POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Switzerland & minarets Server Time
4 Sep 2024 23:23:13 EDT (-0400)
  Switzerland & minarets (Message 21 to 30 of 92)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: andrel
Subject: Re: Switzerland & minarets
Date: 2 Dec 2009 18:50:42
Message: <4B16FD51.8040805@hotmail.com>
On 3-12-2009 0:32, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93n-EmGknEU
> 
>   Maybe the means are not always correct, but at least someone is *trying*
> to do something about the world's problems instead of just sitting on their
> asses doing nothing and just hoping that the problems will solve themselves
> with enough appeasing and concessions.

Given that this was recorded in 1965, did that trying have the desired 
effect?


Post a reply to this message

From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Switzerland & minarets
Date: 2 Dec 2009 20:39:28
Message: <4b1716d0$1@news.povray.org>
On 12/02/09 17:28, Warp wrote:
>    Democracy doesn't mean "every minority must have its way". It means that
> the majority decides what happens to them. It's that simple.

	And as stated, probably no country has a democracy, nor do they seem to 
want one.

	If you allow the majority to have whatever they want, then it's 
possible to go back to "No colored people allowed".


-- 
Even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat.


Post a reply to this message

From: somebody
Subject: Re: Switzerland & minarets
Date: 2 Dec 2009 21:08:59
Message: <4b171dbb@news.povray.org>
"Florian Pesth" <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:4b16d3e1@news.povray.org...

> So is this an aesthetical question? Because that is the only way this law
> could be defined in a nondiscriminating way.

It could also be about noise.


Post a reply to this message

From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Switzerland & minarets
Date: 2 Dec 2009 21:11:04
Message: <4b171e38$1@news.povray.org>
On 12/02/09 20:09, somebody wrote:
> "Florian Pesth"<fpe### [at] gmxde>  wrote in message
> news:4b16d3e1@news.povray.org...
>
>> So is this an aesthetical question? Because that is the only way this law
>> could be defined in a nondiscriminating way.
>
> It could also be about noise.

	Except then you just need to have simple rules that govern the behavior 
of noise in general. Outlawing an architectural style for noise reasons 
is silly, as you can still create noise without them.

	And for what it's worth, from what I read elsewhere, there wasn't any 
noise of the type you're thinking of from them.

-- 
Even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat.


Post a reply to this message

From: somebody
Subject: Re: Switzerland & minarets
Date: 2 Dec 2009 21:22:00
Message: <4b1720c8$1@news.povray.org>
"Florian Pesth" <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:4b16da7a$1@news.povray.org...
> Am Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:11:42 -0500 schrieb Warp:
>
> > Florian Pesth <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> >> If it is about forbidding
> >> muslims to have a tower to signal the start of a prayer - like
> >> christians do - than yes, I think this is xenophobic and the outcry of
> >> people in whole europe is fully justified.

> >   Hence democracy is a bad thing because people can vote for the wrong
> > things.

> It's not democracy which is bad, but the people who want to get rid of it
> by abusing it.

If people are given a choice, it cannot be their fault if they don't pick
the "correct" choice. If you don't want them making the "wrong" decision,
don't present them any of the options.

The problem with democracy is that a lot of choices are too important to
leave to the general population. As a result, in democracies (constitutional
or otherwise), only the non-consequential decisions are left to the people,
and the more important a choice is, the more barriers are erected so that it
becomes harder for people to change things later.


Post a reply to this message

From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Switzerland & minarets
Date: 3 Dec 2009 00:08:30
Message: <4b1747ce$1@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93n-EmGknEU
> 
>   Maybe the means are not always correct, but at least someone is *trying*
> to do something about the world's problems instead of just sitting on their
> asses doing nothing and just hoping that the problems will solve themselves
> with enough appeasing and concessions.
> 
You know.. On some of the more frustrating days, I hate ever watching 
the Gundam series of anime. But, I damn well wish about 90% of the 
frakking idiots I have to deal with in my life, and most of the 
politicians did, and understood it. Its not enough, sadly, to just "do 
something". Anything you do is likely to piss someone off in the 
process, witness the reaction to Obama deciding to ditch Iraq, but try 
to *actually* do something about Al Queda, so that 5 years from how 
Afghanistan isn't worse than it was when we started, with *more* 
terrorists, with new allies in neighboring countries, and an ever 
greater desire to blow something up again. Many want it to just be over. 
It will never be, so long as a) radicals are still in power, b) their 
people still have no right to change things, and c) the easiest method 
of keeping their people in check is to blame everything from lack of 
rain to their kids not doing what they are told, on the "West", and 
offering as a solution, "Lets blow those infidels up!". Its like a world 
wide version of Survivor. You hope like hell that the ones that outlast, 
outlive, etc., are good guys, but.. all too often its the sneaky 
assholes that send other people off to do stupid things, which end up at 
the top, and who ever it left standing, when the dust settles, goes 
right back to trying to "fix" things by shooting each other, starting 
more wars, blaming each other for things that are their own damn faults, 
and generally never learning a damn thing in the process.

Occasionally we have a brief respite. One gained either via killing 
every last idiot with a bad idea (which usually lasts less than a 
century, due to someone rising up to kick out the people that did it), 
or by allowing nearly *everything*, which Rome tried, until it got 
converted to mono-theism, and the US tried, before the religious right 
started trying to convert it to mono-theism, and so on. Mostly, that 
later path works, but it invariably pisses off delusional, dangerous, 
sometimes mentally disturbed, but *protected* people. Basically, one 
falls because the moderates rise up to destroy the people that killed 
all the crazies. The other falls, but more slowly, because no one is 
allowed to just kill all the crazies, and sometimes they get enough 
power to derail progress and start purging/disempowering the sane people.

It helps though if the people you are trying to purge are a) ignorant, 
b) willing to give up, and c) able to be directed towards absurd 
internal stupidities, and minor social issues, while ignoring everything 
else. A isn't accurate, save in small pockets. B is even less true, with 
an upsurge in people saying, "This is bullshit!". And C... Well, sadly, 
that one a lot of people still fall for, witness this year's early start 
on the delusional defense against the non-existent war on a pagan 
holiday, that was stolen and renamed, Christmas.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Switzerland & minarets
Date: 3 Dec 2009 13:44:17
Message: <4b180701@news.povray.org>
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         If you allow the majority to have whatever they want, then it's 
> possible to go back to "No colored people allowed".

  Why do you assume that the majority wants that? The western majority being
racist is nothing more than multiculturalist propaganda.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Switzerland & minarets
Date: 3 Dec 2009 14:53:58
Message: <4b181756$1@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         If you allow the majority to have whatever they want, then it's 
>> possible to go back to "No colored people allowed".
> 
>   Why do you assume that the majority wants that? The western majority being
> racist is nothing more than multiculturalist propaganda.

OK. How about "no gay people allowed"? :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.


Post a reply to this message

From: Sabrina Kilian
Subject: Re: Switzerland & minarets
Date: 3 Dec 2009 16:12:04
Message: <4b1829a4$1@news.povray.org>
Clarence1898 wrote:
> Without Florida's electoral votes, neither candidate had a majority.  So whoever
> won Florida's popular vote won their electoral vote and thus the election.
> Since the vote count was so  close in Florida, the big fuss was over the recount
> of ballots.  Some ballots were excluded because it wasn't clear which candidate
> it was for.
> 
> Isaac.
> 

The other complaint was that G. W. Bush's brother, Jeb, had appointed
the people responsible for counting the votes in Florida, if I recall
correctly.


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Switzerland & minarets
Date: 3 Dec 2009 16:35:24
Message: <4b182f1c@news.povray.org>
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> OK. How about "no gay people allowed"? :-)

  Is it really the majority, or only a vocal minority who proclaim that there?

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.