age (Iran is prime example of that) and 
the Islamic extremists are calling for Jihad against the corrupt and 
evil heretics of the west. Non of that is present in Judaism.

the only link between Judaism to Christianity is that supposedly Jesus 
was Jewish.
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:28b70f8c143d88cb5d632bf3cd10@news.digitalmars.com...
>
> That's a strong accusation, Steve, without knowing me; it's a very hasty 
> reduction for circumstances, personalities, and factors you are quite 
> unfamiliar with.  I didn't see you mention this sort of thing while people 
> were talking about physically harming the internet marketer's in horrible 
> ways in the javascript discussion. :)

It was clear that the violent things said in that discussion were not 
intended literally. The images on bearophile's site are *also* clearly 
fictional. Thus we don't mind either. But your comments against it were more 
serious.

If instead you had said something like "Argh! This whole furry movement 
makes me want to burn out my eyes and take a lawn-mower to every art 
institute in the tri-county area!" then we'd be clearly back in the realm of 
fiction again, and we'd all acknolegde your viewpoint on it, chuckle at the 
amusingly overstated comment, and silently agree to disagree. And if 
bearophile decided that he wanted to, he could think "Hmm, some people that 
are into the D content really don't like this other stuff, so I guess I 
could add some clearer separtion of topics". (Personally, it doesn't bother 
me the way it is, though.)

Or, as you've come to realize now, you could have said something like 
"Bearophile, I like your D content, but I find some of those images 
disturbing, and others might too. Maybe it would be a better site design to 
have a stronger separation of content." As I'm sure you realize, that would 
have achieved the same result I described in the paragraph above - but sadly 
without the "people chuckling at the amusingly overstated comment" part. I 
like having amusingly overstated comments to chuckle at ;-)

>
>> I find this post is not flamebait, but simply
>> intolerant.
>
>
> Yes, it is a form of intolerance.  Sometimes it must exist.  You have some 
> of it too... it's just at what point it is activated and how you act on 
> it. You assume violence always follows from intolerance.  It does only 
> from the those worldviews or personalities that believe such action is 
> justified. I abhore such.  But, using the "intolerance" accusation against 
> me is very weak method to discharge such activity, especially considering 
> the same accusation could be used for any government that allows votes on 
> matters.  You are intolerant every day.  You are intolerant of some D 
> designs.  The problem is, when we get to nitty gritty details of morality, 
> this consistancy ends with a bang... and suddenly nobody should argue, 
> discuss, or even consider the dangers of such things.
>
>
> Please stick to arguing that perhaps I was indiscrete or had poor 
> judgement in my original post and keep the suggestions (as you have) to 
> alternative modes of accomplishing the same task.  But don't give that 
> silly intolerance bit.  I've seen the same from all sides, and there's a 
> world of hypocracy wrapped in that statement.
>

Ok, here I do agree with you (and this is kind of a pet peeve I've had for a 
while).

Being against intolerance is a contradiction. A person who is against 
"intolerance" is automatically intolerant of at least one thing - namely, 
intolerance (ie, exactly the thing they're intolerant of). You just simply 
can't get away from intolerance without being tolerant of *everything*, 
including, but not limited to, every act of intolerance as well as every 
imaginable atrocity. Clearly, though, some things really just shouldn't be 
tolerated. Mass murder, for example. Or deliberately false and misleading 
advertising. Or really, really, really dumb language design ;)

So the meaningful question becomes not "Is this intolerance?" but rather 
"What is and isn't acceptable and to what degree?"
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gn9qp7$apa$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> A millennium ago, Europe was in the midst of the dark ages while all 
> scientific advances were made by Islamic scholars (know Algebra?), and the 
> christian world went on holy crusades to fight the evil "barbarians", now 
> a millennium later the wheel had turned and the Islamic world is in its 
> own dark-age (Iran is prime example of that) and the Islamic extremists 
> are calling for Jihad against the corrupt and evil heretics of the west. 
> Non of that is present in Judaism.
>

I'm no theology expert, but from what I understand, the Islamic concept of 
Jihad really refers to a person's internal good-vs-evil struggle, not an 
external struggle. The so-called "Muslims" that take Jihad to mean actually 
committing violence against other people are bastardizing thier own religion 
in the same way that some people bastardize Christianity into allegedly 
being pro-"white power".

