Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Arabia Objects To Proposed .gay gTLD, Among Others
Qedward writes "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has objected to a variety of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) ranging from .porn and .sexy to .wine and .bar and .bible, according to records of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The organisation said in June it had received 1930 applications for gTLD 'strings,' of which 911 came from North America and 675 from Europe. Saudi Arabia's Communication and Information Technology Commission, the IT and communications regulator, has objected to the .gay string and asked ICANN to refuse the application for the new gTLD. 'Many societies and cultures consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture, morality or religion,' CITC said. 'The creation of a gTLD string which promotes homosexuality will be offensive to these societies and cultures,' it added."
Interesting the .gay thing, considering how infamous Saudi Party Boys are...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
..At least its equal opportunity opression.
to their treatment of Jews and women, so they can kiss my ass.
Why don't the simply censor those domains? They already censor the hell of the internet anyway.
Especially public displays of bigotry in the name of some beard-in-the-sky...
So frankly, I didn't like the new gTLD proposals, except for this one because it pisses off the very public fundamentalists bigots who run Saudi Arabia...
I find religion contrary to my morality.
Saudi Arabia itself is offensive to me, I vote we ban .sa
Get over it already.
No? Then there is nothing to see here.
Or - at least I damn well hope that ICANN doesn't answer to Saudi Arabia.
im actually surprised by this its easier to block gTLDs then individual domains under .com/net/org etc. so its strange that they would refuse since it will make their life easer
.fuckyousaudiarabia
We've listened your objections and we don't care, go be part of the 15th century somewhere else and leave the internet to us residents of the 21st century.
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en
As an Anarcho-Syndiclist I object to organizations and companies so I respectful request that be remove the .org and .com TLDs.
Many societies and cultures consider censorship to be contrary to their culture, morality or religion.
The objection of a gTLD string would be offensive to these societies and cultures,
Just wait until I launch my new port site:
sex.mohammed.muslim
The .gay TLD will instantly make it apparent that the content is something they find offensive and they won't mistakenly go there. Seems like a win, unless of course the offensive material isn't what the problem actually is.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I'm continually amazed that people think that because something offends THEM, that they have the right to censor what other people can do/see/say/hear/view/etc. There are a few things that the world DOES agree on - such as kiddie porn and murder being bad - but beyond that, if you're offended then simply censor YOURSELF and don't visit those sites! If the whole country agrees (which I doubt!), then block it in your country.
If ICANN doesn't tell them to go take a flying leap, there should be rebellion.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Saudi Arabia refuses to allow for a .gay domain
People continue to put oil from that country in their cars.
Chick-Fil-A founder says he personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman
Gets boycotted.
sudo make me a sandwich
What they object to is the last 500 years of progress. This is a country that won't even let women drive and give free reign to a "religious police" that is allowed to beat people in public for violating rules of their official state religion.
What they really need is to be told over and over again to "Grow Up".
That is the reason US should control the ICANN.
I said before and I repeat again:
1. Yes! There is some 'bad' things in US govt.
2. NO! Serious...NO!!!! They are not as bad as the rest of world (YES, I lived in several countries before US)
When they ask to 'open' the ICANN to other countries they are telling:
'Hey, my religious-pedo-friends' are upset that 'some' 'kind' of people are not being stoned and that woman can drive cars.'
So 'we need more ''democracy'' at ICANN'
Again..
Leave it with US, it is the LESS evil.
...it would be for "control" of the Internet to be taken away from the evil Americans and given to the saintly UN where rational, tolerant governments such as that of Saudi Arabia have influence?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Saudi Arabia Objects To Proposed .gay gTLD, Among Others
I'm wonder if "Go fuck yourself, you and the mother-fucking camel you rode in on" loses its fine subtlety when translated to Arabic...
.webeheadsorcerers, .wehanggays, 'westoneadulterouswomen, .wefinanceterrorists
Yup! Those are pretty good.
www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
Saudi Arabia stands for tyrannic despotic dictators with no legitimate right to rule who enforce intolerance and oppression over a people who deserve far better. Take Saudi Arabia off the net NOW!!!!!!!
Where's the outrage? Those Saudis, are homophobic, bigoted, intolerant, hate filled mongers.... Perhaps Chicago and Kalifornia should refuse to allow Saudi petroleum products, into their cities.
This is why UN control of the Internet is such a terrific idea.
Saudi Arabia will get to police pornography and other "morality crimes." Let them police freedom of religion while we're at it.
Burma and North Korea will get to police political discourse,
and the United States will get to police "intellectual property."
The Internet will be a virtual paradise.
You would think they would be all for it because once it's in effect they can simply block by TLD. Right? Wrong.
With this request they are simply advertising to the world: "We are serious about remaining unintelligent, primitive bigots".
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...
(Posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log into sites from work)
The creation of a gTLD string which promotes homosexuality will be offensive to these societies and cultures
Tough. Deal with it. Some of us find societies and cultures who are homophobic and/or practice censorship to be offensive but we have to deal with your existence so you can deal with the existence of people on the other side of the planet who are gay.
I'm sure they didn't have a problem with .jihad, .arrangedmarriage13yrolds or .womenshouldnotdrive.
Wait 'til they hear about .pork
Really? Is .birdfucking ok but .gay isn't?
Do you suppose they also object to .koran, .quran , or whatever else might represent their scriptures?
Probably. This is about control, of course, and that's the game in most of the Middle East . Well, probably everywhere else too. Darn.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
They also like the .slavery, .nowomensrights, and the .infidel TLDs.
Seriously; I think some of the alternative energy things are barking up the wrong tree, but at this point, I would be willing to support any energy plan that gets us off these jerk's oil. I want to be liberated from Saudi Arabia and then bomb their fucking stuck-up, 15th century asses into the ground. The USA gives them latitude because we depend upon their oil, and all the while, they are the most restrictive country in the world. North Korea has more freedoms (if you're female), and yet the USA's focus is on every "bad" country except Saudi Arabia.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
If the Sauds want to regulate society, would these top-level domains make it easier for them to filter out objectionable material ala "Great Firewall?"
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
I mean, I know I am being bombastic, but really... who cares what they think. We don't need to change our ways or ideas because they are "offended." As a matter of fact the reason they want us to change... so they can enforce their views on the public. As a sovereign country they can do that even if it is distasteful to us. They don't have the right to extend that influence anywhere else because they aren't sovereign any where else.
Look at what Iran has just done. If they want to disconnect from the rest of the world they can do the same thing.
If I were running my own kingdom I would object to every new tld added not directly related to the partitioning of a new country.
