Jump to content
LaunchBox Community Forums

ColonelSandres

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About ColonelSandres

  • Rank
    4-Bit Adder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There's no need to be nasty and make ad homimen attacks on strangers just because you don't agree with them. I'd argue that's very much against the message of what Jason is trying to achieve in the first place. At least you clicked on a forum topic about the religious beliefs being inserted into a software program and got exactly what you expected. No-one forced you to, remember. Try behaving more how you would in real life.
  2. This is just a variant of the "tough luck" argument which absolves all responsibilty for Jason's decisions and in doing so, negates your claim about it supposedly coming from a good place. You can argue for his right to make decisions regardless of other people's feelings, or to be genuinely considerate towards others, but not both in the exact same action.
  3. Forcing others to consider your beliefs in a setting where they were not invited and should not be expected may not be the root of all evil, but no-one is claiming as much. That logic still doesn't mean it's an appropriate (or right) thing to do. Personally, I think it's great that Jason overcame depression and if he believes God helped him do this then great. But however well-meaning it might seem to the sender, Jason doesn't know who he's sending these things out to. He cannot know the effect it'll have. Some people may find it genuinely distressing for reasons you have no right to contemplate. Personally, I believe that animals shouldn't suffer but that doesn't mean I'm going to use this forum to graphically list out the kinds of animal cruelty that take place every day. I wouldn't just tell you not to read it. I'd take responsibility at source. By doing so I respect your right to only expect that in a setting where it's relevant or related. This is the flip side of the argument that makes those saying "Jason can do what he wants with his software" are, whether they like being called it or not, 100% intolerant of.
  4. You are coming across as quite aggressive. That aside, you won't be able to quote me where I've said anywhere that people are not allowed to express their religious beliefs or where I have stopped them from doing so. I particularly challenge you to prove when I've said they can't hold those beliefs, as you've claimed. It's not whether people can, it's whether it's appropriate and whether that invades other people's right to not hear those views. That's especially true, as I've said, for those people who paid unknowingly. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. These messages are coming not just into their software (which yes they don't have to read) but their inboxes too. Your advocating religious messages in emulation software removes my right to not see or hear religious messages in an appropriate setting if I choose to. You are seeing the argument from one side and one side alone. Whatever your beliefs, that again isn't tolerance in any form.
  5. As I said, it's in the mailouts as well. You can't find out about updates to the product you paid for unless you accept these words in your inbox. You seem to again be dictating how others should feel based on how you do. Once again this is absolutely not tolerance or understanding. Not having religion doesn't mean you can't have empathy.
  6. With the greatest possible respect, you've just dodged a number of the issues I've raised: - If you think it important that you have no agenda to say what people must think, why are you not inserting quotes about atheism in your signature? - Some/many people will have already bought the product without being made aware that they will receive Bible quotes in the software and from the mailing list. That is specifically taking away choice - Just because Jason can do this and has the legal right to do this does not mean he has the moral or religious right to do this Essentially your argument is "Tough luck, it's your problem" which doesn't (and I'm not making fun by saying this) exactly seem like what Jesus would do.
  7. Having read this thread, I became curious and did a bit of digging: https://forums.launchbox-app.com/topic/33647-secular-version-of-launchbox/ https://forums.launchbox-app.com/topic/43425-proposal-for-removing-bible-verses-from-launchbox/ Clearly this has come up before for some reason and it's surprising how many people come out and say "This shouldn't be an issue, you have a problem" in quite an aggressive way - and it's ironic, when many of these people are also supposedly preaching tolerance. You not seeing a problem does not mean that no-one else can, does or should see one. Somehow these people can understand that Jason is passionate enough about this to place religious texts in software whose function has no inherent or explicit religious connection or purpose itself - and yet they cannot understand how its users could be equally passionate about the same subject enough to take objection. You may claim that people have a choice and if they don't like it, they don't have to use it. Yet how would you feel if you noticed that your grocery receipts had quotes from the Quran printed on them? I think there's a pretty good chance you'd think this strange if not inappropriate. Even if you could get your money back on that purchase, you weren't warned beforehand that you could only accept these goods if you also accept the religious message that came with it. That is not fair and it is not choice. At least Bibles have their titles printed clearly on the cover. It seems strange to me that God would want his followers to spread his word through messages inserted into emulation programs but there you go. There are quotes on the mailouts too. If that same god didn't make us all believing in him from the start though then why would he want those followers to force his message into software against their will? Upsetting people and restating people's rights to say whatever they want just because they can seems counterintuitive and very intolerant in itself. (Sadly this will probably be another thread that gets locked with people being told to take it privately despite the subject being around a very public display of religious belief)
×
×
  • Create New...