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.
  • It's so easy to knock down straw men. Kinda fun sometimes, too.

    If only I had known that that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking" and and "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect" and "[maybe] we can all have a Star Trek like existence". Gosh, even though I've never met a single liberal who espouses such a view, clearly you, Pudge, the Champion of Truth and Light, have revealed to me the Way. Never again shall I be so shallow as to believe that differences in core values might lead peopl

    • It's so easy to knock down straw men. Kinda fun sometimes, too.

      Sorry, try again. Actually, YOU are the one with the straw man here.

      If only I had known that that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking" and and "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect" and "[maybe] we can all have a Star Trek like existence".

      I didn't say that. Listen again. I said it is a core part of the motive of MANY liberals. Not liberals in general.

      Gosh, even though I've never met a single liberal who espouses such a view
      • Agreed that you didn't say "all liberals". My apologies. However, you presented the viewpoint of what describe as "many liberals" and you quite failed to make it clear that this is a minority viewpoint. Instead, you presented a viewpoint that is clearly your own, you mocked it ("Star Trek like existence"?), and used a minority opinion -- one I don't hear -- as a contrast to conservative opinion. You might think it's fair to contrast a minority opinion with what you clearly view as the rational conservat

        • Perhaps a better wording would have been "a significant number of liberals" instead of "many liberals."

          Instead, you presented a viewpoint that is clearly your own, you mocked it ("Star Trek like existence"?)

          Have you listened to Ask Pudge episode 1? Because one of the questions was this [slashdot.org]. So in the full context of Ask Pudge, the whole "Star Trek post economy, everyone's needs could be filled if we'd just abandon capitalism/conservatism/greed" has been referenced before and is being referenced again.

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • Well, I certainly wouldn't say that many conservatives are motivated by fear. In fact, I don't think the neo-cons who've hijacked (in my opinion) the conservative party are motivated by fear. (Like many, I feel they find fear is a great tool for public manipulation). So no, I don't think the comparison is unfair for this reason.

            And for the record, my general opinion of what I view as "true" conservatives tends to be people who think that smaller government works better and the government should be stay

            • To clarify previous post, you and I are in complete definition over that definition of conservatism. I don't think we're in complete agreement in both accepting that as our own personal viewpoint, because I don't think (but could be wrong) that it's your viewpoint.

              Yet. ;)

              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
              • The problem I have with some conservatives is the same problem I have with some Christians. Basically, what they preach and what they practice aren't the same thing. This is hypocricy. Frankly, I don't mind a little hypocricy now and then so long as the practitioner is willing to admit the error of their ways and tries to be better. However, when they refuse to admit they are wrong, I have strong issues with this. Unfortunately, while these might be minority positions, they seem to have had a dispropor

                • The problem I have with some conservatives is the same problem I have with some Christians. Basically, what they preach and what they practice aren't the same thing. This is hypocricy.

                  So the problem you have with some conservatives and some Christians is the same problem you have some people. :-)

                  Unfortunately, while these might be minority positions, they seem to have had a disproportionately strong effect on the US political process.

                  On the left wing of the political process, too.

                  What Jesus did, with that one statement, is make it clear that separation of Church and state is something which Christians's do not have to reject. A state must necessarily accept that the people in its borders often have a variety of differing views.

                  That seems like a straw man to me.

                  At no point in reading the Bible do I remember Jesus saying that a state had to enforce religious beliefs.

                  And neither did he condemn the fact that the Jewish leaders enforced their religious beliefs on the community.

                  Some Christians in the US want their personal views encoded into law.

                  So do most people in the U.S. Let's take some common liberal views: no handguns; no smoking in public; no hate speech.

                  However, they ignore some pretty salient points of the Bible. Remember when Christ protected the adultress from being stoned? Why did he do that? I think many fail to consider this.

                  I don't want to take away from your point ... but this isn't actually in the Bible. It was added later (and you'll note that almost every modern translation puts this in the footnote, but still leaves it in for historical reasons).

                  Anyway: I don't think this protection (even if we take it as a part of the Bible) had anything to do with the point you appear to be making. On the one hand, you're talking about whether we should have laws based on personal views; on the other, you're noting that we should show mercy and realize no one is perfect. I see no connection between those two things.

                  However, it goes back even further. If God did not want people to have the ability to choose, he wouldn't have put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. By putting it there, he was making it clear that Adam and Eve had the right to choose whether or not to sin. If one is to be a Christian, what hubris compels them to deny a right which God granted?

                  I am with you wholeheartedly there. I think one of the central messages of the Bible (and you see it again in Romans) is freedom to choose for oneself, which is why I, as a rightwing conservative Christian, support civil unions and drug legalization, as well as hate speech and job discrimination (note: I do not think we should legalize job discrimination [based on race, gender, whatever] now, because it's not the time; but I do think we should ideally move to where we can do that ... let people choose for themselves to be jerks).

                  More immediately, let's say that you just lock up everyone who sins.

                  Straw man, if you are implying that anyone wants this. If just for the sake of argument, OK.

                  Does physically preventing someone from physically doing something you consider sinful make them a better person? No! It merely prevents them from doing something you consider sinful. As a result, laws designed to prevent sinful behavior, while they might protect society, don't do a damned thing in the eyes of God (in my opinion, of course).

                  True. However, I am much more likely to do Right things if I am "protected" from doing/seeing/thinking Wrong things. That said, I don't think it's a good thing to do that to society ... but just bringing up the point. :-)

                  Instead, people should be allowed to choose their path so long as the only people affected are consenting adults.

                  I disagree. "Affected" is too restrictive. We should be able to do whatever we want unless we are directly causing significant harm to someone else who is not consenting. So the question is not "am I affected by ciagrette smoke?," because I clearly am. The question is whether it is causing me significant harm (and I think it is, and that is why I support some modest restrictions on public smoking).

                  Today, there are conservatives who espouse "conservative" ideals but who ignore those ideals as thoroughly as Falwell Christians ignore Christianity.

                  Yes, some of them. Flip through any issue of National Review and you'll see them slamming so-called "conservatives."

                  If the Republican party truly followed ideals of smaller government and state's rights, it would be a wonderful thing. I wouldn't always agree with their approach, but I'd be one hell of a lot more likely to vote for them.

                  And if Democrats truly followed their ideals ... wait, what are their ideals? :-)
                  • And neither did he condemn the fact that the Jewish leaders enforced their religious beliefs on the community.

                    Oh ho. That they strain out the gnat and swallow the fly was no such criticism? He condemned them many times for aguing the letter of the law, and in niggling detail no less, while simultaneously disregarding the spirit. Rotten graves, beautiful on the outside…

                    • Oh ho. That they strain out the gnat and swallow the fly was no such criticism?

                      Correct, it was not.

                      He condemned them many times for aguing the letter of the law, and in niggling detail no less, while simultaneously disregarding the spirit. Rotten graves, beautiful on the outside…

                      Yes. None of this was criticism of the fact that they enforced their religious beliefs on the community. It was criticism of how they did it, not that they did it.
                    • I think I can find examples to contradict what pudge said, but I don't think the example you gave qualifies. Letter of the law/spirit of the law is orthogonal to the issue of whether or not you impose the law on anyone else. So is hypocrisy.

                      --
                      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers