Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I can't tell you how many times I have told people we are not a "democracy" but a "republic". *sigh*
    • And in reading the Web site, I see that they raise this piont, too. In fact, it's the entire point of the site, so your comment is particularly ill-placed. They do attempt to address my question and raise some interesting points, but much of the site is a collection of lies and half-truths. Much of it's pretty offensive.

      And to be clear: I do think the distinction between democracy and republic is important, but most of the time people issue that correction, it seems irrelevant to the topic at hand. T

      • Much of it's pretty offensive.

        Huh? I can understand disagreeing with the content, but being offended by it? What, exactly, offended you? Sounds to me like you get offended too easily.

        I'm regularly subjected to content I disagree with, and I believe I benefit from the exposure. You generally have to try hard to offend me.

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
        • I found the writing offensive because I find lies that promote bigotry and intolerance to be offensive. For example, their argument against multiculturalism is that if the concept was valid "there wouldn’t be such a tremendous number of people worldwide wanting to take up residency in the United States..." This "rebuttal" to multiculturalism is typical of people who pervert the argument, whether knowingly or not. Many of the people trying to get over to the United States are doing so for money or t

          • by jdavidb (1361) on 2005.05.16 15:02 (#40443) Homepage Journal

            I found the writing offensive because I find lies that promote bigotry and intolerance to be offensive.

            Amazing. I still think I'm not bigotted or intolerant, despite having read the site. It can't be promoting bigotry or intolerance that well, then.

            I think perhaps you read more into the site than it actually said.

            their argument against multiculturalism

            I didn't see an argument against multiculturalism. I saw an argument against compulsory multiculturalism.

            Real multiculturalism is when you simply take your hands off of other peoples' culture and let them develop on their own. You'll get a much better blend of flavors in the melting pot that way.

            For the record, I'm often heard to remark that I wish people would quit going on about making English the "official language" so that we can just let society and culture sort it out. I'm looking forward to grandchildren who switch smoothly between English and Spanish (and who knows what) without even noticing.

            Naturally, I wasn't surprised when I discovered the author further went on to call for limiting immigration.

            I've got to admit I'm not in favor of limited immigration, either, but I know many people who seem to feel that way. But then, I'm also not in favor of restricting jobs from moving out of the country.

            For me the only two concerns making me want limits on immigration for the present are the socialism in the United States and some security concerns that I expect to resolve themselves in a few years.

            And let's consider the author's take on freedom of religion:

            All I read is that the author wants absolute freedom of religion, which would allow all kinds of things that I presume you think he is "intolerant" of.

            Outlawing Christianity? Calling the worldview "illegal hate speech?"

            Honestly, there are those who feel that way and want laws passed. There are those who would try to interfere with persons who practice completely legal Christianity passing on those completely legal beliefs and practices to their children because they are "intolerant." Thankfully they are not too numerous and not presently in power. But one reason I don't like democracy is it means that if people of any oppressive stripe get to be too numerous, they automatically win. That means pro-religious zealots as well as anti-religious zealots. Hoping that neither of those groups grow numerous enough to cause a problem doesn't solve this security hole in democracy.

            Government should stay out of religion. It should neither endorse it nor suppress it.

            I think you and the author are in (virtually) complete agreement on this.

            You want a nativity scene? Have you or your church put one up. Don't spend my tax dollars on it.

            I don't know if the author agrees with you on that, but I sincerely hope so. I know I agree with you, especially since as a Christian I do not observe a religious holiday called "Christmas" nor support making displays of religious characters.

            You want prayer in school? Send your kids to a private school.

            I agree. In fact, I feel this way [sepschool.org]. But if we are not going to go that far, we should still forbid government-led prayer.

            (Of course, that's completely different from the issue of student prayer, which is still allowed and should be. Since attendance in school is more or less compulsory, forbidding students from practicing prayer would be a violation of their First Amendment religious liberties. But that needn't concern anybody who doesn't want to be involved.)

            And why are we spending my tax dollars on House and Senate Chaplains [c-span.org]?

            I agree. I wish my city would stop having invocations for city council meetings, even though I don't think a cent is paid for it.

            But I don't know too many people who feel that way, alas. :( The author probably doesn't agree with you there. But then I don't view it as a character failing but as a failure to progress beyond the ideals of previous generations. For all their enlightenment about religious freedom, the founders of the nation still had invocations and chaplains. I have trouble finding much fault with someone for not surpassing the founders, though I do agree that we need to move on and progress.

            I never met a nicer bunch of racists than those I grew up with in Texas. Let them have their little anti-immigration Christian nation down there and more power to 'em!

            I think any group of people should be given the freedom to secede from any governing body that they did not personally join for life. It's called the right of self-determination. It belongs to each generation, or else they will permanently be locked in to the decisions of their forbears. It belongs to formerly-Soviet-dominated states like Georgia. (Not GA, USA.) And it should belong to each of us, too, at the individual, municipal, state, and federal level. Now I can see that you might not agree with the idea, but it has zero to do with racism. I guess I could get "offended" that you've assumed you can associate me with racism simply because I believe people should have freedom, but I'm going to be bigger than that.

            --
            J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
            • I guess I could get "offended" that you've assumed you can associate me with racism simply because I believe people should have freedom, but I'm going to be bigger than that.

              I apologize. What I wrote apparently came out differently from what I intended. Having been born and mostly raised in Texas, I was horrified by the amount of racial and religious bigotry that I encountered there. That's not to say that everyone there is a bigot and I didn't mean to imply that, but I see how it can be read that way.