> the only link between Judaism to Christianity is that supposedly Jesus was 
> Jewish.
>

Umm...Judaism and Christianity share an entire Bible. Of course, 
Christianity adds another Bible (the "New Testament") but they equally 
revere what they call the "Old Testament", which *is* the Jewish Bible. As 
part of that Bible, both religions contain The Ten Commandments, Moses, 
Abraham (this particular part also being shared by Islam), Adam and Eve, 
Noah's Ark, and probably some other things. I'm not sure where you get the 
idea that Jesus's religion is the only connection between Judaism and 
Christianity.
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:gn9qp7$apa$1@digitalmars.com...
>> A millennium ago, Europe was in the midst of the dark ages while all
>> scientific advances were made by Islamic scholars (know Algebra?), and the
>> christian world went on holy crusades to fight the evil "barbarians", now
>> a millennium later the wheel had turned and the Islamic world is in its
>> own dark-age (Iran is prime example of that) and the Islamic extremists
>> are calling for Jihad against the corrupt and evil heretics of the west.
>> Non of that is present in Judaism.
>>
>
> I'm no theology expert, but from what I understand, the Islamic concept of
> Jihad really refers to a person's internal good-vs-evil struggle, not an
> external struggle. The so-called "Muslims" that take Jihad to mean actually
> committing violence against other people are bastardizing thier own religion
> in the same way that some people bastardize Christianity into allegedly
> being pro-"white power".
>

Not quite so. Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam, and has about 4 
sub-categories one of which is _Jihad_by_sword_
here's a quote for example from 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad :
<quote>
Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimāt, divides Jihad into four kinds:

    "Jihad by the heart; Jihad by the tongue; Jihad by the hand and 
Jihad by the sword." He defines "Jihad by the tongue" as "to commend 
good conduct and forbid the wrong, like the type of Jihad Allah (swt) 
ordered us to fulfill against the hypocrites in His Words, “O Prophet! 
Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites” (Qur'an [Qur'an 
9:73]). Thus, Seraj and Ahmad Hendricks have expressed a view that 
Muhammad strove against the unbelievers by sword and against the 
hypocrites by tongue
</quote>

>> the only link between Judaism to Christianity is that supposedly Jesus was
>> Jewish.
>>
>
> Umm...Judaism and Christianity share an entire Bible. Of course,
> Christianity adds another Bible (the "New Testament") but they equally
> revere what they call the "Old Testament", which *is* the Jewish Bible. As
> part of that Bible, both religions contain The Ten Commandments, Moses,
> Abraham (this particular part also being shared by Islam), Adam and Eve,
> Noah's Ark, and probably some other things. I'm not sure where you get the
> idea that Jesus's religion is the only connection between Judaism and
> Christianity.
>
Christianity has mostly redefined out of existence most of the Jewish 
concepts if not all of them as they appear in the bible (the old 
testament), and the new testament which overrides the old one defines 
different, and contradicting new concepts.
Christians use different interpretations of the bible and the christian 
faith basically broke backwards compatibility (to borrow a software 
concept) with Judaism.
So you too believe in the story of Noah's Arc, well, the Inca had a 
similar story as well but the morals extracted from the same story are 
totally different and that's what really matters.
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:gn9qp7$apa$1@digitalmars.com...
>> A millennium ago, Europe was in the midst of the dark ages while all
>> scientific advances were made by Islamic scholars (know Algebra?), and the
>> christian world went on holy crusades to fight the evil "barbarians", now
>> a millennium later the wheel had turned and the Islamic world is in its
>> own dark-age (Iran is prime example of that) and the Islamic extremists
>> are calling for Jihad against the corrupt and evil heretics of the west.
>> Non of that is present in Judaism.
>>
>
> I'm no theology expert, but from what I understand, the Islamic concept of
> Jihad really refers to a person's internal good-vs-evil struggle, not an
> external struggle. The so-called "Muslims" that take Jihad to mean actually
> committing violence against other people are bastardizing thier own religion
> in the same way that some people bastardize Christianity into allegedly
> being pro-"white power".
>

Not quite so. Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam, and has about 4 
sub-categories one of which is _Jihad_by_sword_
here's a quote for example from 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad :
<quote>
Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimāt, divides Jihad into four kinds:

    "Jihad by the heart; Jihad by the tongue; Jihad by the hand and 
Jihad by the sword." He defines "Jihad by the tongue" as "to commend 
good conduct and forbid the wrong, like the type of Jihad Allah (swt) 
ordered us to fulfill against the hypocrites in His Words, “O Prophet! 
Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites” (Qur'an [Qur'an 
9:73]). Thus, Seraj and Ahmad Hendricks have expressed a view that 
Muhammad strove against the unbelievers by sword and against the 
hypocrites by tongue
</quote>

>> the only link between Judaism to Christianity is that supposedly Jesus was
>> Jewish.
>>
>
> Umm...Judaism and Christianity share an entire Bible. Of course,
> Christianity adds another Bible (the "New Testament") but they equally
> revere what they call the "Old Testament", which *is* the Jewish Bible. As
> part of that Bible, both religions contain The Ten Commandments, Moses,
> Abraham (this particular part also being shared by Islam), Adam and Eve,
> Noah's Ark, and probably some other things. I'm not sure where you get the
> idea that Jesus's religion is the only connection between Judaism and
> Christianity.
>
Christianity has mostly redefined out of existence most of the Jewish 
concepts if not all of them as they appear in the bible (the old 
testament), and the new testament which overrides the old one defines 
different, and contradicting new concepts.
Christians use different interpretations of the bible and the christian 
faith basically broke backwards compatibility (to borrow a software 
concept) with Judaism.
So you too believe in the story of Noah's Arc, well, the Inca had a 
similar story as well but the morals extracted from the same story are 
totally different and that's what really matters.
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
> You will be identified by what you associate with.  It's not a matter
> of passive "leave and let a guy have his space."  He chose to
> connect himself with the D language this way!

I think that asking him to adjust the root page and stuff relating to D might 
be reasonable, but a direct e-mail or a comment on his blog would be a better 
choice than a post here.

> In his favour:
>
> bearophile is polite and consistant in his approach to posting here.
> I appreciate that.  Now I *request* that he'll just take the step
> further and somehow help us not have any association of this material
> with D!
>
> Bearophile... you appear to have some supporters here, so you
> apparently have nothing to be ashamed of, although I disagree. But I
> think you are hurting D by allowing your lifestyle choices to be
> associated with the language design.  I ask you to please change this.
>

I will agree with you on this.
February 15, 2009
Re: way OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello Nick,

> Hee hee, I'd love too see a person attempt to accomplish something
> over a newsgroup with physical violence ;-) That would be quite an
> engineering feat.
> 

DARN YOU!!! Now I'm going to find my self trying to figure out how that could 
be done. OTOH it would make a good story.
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello John,

>> I'm fairly certain the majority of
>> programmers are a bit more open-minded than your average Bible-belt
>> soccer mom.
>> 
> Actually, they aren't.  They are just as open-minded.  They will
> defend their worldview quite stridently.  Of course, I haven't seen a
> "Bible-belt" soccer mom in action, so maybe that offers a bit more of
> a display than I'm familiar with.
> 

Nor have I seen a "Bible-belt" soccer mom in action but, yah /everyone/ has 
there issue:

<G> VI/emacs, tabs/spaces, 4-space/8-space tabs, NNTP/PHPBB, static/dynamic 
typing, airplains on a treadmill, need I go on? </G>
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home