Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
firstname.lastname@example.org (Joel Baker) wrote on 17.12.03 in <[🔎] 20031218033907.GA99374@spawn.mnemosyne-consulting.com>:
> 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.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet I can guess what exactly it is - what the
Anglicans are currently in not-quite-civil-war about.
Of course, don't expect Nunya to ever get it.