Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Tuesday September 4, 2007 @03:41PM from the just-take-it-down dept.

NewsCloud writes "Does Facebook believe that no publicity is bad publicity? Why else would they leave a group called, "F**k Islam" open since July 21, 2007 despite more than 53,482 members joining an opposing group called petition: if "f**k Islam" is not shut down..we r quitting facebook group? Furthermore, advertisers such as Sprint, Verizon, T Mobile, Target, and Qwest wouldn't be too happy to learn that they are paying for ads on the 'F**k Islam' group pages. Shouldn't a startup like Facebook, reportedly worth more than a billion dollars and with over a hundred employees, be expected to enforce its own Terms of Use in less than six weeks?"

636 of 806 comments (clear)

Nice... by gardyloo · 2007-09-04 15:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Does anyone else think that starting a petition threatening to leave the site on which the petition is hosted...? Oh, nevermind.
1. Re:Nice... by silverkniveshotmail. · 2007-09-04 15:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's gone now, Allowing your users to say what they want is overrated anyway.
2. Re:Nice... by Cassius+Corodes · 2007-09-04 15:58 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Apart from the name which has a swear word - the group description as can be seen from the article is rather measured. It specifically states that the groups is not for those who hate Muslims - and that Muslims are generally good people. It is against Islam as a religion which I might add has some rather seriously violent aspects, racism and marginalisation of women - as do all religions. Despite this being clearly visible the article still claims that the group is racist. Now I don't know the conduct of the people in the group but if the description is what they they are about then I don't see what all the fuss is about.
  
  --
  Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
3. Re:Nice... by aichpvee · 2007-09-04 16:21 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Exactly, the only thing they did wrong was limit the scope. Fuck all religions. We have enough idiots who are deluded about factual topics (economics being an easy example), we don't need people being deluded about their imaginary friends, too.
  
  --
  The Farewell Tour II
4. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 16:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, and the KKK claims they are a civil-rights group!
5. Re:Nice... by The+Clockwork+Troll · 2007-09-04 16:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The group is misunderstood.
  
  It's a Muslim porn exchange.
  
  --
  
  There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
6. Re:Nice... by Dun+Malg · 2007-09-04 17:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Better to rely on the goodwill and common sense and love for his fellow man inherent in each and every one of us. Better that people figure out not to kill and rape and steal based on common sense than because a man in a funny hat says the invisible man forbids it. I have nothing against invisible men nor people who believe in them; I simply do not trust the men in funny hats.
  
  --
  If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
7. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 17:22 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I think it's "Thou shalt not have sex without a legal contract from the state"
  
  and "Thou shalt not be a faggot"
  
  and "Thou shalt engage in holy war"
  
  and "Thou shalt stick your nose in others business"
  
  and "Thou shalt not use birth control"
  
  and "Thou shalt blow up abortion clinics"
  
  and "Thou shalt not masterbate"
  
  and "Thou shalt not allow evolution to be taught in public school"
  
  and "Thou shall protest STD vaccines."
  
  and "Thou shalt not benefit from modern medicine"
  
  That bug most people in the US. I'm sure some people from Europe can fill you in on the downsides to some of the other more obnoxious religions.
8. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 17:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  40 Virgins Gone Wild IV: Taste of Paradise
9. Re:Nice... by QMalcolm · 2007-09-04 18:03 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  There are actually more than 6.5 billion people on earth now, so he is technically correct.
10. Re:Nice... by Safiire+Arrowny · 2007-09-04 18:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  All religions do not marginalize women.
11. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 18:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Hot ankle-exposing action!
12. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 18:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, that's exactly what keeps me from murdering and raping everyone I meet. Religion, and religion alone.
  
  My own morality and sense of good judgment has absolutely nothing to do with it.
13. Re:Nice... by Stormwatch · 2007-09-04 18:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "If the fear of reward or punishment in the afterlife is the only thing that makes people good, we are a sad lot indeed." -- Albert Einstein
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
14. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 18:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Based on common sense? Are you COMPLETELY retarded? WTF does common sense have to do with morality? In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me. Which piece of 'common sense' tells me that I shouldn't steal? As far as rape goes, why should I care whether someone else wants to do something or not? If I want to, and I have the power to do it, why should I not? (Note: I know why I should not. It isn't because of any 'common sense', though) Whether you like it or not, if there is an absolute moral code, it doesn't come from nature or common sense. If there isn't, then theft and rape are not wrong. You CANNOT have it both ways.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
15. Re:Nice... by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2007-09-04 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  I tried that once, but the fuckers took it down!
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
16. Re:Nice... by Xtifr · 2007-09-04 19:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > WTF does common sense have to do with morality? In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me.
  
  So your argument is that religion harms people by causing to act against their own self interest? Interesting, but much as I dislike most forms of religion, I don't think they're that bad. (At least not all the time.)
  
  The thing is that anyone who is older than five (at least, mentally) realizes if you go around stealing stuff all the time, it's going to encourage others to steal from you, and that's no fun. The Golden Rule (or something like it) is found in just about every human society that has ever existed. It's not a matter of religion; it's just common sense.
  
  Beyond that, there's a bunch of crazy bastards out there (and these days, they tend to be armed with AK47s) who will happily put a bullet through your kneecap just to see the expression on your face. Your only hope of defending yourself against these hordes of psychos is to band together with other people who are, shall we say, a little more sane. But these people aren't going to want to band together with you if you steal from them. And thus, we have the entire basis for civilization, without resorting to invoking the invisible Wahoo in the sky.
  
  Beyond that, the fact is that cooperation is an effective evolutionary strategy, and games theory confirms it. The species that have evolved the capacity (most notably, ants, termites, and, well, us) do outstandingly well. We have empathy circuits in our brain, and those evolved for a reason. Morality is more than just common sense--it's a biological imperative. We're social creatures; we enjoy cooperating. We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.
17. Re:Nice... by pD-brane · 2007-09-04 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  I do not know whether I should moderate this Interesting or Flamebate. Therefore I'll just reply.
  
  I think it is ridiculous that a lot of people need a religion just to live decent. With decent I mean what is generally accepted within a large set of people, say a culture or some countries. Of course there is no a priori good and evil (this refers to the interesting part of the parent), but I do not think the solution is to blindly follow a religion.
18. Re:Nice... by Gordonjcp · 2007-09-04 19:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  All religions do not marginalize women.
  
  The only one I can think of that doesn't offhand is the Sikh faith, which actually explicitly says that women are equal to men, just different. For instance, Sikh women typically don't take their husband's name when they marry, because that has connotations of "ownership".
19. Re:Nice... by Benaiah · 2007-09-04 19:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Have you ever wanted to post something but you really CBF... Ill make a lame attempt.
  
  I told my partner that taking my last name in marriage was meaningful because it was belonging and that the reason that Chinese people traditionally don't take their husbands is that they weren't worthy of the mans name... Only his blood, and thereby the children of her, were worthy of his name.
  
  The argument didn't work, but eventually she agreed anyways.
20. Re:Nice... by bhima · 2007-09-04 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are not going to have the response you hope for and the chat slang abbreviations you use aren't going to help. I'm not saying your English needs to be perfect, I know mine isn't But complete words and sentences will help everyone take you a little more seriously.
  
  From Wikipedia "The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God" so I guess Islam does not mean "peace".
  
  Comments like "The only reasons for war in Islam is defense of religion, state, self and other Muslims" are not helpful because *every* war ever perpetrated was sold on those merits. This is just a disingenuous as George W. Bush's preemptive war policies. The fact is that there are a lot of people running around killing each other and making people's lives miserable and saying they are doing because of Islam and not for example to rid themselves of an oppressive CIA installed and supported dictatorship.
  
  Claiming that accusations that Muslims are racist are false and evidence is contained within the biography of one man "Malcolm X" does not really make sense to me, particularly given the actions of that man. Had you made the claim that Muslims are not on average more racist than Christians or Jews I probably would be more receptive to any evidence you wanted to put forth. (and I'll say this to me is very believable).
  
  Claiming that Muslims do not marginalize women based on the successes of one women also holds no water. What would hold water is the claim that many Westerners are predisposed to believe that all Muslims marginalize women because many Muslim women wear various religiously motivated garments some of which look ridiculous, hot, and uncomfortable.
  
  Now, having said all of that, don't get the idea that I am anti-Islam any more than I am anti-Christian or anti-Jew. I don't this group has any special right to spread their hate and I don't think that their speech shuld be protected.
  
  --
  Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
21. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 20:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Despite a lack of belief in your sky fairy, I have never killed, stole or committed adultery. Amazing! Apparently I can be a normal functioning person without the threat of pain and suffering hanging over me.
  
  Better to rely on the goodwill and common sense and love for his fellow man inherent in each and every one of us.
  
  Well now that you mention it, if the only reason you havn't done those things is an irrational fear of pain and suffering in an imaginary afterlife you're a sociopath, so perhaps we do need to keep the mentally unstable members of the population subdued with religion.
22. Re:Nice... by jcr · 2007-09-04 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  If you need an imaginary friend to tell you not to kill people, then your morals are on very shaky ground.
  
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
23. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 20:15 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The thing is that anyone who is older than five (at least, mentally) realizes if you go around stealing stuff all the time, it's going to encourage others to steal from you, and that's no fun. The Golden Rule (or something like it) is found in just about every human society that has ever existed. It's not a matter of religion; it's just common sense.
  
  You make a number of assertions here. Let me detail them:
  
  1. Morality is realized universally - Do I really need to provide you examples to prove this wrong?
  2. It is a universal constant that theft incites theft against thieves - I believe history is full of examples of successful thieves. They don't seem to have had that problem.
  3. The golden rule is universal - Please provide a few pieces of evidence for this. I don't believe your assertion.
  
  Now, I'll respond: The number of people who do immoral things disproves your assertion. If what you said were true, then very few people would ever steal. The idea that theft is wrong is encouraged by religion and is not found in nature. Animals steal from each other all the time. It is beneficial to the thief. From an evolutionary standpoint, theft would lead to greater success were it not for societal penalties against it. In the same way, any act to protect weaker people from stronger is counter to evolutionary theory and thus does not come from nature. From where does it arise?
  
  Beyond that, there's a bunch of crazy bastards out there (and these days, they tend to be armed with AK47s) who will happily put a bullet through your kneecap just to see the expression on your face. Your only hope of defending yourself against these hordes of psychos is to band together with other people who are, shall we say, a little more sane. But these people aren't going to want to band together with you if you steal from them. And thus, we have the entire basis for civilization, without resorting to invoking the invisible Wahoo in the sky.
  
  Your assertions:
  1. Many people are murderously psychotic - Not statistically. You're FAR more likely to be murdered by a government (society) than an individual. Note: Wars are not started by individuals (most of the time)
  2. Society was formed to protect people - That was only one benefit. Actually, farming did more than banding together for protection. Of course, you're just talking out of your ass anyway.
  3. Thieves are unwelcome in societies - Not particularly. It depends on from whom they stole and what they stole.
  4. You are assigning the viewpoint to me that society was formed for religious reasons. This is not only factually incorrect, it's also not a viewpoint I've espoused.
  
  To respond:
  All moral codes have their roots in religion. Not always the SAME religion, mind you. However, whether the rules are coming from a guy in the sky or an imp under the earth, they are still external sources for moral codes. That isn't to say that some pieces of some moral codes aren't a good idea, or aren't beneficial on their own. However, the idea that they are codified doesn't come from nature. I've mentioned that before. You cannot set up an experiment to prove the law of theft. You can't set up an experiment to prove that violence is wrong. You just can't. You cannot examine a plant and show how it follows the 'do no harm' code of physicians. These things are societal constructs, not natural laws as you have repeatedly attempted to assert.
  
  Beyond that, the fact is that cooperation is an effective evolutionary strategy, and games theory confirms it. The species that have evolved the capacity (most notably, ants, termites, and, well, us) do outstandingly well. We have empathy circuits in our brain, and those evolved for a reason. Morality is more than just common sense--it's a biological imperative. We're social creatures; we enjoy cooperating. We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.
  
  Games theory assumes fluid responses to changing states. For example, it behooves a solitary person to cooperat
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
24. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 20:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think it is ridiculous that a lot of people need a religion just to live decent.
  
  I agree. However, your opinion of what is 'decent' is heavily influenced by religion, whether you or your parents are/were religious or not. All of our law, and our society, is based on a moral code handed down by religious people. Even if you hate that, it is impossible to escape for those of us in most of the world.
  
  Of course there is no a priori good and evil (this refers to the interesting part of the parent), but I do not think the solution is to blindly follow a religion.
  
  I submit that this is false. If there is no absolute good or evil, then there is no problem. Do whatever you want. There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code, absent religious reasons. This includes secular penalties for 'lawbreaking' because if there is no good and no evil, then there is no basis for law. It is not possible to say, "There is no good and evil, but we are punishing you for your actions." There should BE no law, if there is no good and no evil.
  
  To put it another way: If there is no right and no wrong, then it is meaningless to say that anyone has ever done anything wrong.
  If it is not meaningless to say that no one has ever done anything wrong, then there MUST exist some absolute concept of right and wrong. If it exists, ipso facto, it came from somewhere. Either it is a set of natural laws, or it came from somewhere outside nature. If it is a set of natual laws, then there is a way to delineate those laws. If that isn't true, then...and here's where I run out of ideas. It would really help me out if someone could show that there is a set of natural laws, and then provide a scientifically repeatable test for at least some of them. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
  Of course, most people will assume that because of my posts on this subject, I'm some sort of religious shill. However, I will categorically state right here and now that I do not agree with any organized religion I have ever heard of. I just wish I could explain in a scientific manner why some things are right and some are wrong. If it's just an artefact of religion, then we don't need to be basing laws on it. If it isn't, then we need to be able to use logic, reason, and science to defend our laws. We can't, currently.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
25. Re:Nice... by aichpvee · 2007-09-04 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever asked a religious person why they don't kill people?
  
  --
  The Farewell Tour II
26. Re:Nice... by ApostasyX · 2007-09-04 20:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Some of us can managed to be moral without having to believe in punishment by a superior being.
27. Re:Nice... by leenks · 2007-09-04 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like them pesky 9/11 hijackers?
28. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  Despite a lack of belief in your sky fairy, I have never killed, stole or committed adultery. Amazing! Apparently I can be a normal functioning person without the threat of pain and suffering hanging over me.
  
  Without a belief in the sky fairy, and thus a fear of punishment, how do we know you're not lying? For all we know, you were stealing a hooker's purse that you just killed after cheating on your wife with her while you were typing.
  Besides, if your definition of 'normal' is "acting like the sky fairy told me to, even though I don't believe in it", then you have some 'splainin to do.
  
  Why do you think most people don't break the law? Because they firmly believe that every law is right and proper? Because they have sat down and rationally considered the alternatives? Or because 'society' looks down on it and anyway, you might get caught?
  Whether it's the sky fairy or the local boys in blue, fear of punishment is what keeps society functioning. If it isn't the sky fairy worshippers afraid of the afterlife, it's non-sky fairy worshippers acting just like them in order to be 'normal'. What a world. Also, I think you need to read the definition of 'sociopath'. It's someone who doesn't believe that ANY rules apply to them. Therefore, what you said cannot be true. Nice jab at religion, though, I'm all for that. I despise organized religion.
  
  Here, from dictionary.com (emphasis mine):
  sociopath
  -noun Psychiatry.
  a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
  [Origin: 1940-45; socio- + -path]
  
  Actually, this raises an interesting question. From where does a sense of moral responsibility come? From where does a social conscience come?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
29. Re:Nice... by Eggplant62 · 2007-09-04 21:03 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I'll tell ya what all the fuss is about: Political Correctness (PC) and the erosion of First Amendment rights as a result.
  
  I think PC sucks. I think censoring people because they might say something that bothers or offends me is completely anti-First Amendment. I may not like what the group Fuck Islam has to say, but they have a right to say what they want to say, no matter whether it's offensive, hate speech, politically incorrect, racist, or anything else.
  
  Fuck Political Correctness should be the next group to organize, though the closest I could come was http://www.subgenius.com./
30. Re:Nice... by Da+Fokka · 2007-09-04 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  But religion's not much help there either. Just look at the crusades, sectarian violence in Iraq and the tensions between India and Pakistan. GGP stated that on of the merits of religion is that it imposes certain values. Assuming this is a good thing - which is a far stretch given some of the values which are an important part of religions - religions clearly don't do a good job of maintaining those values.
31. Re:Nice... by dintech · 2007-09-04 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
  
  If you need religion to guide you on these topics there's something deeply wrong with your life. As well as inate human morality, most people live under a rule of law that dictates a much more balanced and just moral code than any religion could provide. Anyway, I see plenty of religious people killing each other on the news and generally being naughty boys. Why? Because of religion. Go figure...
32. Re:Nice... by Dan+Hayes · 2007-09-04 21:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code, absent religious reasons.
  
  Evolutionary genetics and simple game theory lead to the conclusion that morality is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups.
33. Re:Nice... by ColdWetDog · 2007-09-04 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you need an imaginary friend to tell you not to kill people, then your morals are on very shaky ground.
  
  Or your medications haven't been adjusted recently.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
34. Re:Nice... by Opportunist · 2007-09-04 21:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In this case, your common sense is kinda short sighted. Because, extrapolating that, it should tell you that the next guy can do the same to you. So you have to expend resources to protect what you gained. In the long run, you're worse off and invest more resources that way.
  
  For reference, see the prisoner's dilemma.
  
  Some pretty smart guys realized that and thought, if they could make their people to conform to that, they could easily gain an advantage over other tribes. But how? I mean, you have to make sure your people heed that without watching them constantly (i.e. expend resources). The genius idea was to fill them with the believe that some omnipresent, allmighty being is peeking at them constantly.
  
  Since promising them any goodies would've meant expanding resources again, they didn't invent Santa Clause but rather thought God is a better idea. He promises you goodies in afterlife (for which you don't really need to expend any resources since, well, try to sue if you don't get jack).
  
  And behold, that trick worked! Look around you and you'll see that cultures who believe in religions that keep you from killing and stealing from your peers (not necessarily from other people/religions/cultures) are the most successful ones.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
35. Re:Nice... by hoover · 2007-09-04 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  I have to disagree. Your argument is only valid if you're able to support yourself during your entire lifetime without a group of people caring for and about you in times of sickness or other calamities.
  
  The behaviour you outline above is pretty anti-social, and it's a sure bet it wouldn't be tolerated for very long by the tribe you were born into, possibly leading to instant gene-pool removal of yourself (or, at least, exclusion / expulsion from the tribe whose members you were abusing).
  
  So I guess common sense does indeed dictate at least a fundamental adherence to basic principles that you'd call "moral", as it secures your survival within a group of people that'll support you in the long run.
  
  --
  Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
36. Re:Nice... by dintech · 2007-09-04 21:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  For all we know, you were stealing a hooker's purse that you just killed after cheating on your wife with her while you were typing.
  
  Typing!? Damn his evil soul to hell!
37. Re:Nice... by Opportunist · 2007-09-04 21:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.
  
  No, we don't need him anymore. Today we replace him with surveillance cams. They're essentially serving the same purpose, but they don't promise you anything for your afterlife.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
38. Re:Nice... by Crayon+Kid · 2007-09-04 21:36 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I don't understand why people can't tolerate hecklers and idiots without getting all offended.
  Why the hell should we? Just because they're on the Internet and they think they can get away with it?
  
  --
  i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
39. Re:Nice... by avenj · 2007-09-04 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't your mommy ever tell you to treat people the way you expect to be treated? :)
  
  I have never held any religious belief and I can't say I'm particularly frightened of the local cops (in a town of ~3,000...) and yet due to upbringing and many years of pondering the issue of morals the only obvious conclusion is that a functioning society can only grow out of mutual respect.
  
  Speaking of sociopaths, do you lack empathy or do you just not leave the house much? You're considering this from a purely logical point of view. Now go find a real-life friend or acquaintance or neighbor to talk to for an hour or two (unless you look like Ted Kaczynski, in which case clean up a little first) and then ponder whether you would really want to do them harm even without fear of punishment. Would it maybe weigh on your mind a little? That's empathy talking. In other words, functional humans are typically capable of "walking in another man's shoes" mainly because our capacity for emotion, memory, and rational thought allows us to imagine what another individual's emotional state feels like.
40. Re:Nice... by stud9920 · 2007-09-04 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Evolutionary genetics and simple game theory lead to the conclusion that morality is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups.
  I agree. When Richard Dawkins was accused of a strong "selfish" agenda behind the Selfish Gene, he replied with an excellent BBC documentary, available on Bittorrent, about how being altruistic sometimes IS the selfish action (Title is "Nice guys finish first")
41. Re:Nice... by Lars+T. · 2007-09-04 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  we don't need people being deluded about their imaginary friends, too.
  
  Yes. Hear, hear! Who needs all that crap imaginary friends saddle you with?
  
  We need fewer people with moral values such as "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The earth could be a paradise if we could just rid ourselves of such chafing limitations.
  There's a certain BOOK that's chock-full with "... unless somebody says your God said it's okay.".
  
  --
  Lars T.
  To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
42. Re:Nice... by Cassius+Corodes · 2007-09-04 22:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Correction - cooperation is not the best strategy for iterated prisoners dilemma but tit-for tat. i.e. start by cooperation - then do what your opponent did last turn; if he cooperated then cooperate, if he defected then defect. Which is what we do in society - we start by giving people the benefit of the doubt - then if they betray that they get punished. Another issue that humanity faces is what is called the hobbesian tragedy - if we have two decent groups of people that don't want to harm one another - but they cannot be sure of the others intention. If one strikes first then they get the advantage, therefore logically each has to attack in order to prevent the other for attacking. This can be prevented by having a mediating body which can enforce the peace, i.e. the police. This area of study is fascinating.
  
  --
  Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
43. Re:Nice... by dreamchaser · 2007-09-04 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  Oh maybe the piece of common sense that tells you that if you steal they might catch you and hurt you? Most elements of moral codes around the world are based in social and genetic evolution and often DO involved a certain about of common sense. If you rape someone their family might come after you and cut your pee-pee off, for example Common sense would tell me that I should think carefully about such an act before doing it.
44. Re:Nice... by sqldr · 2007-09-04 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  If you cannot understand if or why rape is wrong without referring to a religious book, then you have no morals, or, to put it in an evolutionary sense, you are less evolved.
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
45. Re:Nice... by Petrushka · 2007-09-04 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  What on earth are you talking about? What do Chinese people have to do with anything?
46. Re:Nice... by empaler · 2007-09-04 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  What happened to the 32 others? Not virgins anymore?
47. Re:Nice... by LarsG · 2007-09-04 23:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The important difference is that off-in-a-group-on-a-website hecklers are easier to avoid than in-your-physical-face hecklers. As long as they're not pestering you directly by spamming your wall/blog/whatever, it is a lot easier to avoid the online kind of numbnuts.
  
  And if you have some social need to provide said numbnuts with some clue, joining the group and working from the inside is usually more effective than ZOMG-must-ban!
  
  --
  If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
48. Re:Nice... by spiffyman · 2007-09-04 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  completely anti-First Amendment ... they have a right to say what they want to say, no matter whether it's offensive, hate speech, politically incorrect, racist, or anything else Wrong. This is Facebook, not the government. There is no Constitutional guarantee that Facebook will allow you some kind of free speech, even if it's hateful.
  
  More freaking importantly, the terms of these people's use of Facebook specifically indicate that the user agrees "not to use the Service or the Site to ... upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable."
  
  So please, come off your anti-PC horse, quit cheapening my rights (against the government) by diluting them with fictional rights against private organizations and my own contracts, and let's agree that this isn't a free-speech issue.
  
  --
  So you can laugh all you want to...
49. Re:Nice... by budgenator · 2007-09-04 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  If your the kind of psyco socieopath that only behaves in moral and ethical manner because you fear divine retribution, you neither understand society or your religion. If you ever lose your religion, just do the world a favor and put a bullet in your skull.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
50. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  I believe you. From where did your morals come? What makes them moral?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
51. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  I have read that book. I found a number of flaws with it. You can find some nice critiques on teh intarweb, but basically I don't think that book is the best choice to promote the view you are promoting. He still cannot produce any logical reason for morality, notwithstanding the logical leap required to believe that evolution produces make-believe bogeymen.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
52. Re:Nice... by Oligonicella · 2007-09-04 23:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "All of our law, and our society, is based on a moral code handed down by religious people."
  
  You know this how? Ever hear of Hammurabi? Moral codes existed long before the gods. They just weren't recorded until writing was invented. So, you basically have it backwards, Religions based their moral codes on common sense moral codes already extant and tries to usurp the high ground.
  
  "There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code..."
  
  Only if you're a pedant. Golden Rule, we should all follow it. All else is icing on the cake. Others have provided the evolutionary logic behind the GR, I won't repeat. So, we have logically determined why there are basic moral codes. It's the Byzantine flourishes that are somewhat unexplainable.
  
  Referring up-post: Of course there is no a priori good and evil...
  
  I agree with you this is blatantly false. Murder, brutality of any nature... I can think of any number of evil things. Those who can't need to sit in front of a mirror for a very long time and ask the reflection just how they justify the acts.
53. Re:Nice... by Eivind · 2007-09-04 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  True enough. But the right to Free Speech never included the right to have your statements be without consequence, or never to be critisised for statements you make.
  
  So, while you may be in your full right to say whatever the hell you want, other people are equally allowed to state that they do not wish to share a forum with people that say certain things, and prefer leaving.
  
  Also, free speech never included the right to have other people and/or companies host your statements. Facebook are perfectly allowed to delete whatever groups they care to delete. Not saying that's nessecarily a *wise* thing for them to do, just that they could. It's their servers afterall.
54. Re:Nice... by PopeRatzo · 2007-09-04 23:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Will you please get the number of virgins straight? This belt is getting heavy.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
55. Re:Nice... by Stooshie · 2007-09-04 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  ... WTF does common sense have to do with morality? ... ... Whether you like it or not, if there is an absolute moral code ...
  
  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Jesus, Sermon on the mount.
  
  Absolute moral code?
  
  --
  America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
56. Re:Nice... by Silent+Node · 2007-09-04 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  ...everything's a fuckin' travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about Vietnam? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with Vietnam? What the fuck are you talking about?
  
  --
  "You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit." -A. Ginsberg
57. Re:Nice... by Myuu · 2007-09-04 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  While you are mostly right as to the applicability of the FA protections in the private sector, you miss the point of the backlash against what I presume to be your article. It's basic neoliberal theory that such ideas can exist in a society without corrupting its framework. The concept of pluralism says that if such ideas are so repugnant there will be popular action which compensates and protects a society. Why should facebook abandon such principles and adopt a hazy regime of censorship? People that would join such a group are not going to be deterred or corrected by deleting the group. The only two reasons I can see for Facebook to do such a thing is keep the peace and not offend users. The former being understandable but its consequences are not the end of the world. In the case of the latter, well, who sucks so much that they can't deal with these things? 'Fuck Islam' is not, 'Kill Muslim men and rape their women'.
  
  I hope there is a backlash because slashdot should ABSOLUTELY NEVER be promoting censorship. Where is the line? When is my friend's 'Intelligent Design is Hilarious' group going to be deleted? I can definitely see such a group, considering its contents to be 'defamatory' and 'otherwise objectionable'. Let's not even get into how anti-TOS an anti-Scientology group can be.
  
  This is a PC charade on your behalf. Your choice of groups to be offended at is questionable and your politics in this situation is suspect.
  
  * If you are not the original author, sorry but some people are going to turn me into a libertarian. Back to sleep for me.
  
  --
  
  forget it.
58. Re:Nice... by Manchot · 2007-09-04 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  I simply do not trust the men in funny hats.
  
  Neither does Curious George.
59. Re:Nice... by falsified · 2007-09-04 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, common sense and survivalism are two separate things within modern Western society, and rightly so. If you were stranded in the desert, starving, and you came across an empty house with a pie cooling on the window (or whatever) then you'd be right to steal it. However, common sense in modern society would generally prevent you from doing this because it's not right to do.
  
  Common sense depends on context more than most people are willing to admit - it's not a universal, which makes it tricky for some people. But it exists.
  
  --
  HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
60. Re:Nice... by Curunir_wolf · 2007-09-04 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's gone now, Allowing your users to say what they want is overrated anyway.
  At least if enough other users complain about it. I guess somebody else will have to start a new petition to get the "f**k Christianity" group taken down.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
61. Re:Nice... by spiffyman · 2007-09-05 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  This is not my article, and I agree that there are probably better things to get huffed up about than this. But my point wasn't that we should all get on the bandwagon against the 'Fuck Islam' group. My point was, rather, that the reaction of GP dilutes my actual, Constitutional rights by claiming this is an FA issue.
  
  It's not, we shouldn't act like it is, and I'd like to see us ('us' as in the world) move past this PC-vs-anti-PC fight and into the more pertinent issues, such as those raised by yourself - e.g., in a neo-liberal society, and especially with user-created content, should private organizations limit the kinds of speech allowed? I doubt there's a black-and-white debate to be had here, but we damn sure can't have it if every time a private organization slaps someone on the wrist the rabidly libertarian segments start howling.
  
  --
  So you can laugh all you want to...
62. Re:Nice... by moeinvt · 2007-09-05 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  " ...quit cheapening my rights (against the government) by diluting them with fictional rights against private organizations and my own contracts, and let's agree that this isn't a free-speech issue."
  
  The First Amendment is clearly in place to control the government and not private organizations, but claiming that this is not a "free speech" issue is ridiculous. This is clearly a case of unpopular ideas being suppressed.
  
  I generally agree with the principle that private organizations have the right to conduct their businesses as they see fit. However, some organizations have business operations which facilitate the communication of ideas by their customers. Here's where I start to have some trouble. At what point does denial of a forum for unpopular speech become a First Amendment issue? Suppose "ForkIslam" is actually an organized political movement engaged in legal activities. First, Facebook denies them access. Then, the New York Times refuses to run one of their political advertisements. Next, their current ISP responds to public pressure and refuses to host forkislam.org. etc. etc.
  
  In this context, hasn't the government created a framework of "laws" which are limiting this group's right to free speech by allowing others to arbitrarily filter out their legitimate political message?
63. Re:Nice... by Ash+Vince · 2007-09-05 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me. Which piece of 'common sense' tells me that I shouldn't steal? Answer: The bit of common sense that say what you do to me I will doo back. If you steal something from me I might just take EVERYTHING from you.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
64. Re:Nice... by dnoyeb · 2007-09-05 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Some of us can not. What do we do with those?
  
  Christian "culture" sends them to heaven or hell. You won't find this notion in the Bible though. Islam is not much different according to my Muslim friends. Some of this stuff is meant for the consumption of a specific group of people. The rest of us are supposed to know better.
65. Re:Nice... by maddskillz · 2007-09-05 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  3. The golden rule is universal - Please provide a few pieces of evidence for this. I don't believe your assertion.
  
  This was the first result from google:
  http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/goldrule.htm/
66. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-05 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but if you know that the other person is moral, and will not lie, then it is to your advantage every time to lie. Concepts like 'trust' and 'reputation' are not logical.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
67. Re:Nice... by AndersOSU · 2007-09-05 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, I thought that atheism was a recent development, and that the Babylonians believed in various gods
  
  On average it makes sense for a society to follow the same moral code. In practice, this means that codified rules and punishments provide an advantage for a society. However, on the individual level, without a religiously inspired moral guide, this degenerates to a kind of ruthless pragmatism, where everything is moral, provided you don't get caught.
  
  Religiously derived moral codes avoid this problem, because the omniscient deity will always catch you.
68. Re:Nice... by sqldr · 2007-09-05 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  By this logic, theft, and indeed any other selfish crime is also an evolutionary strategy, however we have a far more useful evolutionary strategy in the form of social cooperation. Both of the above crimes will have you rejected from the greater group, and that is why most people find themselves compelled not to do it.
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
69. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-05 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  Evolutionary genetics and simple game theory lead to the conclusion that morality is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups.
  
  You are incorrect. You are assuming that living in social groups is inevitable, which I dispute. You are also making an untestable assertion which I will not accept. Evolution does not produce morals. What morals do bears have? What morals do fish have? What morals do plants have?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
70. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-05 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, your common sense is kinda short sighted. Because, extrapolating that, it should tell you that the next guy can do the same to you.
  
  Actually, common sense tells me that the other guy can do that to me now. It tells me that my behaviour does not guarantee the other guy's behaviour. It tells me that while the other guy MIGHT do it to me, I can FOR SURE do it to him first.
  
  So you have to expend resources to protect what you gained
  
  You have to do this anyway. Don't believe me? Try leaving a $20 on the ground in a public place for an hour.
  
  For reference, see the prisoner's dilemma.
  
  As I've previously noted, a moral person is at a real disadvantage in the prisoner's dilemma. An amoral person will ALWAYS win when the other person is moral. Every time.
  
  Some pretty smart guys realized that and thought, if they could make their people to conform to that, they could easily gain an advantage over other tribes.
  
  No, they got an advantage the same way we always have...with violence. Orrrrrrrrrrrrrr trade. Nice try, though.
  
  And behold, that trick worked! Look around you and you'll see that cultures who believe in religions that keep you from killing and stealing from your peers (not necessarily from other people/religions/cultures) are the most successful ones.
  
  Funny, I see correlation where you see causation.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
71. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-05 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  I have to disagree. Your argument is only valid if you're able to support yourself during your entire lifetime without a group of people caring for and about you in times of sickness or other calamities.
  
  Ever heard of vagrants?
  
  The behaviour you outline above is pretty anti-social, and it's a sure bet it wouldn't be tolerated for very long by the tribe you were born into, possibly leading to instant gene-pool removal of yourself (or, at least, exclusion / expulsion from the tribe whose members you were abusing).
  
  Not true. What if you're stealing from a different tribe? Happened all the time.
  
  So I guess common sense does indeed dictate at least a fundamental adherence to basic principles that you'd call "moral", as it secures your survival within a group of people that'll support you in the long run.
  
  Not true again. Morality isn't only about the people immediately around you. Again the example of raiding neighboring villages. This still doesn't explain why morals exist in the first place. I think society and how you are raised has more to do with your behaviour than you realize. You beleive of course there must be morals because you have been raised in a moral society.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
72. Re:Nice... by AndersOSU · 2007-09-05 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot connect morality to evolution, without embarking on the slippery slope that is social darwinism. Evolution involves individuals possessing a competitive advantage which they can pass genetically to their offspring. Morality does not benefit the individual, but rather the group, and is not inherited.
  
  Some group social dynamics may benefit the individual and the group, such as schooling, and this behavior can be connected to evolution, because fish who are not adept at schooling will find themselves eaten. Morality is different in kind because acting amorally often times imparts a competitive advantage, but is kept in check due to pressure imparted on the amoral from the evolutionary less fit moral masses.
  
  But even if morality as a behavior could be shown to be a desirable trait, it still couldn't be connected to evolution because it is not an inherited trait.
73. Re:Nice... by ApostasyX · 2007-09-05 01:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  My morals come from the way I was brought up, it's the responsibility of parents and the education system to teach right from wrong. Religion, at the end of the day, was a means to control the population before laws were used to do the same. The biggest problem with religion though, is the people who misinterpret (intentionally or not) the meaning of religious texts and doctrines. The Christian bible supposedly teaches tolerance, so how are the crusades justified? My children are free to choose their beliefs and I'm thankful that here in Britain religion is taught as a belief, not fact. It horrifies me that in some parts of the states it is now compulsory to teach "intelligent design" as fact.
74. Re:Nice... by cyclop · 2007-09-05 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, exactly, because free speech demands they MUST get away with it.
  
  Otherwise, you're advocating censorship, pure and simple. If that's your opinion, fine. Just admit it.
  
  --
  -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
75. Re:Nice... by sqldr · 2007-09-05 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot connect morality to evolution, without embarking on the slippery slope that is social darwinism. Evolution involves individuals possessing a competitive advantage which they can pass genetically to their offspring. Morality does not benefit the individual, but rather the group, and is not inherited.
  
  Bullshit. The sacrificial actions of one individual can benefit the genes of an entire group, most of which that individual will share. Many potentially moral people may have died and failed to pass on their specifics, but the group has survived, and grown to recognise the advantage of protecting those who might protect them. This is even more apparent when one recognises the bias people usually have towards their families.
  
  As for the tiresome "slippery slope" metaphor, it's only necessary to be wearing appropriate shoes for the terrain.
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
76. Re:Nice... by cyclop · 2007-09-05 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  To put it another way: If there is no right and no wrong, then it is meaningless to say that anyone has ever done anything wrong. If it is not meaningless to say that no one has ever done anything wrong, then there MUST exist some absolute concept of right and wrong.
  
  There are no absolute rights or wrongs. There are rights or wrongs relative to the local ethics. So talking of "right" or "wrong" is perfectly meaningful locally. It is meaningless globally. Paradox solved.
  
  --
  -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
77. Re:Nice... by cyclop · 2007-09-05 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  He still cannot produce any logical reason for morality
  
  Morality is sociobiology from the inside.
  
  --
  -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
78. Re:Nice... by AndersOSU · 2007-09-05 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really want to hang your moral compass on the law of the land?
  
  So now it's moral to sleep with your neighbors wife, but immoral to circumvent a copy protection technique?
  
  If you think that people are actually killing each other religion you are sadly misinformed. Sure it's easy for CNN to pitch it that way in nice short monosyllables, but if you look at what is going on, people aren't actually killing each other over their religious beliefs, their killing each other over the same things people have always killed for: power, money and land.
  
  How many Iraqi's have American soldiers killed? Remind me again, are we trying to convert the heathen swarm? Was Saddam before us concerned that the thousands of Kurds he gassed, and the thousands of his own people he put in torture chambers weren't living up to Allah's expectations?
  
  Religion provides a convenient excuse, as does race, or ethnicity, or nationality for one group to exert its power over and subjugate another group. Subjugation isn't about saving eternal souls, subjugation is about taxes, natural resources, and arable land.
79. Re:Nice... by Zabu · 2007-09-05 01:27 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Newly added TODAY!
  The_Five_Pillars_Of_Islam.avi
  Maira_Marries_Mecca.mpg
  Rammitdin.avi
  
  --
  It's all good.
80. Re:Nice... by hoover · 2007-09-05 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently, "Vagrants" is a band of some sort, but I've never heard of them ;-)
  
  Maybe it's not an explanation why morals exist, but surely their existence is advantageous to the survival probability of a group of people supporting each other.
  
  When you say "morality isn't only about people around you", that may be true, but that's not what I had in mind when I made my comment.
  
  --
  Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
81. Re:Nice... by mdm-adph · 2007-09-05 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Quiet, Donny -- you're out of your element.
  
  --
  It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
82. Re:Nice... by insanemime · 2007-09-05 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Evil is subjective. What universal law tells us that murder, stealing, rape and various other things are evil? Evil is a social ideal. There have been known to be tribes of people who practice ritual sacrifice, some that practice cannibalism, and some that stone people to death just for speaking out of turn. Are these people inherently evil? You might say yes because your social upbringing has taught so. But what about those people who grow up and are taught differently? I guarantee that if one of those people sat in front of a mirror, they would be able to look at themselves proudly. And in their mind, what you might deem as "evil" they can justify and not feel ashamed. Do you think a racist looks in a mirror and feels shame because of their intolerance? No. The feel righteous in their views. I am not saying I condone or like intolerance, violence, rape, and murder, but people have to realize that even though you might see something as inherently evil, another culture might see it as normalcy. Don't make assumptions for the world because there is always someone somewhere that can prove you wrong, even if they are a minority.
83. Re:Nice... by molarmass192 · 2007-09-05 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  I think he meant that living in social groups leads to morality, not that living in social groups is inevitable or that evolution predicts morality. I don't know if "morality" is the right terminology, but there certainly is truth to the fact that living in social groups does imply an expected behavior. IANAS (I am not a sociologist) but if I wanted to be extra friggen pedantic I'd phrase it as: codes of conduct are what define social groups.
  
  --
  
  Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
84. Re:Nice... by PinkPanther · 2007-09-05 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Islam as a religion which I might add has some rather seriously violent aspects, racism and marginalisation of women
  
  Please don't confuse religion with culture and/or practice. Religion is about philosophy and theocracy. Culture/practice is a (mis)interpretation, (mis)application and (mis)teaching of a philosophy.
  
  --
  It's a simple matter of complex programming.
85. Re:Nice... by aichpvee · 2007-09-05 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  You just don't know what evolution is. I doubt you read the book, much less found any flaws with it since you clearly lack the knowledge and/or intelligence to even understand the argument.
  
  --
  The Farewell Tour II
86. Re:Nice... by WNight · 2007-09-05 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  If you look at his wording I think you'll see it saying that free speech was a right on Facebook, just that the PC culture of censorship we see in this example is why first amendment rights, among many others, are being taken away by popular demand. Hate-speech, flag burning, etc.
  
  Eggplant62: Political Correctness (PC) and the erosion of First Amendment rights as a result.
  
  He's not saying that the First Amendment is being violated here, but that a PC society supports weakening the free speech rights.
  
  That's what I got out of it at any rate. :)
  
  It is true though. Maybe not in a the-sky-is-falling sense, but the whiners who get people kicked sites for their views (this Facebook issue, the recent LiveJournal issues, etc) are going to go do it again. Likely advocating for less legal freedom of speech. To them, stopping people from hurting feelings is a win. Not enabling open discussion, not airing unpleasant facts.
  
  We don't teach people to take criticism, to endure some verbal cruelty. There's always a helicopter parent threatening to sue unless their child grows up in a properly censored world, with the same size trophy as everyone else. One of the comments in a "Karl Rove had mooning students arrested" thread said "If I were there with my kids I'd have charged them with sexual indecency, etc, etc".
  
  When we're killing thousands daily in two "not wars" and are about to start another "more decisive" one, I think it's reasonable that debate could get a bit heated. Were the only issues in life silly Hollywood crap, maybe, but when people live and die in the world, events and words need be heated.
  
  Censorship is censorship, those who desire it are a special people.
87. Re:Nice... by PinkPanther · 2007-09-05 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Evolution does not produce morals. What morals do bears have? What morals do fish have? What morals do plants have?
  
  I agree to your questioning the idea that evolution produces morals, I dispute your claim that it cannot based on your examples. Which of those examples proves that morals don't exist? (i.e. prove that bears/fish/plants don't have morals).
  
  --
  It's a simple matter of complex programming.
88. Re:Nice... by mdwh2 · 2007-09-05 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. And if other Facebook users don't like it, why can't they simply not look at the group?
  
  Is it a good thing that other users can decide which groups can exist or not?
  
  Is it a good thing that groups are shutdown to please the advertisers?
89. Re:Nice... by aichpvee · 2007-09-05 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  1. Not all religions have the same "moral code," so biology is the only theory that actually makes ANY sense to explain the near universal acceptance of certain "moral" behaviors.
  
  2. The things we might describe as "moral" are our adapted behaviors. I'm sure bears have a "moral code," just like any other animal that has evolved for social situations. Their "moral code" is obviously not going to be the same as ours. As usual, religion explains nothing here and science does.
  
  3. You don't know what evolution is. Not uncommon for religious people, but it really isn't that difficult of a concept so you could at least try to learn. Here's a hint to get you started: evolution isn't a force, it's a process.
  
  --
  The Farewell Tour II
90. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-05 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ever hear of Hammurabi? Moral codes existed long before the gods. Oh Really?
  "When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind." The above is of course from the Code of Hammurabi
  They just weren't recorded until writing was invented. So, you basically have it backwards, Religions based their moral codes on common sense moral codes already extant and tries to usurp the high ground.
  What is your evidence that moral codes existed before writing? More importantly, what is your evidence that belief in a god or gods did not exist before then?
91. Re:Nice... by vertinox · 2007-09-05 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  You are incorrect. You are assuming that living in social groups is inevitable, which I dispute.
  
  It depends. If you look at human evolution for the past 2,000 years as a simply a survival of the fittest, then anyone who went against his local societies convention was put to death for even minor infractions. (In ancient Mesopotamia, if you built a house for someone and it collapsed and killed someone due to shoddy construction, then you were put to death)
  
  It was only until the last 200 years did mankind generally start having any other punishment than death. So for the 5,000 years or so before that, civilization was basically was evolving by killing off anyone who had genetic traits of anti-sociality.
  
  However, these traits would depend on which society you were in and based on their code or rules. A more tribal society might not have such things because punishment might not always be death but exile.
  
  --
  "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
  -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
92. Re:Nice... by tbannist · 2007-09-05 02:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, that's pretty much false. Religion has heavily borrowed from secular sources to inform it's opinion of what morality is. The Stoics and the Epicureans weren't religious.
  
  Contrary to your opinion, there are reasons beyond absolute good and evil for the rule. A system of morality can be based on religion or it can be based on something else. In fact society's rules are almost always based on the golden rule. It's a little thing called the social contract.
  If you're actually interested in the moral basis of society, that's the best starting point.
  
  Our laws may be difficult to defend with logic, reason and science because essentially they're decided by popularity (assuming you live in a democracy). Because we believe in the right to self-government we allow capricious and sometimes wrong laws to be created, though we attempt to limit what can be done by setting basic rules (the constitution, charter of rights, etc.) that can't be contravened. It could be worse, they could be decided by a successive line of individuals who have been declared infallible or who impose their will through force of arms.
  
  In fact, it is my opinion that most religions are a poor source of ethics, the biggest problem being the authoritarian nature of most religions. It frequently comes down to a question of is something good because god commands it or is god commanding it because it's good? The former possibility is a path that leads to a very twisted morality where anything is justifiable, the second runs contrary to the Christian, Islamic and Jewish idea of God. It acknowledges that morality exists seperately from God, and therefore there exists and seperate a equally good code of ethics that does not depend on the existence of God. And of course there is the problem of inertia and failure to embrace change. We know from history that the Bible was more often used as an argument for slavery than against it up to the American civil war. Thus we run into the problem that an imprecise, poorly edited series of books written by disparate authors can be used to justify just about any rule you want to make up.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
93. Re:Nice... by mopower70 · 2007-09-05 02:25 · Score: 2
  
  Only if you're a pedant. Golden Rule, we should all follow it. Sorry, got to disagree. I don't want people treating me the way they want to be treated. I want people treating me the way I want to be treated. The Golden Rule assumes - and I believe incorrectly - that everyone follows the same moral code. Like my neighbors who think they're doing my kids a favor by not letting them watch their favorite "Land Before Time" videos when they babysit because the whole concept of dinosaurs is just a test of their faith. The Golden Rule as stated places no obligation on either party to actually try and understand the needs of the other person, and places a whole lot prejudice and assumption into the mix. It's a reasonable place to start when you know nothing about the other person at all (e.g., introduction to an entirely new culture), but should be quickly replaced with "Do unto others as they would have done to themselves."
94. Re:Nice... by tbannist · 2007-09-05 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Athiesm isn't a recent development, we have records of athiests going back over 2500 years.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
95. Re:Nice... by Duffy13 · 2007-09-05 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  For lack of mod points, I'll just say thanks for saying what I was thinking, and much more eloquently then if I tried it.
  
  To give you an answer to your question, morals are relatively absolute in my opinion. There are some gray areas or specific circumstances that you would most likely go against your normal moral choice. For example lets say you have no choice but to kill someone because your life is threatened when you would normally never do such a thing. It's one of those conditions in which we could probably all agree you were justified in your actions. With absolute morality, you could not kill in defense of your own life without negating your moral stance. With relatively absolute morals, even if you did kill someone in self-defense it does not negate your morality since you do not continue to go around killing people. I think the term relative is too flaky in the case we are discussing, though I understand the context you were going for is what I describe as relatively absolute morality.
  
  --
  "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!"
96. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-05 02:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  >I guess somebody else will have to start a new petition to get the "f**k Christianity" group taken down.
  
  Probably won't happen or if it does it will be much smaller reaction to perceived disposition towards an overprotecting and favouring of Islam. Christians are more open to, and tolerant of, criticism of their religion and more willing to engage in debate rather than trying to shut down dissent. I'm not saying there aren't those who think such groups should be shut down but that there is much less of this attitude among its adherents.
  
  I should perhaps also point out in the interests of fairness that many of those campaigning against the "F**k Islam" group were possibly not even Muslims but left-leaning, hand-wringing, western "liberals" who would, ironically, be quite happy for a "F**k Christianity" group to stay up.
97. Re:Nice... by Nesa2 · 2007-09-05 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Normally if we were speaking about Christianity or Judaism, you might be correct to say not to confuse religion with culture and/or practice - however when you are speaking of Islam, it is a whole different story. Islam demands believers to be completely submissive to an Islamic, theocratic form of government in which the State acknowledges the legal supremacy of God and the teachings of Muhammad.
  
  The Quran is militantly anti-Judeo-Christian. It refers to non-Muslims as unbelievers, hypocrites and infidels directing Muslims to "make war" against them so they might be sent to their "homes in hell." (Surah 9:73)
  
  You will not find that in any other mainstream religion.
98. Re:Nice... by Dan+Hayes · 2007-09-05 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  You are incorrect. You are assuming that living in social groups is inevitable, which I dispute.
  
  I did not make that assumption.
  
  You are also making an untestable assertion which I will not accept. Evolution does not produce morals. What morals do bears have? What morals do fish have? What morals do plants have?
  
  If you want to engage in a debate or attempt to rebut my point, attacking it rather than a strawman might help.
  
  I never said that evolution inevitably lead to morals, nor that evolution inevitably lead to social groups. I that that the combination of evolution and social groups inevitably leads to social groups.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral. html?ex=1332043200&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ei=5124&par tner=digg&exprod=digg
99. Re:Nice... by jasen666 · 2007-09-05 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'd wager you're right.
  The same people who would not say a word about a "F**k Whitey" group, but would rally against any "F**k [insert minority]" group.
100. Re:Nice... by Dan+Hayes · 2007-09-05 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  You're thinking way after the evolution of morality occurred :) For instance, apes dispay behaviour we would consider moral.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral. html?ex=1332043200&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ei=5124&par tner=digg&exprod=digg
101. Re:Nice... by Txiasaeia · 2007-09-05 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  You won't find that in Islam, either. Your portrayal of "non-Muslims" is extremely broad and glosses over the entire idea of the "people of the book," Christians and Jews living in an Islamic state. Look up dhimmis.
  
  --
  Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
102. Re:Nice... by jasen666 · 2007-09-05 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think it depends how deep your common sense is.
  Little common sense: stealing = free stuff = benefit.
  Smart common sense: stealing = risk of jail = detriment.
  
  Dumb: Rape = feels good to me = benefit.
  Smart: rape = sent to prison, raped by Bubba = detriment.
  
  See how common sense works both ways? No morality involved in the decision making process. A simple common sense risk-benefit analysis.
103. Re:Nice... by tbannist · 2007-09-05 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed how will we know if he's as good and honest as Jim Bakker or as evil and corrupt as Abraham Lincoln?
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
104. Re:Nice... by Dan+Hayes · 2007-09-05 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Evolutionary genetics isn't so relevant for higher-order, self-aware organisms like humans. Clearly, our intellects are capable of overriding any genetically built-in moral programming we may have evolved--or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
  
  Which is why sex is something people that only ever influences peoples' conscious decision-making... or why we aren't influenced at all by our evolved sense of hunger :) We can always override our built-in instincts, but they colour everything we do, especially when we're not consciously thinking of them.
  
  First, "simple" game theory generally requires that all players have both perfect information on the rules of the game and each other's outcome desirability metrics, which is clearly not the case in human social dynamics. Notwithstanding that, there exist games for which game theoretical analysis determines that cooperation with other actors is undesirable, and there's no reason at this point to discount the possibility that the "game of life" is such a game.
  
  Not true, as long as you have repeated interactions... which is most definitely the case in a social group. As long as you can a) recognise the other participant and b) remember previous outcomes of games with them, then you can use the results of past interactions to determine your behaviour. So this gives a good reason why face recognition and memory were selected for in humans - because they provide an advantage when dealing with people as you can recognise someone who has cheated you in the past.
  
  Have a read of Critical Mass by Philip Ball, which has a very good chapter or two on iterated game-theoretical models of group interaction of various levels of complexity.
105. Re:Nice... by dintech · 2007-09-05 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Point taken. I'd mod you up myself if you weren't already replying to one of my posts. :)
106. Re:Nice... by EllisDees · 2007-09-05 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Do bees have morals? How about packs of dogs? How about any other social animal on the planet? Morals are just what evolution has found that works for being a social animal. As long as most members of a species follow those rules, the species will continue to be successful. There is no transcendent "good" or "evil" involved, only what works best.
  
  --
  -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
107. Re:Nice... by mo^ · 2007-09-05 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Straight is sure preferable, but hey if they wanna go both ways.......
  
  --
  bah!*@%!
108. Re:Nice... by ArcticCelt · 2007-09-05 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  >"why should I care whether someone else wants to do something or not?"
  
  Because if you have the same whirring than many human beings you are supposed to feel that thingy called compassion and empathy that prevent you from being an ass to others. In fact hurting others will even make you feel bad even if you don't believe in a giant squid that spit lightnings from his anal sphincter who blessed the earth with some crazy sacred scriptures given to some random guy some time ago.
  
  However not everybody have the whirring working in perfect order and thats probably why there is so many violent psychopath in all the churches of this world; religion is supposed to keep them in check but I am not sure it's always working.
  
  --
  
  Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
109. Re:Nice... by Johnny5000 · 2007-09-05 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Evolution does not produce morals. What morals do bears have? What morals do fish have? What morals do plants have?
  
  from here
  In recent decades, by the process of looking (instead of merely assuming), ethologists have discovered that this "kill or be killed" law is a fiction. In fact, a system of laws - universally observed - preserves the tranquillity of "the jungle," protects species and even individuals, and promotes the well-being of the community as a whole. This system of laws has been called, among other things, the peacekeeping law, the law of limited competition, and animal ethics.
  
  Briefly, the law of limited competition is this: You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. In other words, you may compete but you may not wage war on your competitors.
  
  --
  The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
110. Re:Nice... by kalirion · 2007-09-05 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  I see we have a future CEO here. That or Charles Manson.
  
  If God told you it was right to rape and torture and murder, you'd happily do it wouldn't you... And not just because you'd fear punishment if you didn't, but because you'd honestly believe that there's nothing wrong with it. People like you make me sick.
111. Re:Nice... by Kineticabstract · 2007-09-05 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There's a world of difference between "you are incorrect", and "I disagree". I respectfully suggest that you look into it.
112. Re:Nice... by jcgf · 2007-09-05 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  read what the politically incorrect guide to islam says about dhimmis. they were basically a servant class.
113. Re:Nice... by Aeron65432 · 2007-09-05 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  What's even more ironic is one of the related groups in "petition: if f**k islam isn't deleted we r quitting" is named "THEY ARE TRYING TO SHUTDOWN FACEBOOK! PETITION TO KEEP IT, INVITE ALL!
114. Re:Nice... by antek9 · 2007-09-05 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Turning a hate group into a love group? Then peace is near!
  
  --
  A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
  Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
115. Re:Nice... by theelectron · 2007-09-05 04:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There are so many loose ends in your argument, I don't know where to begin. I'll just hit a few quick points.
  
  3. The golden rule is universal - Please provide a few pieces of evidence for this. I don't believe your assertion.
  Believe what you want, beliefs aren't usually a good argument. Anywho, the burden of proof is on you to find a counterexample.
  Animals steal from each other all the time.
  The idea here is that we are trying to be more social than your average animal.
  In the same way, any act to protect weaker people from stronger is counter to evolutionary theory and thus does not come from nature. From where does it arise?
  Answer: diversity. Now look up evolutionary theory as to why this is important. Example: Have you ever known any skinny guys who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, but could do more calculus before breakfast than you can do all day?
  Many people are murderously psychotic - Not statistically.
  We only need a few, we don't need this to be a norm for it to have a significant impact on how we create societies.
  Society was formed to protect people - That was only one benefit. Actually, farming did more than banding together for protection.
  I would argue that protection from hunger is important too. Besides, this only counts for agrarian cultures anyway.
  Thieves are unwelcome in societies - Not particularly.
  Uh, as a general rule: yes they are. Especially if I'm not completely sure they won't steal from my society, and if they have done it before to someone else, why wouldn't they do it again to me?
  You are assigning the viewpoint to me that society was formed for religious reasons.
  No. He is simply stating that there is a non-religious basis for society.
  All moral codes have their roots in religion.
  No, all moral codes have their roots in society. You keep confusing religion and society. Society is not a construct of religion, rather religion is a construct of society.
  These things are societal constructs, not natural laws as you have repeatedly attempted to assert.
  I think you misread much of what he was saying. If anything he is saying they are natural laws of society.
  People do not always act in a manner consistent with their best advantage.
  Maybe not in an obvious way, but you have to realize that as a societal creature we view society as very important, and as such we may sometimes sacrifice ourselves (not directly in our individual best interest) for the society (in our species and offspring's best interest).
  It doesn't matter whether it benefits you or not, you cannot steal if you are moral
  Not always true. Often societal rules are much much more complex. For example, if I steal a gun from someone who was going to go on a random shooting rampage, is that immoral?
  Answer this question: Are morals absolute or relative?
  Yes. (hey, I had to throw in a little humor) But seriously, morals are relative to the society as different societies are structured differently and have different needs. Though, societies seem to be homogeneous, so we can afford to make generalizations. Final answer: morality is about the balance between serving your self interest and societies interest.
116. Re:Nice... by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-05 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Which piece of 'common sense' tells me that I shouldn't steal?...Whether you like it or not, if there is an absolute moral code, it doesn't come from nature or common sense.
  
  We might look here at the teaching of Zen and of Taoism. On the surface, these systems are explicitly amoral!
  The Tao Te Ching says, "Throw away morality and justice, and people will do the right thing."
  The Zen poet Seng-Ts'an wrote, "If you want to get the plain truth, be not concerned with right and wrong. The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind."
  And yet, the Buddhist precepts lay out ethical guidelines. Nothing fancy - the five precepts basically boil down to "Don't make trouble, and don't settle for cheap thrills".
  So what's the deal?
  Let's look at it from the perspective of enlightened self-interest. If you go around trying to steal people's stuff, eventually you'll get caught. Even if we imagine some society without jails, you'll probably get beat up. At the very least, you will lose people's trust and cooperation. You won't get invited to the good parties anymore.
  So there's immediate negative consequences. "But I'm really good, and I won't get caught!", you say. "And I'm tough enough to take on anyone who tries to stop me!" Ok, let's pretend you're the ultimate ninja cat burglar.
  Let's ask, then, why are you stealing?
  Certainly in desperate situations, people steal to survive. If that's your case, a starving man taking bread, then most people would find stealing ethically excusable.
  But let's assume you're already above sustenance level. You're not stealing to live. You're stealing because you believe that getting stuff will make you happy.
  But will it?
  "If I could just get that shiny new car," you think, "then I'd be happy." So you steal the car. And for a few days it feels good. But then it fades.
  So it wasn't the car. And maybe now you think, "Oh, so what I needed to be happy wasn't the car. It was a whole big pile of cash." And so you knock over a store. And not only does that not make you happy, doesn't fill the emptyness, but you don't have time to think about anything else that might do the trick. Because now you're looking over your shoulder all the time, fearing getting caught. It turns out that everybody in town loves the shopkeeper you robbed, because he ran an honest business and treated people with kindness. And so now they've got a posse out looking for you...however good you are, one man can't stand against fifty. Plus, you think your landlord is on to you and is planning to steal the cash you've got stashed - now that you have your treasure, how will you keep it safe from robbers?
  You can run around in circles getting stuff for a long time. You can never get enough of what you never really wanted in the first place.
  At the start, you didn't want stuff, you wanted happiness.
  What Zen and Taoism and many other wisdom paths suggest is that, after the basic level of physical needs are met, happiness comes not from outside, but from a state of mind. And that this state of mind is difficult to achieve when you're stirring up trouble, robbing and stealing and lying and raping and getting high.
  Indeed, they go on to suggest, contentment comes when we are able to transcend the "small self" through the cultivation of compassion.
  In other words, over the long run being nice feels better than being mean. No invisible daddy in the sky laying down rules - it's just the nature of things. And in sane cultures, it's common sense. Whether we want to use the words "right" and "wrong" to describe this is a matter of semantics and pedagogy.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
117. Re:Nice... by turnipsatemybaby · 2007-09-05 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  What morals do strawmen have?
  
  Comparing humans to animals that are not naturally social in nature is just silly.
  
  If you're going to make that comparison, then compare OTHER animals that are ALSO social. Various species of monkeys and wolves for example. And if you look at those, you DO find that they have a primitive set of social rules that maintain social order.
  
  And that is what morality is fundamentally about. Maintaining a productive and sustaining social order.
118. Re:Nice... by abb3w · 2007-09-05 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Evolutionary genetics and simple game theory lead to the conclusion that morality is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups.
  
  Actually, you don't even need genetics. In Darwin's Cathedral, David Wilson convincingly argues that evolution in the most general sense (trait duplication, plus selective agency) suffices for the development of morality.
  
  --
  //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
119. Re:Nice... by AndersOSU · 2007-09-05 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  and Hammurabi's code is >3700 years old, which makes the GP's statement that "Moral codes existed long before the gods," very false.
  
  Atheism is derived from theism, which is why theists aren't called anihilists.
120. Re:Nice... by cez · 2007-09-05 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  I told those fucks down at the league office a thousand times that I don't roll on Shabbos!
  
  --
  Walk with Music;
121. Re:Nice... by TrekkieGod · 2007-09-05 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  All moral codes have their roots in religion.
  Maybe. Depends on how you think religion got formed. I think it's the other way around. People believe certain things, and come up with an excuse to make others believe the same thing, so they form a group telling them that some deity will punish them for eternity if they don't have the same beliefs.
  
  Morality is realized universally - Do I really need to provide you examples to prove this wrong?
  I usually use that as an argument against a coded morality set. If it's not universal, what makes you think the particular set you follow is the right one?
  
  Morality as defined by a religion, or as defined by anything that is immutable is way overrated. We'd all be better off just doing what is best for us. I don't steal from friends and families because I value those relationships, and I don't want to risk losing them. I don't steal from strangers because I don't want to be punished for that. We as a society agree to make a law that punishes thieves because we don't want to get things stolen from us. Yay. We just arrived at the moral code, "do not steal" from an entirely logical perspective. As a bonus, I act exactly like a religious moral person would, and I don't steal.
  
  I saw you answer the prisoner's dilemma question in another post that, without iteration, the completely moral person would get screwed. There's another reason why morality from common sense works best. If I know that you'll abide by your morals no matter what, you're screwed, I will betray you. If I know that you'll do what's best for you, and you know I'll do the same, we both can arrive at the logical conclusion that we should cooperate. Now we both have acted as if we were both moral people.
  
  it behooves a solitary person to cooperate with an established group, but it does not necessarily follow that one GROUP must cooperate with another GROUP in order to succeed, nor does it state that a GROUP must cooperate with an INDIVIDUAL to succeed.
  Nor should it be any other way. Eventually some type of equilibrium will be arrived at.
  
  People do not always act in a manner consistent with their best advantage.
  Yeah, the world isn't perfect. It will never be perfect. People don't always follow their religiously-given morals either. Need examples of that?
  
  --
  Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
122. Re:Nice... by Myuu · 2007-09-05 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  That's a fair argument.
  
  --
  
  forget it.
123. Re:Nice... by pottymouth · 2007-09-05 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Evolutionary genetics and simple game theory lead to the conclusion that morality is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups."
  
  AAAAhahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Tell me another one!! Please...
124. Re:Nice... by Lurker2288 · 2007-09-05 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Many acts that would traditionally be considered amoral, such as stealing, or rape, do in fact produce some evolutionary benefit to the actor--you get some resource without having to work for it, or you get a reproductive opportunity you might not have otherwise. However, as the frequency of these strategies increases in a population, they usually become less effective. I.e., if you're the only thief in town, you can steal stuff and live well off of otherwise. If you're surrounded by crooks, though, your gains will be diluted as other people rip you off. There's often an equilibrium where these strategies exist only in low frequencies.
  
  So, simply put, yeah, there's good reason to think that humans have a certain empathic moral sense that allows us to live and work in groups without killing each other; however, because exploitation can be an effective strategy in small numbers, there will also be folks who don't play nice. And even more interestingly, there's a fair body of research that indicates that most people, faced with a 'defector,' will willingly sacrifice of themselves in order to punish the defector. So is morality (as we know it) purely biological? No, but there are definitely strong evolutionary underpinings for much of moral behavior. The book 'Survival Game' (forgot the author) does a nice treatment of this material.
125. Re:Nice... by smaddox · 2007-09-05 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe its the same to someone on the other side of the world. But to the person doing the killing, there are most likely irreperable psychological effects.
  
  So to say they are the same is ridiculous. However, it is only evil if society says it is.
  
  What if the person wanted to be killed? What if he thought it was an honor? Is it still evil?
126. Re:Nice... by Opportunist · 2007-09-05 06:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually the most successful strategy in the prisoner's dilemma is "trusting-reacting". You start out cooperating and copy your partner's behaviour. I'd have to look it up in my statistics books again, if it's really important for you I'll dig it up.
  
  Yes, you will always be successful when playing the "plain distrusting" strategy against a "plain trusting" strategy. That's a given. The problem is that you don't only play with one partner. When two people play the trust-react strategy, they will come out ahead compared to you, even if you keep playing distrust against everyone. Sooner or later you run into your counterpart and then, well, you lose. Permanently. The same happens when you play against a trust-react player. You get an initial advantage, but from then on, you lose.
  
  I play that strategy in everyday life, too. And so far, I'm fairing pretty well with it. You'd be surprised how many people are actually willing to cooperate for mutual benefits. Sure, I run into people like you who gain a minor advantage out of me. You can rip me for 100, but you'll eventually lose out the 10k that I'd rather deal with another trust-react player.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
127. Re:Nice... by Txiasaeia · 2007-09-05 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  If you disagree about dhimmis, let me ask you this: no good Muslim would live in the United States, Canada, Britain, or any other Western country because the law of the land isn't based on sharia? Does that seem like a reasonable statement to you?
  
  --
  Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
128. Re:Nice... by skiflyer · 2007-09-05 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Free speech as defined by? If you're talking about the bill of rights, no it doesn't, that only applies to the government. If you're talking about Facebook TOS, it makes no promise of Free Speech. If you're talking about some great philosophical concept of Free speech, then again, it doesn't either... it just says you're free to say what you want and pay the consequences for what you've said... that consequence can even be being censored.
  
  So, what version of Free Speech have you anthropomorphized into demanding free speech without any consequence?
129. Re:Nice... by tbannist · 2007-09-05 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, atheism as a name is younger than atheism as a philosophy. The name was coined in the 18th century. Previous to that they were more likely to be called Epicureans.
  
  As anyone who knows anything about the Religion debate, the lack of evidence for atheists existing 4000 years ago, does not preclude their existence. Of course, athiests would likely have been surpressed by ancient governments seeing as the basis for their right to rule was commonly attributed to the Gods. In case you didn't know, it was common for each city to have it's own God and the God was the ultimate owner of all land within the city. So to publically pronounce yourself as an athiest would be tantamount to questioning the legitimacy of the law and the rulers of your home city. A situation that might encourage circumspection by self-censorship or by funerary example.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
130. Re:Nice... by jcr · 2007-09-05 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  You're the one with the imaginary friend, and you're impugning my maturity?
  
  Grow the fuck up, kid. Gods don't exist, no matter how much you want them to.
  
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
131. Re:Nice... by AndersOSU · 2007-09-05 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  That's all well and good, but the fact remains that ancient people as a rule wrote or told stories about the gods, rather than about logical positivism.
  
  Sure this probably helped to prop up the social order, but I still think it's safe to say that religion came first, and atheism followed. There may have been atheists from day 2 of human society, but the atheists have always been preceded, and outnumbered by the theists.
132. Re:Nice... by Lally+Singh · 2007-09-05 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Shutting down dissent? I think a lot of the concern is with all the Muslim-bashing in the US post 9/11. You're not likely to see many groups forming against christianity. But you are likely to see people who watch Faux News.
  
  --
  Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
133. Re:Nice... by jcgf · 2007-09-05 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I disagree. I think you used 1 too many question marks, as I don't understand what your question really is.
134. Re:Nice... by PinkPanther · 2007-09-05 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Islam demands believers to be completely submissive to an Islamic, theocratic form of government
  
  I find it amusing that you state outright what a religion is without giving any form of reference or authority. Nothing in the Qu'ran tells Muslims to be subserviant to governments; in fact it explicitly says that as an individual you are to be only subserviant to god.
  To take individual phrases out of the Qu'ran and hold them up as proof of anything is simply ignorance and/or deceit. This can be done from any text, old or new (testament).
  Please don't spread the crap that drips out of the Annals of The Internet. Actually sit down and read the text from which you bleed this FUD and understand the true spirit of what it says. The Qu'ran actually challenges all muslims to challenge their own beliefs, not to rely on the words of men, and most certainly not to worship idols (as many of the "extremists" that CNN likes to harp on about do...those people are to Islam what the Peoples Temple and the Branch Dividians are to Christianity).
  
  --
  It's a simple matter of complex programming.
135. Re:Nice... by tbannist · 2007-09-05 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well yes, ancient people would tell stories about their heroes. However if you've ever played telephone you'd know that stories mutate as they're retold. The heroes almost invariably end up as deities to justify the amazing powers that get grafted on as the story is retold. It is the advent of writing that allows these stories to be effectively frozen so that they no longer change and grow.
  
  The question of atheism being first or second is not easily put to bed. The answer differs based on which theory of religion you subscribe to. If you believe in the memetic evolution of religion, then that belief requires that atheists exist before theists. If you believe in the biological underpining of religion, then superstition must still come first, and here I'm fuzzy on the exact definition of religion we're using. The biological nature would mean that the rise of superstition would be fast and widespread, but that still leaves the question of the codification of superstition into religion.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
136. Re:Nice... by PitaBred · 2007-09-05 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I prefer mocking people who can't spell "pansy" or "wannabe" ;) People do take things too personally on the web, and conversely, people are unafraid to be jackasses because of the lack of repercussions. But it's just a symptom of people adapting to a world-changing new technology. Give it 20 years, and there may still be people offended about different stuff, but by and large things will have settled down, and people will be better able to deal with being offended online.
  
  --
  My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
137. Re:Nice... by PitaBred · 2007-09-05 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  ...no logical reason for morality? Besides the fact that if you're immoral in many primitive societies (which is where humans have lived for most of their existence), you will be shunned, and cast out of society, probably to die? If you consider basic things like property rights ("Thats my banana!"), even monkeys recognize when they're being stolen from, and will dislike the one doing the taking, and be more likely to help someone who gives them things. From that, you can easily interpret all moral behavior, such as pretty much anything is ok to do, as long as you don't get caught (which seems to be especially en-vogue lately), but are the risks of being caught worth the punishment that is possible? These are decisions all "moral" people have. You throw in a magical bogeyman that can see everything, and you all of a sudden have people behaving for the good of society even when they probably would get away with it, which is basically win-win for everyone, so it keeps being selected for genetically, with a few aberrations.
  
  --
  My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
138. Re:Nice... by HungWeiLo · 2007-09-05 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  marginalisation of women
  
  Interestingly enough, Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey have elected women as presidents.
  
  --
  There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
139. Re:Nice... by Dread_ed · 2007-09-05 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Nice quote.
  
  If it refers to Christianity it is indicative of the fact that most people don't know diddly about Christianity. Even someone as smart as 'ol Einstein himself.
  
  The entire range of human actions from compassionate self sacrifice to self serving murder can be comitted during a believer's lifetime and have no impact on their afterlife destination. One small decision determines that, faith in Christ.
  
  The idea that man must perform daily acts of obesance and must constrain himself to ascetic doldrums for all his days are decidedly not Christian in origin (though I constantly hear non-Christians ascribing them to Christians.)
  
  --
  When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
140. Re:Nice... by mdwh2 · 2007-09-05 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  All of our law, and our society, is based on a moral code handed down by religious people.
  
  What moral code is that? Or if you mean that a secular moral code passed down by people who were religious, so what? All that means is that people a lot of people in the past were religious, and is no different to saying that a lot of them believed in superstition, magic or a flat earth. It dosen't mean any of these things are responsible for our law, society and moral code.
  
  As for right and wrong, these are words which people use to describe that they think some actions are good or bad. To some degree this is opinion and there is no objective standard, but at the same time, many people will agree on certain things. The reason we think certain actions should or shouldn't be done is usually because of the effects of those actions, or because of what things we want to happen, or not happen. If someone thinks something is wrong, I say they should always be able to explain why it is wrong.
  
  Somewhere along the line though, people picked up the idea that something is inherently wrong, so we get "X is wrong because religion/God says so" or the painful tautology "X is wrong because it's immoral", and all chance of reason or rational debate goes out the window.
141. Re:Nice... by Oktober+Sunset · 2007-09-05 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  no but I've been told by plenty of religious nutters that not believing in god means I have nothing to stop me going on a killing spree, so presumably, they are claiming that is the only thing they have to stop themselves doing the same.
  
  --
  What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
142. Re:Nice... by Txiasaeia · 2007-09-05 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  My question is how you reconcile my post with your statement that "Islam demands believers to be completely submissive to an Islamic, theocratic form of government in which the State acknowledges the legal supremacy of God and the teachings of Muhammad." By your ridiculous statement, either there are no Muslims in the United States, or there are no good Muslims in the United States because the United States government neither acknowledges the legal supremacy of God nor the teachings of Mohammed. So which is it?
  
  --
  Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
143. Re:Nice... by bdwebb · 2007-09-05 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Whoa Whoa Whoa there... I suggest you look up the definition of Common Sense. Actually I did for you:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
  "Common sense (or, when used attributively as an adjective, commonsense, common-sense, or commonsensical), based on a strict construction of the term, is what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding. Some use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what is believed to be knowledge held by people "in common", so: the knowledge and experience most people have, or are believed to have by the person using the term."
  
  Common Sense varies based upon culture. Early American culture dictated that blacks were inferiors. Other cultures dictate that women are inferiors. Others..well...you get the idea.
144. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-05 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Believe what you want, beliefs aren't usually a good argument. Anywho, the burden of proof is on you to find a counterexample.
  
  The Incas had no golden rule, nor did the Maya civilization. Now that I've done what you wanted, you'll weasel the question around and move the goal posts, no doubt.
  
  The idea here is that we are trying to be more social than your average animal.
  
  You are begging the question. You have not provided proof that socialization is causaul of our dominance. Besides, not all of us are trying to be more social. You do not speak for everyone.
  
  Answer: diversity. Now look up evolutionary theory as to why this is important. Example: Have you ever known any skinny guys who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, but could do more calculus before breakfast than you can do all day?
  
  Smart animals and physically strong animals survive in nature, too. We keep weak, sick, damaged people alive. There is no evolutionary benefit to that, and if you attempt to assert that there is again, you will only succeed in looking more foolish.
  
  We only need a few, we don't need this to be a norm for it to have a significant impact on how we create societies.
  
  You make assertions left and right, but you never provide any evidence for them. Do you really believe that sociologists would back you up in your assertion that human society was developed around protecting people from psychos? Are you mental?
  
  I would argue that protection from hunger is important too. Besides, this only counts for agrarian cultures anyway.
  
  You mean, like the ones which first developed societies? You know what? The rest of your crap is just like this. I'm not going to bother to wade through any more of it. I'll just skip to the one last relevant part: You said that morals are relative. If you believe that, then no act is ever truly wrong, it's just committed in the wrong society. If you are comfortable with that, you are a monster.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
145. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-05 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't your mommy ever tell you to treat people the way you expect to be treated? :)
  
  That's my point. Would it still be correct to do that if you mommy didn't tell you to do it? I submit that it would, but then again I was raised in this same society, with that same religious-based belief. I, personally, believe that morality is absolute.
  
  I have never held any religious belief and I can't say I'm particularly frightened of the local cops (in a town of ~3,000...) and yet due to upbringing and many years of pondering the issue of morals the only obvious conclusion is that a functioning society can only grow out of mutual respect.
  
  The only question that matters is this one: Are morals absolute, or relative? If they are relative, then nothing is wrong (or right). If they are absolute, then how are they defined?
  
  Speaking of sociopaths, do you lack empathy or do you just not leave the house much?
  
  I'll go with 'neither'. Are you still beating your wife?
  
  You're considering this from a purely logical point of view.
  
  I know, it's so ODD to want to consider things upon which laws are based with LOGIC. How TERRIBLE of me.
  
  Now go find a real-life friend or acquaintance or neighbor to talk to for an hour or two (unless you look like Ted Kaczynski, in which case clean up a little first) and then ponder whether you would really want to do them harm even without fear of punishment.
  
  Why would I want to hurt friends or acquaintances? Now, the guy that cuts me off in traffic and almost kills me, or the guy that wants to take my wallet, or the guy that smacks my friend, why would I NOT want to hurt them...unless I were lacking emotion, as you suggested.
  
  Would it maybe weigh on your mind a little? That's empathy talking. In other words, functional humans are typically capable of "walking in another man's shoes" mainly because our capacity for emotion, memory, and rational thought allows us to imagine what another individual's emotional state feels like.
  
  Well, that's one idea. I'm not sure it's a good idea to assume causation, though, where there might be correlation only.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
146. Re:Nice... by aichpvee · 2007-09-05 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  The *best* answer I've ever heard is, "because it's wrong." Personally I find that more than a little disturbing.
  
  And before we bring any "9/11 hijackers" into a discussion, let's first determine who they really were. Given that a large number of "them" have been found alive and well and not related to blowing up buildings. This is without even getting into the cover-up and whitewashing of the events of 11 September, 2001 that has clearly taken place.
  
  --
  The Farewell Tour II
147. Re:Nice... by Eivind · 2007-09-05 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. But expressing non-support is speech too, and just as deserving of being aired as the original statement. It'd be better if the non-supporters would say: "Those people are in our opinion wrong because...." rather than "Those people should be tossed out, otherwise..."
148. Re:Nice... by WNight · 2007-09-05 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I think they blew *all* their credibility by demanding that someone make the other guys stop having an opinion.
  
  Their speech shouldn't be censored. We need everyone to look at them and see the folly and intolerance of their views, but it's as low as you can possibly get without shooting someone for their views. They tried to stifle the conversation instead of talking.
  
  And, as the original poster pointed out, that PC attitude in voluntary settings (Facebooks, etc) leads to people supporting censorship elsewhere.
149. Re:Nice... by Hyperspite · 2007-09-06 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Common sense tells me that if I steal something, the motherfucker i stole it from ain't gonna like me too much. You people are short sighted. Having someone's favor is (usually) much more important than having one bit of property. People also like to extrapolate, which is why we also apply this to situations where it doesn't apply (the benefit of stealing outweighs the benefit of having favor).
150. Re:Nice... by Hyperspite · 2007-09-06 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, people don't play purely logically, they play with a bias to be nice. Many studies have shown that people have a strong sense of fairness and do not like to be rejected from groups. For people in groups, I'd say that neural mechanisms are what are keeping the societies together. Also, it is more advantageous for an individual to live in a society with its infrastructure so therefore, societies select people who can live in them.
151. Re:Nice... by Hyperspite · 2007-09-06 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Please present an implementation that worked at some point in time that didn't include, for instance, the rapid expansion of the religion at the point of a sword. I'm not saying that individuals might not put this into practice and have it work, but my perception is that no significant religious state in the history of the world actually was peaceful. I admit I don't know all of my history perfectly, or every culture in detail. Please correct me if I am wrong.
152. Re:Nice... by mr100percent · 2007-09-06 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook's terms of Service state that you cannot host a group that attacks a specific facebook member, has pornographic images, or attacks a specific religion or group. I agree with what Facebook is doing.
  
  If you're so bent out of shape, start your own social networking service, or go troll wikipedia.
153. Re:Nice... by Ender_Wiggin · 2007-09-06 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  For a long time, people felt slavery was moral, except religious groups disagreed.
  For a long time, people felt women didn't deserve equal rights like voting, but some religious groups disagreed way before it was fashionable.
  
  In history, Religion in general helps morals and rights that the secularists just didn't attend to yet.
154. Re:Nice... by Ender_Wiggin · 2007-09-06 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Completely incorrect.
  
  The Quran refers to Christians and Jews as "Ahl-ul-kitaab" (people of the Book) meaning they worship the same God. The ayah you referred to (9:73) is referring to the "kuffar," those who disbelieve. Scholars say that is referring to the polytheists of Mecca, so it is not discussing the Christians or Jews (who are referred to by name in the Quran).
  
  Look at Quran 5:83 "And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian." This is because they have priests and monks among them, and they are not arrogant."
  
  As for your claim that you won't find this in other religions, are you blind? Nazis quoted the New Testament to say that the Jewish people accepted blame for trying to kill Jesus (peace be upon him). Hindu extremists killed masses of Muslims (ever heard of the Gujurat massacre?) and attack Christians in India. Buddhists in Burma rioted in 2002 and killed minority Muslims. The Japanese persecuted and executed Christians from the 1500's to last century. The list goes on. In fact, Islam is the only religion that says Christians have some validity in their worship of God. In an authentic Islamic state, money from the government is supposed to go to the construction and upkeep of churches and synagogues for the citizens of their respective faiths. It's the only religion I know to acknowlegde that Christians worship the same God, otherwise there would be a commandment to stamp out the other religions; and that just isn't found in the Quran.
155. Re:Nice... by nobuddy · 2007-09-06 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Your own argument bolsters a general social morality with the rare exceptions, while denigrating your claim of a universal morality from an invisible sky pixie. You just did your opponent's work for them, and demolished your own position.
156. Re:Nice... by sethawoolley · 2007-09-06 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  I know I'm a little late to the game, but I've been busy working.
  
  The thing is that anyone who is older than five (at least, mentally) realizes if you go around stealing stuff all the time, it's going to encourage others to steal from you, and that's no fun. The Golden Rule (or something like it) is found in just about every human society that has ever existed. It's not a matter of religion; it's just common sense.
  
  You make a number of assertions here. Let me detail them:
  
  1. Morality is realized universally - Do I really need to provide you examples to prove this wrong?
  2. It is a universal constant that theft incites theft against thieves - I believe history is full of examples of successful thieves. They don't seem to have had that problem.
  3. The golden rule is universal - Please provide a few pieces of evidence for this. I don't believe your assertion.
  He actually didn't say they are universal, only vastly implemented. His argument thus doesn't fail when you have counter-examples, nor even very successful ones, particular since game theory shows that strategic equilibrium is attained, not universality.
  
  Now, I'll respond: The number of people who do immoral things disproves your assertion. If what you said were true, then very few people would ever steal. The idea that theft is wrong is encouraged by religion and is not found in nature. Animals steal from each other all the time. It is beneficial to the thief. From an evolutionary standpoint, theft would lead to greater success were it not for societal penalties against it. In the same way, any act to protect weaker people from stronger is counter to evolutionary theory and thus does not come from nature. From where does it arise?
  "counter to evolutionary theory". This is the informal genetic fallacy of logic -- that an explanation is a moral imperative. Not only that, but because of kin selection theory, it's actually expected that in some cases the weaker are expected to be protected by a stronger.
  
  Beyond that, there's a bunch of crazy bastards out there (and these days, they tend to be armed with AK47s) who will happily put a bullet through your kneecap just to see the expression on your face. Your only hope of defending yourself against these hordes of psychos is to band together with other people who are, shall we say, a little more sane. But these people aren't going to want to band together with you if you steal from them. And thus, we have the entire basis for civilization, without resorting to invoking the invisible Wahoo in the sky.
  
  Your assertions:
  1. Many people are murderously psychotic - Not statistically. You're FAR more likely to be murdered by a government (society) than an individual. Note: Wars are not started by individuals (most of the time)
  2. Society was formed to protect people - That was only one benefit. Actually, farming did more than banding together for protection. Of course, you're just talking out of your ass anyway.
  3. Thieves are unwelcome in societies - Not particularly. It depends on from whom they stole and what they stole.
  4. You are assigning the viewpoint to me that society was formed for religious reasons. This is not only factually incorrect, it's also not a viewpoint I've espoused.
  
  To respond:
  All moral codes have their roots in religion. Not always the SAME religion, mind you. However, whether the rules are coming from a guy in the sky or an imp under the earth, they are still external sources for moral codes. That isn't to say that some pieces of some moral codes aren't a good idea, or aren't beneficial on their own. However, the idea that they are codified doesn't come from nature. I've mentioned that before. You cannot set up an experiment to prove the law of theft. You can't set up an experiment to prove that violence is wrong. You just can't. You cannot examine a plant and show how it follows the 'do no harm' code of physicians. These things are societal constructs, not natural la
157. Re:Nice... by nobuddy · 2007-09-06 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  "Yeah, and the KKK claims they are a civil-rights group!" Yeah, most Christian organizations believe they are doing good.
158. Re:Nice... by theelectron · 2007-09-06 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  The Incas had no golden rule, nor did the Maya civilization. Now that I've done what you wanted, you'll weasel the question around and move the goal posts, no doubt.
  There, see? That's all you had to the do the first time, instead of making the parent prove his point, and providing a pointless 'rebuttal'.
  You are begging the question.
  I must apologize, I did not fully elaborate on what I meant by that. There is social behavior and individual (animalistic) behavior, often these two conflict. Humans are generally a social creature. Do you disagree? "The idea that theft is wrong is encouraged by religion and is not found in nature. Animals steal from each other all the time. It is beneficial to the thief.", but it is detrimental to the victim of the theft. We have to look at both the thief and victim in a social situation (assuming both are in the same society), therefore the idea that theft is wrong is found in the very nature of human society.
  You have not provided proof that socialization is causaul of our dominance.
  It is not the only cause, but would you argue that it is not an important factor?
  Besides, not all of us are trying to be more social. You do not speak for everyone.
  We are speaking of generalizations, surely you realize that. I'll assume you just said that to nitpick and try to distract from the topic at hand.
  We keep weak, sick, damaged people alive. There is no evolutionary benefit to that
  True. But would you kill your mate (a breeder) just because they have a cold? Broken arm? Missing arm (you can still contribute heavily to society without an arm, ex. Stephen Harking)? How about the flu? Ebola? Cancer? Where do you draw the line? In extreme cases, it is likely an overextension of societal preservation, which is a whole other long argument.
  You make assertions left and right, but you never provide any evidence for them.
  Ok, for a recent example of baddies causing a banding together of people in a society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11
  Societies exist to support a common goal, often for the purpose of supporting its members, protection included.
  Are you mental?
  Yes, aren't we all. Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominim
  You mean, like the ones which first developed societies?
  Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer\
  If you believe that, then no act is ever truly wrong, it's just committed in the wrong society.
  Ok, name any single act that is universally wrong. I can add circumstances that make it morally right for the situation. It's all relative to the circumstances and associated social rules and the judge. Are human sacrifices wrong? Who are you asking? Is letting someone bleed to death wrong? Again who are you asking. In a foreign country someone was run over by a train and it severed their legs. The Americans present wanted to help that person because it was the 'right' thing to do. The locals would not let the Americans do that because it was not 'right' to interfere with natural processes. I personally would have helped them and seen that as the 'right' thing to do, but the locals would think I was a bad person. And I am sorry if you view me as a monster for that.
159. Re:Nice... by Curunir_wolf · 2007-09-06 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  WTF are you responding to? How did I imply that I am "bent out of shape". Are you saying you agree they should enforce their TOS against some groups, but not against others? Sounds kind of duplicitous. But then you seem to think that's exactly the right way to handle it.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
160. Re:Nice... by jcgf · 2007-09-06 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  I never made any such statement. Do you have me confused with a grandparent poster?
161. Re:Nice... by smparadox · 2007-09-06 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  It is against Islam as a religion which I might add has some rather seriously violent aspects, racism and marginalisation of women - as do all religions.
  
  Well... Most religions, but to be fair, some of the more recent ones lift themselves a little out of that morass...
  
  Wicca, Discordianism, The Church of All Worlds...
  
  Umm...
  
  I can't think of any others actually...
  
  --
  "I am become Gerund, Destroyer of Verbs"
162. Re:Nice... by smparadox · 2007-09-06 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  We need fewer people with moral values such as "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The earth could be a paradise if we could just rid ourselves of such chafing limitations.
  
  These aren't religious values. They are moral values that have been adopted after the fact by some religions. Morals never come from religion.
  
  --
  "I am become Gerund, Destroyer of Verbs"
163. Re:Nice... by Explodicle · 2007-09-06 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  HEY! That is not trolling! There is no objective "more" or "less" evolved, YOU FUCKING MORON MOD.
164. Re:Nice... by Explodicle · 2007-09-06 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why does it matter is a rapist is rejected from the group if he has already passed on his genes by then? Many women will choose to bear the child even if it was the product of a rape. Keep in mind that a serial rapist can potentially leave behind far more children than most useful members of society could support.
165. Re:Nice... by mr100percent · 2007-09-06 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Was referring to grandparent, I don't want a double standard either.
166. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  I just want to see some logic and reason applied to morality. Yet, it isn't possible to do. The problem is this: If morality is relative, then nothing is right and nothing is wrong, they're just happening in the wrong social group. However, if morality is absolute, from where does it come? Right now I have no answer but I would prefer that morality be absolute. That doesn't necessarily make it so, of course, as my subjective view does not influence objective reality. But I cannot logically derive morals from nature. That may be a lack within me, but then again no one else I've asked has been able to do it either.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
167. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that certainly was an intelligent response. I don't agree with you, therefore I must be incapable of understanding your argument. Fortunately for me, I don't derive my self-worth from the opinions of retards like you. Show me a modern transitional form. Show me a PREDICTIVE and not EXPLANATORY model of evolution. Show me some REPEATABLE scientific tests verifying your hypothesis. Oh, you can't? Odd, that. Especially since you understand it *so* much better than I do. Oh, and your mom's lousy in bed, too. Your sister sucks dick way better.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
168. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  I never said they DON'T have them. I asked which ones they have. I am not trying to prove that morals don't exist. I am trying to deduce their source. I really don't see how you get the one from the other. I have explicitly stated that I believe morality to be absolute, but I just cannot define the laws of it. That clearly shows that I am limited in my understanding, and I am actively seeking to improve it. If you can help, please do. I mean that sincerely.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
169. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  1. Not all religions have the same "moral code," so biology is the only theory that actually makes ANY sense to explain the near universal acceptance of certain "moral" behaviors.
  
  Either that or there are several competing deities, or none at all. Or one is correct and the others are wrong. Or two or three are partially correct. Or...there aren't any actual morals and nothing is either right or wrong. There are more than two possibilities.
  
  2. The things we might describe as "moral" are our adapted behaviors. I'm sure bears have a "moral code," just like any other animal that has evolved for social situations. Their "moral code" is obviously not going to be the same as ours. As usual, religion explains nothing here and science does.
  
  Then what is their moral code, and how can I show that repeatably in the lab? Science doesn't explain it at all. You hand-wave and say, "well they must have a moral code because I believe evolution produces them." That's not science. That's guessing, and faith-based arguments. Those are the whole kinds of things I am attempting to avoid. Faith in the unknown is faith in the unknown is faith in the unknown. I want to have KNOWLEDGE, not faith.
  
  3. You don't know what evolution is. Not uncommon for religious people, but it really isn't that difficult of a concept so you could at least try to learn. Here's a hint to get you started: evolution isn't a force, it's a process.
  
  No one knows what evolution is. At least, not to the point where they can repteably produce it in a laboratory. The evolutionary models we have attempt to explain the past, they can NOT predict the future. With SCIENCE, you can produce the same results with the same procedures. That can't be said of evolution. Please feel free to give me the experimental setup for prodcing evolution, and I'll be happy to reproduce your experiment and let you know if my results parallel yours. That's science. Not hand-waving, guessing, and attempting to warp the facts to fit the theory.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
170. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, that's pretty much false. Religion has heavily borrowed from secular sources to inform it's opinion of what morality is. The Stoics [wikipedia.org] and the Epicureans [wikipedia.org] weren't religious.
  
  What I want to know is from where does morality derive? I don't care if the answer is nature or sky fairies. I just want to know.
  
  Contrary to your opinion, there are reasons beyond absolute good and evil for the rule.
  
  That is not contrary to any opinion I've stated. Please stop assigning opinions to me, unless I've stated them.
  
  A system of morality can be based on religion or it can be based on something else. In fact society's rules are almost always based on the golden rule. It's a little thing called the social contract.
  If you're actually interested in the moral basis of society, that's the best starting point.
  
  What I want to know is this: Is morality relative or absolute? If absolute, how can I derive its laws?
  
  Our laws may be difficult to defend with logic, reason and science because essentially they're decided by popularity (assuming you live in a democracy). Because we believe in the right to self-government we allow capricious and sometimes wrong laws to be created, though we attempt to limit what can be done by setting basic rules (the constitution, charter of rights, etc.) that can't be contravened. It could be worse, they could be decided by a successive line of individuals who have been declared infallible or who impose their will through force of arms.
  
  Well, the latter is what we are headed toward, and is what societies throughout history have tended toward. I would rather we had a set of equations or repeatable tests so that we could define morality through logic and reason instead of in the ways you mentioned. However, that's only possible if morality is absolute.
  
  In fact, it is my opinion that most religions are a poor source of ethics, the biggest problem being the authoritarian nature of most religions.
  
  We are agreed on this point.
  
  It frequently comes down to a question of is something good because god commands it or is god commanding it because it's good? The former possibility is a path that leads to a very twisted morality where anything is justifiable, the second runs contrary to the Christian, Islamic and Jewish idea of God. It acknowledges that morality exists seperately from God, and therefore there exists and seperate a equally good code of ethics that does not depend on the existence of God. And of course there is the problem of inertia and failure to embrace change. We know from history that the Bible was more often used as an argument for slavery than against it up to the American civil war. Thus we run into the problem that an imprecise, poorly edited series of books written by disparate authors can be used to justify just about any rule you want to make up.
  
  We are agreed here as well. That's why I want something independant of race or religion. Maybe it's a futile hope, because it may be that morality is subjective, and thus arbitrary to at least some extent. That goes against everything I feel, but since I cannot defend feelings with logic and reason, what I feel is irrelevant.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
171. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I agree with you for the most part, except that most cultures don't find it immoral to defend yourself or others. The distinction I would make is this: Killing isn't always immoral, but murder is always immoral. In fact, even the 10 commandments take this into account. The commandment is 'Thou shalt not commit murder', a distinction I've always been fascinated by, as it gets rendered 'thou shalt not kill' very often, and those statements are most definitely not equivalent. Not that I'm pushing the 10C as the ultimate arbiter of morality, it's just a famous example of a moral code. (and it's pretty light, only 10 rules)
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
172. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  I that that the combination of evolution and social groups inevitably leads to social groups.
  
  What? Social groups inevitably lead to social groups? I agree, but what does a tautology do to explain the source of morals? Nothing you've said addresses the issue: From where do morals come? Are the absolute or relative?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
173. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:48 · Score: 1
  
  See how common sense works both ways? No morality involved in the decision making process. A simple common sense risk-benefit analysis.
  
  Of course there is morality involved. Without morality, there are no laws, and thus no cost. Then your CBA is invalid.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
174. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's more like, how will we quantify how good or evil someone is? No one is all one or the other. At least, I don't think so...but I have no repeatable way to test.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
175. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  But that doesn't explain the differences. Not all animals are social, and not all social animals thrive. Why isn't there more consistency? Why can't we get to a predictive model?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
176. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Because if you have the same whirring than many human beings you are supposed to feel that thingy called compassion and empathy that prevent you from being an ass to others. In fact hurting others will even make you feel bad even if you don't believe in a giant squid that spit lightnings from his anal sphincter who blessed the earth with some crazy sacred scriptures given to some random guy some time ago.
  
  I'm not disagreeing with your premise. What I am asking is WHY? From where do morals flow? Why? Everyone seems to be thinking that I am looking for some way to prove religion true or justify immoral actions. Neither could be farther from the truth. I just want to be able to look up morality tables in a science textbook and read about the experiments I could perform myself to verify their authenticity.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
177. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  I realize it wasn't clear from what I asked, but what I want to know is this: From where does morality come? I want to be able to locate the morality gene, or the morality property of carbon, or whatever it ends up being. I want a predictive model. I want diagrams and charts explaining where morality comes from and why. We base our entire lives upon this concept, and yet we can't even define it? Where's the sense in that?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
178. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  You are a fucking retard. I have specifically stated time after time after time after time that I AM NOT ESPOUSING RELIGION. I WANT A SCIENTIFIC ANSWER SPECIFICALLY SO THAT I DO NOT HAVE TO RELY UPON PLATITUDES EITHER SECULAR OR RELIGIOUS. Did you get that? Do you understand, now? Moron. People like you make me sick.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
179. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not in this case. I agree that it might not always be so. However, in this case, I stand by what I said.
  I respectfully suggest that if you are implying that someone is incorrect (as you have done), that you provide at least a rationale for why (as I did).
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
180. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  True. But would you kill your mate (a breeder) just because they have a cold? Broken arm? Missing arm (you can still contribute heavily to society without an arm, ex. Stephen Harking)? How about the flu? Ebola? Cancer? Where do you draw the line? In extreme cases, it is likely an overextension of societal preservation, which is a whole other long argument.
  
  Look, stop trying to push this on me. What *I* would do is irrelevant to the point. I KNOW that we act differently than what would be evolutionarily ideal. What I want to know is the source of this difference. From where do morals flow? What, exactly, defines them?
  
  It is not the only cause, but would you argue that it is not an important factor?
  
  I don't know. I would guess that it was a factor, but I don't have enough direct experience to offer an informed opinion. I'm just saying that I'd need more evidence before determining it causal rather than a correlation.
  
  Ok, name any single act that is universally wrong. I can add circumstances that make it morally right for the situation. It's all relative to the circumstances and associated social rules and the judge. Are human sacrifices wrong? Who are you asking? Is letting someone bleed to death wrong? Again who are you asking. In a foreign country someone was run over by a train and it severed their legs. The Americans present wanted to help that person because it was the 'right' thing to do. The locals would not let the Americans do that because it was not 'right' to interfere with natural processes. I personally would have helped them and seen that as the 'right' thing to do, but the locals would think I was a bad person. And I am sorry if you view me as a monster for that.
  
  Well, just for fun, I'll play.
  Under what circumstances would the extreme torture of thousands of 3-year old children be morally correct?
  Under what circumstances would the extermination of human life in its entirety be correct?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
181. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  it's just the nature of things
  
  This is my problem. I believe intuitively that you are correct. However, if it is truly the nature of things, then we should be able to quantify and explain how it is naturally derived. That's what I'm looking for.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
182. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Again I am looking for the source of morality. If it is natural, it should be definable. Like the specific properties of an element. From where do wolves and monkeys get their morality? From where do strawmen get their morality? How can we predict what morals a new, previously unseen social animal will have?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
183. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe. Depends on how you think religion got formed. I think it's the other way around. People believe certain things, and come up with an excuse to make others believe the same thing, so they form a group telling them that some deity will punish them for eternity if they don't have the same beliefs.
  
  Okay, fine. From where did those beliefs originate, then? That's what I'm asking.
  
  I usually use that as an argument against a coded morality set. If it's not universal, what makes you think the particular set you follow is the right one?
  
  Exactly! When I use math, I prefer to use the correct equations. Likewise, I'd prefer to use correct morality, if only it could be derived. Why use flawed data sets? (Of course, if that's all you have, you have no choice. What I'm asking is, why don't we have better data?)
  
  Morality as defined by a religion, or as defined by anything that is immutable is way overrated. We'd all be better off just doing what is best for us. I don't steal from friends and families because I value those relationships, and I don't want to risk losing them. I don't steal from strangers because I don't want to be punished for that. We as a society agree to make a law that punishes thieves because we don't want to get things stolen from us. Yay. We just arrived at the moral code, "do not steal" from an entirely logical perspective. As a bonus, I act exactly like a religious moral person would, and I don't steal.
  
  It's not logical at all. What is best for me might be worst for you, and thus a dispute arises. How do we logically settle that dispute? I don't think it's a bonus that you act like a religious person. I think it's a product of our societies being formed with religious viewpoints, even if we don't subscribe to them all anymore. It's impossible to escape your environment.
  
  I saw you answer the prisoner's dilemma question in another post that, without iteration, the completely moral person would get screwed. There's another reason why morality from common sense works best. If I know that you'll abide by your morals no matter what, you're screwed, I will betray you. If I know that you'll do what's best for you, and you know I'll do the same, we both can arrive at the logical conclusion that we should cooperate. Now we both have acted as if we were both moral people.
  
  Except that relies on a common definition of moral. This is what I am seeking. You assume it exists, but I dispute that.
  
  Yeah, the world isn't perfect. It will never be perfect. People don't always follow their religiously-given morals either. Need examples of that?
  
  Of course not. That's part of my whole problem. We can't say, "X is moral because of this fundamental property of the universe" and we cannot say, "X is moral because it derives from this natural law or that gene" and we should be able to. Otherwise it's a contest of who can rationalize the best, like we have now.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
184. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Your comment is more in line with the general direction of my inquiry. What I want, though, is to be able to pin morality down, codify it, and repeatbly demonstrate its natural origins. Then we could cut through a ton of BS that currently rationalizes questionable behaviour.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
185. Re:Nice... by aichpvee · 2007-09-06 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  Then what is their moral code, and how can I show that repeatably in the lab? Science doesn't explain it at all. You hand-wave and say, "well they must have a moral code because I believe evolution produces them." That's not science. That's guessing, and faith-based arguments. Those are the whole kinds of things I am attempting to avoid. Faith in the unknown is faith in the unknown is faith in the unknown. I want to have KNOWLEDGE, not faith.
  
  I stopped reading about halfway through this paragraph. You guys need to come up with some new material that is in any way related to reality. Otherwise people won't want to talk to you. Start by learning that "moral code" is what we (not me personally, but a whole lot of you) call sets of behaviors associated with continuing favorable conditions for groups of people living together.
  
  For someone who claims to want knowledge you sure do have very little of it and show no interest in actually acquiring it. These subjects are very, very basic exercises in reasoning. You shouldn't have such a difficult time with it.
  
  --
  The Farewell Tour II
186. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the most successful strategy in the prisoner's dilemma is "trusting-reacting". You start out cooperating and copy your partner's behaviour. I'd have to look it up in my statistics books again, if it's really important for you I'll dig it up.
  
  No need. I KNOW that is the most successful strategy. And that is why I want to learn the origins of morality, because a moral stance is NOT the most successful strategy...and yet we are to be moral to be good. Why? Why does morality exist, when it is NOT the most successful strategy?
  
  Sure, I run into people like you who gain a minor advantage out of me.
  
  Pardon me, but please do not project on to me. I am FAR more likely to be the 'moral' person who loses over time. I just want to know why I hate acting immorally, even though I have no logical reason. Although I would benefit by 'lying' in the Prisoner's Dilemma, in real life I do not choose that course, even when it's detrimental to me not to. Why? Because it feels wrong to me. What I want is a scientific, codifiable reason WHY I am acting counter to my interests, and not just because it's what feels right, and certainly not because of sky fairies.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
187. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  ...no logical reason for morality? Besides the fact that if you're immoral in many primitive societies (which is where humans have lived for most of their existence), you will be shunned, and cast out of society, probably to die?
  
  That is acting out of fear, not logic. Same as the sky fairy people.
  
  If you consider basic things like property rights ("Thats my banana!"), even monkeys recognize when they're being stolen from, and will dislike the one doing the taking, and be more likely to help someone who gives them things.
  
  Yes, but WHY? What CAUSES them to know "That's my banana"?
  
  You throw in a magical bogeyman that can see everything, and you all of a sudden have people behaving for the good of society even when they probably would get away with it, which is basically win-win for everyone, so it keeps being selected for genetically, with a few aberrations.
  
  So where's the gene? This is what I'm looking for, not a theory on its existence, but the gene itself. Something, you know, scientific.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
188. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  What moral code is that?
  
  Yes, exactly.
  
  Or if you mean that a secular moral code passed down by people who were religious, so what?
  
  So that's no basis for a system of morals. That's what.
  
  All that means is that people a lot of people in the past were religious, and is no different to saying that a lot of them believed in superstition, magic or a flat earth. It dosen't mean any of these things are responsible for our law, society and moral code.
  
  Come on, you can't seriously be saying that our laws aren't heavily influenced by religious laws, can you?
  
  As for right and wrong, these are words which people use to describe that they think some actions are good or bad.
  
  Yes, what I am looking for is a quantifiable measure for this. That way we aren't reliant on differing interpretations.
  
  To some degree this is opinion and there is no objective standard, but at the same time, many people will agree on certain things.
  
  If there is no objective standard then there is no right and wrong, only possible and impossible.
  
  The reason we think certain actions should or shouldn't be done is usually because of the effects of those actions, or because of what things we want to happen, or not happen. If someone thinks something is wrong, I say they should always be able to explain why it is wrong.
  
  I agree, but our laws don't do this. They just say THAT something is wrong. Never why; at least in my experience.
  
  Somewhere along the line though, people picked up the idea that something is inherently wrong, so we get "X is wrong because religion/God says so" or the painful tautology "X is wrong because it's immoral", and all chance of reason or rational debate goes out the window.
  
  Word to this.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
189. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, yes, I know. This is why I reject 'common sense' as a source of morality. Either morals are absolute or there is no right and wrong...by definition. Only possible and impossible. (with various degrees of possibility)
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
190. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not disputing what you said. What I want is that cognitive reasoning and logic. I want to find the source of morality. If it is genetic, where is the gene? If it is a property of group dynamics, where is the predictive model? I am uncomfortable with relative morality. That means that I am looking for something definable and quantifiable. Perhaps it doesn't exist. In this case, there is no right and wrong, a concept which I reject intuitively but cannot produce evidence to refute. That evidence is what I'm seeking.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
191. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well, what about stealing from strangers, then? I am looking for the properties of morality. If they come from nature, they should be definable like everything else in nature is. If not, then where the hell do they come from?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
192. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Um, moron? I never claimed where the universal morality comes from. That is, in fact, exactly what I am seeking: the source of morality. I do not claim sky fairies did anything. I want to know the source of morality, and I'm not looking for it to be sky fairies. Learn to read, idiot.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
193. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not all moral systems have the same moral code you have.
  
  Yes, I know. Why not? Your answer, then, although you were too scared to come out and say it, is that morality is relative. If this is the case, then no action can be defined as wrong. Maybe that's why you didn't want to just answer the question. Note that I am not saying that it isn't possible.
  
  Moral systems do not have to be absolute.
  
  If they are not, then you can not label an action as wrong. It just is moral in a different code. This is to what I object. I intuitively know that some things (not necessarily things our society targets) are wrong, period. What I want to do is find a repeatable test for why, or proof that I am simply wrong.
  
  That's a HUGE assumption you've been making in your entire thread while at the same time you accuse others of assumptions they don't have.
  
  Um, no it is not. I have stated very clearly many times that I DO NOT KNOW if morality is absolute or relative, or from where morality originates. Therefore, I can NOT be pushing the assumption that it is absolute, although I have admitted many times that I intuitively believe this to be the case. I have stated that I cannot prove this, so how is that my pushing an assumption? What I want is science to back me up or prove me wrong. You haven't offered any of that. Are you intentionally misunderstanding? I'm sorry, but I have responded to over 50 posts in this thread. I have had to repeat myself ad nauseum. It's getting old. You're receiving the fallout from that. I'm still no closer to knowing from where morality arises than I was when I made the first post in this thread. It's extremely frustrating.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
194. Re:Nice... by Dan+Hayes · 2007-09-06 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  A mistake... it should read.
  I never said that evolution inevitably lead to morals, nor that evolution inevitably lead to social groups. I that that the combination of evolution and social groups inevitably leads to morality.
  
  As for how morality arises, all of the things we consider immoral - murder, rape, cheating and so on - are harmful to the cohesiveness of a social group. Individuals who have a bias against these behaviours will be able to form social groups in which people causing problems are dealt with, thus improving the group's cohesiveness by removing sources of unfairness and danger, and will thus have an advantage over a group in which individuals are free to cheat and murder at will.
  
  Much in the same way we evolved to enjoy sex (proximate cause) in order to pass our genes on (ultimate cause), we have a sense of morality (proximate cause) in order to survive better in social groups (ultimate cause).
195. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Someone who thinks they can respond to what they haven't read...yep, you're a typical idiot. "You guys" need to come up with something new? I'm not part of any group. AFAIK, I haven't posted anything about this before. Yet you think you can shove me in with some undefined group? You can fuck right off with that.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
196. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm saying is that we should be able to codify this. If there is a set of rules, we should be able to find it. Yet, as far as I'm aware, we break down too often into preferences, usually religious, on defining morality, rather than attempting to discover what is most helpful and why. (Yes, that last sentence was awful, sorry about that.) Also, why, if it is evolutionary in nature (I'm not saying it's not), why do so many people not follow it? I'm not saying that as a challenge to the principle. It just seems that if we knew why, we could better predict and/or prevent it. Who knows? Maybe I'm asking for the impossible. It certainly seems so, judging by this thread.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
197. Re:Nice... by sqldr · 2007-09-06 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  CITATION NEEDED! Because this is bullshit. The Church of England actively involved itself in slavery. The Bible, the Koran, and the Torah dictate not only nothing against having slaves, but actually propose moral ways to treat ones slaves. (look up "dhimmi"). William Wilberforce was an agnostic. This is the worst case of misinformation I've seen on slashdot, but then again, I'd expect that from a religious person - that's their job.
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
198. Re:Nice... by sqldr · 2007-09-06 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  What, a serial rapist who actively knows when people aren't menstruating? He'll still get murdered by the group. The children may survive, but they will be brought up by a rape-hating parent, which goes on to the point:
  
  Something doesn't have to be genetic to be hereditary, and nowhere will you find that more the case than in religion. How many christian children do you know with muslim parents? The memes of religion are hereditary.
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
199. Re:Nice... by sqldr · 2007-09-06 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  actually, here's a moral right:
  
  Gay people.. you know, the people who receive an imbalance of hormones in the womb which causes their physical sexuality to sway from their mental sexuality.
  
  Why can't the church get this simple concept into their heads? Morals and rights tend to oppose eachother when religion is involved, because some idiot wrote in the old testament that "he who lies atop another man as he were a woman" does what no animal has done before. Evidently the scribes of the trash that is the bible/koran were no zoologists, because homosexuality has been observed in almost every known animal, right down to insects. There's a zoo in Amsterdam which actually collects gay animals, and you can go there and watch them doing what comes NATURALLY to them.
  
  Whence commeth homophobia?
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
200. Re:Nice... by Dan+Hayes · 2007-09-06 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm saying is that we should be able to codify this.
  
  There has been work by anthropologists and philosophers of ethics on universal moral rules - consider such principles as The Golden Rule and other principles linked to from that page.
  
  Yet, as far as I'm aware, we break down too often into preferences, usually religious, on defining morality, rather than attempting to discover what is most helpful and why. (Yes, that last sentence was awful, sorry about that.)
  
  Because religion is another system for social unity, and so it's not surprising that underlying ethical behaviours get subsumed into religious frameworks when they arise. But religions are also a power structure, and once rules are codified they become subject to change and interpretation (even if the underlying basis for them remains constant).
  
  Also, why, if it is evolutionary in nature (I'm not saying it's not), why do so many people not follow it?
  Because as something that has evolved to enable social living, we naturally only naturally apply it our social group, ending up with "us and them". Better social cohesiveness makes for better warfare, and one of the things leaders always do in wartime is to make the enemy seem less than human, outside of our "moral circle" as it is sometimes called.
  
  Over history we've expanded our moral circle to the point where we now abhor sexism, racism and other such "us and them" prejudices. But if you don't consider someone as part of your "moral circle" then it's easier to behave badly towards them.
  
  OTOH the vast majority of people do follow these rules, and lead lives largely free of cheating, rape, murder and the like. It's easy to read the papers and think otherwise though *rolls eyes*
  
  Maybe I'm asking for the impossible. It certainly seems so, judging by this thread.
  
  The trick is in this expanding of the moral circle, and in realising that today's society makes it hard to have the kind of natural social group that we evolved under. Things like mobile technology and the internet are both enablers here, allowing people to form communities and keep in touch with each other, making them feel less alienated.
201. Re:Nice... by Johnny5000 · 2007-09-07 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  I realize it wasn't clear from what I asked, but what I want to know is this: From where does morality come? I want to be able to locate the morality gene, or the morality property of carbon, or whatever it ends up being. I want a predictive model. I want diagrams and charts explaining where morality comes from and why. We base our entire lives upon this concept, and yet we can't even define it? Where's the sense in that?
  
  I see what you're saying, but it's really no different from any other complex set of behaviors that humans and other animals exhibit.
  Think of a complex mating behavior, for example- where does that behavior come from? Can you find a set of genes that affect that behavior, or a predictive model? It's not going to be any different from morality, another complex behavior pattern. It's just something that somehow developed over time to benefit the species, even if the exact mechanism for the development of that behavior is unknown.
  
  --
  The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
202. Re:Nice... by PinkPanther · 2007-09-07 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, then kudos to you. You did state that morality is absolute, but I took from your pointed questions that you meant "in the human experience" (or whatever).
  No, I cannot help improve on your understanding. I would strongly question anyone who can.
  
  --
  It's a simple matter of complex programming.
203. Re:Nice... by Opportunist · 2007-09-07 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, you came across like that in your reply, thus I understood you would play defect rather than cooperate.
  
  Anyway, why are we "moral", usually? Maybe because it actually is the superior strategy, in the long run? Or at least was... but let me take a brief detour about our development as human beings.
  
  Some years ago (ok, some millenia ago), we operated in small groups. Most likely something akin to "extended families", groups of maybe 15-30 people. That's pretty much the size of group most people can handle and work together with. That's also a group size where you can remember everyone's actions and can make up your mind about, whether they are "good" or "bad" people.
  
  Now, when you can trust someone to the extent that you can be at least mostly certain that he won't harm you, you can save resources because you do not have to defend against him. You don't have to spend time and energy protecting against him, or intimidate him so he thinks you're stronger and won't attack you, over time you can start developing hunting tactics that put you in danger and you have to depend on him to solve that danger for you, which can be a quite superior and easier hunting strategy for the early human to others that don't involve taking the risk of depending on someone.
  
  In short, we learned that we're better off trusting selected people instead of constantly being at odds with everyone until we're certain that there's no harm in trusting them. Personally, I'd guess it might have been "bred" into us.
  
  Of course, this does have adverse effects as soon as the group of people you deal with becomes global. We're not wired to deal with a group of a few million or billion individuals. Most of all, we don't care about them at all. Some guy in Congo died? Aha. Ok. What's for dinner?
  
  What's worse, though, is that information is no longer total. When in the small group someone was a constant defecter, it would have been easy to determine, word gets around and he would never ever "win" anymore. The larger the group, though, the more playing a defecting strategy pays off. You have enough partners you can play with. As long as you can ensure that there is no repetition of the "game", and there are enough partners to play with, you can actually sustain yourself with a defect constantly strategy. Whether it's more successful is debatable.
  
  It also depends on how the others play. I think it would be an interesing field of research to set up something that would reflect our current company-customer relationship models: A large number of players (p>1m), a variable amount of them playing "defect constantly" while the others play "cooperate-react", with those parameters:
  
  1. Players that find a coop partner will prefer playing with him (reflecting that you stay with a seller you're satisfied with). To varying degree (to see what influence it will have).
  2. Players that find a defecting partner will never play with them again (reflecting that you don't go back to a seller that rips you off).
  
  It would be interesting to also introduce such things as a "global knowledge" of certain behaviours (reflecting consumer pages and reports about various shops), which influence preference (again, with varying degree of players heeding the knowledge), and "dumb players" who return to defecters even after getting bitten before.
  
  I think I just had an idea for my thesis in statistics...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
204. Re:Nice... by tbannist · 2007-09-07 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  What I want to know is this: Is morality relative or absolute? If absolute, how can I derive its laws?
  
  That is, I think one of the great questions of ethics. There are actually at many different possibilities:
  Moral Relativism,
  Moral Pluralism,
  Moral Absolutism,
  Moral Objectivism,
  Moral Naturalism,
  and
  Moral Realism
  
  Now, if you want a rational, absolute moral code you can start with Humanism particularly Secular Humanism.
  
  The major issue is that no one has yet to develop a "fool-proof" moral code that can be adhered to and never goes wrong. Moral Pluralism says it's impossible to do because there are actually multiple different absolute moral codes. Moral Absolutism says the absolute code exists, we just don't know what it is, Moral Naturalism says it can be derived solely from the natural world, Moral Realism says that moral facts exist (which is subset of Moral Absolutism). On the other hand Moral Relativism says morality is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to work your way into a concrete moral code, start with Moral Absolutism and read the works of some of the Absolutist philosophers, that should help you find the path you're looking for.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
205. Re:Nice... by Hyperspite · 2007-09-07 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, sorry for the tone I took before. These conversations piss me off.
  
  The thing is, stealing from strangers is GOOD for the individual unless there is an outside force like the police to make it not so good (notice that thievery is frequent in many 3rd world countries without a strong police force). The thing is, however, that on the whole for the society, stability is good (especially since individuals do not have to then provide additional overhead for security). So, over time, societies that effectively prevent stealing will prosper at a greater rate than those that don't. One of the ways that these societies can prevent thievery is by implanting memes in their members brains (notice that you accept the meme "stealing is wrong" as the word of god, which, by the way, is another meme that has no basis in physical observation that you may have never acquired if you parents or preacher never told you to accept). If this goes on for long enough, it may become ingrained with brain structures that promote these memes (such as the way all human value fairness to a degree, as shown in certain experiments. See these pages for some information:
  Department of Psychology at UChicago
  
  Neuropsychologists and MRIs
  
  Thus, from an evolutionary perspective*, it becomes obvious that societies and biology manipulate memes and the weights in our judgment making process in order to provide for more stable civilizations. Absolute morals do not exist, however the absence of some rational stabilizing rules would make civilization unstable. Thus, kill and steal as you like, but society will come down on you. It's all a game and we should have not problem seeing it that way.
  
  *By evolutionary prespective, I mean both physical and social structures.
206. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-08 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  That's not good enough for me. If it can't be codified and understood, we don't need to be basing laws on it.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
207. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-08 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  I would as well. Only by questioning does one ever understand anything. The quest continues!
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
208. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-08 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, best of luck with your thesis..although I have to say, I'm with Mark Twain in my opinion of statistics :)
  I know, I know, it's not (exactly) the same thing.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
209. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-08 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I respectfully doubt it. I appreciate the offer, but I'm not looking for more philosophical theory. There's quite a lot of that, and there's really no consensus. I want some sort of repeatable test leading to a predictive model. Philosophy doesn't really suit my turn of mind. What I need to start doing is figuring out how to develop testing procedures and parameters for this particular problem. Although, given the lack of hard research in the area, and the overabundance of theory, that could take some doing. Could be I'm wrong, and a bigot, as I've been called before, but I believe that science should be reproducible by anyone with the right equipment and attention to detail. Soft sciences are fine for people who just want to argue. I want proof. That's just how I am. I'm not saying it's right, but nothing I've experienced has altered that perception.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
210. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-08 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, sorry for the tone I took before. These conversations piss me off.
  
  Me too. Especially when it seems like everyone is only here to argue and I'm genuinely trying to seek facts.
  
  (notice that you accept the meme "stealing is wrong" as the word of god, which, by the way, is another meme that has no basis in physical observation that you may have never acquired if you parents or preacher never told you to accept)
  
  Actually, although this has been a common misconception throughout this thread, I am not a religious person, and in fact I am questioning whether stealing is, in fact, wrong, and if so, why? I'm not espousing ANY origin for morality, I am in fact seeking that origin, and although I seriously doubt that any religion is correct, I am as open to the possibility that they are as I am to the possibility that it's alien technology. That is to say, I would be far less surprised to find a terrestrial cause. I just want to find that cause, in such a way that repeatable tests can be done to determine it. Again, if absolute morals do not exist, then there is no action which can be termed 'bad' or 'wrong' and I would hate for that to be true. Once more, I am not asserting that morality is absolute, just that that is my 'gut feeling'. I want to find a way to determine whether it is or is not scientifically.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
211. Re:Nice... by Hyperspite · 2007-09-08 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, that's cool. So long as you're a rational person I can talk to you. Slashdot needs fewer fanboys anyway.
  
  So, what do you think of the arguments I presented? I am very mistrustful of gut feelings when they are not substantiated by some sort of clue or argument.
212. Re:Nice... by aichpvee · 2007-09-08 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  "You guys" are a group of idiots who don't have a clue. Your comments betray your ignorance and your inclusion in this group.
  
  Come back with your lame arguments when you can design an experiment to prove that humans have a "moral code." I expect to never see you posting again as you will be unable to do this, despite being able to have a conversion with the person about the topic.
  
  It baffles the mind that any reasonable person could actually think that they have anything to say on a topic when they clearly are incapable of comprehending even the basics. But I just need to keep reminding myself that you just aren't reasonable. You should smack yourself awake from your delusion and realize that you just need to keep your mouth shut on subjects of any complexity since you will never reach a point where you will be able to understand them.
  
  Now you can go fuck right the hell off our planet. There are billions of mindless drones just like yourself and you are unlikely to distinguish yourself as useful for even the limited tasks you are mentally capable of handling.
  
  --
  The Farewell Tour II
213. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-09 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, nice rhetoric. Nothing substantive, simply attacks, but then what would one expect from slashdot? How about presenting something resembling an argument? That's the usual method to demonstrating the superiority of your position. However, you are too stupid to realize this. Why don't you do something to prove you have intelligence? Oh, right, of course. You can't. Now go on back to blowing stray dogs, which is all you're good for.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
214. Re:Nice... by Opportunist · 2007-09-09 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on the presentation. There are actually good statistics, and yes, I could explode every time I read one in some tabloid. No deviation, no conficence intervals, all you get is "55% are in favor". Of what sample size? Of what sample to start with? Who did you ask?
  
  "Will you buy a HDDVD player?" will yield very different answers, depending on where you ask. Some exclusive residental area, predominantly inhabited by upper class people, or some downtown ghetto? I promise you, the difference will be stunning, and will give you enough ammo to prove that either HDDVD is the next big thing or about to bomb.
  
  A good statistics will give you its source (i.e. who was asked, surveyed or how was the sample generated), its sample size, deviation, its median, its mean and a few more key numbers that an at least halfway decent statistician can use to call the conclusion sound or bunk. If you just get "so-and-so many percent for this, so-and-so many for that" without any further information, take it and toss it. The article ain't worth your time.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
215. Re:Nice... by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-09 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  I believe intuitively that you are correct. However, if it is truly the nature of things, then we should be able to quantify and explain how it is naturally derived.
  
  Don't confuse the objective physiology and biochemistry of the brain with the sujective quality of experience. If the question is "does being nice make me happy?", the best way to find out is to carefully examine your own experience. No amount of obective external observation can answer a subjective internal question, any more than subjective internal observation can answer an obective external question.
  But, the question of "what is the evolutionary biology that makes human beings, by and large, feel good when they're being nice?", is also an interesting one. There may be some information in the field of positive psychology. From the neurological point of view, I would guess that mirror neurons have a role to play.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
216. Re:Nice... by sqldr · 2007-09-09 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  There's plenty of scientific evidence. Yes, it's a theory, which is more than a hypothesis. By scientists who have actually tried to understand the syndrome, rather than write it off as immoral because they read it in leviticus.
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
217. Re:Nice... by JoelKatz · 2007-09-10 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not only is the group complained about not what it appears to be, but the complainers are not what they appear to be either. They don't just want this group removed but "all similar disrespectful groups of religion". In other words, their objection is not to the profanity, but the lack of respect, which more than likely means the presence of criticism.
218. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-11 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I've found that you often get the most accurate poll results from "Family Feud", and they only survey 100 people (all in California, AFAIK).
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
219. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-11 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I think we need to go deeper than that. That question sort of assumes that 'being happy' is the point. Yet, what if being not nice makes me happy? Is that any less valid? Is it more important to be nice, or happy? Why? We may not be able to work out a physical explanation, but could we possibly at least attempt SOME sort of consensus?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
220. Re:Nice... by Opportunist · 2007-09-11 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's likely that they filter out "wrong" answers.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
221. Re:Nice... by sethawoolley · 2007-09-17 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not all moral systems have the same moral code you have.
  
  Yes, I know. Why not? Your answer, then, although you were too scared to come out and say it, is that morality is relative. If this is the case, then no action can be defined as wrong. Maybe that's why you didn't want to just answer the question. Note that I am not saying that it isn't possible.
  My point was actually, not that the alternative to moral absolutism is relativism. It's a common mistake to think that "not P" equals the opposite of P. Fortunately, "not P" actually means "anything other than P". It's a tough concept, I know.
  
  My preferred alternative to moral absolutism is actually moral subjectivism, not moral relativism, but I know you've been brainwashed to think everybody's a relativist if they aren't an absolutist. I think ethics are entirely subjective, based on circumstance, and require balancing equity with social awareness. A relativist as typically defined is one who thinks that if one society thinks a thing is good then it's good for that society, which innately promotes non-interference. On the contrary, if I think you're doing something immoral, I think I should be allowed to subjectively press a charge of social harm and come up with subjective systems for moral analysis. We can do a lot better than we are now.
  
