Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #38490 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-14 12:17 -0500 |
| Last post | 2013-02-28 09:42 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 149 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple Is Doomed! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-01-14 12:17 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-14 09:57 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-15 00:23 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-15 08:53 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-15 07:10 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "Rollo" <rogerl@gmail.com> - 2013-02-28 09:39 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-16 09:54 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-16 10:54 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-16 13:48 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-16 20:25 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-17 09:24 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-16 16:59 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2013-01-17 15:26 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-17 14:14 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-17 15:19 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-17 14:29 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net> - 2013-01-17 17:36 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-17 18:13 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-18 06:14 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-18 23:33 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-17 17:37 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2013-02-27 23:24 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-01-18 12:49 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-18 10:59 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net> - 2013-01-18 13:36 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-19 19:56 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-18 03:33 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-18 06:23 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-17 18:12 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-17 17:38 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-17 16:56 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Juan Anonly <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-17 18:06 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-18 06:30 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-19 09:34 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-19 08:15 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-20 10:21 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-20 11:08 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-20 14:36 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-20 15:11 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-20 18:56 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-20 18:33 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-20 22:52 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-21 08:33 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-21 11:59 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-21 22:51 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2013-01-20 19:59 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-20 23:08 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-01-18 12:43 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-19 09:36 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-18 06:26 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-18 10:39 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-18 11:05 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-18 13:22 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2013-01-18 10:38 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-18 14:11 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-19 19:53 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2013-01-19 11:19 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-20 09:27 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2013-03-04 21:51 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-03-05 18:55 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-18 14:34 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-18 17:25 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-18 18:59 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-18 20:33 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-18 19:02 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-19 10:09 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-19 19:44 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Juan Anonly <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-19 19:00 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-19 23:29 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-20 10:23 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Juan Anonly <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-20 10:57 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-20 22:58 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-20 23:10 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2013-01-21 22:43 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-21 22:53 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-21 21:04 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-22 13:32 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 09:31 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 13:32 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 13:28 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG - 2013-01-23 01:18 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-23 07:34 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 09:33 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 12:30 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-23 16:16 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 15:16 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-23 19:06 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 16:17 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 13:39 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-24 16:13 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-24 08:26 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-01-23 23:55 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 17:01 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-01-24 01:32 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 18:29 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-23 20:01 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 09:53 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-24 11:56 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-24 16:00 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-24 14:15 