OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Steve Schveighoffer]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:01:49 +0000, John Reimer wrote:

> Hello Steve,
> 
>> This is the same kind of attitude, John, that brought about the death
>> of Alan Turing.
> 
> 
> That's a strong accusation, Steve, without knowing me; it's a very hasty
> reduction for circumstances, personalities, and factors you are quite
> unfamiliar with.

I'm just pointing out the similarities.  Of course there are differences 
in the case of Alan Turing, but I don't think I have to know you to 
interpret your post?  You don't like the furry creature drawings (or 
specifically one drawing, which supposedly depicts something "close" to 
beastiality), and I get that.  But suggesting that someone's artistic 
preference should preclude them from contributing to D is in my mind a 
form of discrimination, and it seems uncalled for.  I agree with Nick 
about how you should have gone about this, and I'm glad you see that now.

> I didn't see you mention this sort of thing while
> people were talking about physically harming the internet marketer's in
> horrible ways in the javascript discussion. :)

I didn't read that discussion, so I can't really say how I would have 
reacted.  But suggesting physical harm on a newsgroup is far less 
realistic than suggesting removal of pics or links.  Sounds backwards, 
but it's true.  People rant in the most dramatic way imaginable, and it 
seems certain people have no qualms about how they talk on a forum, but 
if you talked to them in person, they probably are very tame people.  I 
don't think it's the numbness effect as you put it, but really the 
general assumption that people talking about hurting others (again, I 
don't have any context, so I'm not sure what was suggested) are generally 
speaking from an orifice other than their mouth, and generally don't put 
as much time and effort into their posts as you did.  As one other poster 
put it, it would be very difficult to physically harm someone through a 
newsgroup ;)

> 
>> I find this post is not flamebait, but simply intolerant.
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a form of intolerance.  Sometimes it must exist.  You have
> some of it too... it's just at what point it is activated and how you
> act on it.
>   You assume violence always follows from intolerance.

Yes, I think intolerance of cruelty and harm is in order.  Intolerance of 
peoples preferences is BS.  Yes, that's my opinion, and not necessarily 
the "Right view," but I can state my opinion just as easily as you can, 
and if you feel you are justified, it probably does nothing to change 
your mind to argue with you.

No I don't assume violence always follows from intolerance.  If you are 
referring to my Turing reference, he committed suicide after his career 
was ruined when the government found out he was a homosexual.  So it's 
not violence that caused his death, but simply everyone telling him that 
he had no right to exist the way he did, or make a living at something 
totally unrelated to his sexual preference.  Unfortunately for the 
computer world, sexual equality did not exist back then, or Turing may 
have done a hundred more amazing things in his lifetime.

>  It does only
>   from
> the those worldviews or personalities that believe such action is
> justified.
>  I abhore such.  But, using the "intolerance" accusation against me is
>  very
> weak method to discharge such activity,

I'm not suggesting you are a violent person, or one that hates people 
that like furries (a term which BTW I was as ignorant about as you 
were).  But your suggestion of limiting access or contributions based on 
a preference for art is disturbing to me, and I thought it would help if 
you saw it from that point of view.

> especially considering the same
> accusation could be used for any government that allows votes on
> matters.  You are intolerant every day.  You are intolerant of some D
> designs.  The problem is, when we get to nitty gritty details of
> morality, this consistancy ends with a bang... and suddenly nobody
> should argue, discuss, or even consider the dangers of such things.

I think we are having a discussion right now about it.  I don't think the 
way you brought it up was very kind or proper.  You surely could have 
brought it up in a way that would have fostered a better discussion of 
the *merits* of your beliefs versus the way you announced them.

> Please stick to arguing that perhaps I was indiscrete or had poor
> judgement in my original post and keep the suggestions (as you have) to
> alternative modes of accomplishing the same task.  But don't give that
> silly intolerance bit.  I've seen the same from all sides, and there's a
> world of hypocracy wrapped in that statement.

As long as you give up the belief that links to furrys should not be 
associated with D :)

>> If I posted a picture of Jesus nailed to a cross on my blog, along with
>> my D code, and somebody found it offensive, would you agree that I
>> should be forced to remove this picture because it depicts murder?
>> 
>> 
> 
> False analogy.  However, someone may request you to remove it... and you
> may do it out of courtesy or you may not.  I guarantee you there would
> be something that /would/ most certainly make you back away from any
> association with a site if you really thought about it.  Naturally we
> all have our limits... you are just refusing to admit it.

I'm not refusing to admit it.  I would absolutely refuse to associate 
myself with people who I know were doing criminal activities or were 
harming others.  I appreciate that you do not want to be associated with 
furries, that is your call.

>> Bearophile's art did not hurt anyone or any animal, it is a *drawing*.
>> Let's get back to more constructive programming discussion, and leave
>> the bible study class at home, ok John?  If you feel offended by the
>> link to bearophile's blog, contact Andrei or Walter directly, and
>> petition them.  It matters not what we think, but if anything you most
>> certainly have solidified in Walter and Andrei's eyes the case against
>> your wishes.
>> 
>> 
> 
> There was no Bible-study done here, Steve.  I believe it was practically
> minded and argued.  But it is convenient for people to repeatedly make
> that accusation to religion when they don't have a better argument.

I didn't necessarily mean literally Bible study :)  Your views just 
remind me of that type of thing.  I probably should have left that part 
out, sorry.

-Steve