OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[John Reimer]

Hello Nick,

> "John Reimer" <terminal.node at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:28b70f8c143d88cb5d632bf3cd10 at news.digitalmars.com...
> 
>> 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 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. :)
>> 
> It was clear that the violent things said in that discussion were not
> intended literally. The images on bearophile's site are *also* clearly
> fictional. Thus we don't mind either. But your comments against it
> were more serious.
> 


Yes, they were serious.  The fact that they are fictional is not an argument 
for "right" as I expressed in other posts that brought other analogies into 
the spectrum to show that everyone will enforce their limits at some point, 
fictional or otherwise.


> If instead you had said something like "Argh! This whole furry
> movement makes me want to burn out my eyes and take a lawn-mower to
> every art institute in the tri-county area!" then we'd be clearly back
> in the realm of fiction again, and we'd all acknolegde your viewpoint
> on it, chuckle at the amusingly overstated comment, and silently agree
> to disagree. And if bearophile decided that he wanted to, he could
> think "Hmm, some people that are into the D content really don't like
> this other stuff, so I guess I could add some clearer separtion of
> topics". (Personally, it doesn't bother me the way it is, though.)
> 
> Or, as you've come to realize now, you could have said something like
> "Bearophile, I like your D content, but I find some of those images
> disturbing, and others might too. Maybe it would be a better site
> design to have a stronger separation of content." As I'm sure you
> realize, that would have achieved the same result I described in the
> paragraph above - but sadly without the "people chuckling at the
> amusingly overstated comment" part. I like having amusingly overstated
> comments to chuckle at ;-)
> 


Uh uh uh... don't gloat to quickly now. :)


You, Nick, are chuckling now perhaps because I have conceded some points 
here?  I don't think this or the content is a chuckling matter... but as 
you like.


Yes, I should have approached it the way you so adroitly expressed.  No, 
I don't think my comment was overstated concerning the seriousness of the 
material.  That's just your opinion based on your experience, Nick.  Some 
feel that because they have been exposed to much more serious material, that 
it lessons the "evil" of the so-called "lesser" forms of it ... this is what 
I would call the numbing factor.  You can appeal to this form of reasoning, 
but I wouldn't use it as an argument to define such limits for others.  I've 
seen a lot of dead people (maimed and otherwise) before, and thus have less 
of reaction than others to seeing death even if I greatly understand the 
significance of it.  This does not mean that I presume to think that all 
people share my desensitization to it.  In terms of things that are moral 
issues (even if fictional in form), I believe that you vastly underestimating 
the potential for damage and influence by public promotion of the material 
-- I would say your chuckling is careless.  I do ascribe my reasoning to 
the standards found in my worldview.  You appear to have nothing but personal 
experience to appeal to as a standard.  If this is the case, be prepared 
to see no possible way to define what is trully evil because everyone's level 
of experience will render some consensus almost impossible or temporary at 
best.


-JJR