perrin at apotheon.com
Tue Jul 27 00:22:45 UTC 2010
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:24:21PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Saturday, July 24, 2010 00:24:46 -0600 Chad Perrin
> <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> >When this is the way someone starts a "discussion" about wanting to use a
> >new OS, I tend to believe there is no genuine interest in using the OS in
> When this is the way one answers a simple question, I tend to believe
> there's no genuine interest in dialog. I am therefore left to wonder who
> really is the intolerant one. One cannot claim to be tolerant while
> demonstrating intolerance any more than one can claim to be educated
> without every having read a book.
How perspicacious of you. I'll quote myself basically saying exactly
that -- that I am not particularly interested in "dialog" with someone
who, I'm sure, has already made up his or her mind:
In any case, I didn't claim to be "tolerant". In fact, I very
specifically said I was sure someone would accuse me of intolerance, and
went on to explain that I am guilty of intolerance of those who are
intolerant themselves. Why are you just repeating what I have said, but
in the tone of an accusation? How intolerant are *you* today?
Not all education comes from books, by the way (though I personally have
read many, many books, and quite enjoy the activity of reading).
> > While I normally prefer to take an inclusive approach to dealing with
> > people who run into obstacles in their approach to thinking about
> > OSes, there are cases where I simply feel the urge to throw my hands
> > in the air and giving up on someone. Such cases are those where it
> > seems likely that some kind of closed-minded idolatry (which is
> > exactly what this is: taking a cartoony mascot as some kind of
> > Manifest Presence of a supernatural, superhuman Force, Principle, or
> > Being) is going on. Either you will get over it, or you will not,
> > and it is only a very faint hope that pointing out the ludicrousness
> > of your objection that compels me to respond at all.
Is that clear enough for you?
> It's amazing to me the ridicule heaped upon the man for asking a question.
> Would it have been too difficult to simply answer the question, as the
> first response did? No, we have to attack the man for having beliefs that
> are different from our own. Because we're so enlightened? Or because we
> are even more ignorant than we suppose he is?
I *did* answer the question before heaping ridicule on someone who, as I
stated, I believe had already made up his or her mind, and had no genuine
interest in dialog in the first place.
My "attack", by the way, had *zero* to do with anyone's beliefs being
different from my own -- as you might have noticed if you bothered to
read and understand what I said. Skimming it for excuses to accuse me of
religious intolerance doesn't work as well as you might think.
You're a self-righteous git, and probably personally offended by the
appearance of an attack on Christianity (which is never what was
intended, nor even what happened, at least in the case of the specific
email to which you replied). Try stepping back, reading more closely,
and responding to what was *actually* said.
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20100727/0e2c1117/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions