Re: virus: Why religious?
Thu, 17 Oct 1996 23:50:36 -0500 (CDT)

On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Ken Pantheists wrote:

> Vicki:
> > >
> > >still think the moral teachings had value, not only as a matter of social
> > >order, but (for example) because they encourage charity.
> > >He might even be doing charitable work in that church context
> David Leeper:
> > Plus there's the access to nubile young boys.
> There are nubile young boys right here. (I was contemplating looking up
> a link and sending it on this message, but concluded that would be
> course overkill.)
> If you as an internet user do not frequent and are vocal
> against, does that make you a hypocrit?

The common interpretation-maps I am used to would claim that *regular*
frequenting of, combined with being vocal against it,
would constitute hypocrisy.

These are simplistic; it is quite possible someone could be
psychologically addicted to the items on the site, and STILL abhor
them. Certainly I am in such a bind with respect to several of the
Eastern Orthodox vices.

Now, being vocal against without knowing its categories of
content would be outright ignorance, which is only good at keeping the
ignorant, ignorant. It's surprising how many "The truth on..." booklets
depend on this principle. Most of these are vehemently religious, for
some religion.

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd