[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:16:18PM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which 
> of these statements is most applicable:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html:
> "(religious fanatics - the one group that seems
> more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of
> 'Leet)"
> Is this about a tenet of the Christian faith?  No


> Is it a statement about organized religion or mind control? No

Semi-correct. It is a statement about a sub-set of organized religion (to
wit, the fanatical sub-set). But, technically, correct.

> Is It a statement about a Christian's belief?  No


> That only leaves one alternative.

Since you're fond of URLs:


(I believe that's even the website that keeps appearing in this thread)

I never claimed that the four statements I listed
covered all statements made. To do so would, in fact, be a ludicrous
statement. The statement above is not *any* of the four statements in my
previous email; it is a fifth statement (among even more than that, but I
can't be bothered to make a precise count; I simply know that it is no less
than six, because Ican think of at least one additional statement that has
been made).

Therefore, it does *not* leave only one alternative. It leaves at least
two, one of them being the exact statement made (granted, the statement was
made in a context of humor based on informal empirical observation, rather
than a rigorous scientific study, but since you have cited no such study to
refute it, and it's my damn mailbox, I stand by my right to summarize it as
I see it).

> Face it.  You're practicing hate speech.  You're not better than what 
> you hate.

As someone else already said, Godwin.

It may, or may not, be a true statement that I have authored or spoken a
statement that would qualify; in fact, given the number of things I have
said or typed over the years, many of them ill-advised, I probably HAVE
do so in at least one incident at some point, or something that could
reasonably be taken as such. However, the statement in question is not, and
in asserting that it is, you're attempting to argue from a point of emotion
rather than logic.

For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or
beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to
an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the
catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly
or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom
advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued
denial of civil rights as well.

It's certainly easy to *feel* like folks might just hate your beliefs,
and often you for having them, when they're willing to go that far.
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter                                       : :' :
                                                                     `. `'

Attachment: pgp0Iuu3v3d9C.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: