840quadra
Apr 29, 10:48 PM
First off, attitude aside, my calling the iPod's overall populairity a Fad is personal opinion, not a fact. Don't take it so personally. ;)
There are a few other sites, blogs, people (do a twitter search ;) ) that feel the same way as I do. It is a Personal feeling, and so are all my responses to your points from which I am trying to explain my viewpoint on this subject, or debate.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
Yep the music player is called iPod, just like on the iPhone the Touch is based off of. User interface is totally different, so is the way it behaves as compared to a true classic 'iPod'.
Remember using an old iPod? When you go out of the music player (while music is playing) to do something else, in most cases it returned to the music player after a period of time had gone by. If the screen went to sleep, simply take it out of Hold (if you put it in that), or touch the clickwheel, and you were back into the music player. Neither the touch, or the iPhone behave like this, the Music player is just an other Application among many, and no longer the star.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
I have not seen a Dictionary definition of 'fad' with an established time limit. If you have one from a reputable dictionary, please share it.
Remember, the iPod was an item to be worn, often in public, and most people (especially kids, and teens) were proud to display them either by holding them, wearing white headphones, or placing them visibly on desks or tables were they could be seen using them.
Apple totally knew this, it is why they brought the Mini, Nano, and Black iPod to market, because they realized people saw iPods as a Fashion item.
Items of Fashion are common among fads, and even though people didn't wear an iPod, for a period of time it was definitely "in" to be seen with one, especially the latest model to come out.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
Apple doesn't break down sales of individual models in most cases, so it is hard to say exactly when sales of regular (non Touch) iPods started to fall off.
Regardless, the masses of people don't want to carry around devices that are primarily music players anymore, they want to carry around pocketable multipurpose devices.
Even though they existed before the iPhone, these multipurpose devices didn't really take off until the iPhone / iPod touch went to market. Prior to the iPhone there were countless, Smartphones, feature phones, and PDAs. Many of these sold for less than some iPod models (especially Palm PDAs, and some feature phones) but none sold like the iPod. The iPod was the thing to have.
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
Agreed, There were many MP3 players before, during, and after the heyday of the iPod. Many were cheaper, similar in ease of use, higher in features, and had better audio quality than the iPod. But, they weren't as cool, they weren't the iPod, people wanted the iPod because it's the thing to have.
The Popular item that everyone wants, or want's to be seen with is often what gives it a fad status.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
I understand your viewpoints, respect your opinion, and appreciate your time in sharing them. I can totally see and respect why people wouldn't see the iPod as being either a fad, or part of one. I just look at it a bit differently.
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
When you learn to be a constructive participant of a conversation, as opposed to just snide, I would be more than happy to discuss my viewpoints with you.
Cheers,
There are a few other sites, blogs, people (do a twitter search ;) ) that feel the same way as I do. It is a Personal feeling, and so are all my responses to your points from which I am trying to explain my viewpoint on this subject, or debate.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
Yep the music player is called iPod, just like on the iPhone the Touch is based off of. User interface is totally different, so is the way it behaves as compared to a true classic 'iPod'.
Remember using an old iPod? When you go out of the music player (while music is playing) to do something else, in most cases it returned to the music player after a period of time had gone by. If the screen went to sleep, simply take it out of Hold (if you put it in that), or touch the clickwheel, and you were back into the music player. Neither the touch, or the iPhone behave like this, the Music player is just an other Application among many, and no longer the star.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
I have not seen a Dictionary definition of 'fad' with an established time limit. If you have one from a reputable dictionary, please share it.
Remember, the iPod was an item to be worn, often in public, and most people (especially kids, and teens) were proud to display them either by holding them, wearing white headphones, or placing them visibly on desks or tables were they could be seen using them.
Apple totally knew this, it is why they brought the Mini, Nano, and Black iPod to market, because they realized people saw iPods as a Fashion item.
Items of Fashion are common among fads, and even though people didn't wear an iPod, for a period of time it was definitely "in" to be seen with one, especially the latest model to come out.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
Apple doesn't break down sales of individual models in most cases, so it is hard to say exactly when sales of regular (non Touch) iPods started to fall off.
Regardless, the masses of people don't want to carry around devices that are primarily music players anymore, they want to carry around pocketable multipurpose devices.
Even though they existed before the iPhone, these multipurpose devices didn't really take off until the iPhone / iPod touch went to market. Prior to the iPhone there were countless, Smartphones, feature phones, and PDAs. Many of these sold for less than some iPod models (especially Palm PDAs, and some feature phones) but none sold like the iPod. The iPod was the thing to have.
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
Agreed, There were many MP3 players before, during, and after the heyday of the iPod. Many were cheaper, similar in ease of use, higher in features, and had better audio quality than the iPod. But, they weren't as cool, they weren't the iPod, people wanted the iPod because it's the thing to have.
