February 17, 2009
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Daniel de Kok <me@danieldk.org> wrote:

> Shouldn't we talk about D or (Belgian) beer here? :^)

There are no parens about it.  It's either Belgian or it's not beer.  :D
February 17, 2009
> "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.759.1234883616.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Anonymous Coward
> <anonymous@cowards.org> wrote:
> >
> > Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> It takes a weak person to be harmed by words.
> >
> > Let me put it this way: if you've been picked on, put down, *hunted* by the people around you and generally treated as a sub-human piece of worthless garbage for over eight years of your life across both primary and secondary school, often with no friends or even acquaintances for years at a time and came out completely and utterly unscathed, then you are obviously a robot and won't mind when I remove your head.  Because otherwise you have NO FUCKING RIGHT to say that.
> >
> > If you've really gone through what I have and weren't affected, then I guess you're just a better person than I.
>
> I have to agree, 100%.

I *did* issue a clarification.


February 17, 2009
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> You're attributing more to the idea of "words" than just "words". What
> you're describing is harassment. Yes, harassment involves words, but it's
> clearly more than just words. Such scenarios are not what I'm talking about.
> (Granted, the "sticks and stones" adage is traditionally used to pacify kids
> that were the victims of name-calling, so maybe describing it that way was
> inaccurate after all.)
>
> What I'm talking about is illustrated by this:
> On some show/song/game/etc., some character says:
> "Why can't I get my CPU fan to work?!?"
> "Why can't I get my dang CPU fan to work?!?"
> "Why can't I get my fucking CPU fan to work?!?"
>
> The intent, scenario, action, everything, is exactly the same. The only
> difference is the words. No one that tunes in, listens, and remains unharmed
> by one of those is ever going to be harmed by one of the others unless
> there's something seriously wrong with them.
>
> Sure, words can be used in ways that can harm, but the harm doesn't come
> from the words themselves. I can do hurtful things that involve words
> without ever going near profanity. For example, go up to someone who is
> insecure about their acne and use these particular words: "I'm surprised you
> are willing to show that face in public." Of course, one could argue that
> this particular *combination* of words is profane, but even that's not true:
> I could recite that exact same arrangement to a good friend with a good
> sense of humor, or to a mask-painter who's unveiling a piece from a private
> collection they had previously been very secretive about. Same arrangement,
> same words, different acceptability-levels. Conversely, I can use profanity
> in a way that doesn't harm anyone. "Oh, fuck, I almost overslept." Words
> like "that" can be used in ways that are highly offensive, and words like
> "fuck" can be used in ways that are completely benign - any word can be used
> either way. So clearly, the words themselves can't be inherently good or
> bad.
>

in other words: "Human languages are context-sensitive while programming languages are context-free". Except C++ of course, but that's a bad example of a programming language <g>

context-sensitive means that you need to have both the context and the language phrase to derive "semantic" meaning.

it's obvious that for a specific context, a phrase can indeed be hurtful much more than physical violence. Anyone who says otherwise, is lying to himself/herself. Like Don said, words can and did cause wars (under a specific context, of course)..

just my 2 golden-pieces..
February 17, 2009
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Yigal Chripun <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote:
> context-sensitive means that you need to have both the context and the language phrase to derive "semantic" meaning.

No, context-sensitive refers to the left-hand side of a grammar (rewrite) rule. A CFG is restricted in the sense that the left hand side of a grammar rule can only be one non-terminal. The right hand side can contain terminals, non-terminal, and epsilons. E.g.:

NP --> Det N

is a valid CFG rule. An unrestricted grammar allows (one or more) terminals and non-terminals on the left hand side. A context-sensitive grammar is like an unrestricted grammar, but does not allow for epsilons on the left or right hand sides. Some surface strings can not be described by finite grammars that can be described by a context-free grammar, such as AnBn (n A's followed by n B's). Likewise, some surface strings can be described by an unrestricted grammar that can not be described by a context-free grammar (such as AnBnCn).

We're not talking semantics here, just surface strings ;). Of course, extracting semantics can be a side-effect of parsing.

Take care,
Daniel
February 17, 2009
Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>
>> True Jihad according to Islam is against non-believers (pagans) since
>> from Islamic point of view Jews and Christians are also believers of
>> Allah (albeit with different rituals).
>
> There are two categories of Jihad - greater Jihad and lesser Jihad.
> Greater Jihad is about fighting yourself, while Lesser Jihad is a
> warfare. According to Islam Law, Lesser Jihad can only declared by a
> leader of Islamic Country, i.e. the country where Islamic laws are
> technically considered to override laws of the state.
>
> There is no such country exists at this moment and thus no-one may start
> a Jihad.
>
> What you see now is a terrorism and has *absolutely* nothing to do with
> neither Jihad nor Islam.

a) many Islamic countries use the Shari'a (English spelling?) as the state law. Shari'a is the religious Islamic law as written in the Qur'an. Iran, Afghanistan, etc..

b) we're in agreement about Jihad since as I said - it is meant to convert non-believers and Jews and Christians do not fall under that category, therefore what is called today Jihad by extremist groups is in fact terrorism.

c) note that despite being "democratic", Iran has its "supreme leader", the ayatollah, which is the religious head of Iran that has the final say about everything. For instance, there are no women candidates in Iranian elections since all candidates must be approved by the religious council headed by the supreme leader and they obviously do not approve women to be in politics.

If the Iranian president which is the puppet of the supreme leader declares that Israel has no right to exist, should I be less worried since true Islam is about peace and hope?

Remember that according to Christianity Jesus preached to show the other cheek, how does that go together with the crusades?

>
>> Problems is that, Just like in Christianity there is no requirement to
>> actually *read* the book yourself.
>
> I don't agree. Not only there is a strong requirement to read it (I
> think you are talking about Quran, don't you?), each district where
> Muslims live should have at list one person who knows full text of the
> Holy Qur'an word-by-word.
>
>> Instead there's the religions representative (I forgot the title they
>> use) that peaches to the public.
>
> Yes, there are. There is a short homily before a pray once in a week (in
> Friday) in a mosque, that's it.
> Modern people are so busy that they spend little (if any) time to read
> books (of any kind), and that's a great opportunity for them to take a
> lesson.
>
>> It doesn't really matter nowadays what that book actually says since
>> hardly anyone reads it. what those extremist representatives say is
>> what Muhammad wants and that's it.
>

your disagreement above says the same thing I said before. There maybe is *one* person that knows the Qur'an by-heart in each district, but that does not reflect that the general population also knows what the Qur'an says.

I saw a documentary film about Muslim women in London - they show various cases but one very interesting one was of a young woman that her parents (immigrants from Pakistan) set her up to marry some old (and ugly according to her) merchant (because he will provide for her).

She refused and had an argument with her father that claimed that according to Islam - he has the right to decide for her whom she'll marry since he's the head of the family. she had the smarts to read the Qur'an herself and she read to him the verse that says that if a woman says no 3 times than the marriage is canceled. the shocked father hurried to the local mosque where the local priest (Imam?) took the father's side. she again read to them both the same verse from the Qur'an and the priest had no choice but to cancel the marriage.
  Today she's married to the man she actually loved and wanted to marry. and she's a head of a group of Muslim women with the agenda to educate Muslim women and save them from similar problems.

I can tell you that there are many similar cases here in Israel as well.
we have a plague of Muslim women being murdered by their families because their husbands/fathers/brothers suspect them as shaming the family honor. One recent case was due to the wishes of a 17 y/o that wanted to get a job. her brother stabbed her 27 times after her father encouraged him to do so.
Unfortunately, that's the current state of Muslim societies.

February 17, 2009
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.755.1234856377.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>>> "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.753.1234854114.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>>>
>>>> George Carlin.  Chris Rock.  South Park.  Never would have been accepted in the Leave-it-to-Beaver era.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh man, I would *hate* to be restricted to 50's era television shows like that. I'd feel like I was living in some crazy puritan-revival sect.
>>
>> Well, you're a product of your environment, so I guess that's not really surprising.
>>
>
> That's only true to a certain extent. There are plenty of things I've spent years completely surrounded by and never liked, and plenty of things that I liked immediately upon introduction. And I'd venture to say that's true of most people as well.

I didn't mean it was inevitable.  Just that given environment X, you're likely to find a bell curve around that environment's norms. So finding someone who agrees with current norms and not ones of 50 years ago is not surprising.  More surprising would be to hear a young person say "Oh golly gee, I sure wish we could go back to the 50's".

>>> I've felt for a while that the issue of profanity can be summed up a
>>> "People fall into one of two groups: Those who believe in the old 'sticks
>>> and stones' adage and those who don't." It takes a weak person to be
>>> harmed
>>> by words.
>>
>> I don't quite know what to say to that.   So you're saying you wouldn't mind if someone stood behind you uttering profanities all day long?  I would find that highly annoying and it would most certainly contribute to my stress levels.  Even if it weren't profanities it would be highly annoying.  So to say words can't harm you seems nonsense to me.  Sure words do not cause physical injury, but are physical injuries the only ones that matter?

> You're attributing more to the idea of "words" than just "words". What you're describing is harassment.

Or rather, you're attributing less to "words" than all that "words" suggests.  :-)  But ok I see what you meant to say better now.

> What I'm talking about is illustrated by this:
> On some show/song/game/etc., some character says:
> "Why can't I get my CPU fan to work?!?"
> "Why can't I get my dang CPU fan to work?!?"
> "Why can't I get my fucking CPU fan to work?!?"
>
> The intent, scenario, action, everything, is exactly the same. The only difference is the words. No one that tunes in, listens, and remains unharmed by one of those is ever going to be harmed by one of the others unless there's something seriously wrong with them.



> Sure, words can be used in ways that can harm, but the harm doesn't come from the words themselves. I can do hurtful things that involve words without ever going near profanity. For example, go up to someone who is insecure about their acne and use these particular words: "I'm surprised you are willing to show that face in public." Of course, one could argue that this particular *combination* of words is profane, but even that's not true: I could recite that exact same arrangement to a good friend with a good sense of humor, or to a mask-painter who's unveiling a piece from a private collection they had previously been very secretive about. Same arrangement, same words, different acceptability-levels. Conversely, I can use profanity in a way that doesn't harm anyone. "Oh, fuck, I almost overslept." Words like "that" can be used in ways that are highly offensive, and words like "fuck" can be used in ways that are completely benign - any word can be used either way. So clearly, the words themselves can't be inherently good or bad.

Ok, so sounds like you've decided that swearing like a sailor is perfectly A-OK as long as no harm is intended.   But here's the deal for me.  I, probably like many others, spent the first 18 years of my life having my parents and teachers tell me that that was wrong.  So no matter what you say, my "whoa that's wrong!" sensors go off every time I hear a profanity.  It's maybe like watching someone break in line -- even a line you're not standing in.  You see it, and your "that's just not right" sensors start going off.  It's not a great harm, no, but it brings about an elevated level of stress.  Or watching someone kick a puppy.   Or in another way it's like sitting in a restaurant where people are smoking.  To the other smokers in the room it probably seems like a pleasant environment but to most non-smokers it is very annoying and something that is hard to ignore.

So maybe you say, that's your problem, get over it.  Maybe so, but I don't really want to get over it.  There's no real redeeming value in casual swearing.  I don't believe society is any better off with everyone swearing at each other than it is with everyone being polite and respectful.  If I could choose my world to live in, I'd definitely choose the latter over the former.  I see no value in trying to push the envelope there, like South Park does.   Which is a bummer because South Park has some really funny stuff underneath all that cursing. But I just can't enjoy it.  I enjoy it much more when people tell me what happened in an episode without using all the swearing.  :-)

Maybe all this makes me some kind of freak outlier far to the right of current societal norms, but so far I don't see swearing becoming a big part of the nightly news or presidential addresses.  So I think it is still not considered proper to speak in that way by the majority of society.  What's really funny, though, is to meet people who have learned English primarily by watching American movies.  They seem to be under the impression that you need to put in a swear word every sentence or so in order to sound American.

On the other hand I do *not* wish to impose my preferences on others by force.  I believe firmly in free speech.  You can say whatever you please.  But just do not do so under the delusion that what you say and how you say it has no affect on others.

--bb
February 17, 2009
Daniel de Kok wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Yigal Chripun<yigal100@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> context-sensitive means that you need to have both the context and the
>> language phrase to derive "semantic" meaning.
>
> No, context-sensitive refers to the left-hand side of a grammar
> (rewrite) rule. A CFG is restricted in the sense that the left hand
> side of a grammar rule can only be one non-terminal. The right hand
> side can contain terminals, non-terminal, and epsilons. E.g.:
>
> NP -->  Det N
>
> is a valid CFG rule. An unrestricted grammar allows (one or more)
> terminals and non-terminals on the left hand side. A context-sensitive
> grammar is like an unrestricted grammar, but does not allow for
> epsilons on the left or right hand sides. Some surface strings can not
> be described by finite grammars that can be described by a
> context-free grammar, such as AnBn (n A's followed by n B's).
> Likewise, some surface strings can be described by an unrestricted
> grammar that can not be described by a context-free grammar (such as
> AnBnCn).
>
> We're not talking semantics here, just surface strings ;). Of course,
> extracting semantics can be a side-effect of parsing.
>
> Take care,
> Daniel

I was trying to be a bit more liberal than the strict mathematical definition since I was talking about human (natural) languages.
a context for natural languages contains more than what you described above. for instance, I can say the exact same sentence and reveres it's meaning by the intonation of my voice.
February 17, 2009
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Yigal Chripun <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was trying to be a bit more liberal than the strict mathematical definition since I was talking about human (natural) languages.

Sorry, I heard CFG and CSG and alarm lights went of ;).

> a context for natural languages contains more than what you described above. for instance, I can say the exact same sentence and reveres it's meaning by the intonation of my voice.

Indeed. For instance, in Dutch we can put the direct object in the sentence initial position. A classical example:

Elvis drinkt wijn (Elvis drinks wine)
Wijn drinkt Elvis (Wine drinks Elvis)

Depending on the intonation the second sentence either has the same meaning as the first sentence, or a very unlikely meaning ;). Of course, the fact that the verb 'drinken' tends to have a preference for having drinkable stuff as its direct object helps ;).

Of course, you may also be referring to rethorics ;).

Take care,
Daniel
February 17, 2009
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Daniel de Kok <me@danieldk.org> wrote:
> 
> > Shouldn't we talk about D or (Belgian) beer here? :^)
> 
> There are no parens about it.  It's either Belgian or it's not beer.  :D

Riiiight. What about Austrian, Polish and Czech beer? Those are AWESUM.
February 17, 2009
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Alexander Pánek <alexander.panek@brainsware.org> wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Daniel de Kok <me@danieldk.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Shouldn't we talk about D or (Belgian) beer here? :^)
>>
>> There are no parens about it.  It's either Belgian or it's not beer.  :D
>
> Riiiight. What about Austrian, Polish and Czech beer? Those are AWESUM.

Then you never had Duvel or La Chouffe :).