[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 07:25:11PM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> "Straw man" means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is 
> preciesly what you are doing here.

Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the
stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and
Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect
of Christianity under most circumstances, but drawing from the same
traditions). Somehow, though, I find this unlikely. I haven't bothered to
look closely at the smaller and more fundamentalist sects. The Unitarians
might have a different position; they seem the most likely. But they don't
have enough voting members to succeed against the above.

Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your
claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it
stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing.

> You all are so blatantly just stating your opinions as objective fact, 
> so it's pretty hopeless.  I've tried to appeal to your sense of "fair 
> treatment" to all humans, which is a sentiment common to all decent 
> people.

Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the
large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed
religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the
population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when
they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of
those institutions and their followers.

> I don't need to attack you: you're attitudes will turn off a sufficient 
> percentage of people on their own.

I cannot respond to this in any fashion that is anything except pointless
invective. While it would relieve some tension for me, it wouldn't really
serve any long-term purpose. So, instead, I'll remove the source of
tension.
-- 
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter                                       : :' :
                                                                     `. `'
				                                       `-

Attachment: pgp2lZh8O_KWA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: