Re: Another Censorship . . . .

> I do not agree on the library issue. The Internet requires a specific 
> act on the part of the recipient in order to receive something (that
> act 
> may be as simple as setting up an email account, but the point is it 
> still requires an action on the part of the recipient). Sometimes, you
> may receive something different to what you expected but that doesn't 
> justify censorship, especially given that automated Internet
> censorship 
> is highly unreliable.

  Right, but I'm more concerned about the fact that you have a bunch of
monitors lined up, and a passer by can see what's on them. If I sit down
to look up the latest new on CNN, I don't want the guy next to me
downloading "Par|s H|lt0n footage" (as some of the 500+ spam messages I
get a day put it). Know what I mean?

  I don't think the library should worry about what the surfer sees, so
much as to what the surfer next to him (or the passerby) sees that
surfer viewing.

> >  Hmm... you have a point, although, the fact that I love to play the
> >"devil's advocate," what if while specifically saying the above about
> >$XYZ, I also held it true for all other groups as well? :-)
> >  
> >
> Then that would amount to a completely different statement, thus
> making 
> your point completely irrelevant.

  My point is simply that context has a lot to do with what something is
or isn't.

> In that case it would appear that you would not object to a person 
> holding a sexual preference for a certain race on similar grounds. 
> Although perhaps you would object to them acting on that preference (a
> bit hard if you favour monogamy :)).

  Right, I suppose so. 

> I am always deeply, deeply troubled by the idea that consensual 
> homosexual relationships are just as bad as murder. I hope, at least, 


  Well, in the most basic terms, lying is as bad as murder too (or at
least, warrants the same eternal punishment). The worst part of a
homosexual relationship (or an extramarital heterosexual relationship)
is that it usually involves more premeditation and is willingly allowed
to continue for days, months, years, etc. Usually what ends up being
thought of as "lesser sins" happen without much thought and usually are
"repented" from (if you believe that they are sins, that is). Am I
making sense?

  The Bible generally bases judgment based on the person's intentions,
etc. For instance, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount suggests lust is as bad as
adultry, anger is as bad as murder, etc. I guess this is, in a way, sort
of like a modern justice system, if I accidentally hit someone and kill
them (man slaughter) it isn't considered as bad as if I purposely kill
them (murder), even though for the victim the result is just as bad.


> that you would not argue for this to be enacted into law.

  I'm not... my point is actually rather inverse to that. Evangelical
Christianity spends too much time focused on one sin, when there are
lots of others. I personally feel it should condemn that sin, but it
shouldn't be zeroed out to become "The Sin," as it often is.

> If this is not what you meant then I'm afraid I remain puzzled at your
> suggestion that the definition of racism is non-technical.

  When I think about it, I think what you said was right about what I
was getting at. Sorry.

  -Tim

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy R. Butler       Universal Networks      www.uninet.info
==================== <[email protected]> ====================
| Christian Portal:      | Have you not learned great lessons |
|      www.faithtree.com | from those  who  braced themselves |
| GNU/Linux News:        | against  you   and   disputed  the |
|            www.ofb.biz | passage with you?   --Walt Whitman |


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.