Re: [boost] Religious sensibility (WAS: RE: [XInt] CoW/Move Timings)

Subject: Re: [boost] Religious sensibility (WAS: RE: [XInt] CoW/Move Timings)
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-14 08:01:31

"Robert Kawulak" <robert.kawulak_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAIOMVDziZelGq5Y6SEMPLILCgAAAEAAAADtlZSuuK/BMtVsYaIkMYa0BAAAAAA==@gmail.com...
> [...] after all, is just another variation [...]
> [...]
> So let's just be fair and consistent and equally tolerate all [...] or
> tolerate none.

In order to facilitate peaceful, constructive and on-topic discussion in
any non-political/philosophical/religious discussion group a certain
'common-law'-like ethos or a common/'axiomatic' set of 'civilized values' 
has to
be accepted and respected by everyone.

"Absolute tolerance" is just another self-contradicting post-modern idea for
it would, of course, have to tolerate intolerance.

In a multi-billion population you will find very many people (including 
university professors) that will argue for or have nothing against e.g. 
paedophilia, zoophilia, eugenics, euthanasia etc...
And, until we "evolve" enough to accept these "behavioural patterns" as 
"generally acceptable", they should not be 'rubbed in' as "acceptable" in 
non-political/philosophical/religious discussion groups...the same goes for 
Satanism...

-- 
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than
from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman