|Welcome to the Monastery|
Re^9: how to unicode filenames?by perl-diddler (Hermit)
|on Jul 03, 2012 at 20:33 UTC||Need Help??|
Ideological viewpoints are "religious". Their basis is based on illogical internal beliefs that are impervious to logic or facts.
That was my point -- I believe that the article exemplifies my point that there are many aspects, features, beliefs, etc, that are based on ideology. Focusing on, NOT, the content, but the nature or characterization of the "type of the discussion" about the content, you might more clearly see the point.
Someone quoted a snippet from my previous response about a conversation where someone tried to 'end' a ideologically based disagreement by saying that no one who was able to make the change wanted it enough to change it, so it wouldn't go in. I responded to that (in multiple similar contexts) that if someone able to make the change provided the change, does that mean it would go in? I.e. is the only thing preventing this from going in, is the need for a patch -- attempting to clarify if that was the only roadblock, or if they were avoiding talking about other roadblocks that would be raised if a patch was created and presented.
Because many of these discussions are ideologically based, they cannot be discussed rationally or logically, thus people try to end them by saying claiming that the reason is because there's no patch to implemented it, vs. having their viewpoint or ideology exposed as irrational and illogical.
Thus when someone asks if a patch is presented, if that's the only roadblock to the feature/fix going in, you can see that for those not wanting to have their ideological or religious view logically examined, there could be no answer. So when someone asked for links to examples of issues of this type -- where they were more ideologically based, than on any logical basis, I provided what I thought was a prime example of an ideologically based issue.
That some would characterize the article as being 'poor', is inevitable, if, indeed, it's nature is ideological. I.e., you rarely get into arguments about common facts, like "2+2=4", or it's "hot outside today" when the temp stands in the low 100's (F) (or high 30's (C)). Those types of statements rarely provoke an emotional response or an argument.
But statements like "there is/is not" an intelligent design to the universe, or "I've been born again, and I'd like to introduce you to my savior, Buddha, who is no longer being born again....", tend not to be so "cut & dried", and fall into the domain of ideology or 'belief'. Thus my example, and snickering at the irony of someone's response highlighting the ideological content of the article....
I found it very humorous.