Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan Blocks YouTube
Multiple readers have written to tell us of news that Pakistan has ordered its ISPs to block access to YouTube "for containing blasphemous web content/movies." This follows increasing unrest in Pakistan over a Danish newspaper's reprinting of cartoons which depict Islam in a less-than-favorable light. The cartoons also sparked controversy when they were first published a few years ago.
Fuck you. Banning Youtube is stupid, but that doesn't mean that Islam itself is bad. There are lots of tolerant Muslim people out there.
Yeah, religion is evil. Just look at those religious wackos like Stalin and Brezhnev who killed millions and sent more to death camps or psychiatric hospitals just for reading the wrong books Oh wait, they were atheists. Well, I guess religion hasn't been the single greatest force for murder and oppression in the last century after all.
The statistics speak for themselves. Between the Soviet Union and China, many more died for Communism than because of religious violence.
By the way, have you considered that to wipe out religion, you'd have to engage in the same techniques of suppression of knowledge that you condemn? But it's all for the good of society, so it's OK, right? :rolleyes:
People do not like to admit it about genocide, but if you do it thoroughly, then it actually works, i.e. solves all problems relating to the unpleasant minority, once and for all. You know what is really ironic? That USians modded the parent +funny, whereas it really should be +insightful. Once you get it into your head that it is your Progress-given mission to bring some sovereign people into the 21-st century, genocide is an obvious answer. Bush would wipe Iraq clean if he could, a long time ago (he obviously does not give a shit about 1M Iraqis, almost all of them civilians, dieing due to war, why would he care about 25M?), but US is not powerful enough to do that with conventional weapons, nor does it have enough clout to get away with it.
How about, instead of "bringing Arabs democracy" and "liberating them from an archaic religion", you liberate them from economic oppression and let them decide what to do with their own oil? Switch to alternative energy sources, perhaps? Develop a defensive military strategy, which should work just fine, as you are on your own frigging continent? Just my 2 cents.
They knew perfectly well they had an off button on their TV. They were angry because they didn't have an off button connected to your TV.
rj
I'm leaning towards "the parents who do that do their children are ignorant and unthinking, and don't realize it's a practice that's consider barbaric - and is illegal - in more enlightened European countries" and "the commercial nature of the US healthcare system has lead to hospitals routinely carry out entirely unnecessary cosmetic surgery - even when it's harmful to the patient - because it's profitable".
Religious zealots have certainly managed to brainwash the US populace on this one, to convince them it's a "morally acceptable" practice, even a humorous thing to discuss if you've had your genitals mutilated. In reality, it's an outdated, entirely unnecessary, damaging and irreparable act of barbarism - IMO anyone carrying out this practice on children should be locked up (and, if a medical practitioner, have their license permanently revoked).
If grown adults want to have this procedure carried out on themselves then, apart from undergoing some counciling, they may as well be allowed to have it carried out by someone qualified. If indeed grown adults were left to make the decision for themselves, I think the percentage of people who would volunteer for this practice would be tiny and the industry around it would almost completely die out in the US (apart from within certain specific religious groups).
Fat chance of much change on that front happening in the US though.
Here in the UK it's illegal to carry out the practice, with a caveat: When it can be proven before a judge that a the child is likely to suffer as a result and both parents agree they want it carried out (e.g. if the child is Jewish or Muslim and likely to be teased, harassed or singled out by their cultural peers and so in some way negatively impacted as a result of the operation not being carried out) then it may be carried out (but Doctors or Surgeons are not obligated to carry it out, and may refuse to do it, that it's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath being a common citation as grounds for refusal).
While I can appreciate on the surface this is an attempt to reach some pragmatic accommodation, I think this is the wrong approach and the law needs to be changed here too. I don't see medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children's genitals as acceptable, full stop. It's systematic of the UK justice system though - in the eyes of the populace the government rarely deals with the perpetrators of crimes directly or appropriately - it's easier just to tell the rest of us to change our behaviors to fit in with however they have redefined the problem.
That number is not generally considered credible except by extreme leftists where the number benefits their agenda. Calculating deaths by polling is rather absurd.
Actually, we probably are powerful enough to level the main population centers indiscriminately with conventional weapons. I'm glad we haven't done so, though.
I would hope no-one has enough clout to get away with genocide.
Just because it might work doesn't mean the ends justify the means.
Because we had a defensive military strategy and we were still hit hard on 9/11, even though we're on our own friggin' continent.
It was all of them this time, unlike the first time the were printed. The cartoon in question was the "bomb in turban" drawing from the top of the original article. The were reprinted as a reaction to an alleged murder plot against the cartoonist.
I'm not sure what kind of reasoning will lead anyone to attempt to murder somebody for insinuating that their prophet inspire violent behavior. By doing so, they just prove the cartoonist right.