I would seek all technical measures and pressures possible to ensure those who would use such TLDs would find them to be inaccessable to huge swaths of public thus significantly degrading their value.
ICANN deserves to rot in .hell for hurting the network for profit.
Fuck You.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
But if there's no .gay TLD, where will I put my new "Happy Thoughts" blog?
Yep. Surely this makes it far, far easier to block these sites at the ISP level.
Then again, maybe we're expecting politicians to understand technology.
No sig today...
The Internet is not required to bow to you or your beliefs. It exists for everyone, everywhere, and is ubiquitous enough that one organization crying foul does not and cannot force the entire system to bend over backwards to meet your desires. If you want to use the internet, use it. If something about it offends you so deeply that you can't stomach to see it continue, then don't use it. This is not another state run media channel that the Saudis can mold to fit their twisted ideas of morality.
Exactly my thought. Wouldn't this make it EASIER for them?
What are they bitching about? Its a boat load easier to block entire TL domains in their DNS servers than to block a gazillion .coms all over the world.
Sure the wise will change to some other DNS server, and they may have to block IPs, but so what? They already have that problem. I suspect they also block out of country dns servers.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
for a country full of catamites, I'm flumoxed at their feigned horror.
Aren't they rather antiquated? We don't need them - what about http://google?
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
If they don't like gay maybe they should just go fuck themselves.
There seems a lot of Islamophobia on the site today!
The system should have simply kept to the .org .edu .mil .gov and .com TLDs, plus the ones for countries where nations could do as they like.
In fact it was a bad idea having ANY tlds except for nations; it would have solved a lot of problems if Saudi Arabia applied its own rules to its own domain, and the US to its domain. Instead everyone wants a TLD to show how important their organisation is.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Do they think that the current internet is unable to host sites that 'promote homosexuality'?
On a side note, who here still thinks it's a good idea for the UN to be in charge of the internet?
I find religious TLD's offensive. My point is easy to see.
Religious TLD's make it so much easier to get to religious sites and that increases the risk of extremism with all the sad consequences.
Apart from that, sites about gawd are an insult to all the free thinking people in the world.
Remember the Spanish Inquisition? Should the internet be a platform for "those kind of people"?
Ok. Enough sarcasm.
Please believe what you want, as long as you don't bother me with it. But that doesn't go the other way around, as it seems.
If you don't like .xxx, don't go there. If you don't like .gay, don't go there. And hell if you don't like .gawd, don't go there either.
Privacy is terrorism.
Some freedom defender you are, trying to censor them just because they are a brutal and tyrannical despotic regime.
You sir, are the real bigot here, not them. Shame on you for not living up to your ideals.
Sorry, had to channel a right-wing pundit four a moment.
Mod -1: mod feels like an asshole today
They would object even .com domains if they could... not news!
With how many steps back their culture's taken in the last few decades, I'm surprised they still know about the Internet.
Fuck you. Don't go there.
Come on, this is ridiculous. This is the same kind of bullshit ultra-conservative religious people spout in the USA when they talk about naked people on TV. NEWS FLASH!! Turn the fucking channel and don't watch it. Or, even better, how about having a REAL conversation with your children explaining why you don't want them to view that material. Not just the reactionary one of "Don't look! Don't you ever look at that filth!" response because, guess what?, they're then 100 times more likely to go look at it. On the other hand, they might still look at it if you actually explained your reasoning behind not wanting them to watch it - you know, a real conversation with your children (because they actually understand a lot more than you want to believe - or do believe) and not just one of those "Because I said so" moments.
Sorry, that sort of degenerated into a rant. The basis still applies though ;-)
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Sorry, you assholes don't even allow women to learn to read. Fuck you right up your collective asses if you think the civilized world gives a shit what you think.
The problem is that it will be easier to block them, so now they won't have access to them.
The old "Women are for babies, boys are pleasure" attitude in the Islamic world is prevalent enough that I do not understand why they don't just come out of the closet?
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/06/22/afghanistan-thursday-night-is-boyz-night/
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Just saying there are cultures in the world that find the "values" (i.e. bigotry) of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contrary to their culture, morality or religion. This cultures would be deeply offended if ICANN decides not to add the domain simply due to the prejudice of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The only response this deserves is LOL, UMADBRO?
Regardless of my beliefs, this is a matter of classification. Going full-on ostrich mode and pretending that these things don't exist is futile. Restricting TLDs is not going to stop people from doing what they want, that's what beheadings are for. You can't outlaw something without first classifying it.
"Bother," said Pooh, as lightning knocked out hi%#&(F*@NO CARRIER
just .wtf ?!?
I (dot).Kill you!
Okay, someone will be offended by something at any given moment. But let's look at any of the rules in there. Do they have any verbage against curse words?
But then again... .sex is probably allowed and .gay could mean a lot of things...
Screw it. Let them eat hate for breakfast lunch and dinner.
Keep it out of my Internet.
Saudi view themselves as the leaders of the Islamic faith (sort of like if Italy took the lead on all things catholic that the pope said, good ideas or not).
To them the notion that some of these concepts could even be considered acceptable, anywhere, is outrageous, and true moral leadership is to object vigorously to all of it. They know they'll probably lose, and they probably want to lose (and I'm sure the US embassy was consulted in advance as to whether or not they had any chance of actually getting their opinions followed). But as the stewards of the islamic faith they must at all times appear to object to things contrary to the brand of islam they are promoting.
The idea that these behaviours (consumption of alcohol, sex for fun, homosexuality etc.) could be exposed to any of the islamic faith, especially their poorer brethren, who rely on the Kingdom for guidance and support on these issues, means they must show their leadership to the world and demand such unislamic activites be discouraged at all time. It would be equally terrible if a member of the Islamic faith outside of a Islamic society were to be corrupted by these ideas, especially as a young, impressionable boy or girl in the US or Europe, and the international community should at all times work to protect them from unislamic influences, everywhere.
It's stupid, they know it's stupid, you know it's stupid, but the poor illiterate bastard in Bangladesh or Afghanistan or Morocco or the like can get outraged over it and they don't know it's theatre for their benefit, the saudi's can claim to be defenders of the islamic faith (which wins them points with the literate crazies) and it's unlikely to go very far anyway, so no harm done.
Duly noted.
Subsequently, we refer you to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram
Have a lovely day.
- ICANN
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion. Obviously, this means a heavily pro-gay agenda. It has also manifested in an effort to respect all religions*, including Muslims, and not only tolerate their practices and beliefs in the US, but support and embrace them. Whenever someone comes out against perceived or real moral deficiencies of Islam, the left is ready to attack that person as a right-wing hater.
But Islam condemns homosexuality. It is not only a general disapproval of homosexuals on the level of the more hardline Christians, but homosexuality is even illegal, punished up to the death penalty, in most countries with a majority Muslim population. So, how does a person on the left, which branded Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance," reconcile this "respect everyone" attitude with this? The leftist mouthpieces would be up in arms right now if Pat Robertson was making this statement, but *crickets* since it's the Muslims.
* Except Christianity for some reason. You don't usually hear them saying we should respect the Christian religion, or attempt to glorify its past and promote its accomplishments. And, FTR, I despise both Falwell and Robertson.
It has something to do with the attitude that homosexuality is an insult to masculinity and men having sex with men being a different matter or something, can't get my head around very well either.
What do the Saudis have against being happy, in the Fred and Wilma Flinstone sort of way?
What do they have against a now-deceased friend of mine whose parents named her "Gay?"
What do they have against another friend of mine whose surname is "Gay"?
What about the Enola Gay? OK, maybe they are against nuclear weapons, but at least they should be up front about it.
There are a lot more gay people, places, and things, but time does not permit me to go into details right now.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The KSA didn't invent or build, nor do they own, the internet. If the KSA objects to the content on the internet, they are free to filter or restrict whatever they wish, in their own country. While the rest of the world is unlikely to have much interest in their objections, they are free to make as many objections as they wish.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
mod is an asshole everyday!
So what do you think will happen in the US if someone proposes a .negro gTLD?
For one thing, sites wouldn't be forced to use the new TLD so they would still need to worry about blocking individual .com sites. Secondly, giving an entire TLD to gays is validating/recognizing something that all religions consider a sin so that's why they object. And they have every right to object for their own reasons despite some people on here claiming that they don't. Remember, just because they object doesn't mean they will win. I'm unsure why people feel the need to give such special treatment to the gays to the extent of creating an entire TLD dedicated to them. Come on people. Why not also have .best (bestiality), .les, .trans (transgender), .whatevercombinationthey'llthinkofnext or are those considered to be arbitrarily bad and gay is considered arbitrarily good? When is this special treatment going to stop? And it *is* special treatment because they aren't proposing one called .hetero are they? Creating TLDs for the other topics mentioned is also stupid.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Going to try for that domain along with saudi.porn
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Yes, it would make it easier. So why do they still object? Because for many religious people (and not just them) it's not enough to live their own lives according to their own ideas - they could do that already and have no censorship of the internet at all. No, they want to meddle in other people's lives as well.
And then of course there is what many corrupt and morally bankrupt politicians do: they pander. Acting "against immorality" - no matter how pointless and ineffectual - conveys the impression that they actually care about their purported principles.
...and it *is* special treatment because they aren't proposing one called .hetero are they?
Dude, your post is so many kinds of awesome I had to pay my respects...
Yeah, there's no .hetero domain, you're exactly right. That's like saying, "well, I don't like the USA's Black History Month because there's no White History Month", when White History Month is EVERY FRIGGIN' MONTH OF THE YEAR!
...of a subject-specific TLD was so that it could be easily blocked. Don't want .xxx domains in your workplace? Filter any URL that uses it. Same here for those countries. It's not supposed to "promote" homosexuality, it's supposed to make it easier to identify.
the Japanese may know the difference between anime or manga and real life?
They don't, that's why they practice cosplay.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I don't know why everybody thinks this. They only provide about 10% of our oil. Our largest producer is Canada. We mainly support Saudi Arabia because the government is relatively friendly with us in an unstable region that is important to global stability.
Because "Saudi Party Boys" *sounds* like it might be the name of a gay porno flick.
"Bachi Boy parties" sounds like a children's-entertainment company specializing in hosting bocce ball birthday parties.
Oh, thanks to the recent military involvement in that part of the world, most Americans who watch the news are aware of "Bachi Boys" in Afghanistan and the political trouble American military and civilian personnel get into back home if they appear to endorse the sexual and quasi-sexual (e.g. erotic dancing) exploitation of under-18 males or tolerate it if they are in a position to stop it.
I will point out that there is a continuum between children dancing as a skill in a non-sexual way and dancing for the purposes of erotic arousal. You see the former in the United States in events like Ballet Folklorico, children's dance theaters, and similar programs for youth. However, some of the dances they do could, if done by an adult with a slight exaggeration of certain moves, be considered sexually provocative and would be more appropriate for a night club or other adults-only venue. While some "Bachi Boys" are clearly exploited outright as prostitutes, and others are exploited or at least "given an opportunity" to dance in a way that most Americans would call "Adult entertainment" I'm sure many of the youth and child dancers in that part of the world entertain in ways that are more akin to the dances that trained American children and youth do to entertain adults.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This is just an example of a very common mode of irrational thinking:
"This makes me feel squeamish, so I want it to stop. If we can make the expression of it stop, then people will just stop doing it, and will eventually nobody will ever do it."
It is clearly nonsense when expressed this way, but people who engage in this sort of thinking don't express it this way, they just act on their irrationality and try to control everyone around them.
The Vatican is the lead for things catholic you know being an actual country.
The reason the left doesn't stand up for Christianity is because Christianity in America doesn't NEED defense. It is the baseline normal for the majority of Americans. It is the default religion for every politician. Its teachings guide and define the social contract in America, to the exclusion of other belief systems.
The left believes in inclusion, you got that part right. The left wants Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Atheists and more to be included in the big party that the Christians have been throwing for 300 years in your country.
The left doesn't approve of Islam's condemnation of homosexuality. But there is no Muslim version of Jerry Falwell in America to be condemned by the left, because Muslims have no meaningful voice in American life. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, on the other hand, are major contributors to the American political and social agenda.
Of course, you know all this, and you're being intentionally obtuse with this argument. I only responded because I can't stand when people say stupid things on the internet.
Maybe we can convince the Saudis to take offense to the other new domains too. Then, maybe the spirit of cultural sensitivity can accomplish the scraping of a bone-headed plan which the voice of reason failed to do.
If you honestly can't understand the distinctions, you aren't trying very hard. Liberals, as a group, do not want to embrace "all religions except Christianity". The idea is respecting others, not adopting other beliefs or accepting all other cultural tenets, no matter how offensive. If you think that's what liberals are about, all you've done is adopt a demonized and ludicrous caricature of "liberals".
...'cause we Westerners are fantastically concerned with not offending people.
To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion.
Well, see, there's your problem - you've bought into the false image, perpetuated by the mass corporate media, that such labels actually apply to any reasonable sample size of the population.