The Popular item that everyone wants, or want's to be seen with is often what gives it a fad status.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
I understand your viewpoints, respect your opinion, and appreciate your time in sharing them. I can totally see and respect why people wouldn't see the iPod as being either a fad, or part of one. I just look at it a bit differently.
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
When you learn to be a constructive participant of a conversation, as opposed to just snide, I would be more than happy to discuss my viewpoints with you.
Cheers,
neiltc13
Apr 9, 07:03 PM
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
djgamble
Oct 7, 09:52 PM
Good luck to them then...
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
risc
Sep 12, 03:44 PM
An interesting device it sounds like the El Gato EyeHome. As long as it can play all normal video/audio formats (whatever you have QuickTime components for) and it has support for El Gato EyeTV I'll happily replace my XP MCE box with one.
javajedi
Oct 11, 12:50 PM
http://members.ij.net/javajedi
You're more than welcome to download the Java version, or the Mac OS X native one. When I said C, I really should clarify. It's actually a Cocoa version so the source is a .m objective c file, however the math function itself is from the C library. It's really cool how in objective c you can use regular C :)
For integer testing:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
Justin Bieber – Us Weekly#39;s
justin bieber us weekly
justin bieber photoshoot 2011
justin bieber us weekly photos
justin bieber us weekly. of us
justin bieber photoshoot 2011
justin bieber us weekly
justin bieber us weekly photo
Thankfully for the mag#39;s shoot
Justin Bieber – Us Weekly#39;s
Will Justin Bieber Be On The
ieber us weekly.
justin bieber us weekly
Justin+ieber+photoshoot+
You're more than welcome to download the Java version, or the Mac OS X native one. When I said C, I really should clarify. It's actually a Cocoa version so the source is a .m objective c file, however the math function itself is from the C library. It's really cool how in objective c you can use regular C :)
For integer testing:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
Iscariot
Mar 25, 10:39 AM
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You misspeak and mischaracterize. A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You misspeak and mischaracterize. A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
~Shard~
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
The iTV sounds great, however if I buy one I�m going to want to be able to utilize it to its fullest extent. And right now, living outside of the US, without access to TV shows on iTunes, let alone the new movies, it just doesn�t make sense for me to buy one. Hopefully things will change next year by the time it is released, but I have my doubts. As a result, there are going to have to be some other amazing features incorporated into this box to convince me to buy it, otherwise I�m not shelling out good money for a STB which Apple has essentially crippled for me. :cool:
alent1234
Aug 26, 07:32 AM
Had drop call issues with my iPhone 3G ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Not kidding. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Indiana, New York, New Jersey . . . you get the picture.
Now with my iPhone 4, it is WORSE. I get dropped 3 or 4 times during a 15 minute conversation.
Talked my friend into an iPhone (it is GREAT for everything except being a phone) and she, in 3 days, has had to return 2 phones that were defective. She, a tech industry executive, asked AT&T and Apple what their failure rate was, and they replied, "We can't tell you that." Go figure. Also learned that there is one side of the band on the iPhone 4 for telephone and the other side for data. Having your hands directly on either side will diminish the reception. Using a headset does help (keeping hands off phone)
My iPad hasn't seemed to have so many problems connecting on the go, but it does run a little slower sometimes. Have to say it rules, except the flash thing (best surfing anywhere?????), but another thread:D
why is it that it's usually the newbie accounts that have the most trouble with their iphones?
Now with my iPhone 4, it is WORSE. I get dropped 3 or 4 times during a 15 minute conversation.
Talked my friend into an iPhone (it is GREAT for everything except being a phone) and she, in 3 days, has had to return 2 phones that were defective. She, a tech industry executive, asked AT&T and Apple what their failure rate was, and they replied, "We can't tell you that." Go figure. Also learned that there is one side of the band on the iPhone 4 for telephone and the other side for data. Having your hands directly on either side will diminish the reception. Using a headset does help (keeping hands off phone)
My iPad hasn't seemed to have so many problems connecting on the go, but it does run a little slower sometimes. Have to say it rules, except the flash thing (best surfing anywhere?????), but another thread:D
why is it that it's usually the newbie accounts that have the most trouble with their iphones?
skunk
Apr 24, 03:25 PM
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin. I think you'll have to try again here: I have no idea what you are saying.
skunk
Mar 16, 02:09 PM
The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. Is completely irresponsible the opposite of short-sighted?
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 08:15 PM
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.I really wish it was okay. But all it takes is for one of those guests to be a busy-body radio station employee or someone otherwise with record industry contacts to send an email to the RIAA or ASCAP or someone to put your videography business in court.
Apple 26.2
Apr 15, 04:09 PM
Whatever differences exist, you'll get used to them.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:23 AM
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Sorry, but do you not see how horrid this position is?
"We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."
Jesus H. Christ.
Sorry, but do you not see how horrid this position is?
"We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."
Jesus H. Christ.
Cromulent
Apr 24, 11:44 AM
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
Not at all. I think anyone who identifies as a Christian is a Christian by definition. I just think that the lengths some goto rationalise their beliefs are ridiculous. Why bother being a Christian at all if you are going to change some of the core tenants of the belief.