  In fact, the particular subjectivism I think makes the most sense is actually moral situationalism. One example of writing that encompasses this ethical system is Clerence Darrow's Crime and Criminals. I really don't mind you calling it relativism, either, if you mean by definition not absolutism. If you think I'm scared of you calling it that, then I'm really not. See, in this forum, I get the chance to say whatever I want in response, so I really have nothing to fear from you.
  
  Moral systems do not have to be absolute.
  
  If they are not, then you can not label an action as wrong.
  
  I can if I want to.
  
  It just is moral in a different code.
  I can think my moral code and system of ethics is good for everybody and not be an absolutist. You see, instead of defining particular actions to be bad, I define particular circumstances and actions together to be more full information with which to make a decision.
  
  This is to what I object.
  Feel free to object all you want. That doesn't mean you're correct.
  
  I intuitively know that some things (not necessarily things our society targets) are wrong, period. What I want to do is find a repeatable test for why, or proof that I am simply wrong.
  So, it's subjective to your own intuition. That's a great step forward in your own understanding if you can grasp that.
  
  That's a HUGE assumption you've been making in your entire thread while at the same time you accuse others of assumptions they don't have.
  
  Um, no it is not. I have stated very clearly many times that I DO NOT KNOW if morality is absolute or relative, or from where morality originates. Therefore, I can NOT be pushing the assumption that it is absolute, although I have admitted many times that I intuitively believe this to be the case.
  
  I'm not impressed by the semantics here. You believe it to be the case, but you're "not assuming" that it is. You contradict yourself already. By saying that you don't know if it's absolute, you've retreated from treating your belief as a fact. Once it's not an established fact, then it is by definition an assumption -- you're assuming it to be the case. Assumptions don't necessarily mean that you hold them as facts. Assumptions can be hypothetical. Your use of the hypothetical as a retreat doesn't nullify my statement that it's an assumption.
  
  I have stated that I cannot prove this, so how is that my pushing an assumption?
  
  Religious people often think that repeating things they cannot prove so that
222. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-18 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  First of all: Once again: I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. I DO NOT ESPOUSE ANY RELIGION. Seriously, you lecture me about "Not P does not equal the opposite of P" and yet you assume that because I don't believe morality is relative, I must be religious. Tough concept, indeed. For you, apparently.
  
  My preferred alternative to moral absolutism is actually moral subjectivism, not moral relativism, but I know you've been brainwashed to think everybody's a relativist if they aren't an absolutist. I think ethics are entirely subjective, based on circumstance
  
  OK, here's another tough concept for you: If you believe that morality changes based on subjective interpretations and/or circumstance, guess what? You're a moral relativist. You believe that things can become more or less moral relative to other things. That's the whole idea behind moral relativism. You can call it what you like, but that doesn't make it different. As I previously stated, you can not say something is wrong...unless there is an absolute definition. You can only say it's wrong for this circumstance. That implies that there is a circumstance under which your action is not wrong. Thus, relativism. Do you really not understand that?
  
  See, in this forum, I get the chance to say whatever I want in response, so I really have nothing to fear from you.
  
  Why should you have anything to fear from me? What, am I going to reach through the Internet and grab you? Not only did I never for one second believe you had anything to fear from me, or I from you, it never even entered my head that anyone would be fearful of anyone else on the Internet. Talk about your wastes of time. Thanks for letting me know, though. I don't know why you did, but you went to the trouble, so thanks.
  
  I can if I want to.
  
  No, see, that's part of the difference between 'relative' and 'absolute'. You can say something is wrong in a particular circumstance, but you MUST qualify it. If you say something is categorically wrong, that is an absolute statement. Now, I suppose you could say it in error, but you can say anything in error so what is the point of pointing out all the erroneous things you could possibly say if you wanted to? If you are going to be like that, then add, "and be correct under all circumstances" to the end of the statement and try again.
  
  I can think my moral code and system of ethics is good for everybody and not be an absolutist. You see, instead of defining particular actions to be bad, I define particular circumstances and actions together to be more full information with which to make a decision.
  
  You can think that ice cream is made out of rainbows. However, in a relativist system, what you think and what other people think have equal importance in a shared forum. What makes your code and system correct, while someone else's isn't? Assuming identical circumstance, that is.
  
  Feel free to object all you want. That doesn't mean you're correct.
  
  It also doesn't mean that I am in error. What was your point, here?
  
  So, it's subjective to your own intuition. That's a great step forward in your own understanding if you can grasp that.
  
  You are a moron. I believe there is an absolute moral code. That belief may or may not be correct. However, I am not attempting to push any particular code. I am searching for it, acknowledging the possibility that it may not be found. You see, belief that morality is absolute and believing that I know what that code consists of are two seperate things. I am not asserting WHAT the absolute moral code is. I am not even assuming that there IS one. It is my hypothesis that there is one, and I am attempting to determine by which methodology that can be tested. That way, I wouldn't be reliant on ANYONE's intuition. My goal is not for my conclusion to match my hypothesis. My goal is to FIND OUT IF my conclusion matches my hypothesis. Can you grasp that?
  
  I'm not impressed by the semantics here.
  
  So? I care why?
  
  You believe
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
223. Re:Nice... by sethawoolley · 2007-09-19 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  First of all: Once again: I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. I DO NOT ESPOUSE ANY RELIGION. Seriously, you lecture me about "Not P does not equal the opposite of P" and yet you assume that because I don't believe morality is relative, I must be religious. Tough concept, indeed. For you, apparently.
  At no point did I assume that you're religious. I said I stated some things because religious people often say a certain thing I wanted to address. You might be religious or you might not be. Not all things are a direct response to you. My response did assume that some people are religious, which could have been you. Seeing your responses, it's obvious that logic is a very tough thing for you.
  
  My preferred alternative to moral absolutism is actually moral subjectivism, not moral relativism, but I know you've been brainwashed to think everybody's a relativist if they aren't an absolutist. I think ethics are entirely subjective, based on circumstance
  
  OK, here's another tough concept for you: If you believe that morality changes based on subjective interpretations and/or circumstance, guess what? You're a moral relativist. You believe that things can become more or less moral relative to other things.
  You'll note that I defined moral relativism differently, (based on the sociological literature, actually) and said that I would accept your definition for the sake of argument. You have left out that point. I said call me a moral relativist if you want. It's thus not a tough concept for me, as I actually accepted it explicitly in my reply.
  
  But again, reading comprehension and logic are not your strong points.
  
  That's the whole idea behind moral relativism. You can call it what you like, but that doesn't make it different. As I previously stated, you can not say something is wrong...unless there is an absolute definition. You can only say it's wrong for this circumstance. That implies that there is a circumstance under which your action is not wrong. Thus, relativism. Do you really not understand that?
  I did say things are wrong under particular circumstances. I call it circumstantialism, and related to subjectivism, and, again, I even let you call it relativism, even though it's not how the term is used in the academic literature. The academic version of relativist is scoped much more narrowly. It's more of a "they are right, to the people in that particular society, and thus outside judgments are inappropriate."
  
  See, in this forum, I get the chance to say whatever I want in response, so I really have nothing to fear from you.
  
  Why should you have anything to fear from me? What, am I going to reach through the Internet and grab you? Not only did I never for one second believe you had anything to fear from me, or I from you, it never even entered my head that anyone would be fearful of anyone else on the Internet. Talk about your wastes of time. Thanks for letting me know, though. I don't know why you did, but you went to the trouble, so thanks.
  I said that because you said I feared a statement of yours. If that's a waste of time, then maybe I shouldn't bother directly responding to your words, and I should respond to a mind-reading of what you think you said to me. That's of course very difficult.
  
  I can if I want to.
  
  No, see, that's part of the difference between 'relative' and 'absolute'. You can say something is wrong in a particular circumstance, but you MUST qualify it.
  
  And I'm perfectly fine qualifying things. I think all "should" statements have an implicit "to me" or "if I got what I wanted" on them. I don't think there are any "should" statements that cannot be qualified. You think some don't need qualification. That's where we really differ. To you, I _am_ a moral relativist, and I think that's simply enough to fully explain human behavior. You've _assumed_ (as in supposed) an entity that need not be supposed: that there's some sort of
224. Re:Nice... by untaken_name · 2007-09-19 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Religious people often think that repeating things they cannot prove so that others may believe it is somehow not proselytizing. - You
  
  I hope that one day you'll educate yourself enough on the matter to overcome your religious ideology. - You
  
  At no point did I assume that you're religious. - You
  
  Why shold I bother to go through the rest of your crap? You really thought you could lie like that when the proof is only two posts up? Seriously? Good luck with life, homey.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
225. Re:Nice... by sethawoolley · 2007-09-19 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  Religious people often think that repeating things they cannot prove so that others may believe it is somehow not proselytizing. - You
  
  I hope that one day you'll educate yourself enough on the matter to overcome your religious ideology. - You
  
  At no point did I assume that you're religious. - You
  
  Why shold I bother to go through the rest of your crap? You really thought you could lie like that when the proof is only two posts up? Seriously? Good luck with life, homey. As I pointed out, you have a religious ideology (absolutist moral conception), and religious behaviors (asserting without evidence). The idea "you are religious" means that you have an actual religion (i.e., you're Christian, Muslim, Baha'i, etc). I didn't assume the latter, while I said you do have the former. To be clear, a noun phrase with an adjective used on one word is different than a noun phrase with the same adjective used on another word.
  
  But, as I said before, your reading comprehension is not a strong point.
Maybe the worst bluff I've ever seen by agengr · 2007-09-04 15:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

I bet 99% of those people couldn't quit Facebook even if you paid them.
1. Re:Maybe the worst bluff I've ever seen by Fozzyuw · 2007-09-04 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the worst bluff I've ever seen...I bet 99% of those people couldn't quit Facebook even if you paid them.
  
  2nd worst, only to WoW (or other popular MMO's in their heyday) forum trolls. =) Did anyone ask them if you could have their stuff?
  
  Cheers,
  Fozzy
  
  --
  "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
2. Re:Maybe the worst bluff I've ever seen by olehenning · 2007-09-04 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  Whoa! Read that comment and logged straight in to facebook! Was it one of those "Don't think of a black cat" moments?
3. Re:Maybe the worst bluff I've ever seen by nicklott · 2007-09-04 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  Given that they spelt "are" in their petition name as "r", I with you...
4. Re:Maybe the worst bluff I've ever seen by The+MAZZTer · 2007-09-05 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because to leave Facebook would mean leaving the group, which makes it appear weaker. Not to mention they never say WHEN they'd leave. So right now we have 53,482 liars in that group. Until the group membership drops to 0. Then either they've all left or they've changed their minds, we can never tell! <3 irony. They should've thought it through more. All 53,482 of them.
hmm... by doxology · 2007-09-04 15:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Clicking on the link to the group f**k Islam takes me to the Facebook homepage, but clicking on the other link works. The f**k islam group is also linked from the petition, but it too takes me to the Facebook home page. Looks to me that the group was removed...

--
sigfault. core dumped.
1. Re:hmm... by bcdm · 2007-09-04 16:09 · Score: 2
  
  Since when, exactly, did reporting a broken link become "flamebait"? I grow confused.
  
  It appears that the group has been taken down. Looks like censorship has won out. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, really.
  
  --
  I can has sig?
2. Re:hmm... by newscloud · 2007-09-04 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  If you click on the post, you'll see the update. Facebook deleted the group sometime today. Many other obscenity-laced group names remain against their ToS.
3. Re:hmm... by glwtta · 2007-09-04 18:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Dude, this is Slashdot, it doesn't have a ridiculous policy on "Forbidden Words", nor the ridiculous belief that replacing some letters with symbols somehow robs words of their meaning.
  
  Say it with me: the group is called "Fuck Islam".
  
  --
  sic transit gloria mundi
4. Re:hmm... by Hal_Porter · 2007-09-04 18:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yeah, it's remarkable on slashdot how you can talk about [DELETED BY CMDR TACO]. I'm very much a free speech advocated but it seems to me that somethings go way beyond the line, and I don't think if I were CmdrTaco I'd let people post about my private life on forum my wife may read, or even the animal rights people who just can't accept that [DELETED BY CMDR TACO]. He paid for the bunnies, what he does to them in private should be his business alone.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
5. Re:hmm... by Petersson · 2007-09-04 18:53 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  i-slam? as in i-tunes? What is that, an Apple card game?
  
  --
  I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
6. Re:hmm... by noidentity · 2007-09-04 19:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Oh, I thought the group was called "F**k Islam". Color me surprised that anyone on Slashdot would care to protect my innocent eyes from the word FUCK.
7. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 19:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, the ORIGINAL group name was "F**k Islam". If you go to the new group "Fuck Islam" there are posts asking why the old group was deleted. This makes it pretty obvious that "Fuck Islam" was NOT the original group, but the replacement group. People here aren't using ** to be "leet" or to avoid swearing, they were correctly quoting the article/group.
8. Re:hmm... by joke_dst · 2007-09-04 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't really matter though since the link doesn't have the string "f**k islam" in it, it's only a group ID. So this group seems indeed to have been removed
  Or possible slashdotted, if that's possible with page on facebook :)
9. Re:hmm... by MooUK · 2007-09-04 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  I believe this is standard for people without a logged-in facebook account.
10. Re:hmm... by XMode · 2007-09-04 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  See, thats the problem, it was supposed to be Funk Islam but someone typoed it and now were in the mess were in...
11. Re:hmm... by Threni · 2007-09-05 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  > Dude, this is Slashdot, it doesn't have a ridiculous policy on "Forbidden Words", nor the ridiculous belief that replacing some letters with
  > symbols somehow robs words of their meaning.
  
  If you disguise those sorts of words it makes it more likely that you can read slashdot from places like schools and libraries around the world. It also means that radio stations, magazines and other websites which are aimed at a `family` audience are more likely to provide links to Slashdot.
12. Re:hmm... by Cheirdal · 2007-09-05 00:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  20% of the moderation on this post was rated as "Informative". Now THAT is funny :).
13. Re:hmm... by zufar · 2007-09-05 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  What was so fucking insightful about the above comment?
14. Re:hmm... by Chandon+Seldon · 2007-09-05 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you disguise those sorts of words it makes it more likely that you can read slashdot from places like schools and libraries around the world. It also means that radio stations, magazines and other websites which are aimed at a `family` audience are more likely to provide links to Slashdot.
  
  It also means that you're self-censoring out of fear. That's a really bad deal.
  
  --
  -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
15. Re:hmm... by Threni · 2007-09-05 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  > It also means that you're self-censoring out of fear. That's a really bad deal.
  
  No, it means you're prepared to compromise to make a profit. It's just the cost of doing business. Business isn't about morals, justice or freedom - it's about making money. Typing `f**k` instead of `fuck` is just a business decision.
16. Re:hmm... by Chandon+Seldon · 2007-09-05 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Business isn't about morals, justice or freedom - it's about making money. Typing `f**k` instead of `fuck` is just a business decision.
  
  Although I agree with some of your premise, you appear to be applying a simplified heuristic to your decision making that is known to result in severely self-harming decisions in reasonably common edge cases. You can't ignore ethical considerations in business decisions because they are a criteria that customers use to evaluate your offerings.
  Slashdot is a perfect example of a case where the benefits of supporting freedom of speech are likely to exceed the potential benefits of self-censorship. I personally have a much higher opinion of Slashdot due to their ongoing policy of supporting information freedom than I would otherwise - over hundreds of thousands of users, that ends up translating into page views (which are ad impressions, which are dollars).
  No, it means you're prepared to compromise to make a profit. It's just the cost of doing business.
  
  The social implications don't change based on how a given policy-maker looks at the question. An environment where businesses censor things like news stories and web discussions out of fear of bad publicity is socially harmful. The "compromise to make a profit" thing is simply a detail of the mechanism that is causing that self-censorship to occur.
  
  --
  -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
17. Re:hmm... by slimjim8094 · 2007-09-05 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
  
  --
  I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
18. Re:hmm... by rastoboy29 · 2007-09-05 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Thankyou.
  
  --
  expandfairuse.org
What about digg? by DAldredge · 2007-09-04 15:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

What about the large amount of anti religious speech on Digg.com?
1. Re:What about digg? by BadAnalogyGuy · 2007-09-04 15:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Fuck Digg.
2. Re:What about digg? by McFadden · 2007-09-04 15:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Digg doesn't exist any more after their userbase said they would quit over the DVD encryption key fiasco. Kinda like Facebook. Oh wait...
3. Re:What about digg? by OECD · 2007-09-04 16:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Digg caved to their users. Oh, wait..
  
  --
  One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
4. Re:What about digg? by DigiShaman · 2007-09-04 16:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Further more, what about all the hate speech on Daily Kos?
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
5. Re:What about digg? by zygotic+mitosis · 2007-09-04 17:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why don't we start letting all corporate forums censor us?
6. Re:What about digg? by Monsuco · 2007-09-04 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  What about all the hate speech on BillOReilly.com?
  Mind linking to some? I couldn't find any. All I found was a coffee mug that said culture warrior. Oh, the hate!
  
  --
  The Gospel according to lolcat
7. Re:What about digg? by Eli+Gottlieb · 2007-09-04 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, what about the hate speech on Reddit? They hate every religion, especially Islam; they claim that most political ideologies are actually religions; and despite their own insistence that they only hate usurping Zionism, you have to look pretty far to find better-veiled anti-Semitism.
8. Re:What about digg? by saskboy · 2007-09-04 18:21 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If Slashdot doesn't bring back the hot grits and Natalie Portman, then I propose we quit.
  
  --
  Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
9. Re:What about digg? by Blackknight · 2007-09-04 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  What about it? It's called freedom of speech, deal with it.
10. Re:What about digg? by Von+Rex · 2007-09-04 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  Which is one small drop in the ocean of hate you find on right-wing sites like Free Republic or Little Green Footballs. Not that you or Bill O'Reily see that as a problem.
11. Re:What about digg? by Fred+Ferrigno · 2007-09-04 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  Check out reddit. The flood of digg users jumping ship and ruining reddit is a common theme over there.
12. Re:What about digg? by benplaut · 2007-09-04 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Anti Fuck Digg.
13. Re:What about digg? by Saint+Fnordius · 2007-09-04 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  Are you suggesting that Facebook adopt a community ratings system? After all, the hate speech on the Daily Kos is often quickly and mercilessly troll-rated and disappears. Instead of professional moderators, the community polices itself. Reminds me of a similar site whose name escapes me. Begins with slash...
  
  In all actuality, the impression I am getting is that the Facebook admin staff is hopelessly overswamped with abuse reports. On the one hand, they have a Terms of Service that specifically forbids ate crimes, yet they also don't want to assume the role of censors. Trying to correct this with a Slashdot/DKos community moderation could work only for discussion threads, but not entire groups or abusive accounts. The only real solution is to hire and train more admins.
14. Re:What about digg? by Lehk228 · 2007-09-04 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  natalie portman never left, she has been here pouring hot grits down my pants this whole time.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
15. Re:What about digg? by empaler · 2007-09-04 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Digg actually censors quite a bit, they block the IP address who of anyone who says anything about Islam.
  
  You can't mention Jews anymore without people calling you anti-semitic. Do you have any sources for the claim on IP blocking? (Doing a quick Google search for 'digg islam' turned up hits on digg, nae problemo - stuff like "Digg - ISLAM CAN LEAD TO WORLD WAR III WITHIN 3 DECADES!!")
  
  As for being called 'anti-semitic' well, that's the other users. That just makes them crybabies (unless you are, in fact, exuding anti-semitic commentaries)
16. Re:What about digg? by demo · 2007-09-05 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  But is she naked and petrified?
  
  --
  ---
17. Re:What about digg? by Mr2001 · 2007-09-05 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Mind linking to some? I couldn't find any. All I found was a coffee mug that said culture warrior. Oh, the hate! Here are several examples of hate speech found on Bill O'Reilly's site, collected according to the same standard that Papa Bear has used to condemn DailyKos. HTH.
  
  --
  Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
18. Re:What about digg? by element-o.p. · 2007-09-05 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  I joined digg after reading that they decided not to bow to pressure from the suits after all. But I agree that most of the users there belong on myspace...sigh.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Re:Free speech, motherfuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 15:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, you have the right to say what you like, but I have the right to kick you out of my club if you start saying things I don't like.
heh by Iron+Condor · 2007-09-04 15:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wonder whether there's be any kind of publicity if the group was called "fuck communism"...

--
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
1. Re:heh by Carpe+PM · 2007-09-04 16:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not likely, not here. And any 'Fuck Islam' talk will be quickly moderated down.
  'Fuck Christianity' will be just as quickly rewarded.
  We can't allow too much tolerance!
2. Re:heh by grcumb · 2007-09-04 16:25 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I wonder whether there's be any kind of publicity if the group was called "fuck communism"...
  I'm holding out for the 'Fuck Virginity' group....
  
  ... ducks and runs...
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
3. Re:heh by ydra2 · 2007-09-04 16:48 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You said:
  
  "Not likely, not here. And any 'Fuck Islam' talk will be quickly moderated down.
  
  'Fuck Christianity' will be just as quickly rewarded.
  
  We can't allow too much tolerance!"
  
  I now ask, what do you call tolerance and why are you so much against it?
  
  I think you mean to say that we are quick to censor any anti-Christianity but slow to censor any anti-Ismlamic posts, or maybe the other way around. But your statement actually says both "will be just as quickly rewarded" I think in the context of being moderated down. Are you saying that any discussion of this topic, regardless of the position of the commenter, will be moderated down?
  
  Whatever your answer, I will just come out and tell you the secret slashdot moderation guidelines. (They will hunt me down and punish me for this, but... Oh well, here goes nothing).
  
  1. Liberal = BAD
  2. Conservative = Not so Bad
  3. Libertarian = Ultra plus plus double good
  4. Islam = Bad Nasty
  5. Christianity = WTF!
  6. Evolution = Sure, whatever
  7. Intelligent Design = Anything's possible, or not
  8. Microsoft = Holey Operating System
  9. Linux = Holy Operating System
  10. BSD = Used to be Holy Operating System but caved in to Libertarians
4. Re:heh by Maxo-Texas · 2007-09-04 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  But your post has both!
  
  I must mod you up!
  
  And yet I must mod you down!
  
  Ahhhhhhh
  
  [head explodes]
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
5. Re:heh by Hal_Porter · 2007-09-04 18:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Slashdot groupthink believes the exact opposite of whatever Middle America believes. Which is fine some of the time, since in those cases Middle American beliefs are over simplified to the point of being flat out wrong. The rest of the time they're simplistic but mostly right and it's a problem.
  
  Mindless heterodoxy it turns out is just as bad as mindless orthodoxy. Damn, it's a trickier world than I expected.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
6. Re:heh by Hal_Porter · 2007-09-04 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Look trolls! We've found the Gödel sentence! Spread the word, we can bring the whole system down!
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
7. Re:heh by rtb61 · 2007-09-04 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it that the opinion of the majority is group think when you don't agree with it. Technically group think is ascribed only to a particular lower range of intellect, which is outside the range of the majority of /.ers excluding of course the paid to post losers, be they government or private.
  Over the years, I have seen /. opinion to be spread pretty wildly over an extended range of topics, there however are a few opinions which are more universally supported than others (apart from of course the opinions tainted by vested intrests, you know who you are, just because you profit by it does not mean we have to support it), those ones of course, reflect the wider introvert computer geek community, that just happens to be more represented on /.. Either you are a part of that community, enjoy /. the intellectual challenge and stay, or you leave because you don't enjoy it or you are just a boring paid to post pain (it wouldn't be quite so bad if they were any good).
  Of course comparing the far more global /. general opinion to only one segment in one region is real apple and oranges stuff and pretty meaningless. The self deprecating stuff also gets a bit repetitive after a while, whilst posting on /. try substituting 'I' or 'my' for /. and reread your post. I know the marketdroids tend to wallow in it when the loose discussions and get all sulky, but it is really all rather silly that as a /.er you point all your imagined faults about /.ers.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
8. Re:heh by Hal_Porter · 2007-09-04 19:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why is it that the opinion of the majority is group think when you don't agree with it.
  
  I didn't say that. Groupthink is a sort of self reinforcing majority. Almost every group has it to some extent, since people tend to leave groups where they are in a minority and join ones where they agree with most people. You just only notice it when you're in the minority.
  
  The self deprecating stuff also gets a bit repetitive after a while, whilst posting on /. try substituting 'I' or 'my' for /. and reread your post.
  
  I disagree with the slashdot consensus on most issues actually judging by the way posts are moderated, but because of that it's an interesting place to talk about stuff. Certainly more interesting than somewhere where I agreed with most of what's posted, even assuming such a place exists.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
9. Re:heh by Opportunist · 2007-09-04 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Wait 'til someone else moderates and then counter-moderate. Nothing beats postings modded "underrated" and "overrated" but nothing else.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
10. Re:heh by empaler · 2007-09-04 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Your link was parsed without the umlaut for the o. Fixinated
11. Re:heh by meringuoid · 2007-09-04 23:29 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  I wonder whether there's be any kind of publicity if the group was called "fuck communism"...
  Doubt it. Oh, by the way, got a light?
  
  --
  Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
12. Re:heh by Hal_Porter · 2007-09-05 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's odd. Slashdot seems to have an issue with non ascii URLs in Plain Old Text mode e.g
  
  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompl eteness_theorems">test</a>
  
  gives
  
  test
  
  i.e. it's broken because the ö gets removed.
  
  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del's_incom pleteness_theorems">test2</a>
  
  test2
  
  is ok (I URL encoded it here
  
  How did you get it to work?
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
13. Re:heh by darjen · 2007-09-05 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, by the way, got a light?
  Sure... LED or incandescent?
14. Re:heh by Tolkien · 2007-09-05 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, that's true! There should be a hidden "Confused" mod that appears only when Overrated == Underrated!
  
  --
  how is babby formed?
15. Re:heh by empaler · 2007-09-05 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  How did you get it to work? Quite boring; I did a search using wiki's own search engine and linked the resulting URL (that is, with ASCII chars and underscores instead of spaces)
RE: by thatskinnyguy · 2007-09-04 15:49 · Score: 5, Funny

petition: if "f**k Islam" is not shut down..we r quitting facebook I do what I want with Facebook. Who cares if you quit? There are millions more signing on every day and thousands of new people joining. Who would miss a few hundred people (after most don't actually follow-through)?

If this is a threat you have to do better than that! It's no skin off my back if you quit for being a whiner.

Sincerely Yours,
Mark Zuckerberg

--
The game.
Re:Free speech, motherfuckers by McFadden · 2007-09-04 15:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

And the right not to. Which so far they have upheld.
Update by TubeSteak · 2007-09-04 15:51 · Score: 1

Update: After I posted this to Slashdot's Firehose, the Fuck Islam group was deleted today. However, the Fuck Israel and Jewish group, the I hate Iraqis group and the Fuck Old People remain open, among others. In other words, I think the point of this post is still quite valid. Are old people considered a protected class of people under Federal Law?

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
1. Re:Update by BadAnalogyGuy · 2007-09-04 15:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think they misunderstand. Fuck Old People is a dating service group.
2. Re:Update by Joe+Tie. · 2007-09-04 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  I see a "Fuck old people and their stupid grey hair" group too. Sellouts to big hairdye, obviously.
  
  --
  Everything will be taken away from you.
3. Re:Update by commodoresloat · 2007-09-04 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  I thought that was only in Korea?
4. Re:Update by garcia · 2007-09-04 16:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think they misunderstand. Fuck Old People is a dating service group.
  
  With Bob Dole as their spokesperson and a great catchy line like, "I chose the little blue pill and plugged myself right into her Matrix."
5. Re:Update by therufus · 2007-09-04 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  All members of the Lemon Party.
  
  C'mon, someone had to say it!
  
  --
  You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
6. Re:Update by coolGuyZak · 2007-09-04 18:53 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The alternative is kind of sickening. "See how deep the rabbit hole goes"... *shiver*
7. Re:Update by bhima · 2007-09-04 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  Had Bob Dole said it, it would have went more along the lines of: "Bob Dole chose the little blue pill and plugged Bob Dole right into her Matrix."
  
  --
  Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Orkut got it right by WhiskeyJuvenile · 2007-09-04 15:52 · Score: 1

Hell, I joined Orkut when it first started getting publicity, started the group "Fuck Socialism", had it grow to be the largest group, and got banned within the course of about two weeks.

--

like a japanese cowboy, or a brother on skates.
Move along. by martinelli · 2007-09-04 15:53 · Score: 1

In other news, hackers on steroids infiltrate tens of thousands of MySpace accounts.
censorship icon by davek · 2007-09-04 15:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Shouldn't this article be under the censorship icon? That's what we're talking about, isn't it?

props to the slashdot strawman.

--
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
1. Re:censorship icon by metlin · 2007-09-04 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Precisely.
  
  To quote a sentiment attributed to Voltaire and expressed by Hall, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
  
  Besides, what's this? An ad on Slashdot for anti-Facebook campaign? Or some sort of troll that expects Slashdotters to actually side with censorship?
  
  Almost worthy of an Adequacy.org troll, were it not for the fact that the poster seems to believe his/her words.
2. Re:censorship icon by jmv · 2007-09-04 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't this article be under the censorship icon? That's what we're talking about, isn't it?
  
  No. Free speech doesn't mean you're free to say whatever you like with no consequence. There are many things that do not (and should not) fall under free speech:
  * "Hey, I've got a bomb in my luggage" (said in an airport)
  * Defamation (for a reasonable definition of the term)
  * Hate speech ("We should kill all ")
  * ...
  
  Of course, it's not trivial to have a good balance between what is and isn't allowed (e.g. I think "I don't like what XYZ do" is OK, while "We should kill all XYZ" isn't but in the middle, it gets quite vague).
  
  --
  Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
3. Re:censorship icon by jafiwam · 2007-09-04 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  * "Hey, I've got a bomb in my luggage" (said in an airport)
  * Defamation (for a reasonable definition of the term)
  * Hate speech ("We should kill all ")
  
  Uhm, that last one there is still protected speech in the United States. You can say it all you want and nobody from the government can stop you (legally, or without violating your civil rights)
  
  Actually, defamation is not illegal, but you can be sued in a civil court for it.
  
  Only when you do the proverbial "fire in crowded theater" one that puts people at physical risk, or inciting a riot, etc. is it outlawed.
  
  Facebook however, is a private entity and they can violate those rules right and left through their TOS.
  
  And, seriously, that "hate speech" crap was made up in the late 80's and spread by ultra-liberal whack jobs (watch the "PCU" movie for a caractacture of it), and remains PC bullshit to this day.
4. Re:censorship icon by headkase · 2007-09-04 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Also attributed:
  It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire
  Bigotry in the form of not tolerating those who don't belong to "your group" are fundamentally expressing differences of opinion with say - me.
  Voltaire in his time covered a lot of ground so I guess we should cut him a bit of slack when it comes to the finer nuances of reconciling wisdom attributed to him.
  
  --
  Shh.
5. Re:censorship icon by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2007-09-04 16:29 · Score: 1
  Shouldn't this article be under the censorship icon? That's what we're talking about, isn't it?
  props to the slashdot strawman. Well, if there were an "equal opportunity censorship" icon, then yeah.
  
  The article's point was that Facebook shuts down all kinds of objectionable content, but not this one.
  Which raises the question, why not this one? So no, I don't think it was a strawman at all.
  
  Relevent prohibitions from the TOS
  
  upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that, in the sole judgment of Company, is objectionable or which restricts or inhibits any other person from using or enjoying the Site, or which may expose Company or its users to any harm or liability of any type.
  intimidate or harass another
  upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
6. Re:censorship icon by jmv · 2007-09-04 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Only when you do the proverbial "fire in crowded theater" one that puts people at physical risk, or inciting a riot, etc. is it outlawed.
  
  See, "inciting a riot" is just one step further on the line that goes from "I don't like what XYZ do" to "We should kill all XYZ". And it's not only what is said, how the context (e.g. when there's a genocide about to happen). I tend to disagree with both Europe (too restrictive) and the US (not enough) as to where to draw the line. IMO, things like holocaust denial, while utterly stupid, should not be be considered criminal (as it is in many European countries). OTOH, inciting racial (or otherwise) violence shouldn't be permitted (as it is in the US).
  
  --
  Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
7. Re:censorship icon by thebear05 · 2007-09-04 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  as far as i understand it censorship is when the government decides what i/we/they can and can not do i may have missed something but isn't facebook not the government ?
8. Re:censorship icon by Eiron · 2007-09-04 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are stupid. -- free speech (true?)
  I think white/black/arab/jewish/whatever people are inferior to my people, and unfit to live. -- free (hate) speech, expect to have a close eye on you
  I have a bomb, I'm going to kill you all. -- free speech, also probable cause for search and seizure
  The holocaust never happened -- free (stupid) speech
  
  We have the right to free speech, and we also have the right to remain silent, these are not to be confused. If you implicate yourself in a crime, it isn't your speech that is criminal, nor should it be.
  
  Before you get all weepy, I don't really think you are stupid; just wrong. Freedom of speech should mean freedom of speech. It isn't really that complicated a principle.
  
  --
  Apathy; it does a body good.
9. Re:censorship icon by Eiron · 2007-09-04 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  As far as the first amendment goes, no, this is not protected free speech; a privately run site can pretty much do what it likes in a situation like this. This is a case of legal censorship.
  
  If it isn't censorship, what would you call it? Free speech?
  
  --
  Apathy; it does a body good.
10. Re:censorship icon by jmv · 2007-09-04 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are stupid. -- free speech (true?)
  
  That's definitely free speech, pretty much in every vaguely democratic country.
  
  I think white/black/arab/jewish/whatever people are inferior to my people, and unfit to live. -- free (hate) speech, expect to have a close eye on you
  
  That is not free speech in many countries even though it probably is in the US. Personally, this is close to where I would draw the line so whether I'd consider it free speech would mostly depend on the context where it is said.
  
  I have a bomb, I'm going to kill you all. -- free speech, also probable cause for search and seizure
  
  This is not free speech anywhere in the world I believe. Even in the US, it would be considered a death threat and it is criminal even if you don't have anything.
  
  The holocaust never happened -- free (stupid) speech
  
  I would consider that as "free (stupid) speech", but in many European countries (e.g. France and Germany I believe), it is actually illegal to say that.
  
  Actually, the issue I like best is the Armenian genocide. I think it's now illegal in France to deny it, but in Turkey it's illegal to say it happens. That can become quite interesting...
  
  --
  Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
11. Re:censorship icon by headkase · 2007-09-04 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  Give me a break ;) I'm trying to get a +5 Troll. Hasn't happened yet! Besides this is Slashdot, we're all pundits here.
  
  --
  Shh.
12. Re:censorship icon by Hal_Porter · 2007-09-04 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I think that it's OK to harass political groups but not ethnic ones. Now Islamists are clearly a group with political goals. IMO their goals are totalitarian and designed to dismantle liberal, secular society but that's not the point - their goals are political and so they should not therfore be protected from criticism. And they're not an ethic group, and that's another sign that they shouldn't be protected. Frankly it's chutzpah (a word which I'm sure would annoy them) for them to claim hostility to them is in some way equivalent to racism and liberals should tolerate them when they show absolutely non tolerance for people which do not do exactly as they say.
  
  And I note I said "Islamists" rather than "Muslims". I don't agree with Islam as a religion or with Christianity, but private religion is not something the state should interfere in. Provided religious people don't interfere with people who's lifestyles they disapprove of that is. But still you shouldn't be allowed to say "Kill all Muslims" - incitement to violence should not be allowed.
  
  Of course subtlety like this is hard to capture in a law, let alone a commercial TOS. In fact companies like Facebook should be allowed to steer clear of hosting anything that falls into the grey area between criticism of political group's ideas and incitement to violence against that group.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
13. Re:censorship icon by timmarhy · 2007-09-04 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think their should be any limits on free speech or thought. because that's what hate crime laws boil down to - an attempt to control how one group feels about another... this besides being totally futile, often incites MORE hatred.
  
  --
  If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
14. Re:censorship icon by Saint+Fnordius · 2007-09-04 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  His example of hate speech was a little too vague. Hate speech is rhetoric designed to incite violence against a specific individual or group. Active encouragement to harass, discriminate or even perform criminal acts.
  
  Hate crime laws are less about political correctness, but about making the ringleader who riled up the mob accountable for the mob's actions, and eventually preventing him from engaging in incitement in the first place.
15. Re:censorship icon by mdwh2 · 2007-09-05 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  So why not point out those inconsistencies, rather than using Slashdot to push a campaign to shut down this particular group? Why run a campaign at all? It's not like people are going to go "Oh yes, how inconsistent"; all that'll happen is that Facebook will be more likely to shutdown groups anyone disagrees with, and more likely to bow down to advertisers. And that's a good thing?
16. Re:censorship icon by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2007-09-05 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  So why not point out those inconsistencies, What inconsistencies?
  
  No, seriously, name them.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
17. Re:censorship icon by mdwh2 · 2007-09-05 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  What inconsistencies?
  
  The one you talked about when you said "Facebook shuts down all kinds of objectionable content, but not this one. Which raises the question, why not this one?"
18. Re:censorship icon by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2007-09-05 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  So how is pushing for this one inconsistency to be made consistent NOT pointing out the inconsistency?
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
They (overall) won't go through with the threat by Buran · 2007-09-04 15:55 · Score: 1

Facebook doesn't care because these people are likely either too addicted to quit or, if some do, there will be plenty of new users to replace them. After all, all the cool people are on there these days ... right?

And if these sites removed everything that SOMEONE was offended about, there wouldn't be anything left, hence no users, hence no ads, hence no money.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
The advertisers might get Facebook's attention by newscloud · 2007-09-04 15:57 · Score: 1

I agree with most of the commenters that Facebook doesn't care --- or they would take all the easily queryable "f**k" and "hate" groups down...but the advertisers TMobile, Verizon, Sprint, French's, etc. They won't like finding out that their brand is appearing on pages of groups with these obscenities. Remember, don't f**k with French's...
1. Re:The advertisers might get Facebook's attention by soliptic · 2007-09-05 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  There are advertisers on facebook!!?? This is news to me.
Meh by Internet+Ronin · 2007-09-04 15:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess I'm just not sensitive to plight of religion.

I really don't see a problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, aside from the fact that it doesn't seem to go far enough. How about a "Fuck believing in Deities" group. And more to the point, what's really wrong with that?

Should child molesters be able to rally against a "Fuck child molesters" group?

I hate KKK members. I can't stand them. Listening to their boring, monotonous, unfounded, uneducated diatribe and rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach. Am I wrong?

Can I not hate?

Damn Baby Boomers, they got the whole world in this 'touchy-feely' vibe. Sorry guys, free speech, ironically, means protecting ideas you don't like, including a person's right to feel however the FUCK they want to feel about any particular subject. It'd be cool if there were an objective standard where 'less hate' made you a better person (a la Star Wars, and the Force), but there's not, and there's really no reason NOT to hate, other than the fact that it, probably is a waste of your time, and your energy and can be an unhealthy source of stress.

I know plenty of people that hate black people, Jews, Muslims, etc. but as long as they don't DO anything about it (like kill/hang/enslave/deny employment & education/conscript) I guess I don't really care.

I'm sure I'll be modded down because the world today tells you that 'hate = suxzorz' but quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with people who hate. We all hate sometimes. Try not to let it effect your actions, and how people perceive you, and try to let it go because it's a personal hangup but don't encourage corporations to begin fiating legislation that tells me what emotions it's okay for me to have and express.

If there's a fiscal argument (a la ads) to be made, I suppose that'd be where I'd find the argument persuasive, but honestly it's a cloak for a moral judgment, and I'm sick and tired of being told how I should feel about things. Facebook, you let me keep in touch with my friends, I'm a big boy. I'll decide how I feel about things.

As for being hated, I'm sure it sucks, but again, if it's not having any actual consequences, don't sweat it. If you're getting turned down for a job because you're Islamic, that seems pretty crappy to me, but if some numbnuts has decided that him and his hater friends wanna circle jerk each other's ideas on FB, screw em. Don't join the group. Don't talk with them. ::shrugs::

I just don't see what the big deal is, but, being /. I expect plenty of comments telling me exactly what it is and why I'm such a turd for believing that my feelings and my Facebook groups are mostly MY business.
1. Re:Meh by bockelboy · 2007-09-04 16:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Can I not hate?
  You can't hate if it's on someone else's website and you have agreed to their TOS saying you can't/won't on their site. Remember, it's only censorship if the government does it!
  
  That said, you can say whatever you want on your own website hosted on your own servers. In that case, I also have the right to be disgusted by it and not visit your website..
  
  Maybe we're just old fashioned in believing that free speech extends to people we don't like.
2. Re:Meh by intx13 · 2007-09-04 16:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Your Facebook group would be your business... if your name was Mark Zuckerberg. This isn't about opinions, it's about whether or not such groups are appropriate on that sort of site. If the group remains up, then the leadership feels that they are - if it comes down, then they must feel it's not. There's no censorship going on here, nobody calling anybody "turds" as you put it, just a question of appropriateness. Zuckerberg et al are trying to pitch the site to a certain audience with certain goals in mind - if this sort of group works against those goals then it will come down. The headline (for once!) hit the issue on the head - this is about Facebook intermixing political hot topics (think of the fallout from the Muhammad cartoons) and their cash cows: advertisers.
  
  This isn't about whether or not Facebook is letting you bitch adequately. After all, there's always Myspace for you people ;)
3. Re:Meh by catbutt · 2007-09-04 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Remember, it's only censorship if the government does it!
  Ummm...since when?
  
  Are you sure you didn't mean "it's only a violation of the 1st ammendment if the government does it"?
4. Re:Meh by Blakey+Rat · 2007-09-04 16:40 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Hello Mr. Missing The Point.
  
  The point is that the existence of this group is against Facebook's Terms of Service. Whether or not you agree with those Terms, you have to agree that it's stupid for Facebook to put them up, and then fail to enforce them-- even when vocally encouraged to enforce them by thousands of people.
  
  Yes, you can hate whoever you want. However, if you're going to use Facebook's servers, you have to abide by Facebook's rules. The story here is that Facebook apparently doesn't see any need to enforce their own rules.
  
  --
  Comment of the year
5. Re:Meh by soundguy900000 · 2007-09-04 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Good points in there.
6. Re:Meh by happyemoticon · 2007-09-04 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Better yet, it's only a violation of the 1st amendment if Congress does it. The founding fathers never anticipated that eventually the President and the Supreme Court would be able to make laws as well.
7. Re:Meh by Internet+Ronin · 2007-09-04 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, actually I was worried about people calling me a turd.
  
  I didn't expect a mod up for insight, especially with gratuitous use of the word 'Fuck.'
  
  That being said, I agree, the argument of what the advertisers want and don't want plays a huge role in the Web 2.0 economics, of which Facebook is a part. I mention in my post that's the only way I'd find this really persuasive.
  
  That being said, it still feels like a straw man. It still feels like a guise of political correctness, a garb that says people's feelings are the realm of advertisers, web VCs, and politician. Maybe I'm being overly cynical, and if you call me on it, I've got no response, no comeback.
  
  I feel like I'd have more respect for Facebook if they said, "Look, people come and go and do pretty much as they please here. That means stupid stuff comes up...," if it's not 'Fuck Islam' it's something else. There's a whole group on there (139 members) that talks about believing in unicorns. There's another group that says anyone who believes in unicorns is a crackhead. There's hate, we have to deal with. Anyone who see Walmart ads on Facebook, and makes the connection that the White Supremacy facebook group they're looking must be fully endorsed by Walmart is probably a crack head too.
  
  So there, my cynical outlook, my perception that the argument is just a means of telling us AGAIN what is okay/not okay to believe.
  
  MySpace??? AUGH! I *HATE* MySpace ;-)
  
  Thanks for a good post man!
8. Re:Meh by stinerman · 2007-09-04 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  Better yet, it's only a violation of the 1st amendment if Congress does it.
  Or the states. It's really funny how many people don't understand the 14th amendment.
9. Re:Meh by happyemoticon · 2007-09-04 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's a little stickier than that, I'm afraid. You could certainly host hate speech on your servers, but if this is any indication of a common set of policies, your ISP could very well pull the plug and you'd just be available on your house and to whomever is wardriving in the vicinity. Excerpt:
  
  You may not engage in any of the following while using TIERZERO networks and/or services:
  . . .
  * Using TIERZERO networks to transmit material that TIERZERO, in its sole discretion, believes to be illegal, obscene, offensive, objectionable or inappropriate;
10. Re:Meh by happyemoticon · 2007-09-04 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  I should listen to my logic professor. Every time I use the world "only." I get egg in my face.
11. Re:Meh by ccmay · 2007-09-04 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Every time I use the world "only." I get egg in my face.
  What about the times when when you use the word "every"?
  -ccm
  
  --
  Too much Law; not enough Order.
12. Re:Meh by Monsuco · 2007-09-04 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  I know plenty of people that hate black people, Jews, Muslims, etc. but as long as they don't DO anything about it (like kill/hang/enslave/deny employment & education/conscript) I guess I don't really care.
  Well, I don't know anyone like that.
  But I hate you now :P
  
  --
  The Gospel according to lolcat
13. Re:Meh by dos_dude · 2007-09-04 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  if you're going to use Facebook's servers, you have to abide by Facebook's rules
  
  OK. That makes sense.
  
  But when did Slashdot become the Facebook TOS enforcer?
  
  I really don't know what this story is doing here.
14. Re:Meh by krotkruton · 2007-09-04 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  No one ever says anything interesting when I have mod points, but every time I run out, all the best comments show up. It never fails.
15. Re:Meh by MikeyVB · 2007-09-04 21:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.
  
  -Ralph W. Sockman
16. Re:Meh by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 22:10 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Never use absolutes. It's always wrong to do so.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
17. Re:Meh by murderlegendre · 2007-09-04 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  As I always like to say.. It's not who you hate, but how you hate them, that counts.
  
  --
  There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
18. Re:Meh by Aceticon · 2007-09-05 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  a question of appropriateness
  ... which is a moral judgment ("Who decides what's appropriate and what's not?")
  
  If someone chooses to refuse, remove or alter other people's opinions expressed on a public forum on the basis of their or someone else's moral judgements, then they're censoring that content.
  
  Some people might say it's not censorship because it's not the state doing it: i call that bollocks - censorship is an act, not an entity doing it. Here's a couple of dicionary definitions to show my point:
  http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorin g
  http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorsh ip
  
  Don't confuse censoring with obeying the law: if they take down content because it's a copyright violation, then that's obeying the law. If they take down content because it expresses opinions which are not against the law to express in that country, then it's censorship. (If the law forbids publicly expressing certain opinions, then that is state sponsored censorship)
  
  I would like to meet and congratulate whatever PR person that's spreading the meme that if it's a private company that does it (even when they advertise their service as a public forum) it's not censorship, it's business sense: great way of denying responsability.
19. Re:Meh by everphilski · 2007-09-05 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  only a Sith deals in absolutes (so Qai-gon Jinn was a sith?)
20. Re:Meh by FleaPlus · 2007-09-05 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I really don't see a problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, aside from the fact that it doesn't seem to go far enough. How about a "Fuck believing in Deities" group. And more to the point, what's really wrong with that? Here's the Fuck All Religions facebook group.
21. Re:Meh by Grishnakh · 2007-09-05 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  But that's pretty vague. "offensive" and "objectionable" could mean any speech at all, depending on the reader. For instance, I see all kinds of offensive speech here on Slashdot, every time some Microsoft defender says anything at all positive about Microsoft. I find that offensive! I object to it!
  
  Free speech isn't worth much if you're not able to speak it to anyone outside your own home. Even the citizens of China and North Korea have that much freedom; no one is listening inside their houses at all hours for prohibited speech. This means that people must be free to communicate, and with modern technology, that means on the internet.
  
  ISPs have no business censoring any type of speech, unless it's outright illegal (like copyright violations, lists of abortion doctors targeted for murder, etc.), and even then this should only happen when done by court order. If an ISP or any communications channel censors speech on their network, they lose "common carrier" status, and thus become responsible for ALL activity on their network. This means that every instance of child porn traversing their network which they miss becomes their responsibility, and their executives go to prison for possession of child porn. Being a common carrier means you can't distinguish between or place limits on any activity on your network.
22. Re:Meh by Grishnakh · 2007-09-05 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Don't minimize them that much; there's still a number of members out there of not only the KKK, but other supremacist groups. They don't have anywhere near the power they had back in their heyday, but it's still a significant number. They still show up for parades and marches and such.
  
  The OP wasn't "projecting" anyway; he was making an example. Even if you were right, you're nitpicking. He could have said "I hate Puritans, because they burned people at the stake for supposed witchcraft". There really aren't any Puritans any more, and any who took part in Salem are long since dead, but it might still be a workable example (and have the benefit of not offending anyone since that group no longer exists at all).
23. Re:Meh by Grishnakh · 2007-09-09 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from hearing things you don't like or don't believe in. Why is it more and more we move down the path that our freedom of speech means censorship just because someone, or some group, doesn't like it or want to hear it?
  
  And why is it some groups get more priority than others? For instance, I don't want to hear about religion, because I think it's all a bunch of nonsense. So why are my efforts to censor religious speech always ignored, but the religionists' efforts to censor anti-religious speech are upheld? That's just plain favoritism.
  
  We should be making sure that no one is offended, or has to hear anything they don't want to hear, not just a majority group. Therefore, I propose we ban all speech! After all, asking about the weather could be construed as denying the existence of someone's god, so we can't allow that either. Once we prohibit all forms of communication, no one will ever be offended again. Oh wait, some people might be offended that they can't communicate. Ok, I propose we just kill all humans. That'll solve the problem.
Why on earth? by amplusquem · 2007-09-04 16:00 · Score: 1

Why on earth is this on slashdot? Plenty of large sites have trouble catching every single rogue thing in their database. Perhaps it's a conspiracy and the Facebook creaters actually hate Islam??????
Oh no! by Joe+Tie. · 2007-09-04 16:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Some of those fuck Islam people might even live in our town! Quick, create a petition to drive them out of their homes as well! I'm a buddhist, and I'd be quite annoyed if a 'fuck buddhism' group were removed. I'd probably even join if they'd have me, I don't think any honest person can look at his religion and not see huge room for criticism. But trying to force someone into your own belief system is a dangerous path to walk. I think this group is flirting with turning into the exact thing they intend to get rid of.

--
Everything will be taken away from you.
1. Re:Oh no! by spiritraveller · 2007-09-04 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck Buddhism Amazingly, there has been no reaction by the Buddhist community to this internet posting.
  
  Come on Buddhists!
  
  Fight! Fight! Fight!
2. Re:Oh no! by Nazlfrag · 2007-09-05 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Buddhist fight! First one to contemplate the true meaning of victory wins!
3. Re:Oh no! by spiritraveller · 2007-09-05 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Victory is meaningless.
  
  I win!!!
  
  Sweet.
Noah v. AOL redux! by Infonaut · 2007-09-04 16:04 · Score: 1

I haven't read the Facebook TOS, but I would be very surprised if they put into place any sort of provision that held Facebook to any particular standards regarding taking down offensive content. The idea behind such agreements is to give Facebook protection in the event they decide to yank a Facebook account for whatever reason.

This scenario weirdly parallels the Noah v. AOL case, in which a Muslim sued AOL for failing to police a chat room that was full of anti-Muslim sentiments, in violation of AOL's user behavior policy. The case was decided in 2003 in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and was pretty much an open and shut case of contract. The plaintiff also tried to bring in Title II discrimination, claiming that the AOL chat room was a "place of public accomodation." That argument didn't fly either. Note that the question of "public accomodation" in online venues hasn't been completely hashed out yet by the courts.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Group Missing by discordja · 2007-09-04 16:05 · Score: 1

Is /. late to the party? The group link from the story doesn't seem to work and I can't find it through normal searches.

--
I stole this .sig
quiting facebook by timmarhy · 2007-09-04 16:05 · Score: 1

For me to care about you quitting facebook, you'd first have to provide me with something that would make me want you to stay.
I don't see a single reason to want facebook in the first place, let alone these wankers.

--
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Tolerance Icon by Nymz · 2007-09-04 16:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Remember that it's acceptable to make fun of Geeks, Christians, Buddists, Jews, Scientologists, Atheists, and LoS (Libertarians on Slashdot). But never make fun of Islam, the religion of peace, because they might cut off your head and car bomb your friends.
1. Re:Tolerance Icon by 1u3hr · 2007-09-04 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  never make fun of Islam
  I have a hard time seeing "Fuck Islam" as an example of "making fun".
2. Re:Tolerance Icon by lawrenlives · 2007-09-04 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's why the new group is called "If 500 people join me in fucking Islam, Bob is gonna tattoo Osama Bin Laden on his ass"
  
  --
  Frankly, I prefer the company of nitwits.
3. Re:Tolerance Icon by Datasage · 2007-09-04 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  You may not get car bombed by those groups, but if you attack their religion, many of them will find a way to retaliate.
  
  Attacking Christianity, did at one time get you burned at the stake. Now, as long as you don't get on the bad side of someone who is homicidal, you just get condemned to hell on TV or radio.
  
  Attacking Scientology will get you sued as has been covered on Slashdot quite often.
  
  Attacking the policies of the state of Israel, gets you labeled as an anti-semite. Even by people who are not even Jewish.
  
  Attacking Geeks, you just might have a little trouble keeping money in your bank account or using any technology.
  
  --
  In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
4. Re:Tolerance Icon by Kokuyo · 2007-09-04 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  If the ensuing violence was the reason to not mess with Islam, I'd start thinking again about making fun of Christianity reeeaaally hard now.
5. Re:Tolerance Icon by jecowa · 2007-09-04 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  Is it okay to make fun of fat people still? Some people say it's not. What about minorities? Are they fair game?
  
  --
  my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
6. Re:Tolerance Icon by arivanov · 2007-09-04 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Neah, they will not. Unless we train them first.
  
  --
  Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
  http://www.sigsegv.cx/
7. Re:Tolerance Icon by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 18:38 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Do you know how Christ is perceived by Christians? You know, the guy who said turn the other cheek, love thy enemies? Do you see the inconsistencies between wanting to be like Christ and butchering one's classmates? Isn't it more likely that Seung-Hui Cho is totally messed up and had a very un-Christian-like view of Christ?
  
  Now, for muslims, Mohammad is their prophet who also claimed himself to be the example to be emulated by muslims for eternity. Allah said so though Muhammad. Check the Quran which muslims must believe to be the literal words of Allah. Now, according to muslims' own scriptures, Mohammad raided tribes, brokered truces when his group was weak and broke them when he gained power, massacred a tribe called Banu Quraysh, lined up men and boys who already grew pubic hair and beheaded them in a ditch, all 900 of them. He also tortured Kinana al-Rabi to find the treasure of his tribe, Banu Nadir, after a raid and he asked his follower to assassinate Asma bint Marwan for unflattering comments of Mohammad in her poem. Yes, it's the same jihadist Mohammad who married Aisha when she was just 6 (six) years old and consummated his marriage when she was 9 (nine) years old, and who ordered camel thieves to have their eyes branded with a hot needle and their hands chopped and then left them to bleed to death. These are not a kufr's inventions, but they are from hadiths.
  
  This is a religion that promises 72 virgins for doing Allah's dirty work and promises talking trees and rocks during end of days to reveal Jews hiding behind them so that they can be slaughtered. So, excuse me for not seeing a flattering image when a muslim says he wants to emulate Mohammad. Feel free to call me Islamophobe too if that makes you feel P.C..
8. Re:Tolerance Icon by Alcoholic+Synonymous · 2007-09-04 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  That does it! How dare you insult my newfound religion! How dare you insinuate that we are violent! It is you who are violent by letting people have this freedom to commit sins against Islam like watching TV and having a Bud! It is you who are looked upon with scorn because you choose to look at beautiful women instead of shamefully hiding them! Bedsheets are to be worn as a women's garment, not rolled on during sex play. It is you who...
  
  wait...
  
  Forgot what I was saying. This is a lot of rhetoric to remember for us recent converts.
  
  Oh yeah!
  
  How dare you call us violent decapitators of man! For this outrage we will cut of your head! In fact, we will kidnap a whole bunch of people who came in goodwill and peace and bring tourist dollars to our blessed land, and saw their heads off as well. We will even tape it while covering our faces like the brave warriors we are. We will show you that Islam is a religion of peace, and kill everyone who disagrees.
  
  And best of all, we will never acknowledge the hypocrisy or irony of addressing criticisms of our "peaceful" religion through endless, violent, self-defeating conflict!
  
  Admiral Ackbar!
  
  (No, seriously, FUCK ISLAM!)
9. Re:Tolerance Icon by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  Christians who freak the fuck out when they go into a Target in December and see a sign that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".
  
  I've always wondered this: If you aren't Christian, why do you celebrate Christmas? For the record, though, I don't think Target should have to say Merry Christmas. I just bet they wouldn't be so happy during the 'holidays' if no one were buying Christmas presents there. Can't make much from Kwanzaa or Hanakkuh or Winter Solstice presents. Seems like if you're profiting off something, you shouldn't be scared to put it on your sign. Anyway, 'holiday' just means 'holy day' anyway. I guess we should just rename September-December 'Spending Season' and be done with it.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
10. Re:Tolerance Icon by dr_d_19 · 2007-09-04 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, because you probably know a lot of muslims.
  
  I, on the other hand, live in Sweden, and as far as the media (internet including) tells me, American christians are extremists. Murdering abortion clinic workers, pushing neocon propaganda, exclaiming that god hates fags and generally being idiots.
  
  Now I know that isn't true for the general population of American christians. And I would be an idiot for assuming that they are all like that. Which, by the way, is exactly what you are doing.
11. Re:Tolerance Icon by Loligo · 2007-09-04 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  >Or how about when someone who happens to be Muslim kills someone, it's Islamic violence, but when a Christian kills someone, it's for other reasons.
  
  How about "when someone who happens to be Muslim kills someone in the name of Allah"?
  
  If someone who happens to be Muslim shoots someone in the course of an armed robbery of a liquor store, I don't consider it Islamic violence, I consider it a crackhead who happens to be Muslim.
  
  But if he's yelling "Allahu Akbar!" as he does it, you can bet I'm probably thinking it's Islamic violence or terrorism.
  
  -l
12. Re:Tolerance Icon by ContractualObligatio · 2007-09-05 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  "never make fun of Islam, the religion of peace, because they might cut off your head and car bomb your friends."
  Any examples of that happening in the US? Closest to a car bomb would be Oklahoma City and the *Christian* Tim McVeigh, would it not?
  
  If you're based in the US, try going to the Bible belt and go around insulting Christianity. There's a good chance you will find yourself on the receiving end of more than an online petition. And plenty of people have found themselves accused of being anti-Semite, and consequently suffered.
  
  Or, try asking someone like myself from Glasgow in Scotland and ask what's likely to happen if you go into a pub around Parkhead and shouting "Fuck the Pope", or across town to Ibrox and dissing "Orange Huns". For those of you who didn't know, Christian violence also exists - against Christians, no less. Protestant and Catholic Christians have a fine old tradition of killing each other, and sectarian violence continues to this day. Northern Ireland is only just (hopefully) settling down - killing and car bombing is also a Christian act, it would seem.
  
  The dangerous religious group varies significantly depending on where you are. If I was in the US, for instance, I would be more worried about Christians. 9/11 was aimed at being a spectacle, not specifically aimed at individuals in retaliation for something they posted online. Insulting Islam gets you an online petition. Not even insulting, but simply acting contrary to someone's view Christianity, can get you bombed (c.f. pro-lifers etc).
13. Re:Tolerance Icon by kalaf · 2007-09-05 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm assuming you've also read the old testament? It doesn't really embrace your turn the other cheek philosophy I learned in Sunday school either.
  
  It's a small minority of Muslims giving the religion a bad name, just as it's a small minority of Christians, etc. Hating an entire group for the actions of a few is ridiculous, but there are a lot of people who can't make that distinction. That's where backlash against a group like this comes from. It's easy to hate Muslims right now, people think they have all sorts of good reasons, but it's no more intelligent or justified for us to hate them than it is for them to hate us.
  
  I think people who subscribe to any kind of religion are a little loopy, but I don't hate them. I hate the fact that some people feel it necessary to force their belief systems on others, to kill those who think differently, but if I hated the groups those individuals belonged to I'd hate pretty much everyone on earth.
  
  So, is it right to ban a group for people with a common hatred? I don't know. Would it be okay to censor an "I hate Jews" group now? How about in 1941? What about "I hate Arabs" or I hate "White people"? Are those equally valid or invalid groups? I honestly don't know the answer to this question, but I really don't think it's as black and white as we all want it to be.
  
  I'm sure someone is going to point out that this is "Fuck Islam" not "Fuck Muslims". Personally, I doubt there's much difference between the people those two groups would attract or the discussions that would go on inside, so it might as well be "Fuck Muslims".
14. Re:Tolerance Icon by Doctor+Faustus · 2007-09-05 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you aren't Christian, why do you celebrate Christmas?
  Family togetherness, presents, and I enjoy subverting religious holidays to secular ends.
15. Re:Tolerance Icon by stdarg · 2007-09-05 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you're based in the US, try going to the Bible belt and go around insulting Christianity. There's a good chance you will find yourself on the receiving end of more than an online petition. And plenty of people have found themselves accused of being anti-Semite, and consequently suffered.
  
  Or, try asking someone like myself from Glasgow in Scotland and ask what's likely to happen if you go into a pub around Parkhead and shouting "Fuck the Pope", or across town to Ibrox and dissing "Orange Huns". Do you realize that your examples are all real-life, in-your-face provocations? Why are you comparing them to online disputes? Yeah obviously if a person goes up to a group of 20 drunk people and starts insulting anything about them, there may be a fight. Good job!
  The dangerous religious group varies significantly depending on where you are. If I was in the US, for instance, I would be more worried about Christians. 9/11 was aimed at being a spectacle, not specifically aimed at individuals in retaliation for something they posted online. You've got a weird double standard I guess. Why can't one say, "Abortion clinic bombings were aimed at being a spectacle" and thus get out of that tricky situation? Well I won't, don't worry. No group is perfect.
  Insulting Islam gets you an online petition. Not even insulting, but simply acting contrary to someone's view Christianity, can get you bombed (c.f. pro-lifers etc). I guess you've conveniently forgotten about recent real-world Muslim responses to insults on their religion, like the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the trial of that guy who converted to Christianity. Suggesting that the typical Muslim response to insult is "an online petition" or something similarly benign is ludicrous.
  
  Blah. I have to ask... when someone "insults Islam" or whatever, why is your response to point out flaws in Christianity? You're not going to convince any rational people that violence in (modern) Christianity is as widespread as violence in (modern) Islam.
16. Re:Tolerance Icon by Scudsucker · 2007-09-05 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I've always wondered this: If you aren't Christian, why do you celebrate Christmas?
  
  You'll find the answer to that question in the chapter of the Bible that deals with Santa Clause, Christmas trees and spending large sums of money in department stores.
17. Re:Tolerance Icon by Trogre · 2007-09-05 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Damn where's that Aspurgus guy when we need him, the one who rants here about all censorship being evil?
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
18. Re:Tolerance Icon by ContractualObligatio · 2007-09-05 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Your main point seems to be that Christian violence is alright, because Islam is more violent. Can't say that's a convincing argument.
  
  Do you realize that your examples are all real-life, in-your-face provocations?
  This is not true. Tim McVeigh, pro-lifers, and anti-Semitism did not refer to face-to-face problems. Incidentally, I'm sure the good folks of the south will appreciate your characterisation of them as drunks. But I actually had in mind the Bill Hicks story about being threatened by Christians after a show, numerous online stories of atheists being persecuted, fights that kicked off *without* the presence of alcohol e.g. when the Orange Walk goes marching. Feel free to characterise the whole point as "anyone can pick a fight with a drunk", however that misses the point.
  Also, I was responding to a poster who said that insult a Muslim, and they'll cut off your head or car bomb your friends. The odds are that this has *never* happened in whatever country the poster resides. At least my examples are indeed real life ones.
  
  Why can't one say, "Abortion clinic bombings were aimed at being a spectacle" and thus get out of that tricky situation?
  First, if the pro-lifer attacks were primarily planned according to the scale and visibility of the damage caused, they would blow up the town hall or somesuch. But they are not, they are directly targeted at facilities or people that offend specific religious sensibilities.
  Second, if you post something online, or denounce Islam on national TV, then the odds of someone hijacking a 747, flying into a high profile skyscraper (not necessarily one you have a connection to, just one that is a viable target), and actually managing to injure you in the process, is altogether rather slim. You really don't have to worry that's going to happen to you.
  
  I guess you've conveniently forgotten about recent real-world Muslim responses
  No. I deliberately make the point that the dangerous group depends on where you are. Europe has far more Muslims (including the extremist variety) than the US; clearly it is a different case as you point out. I live in London, and I travel on the underground - I have reason to be afraid of Islamic terrorism. We had some nasty street scenes and arrests at the time of the cartoons being published. However, I've been a regular visitor to New York as a student at Columbia, and my impression that it is nowhere near as bad over in the US. Do you have any US examples to make a counterpoint?
  
  when someone "insults Islam" or whatever, why is your response to point out flaws in Christianity?
  Primarily because my guess is that the GP is American, likely to be from a Judeo-Christian background, and I was hoping to respond directly to that. Their knee jerk comment was marked "+5 Insightful", and it deserves to be challenged.
  But I'm aware the GP may not be Christian. Another reason the examples are Christian is that it is more simply polite to criticise your own religious background for the sake of an argument, and besides I have direct experience of violent Christians. Further, in the US I am not aware of any examples of Geeks, Buddists, Jews, Scientologists, Atheists, or LoS (Libertarians on Slashdot) engaging in terrorism or other violent acts because of their religious background. Perhaps rather than criticising my choice of Christianity, you could give comparable examples of e.g. Buddhist violence in the US?
  
  You're not going to convince any rational people that violence in (modern) Christianity is as widespread as violence in (modern) Islam.
  I'm not sure you've managed to comprehend my post. At no point do I make that argument. If you narrow it down to the US, however, I'd need to see statistics before I would agree that a rational person could not be convinced that as US citizen is more likely to suffer at the hands of a Chris
19. Re:Tolerance Icon by untaken_name · 2007-09-05 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Saint Nicholas was a Christian :)
  Christmas trees are a misnomer, they should properly be yule logs. (those whacky theists constantly appropriate local customs)
  As for the last itemr, that's what I don't get. Why people spend so much money on a holiday (holy day) they don't even believe in. And as for the people who call themselves Christian...well, the vast majority of them are indistinguishable from the average atheist in practice anyway. It just baffles me. I don't understand why atheists would be any more likely to celebrate the pagan holidays than the Christian ones. It's not like tree gods are any different from sky gods, after all.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
20. Re:Tolerance Icon by Scudsucker · 2007-09-05 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  *Whoosh*
  
  The point was that Christmas as it is celebrated in the U.S. has virtually nothing to do with Christianity or Christ. And the little that does is mostly made up of seasonal songs and decorations.
21. Re:Tolerance Icon by Scudsucker · 2007-09-05 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  How about "when someone who happens to be Muslim kills someone in the name of Allah"?
  
  How about "that only happens in action movies". You can find a lot of religious rhetoric, but the same goes for the U.S. - take Ann "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" Coulter or the dumbass general who said that his god was superior to Allah, when it's the same damn entity. But the vast majority of violence committed by Muslims is done for political/economic/ethnic reasons - same as violent Christians.
  
  And, try reading that link I posted to see just who is responsible for "radical Muslims" in the first place.
22. Re:Tolerance Icon by stdarg · 2007-09-06 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Your main point seems to be that Christian violence is alright, because Islam is more violent. Can't say that's a convincing argument.
  No, but we're definitely having something of a misunderstanding since I felt that's what *you* were doing (but in reverse).
  
  Do you realize that your examples are all real-life, in-your-face provocations?
  This is not true. Tim McVeigh, pro-lifers, and anti-Semitism did not refer to face-to-face problems. Incidentally, I'm sure the good folks of the south will appreciate your characterisation of them as drunks.
  Well when I mentioned 20 drunk guys, I was referring to your example of going to a bar and yelling "Fuck the Pope." That's why I used a smallish number like 20. We both know there are more than 20 drunk people in the entire South. :)
  
  I also didn't mention Timothy McVeigh or pro-lifers in the part I quoted because I was mainly referring to your examples of literally going up to people and provoking them, right to their faces, saying things like "Fuck the Pope" and "Christianity sucks". I left the anti-Semite part in because it was in the middle of that sentence.
  
  That said, I think pro-lifers would qualify as face to face provocations. They don't bomb libraries that have pro-choice material (afaik), they go to where the real-life actions are carried out.
  
  As for Timothy McVeigh, I'm pretty sure I read that McVeigh's motivation for bombing was "crimes of the US government" or something, not just something he read about or an insult to his beliefs. I think there was also something about federal agents messing with his dad's farm, or that his dad lost his farm to the government, I forget. But in any case, he certainly wasn't motivated by Christianity or insults against Christianity. I hope you distinguish between acts committed by Christians or Muslims and acts committed in the name of Christianity or Islam.
  
  But I actually had in mind the Bill Hicks story about being threatened by Christians after a show, numerous online stories of atheists being persecuted, fights that kicked off *without* the presence of alcohol e.g. when the Orange Walk goes marching. Feel free to characterise the whole point as "anyone can pick a fight with a drunk", however that misses the point.
  I guess I misunderstood your references because, not knowing who Bill Hicks is and what the Orange Walk is, I assumed your example of "going to a pub" in Parkhead or Ibrox would involve drunk people. In any case, again, I wasn't trying to say that all of your examples were about drunk people or that only drunk people fight.
  
  Why can't one say, "Abortion clinic bombings were aimed at being a spectacle" and thus get out of that tricky situation?
  First, if the pro-lifer attacks were primarily planned according to the scale and visibility of the damage caused, they would blow up the town hall or somesuch. But they are not, they are directly targeted at facilities or people that offend specific religious sensibilities.
  The ideology of the 9/11 attackers was that America is evil and it uses its economic and military power to spread filth around the world. Thus the targets for the attack were an economic center and a military center (don't forget the Pentagon was attacked too). Obviously they wanted to maximize scale and visibility, so they chose prominent targets from those categories. If they were going for pure death toll, attacking the Pentagon building probably wasn't a good choice, right? So clearly there's symbolism involved. Timothy McVeigh attacked a government building; again choosing his target for symbolism. So why would abortion bombers attack a town hall? That's like saying town halls are symbols of abortion.
  
  Second, if you post something online, or denounce Islam on national TV, then the odds of someone hijacking a 747, flying into a high profi
23. Re:Tolerance Icon by ContractualObligatio · 2007-09-06 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Which is a direct consequence (by definition) of the Iraq War. Which is a direct consequence of the decision to go to war.
  
  I find that logic not only pedantic, but callous to the point of nauseating. I could never claim that the utterly guaranteed deaths of my countrymen in Iraq are merely an "indirect" consequence of the decision to go to war. I would have nothing but contempt for any commander that attempted to use such language, whether in public or just to himself.
  
  I honestly don't see how it makes more sense to blame Bush for your problems than to blame the individuals *directly causing your problems*.
  
  There's no need to be so black-and-white, there's been more than enough blood split to stain many pairs of hands. There are many concepts out there explaining that blame does not require direct involvement: the legal concept of "aiding and abetting", perhaps, or the political concept of "plausible deniability". It's been a while since I've studied philosophy or read the Bible but you shouldn't find it too difficult to come up with examples where morality is considered rather more sophisticated than "I wasn't directly, physically involved".
  
  A President's actions are his speeches and decisions; he does not engage directly. Short of picking up a rifle and shooting some of the troops himself, by your argument the commander-in-chief can never under any circumstances be responsible for the way he conducts himself in office. I do not accept a framework in which military leaders cannot be guilty of causing unwarranted deaths.
  
  A few quick points. You're right, pro-lifers wouldn't attack a town hall, the clinics are indeed symbolic. However, they sometimes do more than just clinics, such as the bombing and deaths at the Atlanta Olympics. No, actively seeking out a clinic is *not* face-to-face provocation. Similarly, Al-Qaeda had no right to fly a planes into the WTC and the Pentagon because they find the activities conducted within offensive. If they neither live and let live, nor protest peacefully, they're criminals.
  
  I still don't get why you think that's going to make Islam look better or safer, inside the US or otherwise.
  
  You know the saying, "the facts speak for themselves"? In this case they're fairly clear. There is no reason for someone in the states to believe that an online insult to Islam will result in a beheading or bombing. There is reason to believe views offensive to some Christians can have violent repercussions, or anti-Semitic comments will get a response, possibly of the scale of the original story about an online petition. If you continue to hold that Islam in the US is just as dangerous as "they'll cut your head off", that is based on prejudice rather than facts.
  
  The focus on the whole "inside the US or otherwise" issue is tiresome. It's an important distinction. In Belfast, I'd be worried about Protestants on behalf of Catholics. In India, it would be the Sikhs or Hindus. In China, the government.
  
  In the US, first of all I'd be confident that direct repercussions have never happened - the real concern is that some local lunatic would blow me up or shoot me, just for being in wrong place at the wrong time. But then I'd be worried about Christian extremists, about the fact their hatred is not challenged. I would poke fun at creationists, the hypocrisy and violence of many pro-lifers, or bitch about the fact that Christians have sent more Americans to their deaths in Iraq than Osama Bin Laden ever dreamed of.
  
  Actively defending prejudice against Islam? To my tastes, that heads towards to willful ignorance. It has too much hatred of the foreigner and forgiveness of one's own extremists. And it's hurting your country, as the 3,728 US citizens dead in Iraq testify.
24. Re:Tolerance Icon by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Noted. :)
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
25. Re:Tolerance Icon by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  That whoosh, that was the sound of wind whistling in one of your ears and out the other, right?
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
26. Re:Tolerance Icon by Scudsucker · 2007-09-06 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, the point sailing right over your head. And your dumb ass.
27. Re:Tolerance Icon by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't need any affirmation of your status as a complete and total idiot. Thoughtfully, however, you've provided some more anyway.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
28. Re:Tolerance Icon by Scudsucker · 2007-09-07 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't need any affirmation of your status as a complete and total idiot. Thoughtfully, however, you've provided some more anyway.
  
  Lol. Ray Charles could see how little the American celebration of Christmas has to do with Christ. And he's blind. And dead. But you have to ask? You are a tool and a fool, un.
29. Re:Tolerance Icon by stdarg · 2007-09-08 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  There's no need to be so black-and-white, there's been more than enough blood split to stain many pairs of hands. There are many concepts out there explaining that blame does not require direct involvement: the legal concept of "aiding and abetting", perhaps, or the political concept of "plausible deniability". It's been a while since I've studied philosophy or read the Bible but you shouldn't find it too difficult to come up with examples where morality is considered rather more sophisticated than "I wasn't directly, physically involved".
  You're right, of course. I wasn't trying to say Bush doesn't have responsibility for what's happened, just that others have responsibility, too. No single person or group caused the problems in the Middle East and arguments of who to blame are pretty much guaranteed to be inaccurate or downright wrong. In my experience, when people start feeling like "The increased threat of terrorism today is the fault of Bush" they start coming up with totally insane "solutions" like "If we just vote Democrat then the terrorists won't hate us!" but that ignores the 200 other reasons that terrorism exists today. Then you have people who say "Terrorists are poor, down-trodden people who have no hope of joy in life, that's why they turn to violence! So to solve terrorism, we just need to keep pumping foreign aid to certain countries!"
  
  Actively defending prejudice against Islam? To my tastes, that heads towards to willful ignorance. It has too much hatred of the foreigner and forgiveness of one's own extremists. And it's hurting your country, as the 3,728 US citizens dead in Iraq testify.
  Fair enough. I don't think the average American has any reason to doubt the intentions of the average American Muslim. That said, there are serious problems with Islam as a religion and far too many Muslims around the world are intent on keeping those problems in the religion because reform is sacrilegious. It's kind of understandable because Islam used to be a much more powerful force in the world and they just want it to be like that again. But people who think that calling Islam violent is prejudiced are just ignoring how Islam is practiced by the majority of Muslims in the world. And I don't mean that the majority of Muslims engage in violence or terrorism, obviously, but a huge number of them want to see Islam as a international force rather than a religion. Which again makes sense because Islam is not just a personal religion but also speaks to the entire society, what they do, their laws, and their government.
30. Re:Tolerance Icon by untaken_name · 2007-09-08 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you certainly missed the point. I understood that with your last "post". You can stop proving your stupidity now, we all get it.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
31. Re:Tolerance Icon by Scudsucker · 2007-09-09 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, you asked a stupid question. Nothing is wrong asking stupid questions, but it is wrong to stubbornly stick to it rather than just shutting up. You are a tool. And a fool.
32. Re:Tolerance Icon by ContractualObligatio · 2007-09-09 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  No single person or group caused the problems in the Middle East
  
  Couldn't agree more. It is because of that very complexity that I think initiating a pre-emptive, incompetently planned war was a bad decision. Not planning for the aftermath was the worst form of negligence. Actively deceiving your fellow citizens into sacrificing your best and bravest is - well, much of America seems fine with the idea, I guess it's not my place to say.
  
  In my experience, when people start feeling like "The increased threat of terrorism today is the fault of Bush" they start coming up with totally insane "solutions" like "If we just vote Democrat then the terrorists won't hate us!" but that ignores the 200 other reasons that terrorism exists today.
  
  "people start feeling like"?! The Iraq war was by the Bush administration's choice, and the US and UK have both produced reports stating that it has increased the threat of terrorism. Our experience in the UK confirms it, having had a number of Islamic attacks since. Before we had social tensions, now we have terrorists. This is not "feeling", this is fact. Listening to Democrats who say a vote for them will mean the "terrorists won't hate us" makes about as much sense as listening to the Republicans who thought an invasion of Iraq would be measured in weeks.
  
  But people who think that calling Islam violent is prejudiced are just ignoring how Islam
  
  The comment I responded to stated not just that Islam is the only religious or social group that would react violently, they were the only group that would react at all. That is prejudiced.
  
  a huge number of them want to see Islam as a international force rather than a religion
  
  This is exactly what people fear about fundamentalist Christians, and therefore suspect that the US could be the biggest current threat to world peace.
33. Re:Tolerance Icon by untaken_name · 2007-09-11 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well, some guy on the internet said it, so it *must* be true!
  Seriously, if I let random internet idiots with retarded nicks inform my self-image, I'd be exactly what you're erroneously claiming I am.
  The only thing stupid related to my question is you for missing the point. Maybe you could hire someone to explain it to you. (Assuming you make enough money at your minimum wage floor scrubbing or fast food "career" to afford to hire someone smarter than you, namely, most anyone.)
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
Why do I think... by Retired+Replicant · 2007-09-04 16:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Am I wrong when I think that if there were a site on Facebook call F*ck Chistianity, with a similar petition of outraged Facebook users saying they would quit unless the site was taken down, that the story would get the entirely opposite spin when it ran on Slashdot, with the writer coming down on the side of free speech over protecting outraged religionists from being offended? And I am no Christian zealot, either. However, sites like Slashdot and Digg skew to the liberal/moonbatty side, and unfortunately there is an all-to-apparent double-standard / hypocritical attitude that Islam deserves special treatment compared to Christianity and Judaism. Free speech should come first in all cases -- I don't care which group is offended.
1. Re:Why do I think... by JoshJ · 2007-09-04 16:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Fuck them both. The definition of religion is organized lunacy.
  
  --
  Care about privacy? Read this!
2. Re:Why do I think... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 16:21 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That's because when you piss of the Christians and the Jews, the don't do anything about it. you offend a Muslim, and suicide bombs start going off.
3. Re:Why do I think... by Zonekeeper · 2007-09-04 16:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Am I wrong when I think that if there were a site on Facebook call F*ck Chistianity, with a similar petition of outraged Facebook users saying they would quit unless the site was taken down, that the story would get the entirely opposite spin when it ran on Slashdot, with the writer coming down on the side of free speech over protecting outraged religionists from being offended?
  
  Nope. Because you are dead right. And it shows how intellectually dishonest the people you are speaking of are. And they are completely incapable of understanding that. Ever.
4. Re:Why do I think... by JoshJ · 2007-09-04 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yaw to the left? The right-wing Christian fundamentalists modded me Troll for stating a simple fact- religion is nothing more than organized lunacy. They have no more proof than UFO cultists.
  
  --
  Care about privacy? Read this!
5. Re:Why do I think... by intx13 · 2007-09-04 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  In general, people are more sympathetic to minority causes, and in the US (where Facebook and Slashdot enjoy their greatest popularity) Islam is still a minority. Add to that the fact that regardless of ideals, Islam isn't exactly known for tolerance nowadays (a minority opinion of course, but the loudest voices always prevail), the slant the story arrived with isn't all that surprising. In general, the idea is that Christianity doesn't need the kind of attention that more minority faith's need for the protection of their rights - Christianity is a big boy and can handle himself, so to speak. But Islam is a bit more sensitive right now, a bit of a hot topic, and so could use a little more publicity to ensure things get handled properly (however that is). It's all about audience - the group had to target a large enough audience that people actually bothered to take note of it, but a small enough group that they still come across as "the little guy". For example, as unlikely as a similar article about Christianity would be, so would an article about a group against Zoroastrianism. Everything is about audience and current political temperature - out and out bias and slant is rarely to blame in stories such as this.
6. Re:Why do I think... by Michael+Wardle · 2007-09-04 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm browsing at +3, and all the comments so far have been pro-free speech, and therefore in favor of the group remaining open. I agree the original story was slanted the other way, but that's the way the stories are going lately with all the editorializing. I just read the headline, click the links and go straight to the comments.
7. Re:Why do I think... by JediLow · 2007-09-05 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  I now greatly regret using my mod points yesterday... you need to get modded up.
Fuck Creators of Face Book... by kenehcoB-Matthias · 2007-09-04 16:06 · Score: 1

Group is comical. These people bitch and complain about the creators of a website community they belong too. If they hate the creators so much then they should just move to myspace or something.
right on by frakir · 2007-09-04 16:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is a fucked up world of american political correctness, man. Let me be brave and bold to say....

FUCK FAT People. They are just UGLY.
1. Re:right on by bcdm · 2007-09-04 16:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  FUCK FAT People. They are just UGLY.
  
  You are a very brave person to post that sentiment on /.
  
  --
  I can has sig?
2. Re:right on by aliquis · 2007-09-04 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  +1
  
  Normally slashdot are all about free speech and stuff and now we complain when we have it? What is the problem here?
  
  Also fat people suck.
3. Re:right on by JAlexoi · 2007-09-04 20:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Why do you hate the "masses"?
4. Re:right on by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-05 05:41 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  "FUCK FAT People"
  
  I do all the time, just ask your mom.
other groups worth joining by OrangeTide · 2007-09-04 16:11 · Score: 1, Interesting

facebook,if u dt delete(fuck islam)group..we muslims r gonna leave ur site
facebook please shutdown the Group "fuck islam"
FACEBOOK SHOULD DELETE THE GROUP "FUCK ISLAM"
Facebook u have 2 delete the group "fuck islam" immediately
facebook you have to delete the group ((fuck islam))
fuck all people who say fuck islam
fuck all who says a bad word about islam & mohemed(pbuh)
FUCK ANY MUSLIMS THAT JOINED THE 'FUCK ISLAM' GROUP
fuck people who created the group fuck islam
Fuck every1 who created or joined the group " fuck islam"
FUCK FACEBOOK- IF ISLAM IS BEING HUMILIATED
Against "Fuck Islam" ? Join Here
against fuck islam
against the group " FUCK ISLAM "
agenst fuck islam
aginst za group(Islam is a cancer.Fuck it.Fuck Islam)facebook shut it down
everyone whoz against the group fuck islam join here!
facebook admin .... you should delete the group ""fuck islam"" directly...
facebook get rid of the groups"FUCK ISLAM"and"ISLAM IS A CANCER.FUCK IT..."
FuckU Santiago Matamores da CreatorOf"Islam is a cancer.Fuck it.Fuck Islam"
Fuck Variable Variable
FUCK VARIABLE FROM DA GROUP F ISLAM
Fuck who Ever made The Group ''Fuck Islam"
FUCK WHO EVER MADE F*** ISLAM
if there is a group (FUCK ISLAM) so FUCK FACEBOOK!!
I joined 'Fuck Islam' to fuck with the guy who created 'Fuck Islam'
Islam is a cancer. Fuck it. Fuck Islam
ISLAM IS THE GREATEST RELIOGON (FACEBOOK has to delete group fuck islam Now

I'm going to hope these ones are entirely jokes:
FUCK ANYONE SAY ONE BAD WORLD ABOUT ISLAM
Fuck Christians...Jews...and all other religions that degrade Islam...
2 all those who agree dat da members of fuck islam will end up in jahanam
fuck U.S.A , ISRAEL , all againist ISLAM
fuck you variable variable and fuck your religion
i will smack the shit out of anyone who says fuck islam again....

And where is the news about all the Fuck Israel/Jews groups, there are too many to list:
Fuck Israel & Any One Join In "Fuck Islam" Group
fuck Israel & Jewish
Fuck Israelians

So if Islam is great and Allah's hand is present in everyday life, how can something like Fuck Islam exist?

All this makes me kind of want to join Fuck Islam, even though I don't even use Facebook.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
1. Re:other groups worth joining by ari_j · 2007-09-04 17:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The only group worth joining:
  Fuck you, you fucking fuck.
  
  That basically takes care of everything.
2. Re:other groups worth joining by ShaunC · 2007-09-04 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  So if Islam is great and Allah's hand is present in everyday life, how can something like Fuck Islam exist?
  I know that was a rhetorical question, but if you look at the mean IQ of the folks who belong to the laundry list of groups you cited, I think you have your answer.
  
  --
  Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
3. Re:other groups worth joining by snakeplissken · 2007-09-04 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  surely:
  fuck you, you fucking uncle fucker?
4. Re:other groups worth joining by ari_j · 2007-09-04 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Some people don't have uncles. Omit needless words. :P
5. Re:other groups worth joining by Eli+Gottlieb · 2007-09-04 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  And where is the news about all the Fuck Israel/Jews groups, there are too many to list:
  Fuck Israel & Any One Join In "Fuck Islam" Group
  fuck Israel & Jewish
  Fuck Israelians Coincidentally, the mebership of every single anti-Israel and anti-Semitic group (if you don't like the IDF, you're fine. If you protest the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, you're anti-Semitic) is almost entirely composed of members of the people of peace -- Arabs -- who practice the religion of peace -- Islam.
  
  Fuck you too, theiving bastards.
6. Re:other groups worth joining by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  If you protest the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, you're anti-Semitic
  
  Why? What if you don't protest the existence of a Jewish state, just the particular one called Israel?
  Isn't the establishment of Israel as a secular state one of the precoursers to the end of days? I'm pretty much against Armageddon, personally, although I have nothing against Jews.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
7. Re:other groups worth joining by Eli+Gottlieb · 2007-09-05 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't the establishment of Israel as a secular state one of the precoursers to the end of days? No. Where the fuck did you hear that?
8. Re:other groups worth joining by onion_joe · 2007-09-05 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  "The only group worth joining: Fuck you, you fucking fuck."
  As a perpetual virgin I take offense at this term.
  
  --
  sig sig sig siggy sig
9. Re:other groups worth joining by OrangeTide · 2007-09-05 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  If you're a believer you should be for Armageddon, because it means the Rapture is coming. Because all believers will be taken away to Heaven.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
10. Re:other groups worth joining by OrangeTide · 2007-09-05 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's sad really. It's like fuck is the worse word these kids can think of these days. I know much worse words.
  
  If you really want to stir up the bomb throwers just name your group something that implies muslims are homosexual.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
11. Re:other groups worth joining by OrangeTide · 2007-09-05 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'd join that group!
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
12. Re:other groups worth joining by palantir0 · 2007-09-05 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm George Carlin comes to mind with that statement. That skit on fuck was pretty funny!
  
  I find it amazing how one-sided people are when it comes to gays, religion, etc. I don't care if you want a bj under a bathroom stall, I do care when you haven't clue about equal rights and the legistlation that puts restrictions on personal freedoms such as who to chose as a mate. Oust people for the right reasons, not stupid, media frenzied outrage.
  
  And the whole, convert to muslim and hate america is just amazing. At least America questions itself still instead of suppression/oppression. That's not to say we haven't started a downhill path, we do however still have some measure of control. I can't say that about many other countries - especially third-world countries. Too bad we managed to have a president that took world goodwill and turned it into distrust and anger. Ah well, as long as no-one changes the term limits we can fix it over the next 10 years needed to reverse the dmg.
  
  Cheers
13. Re:other groups worth joining by untaken_name · 2007-09-05 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  I read it in some book one time. It was called Revelation or something.
  I'm not saying I think it is true or anything, but aren't they making plans to rebuild the Temple?
  Just seems odd, is all.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
14. Re:other groups worth joining by untaken_name · 2007-09-05 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but what if I'm not?
  Even though I personally don't subscribe to any religion, I'm fascinated by theology (not just Christian). I don't think Revelation says anything about saving believers. But that's a whole other issue.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
15. Re:other groups worth joining by Eli+Gottlieb · 2007-09-07 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  And you actually believe the Revelation of John?
  
  But, no. Nobody sane in Israel has any plans to build a Third Temple. Some crazy religious people are training qualified boys as priests for a temple they believe will soon be built (upon the advent of Mashiach), but they don't actually plan to build a temple.
16. Re:other groups worth joining by untaken_name · 2007-09-08 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  You: And you actually believe the Revelation of John?
  
  Me (previously): I'm not saying I think it is true or anything,
  
  I realize I could have stated it more clearly, but that would have ruined the effect I was going for. Which I obviously didn't achieve. :)
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
Not Racist (By definition) by sqrt(2) · 2007-09-04 16:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

The group Fuck Islam can't be racist. Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. Even if it said Fuck Muslims, it still wouldn't be racist. The religion of Islam accepts members of any race, and the term Muslim encompasses all followers of Islam. Calling it racist points you out as an ignorant follower of stereotypes also; the majority of Muslims in the world aren't even middle Eastern, they're in SE Asia and Indonesia.

I don't see a problem with this group, or any others. Censorship is more offensive to me than anything I've ever seen someone wanting to censor. Full disclosure, I'm an Antitheist and anything working against the institutions of religions is fine with me (as long as it's peaceful of course).

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
1. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by popejeremy · 2007-09-04 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  Your argument is based on a idea of racism that works within clearly defined boundaries in easy to understand ways. O that real life were only so easy to explain!
  
  Calling an anti-Islam group in the U.S. racist might have a lot of credibility. Here's why. Ask yourself: Why is the group against Islam? Christians and Jews commit just as many terrorist acts. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. Why then, the bias against Islam, when other religions are just as violent, if not more so?
  
  Possibly because Islam is predominantly a religion of dark skinned people.
2. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by sqrt(2) · 2007-09-04 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't really an argument, it's a simple definition. Islam isn't a race. People who hate Muslims aren't racist. They could be any number of other things depending on their ideology and motivations including ignorant, bigots, or just regular old stupid, but they're NOT racist. If such a group only hates "dark skinned" Muslims, then they're primarily a racist group that is just misapplying a name to themselves. And even "Dark skinned" isn't a race, they'd have to hate white people who spend a lot of time at the beach then. A group, "Fuck Arabs" would be racist--and indefensible.
  
  I hate Islam for the same reason I hate all religions in addition to a few things Islam does that are particularly egregious to me. I am not a racist because of this. My dislike of Islam (or any religion) isn't influenced by the race of any particular follower.
  
  --
  If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
3. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by Eli+Gottlieb · 2007-09-04 18:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Look, the unfortunate fact is that the word "racist" has been contaminated semantically by European political thought. Put shortly, they consider any group of people of sufficient size a race, even though obvious groups like "everyone from India", "everyone from the Middle East", "immigrants", "Zionist Oppressors/Jews" (these terms are meant interchangeably when not used interchangeably), and "white people" do not in any way map to the four scientifically recognized races.
4. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by LS · 2007-09-04 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  So would that be true of jews as well? There are Ethiopian jews, European jews, Arabic jews, and Chinese jews, so would saying "Fuck Jews" not be racists?
  
  --
  There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
5. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by lixee · 2007-09-04 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Had the group been called "Fuck Jews" it would have not been racist either by your logic. People chose Judaism.
  
  Somehow, I'm convinced the case would have hit MSM front page if it was talking about Jews...
  
  --
  Res publica non dominetur
6. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by sqrt(2) · 2007-09-04 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  People chose Judaism.
  <br>
  I know. That's the point. It wouldn't have been racism either.
  
  --
  If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
7. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by joe_n_bloe · 2007-09-04 20:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The group Fuck Islam can't be racist. Islam isn't a race, it's a religion.
  
  Well, maybe renaming it to Fuck Sand Niggers would put a finer point on it.
  
  Oh, that wasn't what they really meant?
  
  I'd think you were just trolling but my "earnest misguided n00b idiot" filter is giving your comment a higher rating than my "clever jaded social commentator" filter.
8. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ask yourself: does prejudice always equal racism? Is prejudice always bad? Are only white people anti-islam? (Hint: the answer to all of those questions is 'no')
  
  Prejudging people based on religion is not racism. Racism is prejudging people based on race. When you call things by names which do not describe those things, you should not gain credibility. If you do, the people to whom you are speaking are stupid.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
9. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by meringuoid · 2007-09-04 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Back that up, dumbass. And I mean data from THIS century, not from one of the Crusades.
  This century? By which you mean... the last seven years? Way to pick your timescale there.
  
  --
  Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
10. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by popejeremy · 2007-09-05 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Your three questions feature words such as always and only. The thing is, in sociology, nothing is always true. This context isn't math, it's people. People hold fuzzy ideas about the world around them -- sometimes self-contradictory ones. You can't make sense of it using a kind of logic that looks for mathematical type answers. To find a trend in human behavior, you'll never find anything that is true all of the time for everyone, you'll find things that seem to be true a lot of the time for a lot of people. Religion and race are ideas that are mixed up in the minds of a lot of people. Therefore, an anti-Islam group could be a racist group.
11. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by stdarg · 2007-09-05 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  You have a really good point, namely that people confuse "violent acts committed by Christians or Muslims" with "Christian or Muslim violence / terrorism". That's stupid. Christian violence is violence carried out to further Christianity, Muslim violence is violence carried out to further Islam.
  
  For those of you who are still confused, here are some examples to help you out:
  
  When a Christian steals a car, that's not Christian violence. When a Muslim steals a car, that's not Muslim violence.
  
  When a Muslim solder of Iraq's army fights a Christian soldier of the US army to ward off invasion, that's not Muslim or Christian violence.
  
  When a Christian bombs an abortion clinic and says "God commands that you not give abortions" THAT is Christian violence.
  
  When a Muslim suicide bombs other Muslims and says "Allah commands that you rise up against the invader or share his fate" THAT is Muslim violence.
  
  It's really simple people. It's just a fact of life that in recent history there has been much more Muslim violence than in any other religion.
12. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by untaken_name · 2007-09-05 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Italy and Spain are mixed up in the minds of a lot of people, too. As in, ask them to find one on the map and they'll point to the other. Does that mean that it's correct to call Italians Spaniards and vice versa? Of course not. Let me give you another always: Islam is always a religion, not a race.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
13. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by popejeremy · 2007-09-06 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Islam is always a religion, not a race. But my point is that if someone hates Muslims because of an underlying hatred for dark skinned people, then that's racism.
14. Re:Not Racist (By definition) by untaken_name · 2007-09-06 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's ignorance. The racism UNDERLIES the prejudice against Muslims. It's like saying that if someone hates soccer, they must hate Italians because soccer is very popular in Italy. That's just stupid. Now, if someone already hates Italians, they're not very likely to like Italian soccer players, either. If you hate dark skinned people, you hate them because they are dark skinned, not because they are Catholic. Not because they are members of the local lodge. Not because they are in the glee club. Racism depends upon race. Religion does not. That is why, although racist people might also be anti Muslim, it is not correct to fully conflate the two.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:Free speech, motherfuckers by Brian+Gordon · 2007-09-04 16:17 · Score: 1

It's just as much his club as yours.
Who cares by OKCfunky · 2007-09-04 16:20 · Score: 1

It's facebook. 'nuff said. It's for the feeble minded masses, why else do you think they all sheeped together and flock from social site to social site?
The submitter is just trolling for traffic by jorghis · 2007-09-04 16:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

The submitter is obviously just trying to drum up traffic to his page with a troll post. The submitter linked to his own news site. Great for SEO.
1. Re:The submitter is just trolling for traffic by Quiet_Desperation · 2007-09-04 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but 99% of Slashdotters never read TFA, so what of it? :-)
  
  For the record, I didn't. :D
2. Re:The submitter is just trolling for traffic by owlnation · 2007-09-04 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yep absolutely right. I, for one, spotted that while this story was in the firehose, and appropriately, I feel, modded it binspam.
  
  It bothers me that others here didn't.
Close... by msimm · 2007-09-04 16:27 · Score: 1

But I think it has more to do with how incredibly hostile we've been towards them historically (yay! crusades! yay! oil!). Makes it a little touchy I guess (kind of like if we'd spent ages Pope bashing, I imagine the Catholics would feel a little sensitive and we did see the Jewish reaction to Mel Gibson's unwatchable bit of zealotry).

Just my opinion though. Carry on.

--
Quack, quack.
1. Re:Close... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 16:34 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  No, it has to do with the fact that we are at war with Islamists, and a bunch of fanatical, Christian, inbred, bible-thumping, hill-billy, Americans want to burn everyone with a deep tan and black hair. History is history, we're still a bunch of violent f*cking idiots man.
2. Re:Close... by Bartab · 2007-09-04 17:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  1) We buy oil at fair market value, even after the countries in question nationalized their oil production - which was by and large owned by western corporations at the time. In effect, the countries in question stole from the West.
  
  2) Really by the time there are no living humans with memory of an event, it's time to stop demanding retribution/reparations/repayment/etc.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
3. Re:Close... by MobileC · 2007-09-04 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  1) We buy oil at fair market value, even after the countries in question nationalized their oil production - which was by and large owned by western corporations at the time. In effect, the countries in question stole from the West.
  
  And who decides fair market value?
  
  --
  Fran
  :):):)
  1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!
4. Re:Close... by saforrest · 2007-09-04 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Really by the time there are no living humans with memory of an event, it's time to stop demanding retribution/reparations/repayment/etc.
  
  A reasonable argument.
  
  So, following this logic, perhaps the Israelis should give back the land they took from the Palestinians? (Since the crux of the claim of the entire Jewish diaspora to that territory dates from before the diaspora was established, millennia ago.)
5. Re:Close... by Detritus · 2007-09-04 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  Tell it to the large Jewish community in Medina. Sorry, I forgot, they were wiped out by Muhammad himself and his merry band of ethnic cleansers. Guess why Saudi Arabia is "Juden Frei".
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
6. Re:Close... by Stormwatch · 2007-09-04 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  And who decides fair market value?
  The invisible hand.
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
7. Re:Close... by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2007-09-04 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  No, no. You misunderstand completely. Following this logic, the Israelis will stay until no living person can remember Palestine.
  
  You fail at Imperialism.
  
  --
  
  There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
8. Re:Close... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2007-09-04 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  And who decides fair market value? The invisible hand. Also known as the CIA.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
9. Re:Close... by YeeHaW_Jelte · 2007-09-04 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  "1) We buy oil at fair market value, even after the countries in question nationalized their oil production - which was by and large owned by western corporations at the time. In effect, the countries in question stole from the West."
  
  This is really historically shortsighted. These western corporations that 'owned' their national resources were just spinoffs of the periods 'the West' you speak of colonized these countries. See Saoudi Arabia, Irak, Iran, basically all the large oil producing nations.
  
  Nations steal from each other when they are in the position to. It is now America's turn, enjoy it while it lasts!
  
  --
  
  ---
  "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
10. Re:Close... by entrigant · 2007-09-04 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  the market?
11. Re:Close... by PinkyDead · 2007-09-04 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  What an interesting idea. Look at the history of the world using modern standards and morals. I see where you're coming from.
  
  We can then ignore completely the fact the Muslim expansion into southern Europe was in response to the weakened states existing after the fall of the Roman empire. We can also ignore the fact the the Roman empire was originally formed through the enslavement, rape and slaughter of millions.
  
  Of course, the Romans only filled in the after the Macedonians were done - and they just sorted out the remnants of the Persians.
  
  We can ignore the fact that at the same time that the Ottoman Empire was rising, the Goths and Visigoths were marching around northern Europe doing exactly the same thing. They kicked the living crap out of the original British - probably the most peace-loving people in all of history. Then the Normans came into the picture and introduced a whole other level of abuse - and of course, it wasn't a problem when they marched off on their crusades to expand the Christian empire. Followed not long after by Spanish Empire - and their predations on the Americas - and then the British Empire - now there's a nasty bunch of bastards. Sorry, I can't include them - they were delivering Christianity to the unenlightened - so they murdered, pillaged and enslaved in a good cause.
  
  Blah blah blah...
  
  History is never as simple as you suggest unless you want to use it to justify your own bigotry.
  
  --
  Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
12. Re:Close... by humina · 2007-09-04 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  which was by and large owned by western corporations at the time. In effect, the countries in question stole from the West. How can claiming oil in your own country be considered stealing. If anything the western countries stole the oil first and the country is simply stealing it back. The country is simply reclaiming the natural resources on its own land.
  
  --
  check out the best blog ever:
  http://oehlberg.com
13. Re:Close... by alexhmit01 · 2007-09-05 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, they most certainly did not. Gaza was captured by Egypt in 1949, and Judea and Samaria were captured by Trans-Jordan (the state created East of the Jordan, on the East bank) giving the new Kingdom of Jordan both the West Bank of the Jordan River and the East Bank of the Jordan River. The name West Bank became popular at this time, because Trans-Jordan was created on the East Bank, and they then captured the West Bank of the Jordan. But any ancient maps of "Palestina" would refer to the sub-regions by their names of Judea and Samaria, West Bank was a term coined for the 19 years of Jordanian occupation.
  
  Israel didn't capture ANY of the land from "Palestinians" in 1967. In FACT, the PLO Charter specifically renounced ANY claims to Gaza, and the West Bank of the Jordan, and focused entirely on Jewish controlled land.
  
  The sooner everyone acknowledges facts, it becomes easier to want to come up with a humane solution for the Palestinians. But the more credence you give to bizarre and fact-free "rights" the HARDER you get to a solution.
14. Re:Close... by Random832 · 2007-09-05 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  the countries in question nationalized their oil production - which was by and large owned by western corporations at the time. In effect, the countries in question stole from the West. And how did those western corporations get the oil in the first place, if not by stealing it?
  
  --
  We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
15. Re:Close... by alexhmit01 · 2007-09-05 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  In 1967 there were 1.1 million Arabs living in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria (Judea and Samaria comprise the "West Bank of the Jordan"). According to PLO/PA numbers today, there are 3.5 million Arabs living there. Even if the PLO/PA is exaggerating by 1 milion as some claim, they have still more than doubled in size (and officially more than tripled).
  
  If one wants to claim that Israel is "killing off the Palestinians" or "engaging in genocide," they are doing a pretty awful job. The world Jewish population was decreased by 1/3 during the Nazi's comparatively short reign, so Israel watching them triple in a longer "occupation" shows that if the Jews ARE trying to engage in genocide as their critics claim, they are doing a pretty horrendous job of it.
  
  A few thousand dying in a war with populations in the millions is normal casualty levels, NOT genocide.
16. Re:Close... by stdarg · 2007-09-05 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody said the corporations "owned" their national resources, and I don't think anybody said these states stole oil from the West. The point was that when the industries were "nationalized", they didn't just kick them out and say "Okay take your equipment and go somewhere else", instead they kept all that stuff. All the oil rigs, trucks, pipelines, etc. All the work that was done transporting that stuff, setting it up, exploring for oil, etc. THAT is what was stolen.
17. Re:Close... by Maltheus · 2007-09-05 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Aside from the fact that the British signed the title of a country they didn't want to govern composed of people UNABLE to govern themselves
  
  Umm, the British signed it over because they were fed up with Zionist terrorism. Not that the British should have been there in the first place, but your statement could have been written by Goebbels himself. This is a perfect example of how racism is still considered perfectly acceptable in modern society as long as it's directed against the approved groups. I hear this kind of crap all the time and it typically comes from people who should know better. I'm sure their inability to govern themselves must reflect their weak genetic stock, right?
18. Re:Close... by ZWithaPGGB · 2007-09-05 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Actually OPEC decides the price of oil. They employ very talented economists and use supercomputers to set supply targets in such a way as to maximize the price without encouraging switching to alternative energy sources.
  
  So who is being exploited here, and by whom?
19. Re:Close... by saforrest · 2007-09-05 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, buddy... the Israelis took most of that land from the Palestinians in the sixties and seventies. I was there. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean nobody does.
  
  You completely misunderstood my point. It was not that no one alive remembers the Jews taking Palestine — that is obviously false — but that no one alive remembers the original taking of Israel/Palestine from the Jews.
But F*CK Scientology by Vinegar+Joe · 2007-09-04 16:36 · Score: 1

Would be perfectly ok, right?

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Oh... by msimm · 2007-09-04 16:40 · Score: 1

Sorry to be replying to my own post. But you know all those terrible beheadings? American deaths are estimated to be about 3,742. Compare that to an estimated 71,277 dead Iraqi's. I'm not even trying to take a political stand here, it just seems those violent Islamics might be a minority. And FTR I'm looking into doing IT work abroad, possibly a hot zone so it's not something I take lightly one way or the other (I'll be trained in small arms and will use it if necessary). Just seems a bit off-kilter to blanket a people as being violent with those numbers.

--
Quack, quack.
1. Re:Oh... by Jarjarthejedi · 2007-09-04 17:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Cause you know, it's obvious that casualty count = violence from the other side. Body armor, squad tactics, heavy armor, and better weapons don't play any part at all, it's obvious that the side with the fewest casualties is the more violent one.
  
  Yeah...that's not even close to logical. You may be right, US soldiers may be the ones being violent and the media may be playing it off as the iraqis being more violent. You can't derive that from a casualty count however, not even if you try really hard. Because what it comes down to is that there are 26 million iraqis and many, many fewer US soldiers. 71,000 dead is a lot, a whole lot, but it's also .002% of the population, and claiming that .002% of any population isn't a claim I for one would dispute.
  
  Yes they might be a minority, an extremely small minority in Iraq, and they might account for every one of those dead. Pure numbers, large as they may be, mean nothing unless accompanied by total numbers.
  
  Note that I'm not trying to make any political statement here, I figure my views are easily found with just a few of my other comments. I am merely trying to show how using a figure like 71,000 casualties on one side (a side that is, for better or worse, known for killing many of it's own members which leads me to question how many of those casualties are directly linked to US soldiers) and only 3,000 on the other proves nothing and shouldn't be used to support, or criticize, any viewpoint. It's a meaningless statistic because a lot of important facts are missing.
  
  --
  There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
2. Re:Oh... by danielk1982 · 2007-09-04 17:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm just wondering why you're attributing car bombs and other terr^H^H^H^H insurgent actions to Americans?
3. Re:Oh... by bcdm · 2007-09-04 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  71,000 dead is a lot, a whole lot, but it's also .002% of the population
  
  Iraq now has a population of 3.5 billion people? Damn, what are they, the Zerg?
  
  --
  I can has sig?
4. Re:Oh... by msimm · 2007-09-04 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't. I said dead Iraqi's, not causalities of the American military (destabilizing the region probably didn't help). In fact according to The Lancet in 2006 only 31% of the estimated 601,027 Iraqi deaths were attributed to coalition forces.
  
  --
  Quack, quack.
5. Re:Oh... by JonathanR · 2007-09-04 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Just a reason or three
6. Re:Oh... by numbski · 2007-09-04 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  If so, that certainly explains the body count. Put a few bunkers in and stim up all the marines really good (red bull + bawls anyone?) and let them come. :)
  
  Also explains why we're not getting anywhere over there. We're huddled in bunkers sucking our bawls letting them come to us. ;)
  
  --
  Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
7. Re:Oh... by RiffRafff · 2007-09-05 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why am I replying to an AC? Oh, well.
  
  You have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, don't you? Only someone with an agenda would take such a leap, based on those previous comments.
  
  The fact of the matter is, for all the anti-US banners, flag burnings, etc., the...locals (Arabs, Muslims, Islamists, whatever) are killing far more of their countrymen than we are. And whereas we hopefully tend to target the guilty as accurately as possible, they are purposefully targeting innocents they live amongst.
  
  I'm not sure how you manage to support and reconcile that, and then sleep at night. You're far worse than what you imagined the previous poster to be.
  
  Then again, what did I expect from an AC?
  
  --
  "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
8. Re:Oh... by Lars+T. · 2007-09-05 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  First of all (apart from your percentage calculation), your numbers for Iraqi population completely ignore refugees leaving Iraq (ca. 100,000 per months, about 2.5 million since the invasion). Second, the 71,000 number is for all deaths reported in English language media only, the actual number may be much higher.
  
  --
  Lars T.
  To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
9. Re:Oh... by Jarjarthejedi · 2007-09-05 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Doh...should be .2%, or .002 out of the population. My mistake, forgot to multiply by 100.
  
  --
  There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
10. Re:Oh... by Jarjarthejedi · 2007-09-05 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm...I guess it could be taken that way, I was using side as in Iraqi's being considered one side and American soldiers another as that seemed to be the original poster's view. My own personal view is not anti-arab at all but when dividing up casualties it's easiest to divide by native and non-native. I did say for better or for worse, which I hoped implied I didn't believe it but I guess that wasn't really caught.
  
  I was simply stating that the common view is that arabs kill each other, which is a true enough fact within our modern media. I don't believe it at all, because that view ignores a large number of variables to get it's answer (like the fact that a lot of american's kill each other without any ideological views involved and that those arabs who do kill others are considered extremist by their counterparts, just as the KKK was considered extremist by many americans. Had the world's perspective of America been based primarily on the KKK, like our media is doing to iraq with extremists, then it's likely we would have been considered savage, or at least not civilized, by the rest of the world.)
  
  Just thought I'd clear a few things up, it was not my intention to make it seem as though I believed the Arab or Middle-Eastern people were less 'civilized' than America and I, personally, don't believe that.
  
  --
  There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Angry! by king-manic · 2007-09-04 16:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am extremely angry they took down the F*ck Islam thread. It's a win for censorship, and from all accounts it was a critique of Islam more then a needless hate thread. Islam need some very aggressive critiquing. It has many modern flaws systemic within it and has it's head buried far far far into the sand. Mod me down but it greatly angers me that no one can critique Islam. That people die for doing nothing more then pointing out it's flaws. At some point we need to push back. Poor beleaguered Muslims in US, probably. But Almost any country that is Muslim majority is a oppressive to it's religious and ethnic minorities. From indonesia to UAE. Muslims aren't bad people but they are set up systemically to be used by what ever power broker can incite religious fervor. And most of the Muslim power broker are bad people.

--
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
1. Re:Angry! by Retired+Replicant · 2007-09-04 16:48 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. Slashdot is engaging in selective censorship by eliminating posts which criticise Islam, and so many threads criticising other religions over the years have never been censored.
2. Re:Angry! by Retired+Replicant · 2007-09-04 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Oops, sorry. It looked like the "Well, F*ck Islam!" thread was deleted at the bottom, but it has reappeared up higher in the list somehow, so at least it appears that Slashdot is not selectivly deleting threads. Unlike Facebook.
3. Re:Angry! by stwrtpj · 2007-09-05 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  I am extremely angry they took down the F*ck Islam thread. It's a win for censorship, and from all accounts it was a critique of Islam more then a needless hate thread. Islam need some very aggressive critiquing.
  Since the group was taken down before I could see it for myself, I will take your word for it that it was simply a critique and not a hateful diatribe. Now, if this was the case, perhaps if the group had been given a less inflammatory name it would have been more defendable (and might not even have shown up on the radar of all those other members that were slavering to have it removed). Perhaps something like "A critique on Islam", or "A dissenting opinion on Islam", or even "How Islam went wrong". Any of those titles suggests a much more intelligent discussion awaits the reader. Something called "Fuck Islam" (or "Fuck *anything*" for that matter) implies that you're about to read a rant rather than a well-reasoned essay.
  
  I would not be surprised if the maintainers of Facebook simply read the title and decided to delete the group based on that alone.
  
  --
  Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Fork Islam? by AJWM · 2007-09-04 16:46 · Score: 5, Funny

What's the big deal? That happened centuries ago, hence Sunni and Shia Islam.

--
-- Alastair
1. Re:Fork Islam? by Quiet_Desperation · 2007-09-04 17:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You win the thread.
2. Re:Fork Islam? by bitserf · 2007-09-04 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  They're still working out the licensing kinks I take it.
3. Re:Fork Islam? by AJWM · 2007-09-05 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a thread! fork() gives you a new process, you insensitive clod!
  
  Heh, now that's funny.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
war in the name of g*d? by msblack · 2007-09-04 16:56 · Score: 1

For American society to look down upon Islam by claiming that religion promotes violence and war, I find it ironic that we name our weapons using such Christian rhetorical names "Hell Fire" and "The Finger of God."

--
signature pending slashdot approval
1. Re:war in the name of g*d? by king-manic · 2007-09-04 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  For American society to look down upon Islam by claiming that religion promotes violence and war, I find it ironic that we name our weapons using such Christian rhetorical names "Hell Fire" and "The Finger of God."
  
  Critics of Islam aren't all White anglo saxon protestants. I am an asian athiest who finds Islam has a lot of problems.
  
  --
  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"F'k Islam" gone, jews and christians still f'd by FleaPlus · 2007-09-04 16:59 · Score: 1

(subject trimmed to fit into the subject length)

So... according to the first link, it seems that the "Fuck Islam" group has already been removed. Curiously though the Fuck Jews group, which seems to have primarily Muslim members, is still around, and doesn't seem to have generated controversy. I wonder why that is? There's also a number of "Fuck Christianity" groups around.

Personally though, I'm a fan of the Fuck Benjamin Franklin group. Goddamn him and his glass armonicas.
Re:AC's bore me.. by hobbes75 · 2007-09-04 17:01 · Score: 1

Afaik soldiers are not included in the minimum estimate of 71,277 dead civilians. Quote from the source of the number :"The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion."
F**k this by jonhirsch · 2007-09-04 17:05 · Score: 1

I'm going to start a group called F**k N*t*lie P*rtm*n. Who wants to join?
1. Re:F**k this by Retired+Replicant · 2007-09-04 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  Me me me! I'll join.
Sigh by sakonofie · 2007-09-04 17:10 · Score: 1

While I realize that this doesn't have nearly the trolling potential, they really should have gone for something a little more ironic choice of religion like "Fuck the Ordo Templi Orientis".
F**k Facebook by Lachlan+Hunt · 2007-09-04 17:12 · Score: 1

Facebook should not have deleted the group, they should have respected the right to free speech. Who cares if some overly sensitive religious fanatics get offended by someone disrespecting their religion? Personally, while I respect everyone's right to believe what they like, I have no respect for any religion at all. Any anti-religious movements of any kind are ok (in fact, they should be encouraged), on the condition that they're peaceful and don't advocate violence against anyone.

--
By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
who cares by mattwarden · 2007-09-04 17:14 · Score: 1

Seriously, who cares? Does dude X have the right to create the group? Should facebook shut down dude X's group? These questions are not meaningful. Perhaps you should calculate how much impact this group on facebook has on the world, relative to other much more atrocious things going on.

I'm sorry, but this story is laughable.
Re:Wild West by doxology · 2007-09-04 17:14 · Score: 1

One time I created a group called Fuck Dragostea Din Tei and it got deleted within a day.

--
sigfault. core dumped.
"**"? (abcdeflamelassfilter) by TechwoIf · 2007-09-04 17:19 · Score: 1

Is that "F**k Islam" or "Fuck Islam"? They are two different groups as far as a computer is concerned.
1. Re:"**"? (abcdeflamelassfilter) by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  obligatory.
  
  No they aren't. * is a wildcard, n00b.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
Is it hate speech if it's about the religion? by Shag · 2007-09-04 17:22 · Score: 1

Islam is a religion, a set of beliefs and ideas. Not a person. Make it "Fuck Muslims" and you're talking about its followers you've got hate speech (well, unless they're cute muslimahs and you mean it in a good way?) but I have a hard time parsing dissing a religion or set of beliefs itself as being hate speech.

Yes, it's a fine line, but it's possible for me to think various religions, beliefs and ideas are utter crap without translating that into going out and harming their practitioners. (And I simply don't have the time to do that anyway.)

--
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
1. Re:Is it hate speech if it's about the religion? by Mjlner · 2007-09-04 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Islam is a religion, a set of beliefs and ideas. Not a person. ... but I have a hard time parsing dissing a religion or set of beliefs itself as being hate speech.
  You hit the nail on the head.
  Yes, it's a fine line, but it's possible for me to think various religions, beliefs and ideas are utter crap without translating that into going out and harming their practitioners.
  No, it's not a fine line. It's quite clear and simple: hating a religion is not hating a person or a group of people. I personally have problems with just about every religion in the world, but that doesn't mean I hate or even dislike the followers.
  
  --
  Lemon curry???
"Advertisers"? Why should we care? by 1u3hr · 2007-09-04 17:27 · Score: 1

What a peculiar headline: "Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech".
It's obvious the submitter is trying to pressure Facebook by implying that advertisers will pull ads. But why should we promote that tactic?
It's Muslims that are being exposed to hate speech, not advertisers (unless thae advertisers happen to be Muslim).
The aspect Slashdot should be concentrating on is that of freedom of expression vs preventing hate speech. Whether the number of ad impressions of Facebook is impacted is not really of much interest; certainly not the most important factor as the headline implies.
Who gives a $#!+? by Jonathan+C.+Patschke · 2007-09-04 17:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seriously. Aren't we big enough, as a species, to realize that there are people out there that hate us (no matter whom the "us" are), and that, fundamentally, it's their right to do so? If you don't like me because I'm a male, an American, without a degree, overweight, a Christian, from Texas, or whatever, I just flat don't care. I have more important stuff to worry about, and criticism to notice from people whose opinions actually matter to me. A life so empty of strife an conflict that it can be shaken just by someone forming a group called "Fuck <some group that I happen to identify with>" is a life to be envied, I suppose.

Nobody is going to please everyone he meets in life, and if you don't make any enemies along the way, you're probably not doing anything meaningful. If someone is going to waste time and energy hating me, I don't feel threatened. I don't feel endangered. If there existed a group called "Fuck all fat egocentric Texan assholes," I'd get a good chuckle out of it. Because, really, we can be pretty overbearing at times; we all can, though you'd probably never see fat egocentric Texan assholes shooting up the place and lighting fires because someone circulated cartoons of Sam Houston or Stephen Austin.

I mean, really, what's the harm? Short of the US military, there isn't a single group of people organized and equipped to exterminate or even cause widespread inconvenience to all fat egocentric Texan assholes--or all adherents of Islam, for that matter. And, really, if I were Islamic, I'd be a lot more worried about the US military than a club on a social networking website.

We need to all grow up (grow a pair, as the saying goes). Every person on this planet is a pathetic loser in one way or another. Thankfully we're all pathetic losers in different ways. Grow from the worthwhile criticism, and laugh at the rest. Whining for censorship is picking a fight in the parking lot because you lost on the mat. Call me an asshole, and be happy you can; I'll gladly return the favor.

The day we can't is the day we really have something to worry about.

--
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
1. Re:Who gives a $#!+? by eagl · 2007-09-04 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, your fat texas ass isn't going around recruiting young impressionable people to strap bombs on their bodies and tricking them into blowing up random people in the name of Jim Bowie. That's the difference between one group of haters, and that *other* group of haters.
  
  I haven't seen a single report of a suicide bombing against civilians by radical methodists, athiests, wiccans, catholics, or jedis (the few who survived the Aussie purges). In fact, I don't even see drunk Irish on TV congregating in public places chanting death to anything, except maybe during the occasional football match and even then only a few really mean it for more than a minute or two.
2. Re:Who gives a $#!+? by Quiet_Desperation · 2007-09-04 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even see drunk Irish... chanting death to anything
  Oh, you're just not hanging out in the *good* bars. :)
3. Re:Who gives a $#!+? by Weedlekin · 2007-09-04 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  "In fact, I don't even see drunk Irish on TV congregating in public places chanting death to anything, except maybe during the occasional football match and even then only a few really mean it for more than a minute or two."
  
  There were plenty of Irish people chanting death slogans in Northern Ireland in very recent history, and both Catholics and Protestants had an excellent personal delivery service that would execute members of the "opposing" religion in the comfort of their own homes. Other services offered by these merry and inoffensive individuals included putting bombs on mass transport systems, blowing up funerals, blowing up busloads of nuns, blowing up shops and pubs while they were open to the public, blowing up members of the British Royal Family, blowing up hotels, executing celebrities (part of the home delivery service), blowing up journalists, running protection rackets, robbing banks, and of course free medical services such as increasing leg ventilation by drilling a handy set of holes in a patient's kneecaps.
  
  But apart from that, groups of Christian white people haven't killed civilians because of some grievance, perceived or real, for centuries. White people didn't plant a bomb in Oklahoma that killed a load of little kids; the Baader-Meihoff group wasn't white, and neither were the Italian Red Brigades, and whites are notably lacking from Spain's ETA; white, God fearing Serbs didn't execute thousands of Muslims (and indeed non-Muslims) and bury them in mass graves, and white Germans didn't systematically murder millions of civilians just over half a century ago.
  
  Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, say "hello" to pot.
  
  --
  I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
4. Re:Who gives a $#!+? by cs668 · 2007-09-05 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Amen Brother!! - This is the smartest comment I have read on this whole thread.
5. Re:Who gives a $#!+? by alexo · 2007-09-05 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  > Seriously. Aren't we big enough, as a species, to realize that [...]
  
  Jay: Why the big secret? People are smart, they can handle it.
  Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.
But America is the land of the.. by JackMeyhoff · 2007-09-04 17:33 · Score: 1

.. FREE.. What do you want? Free speech or not free speech? You cant have it both ways now :)

--
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
As Bender says.. by jagdish · 2007-09-04 17:37 · Score: 1

When will man learn that all races are equally inferior.... to robots?
I don't care anymore by Quiet_Desperation · 2007-09-04 17:41 · Score: 1

I just can't give a femtoshit about being nice nice to Islam or its followers anymore. I tried to see them as just a religion with a few extremsists like they claimed, but if you REALLY look hard, well... you either see it or not, and no words of mine will ever change anyone's opinion on such a volatile topic. I just have been given no reason to shed even a single water molecule tear when anything Islamic is criticized.

Maybe the words of former Muslims, people who lived and breathed it and fled, will have more effect.

http://www.islam-watch.org/
The solution to speech you don't like... by StealthyRoid · 2007-09-04 17:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is more speech, not censorship. Yes, I understand that this is not a First Amendment issue. Facebook is not the government, and is fully within its rights to enforce any conditions it sees fit (within the constraints of the law) on their user base. However, that does NOT take this out of the arena of free speech issues.

Free speech should, in every case, be promoted wherever possible, especially in online outlets of communication. Regardless of whether or not you like the "fuck muslims" group, approve of their message (or not), there is a non-zero possibility that they have some new ideas that nobody's introduced into the marketplace, or have a new way of thinking about old concepts. Hell, even if they don't, they obviously believe what they endorsed via membership in the group, and that should be enough to trigger our desire to protect it.

The ideas contained in speech we find offensive don't go away just because we shut them up. The "fuck muslims" group will move on, maybe list their ideas somewhere else, probably with a smaller readership, but they won't disappear. If you want to combat them, read their args, make your own, defeat them with logic and reason.

Also, the last bit of the squib on the article seems like kind of a whiny thing to say. "Why won't X Company enforce Y provision of their User Agreement?" Well, because they haven't chosen to. They're not OBLIGATED to. The User Agreement is pretty one way. And I'm willing to bet that the poster and people who agree with him would have a HUGE problem if Facebook decided to shut something that they believe in down.

Long and short, free speech is good, always, and man up and argue things you don't like on their merits.
The other solution is... by Quiet_Desperation · 2007-09-04 17:51 · Score: 1

...murder and violence.

Hey, say what negative things you will about Muslim reaction to those Danish cartoons or rumors of Koran flushing, and what a pack of blithering crybabies they were, the bottom line is that, for the most part, IT WORKED.

Theo van Gogh isn't making anti-Islam films anymore, is he? Just find anything depicting Islam negatively on the USA's vast televised wasteland outside of "24", and even that pussed out in the end. Just more ex-Russians and EEEEVIL white businessmen at the bottom of things.

Read Sum Of All Fears and then watch the movie. What's missing? And that was pre-9/11.

So while I personally oppose murder and violence, it IS a solution that has shown effectiveness.

I'm just sayin' is all.
Since we are on the subject... by glwtta · 2007-09-04 17:53 · Score: 5, Funny

You know, fuck whom? Fuck web designers that think that a) screwing with your cursor is acceptable, and b) a cross-hair is a good cursor for links.

(also fuck people with pointless blogs, but that's kind of a standing sentiment)

--
sic transit gloria mundi
1. Re:Since we are on the subject... by Durrok · 2007-09-04 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  (also fuck people with pointless blogs, but that's kind of a standing sentiment)
  
  Is there any other kind? :p
  
  --
  I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
2. Re:Since we are on the subject... by Anomalyst · 2007-09-05 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  fuck people with pointless blogs
  Let me make this plane, my blog contains many linesof cromulent observations.
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
3. Re:Since we are on the subject... by ksd1337 · 2007-09-05 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck Roland!
  I think that's a group everyone on Slashdot would join (apart from Roland, of course).
Missing the point by scribblej · 2007-09-04 18:04 · Score: 1

I'm willing to bet that the point is -- on some level -- to drive more traffic to Facebook and get people to sign up. I clicked the link in the article. Facebook says I have to sign up to see the content. I said, fuck that -- but how many new members do you think they got out of this slashdot article alone?
This just makes the Muslim community look bad by doyoulikeworms · 2007-09-04 18:10 · Score: 1

Just like the reaction to those comics of Muhammad a while back. Why can't people just learn to live in a society where people don't always fucking agree with you?

Christians have to deal with it all the time, with (ironically) self-righteous atheists and Jesuses in piss-filled jars and whatnot. How many Christians set buildings ablaze because of that shit?

I wish people could learn to be personally grounded in their own faith (or lack thereof), and not require everyone else to agree with their beliefs. This applies to followers of all religions and atheists alike.
Quick Maths Lesson by chrisG23 · 2007-09-04 18:12 · Score: 1

Because what it comes down to is that there are 26 million iraqis and many, many fewer US soldiers. 71,000 dead is a lot, a whole lot, but it's also .002% of the population, and claiming that .002% of any population isn't a claim I for one would dispute.
I assume you did the math 71,000 divided by 2,600,000. Well, the answer to that is about .0027, but to make it into a percentage you need to multiply by 100. The correct percentage of the Iraqi population that has been killed since the war started is about .3%, or rougly about one out of every 400 people.
There's lots of hate groups on Facebook by BTWR · 2007-09-04 18:12 · Score: 1

I wonder how many people that are mad at "Fuck Islam" are also members or created groups against Facebook networks like fuck Israel & Jewish or fuck all jews and sharon (with a lovely "jew nose" picture and the member "HAHAHAHA ISREALIS CLAIM THEY R RICHER>>>> MY POCKET MONEY CAN BUY 10 JEWISH SLAVE AND MAKE THEM CLEAN MA SHIT")?
racists still have money by Jessta · 2007-09-04 18:13 · Score: 1

Furthermore, advertisers such as Sprint, Verizon, T Mobile, Target, and Qwest wouldn't be too happy to learn that they are paying for ads on the 'F**k Islam' group pages.

Racists have money too. Just because someone is racist doesn't mean they won't buy the products being advertised.
If idiots want to be racist them be racist.
Who is facebook to complain about discrimination? They promote segregation of the web community.

--
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
Selective Protesting by DavidD_CA · 2007-09-04 18:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

The people in this anti-group claim that it exists only because the hate group "Fuck Islam" violates Facebook's own terms of service. They say that it has nothing to do with free speech or their opinions on the subject.

If that is true, then were are all of the other anti-groups protesting these hate groups, which I found on FaceBook in about three minutes of searching:

ALL CHILD MOLESTERS SHOULD HAVE THERE DICKS GET CUT OFF
Fuck The Fucking KKK
FUCK THE KKK FUCK THOSE RACIST BITCHES!!!!
All unite against the group(fuck uslimsand palestine)
FUCK ISRAEL!!! EVERONE HATES IT SO WHY IS IT STILL AROUND?!
Fuck Nazis
Fuck The Enemies of Israel

It seems to me that if they were really concerned, they would protest ALL of these hate groups, and not just the one they selected. After all, if they are truly okay with free speech but not hate groups, then shouldn't they take equal protest against the anti-KKK group, the anti-Nazi group, and the anti-Israel group?

--
-David
1. Re:Selective Protesting by joe_n_bloe · 2007-09-04 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  If that is true, then were are all of the other anti-groups protesting these hate groups, which I found on FaceBook in about three minutes of searching:
  
  ALL CHILD MOLESTERS SHOULD HAVE THERE DICKS GET CUT OFF
  Fuck The Fucking KKK
  FUCK THE KKK FUCK THOSE RACIST BITCHES!!!!
  All unite against the group(fuck uslimsand palestine)
  FUCK ISRAEL!!! EVERONE HATES IT SO WHY IS IT STILL AROUND?!
  Fuck Nazis
  Fuck The Enemies of Israel
  
  What was that, Quest for Fuck? That's some clever fucking research there sport.
2. Re:Selective Protesting by Delight-Delirium · 2007-09-04 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  I think there is a difference between voicing "fucking opposition" to a group with political views (e.g., kkk, nazis) than to a racial, religious group or social class.
  
  I find it difficult believe, btw, that disagreement with Israel is political and not racial. I suppose that, however, is a matter for another debate
3. Re:Selective Protesting by MrNemesis · 2007-09-04 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, did you not watch your 2 minute hate today? That would have told you which things you were supposed to be persecuting.
  
  --
  Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
4. Re:Selective Protesting by drew · 2007-09-05 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  If I ever put up my own social Web 0.2 site, I am definitely going to forbid mixing up "there" and "their" in the TOS.
  
  --
  If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Censorship is not a good idea by fredmosby · 2007-09-04 18:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

If someone I disagree with isn't allowed to express their views in an open forum they will find some other way of promoting their viewpoint.

If one person is willing to express a view then many other people probably also believe the same thing. If they are allowed to express their views openly then those views can be openly rebutted. That's the reason I never mod down people I disagree with on slashtot. Its better to post my on response or mod up a good response.
1. Re:Censorship is not a good idea by Delight-Delirium · 2007-09-04 21:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Really? So if a child was being taught to hate a group of people,black or white or Christian or Buddhist, you wouldn't object to that?
  
  This is how racial cleansing disasters happen, not because an entire country hates an wants to exterminate a group pf people. The true believers are always a minority. It's a apathy of the bystanders who say "it's none of my business," and fear making a stand, that allows tragedies like the ww2 Holocaust to occur.
  
  Sure stand by while a group is slandered, it's not your group, why should you have an opinion?
  
  Don't worry, they'll come for you eventually too.
2. Re:Censorship is not a good idea by fredmosby · 2007-09-05 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  I don't control what views a child is exposed to. That's under the control of the childs parents. Censorship isn't really going to change that. As for your other argument, there's a pretty big difference between letting people say what they want and letting a group of people commit genocide.
Negotiation Doesn't Work! by chromatic · 2007-09-04 18:23 · Score: 1

If I've learned anything from the Internet, it's that you should never negotiate with poor spellers. They "r" quitting indeed.

--
how to invest, a novice's guide
Re:AC's bore me.. by FromellaSlob · 2007-09-04 18:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion."

IOW it's mainly Muslims killing each other, so the GPs point about us "still killing them in mass" is bullshit. The main reason we're still there four years later is to try to stop Muslim deaths. (Of course, whether our continued presence is actually helping is very debatable.)

I also have to wonder what exactly the numerous Islamic terrorist atrocities commited before any western involvement in Iraq or Afganistan were "fighting back" against.
Some clarification please? by JRHelgeson · 2007-09-04 18:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since when is Islam a race? Islam is a religion whose practitioners are called Muslims. Muslims can be of any race. Just like followers of Christianity are called Christians, and there are Christians of every skin color. So, cursing a religion does NOT make a person RACIST, nor does it qualify as HATE SPEECH.

--
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
1. Re:Some clarification please? by lysse · 2007-09-04 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  Hate speech != racism. They intersect, that's all.
2. Re:Some clarification please? by Delight-Delirium · 2007-09-04 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Who modded this up to insightful? It may not be racial but it's hateful and discriminatory, and prosecuted under the same statutes. Yes, it's definitely hate speech.
3. Re:Some clarification please? by Esion+Modnar · 2007-09-04 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  cursing a religion does NOT make a person RACIST
  I agree, but RELIGIOUCIST is way too hard to say, spell, and I'm not even sure it's a word. Nope, no scrabble points there.
  
  --
  
  They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
4. Re:Some clarification please? by JRHelgeson · 2007-09-05 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  By that logic, there is a clear intersect between people who eat carrots and death. Over the past 10,000 years, 100% of the people who ate a carrot at some point in their life, they eventually died.
  
  Forget the fact that, ahem, well, everyone dies. Because carrots and death intersect, and I hate carrots.
  
  Lets ban carrots.
  
  --
  Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
5. Re:Some clarification please? by JRHelgeson · 2007-09-05 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Are you retarded? People can hate for reasons other than race, dumbass.
  
  Tsk tsk, this comment should be modded down as hate speech.
  Calling people names is clearly hateful.
  
  --
  Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
6. Re:Some clarification please? by lysse · 2007-09-05 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Um, please provide some evidence for the assumptions you have made about any opinion of mine that I didn't express in that post.
  
  And whilst you're at it, please tell me which part of what I said you're disagreeing with. Are you contending that hate speech and racism are identical sets, or that they are completely disjoint sets?
  
  (But then, I don't expect a useful reply. There's something inherently contemptible about a comment that starts "by that logic" and then goes on to demonstrate a complete lack of grasp of it.)
7. Re:Some clarification please? by lysse · 2007-09-05 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  (I'm sure even you would agree that neither is a proper subset of the other.)
8. Re:Some clarification please? by JRHelgeson · 2007-09-05 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Hate speech != racism. They intersect, that's all.
  
  Based on your reply, I now see your point was the exact opposite from how I initially interpreted it.
  
  It drives me nuts when people interpret correlation as causation. Just because two events may correlate does not mean one causes the other.
  
  --
  Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
why is it so bad? by spxZA · 2007-09-04 18:32 · Score: 1

I'm not American (so I have quite a good understanding of the world - no troll intended). Seriously, why is hate speech so bad? If you don't like something - be it a group, minority, idea - who cares! You should be entitled to be able to tell the entire world. Of course, most of the world won't care what your petty opinions are. Free speech means you can say whatever the hell you want. Of course, the only difference is when you use it to incite violence or make someone else's life a living hell. If I don't like homosexuals, I don't have to. Why is it practically illegal for me to say so (many places in the world)?
Re:AC's bore me.. by FromellaSlob · 2007-09-04 18:42 · Score: 1

That you Britain for setting up this powerkeg. (I believe that was intended to say thank you.)

Britain ruled Iraq for a grand total of 12 years between inheriting it from the Ottoman Empire and granting independance, and they didn't redraw any borders. I think your finger of blame is somewhat misplaced.
I looked for the group by nEoN+nOoDlE · 2007-09-04 18:50 · Score: 1

and it seems like Facebook shut it down. What Facebook didn't shut down, though, are the groups "Fuck Israel and Jewish" and "Fuck Israel & Any One Join In "Fuck Islam"", and a fairly wide range of anti-Jewish and/or anti-anyone who doesn't support Islam groups. Good thing the axe only swings one way on this one, huh?

--
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
1. Re:I looked for the group by Quila · 2007-09-05 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Being anti-Jewish is promoted in our new one-world. Even the UN Human Rights Council overlooks the massive human rights abuses that occur in most Muslim countries to complain about Israel every chance it gets.
Like Christianity's any Better? by Black+Copter+Control · 2007-09-04 18:54 · Score: 1

Ever heard the quote "Kill them all and let god sort it out later?" It was a papal representative who said it, and he wasn't kidding. He wasn't even talking about muslim 'heathens' in the crusade. The question was how to distinguish 'heretic cathar' christians from good catholics.
Remember that it's acceptable to make fun of Geeks, Christians, Buddists, Jews, Scientologists, Atheists, and LoS (Libertarians on Slashdot). But never make fun of Islam, the religion of peace, because they might cut off your head and car bomb your friends.
Then again, there's George Bush. Bush, of course, is too civilized to use suicide bombers. He uses Cruise Missiles, F-15s and gunships.

--
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
1. Re:Like Christianity's any Better? by everphilski · 2007-09-05 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Roman Catholics are a subset of christians, thanks.
6 weeks on... by mwvdlee · 2007-09-04 19:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

...and none of the petitioners have actually left.

What is their deadline anyway? "Stop that group or we'll quit Facebook somewhere in 2084"?

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
1. Re:6 weeks on... by LordSnooty · 2007-09-04 20:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Give em a break, it must be difficult to sever yourself from such delights as the "Bite Me" app and "You have been chopped by a Ninja!!" et-fucking-cetera
Obligatory ? by Romwell · 2007-09-04 19:08 · Score: 1

Please join my Fuck Fuck Fuck Islam group ! PS: There should also be the FTF Islam group, where FTF stands for Fuck The FTF
shrug by sentientbrendan · 2007-09-04 19:12 · Score: 1

I don't see enforcing censorship on a social networking site as being a good thing. Frankly, that would encourage *me* to leave the service. If they are willing to censor one topic, they are likely to censor others.

It's one thing to say something obnoxious, it's much worse to go around telling people they aren't "allowed" to say it.
F*ck the f*cking f*cks who f*cked "F*ck Islam" by Retired+Replicant · 2007-09-04 19:13 · Score: 1

Somebody go create a new Facebook group called "F*ck the f*cking f*cks who f*cking f*cked 'F*ck Islam'". I would do it myself but Facebook sucks and I never go there.
Re: by Hal_Porter · 2007-09-04 19:15 · Score: 2, Funny

If you're a whiner who just quit Facebook, I'd like to point that there will always be place for you on LiveJournal.

We have these features

* Auto sockpuppet scripts. You don't need the bother of maintaining human friends, even online ones. Our Perl scripts will flame your enemies when they become too numerous for you to do it manually.
* One click Delete Freakin' Everything(tm) and Restart Under An Alias. Our killer feature. Drama never had less consequences.

Sincerely Yours,
Brad Fitzpatrick

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Undeserved Respect For Religion by QuoteMstr · 2007-09-04 19:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Douglass Adams, quoted by Dawkins:
Religion ... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not. If someone votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. ... But on the other hand, if somebody says "' mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say 'I respect that.' ... We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard [Dawkins] creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

The whole idea of removing the group because some people are offended is insane; some people will be offended by almost anything Hell, I'm offended that the barbaric sharia law is still practiced in some areas. But they're just words, and I wouldn't support the removal of a facebook group advocating imposing, say, sharia on the United States!

Words, even offensive words, harm nobody. Censorship, either by individuals or the government, is always wrong. Censoring criticism (no matter how bigoted) of religion is even worse, though, because it spreads this idea that religious thought is somehow special.

The only special quality about religious thought is the effectiveness with which it spreads itself by removing reason from the mind of the believer.
1. Re:Undeserved Respect For Religion by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  Censorship, either by individuals or the government, is always wrong.
  
  Please remove yourself from the human race. You are too stupid to contribute.
  
  --
  http://xkcd.com/386/
2. Re:Undeserved Respect For Religion by cpghost · 2007-09-05 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Words, even offensive words, harm nobody.
  
  Oh, really? Reminds me of the quote: "Bullets don't kill people. It's the holes that the bullets tear open that do."
  
  Isn't it with words that governments get their populace to wage wars, isn't it with words that nazis pushed their populace to commit the biggest murder of all times, isn't it with words that islamists spread their ideology and hatred, isn't it with (offensive) words, that the enemy gets dehumanized? Yes, bullets (words) don't harm, but the holes (peoples' reaction to words) can do and did in the past on a gigantic scale. Please beware of hate speech.
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
3. Re:Undeserved Respect For Religion by tfiedler · 2007-09-05 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  >> But they're just words, and I wouldn't support the removal of a facebook group advocating imposing, say, sharia on the United States!
  
  I would, and I'd help hunt them down and kill them.
  
  --
  Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
4. Re:Undeserved Respect For Religion by X.mpls · 2007-09-06 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook doesn't have the time to moderate every single group created. And as this fellow just said, any one thing can anger another person. Perhaps they should have made it a little more subtle than "F**K Islam."
God, that's so pointless. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · 2007-09-04 19:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

There isn't really an argument, it's a simple definition. Islam isn't a race. People who hate Muslims aren't racist. They could be any number of other things depending on their ideology and motivations including ignorant, bigots, or just regular old stupid, but they're NOT racist.

Who gave you the power to fix the meanings of words? What makes you think that the meaning of terms is a function of their "definitions" in the first place?
You're making a completely pointless argument. As any half-trained social scientist will tell you, the concept of "race" in the sense of the term "racism" is a socially constructed concept; a way of explaining social difference by appeal to an attributed biological difference, which may not in fact exist. But the bigger point is that "race" is just one ingredient in the palette of things that discriminatory ideologies appeal to; religion and language are no less important.
In short, there really isn't any principled important dividing line to be drawn between "racism," "xenophobia" and "anti-Islamism." Calling anti-Muslim attitudes "racism" isn't a big abuse of the term, because the (a) differences are relatively minor, given the context of the discussion, and (b) it's not like vulgar racist thought itself cares about such precise distinctions.

--
Are you adequate?
1. Re:God, that's so pointless. by sqrt(2) · 2007-09-04 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  Calling anti-Muslim attitudes "racism" isn't a big abuse of the term Yes it is.
  
  Impasse
  
  --
  If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
missing the point by sentientbrendan · 2007-09-04 19:24 · Score: 1

The point is that if facebook censors its site, it's a mark against them in the eyes of many of its users. The whole point of bulletin boards, usenet, etc is that it provide an open forum of expression. If they choose to remove some speech, they are devaluing the service they provide to their users, and harming the trust of their users.
Re: Fat People and Racial Groups by Nymz · 2007-09-04 19:33 · Score: 1

Is it okay to make fun of fat people still? Some people say it's not. What about minorities? Are they fair game?
I named 6 religious groups, the last of which LoS (Libertarians on Slashdot) was the punchline (to some). But your inquiry of a religion based on fat worshipers (sexual fetish), or a religion based upon race didn't really seem on topic, or relative to the Slashdot audience.

Though, since you asked, I suppose racial supremisists would qualify. I don't see what would be so wrong with making fun of racist groups that preach hate, violence, and world domination like Neo-Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Ku Klux Klan.
People seem to overlook by Frozen+Void · 2007-09-04 19:41 · Score: 1

That Islam contains tons of hate speech itself.
Getting a life (and other worthwile pursuits) by Plutonite · 2007-09-04 19:41 · Score: 1

I just don't get it. Why do people feel the need to express sentiments that are not useful in any way, do not provide grounds for further research by those who happen upon them, are clearly non acceptable by standards of civil behavior between human beings and in short are an invitation for vitriol? The latter is most important, because religion is one of those things that people actually live for (unlike many other causes that usually serve as short-term motivators) and so feelings here are pretty strong. We in the western world of today, when bored, always seem to value our freedom to insult a large number of diverse people in their face much more than the sensibility of respecting the very sensitive feelings of that large number of fellow human beings while communicating the "hatred" in a more sensible, logical form (e.g academic debate). Even if we disregard the special case here where the information was bound, by license agreement from a private company, to certain behavioral norms - it is not always wise to exercise all your rights in any context and at any time. Would you run naked in a European country that had no anti-nudity laws *if* you knew your future in-laws will be watching? You have a right to, and you might do it just to prove that very point, but it would be stupid. Don't be stupid. Relax. Be nice. This goes equally to both sides.
I'm not actually trying to make that point.. by msimm · 2007-09-04 20:07 · Score: 1

I'm just quoting some numbers. I definitely don't blame US soldiers and I don't feel in any way that a US life is any less valuable (which I believe I make clear in the body of my text). The impact is the same on both sides. What I am saying is that the original posters caricaturization of Muslims was a little off balance when you take current events into account. Despite the fact that we've been meddling in their affairs since the oil boom, replacing entire regimes when deemed necessary most Muslims are no more likely to adopt violence then most other people. Most attacks on American soil have been American extremists. So I find it understandable that they might be sensitive if we demonize them. In some instance even persecute them. The Jewish people didn't like it. Neither did the Christians. Why would they?

--
Quack, quack.
Cute by msimm · 2007-09-04 20:13 · Score: 1

You've certainly shown me. But this isn't a war of religion. It's contemporary imperialism. We use religion to keep the facade up. Fear to justify it.

--
Quack, quack.
You pays your money; you takes your chances by joe_n_bloe · 2007-09-04 20:39 · Score: 1

Once again, I value practicality over ideals here. I fully support my fellow Americans' right to free, idiotic speech, but I also support the right of someone who has been gratuitously insulted to open up a can of whoopass on whatever idiot did the speaking. I'll let the future Salman Rushdies do the mocking and blaspheming. Never mind that it's just plain rude to insult someone's choice of religion (okay, I'm making an exception for Scientology), but if you really want to fuck a religion, it would be better to avoid selecting one numbering 1.5 billion souls with fundamentalist and occasionally violent tendencies. It might be wiser to pick a small non-proselytizing pacifist one. The Quakers perhaps.

I'm just sayin'.
Oh, wait! by WheelDweller · 2007-09-04 20:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

What was that about the spirit of Free Speech? Sure, this isn't a "do it and go to jail" situation, so it's not a First Amendment issue, but I keep hearing about people shutting down Christian topics because they're too controversial, but allow the 'Jackass(TM)' mindset to flourish, skinning knees, breaking legs, and leaving a 'cool' video.

Sure, the name has an obscured curse word in the title, but so what? I've heard a hundred times, "If you don't like the content [gratutious sex, violence, adult topics on broadcast], change the channel". Well, now I don't watch TV at all.

If this bothers you so certainly, I suggest you do the same. Isn't that the 'enlightened' thing to do, my liberal friends?

--
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Slashdot arguing for censorship by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2007-09-04 21:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Isn't slashdot contra-censorship ? Of any kind ? I mean how can you argue FOR the universal availability of stuff like mein kampf and the quran, and be against this sort of thing ?

Lots of books that slashdot "fights" for are a lot more controversial, and less childish, than this ...
1. Re:Slashdot arguing for censorship by oizfar · 2007-09-05 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  again, this isn't censorship. this is constituency leveraging itself to persuade big business to favor their position. it's just like when mothers against drunk driving calls up abc trying to get beer commercials pulled. say it with me "not censorship"
religious views column by sqldr · 2007-09-04 21:56 · Score: 1

Facebook openly invites me to add a "religious views" column to my profile. Do they REALLY want my religious views? Presently it's set to "are divisive", but I reserve my right to put what I really think without being slapped with the race card.

--
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Translation? by Fantastic+Lad · 2007-09-04 22:00 · Score: 1

Yes but the quran clearly states that "all non-muslims are less than filthy animals" (chapter 8 verse 55)

Clear? Hardly.

While all the big religious texts from all corners of the globe tend to instill division among people, I did some searching and was not able to find your quote. The closest translation I was able to find, was. . .
"Indeed the worst beasts in the sight of Allah are the people who disbelieve and do not accept faith."

And also this translation. . .
"55. Indeed the worst kind of living creatures in God's sight are those who are so rooted in unbelief that they cannot believe."

Who translated the version you're quoting? Seems like cherry picking with an eye toward demonizing to me.

-FL
1. Re:Translation? by stdarg · 2007-09-05 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Those translations mean pretty much the same thing, if you didn't notice.
2. Re:Translation? by Fantastic+Lad · 2007-09-05 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Those translations mean pretty much the same thing, if you didn't notice.
  
  No they don't. They're not even in the same ball park.
  
  According to the OP's translation, "Non-Muslim" is talking only about those who do not believe in Allah. --Whereas the other translations allow generally for belief in the existence of the soul independent of any specific religion, as I read it, and promotes the idea that treating all souls with respect is noble. Oppressors who do not follow this tenet, as per the Pharoah's example in the text leading up to the quote, thereby behave like beasts. Wolves, which cannot know the difference.
  
  As always, one's starting-point of intention has a lot to do with how things are read and perceived.
  
  -FL
3. Re:Translation? by stdarg · 2007-09-06 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, I guess I assumed that those without faith or those who don't believe (without qualification to what they're supposed to have faith or believe IN) were non-Muslims because I've heard non-Muslims described that way before.
  
  However, without turning this into a serious debate (because I don't know that much about the Quran or its translations), here is some additional context for that verse, coming from this page:
  54 (Deeds) after the manner of the people of Pharaoh and those before them": They treated as false the Signs of their Lord: so We destroyed them for their crimes, and We drowned the people of Pharaoh: for they were all oppressors and wrong- doers.
  55 For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.
  56 They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah..
  57 If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember. To me, it is clearly not talking about some fuzzy notion of being *capable* of belief, because I'm pretty sure the Egyptians did have faith in and believe in their own gods. They also had a concept of the afterlife which (to me) implies they believed in "souls" or whatever. This translation also says pretty explicitly that it's belief in Allah that counts.
  
  So with that context, it's really not a stretch to say the faithless refer to all non-Muslims. You might argue that "people of the Book" wouldn't count, but that's debatable. Not everyone (including me) believes that Allah = the Christian God. I acknowledge that Islam modeled their god after Christianity, which in turn modeled its god after Judaism. But since the three gods are described as having very different characteristics, I don't see how they could be the "same" god.
  
  In any case, I think they're definitely within the same "ballpark" if the only distinction is whether *all* non-Muslims or just non Muslims/Christians/Jews are the subject.
4. Re:Translation? by Fantastic+Lad · 2007-09-06 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh. I can see your point.
  
  Following a religion is such a strange way to live one's life.
  
  I find I react strongly to people who colour Muslims as being psychotic war-mongers when such attitudes can be found among any body of worshippers despite the root faith. Saying, "Muslims are dangerous and crazy! Just look at what line X, verse Y says!", is a dangerous road to go down, because it allows for people to see only a label and not the people. --Intention is very much the key. I know several followers of Islam, and they're sweet, totally giving people who recoil from the idea of violence. There are about a billion people who follow Islam, and I simply cannot believe that the bulk of them are lunatics. None of the people I have met would support that view, and I have seen and read enough accounts to know that those who lust for blood exist in the extreme minority. Jews and Christians are exactly the same in this regard. But I've also seen the reverse. Zionist Jews are acting terribly these days, and the entire Bush gang is Christian. It's a big mess, but it always still comes down to the people involved. Not their books.
  
  So when I see people trying to validate their fear and hatred based on a few lines from a text which can be interpreted and followed in different ways, I always like to point out that there are other interpretations and that fear and hatred are the core problem, not what a few lines of text say in a religious document.
  
  -FL
Re:Funny, Slashdot is usually against censorship.. by untaken_name · 2007-09-04 22:14 · Score: 1

I have it on good authority that "We do know, of certain knowledge, that (Bin Laden) is either in Afghanistan or in some other country or dead."

Hard to argue with that.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by empaler · 2007-09-04 23:16 · Score: 1

If I could remember my login, I'd go there now and randomly troll with 'slashdot is awesome' right now
http://www.goatse.cx by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 23:24 · Score: 2, Funny

They beheld the Avatar of Goatse and were so shocked that they fell over dead.
abolish islam by ajs318 · 2007-09-04 23:44 · Score: 1

I would be 100% in favour of the abolition of islam and the levelling to the ground of every mosque in the world -- subject to the condition that judaism and christianity, and every synagogue and every church, must also suffer the same fate.

A world without monotheism will be a much nicer place.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
And what's the problem? by JesseJackson · 2007-09-04 23:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

What's the problem with the group on Face Book? Islam at its most "moderate" is a religion that promotes the subjugation and marginalization of women, tolerates lies and deceit to infidels and as a whole will not take a stand against the radical elements of it's faith.

There are 1.2 billion Muslims world wide. If only 10% condone violence and terrorism that makes 120 million people out there that need to be dealt with. If another 20% turn a blind eye or promote the "less radical" aspects of Sharia law that is even more people that wish to promote a 12th century view of the world.

Not acceptable!
1. Re:And what's the problem? by Creepy+Crawler · 2007-09-05 02:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Good point.
  
  If you want to know why I hate what Islam stands for, go read their Holy Book.
  
  Listening to bigotry and hatred should not be called for. Simply reading what the Quran says will show you the hatred and intolerance.
  
  3:4 those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom.
  
  3:19 Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning.
  
  3:73 believe not save in one who followeth your religion
  
  3:118 O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater.
  
  Just a taste of what the Quran hides.
  
  Bleh.
  --
  
  Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
Jewish law does as well by alexhmit01 · 2007-09-05 00:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

Jewish law doesn't marginalize women. It holds women up as the spiritual core of the people, and elevates their primary responsibilities in the home to a level of holiness. While from a Western job-oriented mindset, people may see it as marginalized, the three core activities of an observant Jewish home, Shabbat, Kashrut, and Family Purity are commandments that fall primarily on the women. The woman takes priority over her husband regarding Shabbat candles, is primarily responsible for maintaining a Kosher home, and maintaining Family Purity. The "male" responsibilities are to provide income for his family, engage in Torah learning and teach Torah to his children, and participate in public prayer. Those "male" responsibilities are just as important (and seen my non-Jews and non-practicing Jews), but less holy and critical to the family.

Most of the anti-female views in Judeo-Christian beliefs aren't supported by the Bible, they are Roman/Greek customs and things that the early Church picked up when it merged with the Roman Empire. Did the Romans hate women? Well, considering that Roman/Greek societies placed the highest form of love as the love between a man and a young boy...

It was the Romans who decided that sex between a man and a woman was a necessary evil for procreation. This got into the Christian Bible by way of bizarre interpretation. It also slipped into Judaism a bit during the Talmudic era, when Judea was an occupied Roman Province.

If you look at the Biblical basis for marriage, it does nothing to prohibit sexual desires on either party. The only thing that is does is require that if a man lie with a woman, he make her his wife. This means that a man can only lie with as many women as he can support, so it somewhat limits male sexual expression. And pre-birth control combined with the timing effects of Family Purity laws, sex had a decent likelihood of resulting in child bearing. So forcing a man to support the woman he lies with can hardly be seen as sexist in an objective sense.

Most of the ancient tribal customs that remain in some form in traditional Judaism (wrapped in a complex Rabbinic layer) and the Church (wrapped in a Roman layer) only seem sexist looking at them backwards. We redefined the concept of gender relations in the last 100 years, and then call the old way sexist. However, if you look at the Biblical laws as applied to twelve wandering tribes in Egypt going through Arabia and into Canaan, they are extremely progressive. If you look at the restrictions added during the Talmudic era, they are extremely progressive. And if you compare their adaptation by the Church to Roman society, a society that used to encourage the men to ignore their women except to produce heirs, encouraged them to have mistresses to produce more off-spring which they could CHOOSE to legitimize or not (but the mistress got no support, while additional wives in Judaism (banned for over 1000 years now in Western Judaism) AND concubines each had levels of support, and the concubine could choose to end the relationship with no strings), the religious basis of gender relations was PRO-woman.

You can't look from a 21st century view of gender relations and look at Church law and call it backwards. Church law started as a response to the Roman hedonistic culture, that wrapped it's orgies (gay and straight) in a religious veneer. The Church later dealt with gender relations in feudal Europe, where the nobles were marrying and producing legit heirs (with some on the side), and the peasants where gender relations were somewhere between permitted rape and modern dating, and brought marriage out of common law and into general practice.

Religious marriage laws may not have been "equal" in a 21st Century sense, but they were all designed to protect women who were being used by men that were stronger than them, and had no protection under pre-Christian European customs. Those that see female promiscuity (in an era of The Pill) as liberation for women may see the obsession
1. Re:Jewish law does as well by that+IT+girl · 2007-09-05 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Nice explanation, that was an insightful read. I'd like to also throw in that the Bible, especially the period where Jesus is teaching (beginning of the new testament) was a time when women were not allowed to speak in places of worship, not allowed to testify in court (their witness didn't count), and were generally viewed as a means for a man to 1) take his pleasure and 2) pass on his bloodline and raise sons. It's hard to believe by today's standards, but in the context of the day, Jesus could have been considered a liberal, radical feminist. Suggesting that all were equal ("man and woman, Jew and Greek", slave and free" etc) was "out there" and was part of the reason some of them wanted him dead. In short, it's always good to be very mindful of the context of any piece of literature, especially the location and time period in which it was written.
  
  Again, thank you for the insight. That was definitely a fresh perspective.
  
  --
  10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
  20 DRINK COFFEE
  30 GOTO 10
2. Re:Jewish law does as well by alexhmit01 · 2007-09-05 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I appreciate your commends as well, I think that they are correct. Jesus the historical figure was absolutely a rebel rousing Jewish leader. Some of his teachings are allegorical, some challenge the Rabbinic/Preistly leaders of the day, etc., but not outright challenge Written Torah law. What his followers did with his words is another story, but the famous quotes of Jesus become MUCH more interesting if one understands Jewish law, particularly as it existed during the Second Temple era.
  
  However, I wanted to take issue with some of your characterizations:
  
  I'd like to also throw in that the Bible, especially the period where Jesus is teaching (beginning of the new testament) was a time when women were not allowed to speak in places of worship, not allowed to testify in court (their witness didn't count), and were generally viewed as a means for a man to 1) take his pleasure and 2) pass on his bloodline and raise sons.
  It is important to understand that in Jewish law, things are divided into permitted and non-permitted, and obligatory and non-obligatory. Jewish law is quite binary, there are few shades of grey... as an exception to this, the Hassidic/Hareidi cultures of the past two hundred years introduce a WHOLE BUNCH of grey, because they prohibit things via Minhag (binding custom) or Mensorah (custom) to their followers, but because a Beit Din (House of Law) has no jurisdiction outside of their area, you have things prohibited to followers of one Rabbi that are permitted to another. This introduces a LOT of grey areas of things that aren't permitted but are to be avoided. However, the areas you are addressing come from basic Jewish law.
  
  1. Women were not allowed to speak in places of worship
  
  While American Protestants and Liberal Jews have turned their places of worship into general social halls, basically as social clubs that have religious services on Sunday/Saturday respecfully, that was not historically the case. In Catholic Europe, the Churches held daily services and were fundamentally focused on religious matters, including matters that many today would consider secular in nature, but both Jewish and Christian Law is ALL encompassing on matters (roughly two Thirds of the Jewish Talmud and Shulchan Aruch cover matters of business -- not things considered "religious" in the post enlightenment world). If you look in Israel, where Jews are the majority, the Beit Knessets/Schules (Hebrew/Yiddish for synagogue) are places of worship and learning, not community centers. One would go to a synagogue for Morning or Afternoon/Evening services, or to the study hall during the day for Torah learning, not to discuss community affairs.
  
  As a result, the "speaking in place of worship" is referring to either A) leading services, or B) teaching words of Torah. Now, under Jewish Law these are both privileges and honors to the person that does them, but also obligations upon the people doing them. Because women are generally exempt from time-based obligations for a variety of reasons, they are NOT required to do these commandments. Because Jewish law does not separate obligation from privilege, women are not permitted these functions. In other words, if you permit women to lead services and teach Torah, then the obligation falls on them. It isn't really fair to expect women to fulfill ALL the female oriented obligations (which are just as time consuming and all consuming as the male ones) PLUS the male ones, so the prohibition holds.
  
  Think about it, how quickly did it go from "women are allowed to hold jobs" to "women are expected to hold jobs" in modern America? Few married women with children would consider working outside the home a privilege, but now an obligation. The "extended adolescence" of singles in their 20s and several years married before having children has affected how women view themselves, but it has also put obligations on them that previous generations didn't have. Few homes divide housework or child rearing evenly,
3. Re:Jewish law does as well by brian.gunderson · 2007-09-05 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Holy long post, batman. Pun intended.
  
  --
  Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
4. Re:Jewish law does as well by rtechie · 2007-09-05 07:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Jewish law doesn't marginalize women. Nonsense. Ever hear of "menstrual shacks"? The idea is that when a woman is menstruating she is "ritually unclean" and has to be sepreated from the rest of the family and religious services as she might make them "impure". Jewish law expressly regards women as being less valuable, a female slave is worth less, punishments for killing women are lower, etc.
  The "male" responsibilities are to provide income for his family, engage in Torah learning and teach Torah to his children, and participate in public prayer. Those "male" responsibilities are just as important They are obviously much more important. Since men are only allowed to have religious education, and "traditional" Jewish live is based on theocracy, in traditional Judism women are absolutely prohibited from engaging in political life. They have no vote, they have no say, except whatever influence they can have on their husbands. An unmarried woman in traditional Judism is essentially powerless.
  It was the Romans who decided that sex between a man and a woman was a necessary evil for procreation. ... Church law started as a response to the Roman hedonistic culture, that wrapped it's orgies (gay and straight) in a religious veneer. You're contradicting yourself. It was the Jews, for example, that started the practice of women covering their hair out of modesty. Jews expressly forbid homosexuality. Look into the practices of the Essenes and other 1st century Jewish movements. Asceticism and anti-sex views were widespread long before the time of Jesus, though they certainly weren't EXCLUSIVELY Jewish.
  
  The reality is that Roman religion was diverse and some particular cults were anti-sex and ascetic, some were hedonistic, but MOST promoted what we would call today "traditional family values".
  Most of the ancient tribal customs that remain in some form in traditional Judaism (wrapped in a complex Rabbinic layer) and the Church (wrapped in a Roman layer) only seem sexist looking at them backwards. They don't seem sexist, they ARE sexist. The big question I have for you is: If you acknowledge that most of the moral teachings of the Torah are basically nonsense, why isn't it ALL nonsense? Genesis pretty obviously didn't happen, the Exodus almost certainly didn't happen. Since it's all fictional, why follow any of it?
  Religious marriage laws may not have been "equal" in a 21st Century sense, but they were all designed to protect women who were being used by men that were stronger than them, and had no protection under pre-Christian European customs. Modern Jews/Christians mostly base their opinions of pagan culture on anti-pagan rhetoric by early church fathers and religious leaders. The reality is quite different. Romans introduced divorce, one of the most important women's rights innovations in history. For the first time, women could own property, declare heirs, and have significant political representation in Rome. One of the first things the Christian emperor Constantine did was eliminate divorce and women's rights.
  The only "modern" religion built in response to the current day environment is Scientology... and while Scientology appears to harness and direct modern desires (worship of celebrity, pursuit of money without limitation, sexual freedom), I don't think that many people would want society to become more like Scientology, would they? Scientology does not claim to be a modern religion, but an ancient religion "revealed" to a modern man. Scientology is primarily concerned with "personal growth" and self-help (eliminating addictions and mental health problems). Scientology does not worship celebrity, they see celebrities as a marketing tool. The pursuit of money is not a major VALUE of Scientology, though they are greedy for money in the way that all churches are. Scientology opposes sexual freedom and homosexuality.
  
  Given the choice of Scientology, which most people recognize is a money-making scam, and Judism, which most people DON'T recognize as a money-making scam, I'd pick the former.
5. Re:Jewish law does as well by Professor+Fate · 2007-09-05 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Great post. I hate to be picky but...
  
  The constant warring of the ancient Israelites and Judeans against their neighbors and the Europeans (Rome) required constant military preparedness
  
  Judea was conquered by Babylon in 589 BC I think. From then til 1948, Jews weren't in control of the territory. It was Greeks who lost control to the Roman General, Pompey the Great.
  
  --
  Push the button, Max!
6. Re:Jewish law does as well by atrizzah · 2007-09-05 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  ...but the Jews still lived there, and many wars were waged, despite their lack of sovereignty. As far as I can see, the original post didn't say anything about Jewish sovereignty.
7. Re:Jewish law does as well by alexhmit01 · 2007-09-05 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Right, the other post is correct, the last unified Israelite government was King Solomon... the unified Monarchy didn't last long. The Judean Kingdom held out for a bid longer, but it fell relatively quickly.
  
  However, while Judea was a vassal state, it was the Jews living there. A vassal state has a lot of autonomy. As long as the taxes flowed up to the Empire controlling them, the Jews were in control of day-to-day affairs. When Rome abolished Judea's status of a client Kingdom and put it under direct control of Rome was when the Jews started the multiple rebellions.
8. Re:Jewish law does as well by kokoba · 2007-09-05 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  >>> Agreeing that women should have the vote and be able to have property is a HUGE stretch from women should have lots of sex out of wedlock and never have children.
  You make it sound like lots of sex out of wedlock and life-long childlessness is a BAD thing. =P But on a more serious note, is the judgmental tone I'm picking up regarding contemporary feminism actually being implied, or have my ovaries gone on overtime? I would be inclined to say that the pill and sexual liberation is fantastic, but I see no point in bringing up a debate where none was intended.
  
  --
  Geeky math jewelry!
9. Re:Jewish law does as well by TheLoneCabbage · 2007-09-06 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a rabbi. Just a badly informed orthodox jew, and there are some common mistakes.
  
  Nonsense. Ever hear of "menstrual shacks"? The idea is that when a woman is menstruating she is "ritually unclean" and has to be sepreated from the rest of the family and religious services as she might make them "impure".
  It's a bad translation. The Hebrew words Tame & Tahor only relate to issues of ritual. IE. Someone who comes into contact with the dead is Tame (impure). That doesn't mean we don't revere our dead. Laws of purity are a spiritual issue, not relating to valuations of greater than or less than. Though some forms of impurity are more "difficult" or prohibit more activities. Earlier pre-diasporah forms of Judiasm dealt largely with it. Taharat Hamishpacha, is one of the few forms of this idea left. And it largely favors the woman. As it is often used by women to avoid abuse or to throw their weight around in the marriage.
  