The "Liberal Left" and "Conservative Right" do not exist. I know it's hard to believe, especially in the face of non-stop, 24-hour propaganda networks telling you that they do, but both labels are obvious fabrications, easily debunked by dropping one's preconceived notions and actually talking to other people. Do so, and you will find that almost every single person you meet, with the exception of the handful of psycho and sociopaths which exist in every society, harbors a mixture of both liberal and conservative ideologies. You've touched upon the idea yourself, in mentioning how some folks exhibit a penchant for tolerating one particular behavior (homosexuality), whilst shunning another (religion). A similar situation is how self-proclaimed "conservatives," which is to say they claim to believe in minimal government influence over private lives, will on the one hand protest against state-funded healthcare, whilst simultaneously insisting that the state determine which reproductive services a woman should have access to.
Put bluntly, political labels are bullshit, as we are all the exact same type of hypocrite, albeit variations on a theme. Labels only serve to divide, and those insisting such labels be used are doing so in order to turn us against one another for their own benefit.
Such individuals and organizations are not to be trusted.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It gets even better. I was at a "liberal" party with a friend of mine who was gay and worked for an AIDS advocacy organization. We were making party conversation with a woman when I noticed a dog walking down the street on a leash.
The woman made some comment about how it was cruel to leash dogs and how she was for animal rights. I made a comment about something I had read about monkey testing being critical for AIDS research.
She objected and said this was total cruelty. Needless to say my friend got really upset and asked her why humans that are HIV+ have less rights than animals -- was she really asking for a death sentence for millions of people to protect animals?
It was a laugh riot as far as I was concerned. You can always line up issue zealots from within the same political wing and exploit their issues for amusement.
Thanks.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
If the Saudis are opposed to it then it must be in everyone else in the whole word's best interest so they should put these in place as soon as possible.
Is a tasty chicken sandwich fungible like oil?
And it *is* special treatment because they aren't proposing one called .hetero are they?
"They" - by which I mean ICANN - aren't proposing anything; they're considering proposals from private individuals and companies. So if you feel that .hetero deserves a TLD, you're free to apply for it. There's no special treatment except in your mind.
Dilbert RSS feed
It has something to do with the attitude that homosexuality is an insult to masculinity and men having sex with men being a different matter or something, can't get my head around very well either.
Well, men having sex with men is radically different than men (over 18, but especially regarding men well over 21) having sex with boys (pre-adolescent, typically under 12 or 13).
Men having sex with teens or young adults (under 21-ish) with a large age gap ( >5 years for early-adolescents, >15 years for the young adult) is radically different than men having sex with teens or young adults that are within a few years in age or with men who are well past their 18th birthday.
Note to the clueless who might not agree (not you 0dugo0): The major difference is a difference in naivette/experience and the inherent difference in power that comes with such a difference in naivette/experence. Two equally-naive 12-year-olds "doing it" may be a mistake both will regret when and if they grow up and get into a long-term relationship with someone else, but neither one is expected to have the information and maturity to see into the future and say "woah, this is a bad idea."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Um, nevermind, it's too late for them to do that with a straight face.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Open-source name-server software is available. Run your own DNS that blackholes .sa. Nobody is stopping you. Well, nobody but your system or network administrator.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
giving an entire TLD to gays is validating/recognizing something that some religions consider a sin
FTFY.
And it *is* special treatment because they aren't proposing one called .hetero are they?
I was under the impression that "they" (ICANN?) aren't proposing anything. Instead they let others request the addition of these gTLDs. In which case, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from requesting a .hetero gTLD, is there?
.gay gTLD, then you may have a point. But until someone requests it and has that request denied, special treatment this ain't.
Now if ICANN then comes back and says "screw you", but accepts the
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
[...] but homosexuality is even illegal, punished up to the death penalty, in most countries with a majority Muslim population.
I think (hope) that most social left America would say that while every religion should be respected, mixing religion and state is terrible and must be avoided; and while Islam should be respected, no country (regardless of religion) should base its legal system in any religious text, be it the sermons in the Bible or Sharia law or whatever.
I agree that there's a lot of talk about accepting Islam and almost no talk about protecting Christianity, but you have to remember that Christianity is mostly accepted by default in American society, while there's a lot of stigma associated with being a Muslim in a lot of places.
.trans (transgender)
As a male to female transsexual, I would like this.
...and it *is* special treatment because they aren't proposing one called .hetero are they?
Dude, your post is so many kinds of awesome I had to pay my respects...
Yeah, there's no .hetero domain, you're exactly right. That's like saying, "well, I don't like the USA's Black History Month because there's no White History Month", when White History Month is EVERY FRIGGIN' MONTH OF THE YEAR!
Reminds me of a meme I saw once. Asking why there is woman's study and no men's study, the reply was there is, it's called History.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
I would but I've already posted in this thread.
Note: There would have to be exceptions for ".un" -type addresses for international government and NGO entities, .arpa -type addresses for technical TLDs, and a solution to the problem of multinational businesses and other entities that don't fall under the category of "international government" or "international NGO." For the latter, companies will probably have to register a domain that sounds like their name in every country in which they want to have one, much like they do today with .co.uk and .com (www.canon.com, www.canonusa.com, and www.canon.co.uk come to mind).
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That's like saying, "well, I don't like the USA's Black History Month because there's no White History Month", when White History Month is EVERY FRIGGIN' MONTH OF THE YEAR!
While it may be a borderline racist method of expressing one's distaste with such things, it is still a valid point. I mean, doesn't having months dedicated to black and women's history sort of go against the whole "race/gender shouldn't matter, we're all created equal" thing that we're supposed to be learning growing up?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
.fuckyousaudiarabia
I mean, literally, do you really want to do that?
Sorry, I'll stick with the human species, not political entities.
Besides, as big as I might like to think my manhood is, some nation-states are such big holes that it would be like having sex with the back end of an elephant, only with a bigger hole. This may be your cup of tea, but it's not mine.
If you are married, does having sex with a nation-state count as adultery?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion. Obviously, this means a heavily pro-gay agenda.
No, that's not correct. It is about equality; it is possible to promote a group people being fairly without also punishing another group.
It has also manifested in an effort to respect all religions
Not correct at all. First of all, it is entirely possible to respect a person without bowing down to their beliefs. Second, it is about ensuring that the government does not use its influence to promote any particular religion.
So, how does a person on the left, which branded Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance," reconcile this "respect everyone" attitude with this?
