February 16, 2009
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Bill Baxter <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:20 AM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Maffi, I still wish that you would find a solution that moves or removes your "furry" material or the D material elsewhere so that the two are not connected (including your blog that appears on D planet).
>
> I will second that.  I'm not interested in seeing posts about "furries" on Planet D.  Or posts about people's kids or people's rants on society, or political views, or C++, etc.
>
> To everyone with a mixed-use blog on Planet D:  Please put categories on your posts and tell Anders Bergh (anders1@foogmail.com-foo) how to subscribe to just the D-related categories.  I have done so for my techblog (and also posted the instructions about how to do a category-specific feed for anyone else who uses WordPress -- http://www.billbaxter.com/techblog/?p=27 ).
>

This explains how to get a tag specific feed for a LiveJournal blog:

http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=149


--bb
February 16, 2009
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:01:49 +0000, John Reimer wrote:

> Hello Steve,
> 
>> This is the same kind of attitude, John, that brought about the death of Alan Turing.
> 
> 
> 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'm just pointing out the similarities.  Of course there are differences in the case of Alan Turing, but I don't think I have to know you to interpret your post?  You don't like the furry creature drawings (or specifically one drawing, which supposedly depicts something "close" to beastiality), and I get that.  But suggesting that someone's artistic preference should preclude them from contributing to D is in my mind a form of discrimination, and it seems uncalled for.  I agree with Nick about how you should have gone about this, and I'm glad you see that now.

> 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. :)

I didn't read that discussion, so I can't really say how I would have reacted.  But suggesting physical harm on a newsgroup is far less realistic than suggesting removal of pics or links.  Sounds backwards, but it's true.  People rant in the most dramatic way imaginable, and it seems certain people have no qualms about how they talk on a forum, but if you talked to them in person, they probably are very tame people.  I don't think it's the numbness effect as you put it, but really the general assumption that people talking about hurting others (again, I don't have any context, so I'm not sure what was suggested) are generally speaking from an orifice other than their mouth, and generally don't put as much time and effort into their posts as you did.  As one other poster put it, it would be very difficult to physically harm someone through a newsgroup ;)

> 
>> 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.

Yes, I think intolerance of cruelty and harm is in order.  Intolerance of peoples preferences is BS.  Yes, that's my opinion, and not necessarily the "Right view," but I can state my opinion just as easily as you can, and if you feel you are justified, it probably does nothing to change your mind to argue with you.

No I don't assume violence always follows from intolerance.  If you are referring to my Turing reference, he committed suicide after his career was ruined when the government found out he was a homosexual.  So it's not violence that caused his death, but simply everyone telling him that he had no right to exist the way he did, or make a living at something totally unrelated to his sexual preference.  Unfortunately for the computer world, sexual equality did not exist back then, or Turing may have done a hundred more amazing things in his lifetime.

>  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,

I'm not suggesting you are a violent person, or one that hates people that like furries (a term which BTW I was as ignorant about as you were).  But your suggestion of limiting access or contributions based on a preference for art is disturbing to me, and I thought it would help if you saw it from that point of view.

> 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.

I think we are having a discussion right now about it.  I don't think the way you brought it up was very kind or proper.  You surely could have brought it up in a way that would have fostered a better discussion of the *merits* of your beliefs versus the way you announced them.

> 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.

As long as you give up the belief that links to furrys should not be associated with D :)

>> If I posted a picture of Jesus nailed to a cross on my blog, along with my D code, and somebody found it offensive, would you agree that I should be forced to remove this picture because it depicts murder?
>> 
>> 
> 
> False analogy.  However, someone may request you to remove it... and you may do it out of courtesy or you may not.  I guarantee you there would be something that /would/ most certainly make you back away from any association with a site if you really thought about it.  Naturally we all have our limits... you are just refusing to admit it.

I'm not refusing to admit it.  I would absolutely refuse to associate myself with people who I know were doing criminal activities or were harming others.  I appreciate that you do not want to be associated with furries, that is your call.

