Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Hey Hey You You I don't like your [chat] Thread
Posts
I think the cover thing is right, but I don't know about "base of their recruitment".
So are you expressing tolerance or apathy?
I was never making a comment on what should or should not be, simply pointing out how.
--
Pony would love my last supervisor's Jew in Oven Jokes and Lazy Black Person jokes and stance that poor people should die and that slavery is okay if it is the Roman type.
In some ways I think that's healthier than nobody calling him on it.
GPL is freedom for the user, BSD is freedom for the developer. Everything further is which you feel is more important.
I would say that's tolerance. He's still willing to speak against their viewpoints if they're brought up, he's just willing to recognize that a person is more than one of their (usually multiple) viewpoints.
My father hates all muslims, he considers them all dangerous about to blow people up people. It's a topic I don't touch, if he wasn't my father I wouldn't talk with him.
I guess I'm pretty big on hating hippies and protesters.
There are several separate parts. But they absolutely are not divided on those lines.
There is the obvious distinction between the Tanakh or Old Testament and the new for example. Oddly enough, the textual history of the Old is far better than the new. There does not exist any portion of the NT which has not gone through at least one translation wheras the OT was preserved remarkably well in a range of dialects. This means there is no part of the NT that has not been homoginized and harmized via the translations process.
Even in the NT you have a pretty clear distinction between the 4 gospels (and John is a bit of an outlier) and sort-of-maybe Acts vs. the letters of Paul that might be genuine (the only bits dating prior to The War) vs. the half or so letters of paul inserted in the 2nd century vs the other letters and epsitles vs Revelations (which is exceedinly dubious).
But you will find within those in the same voice and hand the rules and sometimes the love. Paul was the one who wanted to bring the religion to the world and preached a brotherhood of all mankind. Yet he was also exceedingly homophobic. Jesus, in the same gospel, had both the sermon on the mount and the ranting against divorce.
You cannot separate one view from the other in the text. If you want to invent your own religion by cutting out the bits and pieces you like that's your perogotive of course. And a popular choice indeed. But at least be honest with yourself about what you are doing there. What you are choosing to believe has nothing to do with a fiery faith-healer from Nazerith. Or with the older roots in the Rider on the Clouds, YHWH of the mountain.
I know that. It doesn't stop them arguing over which philosophy is superior. This is why it's so funny.
if you're curious, this guy has a hell of a lot of interesting info on the low-level bits of OS X
http://www.kernelthread.com/
Except if he maintains a belief of tolerance "Pro-choice rather than Pro-Life" presumably maintaining that belief would manifest a desire to enact a Pro-choice policy.
If I am pro-choice and you are pro-life and I do not try to change your mind in what sense am I pro-choice?
I am saying it is right, and just, to judge and argue with at every oppertunity any person who votes in such a way as foster the ruin of other peoples lives.
Wow you know a lot about religion.
That's so interesting! I didn't know most of that!
We don't talk about it?
It's really that simple.
If a person's viewpoints on a subject infuriate you and it's impossible for you to have a meaningful discussion on the subject, the best bet is to just not talk about it.
If they act on those views, certainly that should be opposed and you should totally get all up on their asses about it.
But, for example, I know people who are anti-abortion and I'm still capable of being civil and friendly with them despite the fact that I think their views are terrible.
So long as they aren't like, actively showing up at anti-abortion protests and financially supporting the Right to Life movement or something.
I judge people by their actions, not their professed beliefs. And even with their actions, those are judged by their actual value and importance.
Obviously, while libertarians have terrible viewpoints and I oppose libertarianism, a guy who votes Ron Paul doesn't have a huge impact on the world so even though he is acting on his beliefs, it's not really on a level that I care about.
It’s just not knowledge I ever really have a use for, so I’ve forgotten a lot of it.
Because not every interaction with other people is an ideological clash?
Eh, BSD is more freedom for other developers and users, but the GPL gives the author "freedom" in Stallman's mind by giving the author rights to other people's work.
It's all very silly, as anything Stallman says is.
But I don't want to turn this into a whole Thing
You can do that for sure.
I'd just get bored, do you know how many people like that there are?
tonnes.
I hate writing first messages.
"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
You can be something without trying to convince others that it's the right way. As Pony said, he'll speak against their views when they come up, but he's not going to start needless trouble if they're not bringing up their different views all the time.
Not everything is about politics or polarizing, after all. It's possible to sit with someone who thinks differently than you and enjoy a cup of coffee or a game of Super Smash Brothers and not have it lead to a lines-are-drawn argument.
"Hey baby, you make me so lovesick that I'm coughing up blood."
Just go: :winky:
How?
If a person is beating their wife and you perceive it and do nothing? You condone their wife beating.
If a person maintains an anti-abortion stance and you do nothing? You condone their being anti-abortion.
How can you do that?
J, this might be hard for you to understand, and I get that...
...but it's possible for a person to hold a viewpoint or belief and not constantly feel the need to espouse it on people and try to change everyone's minds to what they think.
It's possible.
Ask them what their feelings are on cream-based pasta sauces.
How can one play Smash Brothers with someone who thinks that a rape victim needs to be forced to birth the resulting child?
This is important and relevant.
Alas, this is about the level of reply I should have expected. But still you dissapoint me Greeper. Perhaps you should be less careless about what you believe if this is the level of thought you put into it.
"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
lolwut
Easily.
See, I wouldn't do nothing about them beating their wife, I'd call the police or maybe hit them with a rusty tire iron until their blood made funny shapes.
But I would do nothing about an anti-abortion stance, because I do condone their ability to make that choice.
Arguing with them will do nothing. I'm not a particularly good argue-guy, so when you argue with someone, it's almost impossible to change their mind... hey wait, why the hell am I arguing with you, then?
How?
There was a survey a while back that found that fewer people than in the past now believe that the entertainment industry is run by Jews.
Which is odd, since the CEOs of ABC (Disney included), NBC (including Universal), CBS, Sony Music, Sony Pictures, and all of Sony, the head of the RIAA, etc. are ethnically Jewish, not that I have a problem with it.