The above misunderstandings are the cause of your confusion. It is possible to allow a person to believe what they want without punishing them for their beliefs, and yet at the same time also not allow them to use the government to enforce laws based on there beliefs. Somebody thinks homosexuality is evil and should be illegal? I don't respect that belief, but I respect the person, and they're welcome to keep believing that. On the other hand, somebody wants to use the government to oppress homosexuals based on that belief? Nope, that's where the line is drawn. It's pretty clear.
Except Christianity for some reason. You don't usually hear them saying we should respect the Christian religion
That's because the vast majority of politicians in the US are Christian, and a significant number of them are fundamentalists who want to use the government to enforce laws based on their religion. That's why you see so much push back against them; it'd be the same if any other religious group had significant influence in the government.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
...object to the Saudis in general. Can I petition to get the gTLD of ".rag" rejected?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
The .gay TLD will instantly make it apparent that the content is something they find offensive and they won't mistakenly go there.
fred.oldtime.gay
wilma.oldtime.gay
OK, maybe if 1960s American prime-time animated television offends them, then yeah....
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
They certainly have a right to object, even though I may find the Saudi regime (and much of your comment) objectionable...
I do believe the *entire [alleged] point* of these new-fangled gTLDs was to provide for special interests / communities, so the old "why do the silly gays always want their own stuff" argument doesn't work very well here. Not that it actually works that well anyway, but here it's just stupid. "Damn footballers, they always want special treatment, why should they get their own tld? And why did they have to ruin a perfectly good word like 'football' by adopting it for a male-on-male close contact activity instead of people just being happy running around after a ball? etc."
Anyways, I'd rather see them all rejected. Who the f*ck needs .tennis or .shop, when we already have such excellent and well-regarded TLDs as .info and .biz?
I don't know if you realize this or not, but you have a few things wrong. One, the United States isn't 300 years old...so, uh yeah. Two, Islam doesn't exactly need defending either; Muslims outnumber Christians in the world, and while there are no real countried (the Vatican doesn't count) that are Christian theocracies, there are many Muslim ones, including many (like Saudi Arabia and Iran) that are quite influential due to petrochemical resources they control.
None of what you cited is a reason that the left doesn't defend Christianity. The reason that the left doesn't defend Christianity is simple: the right already does it. You cite Jerry Falwell...both a right-wing activist and a Christian evangelist. Pat Robertson...same, as you pointed out. Neither of them would agree that Christianity...in any nation..does not need defending, however. They are quite clear on that point.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
homosexuality is even illegal, punished up to the death penalty, in most countries with a majority Muslim population.
As recently as the 1960s, male-on-male sodomy was a felony in most if not all of America. It was a felony in some states as recently as 2003. Technically, it was a military crime until very recently.
In some parts 1600s Colonial America, homosexual sex warranted the death penalty. The same was true for bestiality.
By the way, if some hardline Christians had their way, homosexual behavior and a host of other legal sexual and reproductive activities would be considered felonies in the United States. Adultery, homosexuality, possession/creation/distribution of pornography, cross-dressing in public outside of a play or other performance or event like Mardi Gras, and the like would all return to the criminal status they had in decades past.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The idea that these behaviours (fun) could be exposed to any of the islamic faith, ...
FTFY.
(Check the rest of the stuff they object to – basically anything even remotely connected to anything that might give the slightest amount of enjoyment. *And*, they object to .baby based on a porn argument, which is somewhat ... worrisome. But, on the other hand, someone else objected to .ieee on the grounds that "we don't need another porn domain" (though, some IEEE members probably do look at porn, and most probably find technical manuals quite titillating, so maybe the objection was fair.))
Gay not too long ago used to mean happy. What's going to happen to all these termed TLDs when their meanings shift? Say .gay starts getting blocked everywhere and people are hush hush on the word. Cultures adjust and another word will take it's place. Does a new TLD get created and everything in .gay gets moved over? What if the new name already has a TLD?
Not to mention words have different meanings in different languages.
Do we need any more categories other than personal, business/organization, non-profit business/organization, and government? I don't think so, but I'm a nobody.
They are getting the same special treatment Christians are with .bible (which Saudi Arabia has also objected to).
Considering that applicants must put up a big chunk of cash and be prepared to run the root name servers and registry for the TLD, it's not really special treatment and all it validates is that someone put up a big wad of cash.
I don't see what the actual issue is. If their Mullahs do their job then no problems with the flock. They simply won't partake of those sights.
Lots of the arab countries do not want to be able to block things like porn or ".gay" material.
No, they do not want it to EXIST. At all. Not there, but not where you are either. So they are not OK with ANYONE having a .gay domain, because they fundamentally think it's wrong to allow this for anyone.
Think about this the next time proposals are made to have the U.N. control domains...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think it is best explained by clarifying a few points. It isn't typically pro-gay or pro-Muslim, it is against gay bashing or harming people based on their beliefs. If we lived in a 90% gay society that beat up breeders the same people would stick up for the poor heteros. In a Muslim society that stones Christians, they would preach tolerance of the gentle Jesus followers.
I think it is wrong when anyone hurts others based on race, creed, sex no matter what. The US happens to have more anti Muslim hate crimes so that is what tends to bother me locally, but if I lived in Egypt I'd be mortified by the anti Christian hate crimes. In the US it isn't necessary for me to stick up for Christianity because it is the dominant religion and has codified many of their beliefs in law.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Your post is right on target except for one aspect.
You and so many others claim "they know it's stupid". They know no such thing. They are deadly serious about eliminating things like this from the earth. They are not complaining with a wink about these domains existing, they are resisting whole-heartedly.
It's why Iran is going off the main grid and forming its own internet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Considering how ever sand niger raghead middle eastern person is gay as can be youd think they would all embrace it before they end their lives suicide bombing someplace and dying knowing they accept who they are. Them being ass fucking homo fags.
Doesnt matter if they are gay and from the middle east. They will all burn in hell for both once they die.
God hates towel heads and faggots so I bet they get it twice as bad.
So given I wont get in quickly enough to grab is.gay, should I opt for mohammedis.gay or saudisare.gay
or go straight for
bigotedmisogynistignorantsavagesare.gay and cover off several countries at once?
I'll make it a single page site, containing only the text
gay: adj. - Happy, joyful
It won't last much longer. When the oil runs out, or when we transition to an alternative energy source, they'll fade into insignificance and good fucking riddance. The sooner religion of all kinds is removed from humanity, the sooner we can get back to actually making progress without all the bullshit dragging us down like an anchor.
Being openly Christian in America carries a lot of stigma too. I'm Catholic and personally don't care if gays get married or women get abortions and take birth control. "Their morals, their decisions, their consequences," I always say. That doesn't stop my liberal friends from accusing me of being a close-minded simpleton every time I mention my faith, though.
It's ironic that people know people can hold conservative and liberal ideals at the same time but still assume that all Christians hold all Christian political ideals.
The poster in the blog you linked to is exactly correct: Afghanistan is hopeless, and we should pull out. However, in support of women's rights, perhaps we should provide safe passage to any women who want to get out of that hellhole and away from their male relatives.
I know. I see the BET network is just fine...but if you were to put up a WET network, the racist flag would come out waving so fast it would make your head spin. Why?
It has to do with political parties too I've seen...can you imagine the uproar that would have come out, if Romney or Ryan had made the "put ya'll back in chains too" comment that Biden did to a majority black audience he was speaking to? Amazing that Biden is getting a pass on that one.....just when you think he can't get his foot in his mouth any further....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
happy.gay is not allowed gay-cock-sucking-rim-jobbing-fisting-homo-gang-bang.com is fine
Ah right ... muslims show some more disgusting habits and of course a completely beside-the-point moral equivalence has to be brought up.
Why ? Islam has a number of completely disgusting parts, including rape of women, "honor" killing, paedophilia, slavery, ... but we are to ignore all that to be tolerant.
Just like the wikipedia page on islamic slavery first presents 5 boring passages about how limited slavery is (please, please only force black people and people perceived to be of other religions into slavery, and of course there's the "completely freely entered into" slavery as repayment of loans, gotta love how limited that is, right). And of course, the obligatory passages that muslim society was so extremely dysfunctional that governments often trusted slaves more than citizens (even today in Egypt the point is often made that a near-theocratic government trusts Christians more than muslims). Like the "famous position" of Jews in muslim Spain. Well, until their turn came and massacres started of course. Please not that that is but one of thousands of massacres against the local population by the muslims in Spain.
Then it mentions in passing that islamic slavery (not mentioning that it is unique in this):
* is the sole known slavery law that allows open sexual abuse of slaves
* there is some disagreement on what the minimum age is you can rape a woman. The range is starting at birth (Iranian or Shi'a islam), or 6 years, and whether that 6 years minimum applies to slaves is a matter of contention.
* is the sole known slavery law that allows killing slaves for fun, on a whim (which was historically done)
* is the sole known slavery law that allows open public torture of slaves, which was often done at muslim palaces
You may say, but that happened in America too, but you wouldn't really get the point. Sure, 200 years ago some Americans did this, while the police often wasn't looking. These laws, however, meant that in large parts of the middle east the police actively helped "owners" torture (often to death), kill and rape slaves.
Another very important point you're missing is that what a muslim is, well he's someone who's trying to recreate that situation today.
Considering the original meaning of the word gay was, "happy" they really don't need to be objectionable to it.
And really, it's the internet- of course it's going to be offensive.
Saudi Arabia can go fuck itself.
Nothing pisses me of more than idiots' casual linkage of bestiality and pedophilia to homosexuality and gender identity. There is nothing arbitrary about homosexuality=good, bestiality=bad. Sex needs consent. Having sex with something that cannot give consent is wrong, it is rape. Children and animals cannot consent. That makes it wrong. (It is also disgusting, but that is a cultural taboo. Taboos are not necessarily right or wrong.) Stop comparing homosexuality to bestiality.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
We would be fucking young boys, burning our women, fucking sheep and farm animals, drinking at home where nobody can see, beating our women, attacking anyone who who was different, never taking responsibility for our actions, burning books.... Thank Allah they are not a world power. Their backwards and narrow thinking is a threat to our freedom.
While some "Bachi Boys" are clearly exploited outright as prostitutes, and others are exploited or at least "given an opportunity" to dance in a way that most Americans would call "Adult entertainment"
And it makes it less homosexual if a guy just watches instead of sticking it in?
...we are doing something right! :)
Dear Saudis. You wouldn't even have electricity if it weren't for us. You don't get to make the rules about how the technology we invent gets put to use. Shove off.
the United States isn't 300 years old...so, uh yeah.
Yes, all the pilgrims were atheists until the instant the Constitution was signed.
Muslims outnumber Christians in the world
All the more reason to remember Thomas Jefferson's wall between church and state before Muslims outnumber Christians in the US.
If a .mac TLD was created, would the Saudis block that too?
Well it's not like the Bible is much better when it comes to the rights of women. Rape is allowed, as long as you pay the woman's father a fine and then marry her, slavery of women (even sexual slavery) is fine as well. Even murder is fine if you say she's a witch.
“The correct way to punctuate a sentence that states: "Of course it is none of my business, but -- " is to place a period after the word "but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.” -- Robert A. Heinlein
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Well I can see the point of children not being able to consent, but why do animals have to consent? They don't have to consent to anything else, including ritual slaughter. So why not allow people to have sex with them, if they feel so inclined? As long as the animal doesn't suffer, I don't see anything that should be forbidden, just as many other disgusting things aren't forbidden.
All countries hold elections, and I mean all. The difference between, say a typical Western democracy and say North Korea and Saudi Arabia is the size of the electorate, from almost the entire adult population being given the right to a handful of cronies, relatives, or top members of the politburo. China consequently is more democratic than North Korea since you can in theory work, or more likey, worm yourself up from the lower rungs of the party into a position where you can have a say in the selection of the party's next leaders.
... How about .happy?
Considering it's Saudi Arabia, they'd probably reject .fun
Is the fact that you can legally kill an animal a indication that bestiality should be okay or is it a sign that the human race can do better?
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Would the U.S. object to ".pedo" if it were proposed? How about ".nigger"? How about ".satan"? How about ".crime" or ".drugs"?
We all have our taboos.
Please note that I am in no way advocating Saudi values. I am adamantly against their treatment of Shiites, women, gays, adulterers, democrats etc. But you can still begin to relate with their point of view.
to think we bow to these guys for oil.. pathetic.. can we please attack them next? i'll lead the charge and run the oil company.
Acting "against immorality" - no matter how pointless and ineffectual - conveys the impression that they actually care about their purported principles.
Most of those politicians really /do/ care about those moral issues. It is how they frame themselves as the good guy. Hard to believe, unless you are actually heavily involved in religion -- at which point, you think "duh, they must be that way". I think the original Augustus Caesar is the canonical example.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
lol! Yes, the gays are oppressing the straights! Or perhaps you don't know what the F&S*K is going on. ICANN is considering proposals from others! Nah, it must be that the gays are oppressing the straights!!!! OUTRAGE!!!!
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Proliferation of TLDs: bad. Surely no techie not in the pay of ICANN disagrees with that.
Saudi Arabia: bad.
And so Saudi Arabia objecting to proliferation of TLDs: bad?
Folks, that's not how you win battles. When your enemies start shooting at each other, it's time to sit back and watch the show, not start unloading at one side.
What do you mean by censorship?
Black lists have been abused for /ever/. That is why they are often banned outright. The problem is that people do the most horrible things when they think they are on the right side of some moral cause. Gee, it took no time before political groups were on the Australian internet black-list.
The argument over internet regulation is not really about porn in schools and libraries. It is in the minds of some. But those people don't realise that they will never stop tenacious and curious children who will seek out areas of little adult supervision. What are you going to do? Put anti-porn surveillance behind the eyeballs of every child?
The defenders of internet neutrality raise very important points that cut to the core of the real workings of the internet. The defenders of "moral values" are living in a fantasy land.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
(Yes, I know that saying "%s is gay" as an insult is homophobic and inappropriate. But using it for a bunch of paranoid homophobes is a reasonable exception.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Yes, but an irrelevant country. The vatican has 800 people. Italy, 70 million.
I'm firmly "social left" by American yardstick, but I despise contemporary mainstream Islam with a passion for being the most bigoted major religion in the world today. Their treatment of gays is a part of that.
.. a top-level domain for happy people?
The point of .gay, would be so that you can track, log and filter requests for all .gay stuff. This allows you to throw people in jail, just because they visited a .gay site.
Can't wait to register saudiandghamora.gay.
When the oil runs out they still have money.
It's like saying when steel ceases to be the most important industrial commodity the US and the UK will suddenly fade into the history books. Right now it's not viable to do anything but extract oil, or oil related businesses in Saudi as a foundational industry. But now they have cash, and they can use cash to create an industry when something else becomes viable.
Poor countries having nothing with which to create a new industry. Saudi isn't like that. The royal family may squander or steal the money they do have, leaving the rest of the populace with nothing, but just as easily they could use the trillions of dollars they have to buy into whatever industry looks most profitable at the time, they could end up being the bankers of the middle east (abu dhabi kind of does this now) where they end up like London playing host to investment if not manufacturing monies, as this hub of financial transactions going from the developed world to the islamic or developing world for example.
Saudi arabia isn't all that big of a country, it's basically slightly more populous than the netherlands (18 vs 17 million), but has 8 million extra foreigners living there. When the oil dries up they'll turf out the foreigners, and be left with a strategically convenient location, whatever remains of the novel and hard to replace uses for oil (which might end up being very high value remember), they have guaranteed tourism as the home of one of the pillars of islam if they want it, and they have a pile of money with which they could buy up a car company, a semiconductor manufacturer and a stock exchange with a lot left over.
Since the 70's they've realized the oil will run out, and they've been experimenting (with varying success) at various industries since, so it's not like this a problem they are blindly ignoring. It's just really really hard to find something worth doing in Saudi that isn't extracting oil. Which is the same problem places like texas and alberta and norway face but not as badly, where you're competing with oil companies for labour, it's just not worth it.
Will they stop me from registering mmmmmmmm.bacon?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
hierarchy require - sorry but you only THINK you are Catholic.
You are free to think so, but the truth is you are not part of their church.
If you support them with money, attendance, etc, - then you are supporting their beleifs and have to own that.
ironic captcha:flunked
their tribe (150-300 people).
The rest - not so much.
Read some evolutionary psychology and neurology.
Waiting for you to name a Christian country where what you wrote is rule of law.
Do they object the names of other religions as well?
I'm left, and I say, I like Islam even less than I like Christianity. You don't know enough of us.
"'The creation of a gTLD string which promotes homosexuality will be offensive to these societies and cultures,' it added.""
I say "Fuck you"
Do we need to do better? Nearly all animals kill other animals in the course of their lives. Humans just try to make other humans feel bad about doing it.
> Sometimes, large segments of the people are not able to recognize what is good for them.
All too often. Your attitude is scary - the last thing I want is some official deciding what's good for me in contradiction to my own opinion. Or do you honestly believe that a) there is some objective standard of what's 'good for the people' distinct to what people themselves think and b) that officials are somehow more able to perceive what that is than the populace at large?
The reason we need government is because different groups of people have different preferences, and we need a mechanism to mediate between them - but that's a very very different thing to 'doing good to people who don't know what's good for them'. If I am to be coerced, I'd rather it be done on honest motives of someone's selfishness, or being outvoted, etc, than 'for my own good', thank you very much.
911 came from North America
Errr... it's not so simple as that. This isn't a company protesting this, it's a government. They have representation in the GAC ("government advisory committee") which gives them more leverage than most companies.
Need Mercedes parts ?
How does that have anything to due to whether ICANN is giving special treatment to gay people, like glitch23 was saying?
Dilbert RSS feed
Oh I know it won't be an overnight fade into insignificance, but it will put the brakes on everyone trying to butter them up.
The poster child for the long term future of medieval-era countries with modern ear cash through a natural resource that everyone wants is the city of Dubai. It's not a place you want to live in (especially if you're poor), have 'deviant' liberal ideas like women being equal to men, or as a service-level worker in the city.
It's starving itself to death after the financial crisis of 2008 and honestly, it can't die off quickly enough.
They have scrambled for something to drive their economy in the eventual absence of oil, but their religious laws, oppression of women and virtually-slave-labour underclass are a huge drag on that.
Yes, because so many of the "Christian" countries of the world actually have that written as law, just like the "Muslim" countries of the world do.
Oh, and let's just ignore that whole "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" business. I mean, that Jesus guy, what a hippie. EVERYBODY knows that the Old Testament is where it's at for Christians. Who cares about all that love and giving and kindness stuff from Christ, amiright? /sarc
You know, if you're going to make false equivalencies, the least you could do is refrain from making such stupid and sloppy ones.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Heh. Well, I think he gets a pass not just because of his political party, but because everybody pretty much knows about "Gaffes" Biden already
I swear, I get a huge kick out of far leftists claiming that "Tea Party" people want to assassinate the President. Putting aside the fact that comments like that are a form of political Libel, no Tea Party member would ever do that simply because if Obama dies, we get BIDEN as President! That's something NOBODY wants.
So, Props to Obama. He picked the PERFECT running mate.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Er... Vatican. Age of consent 12.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
>Yes, but an irrelevant country. The vatican has 800 people. Italy, 70 million.
800 people, and wealth (in money and property) estimated at over 50 billion U.S. dollars.
