Python 3 is killing Python

Chris Angelico rosuav at
Tue Jul 15 04:11:47 CEST 2014

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson at> wrote:
> But, if the USA *DID NOT* exist during the perilous times of
> the world wars, how many generations of people would have
> suffered before a powerful enough contender came along to
> unclench the grips of evil?
> How many minutes, or hours, or days in a concentration camp
> would YOU, Chris Angelico, trade so you could have your
> selfish wish to wipe USA's prestige from the history books?

I dunno. It's not like Great Britain, Australia, or New Zealand did
anything significant in either war, is it. And a lot of US citizens
fought in British or other military units, because the US wasn't in
the war yet. That's what I mean by "if the US were not, others would
take up the slack" - the same people would do the same work, under a
different flag.

> You see Chris, the battle between "good" and "evil" [1] will
> always exist, and in fact, if it did not exist, the world
> would be a stagnate cess-pool of rot and decay because it is
> the very battle that is waged against "evil", which is just
> another form of competition, that spins the cogs of
> evolution.
> [1] And i use the terms very loosely here. Please, let's not
>     get into a debate of what "good" and "evil" are with all
>     the religious nonsense and such.

Easiest to use the Dungeons & Dragons definitions of those terms
(which don't conflict with most religious definitions): evil is
selfishness, good is altruism.

>> I guess you've eliminated racism since I last heard.
> Yup. And next we've decided to solve the middle east crisis!

Good. Call me when you get there, and I'll give you the rest of the
directions. Some people in Australia are still racist, but racism is
nothing like the problem it is in America, where you boast so much of

>> Oh, and I agree that all people are created equal. (I'll
>> leave aside the argument about whether your statement is
>> proof that English is sexist, or that the US founding
>> fathers were the sexist ones.) I also believe that our
>> Creator sees us as equal. But all through history, we
>> flawed human beings have had a problem with seeing people
>> differently, for various reasons. The Apostle James wrote
>> about a major problem with "wealthist" Christians: And
>> there've been plenty of other problems creeping in. God
>> treats us all the same way: flawed, fallible people whom
>> He loves enough to die for. If you want to believe in true
>> equality, you need to follow His example.
> I'm confused by your logic. First you admit all humans are
> fallible, but somehow, you believe that a collection of
> humans should be "infallible". Please explain this enigma.

Where do I say anything about a collection of humans being infallible?
I believe I specifically said *fallible*. That's, uhh, the opposite of


More information about the Python-list mailing list