  Jewish law expressly regards women as being less valuable, a female slave is worth less, punishments for killing women are lower, etc.
  Older male slaves are worth less than younger male slaves because they can do less work. It has nothing to do with feminism. It's just a fact that in an agrarian society someone who can pull a plow and build fences is worth more.
  
  They are obviously much more important. Since men are only allowed to have religious education, and "traditional" Jewish live is based on theocracy, in traditional Judaism women are absolutely prohibited from engaging in political life. They have no vote, they have no say, except whatever influence they can have on their husbands. An unmarried woman in traditional Judaism is essentially powerless.
  Limitations on a womans education are (more or less) recent. And in mainstream circles has been moving back to equality again. True women didn't have a vote. No one did. The first two Hebrew Dynasties had no democracy. Law was largely managed by a monarchy and a hierarchical judiciary. Women & children were forbidden from giving testimony or judging because they were easily physically intimidated. Again, life then is not as it is now; and how these customs project themselves into the modern era is a very long discussion. Men were required to learn, because they had to participate in court, and lead their families. Women were encouraged to learn more spiritual aspects (rather than legal) since they were the families primary educator and emotional (for lack of a better word) center.
  
  For most of human history our actions have been defined by *need* not *should be*.
  
  You're contradicting yourself. It was the Jews, for example, that started the practice of women covering their hair out of modesty.
  I fail to see how women covering there hair is opressive. Do or don't, or leave. And it was only married women. Usually as a sign of marriage. Men take on similar customs. It's no different than wearing a wedding ring, or letting yourself grow a pot belly.
  
  Jews expressly forbid homosexuality.
  Guilty as charged. It's all written down. We were the first. I could hazard a few good reasons why, but it doesn't really matter.
  
  Incidentally the Greeks and Romans didn't care much for homosexuality either, they just defined it differently. Every culture has taboos. Cay sara sara...
  
  Look into the practices of the Essenes and other 1st century Jewish movements. Asceticism and anti-sex views were widespread long before the time of Jesus, though they certainly weren't EXCLUSIVELY Jewish.
  The Essenes were (predictably) a small sect, and were not considered a main stream group. While Traditional Jews were never known for their free wheeling sex lives, there is a strong (STRONG) current against rabinic stringency that may interfere with a relations between married folks. Again, long discussion, but generally sex is not viewed as dirty, sinful, or evil when in a "proper" context.
  
  --
  I would rather be ashes than dust!
10. Re:Jewish law does as well by JamesGecko · 2007-09-06 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to also throw in that the Bible, especially the period where Jesus is teaching (beginning of the new testament) was a time when women were not allowed to speak in places of worship... I have heard that one of the reasons Paul mentioned this in 1 Corinthians 14 had a lot to do with the historical context. Prostitutes from pagan religions were coming to Christian gatherings and advertising services at their temples.
11. Re:Jewish law does as well by rtechie · 2007-09-10 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's a bad translation. The Hebrew words Tame & Tahor only relate to issues of ritual. IE. Someone who comes into contact with the dead is Tame (impure). That doesn't mean we don't revere our dead. Laws of purity are a spiritual issue, not relating to valuations of greater than or less than. Though some forms of impurity are more "difficult" or prohibit more activities. Earlier pre-diasporah forms of Judiasm dealt largely with it. Taharat Hamishpacha, is one of the few forms of this idea left. And it largely favors the woman. As it is often used by women to avoid abuse or to throw their weight around in the marriage.
  I don't accept the argument of "some Jews are doing it wrong" when this used to be mainstream practice. Saying it is a "spiritual issue" that has no practical affect on women in laughable. I don't know how this is supposed to prevent abuse or help women "throw their weight around" except in the sense that they can insist on a separate dwelling. Modern menustral shacks are quite a bit nicer that the term "shack" implies for those few Jews who continue this practice. None of this obviates the fact that this is clearly a sexist doctrine.
  
  Older male slaves are worth less than younger male slaves because they can do less work. It has nothing to do with feminism. It's just a fact that in an agrarian society someone who can pull a plow and build fences is worth more.
  Pagan societies had different rules. Women were often worth more than women depending on skills and background, in Jewish law women were always worth less in large part because they weren't allowed to acquire valuable skills and weren't allowed to market their sexuality. This was all pretty deliberately done to limit their power.
  
  Limitations on a womans education are (more or less) recent.
  
  Recent? Supposedly women in the time of Moses (a fictional character) weren't even allowed to read or write and could be executed for contradicting their husbands in public.
  
  Law was largely managed by a monarchy and a hierarchical judiciary. Women & children were forbidden from giving testimony or judging because they were easily physically intimidated. Again, life then is not as it is now; and how these customs project themselves into the modern era is a very long discussion. Men were required to learn, because they had to participate in court, and lead their families. Women were encouraged to learn more spiritual aspects (rather than legal) since they were the families primary educator and emotional (for lack of a better word) center.
  So, in other words, in traditional Jewish culture women had no say in political life whatsoever. Again, the notion that they were too "physically intimidated" to speak or know what they wanted is laughable. It also doesn't say much about the quality of Jewish jurisprudence (Did they punch people in the face that came to testify?).
  
  I fail to see how women covering there hair is opressive. Do or don't, or leave
  First, if they didn't they would be beaten. So "don't" wasn't an option. It's "opressive" in the sense that it's a symbolic depredation of women's sexuality. At the time, decorating their hair was the primary form of adornment for women and covering their hair was done in a effort to make women less sexual. And since sexuality is an important power too for women, it makes them less powerful.
  
  We were the first. I could hazard a few good reasons why, but it doesn't really matter.
  Plenty of other religions were there first. There are lots of reasons why the Jews banned it, but my understanding is that the main reason is that homosexuality was associated with "pagan" religions and Jewish authorities didn't want their faith "corrupted". I suspect it also had to do with the patriarchal system, men were expected to be fathers and head of household, women were expected to be mothers, etc. and homosexuality throws a monkey wrench i9nto that model.
  
  A
12. Re:Jewish law does as well by alexhmit01 · 2007-09-11 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's a bad translation. The Hebrew words Tame & Tahor only relate to issues of ritual. IE. Someone who comes into contact with the dead is Tame (impure). That doesn't mean we don't revere our dead. Laws of purity are a spiritual issue, not relating to valuations of greater than or less than. Though some forms of impurity are more "difficult" or prohibit more activities. Earlier pre-diasporah forms of Judiasm dealt largely with it. Taharat Hamishpacha, is one of the few forms of this idea left. And it largely favors the woman. As it is often used by women to avoid abuse or to throw their weight around in the marriage.
  
  I don't accept the argument of "some Jews are doing it wrong" when this used to be mainstream practice. Saying it is a "spiritual issue" that has no practical affect on women in laughable. I don't know how this is supposed to prevent abuse or help women "throw their weight around" except in the sense that they can insist on a separate dwelling. Modern menustral shacks are quite a bit nicer that the term "shack" implies for those few Jews who continue this practice. None of this obviates the fact that this is clearly a sexist doctrine.
  Your arguments are self-satisfying and based upon what seems to be a lot of ignorance. You have had two people try to explain your misconceptions from bad translations, and you simply insist that they don't know what they are talking about. Your use of the terms "shacks" is intentionally inflammatory, and is chosen simply to do so. Assuming that you don't observe the Laws of Family purity, since you hold them in complete contempt, you simply don't understand the practical implementation of these laws.
  
  Purity doesn't only apply to women either. It's a general "bodily fluids" make you impure idea... After ejaculation, a man is impure as well. To avoid nocturnal emissions screwing up the Yom Kippur service (requiring a last minute substitute), the High Priest had to stay up all night. Given that most women are not interested in sex during the menstrual period, and your contention that this is all about men "taking women" whenever they want, clearly telling the men that the women are off limits is hardly anti-woman.
  
  Pagan societies had different rules. Women were often worth more than women depending on skills and background, in Jewish law women were always worth less in large part because they weren't allowed to acquire valuable skills and weren't allowed to market their sexuality. This was all pretty deliberately done to limit their power.
  Market? Skills? In an agrarian society? Okay, I get it, Prostitution empowered women and Jewish law was to punish them and keep their power away. Except for one thing, Biblical law doesn't SPECIFICALLY prohibit prostitution. It gets more or less banned in a backwards manner by Rabbinic Law, because one wouldn't want their daughter to have to have that life, and one is obligated to give her a better life, but paying for sex is IN the Bible... The Biblical prohibitions that lead to a ban on Prostitution was an ogligation to provide for your daughter and wife.
  
  You are taking 21st Century conditions, applying the Bible, and saying "evil sexist." The Bible doesn't CREATE marriage, it governs it. It doesn't CREATE slavery, it governs and restricts it. There is nothing in the Bible arguing FOR these conditions, but rather the rules that govern the conditions of it. That is my issue with your method of argumentation. Each major evolution of Jewish Law has been to incorporate changes around it to make things better. The conditions for women in the Bible are CERTAINLY better than they were in Egypt. The conditions in the Talmud were certainly better than they were under Roman occupation.
  
  Indeed, not only is there a strong Rabbinic trend to NOT ban sexual behavior within marriage, one of the interesting issues in Rabbinic Law that is new is dealing with the fact that people not on
13. Re:Jewish law does as well by rtechie · 2007-09-12 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming that you don't observe the Laws of Family purity, since you hold them in complete contempt, you simply don't understand the practical implementation of these laws.
  Since only a tiny handful of people implement these laws today, you will forgive me for a lack of comprehensive knowledge on the subject. I was talking about ancient (500-100 BCE) use of these laws.
  
  It's a general "bodily fluids" make you impure idea. After ejaculation, a man is impure as well. To avoid nocturnal emissions screwing up the Yom Kippur service (requiring a last minute substitute), the High Priest had to stay up all night.
  This doesn't even make any sense, mainly because you're misinterpreting. Since semen is stored in the body BEFORE ejaculation, logically ejaculation should make the body MORE pure if it's the fluid itself that's the problem. A similar idea is present in Hinduism, specifically Tantra, wherin a man is not supposed to ejaculate to PRESERVE the semem because it supposedly contains "vital energy".
  
  I'm assuming the High Priest isn't allowed to masturbate or have sex (even with his wife) before the Yom Kippur service, right? That's because the prohibition about ejaculation isn't about fluids per se, but about denial of pleasure specifically, or "the physical world" in general. IOW, asceticism. The very definition of anti-sex.
  
  your contention that this is all about men "taking women" whenever they want
  I never said any such thing. I said that traditional Jewish law dramatically limited the political rights of women, not that Jewish law somehow ordered men to go around raping women.
  
  Market? Skills? In an agrarian society? Okay, I get it, Prostitution empowered women and Jewish law was to punish them and keep their power away.
  Again, you're reading into what I wrote. Ancient societies had artisans, craftspeople, scribes, etc. and women were barred from these professions (pretty much ANY profession) in ancient Judea. That's all I'm saying.
  
  The Bible doesn't CREATE marriage, it governs it. It doesn't CREATE slavery, it governs and restricts it.
  Well, this is just wrong. If Genesis is to be believed, YHWH did indeed create marriage. And since he created the humans that created slavery (presumably descendants of Cain) he created slavery as well. When a text makes the claims the Bible makes (the word of the creator of the universe), one should assume high standards of accuracy.
  
  The conditions for women in the Bible are CERTAINLY better than they were in Egypt.
  Since there were never Jews in Egypt and Exodus is fictional, this argument doesn't hold much weight.
  
  The conditions in the Talmud were certainly better than they were under Roman occupation.
  I'd agree with THIS wholeheartedly. But this only validates my point. If the ancient Jewish laws were correct and moral, why did they need revision (and I'd argue, complete abandonment) years later? This is actually a dig made against Muslims for refusing to "modernize" Islam. They argue: If the words of Mohammed were correct then, why are they wrong now?
  
  There is nothing in the bible that suggests that sex is wrong, sinful, or immoral.
  
  Genesis clearly states that the pain of childbirth is a direct punishment for Eve's transgressions. Genesis strongly implies that no sex or reproduction took place before the Fall and that sex and reproduction are the result of the Fall, and hence, inherently evil.
  
  Women were definitely in danger if physically assaulted by a man.
  IN KING'S COURT? That's what you argued. That women couldn't testify because they were easily physically intimidated, presumably when testifying in the KING'S COURT. I don't believe for one moment that security was so bad in the King's Court that women stood a good chance of being raped if they came to testify. And I find the notion that women are simpering cowards too afraid to go to
14. Re:Jewish law does as well by alexhmit01 · 2007-09-15 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming that you don't observe the Laws of Family purity, since you hold them in complete contempt, you simply don't understand the practical implementation of these laws.
  
  Since only a tiny handful of people implement these laws today, you will forgive me for a lack of comprehensive knowledge on the subject. I was talking about ancient (500-100 BCE) use of these laws.
  
  Regarding a handful, there are probably around 1m Orthodox Jews in the US, another 2m in Israel, and another few million "Traditional" Jews in Israel. I have no idea what percentage observe family purity, but it's NOT an obscure subject, and among the religiously practicing, seen as the basis of strong Jewish marriages.
  
  It's a general "bodily fluids" make you impure idea. After ejaculation, a man is impure as well. To avoid nocturnal emissions screwing up the Yom Kippur service (requiring a last minute substitute), the High Priest had to stay up all night.
  
  This doesn't even make any sense, mainly because you're misinterpreting. Since semen is stored in the body BEFORE ejaculation, logically ejaculation should make the body MORE pure if it's the fluid itself that's the problem. A similar idea is present in Hinduism, specifically Tantra, wherin a man is not supposed to ejaculate to PRESERVE the semem because it supposedly contains "vital energy".
  
  You're just wrong. There is no "preservation" of bodily fluids. A man who ejaculates is impure until he cleans himself and waits until the following sundown. A woman who receives that ejaculation is similarly impure until such cleaning. Trying to trace it to a Hindu Pagan ideal fits your agenda, but ignores a clear reading of the text. Bodily fluids = impurity, straight out of the Torah. Contact with the dead also renders impurity. Lots of the Torah refers to purity and impurity, and how much it really applied even in Temple Days is up for debate, as it is doubtful that all but the wealthiest Judeans ever traveled to the Temple.
  
  There is nothing in the bible that suggests that sex is wrong, sinful, or immoral.
  
  Genesis clearly states that the pain of childbirth is a direct punishment for Eve's transgressions. Genesis strongly implies that no sex or reproduction took place before the Fall and that sex and reproduction are the result of the Fall, and hence, inherently evil.
  
  Eve's transgression had nothing to do with sex. Indeed, the Bible is explicit in that they covered their bodies as a result of their knowledge, and that prior to this, there was no need to.
  
  A literal read of Genesis is that all these events took place on Day 6 (quite a busy day), and given that the Hebrew word of Yom refers to day, but in Biblical Hebrew also refers to units of time, a literalist read is probably unnecessary. The pain of childbirth and needing to work simply demonstrates that mankind is responsible for their actions, and that it wasn't the Creator's ill will that gave them a rough lot in life, and they were offered perfection and chose reality. It also sets the stage for Jewish punishments later on, including the plague of Darkness killing many Israelites, the Golden Calf, costing non-Levites their role in the Temple, and the first exile. If you believe that the Bible was made up by Ezra, then this story serves to establish Priestly dominance, by placing responsibility on the rest of the people.
  
  Since there were never Jews in Egypt and Exodus is fictional, this argument doesn't hold much weight.
  That seems unlikely. There is archaeological evidence that the Egyptians THOUGHT that they wiped out the Israelites, and the Biblical Jewish practice is HEAVILY based upon Egyptian practices. Most major Jewish practices are modified from the Egyptian ones, making the dedication to the God of Israel in
15. Re:Jewish law does as well by rtechie · 2007-09-19 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  it's NOT an obscure subject, "The most intimate details of family life among a secretive religious sect." It's the DEFINITION of an obscure subject.
  There is no "preservation" of bodily fluids. First off, I don't know if the idea that ejaculating makes you "impure" originates in India, and neither do you. I was simply questioning the logic of it, which is based on asceticism (why you clipped that part of my post I don't know). It has nothing to do with the fluid per se, but with denial of sexual gratification. That's the whole point of circumcision as well.
  A literal read of Genesis is that all these events took place on Day 6 (quite a busy day), and given that the Hebrew word of Yom refers to day, but in Biblical Hebrew also refers to units of time, a literalist read is probably unnecessary. If it's not literally true, and it's allegory makes no sense (and is flatly wrong, see below) what is the point?
  The pain of childbirth and needing to work simply demonstrates that mankind is responsible for their actions, and that it wasn't the Creator's ill will that gave them a rough lot in life, and they were offered perfection and chose reality. That's simply not what the Bible says, and it's a strange interpretation. You're implying that Adam and Eve made an informed choice, but the way the story is structured that's not possible. Adam and Eve didn't know about "the outside world" before Eve's transgression. Of course, you and I know the account is fictional, that's why it doesn't make any sense. None of this is consistent with the real history of humanity.
  That seems unlikely. There is archaeological evidence that the Egyptians THOUGHT that they wiped out the Israelites, No there isn't. There is no evidence whatsoever that any people even vaguely similar to the Israelites ever existed in Egypt, unless you're peddling that line about Akhenanten. He wasn't Moses.
  and the Biblical Jewish practice is HEAVILY based upon Egyptian practices. Most major Jewish practices are modified from the Egyptian ones, making the dedication to the God of Israel instead of the pagan gods. This only makes sense if the religion was started by someone leading Israelites out of Egypt, because it gave them worship that they understood. They are modified from the Cannanite practices which were based on Egyptian practices (and Babylonian and Assyrian). Most of the major aspects of Egyptian religion (the annual flood, funeral rites, etc.) didn't make it into Judaism. The Canaanites/proto-Jews didn't adopt monotheism until the influence of Zoroaster, hundreds of years later. One does not need Moses to explain these influences.
  And Jewish law provides for Concubinage (trial marriages), marrying captives, slaves, etc. Both groups have laws governing "frowned upon behaviors," but discourage them or harass those that try to practice them. These haven't been mainstream practices in Judaism since the Talmud, and in Islam since the Sunni/Shi'a split. Which gets back to the original point of this thread, that Jewish law and Islamic law regarding women really isn't so different. Most Jews are liberalized and don't follow these laws strictly, just as many Muslims are liberalized and don't follow the laws strictly, but the laws themselves really aren't so dissimilar.
Not Racist. . . by n2art2 · 2007-09-05 00:18 · Score: 1

I'm curious how being against a religion is racist? If they hate a religion and not a race of people how is that termed racist?

--
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
"Palestinians" Persecuted Jews as Well by alexhmit01 · 2007-09-05 00:25 · Score: 1

In 1929, the Hebron Pogroms wipes out a Jewish community dating back to Biblical Times. Hebron is one of the holiest cities in the Jewish faith, where Abraham bought the first land in Canaan for the Jewish people, where the Cave of the Patriarchs is. Because the Hebrew Patriarchs were adopted by Islam (which claimed a connection through Ishmael as the Ishmaelites were an Arab tribe), they claim it as a holy city to Islam.

Jews have been living in "Palestine" since before it was renamed from Judea to Palestina.

When Jews were fleeing WWII to Palestine, local Arab riots and rebellions prevents Jews from escaping there. Those escaping weren't "stealing" land, they were moving to collective farms of Jews that BOUGHT the land from the previous owners. Sure they didn't buy ALL the land, but Jews weren't stealing them.

But as the 1929 Pogroms indicate, attacking the Jews in "Palestina" pre-dates Israel.

Israel didn't found it's state with Terrorism. It was granted permission to form by UN Decree, and permission to be settled by Mandate from the League of Nations.

Israel doesn't HAVE a Constitution. It has a Declaration of Independence, but you can't rewrite those. And Israel's is hardly religiously influenced considering that the closest religious reference allowed by the Zionists was "Rock of Israel" which was a bone to the Mizrachi Party. The only thing Israel has in it's Basic Laws is the Right of Return, but most Western societies allow descendants of citizens to become fast tracked to citizens. Since Israel considers itself the successor to the Second Jewish Commonwealth, it considers Jewish people to be the descendants of exiled Judeans, perfectly legitimate under Jewish law.

Is the United Kingdom not a Democracy because the Church of England, headed by the Monarch, is the official religion? Catholicism has special status in France, Italy, and several other European Democracies as the official state religion. Likewise, a Catholic "heir" to the British throne is skipped over in succession, as a Catholic cannot become Monarch because that would threaten the state religion.

Many of the United States has State religions in the early days of the US. The First Amendment was drafted to prevent a Federal State Religion and trample over the rights of each of the united States to have their own state religion. I wouldn't call revolutionary Massachusetts and Pennsylvania non-Democracies, would you.

The facts simply don't bear out your anti-Israel, anti-Semetic, and anti-Western diatribe.
1. Re:"Palestinians" Persecuted Jews as Well by saforrest · 2007-09-05 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  So, I'm not the AC you're replying to, but in the interests of clearing some things up.
  
  Jews have been living in "Palestine" since before it was renamed from Judea to Palestina.
  
  Very true... the Jewish presence in Israel/Palestine has been continuous since Biblical times. Nevertheless the fact that a minority Jewish presence has been continuously there is not in itself an argument for why there should be an official Jewish state there. There has been a minority Christian population since the Muslim conquest, and I think we can agree that anyone arguing for an established Christian state in Israel/Palestine would be crazy.
  
  The special claim of the Jews to Israel, over other groups, is because Israel was the original Jewish homeland. But this means supporting a claim to a "homeland" over centuries if not millenia.
  
  But as the 1929 Pogroms indicate, attacking the Jews in "Palestina" pre-dates Israel.
  
  I'm not sure how the fact that a pogrom occurred is an argument for a Jewish state. Should there have been a Jewish state in the Ukraine, since there were pogroms there? Or perhaps you just trying to argue that the Palestinians are bad people?
  
  In that case, it's a bit unfair to cite the pogrom without any historical context. There was significant Jewish emigration, mostly Ashkenazi, in the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries as the Zionist movement became popular in Europe and America. The arrival of these newcomers exacerbated tensions between the Jewish and Muslim communities, as arrivals of newcomers generally do. These doesn't justify pogroms or attacks on either side (and there were attacks from and against both) but it shows that the Muslims weren't uniquely the evildoers in this historical setting.
  
  When Jews were fleeing WWII to Palestine, local Arab riots and rebellions prevents Jews from escaping there. Those escaping weren't "stealing" land, they were moving to collective farms of Jews that BOUGHT the land from the previous owners. Sure they didn't buy ALL the land, but Jews weren't stealing them.
  
  Ahh, you've done some impressive mental gymnastics here in your effort to justify theft.
  
  "Sure they didn't buy ALL the land, but Jews weren't stealing them." Really? If I acquire something of yours without buying it, and you don't want me to have it, how is that not "stealing"?
  
  Israel didn't found it's state with Terrorism. It was granted permission to form by UN Decree, and permission to be settled by Mandate from the League of Nations.
  
  Oh, come on. Even Israeli academics would not be pushing this ridiculous BS. Of course, there was a peaceful movement for the establishment of Israel, but there was a violent and -- dare I say -- terroristic aspect to it as well, for which there is indisputable proof.
  
  The decrees came as a result of the context created by the Zionist movement in Israel, one aspect of which was violent. To argue that the decrees just came out of nowhere and are not a product of the previous Zionist struggle is actually an egregious insult to the name of the people who passionately believed in Zionism and fought for it. Are you going to tell me that Menachim Begin was not involved in the founding of Israel, because it came from a UN decree?
  
  The facts simply don't bear out your anti-Israel, anti-Semetic, and anti-Western diatribe.
  
  Had to go with the usual end-with-the-labels, huh? But I see "anti-Western" is added in there... rounds it out nicely, doesn't it? (The only saving grace is that I guess you haven't had too much experience tossing "anti-Semitic" around as a casual unjustified insult, since you can't spell it properly.)
I really think freedom of speech is dead by hesaigo999ca · 2007-09-05 00:26 · Score: 1

If we support Islams way of thinking, then we should in fact support any other cults thta feeel they have been misunderstood, or worse yet, taken for granted. I think we should raise more mosks for those cults that pray to their sun gods, and show them equality to all muslams....

In fact I think I am going to invent my own religion, pick and choose alot of things that
are going to be great, make up my own holidays(ovey! its good to be jewish) and set in some screwed up rituals to weed out the infidels.

Seriously, I think in this day and age of technology, you cant seriously still believe in burning bushes....theres is too much proof that are poor backwards way of controlling the masses still works today.

If a religion says death to anyone that doesnt believe, they should be the ones shot , end of story. I welcome choice and freewill, but not if it costs someone else theirs.

I put up with alot of religions, because it is their beliefs, but if one of those would not bat an eyelash at slicing my throat if they thought I was an unbeliever.....sh&t, let it rain fire!

Good Rashashan for anyone jewish out there....
Everyone else, have a great day
Re:Nooooo by derfy · 2007-09-05 00:28 · Score: 1

Why is this modded down? Parent has a reasonable point, did not insult anyone....oh wait. I just answered my own question.
Or F*** Intolerant Faith Based Idealogies by fuliginous · 2007-09-05 00:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Except my title would be too far beyond most of the religious folks ability to recognise a description of themselves.
Re: by thatskinnyguy · 2007-09-05 00:48 · Score: 1

Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick,

We hold the copyright on the "Delete Freakin' Everything(tm)" feature. Myspace has also added the "Oops we can't recover your data after being deleted" widget onto that.

As you can see, this is the second revision to the aforementioned software. Please cease and desist with your development with obvious clone packages.

Sincerely Yours,
Tom Anderson (((MySpace GOD)))

--
The game.
"Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Free Speech" by permaculture · 2007-09-05 00:53 · Score: 1

So, "Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Free Speech", eh?

We can't have that!

--
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
Id quit if banned by nurb432 · 2007-09-05 00:56 · Score: 1

Personally, id quit if it wasn't allowed to stay up.

Not that i really care about what the content is, but if they started restricting speech ( yes, its legal for them to do that, they are not the government.. ) id not want to be a customer of theirs.

Besides, if you are that much of a baby where a few words hurt you and your so-called religion, then you really need to re-evaluate your position.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Thank God by elrous0 · 2007-09-05 01:34 · Score: 5, Funny

Man, I hate it when people use free speech to say something I disagree with!

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:Thank God by ENIGMAwastaken · 2007-09-05 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Don't say that!
2. Re:Thank God by kalirion · 2007-09-05 03:26 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  There's such a thing as Terms of Service. Otherwise youtube would be full of porn by now.
3. Re:Thank God by silverkniveshotmail. · 2007-09-05 04:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  There's such a thing as Terms of Service. Otherwise youtube would be full of porn by now.
  
  and that would be terrible how?
4. Re:Thank God by Lurker2288 · 2007-09-05 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  You joke, but I notice that several of the above comments that might be construed as joking about Islam were posted by ACs. Makes you wonder what folks are afraid of.
5. Re:Thank God by Curtman · 2007-09-05 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Makes you wonder what folks are afraid of.
  
  Being recognized as a bigot maybe? Or maybe being mistaken as one based on a facetious remark?
6. Re:Thank God by CTachyon · 2007-09-06 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Otherwise youtube would be full of porn by now.
  and that would be terrible how?
  
  One word: goatse.cx
  
  --
  Range Voting: preference intensity matters
Bullshit article by Jerry+Beasters · 2007-09-05 01:36 · Score: 1

How exactly are advertisers being exposed to hate speech. The concept doesn't even make sense. How are banner ads or whatever exposing them?
Bad summary by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2007-09-05 01:54 · Score: 1

"F*ck Islam" by itself isn't hate speech. Is there something more to the group than that?

--
http://outcampaign.org/
A Choice They Made by some+old+guy · 2007-09-05 02:08 · Score: 1

Perhaps they value freedom of speech more than political correctness. Perish the thought!

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Or, put more succinctly by BendingSpoons · 2007-09-05 02:19 · Score: 1

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -H.L. Mencken

Or:
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone. All it accomplishes is (a) to throw a veil of sanctity about ideas that violate every intellectual decency, and (b) to make every theologian a sort of chartered libertine. No doubt it is mainly to blame for the appalling slowness with which really sound notions make their way in the world. The minute a new one is launched, in whatever field, some imbecile of a theologian is certain to fall upon it, seeking to put it down. The most effective way to defend it, of course, would be to fall upon the theologian, for the only really workable defense, in polemics as in war, is a vigorous offensive. But the convention that I have mentioned frowns upon that device as indecent, and so theologians continue their assault upon sense without much resistance, and the enlightenment is unpleasantly delayed. Unfortunately, the situation has deteriorated since Mencken's day. The above quote was printed in the Baltimore Evening Sun on Dec. 9, 1929. Can you imagine any of today's newspapers even suggesting that a man's religious views don't deserve our respect?

--
For all we know the moon may be as conscious as a poet or a realtor, and extremely weary of its monotonous round. - HLM
FaceBook Terms of Use by athloi · 2007-09-05 02:26 · Score: 1

FaceBook Terms of Use

Just so you can all read it.

upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

Reading the above, criticism of Islam seems valid. As much as I disagree with their message, I support their right to say it and am thankful to FaceBook for holding that line even in the face of public criticism.

--
technical writing / development
Too Bad About The Bunnies by Toad-san · 2007-09-05 02:32 · Score: 1

I never trusted those guys in funny hats either.
Fuck The Murdering IRA Bastards by pandrijeczko · 2007-09-05 03:16 · Score: 1

There you go, it's dead easy - as a (non-practising) Catholic by birth, I have just spoken out against the extremist members of my faith.
Now how about some of you Muslims out there do the same? Then just maybe we might all have a chance of getting on that little bit better.

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
1. Re:Fuck The Murdering IRA Bastards by pandrijeczko · 2007-09-05 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing, repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G, justifies the mindless killing of innocent people.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
What's the big deal? by blackjackshellac · 2007-09-05 03:25 · Score: 1

How about just adding a 'F**k Christianity' and a 'F**k Judaism' and 'F**k Buddhism' and all the rest of the iron age myths that are the root of so many of our problems.

--
Salut,
Jacques
Re:Nooooo by exi1ed0ne · 2007-09-05 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, there are reasonable restrictions to the freedom of speech.

The only sane restriction is whether or not the statement is true. For example, I shouldn't be able to tell people that you molest children, unless you do. For all other matters, such as for an opinion, there should be no restriction. For example, I believe all AC's smell funny - like grandma's basement.

We've decided that in a civilized society, some things are unacceptable to say, and certain restrictions about where said speech is said may apply.

Define "we" please? The major issue I have with speech restrictions is who decides what is acceptable speech. The group "we" doesn't exist other than as an imaginary peer group modeled after our own likes and dislikes.

Until no one cares what anyone says, these restrictions are necessary.

That won't ever happen. You don't have the right to not be offended, only to not read what offends you. No restrictions needed - just look away! It is possible to live how you want without forcing others to conform to your values at the same time.

--
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
as nofx would say by Aurisor · 2007-09-05 03:43 · Score: 1

"I hate hate haters"
You know by Kingrames · 2007-09-05 03:47 · Score: 1

The site the story links to doesn't censor the word Fuck, so why does the summary?

--
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Intext vs Context by jaywas · 2007-09-05 03:53 · Score: 1

Too many people quote things out of context for the purspose of pushing there own agendas. This is a perfect example. The verse mentioned (and severely mis-quoted btw) comes just after a verse talking about Pharoah and how he was destroyed for being an oppressor. You remember him? The same guy mentioned in the Bible, forcing people to call him a god and killing and enslaving those who refused? This is the "context" in which your mis-quoted verse refers to. After briefly mentioning Pharoah in the previous verse 54 it then says: "For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe." It is not simply a matter of disbelief. But it is the type of disbelief that leads to killing and oppressing people such as the case of Pharoah. In fact, the same logic can be applied to Muslims who do the same thing. If a Muslim kills or oppresses people simply because they are of a different religion then they are guilty of doing the very thing they claim to fight against. In sharp contrast to what you are trying to portray, here is what the Qur'aan says about general disbelief: "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things." (2:256) ...and "If it had been your Lord's will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?" (10:99)
Coming soon to a court near ye by matt+me · 2007-09-05 04:47 · Score: 1

Some joke about you quit facebook, court of law acquits you. I
**** the advertisers by Trillan · 2007-09-05 04:56 · Score: 1

Facebook used to be a place where you could choose how safe you wanted it. However, lately I've been getting a constant barrage of scam advertisements using semi-naked women that are completely unrelated to what's being advertised.

Example 1: Girl wearing skimpy black underwear. Caption beneath is "Earn $4,000-$5,000 a week from home!"
Unless the job is making sweet, sweet love to that girl, the picture has nothing to do with the ad.

Example 2: Girl getting out of a pool with a wet t-shirt. Caption beneath is "t-shirts by *" and the url of the company.
I know when I'm looking for t-shirts, the first thing I do is consider how it will look soaked and plastered against a nice rack.

That's just two examples. It's annoying enough that I set up a style sheet with a little css hack to block the ads. I'm not opposed to Facebook running ads, but I've long since grown out of hiding in the bushes reading someone else's discarded pr0n or the Sears catalog. Does Facebook really cater to 8 year olds looking for soft pr0n?
Re:Best way to fight Propaganda... by snsr · 2007-09-05 05:23 · Score: 1

"(It's not too hard to figure out where anti-islam propaganda is coming from...)" everywhere, dude. They're violent motherfuckers.
Re:Nooooo by Oktober+Sunset · 2007-09-05 08:57 · Score: 1

The only sane restriction is whether or not the statement is true. For example, I shouldn't be able to tell people that you molest children, unless you do. For all other matters, such as for an opinion, there should be no restriction. For example, I believe all AC's smell funny - like grandma's basement.
Pen and Teller express this point perfectly on the first episode of Bullshit, they can get sued for calling someone a liar or a fraud, but not for calling them a motherfucker or an asshole.

--
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
I created the Fuck Islam group. by variablast · 2007-09-05 13:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

My name is variable. I just joined this site after my facebook account was deleted (and I pathetically and trollfully had little to do). I wanted to say that I really don't support hate speech though I doubt I'd delete it as a system administrator. I was really sad to lose my facebook account. Anyway, my roommate started a group to request that I be reinstated on facebook. I doubt that the group will threaten to quit facebook if we don't get our way, but maybe they would consider letting me back on if jeff-cloud the author of that hate speech article joined. This is an open letter requesting that. I'm really not racist or filled with much hatred. I do dislike religion, sorry, that's the way the penny fell. Anyway, I'd really like back on, so join that group. Maybe we all could get along.
1. Re:I created the Fuck Islam group. by variablast · 2007-09-06 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  There's another one up. And some other administrator took over my old group. All that happened because of this controversy is I lost my account! http://unm.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5876916094
Orwellian by Skip666Kent · 2007-09-06 05:28 · Score: 1

I still can't believe how quickly these terms 'hate speech', 'hate crime' and so on have become accepted, even legally-binding terms in our English parlance.

What are such things but 'thought crimes'?

Of course there's an issue of how to cope with, in legal terms, ethnicity-based verbal or written harassment, defamation and so on which I don't deny, but these words creep into our vernacular, become 'normal' and then explode against us in unpredictable ways.

Oh well!

--
**>>BELCH
Re:Nooooo by z-vet · 2007-09-06 07:39 · Score: 1

Bit by bit they take your rights away, starts with free speech, then habeas corpus. You do know that next is the right to live. +1

--
326684
doesn't like my browser by lpq · 2007-09-06 07:47 · Score: 1

I'd visit Facecrap's website, but it doesn't like my browser (which is Firefox, FWIW, just the browser field says "lynx, braille edition"** (or similar). Stupid Facecrappers.

**-I don't normally give out my browser type to "strangers", and have a faint glimmer of hope for websites that respect the hint of focusing on *text*, rather than animated graphics (only ever found 1 website that
detects 'lynx' and is considerate enough cut the "fluff" and focus on the content, and now, embarrassingly enough, I can't remember which it is...darn "pointer-rot"....
A lesson in Progressive Morality by Loundry · 2007-09-06 08:44 · Score: 1

I'm curious how being against a religion is racist?

A very good question! You'll see that charge frequently from dhimmis and other such "progressive" Islamic apologists when they are faced with legitimate criticisms against the despicable religion of Islam. Everyone knows that Islam isn't a race (unless you account for Arab supremacy which is found among many Muslims, but that's a different discussion), so the charge of "racism" as a response to criticism against Islam seems illogical. Let's delve into the weird religion of "progressivism" so you understand where that retarded accusation comes from.

To "progressives", all of society's problems stem from discrimination. If you like someone more than someone else, or even disapprove of anything someone does, that's "discrimination". Likewise, if you decide to commit genocide against all Jews or enslave all black people, that's also "discrimination". Hence, all discrimination the same thing as genocide or slavery. It helps to think of discrimination as "sin" in the "progressive" religion. Therefore, all "racism" (the definition of that word is slippery, of course) is also tantamount to genocide or slavery. And everyone knows that genocide is what Hitler did (forget that Jew-bashing has become trendy among the more ultra-nuanced "progressives"), so discrimination = racism = Hitler. In other words, "progressive" morality is Godwin's law turned into an ideology.

So, if you don't like anything about Islam, then you're being discriminatory, you little Eichmann. (The fact that many Muslims have dark-colored skin helps the "Muslims are victims" meme.)

Here you're probably going to say, "But progressives discriminate against Faux News and Evangelical Christians, so what you say is bunk!" Hey buddy, back off. No one said it had to make sense! Do you see Christian Evangelicals explaining how Jesus can be fully god and fully man simultaneously? This isn't reason we're talking about here. It's religion!

--
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Facebook has reactivated the Fuck Islam group by newscloud · 2007-09-06 08:57 · Score: 1

Just fyi - today, Facebook reactivated the "Fuck Islam" group. The day this appeared on Slashdot, they had taken it down. It also turns out that Microsoft is the digital advertising provider for Facebook serving ads from Sprint, TMobile, Coca Cola et al. into the Fuck Islam group.
1. Re:Facebook has reactivated the Fuck Islam group by variablast · 2007-09-06 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  There are several Fuck Islam groups. I'm the one that created the first. They are not necessarily hate speech. I know the one that I made was not intended to be. Anyway, why is it that you are so out to silence others? What do you get out of your campaign against atheism?
2. Re:Facebook has reactivated the Fuck Islam group by variablast · 2007-09-06 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Or if it is not a campaign against atheism is it a campaign against disagreement? Are you aware that Islam is a religion and not a race or group? Islam like Christianity or Communism is just a belief system. Your irresponsible post got me kicked off facebook, and you haven't apologized. All you have done is try to censor others. Is it because you can't simply disagree or correct their mistakes? Is it because you don't have the knowledge or class to disprove what another person is saying? You presented misinformation about my group, and I was kicked off facebook, Jeff. You should join the group "Please reinstate variable's account" and apologize.
3. Re:Facebook has reactivated the Fuck Islam group by variablast · 2007-09-06 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  Nevermind Jeff. You don't need to join the group. You should still apologize, but I'm still on facebook. This is a good example of what can go wrong in censorship. The wrong people can be censored. Maybe it'd be nice not to see hate or nonsense or sadness or whatever it is you want to censor (I would censor public pot roast recipe readings because they are tedious), but the chance of you censoring a daimond in the rough (like Fuck Islam, or my other very apropos group Fuck Christianity) is just too high. Anyway, I'm sorry your oppression campaign didn't pan out.
Awwww YEAH! by variablast · 2007-09-06 15:37 · Score: 1

My facebook account was reinstated and all of my groups are in their proper place. Free speech - 1 Religious (or just generally uptight) censorship - 0
Re:Nooooo by tehcyder · 2007-09-06 21:08 · Score: 1

People should be able to express themselves no matter what.
Yes, but you do not have a right to insist that anyone in particular should publish your views. If I wrote a story featuring explicit gay porn and sent it to the Vatican newsletter I couldn't sensibly complain if they refused to publish it.
So, if MySpace's terms are that they don't want porn, hate speech or whatever on their site, it's up to them.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You're quick to attack and slow to respond. by variablast · 2007-09-08 09:00 · Score: 1

Why don't you address me personally, instead of calling to the administrators? If you think I've treated Muslims unfairly by insulting their religion you could ask me how I feel about it, or express that. Instead you try to silence me, and when I respond you are nowhere to be found. Come on, Newscloud, where'd you go? You are so quick to call for censorship, but you aren't willing to address the ideas put forth by the ones you want mute. I've given you several days to respond and apologize, and nothing is forthcoming. Do you not want to debate on here? Seeing as how you've called me racist it seems you ought to at least address me.
Racist accusations. by variablast · 2007-09-08 09:09 · Score: 1

My group, Fuck Islam is not racist. I oppose Islam if it shows up in the whitest of New Englanders or the most Hispanic of Arizona. I even oppose it on paper or online. I oppose an idea, popejeremy, and that is not a racial statement, particularly since I wish the best for Muslims. If you are going to call me racist you should at least talk to me and ask me my opinion on matters of race. I think it matters very little when it comes to potential and all the important human attributes. Skin color is unimportant. Opposing Islam is opposing something that goes deeper than skin, ideology. Because it is what is in a person's mind, not what he looks like that matters. That's why I say Fuck Islam, sir, and you should withdraw your accusations of racism immediately. BTW, in response to "Christians and Jews commit just as many terrorist acts" you mention Timothy McVeigh, whose terrorism was politically inspired. You don't mention the massacre at Virginia Tech, which was partially due to the religious beliefs of the Christian that enacted it. Fuck Christianity too, and fuck all religions not just because belief in an afterlife causes much unneeded suffering, but because they are so far off the mark when it comes to any matter of fact. Anyway, I started out responding to your accusations of racism, and I think I've shown my point of view. You can say that the Quran is a terrible text, and that Islam is a mistake without being racist.
Fuck Islam by Kurt+Wall · 2007-09-10 09:14 · Score: 1

Funny thing about so-called hate speech is that one person calls it "hate speech" but another calls is "free speech." So, fuck islam.