That makes them the richest per capita nation in the world on average.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
It's interesting how little of the current breeds of Christianity is based on the words of Jesus, and how much on the words of his students and church leaders. And how rarely all the 'love and giving and kindness' is followed by the 'righteous'. You very rarely hear a person quoting Jesus, while other authors are quoted in just about every conversation where something is claimed to be against the will of God.
Islam considers Jesus a prophet as well by the way. So anything he said also applies to them.
Rape is allowed, as long as you pay the woman's father a fine and then marry her...
Becoming impoverished and then getting stuck with the woman whose life you made miserable? Sounds like a fate worse than the death penalty.
The Vatican a country, yes right, next you'll tell me the pope actually has a brain...
Keep moving those goal-posts, AC! You've got them backed off so far now you have to squint to see them.
.there is enough of everything for everyone.
It will never occur to the cat that it doesn't need to kill the mouse. Vat-grown meat and vegetarianism has occurred to us. I feel that our intelligence and tool-making allows us choices.
Another take on your original question, which just occurred to me, is this: we are going to kill them and eat them. That is really awful for them, but some would argue it is a biological necessity for us to do so. They are going to die for us, so can't we do something for them, like spare them as much pain as possible?
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is contrary to my culture, morality and religion.
I object to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
I find Kings offensive and counter to my culture. Most societies and cultures consider Theocracies contrary to their culture, morality or religion. The ongoing existence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which promotes Theocracy and Kings will be offensive to these societies and cultures.
I therefore move that we reject the existence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and replace it with something that is not contrary to most societies and cultures.
'The creation of a gTLD string which promotes homosexuality will be offensive to these societies and cultures,' it added." .sheepfucking, however, would be acceptable.
Really, /. ? Just picking on Saudis? Read the above comments - vast majority are something like "ha ha camel jockeys" or "lol those sily talibans", racist generations, things like that...
You know, based on the comments in almost every middle-east related story, (although they are great engineers) most slash dotters apparently have no ability to filter out political-driven propaganda and news reports, unfortunately.
what if we move from connection oriented networking to data oriented like ccnx ?
Anyone else get the impression that all of these added vanity suffixes are just stepping back to the days of usenet binaries?
Only they will not tell you how disruptive internet is to them, while I do not even think Arab is a normal language or a language at all nor a language for computer use. But anyway, .gay is very CONVENIENT: take out all gay from my searches and content, let them expose themselves en masse. This is the sensible conclusion.
If you're practicing your religion in public, it's no different from practicing vodoo.
Casteism
The left sure doesn't speak up about it much. In fact, the left condemns those like Robertson for speaking out against various unsavory practices of Islamic countries, and beliefs of most Muslims.
The left lambasted a private company owner for stating his own religious opinion against gay marriage. However, Muslim imams call for imposition of Sharia law in this country, which means legal persecution of homosexuals, and nothing from the left. In fact, the left fights against efforts of the right to prevent the influence of Sharia law in this country.
Oh yeah, Falwell does so much contribution from the grave. Talk about saying stupid things on the Internet.
Islam considers Jesus a prophet as well by the way. So anything he said also applies to them.
Yes it does, but with a twist. Muslims do recognize Abraham and David and Moses and Jesus as prophets of their one and only god, but they don't recognize the bible as their original word. They believe that the current versions of bible and other holy books have been tampered with and rewritten by men for their own purposes (as opposed to the Muslim's own Koran which is absolutely and unequivocally the words of god.) This let's them feign respect for other religions' prophets while disregarding and ignoring and contradicting anything in their respective religions' belief systems that they don't like.
(From the ah-who-the-hell-cares department.)
Does vegetarianism imply that animals aren't killed in the production of those plants? How many insects will be killed to protect the crops? How many will be killed by the ploughing and harvesting?
Vegetarian lifestyle doesn't cause many fewer deaths then someone that eats meat every day. The difference is that it kills fewer cute furry mammals.
As for killing them with as little pain as possible, I agree with you. But it's interesting how some religions object to laws demanding that animals are sedated before slaughter, since it interferes with the rituals demanded by their faith.
And is the Bible their original word? Does even the bible claim to have been written by them? The Koran is at least supposed to have been written by the relevant prophet himself, so why is it so strange they give it more weight?
When is this special treatment going to stop?
When ICANN stops making money by coming up with a bunch of useless gTLDs that they can extort companies with.
Cue the moral equivalence idiots ...
There is technically no age of consent at all Vatican city. But sex is regulated to be within marriage only (obviously), and in extreme cases 2 people who don't differ more than 2 years in age can get special permission to marry at age 12 from the Pope. Nobody has gotten such permission in centuries, and even when it was granted it was done to create peace between 2 countries. So yes it is technically possible for 2 12 year olds to legally have sex in vatican city.
So your claim is technically right, yet a normal person's interpretation will lead to an incorrect conclusion : have you given any thought to a career in politics ? It is *NOT* possible for an adult to have sex with anyone under 16 in circumstances legal in Vatican city, and never without explicit permission of the girl given in front of a Vatican official, and preferably with permission from the parents of both parties.
Besides, it still doesn't stoop to islam's level. In islamic countries, age of constent 0 (zero), permission of the woman/girl/baby not required (only her father, unless the baby is a slave, in which case the owner). Needless to say, girls that get raped when they're only months old are physically damaged for life. The paedophile prophet himself raped a girl of 6 years (rape = sex without the agreement from the girl) after years of molesting her, with permission from her father extracted under threats. So that is actually "good" behavior for muslims.
Arabic bears the distinction of being the only language on this planet that has a specific verb for raping babies, generally transliterated to "thighing" (apparently it has something to do with how to hold a baby to rape it, though frankly I don't see how that is even mechanically possible).
Again, this is islam, this is what muslims are pushing.
sex is regulated to be within marriage only (obviously)
Obviously the regulation is just a facade. And that is only what has seen the light of the day. Do you honestly believe the hundreds of dress-clad men are sexually abstinent?
N.B. I have no problem with the rest of you comment.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. None shall enter the Kingdom but by me". I'm certain that Muslims don't believe that, so I'm relatively certain that they don't believe everything that He said, just bits and pieces like most Christians.
By the way, you can replace the word Christian(ity) with Muslim and Jesus with Mohammed in your first paragraph and get the same thing going the other way.
This doesn't work with Islam. Example: Some college campuses have interfaith worship areas where anybody can go to worship in their own way, when they choose. In cases, Muslims have taken to using those areas for their worship. During these times they will not allow women to use the main worship area because that is offensive to Muslims. The fact that this violates the religious rights of the women seems to be of no importance to liberals.
Not accommodating their beliefs is disrespectful to them.