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 12:20 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-24 16:57 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-24 18:02 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-24 16:57 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-24 19:18 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 19:08 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-24 18:43 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 16:36 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG - 2013-01-25 12:00 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-25 08:02 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-24 18:16 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-26 21:01 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-28 17:19 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-28 18:16 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-28 19:22 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-30 23:00 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 23:13 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG - 2013-01-23 17:51 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 13:40 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-22 23:40 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 09:34 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2013-01-22 18:10 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-22 23:31 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-23 08:05 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 09:26 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-23 22:51 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2013-01-23 23:06 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 21:37 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-24 05:59 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2013-03-04 21:55 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-18 15:54 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-18 17:20 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2013-01-21 22:48 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-23 22:44 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2013-01-23 20:05 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-23 21:23 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-01-14 13:36 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-01-15 11:09 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-01-14 21:24 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2013-02-27 23:20 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-02-27 23:29 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-03-01 11:47 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-03-01 11:47 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-03-01 14:49 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-03-01 13:02 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-03-01 16:23 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "Rollo" <rogerl@gmail.com> - 2013-02-28 09:42 -0500
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 16:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5101a0f5$0$13568$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #38880 |
On 13-01-24 13:56, Michelle Steiner wrote: > What if I don't move from my house, and a meteor falls on it and kills me? > Did I commit suicide? You build a home on a planet that is hurtling through space with evidence that we have hit (or been hit by) asteroids in the past. That is absolutely suicidal to build a home on such a planet :-) Not too different than setting up a tent in the middle of a highway and then getting hit by a car. :-) :-) :-) :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 14:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <LYKdnTK_8tGqFZzMnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #38878 |
In article <240120130953565084%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > In > > Yes, that's you. But what if you liked pork, you would eat it if you > could, it was readily available in your area, and it would be a > significant portion of your diet, but you didn't eat it because of > religious prohibitions. Then you would be hurting yourself. You have a rather low bar for "hurting oneself". Outside of a religious context, I am wondering if you would call this anything other than mildly annoying? -- America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 12:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <240120131220176871%jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #38883 |
In article <LYKdnTK_8tGqFZzMnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <240120130953565084%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, > Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In > > > > Yes, that's you. But what if you liked pork, you would eat it if you > > could, it was readily available in your area, and it would be a > > significant portion of your diet, but you didn't eat it because of > > religious prohibitions. Then you would be hurting yourself. > You have a rather low bar for "hurting oneself". Outside of a > religious context, I am wondering if you would call this anything other > than mildly annoying? These are just examples of the type of things that people can do in the name of religion that are counter-productive, either to themselves or to others. I have a hard time understanding how otherwise intelligent people can act according to religious tenants and not in their own best interests. Not eating pork or meat on Fridays are trivial examples of religious-based behavior. Avoiding birth control and abortions are much more serious. -- Jim Gibson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 16:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <SKmdnWZNYdWsM5zMnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #38885 |
In article <240120131220176871%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <LYKdnTK_8tGqFZzMnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt > Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > These are just examples of the type of things that people can do in the > name of religion that are counter-productive, either to themselves or > to others. I have a hard time understanding how otherwise intelligent > people can act according to religious tenants and not in their own best > interests. No, you have a hard time understanding why people act in ways that YOU deem are not in THEIR best interests... at least in this case. You seem more than willing to decide for others how they should act. > > Not eating pork or meat on Fridays are trivial examples of > religious-based behavior. Avoiding birth control and abortions are much > more serious. -- America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 18:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5101bd9e$0$15283$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #38899 |
On 13-01-24 16:57, Kurt Ullman wrote: > No, you have a hard time understanding why people act in ways that YOU > deem are not in THEIR best interests... at least in this case. You seem > more than willing to decide for others how they should act. This isn't a question of best interest or not. It is a question of whether a practice should be viewed as good common sense for heathy living, or some covenant to please some god. Most of the "religious/tribal" practices that are associated with middle eastern religions (such as not eating pork) should not be seen as a practice to please god but rather seen as simply good practice for hygiene/health reasons. back then, religion was not jut religion, but also education/guidance for the population. So it was normal that the religious institutions would teach proper healthy lifestyles for the population they served. It was tailored to the region they were in. The problem is that later on, when education became separate frm religion, people failed to separate the original lifestyle teachings from the religion and maintained age old traditions that are no longer necessary or applicable. General principles such as "thou shall not kill" are integral part of humanity and I am not sure religion adds anything to it anymore, especially since almost all countries have laws that implement this. If you want to life a certain lifestyle and dress like a rabbi, sihk or whetever it is your right, but it should not be based on you arguing it is required to please god. You choose to wear those garbs just like certain people chose to wear "grunge" in the 1990s. And once you diassociate lifestyle form religion, then arguments such as "I must wear a sabre at all times when outdoors" fall through because this cannot be a religious requirement. It may be an acceptable lifestyle in certain parts of the world, but not in others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-5B0697.16572324012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38903 |
In article <5101bd9e$0$15283$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Most of the "religious/tribal" practices that are associated with middle > eastern religions (such as not eating pork) should not be seen as a > practice to please god but rather seen as simply good practice for > hygiene/health reasons. That's applying 20th and 21st century hindsight. We have no way of knowing what the real reason for those laws originally were for. > If you want to life a certain lifestyle and dress like a rabbi, sihk or > whetever it is your right, but it should not be based on you arguing it > is required to please god. Actually, it is none of your business why someone would dress as they do; they have no obligation to explain their reasons to you. If they want to put a feather in their cap and call it "macaroni" because their god told them to, or because they are emulating a character in a song, it is solely their business, and their reasons are none of yours. > And once you diassociate lifestyle form religion There's no reason to disassociate the two. -- Ignore this sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 19:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5101cf51$0$5913$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #38909 |
On 13-01-24 18:57, Michelle Steiner wrote: > There's no reason to disassociate the two. if someone form a distant country with different lifestyle and a "religion" that calls for the person to always wear a sword on his side when in public places moves to north america where wearing of arms is not legal in public places, there is a problem. It wasn't any god who told folks of that region of the world to wear swords, it was just their local culture. Yet, they come here, go to the supreme court and argue that it is an itegral part of their religion and must be allowed to wear their swords in public, even though the rest of the population isn't allowed to. Same thing with the guys who wear turans. Do you seriously think that god told them to never cut their hair ? really ? It is a social tradition from one region of the world that doesn't belong here because we have different social customs here. Yet, they aregue that "god told them to never cut hard and wear turban at all times" and get constitutional protections under the guise of religion. Not cutting hair has no relationship with beliveing in some sort of deity. Same with wearing of a sword.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 19:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <CD27372B.96DB3%ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #38909 |
On 1/24/13 5:57 PM, in article michelle-5B0697.16572324012013@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > In article <5101bd9e$0$15283$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com>, > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> Most of the "religious/tribal" practices that are associated with middle >> eastern religions (such as not eating pork) should not be seen as a >> practice to please god but rather seen as simply good practice for >> hygiene/health reasons. > > That's applying 20th and 21st century hindsight. We have no way of knowing > what the real reason for those laws originally were for. > >> If you want to life a certain lifestyle and dress like a rabbi, sihk or >> whetever it is your right, but it should not be based on you arguing it >> is required to please god. > > Actually, it is none of your business why someone would dress as they do; > they have no obligation to explain their reasons to you. If they want to > put a feather in their cap and call it "macaroni" because their god told > them to, or because they are emulating a character in a song, it is solely > their business, and their reasons are none of yours. > >> And once you diassociate lifestyle form religion > > There's no reason to disassociate the two. Michelle, you are sounding more and more like a Libertarian, and all I can say is "Go Girl, GO!!!". :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-3A2D88.18435324012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38924 |
In article <CD27372B.96DB3%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote: > Michelle, you are sounding more and more like a Libertarian, and all I > can say is "Go Girl, GO!!!". :-) I was a registered member of the Libertarian Party from 1978 to 1988; I was registered with no party preference from 88 to 2002 or 2004. (Before 78, it was no party preference.) Thing is that when the libertarian fiscal agenda/philosophy conflicts with the libertarian social agenda/philosophy, I'll come down on the social side. -- Ignore this sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 16:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <240120131636347540%jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #38899 |
In article <SKmdnWZNYdWsM5zMnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <240120131220176871%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, > Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In article <LYKdnTK_8tGqFZzMnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt > > Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > These are just examples of the type of things that people can do in the > > name of religion that are counter-productive, either to themselves or > > to others. I have a hard time understanding how otherwise intelligent > > people can act according to religious tenants and not in their own best > > interests. > > No, you have a hard time understanding why people act in ways that YOU > deem are not in THEIR best interests... at least in this case. You seem > more than willing to decide for others how they should act. Not at all. I have no problem with people deciding what is best for themselves. What I don't understand is why they let other people make decisions for them, i.e., priests, rabbis, and the people who wrote the quran and the bible centuries ago. -- Jim Gibson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 12:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <00ACDE52.2DF1935E@SendSpamHere.ORG> |
| In reply to | #38899 |
In article <240120131636347540%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> writes: >In article <SKmdnWZNYdWsM5zMnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt >Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> In article <240120131220176871%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, >> Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > In article <LYKdnTK_8tGqFZzMnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt >> > Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > These are just examples of the type of things that people can do in the >> > name of religion that are counter-productive, either to themselves or >> > to others. I have a hard time understanding how otherwise intelligent >> > people can act according to religious tenants and not in their own best >> > interests. >> >> No, you have a hard time understanding why people act in ways that YOU >> deem are not in THEIR best interests... at least in this case. You seem >> more than willing to decide for others how they should act. > >Not at all. I have no problem with people deciding what is best for >themselves. What I don't understand is why they let other people make >decisions for them, i.e., priests, rabbis, and the people who wrote the >quran and the bible centuries ago. ...and the government? -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 08:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013012508021170081-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #38939 |
In article <240120131636347540%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> writes: > I have no problem with people deciding what is best for > themselves. What I don't understand is why they let other people make > decisions for them, i.e., priests, rabbis, and the people who wrote the > quran and the bible centuries ago. I think it's a safe bet that these people have put faith in a religious tradition that has existed for many hundreds or even thousands of years. That gives it a particularly strong leverage in their mind. "Ancient wisdom" just sounds so incredibly legitimate. Then strong, dedicated, authoritative, generous men who have only your well-being in mind to help you--it sounds like the kind of thing you can feel safe putting your faith in. And then there's the alternative with a number of these religions--that you will burn in an everlasting torment for your naughty thinking and naughty deeds if you don't toe the line. I don't share this belief; that's a projection on my part. Another is this: That they're lives are so abysmal, so full of torment and hopelessness that are more than eager to reach out for any scrap of possibility that their lives aren't for nothing; that they will move on to a higher plane where their misery will be rewarded. It's difficult to imagine in the relative wealth, peace and calm of our advanced societies, how screwed up it is for millions. And even in our wealthy world, there are the friends and relatives of the millions suffering or dying of violent crime, garden-variety deseases, sexual abuse and accidents. Their lives are quite simply broken and they desparately need a conceptual balm to help them forge on, to just keep their head above water. I pity them all, and hope whatever course they take it helps them. Those leaders among them who fleece them and abuse them--for them I really wish there was retribution after death.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 18:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013012418164215696-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #38885 |
On 2013-01-24 20:20:17 +0000, Jim Gibson said: > In article <LYKdnTK_8tGqFZzMnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt > Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Yes, that's you. But what if you liked pork, you would eat it if you >>> could, it was readily available in your area, and it would be a >>> significant portion of your diet, but you didn't eat it because of >>> religious prohibitions. Then you would be hurting yourself. >> >> You have a rather low bar for "hurting oneself". Outside of a >> religious context, I am wondering if you would call this anything other >> than mildly annoying? > > These are just examples of the type of things that people can do in the > name of religion that are counter-productive, either to themselves or > to others. "In the name of" religion? Murder, and lots of it, is the most conspicuous certainly. But they can do anything they like, clitorectomies, beheadings, whittling of your hand, all kinds of hideous stuff. None of it relates the the religion proper, has stated in the holy books, but on one regional nutcase with the ability to lead sheep around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-26 21:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ke21ph$1fa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38878 |
On 01-24-2013 12:53, Jim Gibson wrote:
> What if a cocaine-addicted woman refuses to have an abortion and
> instead gives birth to a cocaine-addicted baby that suffers mightily
> throughout its short life? Is that not hurting somebody else?
Little Annie is no longer addicted to cocaine and she is REALLY cute.
Are you suggesting that her mother should have been forced
to kill her before birth? Wouldn't that be hurting her
new parents and all their friends?
--
Wes Groleau
“But, Professor! I didn't plagiarize! I paid someone to
write the essay for me, and that person plagiarized!"
— from http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-28 17:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <280120131719001381%jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #39029 |
In article <ke21ph$1fa$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > On 01-24-2013 12:53, Jim Gibson wrote: > > What if a cocaine-addicted woman refuses to have an abortion and > > instead gives birth to a cocaine-addicted baby that suffers mightily > > throughout its short life? Is that not hurting somebody else? > > Little Annie is no longer addicted to cocaine and she is REALLY cute. > > Are you suggesting that her mother should have been forced > to kill her before birth? Wouldn't that be hurting her > new parents and all their friends? No, I am saying that the decision should be made (by the prospective mother) on rational grounds, not because of religious strictures. -- Jim Gibson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-28 18:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <201301281816512475-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #39098 |
On 2013-01-29 01:19:00 +0000, Jim Gibson said: > In article <ke21ph$1fa$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau > <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > >> On 01-24-2013 12:53, Jim Gibson wrote: >>> What if a cocaine-addicted woman refuses to have an abortion and >>> instead gives birth to a cocaine-addicted baby that suffers mightily >>> throughout its short life? Is that not hurting somebody else? >> >> Little Annie is no longer addicted to cocaine and she is REALLY cute. >> >> Are you suggesting that her mother should have been forced >> to kill her before birth? Wouldn't that be hurting her >> new parents and all their friends? > > No, I am saying that the decision should be made (by the prospective > mother) on rational grounds, not because of religious strictures. In fairness though, you don't think anybody anywhere should make decisions based on religious strictures, do you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-28 19:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-14FFE6.19223628012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #39098 |
In article <280120131719001381%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What if a cocaine-addicted woman refuses to have an abortion and > > > instead gives birth to a cocaine-addicted baby that suffers mightily > > > throughout its short life? Is that not hurting somebody else? > > > > Little Annie is no longer addicted to cocaine and she is REALLY cute. > > > > Are you suggesting that her mother should have been forced to kill her > > before birth? Wouldn't that be hurting her new parents and all their > > friends? > > No, I am saying that the decision should be made (by the prospective > mother) on rational grounds, not because of religious strictures. I'm saying that it's none of our business what her grounds are, so long as she is not forced into a decision by anyone else. -- Ignore this sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-30 23:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kecq8c$b9c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39098 |
On 01-28-2013 20:19, Jim Gibson wrote:
> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>> On 01-24-2013 12:53, Jim Gibson wrote:
>>> What if a cocaine-addicted woman refuses to have an abortion and
>>> instead gives birth to a cocaine-addicted baby that suffers mightily
>>> throughout its short life? Is that not hurting somebody else?
>>
>> Little Annie is no longer addicted to cocaine and she is REALLY cute.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that her mother should have been forced
>> to kill her before birth? Wouldn't that be hurting her
>> new parents and all their friends?
>
> No, I am saying that the decision should be made (by the prospective
> mother) on rational grounds, not because of religious strictures.
Sounded to me more like you believed the decision she made was hurting
someone else.
Coupled with an entirely unjustified assumption on the results of that
decision.
Not to mention an irrational belief that you know the motives for the
decision.
--
Wes Groleau
“Grant me the serenity to accept those I cannot change;
the courage to change the one I can;
and the wisdom to know it's me.”
— unknown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-30 23:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-7049D7.23130330012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #39210 |
In article <kecq8c$b9c$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > >> Are you suggesting that her mother should have been forced > >> to kill her before birth? Wouldn't that be hurting her > >> new parents and all their friends? > > > > No, I am saying that the decision should be made (by the prospective > > mother) on rational grounds, not because of religious strictures. > > Sounded to me more like you believed the decision she made was hurting > someone else. > > Coupled with an entirely unjustified assumption on the results of that > decision. > > Not to mention an irrational belief that you know the motives for the > decision. Not to mention an irrational belief that he has the authority to say anything. He has the right, but no authority. -- All usenet users are quirky, but some are more quirky than others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <00ACDCF0.DA19B7DC@SendSpamHere.ORG> |
| In reply to | #38778 |
In article <2013012309333865362-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> writes: >On 2013-01-23 01:18:06 +0000, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG said: > >>> So in a way, it does make sense to remove all the lifestyle fluff form >>> the bibles to retain only what god/jesus said. The lifestyle stuff has >>> to adapt to different regions of the world and evolve with technology. >>> With refrigiration, eating pork is no longer considered dangerous. >> >> But religion is still dangerous. > >I know of nothing inherently dangerous about religion itself. There is >only the danger among those who use it as a weapon against others. In >this respect it is no different that any other idelogical weapon. Like religously political dogma that persistently litters this newsgroup? -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web