>> Bearophile's art did not hurt anyone or any animal, it is a *drawing*. Let's get back to more constructive programming discussion, and leave the bible study class at home, ok John?  If you feel offended by the link to bearophile's blog, contact Andrei or Walter directly, and petition them.  It matters not what we think, but if anything you most certainly have solidified in Walter and Andrei's eyes the case against your wishes.
>> 
>> 
> 
> There was no Bible-study done here, Steve.  I believe it was practically minded and argued.  But it is convenient for people to repeatedly make that accusation to religion when they don't have a better argument.

I didn't necessarily mean literally Bible study :)  Your views just remind me of that type of thing.  I probably should have left that part out, sorry.

-Steve
February 16, 2009
"Steve Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gnakdh$19a9$2@digitalmars.com...
>
> If you are
> referring to my Turing reference, he committed suicide after his career
> was ruined when the government found out he was a homosexual.

That's really interesting. I had absolutely no idea about any of that.

> I'm not suggesting you are a violent person, or one that hates people that like furries (a term which BTW I was as ignorant about as you were).

Since some of the people here appear to dislike "furry" content, but weren't aware of the term, I thought I should point out that "yiffy" is another common term for the same thing. Just so you're aware and don't accidentally click on something with that label someday and get a big surprise.

>
> As long as you give up the belief that links to furrys should not be associated with D :)
>

The closet rebel in me can't help but be tempted to make a risque' drawing involving the anthropomorphic D mascot. And maybe toss in Tux, the BSD deamon, an...apple...and...umm...a window, I guess...to like, symbolize cross-platform harmony...or something...and stuff...dude.

But fortunately for everyone, I can't draw ;)


February 16, 2009
Yigal Chripun wrote:
> 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.

You seem to be assuming that modern Judaism is identical to first-century Judaism. It clearly isn't. In particular, (1) the destruction of the temple required significant "breaking of backward compatibility" (not to anywhere near the same extent as Christianity, of course), and (2) Orthodox Judaism recognizes the Talmud, which was written down later than the New Testament.

Also Christianity retains the Tanakh(Old Testament) word-for-word and regards it as authoritative. This put strict limits on the extent of possible divergence.

So to some extent it's a relationship like:

    |
    |Tanakh
    |
   / \_
   |   \_
  /      \_
 /         \
Judaism  Christianity

Also Islam inherits concepts from the Talmud, as well as things from the New Testament, so it's not a "single inheritance" situation at all. It's as messy as C++ code involving virtual inheritance.

Actually it'd be pretty interesting to model it in code <g>. The Tanakh (Old Testament) involves a number of virtual functions and a lot of code. Christianity and modern Judaism inherit all of the code from it, Islam only inherits the interfaces.
February 16, 2009
Don wrote:
> I'm glad to hear you're still around. I did feel your colourful language often obscured your content (which was frequently of very high quality).
> I miss the content. (Not the language so much <g>).

I seriously doubt superdan uses profanity to offend.

He's got an ear for dialog, and the wit to write in a style that is a parody of those that use profanity. I think it's hilarious and enjoy reading it.

P.S. 30 years ago, I went to an art house to see "Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes" (Aguirre, the Wrath of God) in German, subtitled in English. There's one scene where it seemed for a full minute a conquistador was yelling at his horse. Eventually, a subtitle appeared which simply said "You damned horse." When that appeared, two people in the theater laughed, including me, as I knew enough German to know that he'd been swearing at the horse in a most foul and thorough manner <g>.
February 16, 2009
Don wrote:
> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> You seem to be assuming that modern Judaism is identical to first-century Judaism. It clearly isn't. In particular, (1) the destruction of the temple required significant "breaking of backward compatibility" (not to anywhere near the same extent as Christianity, of course), and (2) Orthodox Judaism recognizes the Talmud, which was written down later than the New Testament.
> 
> Also Christianity retains the Tanakh(Old Testament) word-for-word and regards it as authoritative. This put strict limits on the extent of possible divergence.