I am mean I heard the other day (second hand so apply salt liberally) that some Christians are even changing the whole holy trinity thing so that it is less "way out there".
My general thinking on this is that if you can "interpret" so much of the Bible then why do you need a centralised religion at all? Why isn't anyone who believes in a god (any god) a Christian if the definition is so liberal? The only thing that seems constant in Christianity is that every denomination considers the Bible to be their holy book. Everything else, including the meaning whether literal or interpreted is completely up for grabs.
It just strikes me as odd that God would let the state of his religion fall into such disrepair.
Just my thoughts.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
Not at all. I think anyone who identifies as a Christian is a Christian by definition. I just think that the lengths some goto rationalise their beliefs are ridiculous. Why bother being a Christian at all if you are going to change some of the core tenants of the belief.
I am mean I heard the other day (second hand so apply salt liberally) that some Christians are even changing the whole holy trinity thing so that it is less "way out there".
My general thinking on this is that if you can "interpret" so much of the Bible then why do you need a centralised religion at all? Why isn't anyone who believes in a god (any god) a Christian if the definition is so liberal? The only thing that seems constant in Christianity is that every denomination considers the Bible to be their holy book. Everything else, including the meaning whether literal or interpreted is completely up for grabs.
It just strikes me as odd that God would let the state of his religion fall into such disrepair.
Just my thoughts.
Digitalclips
May 2, 02:28 PM
About as huge as most windows ones!
Difference being Windows users don't have to accept an invitation then enter an admin user name and password for most stuff they get zonked with.
BTW, Just curious, did the Scottish folks that founded your town not know how to spell or is it a typo in your town name?
Difference being Windows users don't have to accept an invitation then enter an admin user name and password for most stuff they get zonked with.
BTW, Just curious, did the Scottish folks that founded your town not know how to spell or is it a typo in your town name?
thejadedmonkey
Mar 11, 02:27 AM
CNN just keeps showing the footage of that oil refinery that's burning... the one tank looks HUGE. Oh man... it's bad. =(
And the water just rolling across the fields.
And the water just rolling across the fields.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:02 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing...
The Earth coalesced from matter ... not from "nothing".
Life also originated from matter.
Where do you get the idea that these two things sprang from nothing?
The Earth coalesced from matter ... not from "nothing".
Life also originated from matter.
Where do you get the idea that these two things sprang from nothing?
CountBoni
Mar 18, 05:16 AM
Hey mates! I live in the UK and according to what I've read, what american mobile companies are charging you is a rip-off! I pay �35 per month (tax included, about $55 USD) and I get: 2000 any network-any time minutes, 5000 same network minutes, 5000 any network messages, UNLIMITED internet, that's right, no capping, no "fair usage policies", UNLIMITED! AAAAND I can tether with up to 5 devices, (macbook and iPad in my case and even my mates iPod touch from time to time when we are out). No extra fees, no hidden tricks. And my iPhone is unlocked, so I can sell it when my contract finishes and any person can use in any country or any network. COMPLAIN PEOPLE!:apple:
BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 02:12 PM
2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Banjhiyi
Apr 15, 10:25 AM
Absolutely ridiculous. Fat kids DO commit suicide, by the way. A lot of kids do. But these days it doesn't get in the news because it isn't sexy.
Absolutely.
Don't forget folks, being obese is a crime in half the world and punishable by death in a quarter of that world.
Remember, too, that obesity was illegal in several US states up until a generation ago.
And recount the number of openly obese individuals who were assassinated in broad daylight just because of the way their biological dice had landed.
Let's not just target bullying against those with obesity problems. After all, that means we are deliberately ignoring other types of bullying, and that just isn't sexy.
Absolutely.
Don't forget folks, being obese is a crime in half the world and punishable by death in a quarter of that world.
Remember, too, that obesity was illegal in several US states up until a generation ago.
And recount the number of openly obese individuals who were assassinated in broad daylight just because of the way their biological dice had landed.
Let's not just target bullying against those with obesity problems. After all, that means we are deliberately ignoring other types of bullying, and that just isn't sexy.
robotfist
Apr 13, 12:41 AM
Currently I work as a producer for the NBA. If the face recognition works, that could be huge for what I do. We have to go through months and months of games pulling highlights of individual players. Currently we edit using Final Cut Pro systems. If the new system can accurately analyze faces and allow me to do a search for certain players, well, that would be friggin' awesome. I hope it works.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:24 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
Mal
Mar 11, 08:59 PM
I have some family members visiting Japan and a number of friends living there. They've been posting pictures and video on Facebook all the time, from the Chiba area mostly. While they're all ok, this situation with the nuclear reactors definitely have me worried. They're a few hours away from those reactors, though not far from the Ichihara oil refinery fire. Really hoping this doesn't just get worse.
jW
jW
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق