Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan Lifts YouTube Ban For 3 Minutes, Finds More Blasphemy
On Saturday, Pakistan briefly lifted the months-old ban on YouTube, spurred by the widely distributed U.S.-made video presented as a trailer for a film titled "Innocence of Muslims" and decried in many places around the world as blasphemous toward Islam. "After months of criticism of the ban, the government decided to allow Pakistanis to have access to YouTube again, saying steps had been taken to ensure that offensive content would not be visible. But those efforts apparently failed, and the authorities quickly backtracked," writes the New York Times. "Quickly" is right: access to YouTube was apparently open for just three minutes, which seems about right; it shouldn't take longer than that to discover things on the site to which adherents of any particular religion might take umbrage. What's surprising is that this took lifting the censorship on a wide scale, rather than just taking a smaller peek through tunneling software.
I think you accidentally a word.
Even Pakistan has better broadband than we do.
[Sigh]
Have gnu, will travel.
I'm surprised it was up for a full 3 minutes. Let's just cut them off from the Internet completely since they are in the dark ages anyway.
Something needs to be done about these Governments. It seems that these religiously motivated governments are rampaging badly out of control. There needs to be a way to prevent this, and undermine the legitimacy of these governments. I don't know what to do, but this can't go on. The Internet is about the free exchange of ideas. Islamic governments around the world are like this.
The darn transistor is the root of all blasphemy. It should be banned from the nation-states of the faithful!
There are millions of people in these countries that support this. You will have to change their minds first.
Pakistan will be a basket case for as long as they let themselves be ruled by these fucking head-chopping savages. India was lucky to get rid of them in the 1940s.
I am sure officials took many a peek, I am sure they had some idea what they were unbanning. But 5 million people browsing for 3 minutes can uncover a lot more than 1 guy browsing for days.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I suspect that the average Pakistani thinks little of their government; thus anything the government blocks must be good and should be checked out. I suspect that the total amount of blasphemy watched is higher in the end as the population end runs any poorly implemented systems the same way Canadians end run the whole "This content not available in your region."
So you want to what? Invade and install puppet governments? Yeah, that really embodies the ideals of freedom and self-determination, doesn't it?
The governments in these countries exist because they have popular support. Very few governments exist without popular support from their people; usually, the only ones that don't are ones which have military and/or financial support from outside powers. For those without outside nations propping them up (like the Shah in Iran), they usually don't last very long, as the people get sick of things and overthrow that government and install their own (just as the Shah was overthrown and replaced with Iran's current theocratic government).
Keep that blasphemy going out. The nuttier religions need criticism, ridicule, and opposition. As soon as a religion gets temporal power, like the power to put people in jail, it's in the politics business. Leaders of such religions have to take all the heat politicians do.
If the only way to tame out of control religions is war, that's worse for everybody, including the leaders of the religions. Historically, leaders of militant religions don't do well when they lose a war. See most of European history prior to 1800 or so.
enacts its censorship roughly the same way i direct my gaze in the locker room at the gym. Although I say elderly instead of blashphemy.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The average Pakistani probably has no idea about any blasphemy on youtube, the people who are viewing the most blasphemy on youtube in pakistan are the people looking for it within the government so that they can block it.
portfolio
Many Muslim nations have a similar ideology.
The governments in these countries exist because they have popular support
Popular support is overrated. It does not make it ok for a government to deny citizens the rights that in my humble opinion and in the opinion of the signatories of the UN charter are universal. If 51% votes that the other 49% should be enslaved (as in the case of women in Islamic countries) or killed (as in the case of gays or Jews), that does not make it right or legal. Yes perhaps we (the civilized world) should in that case invade and protect the oppressed minorities.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
It's no the sensibilities of your god that worries me. It's the sensibilities of the primates that have appointed themselves as his/her/it's guardians and spokesmen.
If there really is a wise and loving god, he must surely be sitting there wondering firstly, why the fuck people are dying over cartoons and silly videos, and secondly, why he doesn't do something to stop it? It'd save use some hassle if he could ditch this vague communication through personally revealed and contradictory revelation to some yahoo in a cave. I remember back in the old days when, if God was pissed, he'd be personally smiting your arse. None of this vague tossing of tornadoes in to areas already known for naturally occurring tornadoes - with churches and brothels alike being smashed. Of course personal appearances would fuck with free will, while tornadoes and allowing nut jobs to run wild is free will for the poor victims. I'm not even sure how free will is any different whether the information is provided via divinely revealed texts, or a simple one-one-one communication with every single person? Either way, free will is impacted by external interference. I'm not even convinced that free will is necessary, if the angels who rebelled lived in Heaven and still had the free will to rebel. Fuck it. Tell us the deal and let us decided. Unless that happens, we'll continue to live on a ball of rock infested with people who hurt and confuse people by claiming to speak on behalf of a god that no-one seems to understand.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Yea, *tons* of people were watching that crappy video until it was censored....
