Re: engineering graduate school question

#41 07-23-2007, 01:04 PM

mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> writes:

> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:13:03 -0400, Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
>>mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:07:14 GMT, R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org (Rick Lyons)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Liberals, the hard-core ones at least, want
>>>>a society:
>>>>
>>>> "where tolerance is is strictly enforced."
>>>>
>>>>Ha ha. I love that phrase.
>>>
>>> In a country where a black man still gets killed by being dragged
>>> behind a car by chains and a gay man gets beaten to death because of
>>> "gay panic", I think such an idea may be still good for a while.
>>
>>Wrong. The PC concept of tolerance belongs in the shitpile. Justice,
>>however, (e.g., for murder) is always appropriate.
>
> Your concept of justice seems to indicate vengeance or punishment
> which does no good to the victim.

Oh yes it does, when it's a deterrent to others who may contemplate the
same action in the future.

> As far as I am concerned justice is served when the victim is made
> whole again which is quite difficult if one is dead.

That's life. What can be done about suicide bombers? For those who
think it's worth the cost, there isn't much to be done.

> One way accomplish it is to teach people tolerance so no
> one gets killed because they're black or gay or ...

You're deluded. No one is going to teach people tolerance IN THEIR HEART.
It's all lip-service and socio-political bullshit.
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

#42 07-23-2007, 01:27 PM

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:04:26 -0400, Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org>
wrote:
>> As far as I am concerned justice is served when the victim is made
>> whole again which is quite difficult if one is dead.
>
>That's life. What can be done about suicide bombers? For those who
>think it's worth the cost, there isn't much to be done.
>

I'm not against punishment per se. Just that we should try to reduce
the need as much as possible.

>> One way accomplish it is to teach people tolerance so no
>> one gets killed because they're black or gay or ...
>
>You're deluded. No one is going to teach people tolerance IN THEIR HEART.
>It's all lip-service and socio-political bullshit.

So you think people are born with intolerance in their heart ? If yes,
I am sorry for you. If no, I think people can be taught to have
tolerance, at least not to have intolerance. If one is raised to
believe blacks are inferior and inherently bad and gays are going to
deepest hole in the hell, it's true that it's difficult to change that
after one is 15 and some people take action upon those teachings.

#43 07-23-2007, 01:44 PM

Randy Yates wrote:
> mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:07:14 GMT, R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org (Rick Lyons)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Liberals, the hard-core ones at least, want
>>> a society:
>>>
>>> "where tolerance is is strictly enforced."
>>>
>>> Ha ha. I love that phrase.
>> In a country where a black man still gets killed by being dragged
>> behind a car by chains and a gay man gets beaten to death because of
>> "gay panic", I think such an idea may be still good for a while.
>
> Wrong. The PC concept of tolerance belongs in the shitpile. Justice,
> however, (e.g., for murder) is always appropriate.

In 1776, in an address to the Virginia House of Delegates, Thomas
Jefferson said "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20
gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Those
who claim that this is a Christian (or Buddhist, or Moslem, or Jewish)
nation and should be governed accordingly ought to be booted out of it.
If that's intolerant, so be it.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

#44 07-23-2007, 01:51 PM

Randy Yates wrote:

...

> You're deluded. No one is going to teach people tolerance IN THEIR HEART.
> It's all lip-service and socio-political bullshit.

Fortunately, you're wrong in some cases. Too few, but some.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

#45 07-23-2007, 03:08 PM

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>> mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:07:14 GMT, R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org (Rick Lyons)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Liberals, the hard-core ones at least, want a society:
>>>>
>>>> "where tolerance is is strictly enforced."
>>>>
>>>> Ha ha. I love that phrase.
>>> In a country where a black man still gets killed by being dragged
>>> behind a car by chains and a gay man gets beaten to death because of
>>> "gay panic", I think such an idea may be still good for a while.
>> Wrong. The PC concept of tolerance belongs in the shitpile. Justice,
>> however, (e.g., for murder) is always appropriate.
>
> In 1776, in an address to the Virginia House of Delegates, Thomas
> Jefferson said "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are
> 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
> Those who claim that this is a Christian (or Buddhist, or Moslem, or
> Jewish) nation and should be governed accordingly ought to be booted
> out of it. If that's intolerant, so be it.

And I'm fine with that. That is, I'm fine with the fact that you have
an opinion that doesn't necessarily agree with mine. I don't see that
as "intolerant," just honest.

And when we're honest with one another, we can communicate on a more
meaningful level.
--
% Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'"
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

#46 07-24-2007, 09:50 PM

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:48:10 +0000, mk wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:07:14 GMT, R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org (Rick Lyons)
>
>> Liberals, the hard-core ones at least, want
>>a society:
>>
>> "where tolerance is is strictly enforced."
>>
>>Ha ha. I love that phrase.
>
> In a country where a black man still gets killed by being dragged behind a
> car by chains and a gay man gets beaten to death because of "gay panic", I
> think such an idea may be still good for a while.
>

No, just prosecute crimes as crimes. Even if you only kill a neocon, it's
still murder.

Thanks,
Rich

#47 07-24-2007, 09:52 PM

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:36:36 -0700, mk wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:13:03 -0400, Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote:
>>mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> writes:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:07:14 GMT, R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org (Rick Lyons)
>>>
>>>> Liberals, the hard-core ones at least, want
>>>>a society:
>>>>
>>>> "where tolerance is is strictly enforced."
>>>>
>>>>Ha ha. I love that phrase.
>>>
>>> In a country where a black man still gets killed by being dragged
>>> behind a car by chains and a gay man gets beaten to death because of
>>> "gay panic", I think such an idea may be still good for a while.
>>
>>Wrong. The PC concept of tolerance belongs in the shitpile. Justice,
>>however, (e.g., for murder) is always appropriate.
>
> Your concept of justice seems to indicate vengeance or punishment which
> does no good to the victim. As far as I am concerned justice is served
> when the victim is made whole again which is quite difficult if one is
> dead. One way accomplish it is to teach people tolerance so no one gets
> killed because they're black or gay or ...

Just arm everybody to the teeth and see to it that they get proper
firearms training, and there will be no crime or threat of terrorism or
excessive taxation or any of the other ills that government inflicts on
us.

There might be a few troublemakers at first, but they'd ba Darwinized in
short order. :-)

Thanks,
Rich

#48 07-24-2007, 09:59 PM

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:27:10 +0000, mk wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:04:26 -0400, Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> As far as I am concerned justice is served when the victim is made
>>> whole again which is quite difficult if one is dead.
>>
>>That's life. What can be done about suicide bombers? For those who think
>>it's worth the cost, there isn't much to be done.
>>
> I'm not against punishment per se. Just that we should try to reduce the
> need as much as possible.
>
>>> One way accomplish it is to teach people tolerance so no one gets
>>> killed because they're black or gay or ...
>>
>>You're deluded. No one is going to teach people tolerance IN THEIR HEART.
>>It's all lip-service and socio-political bullshit.
>
> So you think people are born with intolerance in their heart ? If yes, I
> am sorry for you. If no, I think people can be taught to have tolerance,
> at least not to have intolerance. If one is raised to believe blacks are
> inferior and inherently bad and gays are going to deepest hole in the
> hell, it's true that it's difficult to change that after one is 15 and
> some people take action upon those teachings.

People are born naturally loving and "tolerant", but it gets bludgeoned
out of them by their parents and "Society" by the time they've survived
the terrible twos.

Thanks,
Rich

#49 07-24-2007, 10:02 PM

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:44:18 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:
> Randy Yates wrote:
>> mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> writes:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:07:14 GMT, R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org (Rick Lyons)
>>>
>>>> Liberals, the hard-core ones at least, want
>>>> a society:
>>>>
>>>> "where tolerance is is strictly enforced."
>>>>
>>>> Ha ha. I love that phrase.
>>> In a country where a black man still gets killed by being dragged
>>> behind a car by chains and a gay man gets beaten to death because of
>>> "gay panic", I think such an idea may be still good for a while.
>>
>> Wrong. The PC concept of tolerance belongs in the shitpile. Justice,
>> however, (e.g., for murder) is always appropriate.
>
> In 1776, in an address to the Virginia House of Delegates, Thomas
> Jefferson said "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20
> gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Those who
> claim that this is a Christian (or Buddhist, or Moslem, or Jewish) nation
> and should be governed accordingly ought to be booted out of it. If that's
> intolerant, so be it.

If this were really a Xtian nation, wouldn't we be heeding "His" words,
like "beat your swords into plowshares" and "love your enemy" and "thou
shalt not kill" and stuff?

Heck, even Moses said, "Thou shalt not kill", but that doesn't seem to
deter the Israelites from slaughtering their neighbors.

Thanks,
Rich

#50 07-24-2007, 10:08 PM

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:08:30 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:

> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>
>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>> mk <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:07:14 GMT, R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org (Rick Lyons)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Liberals, the hard-core ones at least, want a society:
>>>>>
>>>>> "where tolerance is is strictly enforced."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ha ha. I love that phrase.
>>>> In a country where a black man still gets killed by being dragged
>>>> behind a car by chains and a gay man gets beaten to death because of
>>>> "gay panic", I think such an idea may be still good for a while.
>>> Wrong. The PC concept of tolerance belongs in the shitpile. Justice,
>>> however, (e.g., for murder) is always appropriate.
>>
>> In 1776, in an address to the Virginia House of Delegates, Thomas
>> Jefferson said "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20
>> gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Those
>> who claim that this is a Christian (or Buddhist, or Moslem, or Jewish)
>> nation and should be governed accordingly ought to be booted out of it.
>> If that's intolerant, so be it.
>
> And I'm fine with that. That is, I'm fine with the fact that you have an
> opinion that doesn't necessarily agree with mine. I don't see that as
> "intolerant," just honest.
>
> And when we're honest with one another, we can communicate on a more
> meaningful level.

I think it goes back to, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words
can never harm me."

According to my abnormal psych homunculus, people who perceive themselves
as harmed by the mere presence of words are deeply neurotic and trapped in
a vicious cycle of denied guilt and self-hatred. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode