Nonsense. How else would a language change? A few people say something that other people think is cool or trendy or funny, sooner or later everybody's saying it.
The four people on Earth who are still concerned about the integrity of Latin are outvoted.
If you like a vegan diet because it works well with your digestion, or if it suits your ethical structure, or if it Just Makes You Feel Good, then I think that's just great. More power to you! I'm glad you've found a diet that suits your needs.
If, on the other hand, you think I should like a vegan diet for any of those reasons, I'll invite you to mind your own business.
Humans have evolved on an omnivorous diet. Suggesting that they shouldn't eat that diet requires more than just rhetoric. I want to see science. (Suggesting that you don't like to eat that diet, of course, is your business entirely, and I have nothing to do with that!)
More like "The English-speaking world is the English-speaking world, and within it, Christianity is the norm and not the exception."
It's silly to have to preface any conversation about literature with an extensive discussion of scope. OF COURSE Lewis wasn't talking to or about aboriginal people from the island of Yap. He was speaking, in English, about his society. He was not excluding anybody, unless you proceed from the assumption that all communication must be exhaustively tailored for any given recipient.
I enjoy watching Hong Kong movies. I don't expect them to cater to my American sensibilities (as a matter of fact, insofar as there exist "American sensibilities", I don't much like them when they do).
Hidden premises? What, should he have said in the introduction "Well gosh, I know I'm a Christian, and I respect your rights to believe differently, and (unfortunately) I speak English and not your language, so I apologize profusely for that, and er um I'm so sorry I'm a white guy."?
Come on. Diversity is great. Homogeneity is boring. Any piece of literature is "exclusive" in the sense that it represents the viewpoints of one (ONE!) human being. You don't need a disclaimer to understand that...just a reasonably good brain.
OK, you get back to me when you've re-architected property law in the United States to reflect its inherent oppressive nature. No, go ahead: I'm curious to see how far you get.
What's the difference between me hunting deer in season on my own property, and me allowing other people to do the same thing with a robot? Answer me that, and we've got a good discussion.
Making a new law because something makes you feel icky is not a good idea.
A creationist? You're mad. "Designed" by millions of years of not dying.
Herbivores have big, flat, grindy teeth. You've got some of those too. But to imply that a vegan diet is somehow more "natural" is silly, because you've got the counter-argument embedded in your skull.
"and of course mainstream America still has the more subtle anti-Jewish sentiment,"
Must be real subtle, because I haven't the vaguest clue what you're talking about. Isn't it mainstream America's weaponry and support that keeps Israel from being a parking lot?
Call me crazy, but I'd guess that the public stance of some fundamentalists does not reflect the beliefs of the body of "Christianity", which (you might note) comprises a rather large number of people.
And, while we're on the subject of having a big head about how correct/right one's beliefs are, I refer you to the proliferation of fundamentalist Muslim elementary and secondary schools. They're not exactly the bastion of open minded liberal thinking.
Fundamentalists who think they know better than I do are a) dangerous and b) wrong. They're also harmless, unless they get a hold of an AK-47, an airliner, or a major Western democracy.
"If you look at God for once, and his act for love shown on the cross, you see a different story."
I totally disagree.
How many times do you hear about people risking themselves, sacrificing themselves, for other people? Happens ALL. THE. TIME. I don't believe for a moment that Christ wanted us to hate ourselves because we were created imperfect.
If you think the Passion and Resurrection are what is significant about Christ, I think you're a poor student of His teachings.
My church offered an excellent and comprehensive sex education class. I learned a lot in that class, and no, they didn't beat the "abstinence" drum mercilessly. They did beat a "responsibility" drum, which I thought was quite appropriate.
So I think you're tarring with a rather large brush there, friend.
Why would you dislike my flavor of Christianity, whose pursuit is MINE and has nothing whatsoever to do with you, and I really don't care if you ever adopt it or not?
Why do you feel the need to dislike something that other people do, when it has zero impact on your existence?
Slashdot Mirror
My only moral obligation is to not restrain the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness of any other person.
Nobody is entitled to my charity. I give my charity freely, ON MY OWN TERMS.
Yes, it is Nice to be Virtuous. However, a moral obligation to share? Don't think so.
Hmmm...how much lower indeed?
It's almost like people want something other than low cost from their software. I think I'll call it...Freedom!
Quick, where's my patent attorney?
Identify myself to a duly authorized officer of the law, with probable cause? Sure.
Identify myself to any jackass who thinks they have the right to know who I am? Hell no.
Please define the moral obligation of sharing.
Be specific.
Because practical solutions to problems interest me. Silly, not-practical stuff like this does not.
Do what you want to. I think experimentation fine. Get back to me when it's usable.
Nonsense. How else would a language change? A few people say something that other people think is cool or trendy or funny, sooner or later everybody's saying it.
The four people on Earth who are still concerned about the integrity of Latin are outvoted.
If you like a vegan diet because it works well with your digestion, or if it suits your ethical structure, or if it Just Makes You Feel Good, then I think that's just great. More power to you! I'm glad you've found a diet that suits your needs.
If, on the other hand, you think I should like a vegan diet for any of those reasons, I'll invite you to mind your own business.
Humans have evolved on an omnivorous diet. Suggesting that they shouldn't eat that diet requires more than just rhetoric. I want to see science. (Suggesting that you don't like to eat that diet, of course, is your business entirely, and I have nothing to do with that!)
I'm not reacting to your post, I'm reacting to your sig. You can tell, because that's the part I quoted.
I'd love for you to explain how your sig could be construed as anything other than unfriendly.
More like "The English-speaking world is the English-speaking world, and within it, Christianity is the norm and not the exception."
It's silly to have to preface any conversation about literature with an extensive discussion of scope. OF COURSE Lewis wasn't talking to or about aboriginal people from the island of Yap. He was speaking, in English, about his society. He was not excluding anybody, unless you proceed from the assumption that all communication must be exhaustively tailored for any given recipient.
I enjoy watching Hong Kong movies. I don't expect them to cater to my American sensibilities (as a matter of fact, insofar as there exist "American sensibilities", I don't much like them when they do).
Hidden premises? What, should he have said in the introduction "Well gosh, I know I'm a Christian, and I respect your rights to believe differently, and (unfortunately) I speak English and not your language, so I apologize profusely for that, and er um I'm so sorry I'm a white guy."?
Come on. Diversity is great. Homogeneity is boring. Any piece of literature is "exclusive" in the sense that it represents the viewpoints of one (ONE!) human being. You don't need a disclaimer to understand that...just a reasonably good brain.
I'm NOT familiar with this, nor would I wish to be. I wouldn't have anything to do with a club like that.
I really don't believe that reflects the majority opinion. I really do believe that institutionalized bigotry is, by and large, dead.
Uh, no. That would be against those laws pertaining to theft, murder and mayhem. You're very confused.
I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.
"I've been working here for 16 months now, with an administrator Windows account, and have yet to have a single spyware / virus on my machine"
How nice for you.
"you remain in control and stuff doesn't install automagically"
Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
OK, you get back to me when you've re-architected property law in the United States to reflect its inherent oppressive nature. No, go ahead: I'm curious to see how far you get.
What's the difference between me hunting deer in season on my own property, and me allowing other people to do the same thing with a robot? Answer me that, and we've got a good discussion.
Making a new law because something makes you feel icky is not a good idea.
"Which isn't true (or even valid)."
In his society, in his LANGUAGE, it WAS true and valid. You're having a different conversation.
You got "crazy", I was going for "funny and irreverant". Whoops.
A creationist? You're mad. "Designed" by millions of years of not dying.
Herbivores have big, flat, grindy teeth. You've got some of those too. But to imply that a vegan diet is somehow more "natural" is silly, because you've got the counter-argument embedded in your skull.
You do understand that the vast majority of Christians don't have any interest whatsoever in what you do, right?
There are some noisy ones. They annoy me too. But, again, you're tarring with a broad brush.
"and of course mainstream America still has the more subtle anti-Jewish sentiment,"
Must be real subtle, because I haven't the vaguest clue what you're talking about. Isn't it mainstream America's weaponry and support that keeps Israel from being a parking lot?
"Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children."
And you, of course, are Above All That. Thank you for gracing us unwashed with your presence, O enlightened one!
Jesus. If you don't like the discussion, please don't feel obligated to continue it.
I've had knock-down drag out FIGHTS with people on these boards, but I also learn. If you don't, why do you come back here? To feel superior?
I don't hate homosexuals, even though one was mean to me once. Why would you hate "Christianity"? Seems pretty bigoted to me.
But what the hell do I know? I'm just some white guy. I obviously don't get to talk about bigotry. How dare I?
OK, I'm going out on a limb here.
Call me crazy, but I'd guess that the public stance of some fundamentalists does not reflect the beliefs of the body of "Christianity", which (you might note) comprises a rather large number of people.
And, while we're on the subject of having a big head about how correct/right one's beliefs are, I refer you to the proliferation of fundamentalist Muslim elementary and secondary schools. They're not exactly the bastion of open minded liberal thinking.
Fundamentalists who think they know better than I do are a) dangerous and b) wrong. They're also harmless, unless they get a hold of an AK-47, an airliner, or a major Western democracy.
I'm a Methodist too, and Bush is a fucking loony.
His religion has very, very little to do with mine.
"But if I believe that you are in danger of eternal damnation, I'm supposed to sit around and wait for you to discover it on your own?"
My "salvation" is my own affair. I'll thank you to keep your nose out of it.
I am a Christian. I believe in the teachings of Jesus. I strongly dislike evangelical, charismatic "interpretations" of those teachings.
"You may not like folks trying to make religious appeals to you, but you need to at least give them the purity of their motives."
No. I resent their implication that I need them to get "saved". I do not. I walk with God, and I do not need or welcome your Intervention.
"If you look at God for once, and his act for love shown on the cross, you see a different story."
I totally disagree.
How many times do you hear about people risking themselves, sacrificing themselves, for other people? Happens ALL. THE. TIME. I don't believe for a moment that Christ wanted us to hate ourselves because we were created imperfect.
If you think the Passion and Resurrection are what is significant about Christ, I think you're a poor student of His teachings.
My church offered an excellent and comprehensive sex education class. I learned a lot in that class, and no, they didn't beat the "abstinence" drum mercilessly. They did beat a "responsibility" drum, which I thought was quite appropriate.
So I think you're tarring with a rather large brush there, friend.
Why would you dislike my flavor of Christianity, whose pursuit is MINE and has nothing whatsoever to do with you, and I really don't care if you ever adopt it or not?
Why do you feel the need to dislike something that other people do, when it has zero impact on your existence?