Divergence of belief in the historical content of the text, yes. (I know that Christianity has some divergence on whether the text is completely and literally accurate in all aspects. I don't know whether there are any young-earth creationists among non-Christian Jews, or anything like that.)

However, there are a lot of commandments given down regarding what is clean and unclean, and how to distinguish, and treatment for being unclean in various ways. That is universally ignored. Doctors do better at healing people than priests who follow the Torah exactly. In case of an infestation of mold in your house, you are going to call someone who specializes in that issue, and they're not going to follow the Torah, even if they are the strictest of orthodox Jews. And I haven't seen any Christian who felt compelled to avoid eating shellfish due to biblical restrictions.

I don't know many ultra-Orthodox Jews; do any of you know a Jew who would go to his priest regarding a rash before he would go to a doctor?
February 16, 2009
Steve Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:42:17 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
>> BCS wrote:
>>> Hello Andrei,
>>>
>>>> Let me add one too: there/their.
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oops :(
>>> I don't /think/ I'm dyslexic :b
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That lysdexia is a killer isn't it :o).
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> dyslexics of the world untie!!!

I put the SEX in DYSLEXIA!
February 16, 2009
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:28:33 +0300, Christopher Wright <dhasenan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Don wrote:
>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>> 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.
>>  You seem to be assuming that modern Judaism is identical to first-century Judaism. It clearly isn't. In particular, (1) the destruction of the temple required significant "breaking of backward compatibility" (not to anywhere near the same extent as Christianity, of course), and (2) Orthodox Judaism recognizes the Talmud, which was written down later than the New Testament.
>>  Also Christianity retains the Tanakh(Old Testament) word-for-word and regards it as authoritative. This put strict limits on the extent of possible divergence.
>
> Divergence of belief in the historical content of the text, yes. (I know that Christianity has some divergence on whether the text is completely and literally accurate in all aspects. I don't know whether there are any young-earth creationists among non-Christian Jews, or anything like that.)
>
> However, there are a lot of commandments given down regarding what is clean and unclean, and how to distinguish, and treatment for being unclean in various ways. That is universally ignored. Doctors do better at healing people than priests who follow the Torah exactly. In case of an infestation of mold in your house, you are going to call someone who specializes in that issue, and they're not going to follow the Torah, even if they are the strictest of orthodox Jews. And I haven't seen any Christian who felt compelled to avoid eating shellfish due to biblical restrictions.
>

I know one - Jesus.

There is also "Jews for Jesus" organization that follow kosher diet.
And I've also heard of christian old-believers in Russia that don't eat pork and shellfish.

> I don't know many ultra-Orthodox Jews; do any of you know a Jew who would go to his priest regarding a rash before he would go to a doctor?

I've heard many Jews refuse to do the blood transfusion even if it costs them their life.
February 16, 2009
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> The closet rebel in me can't help but be tempted to make a risque' drawing involving the anthropomorphic D mascot. And maybe toss in Tux, the BSD deamon, an...apple...and...umm...a window, I guess...to like, symbolize cross-platform harmony...or something...and stuff...dude.
> 
> But fortunately for everyone, I can't draw ;) 

LOL
February 16, 2009
Hello Walter,

> Don wrote:
> 
>> I'm glad to hear you're still around. I did feel your colourful
>> language often obscured your content (which was frequently of very
>> high quality). I miss the content. (Not the language so much <g>).
>> 
> I seriously doubt superdan uses profanity to offend.
> 
> He's got an ear for dialog, and the wit to write in a style that is a
> parody of those that use profanity. I think it's hilarious and enjoy
> reading it.
> 


Ugh... Superdan, I can echo Don's sentiments.... but pleeease don't take Walter too seriously on this one (even though I'm sure he's serious).  If you can accomplish it without the profanity, maybe that's even wittier. :)


Walter, I've heard a lot of arguments for defending the expression of "art", but this one's a doosie.  But this is the D newsgroup, and we're all entitled to our opinion... yay.  


I guess I'm kind of getting the picture:  I'm like a fish out of water here. *slaps himself on forehead*...  stupid me... I suppose that's a good laugh. :P 


-JJR