Nobody saw or cared about that video until it was used as a scapegoat.
Why bother with Pakistan? You have people in the US that want to ban free speech or remove the right to protect yourself while their kids are well protected.
Sounds to me like they just run a more progressive liberal government than the US currently does. I'm sure their leadership has full access to You Tube but its not right for their people to have the same freedom. Just like in the US, the leaders have freedom of speech and armed guards, but you the lowely citizen have no need for such things and they are trying to correct it. Pakistan just doesn't have that pesky Constitution to deal with so they can do it easier.
FU sums my thought on it.
The "civilized world" has far fewer people than the rest of the world. Are you saying that your opinion on things is more valid than everyone else's? Who made you god? If the "civilized world" decided to invade every country where some minority was being oppressed (even if that means all females in that country), they'd end up having to kill most of humanity. How else are you going to enforce your new minority-protecting laws anyway? You'd have to have a policeman for every two people out there; that's clearly impractical, so the only way to enforce your laws is to kill all the oppressors, which probably means killing all men. Plus, what are you going to do in the many cases where the oppressed minorities are themselves oppressors of some other minority (e.g. oppressed Muslim groups themselves oppress the women in their ranks)? Finally, what are you going to do about all the oppressed minorities in the "civilized world" nations? These nations haven't cleaned their own houses yet; how can they tell others how to run theirs?
... I'm sure you idiots would mod down anybody who dared suggest that ALL muslims should live in muslim countries (all of which used to be NON-muslim before muslims took them by mass murder...). You brainwashed idiots.
Non-whites are destroying every white country on Earth. Who are these people? Why don't they want to live around their own kind?
Or they could stop claiming to speak on behalf of a God that they do not actually speak for.
God told us to kill the infidels! God told us homosexuality is evil! Bullshit. You decided that on your own, and you're sticking divinity on it for the power.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Several things are wrong with your post but let me just point out three things:
1) you do not have to be perfect in order to pass judgment on evil (otherwise evil will always get a free pass)
2) we may not be perfect but we don't have laws requiring a raped woman to provide 4 male witnesses or else whip her for adultery and we do not hang gay people off cranes in public squares, so there are degrees of perfection you may wish to explore
3) Not being able to right every wrong does not mean you should not right at least some wrongs
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Sure, and something should be done about Governments without a decent welfare and unregulated sales of firearms.
If so, he could hardly blame us for not believing in him, as he hasn't exactly left an abundance of evidence proving that he exists. Free will still exists, I frequently disobey almost everything I'm told, sometimes for no reason at all. I'm fairly sure if God proved himself and said "thou shalt sex for procreation only", I, and quite a lot of others, would go straight to hell.
You still haven't answered how you're going to enforce these laws. In a country where the laws require a raped woman to have 4 male witnesses, how do you think you're going to enforce your new Western laws? The locals will not stand for it, and will not help you. We have similar problems here in our inner cities where the minorities will never talk to the cops; it's basically anarchy in those places as a result. You can't have effective policing without help from the community unless you erect a totalitarian police state, and that requires enormous resources. And where are we going to get people to be police in all these countries that we now have to conquer? It's not like we're going to have tons of Westerners lining up to go live in Saudi Arabia and Iran and be policemen there, living among the locals, learning their language, and enforcing unpopular Western laws. This is the same problem every occupying power has: it takes a LOT of resources to occupy a country and force its people to the occupier's will. Or are you one of those morons who really believed the Iraqi people would greet the American invaders as liberators?
The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you don't seem to understand that things are like this in those countries because the people in those countries like it that way.
"Innocence of muslims" has to be one of the worst pieces of film I've ever watched. It was quite clearly created to insult and enrage muslims.
However I would suggest to the Pakistani authorities that if they REALLY want to stop their sensitive southerners from getting enraged at the west, perhaps they need to have a word to their american friends about those drone bombers. I figure if I was in a targetted village it would be the drones, not some silly infantile troll video, that would be my major beef.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Is God the only supernatural force capable of slinging tornadoes around?
Sometimes I wonder how many people believe in God without believing in the devil.
So, today we learned that it takes the Internet 3 minutes to offend.
My friends, I am ashamed. Three minutes? We must try harder!
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
While the majority of the Pakis are Muslims, the Pakistan population is *NOT* 100% Islamic.
There are Hindus and Christians living in Pakistan.
Just because something is viewed as "blaspheme" to _some_ of the Muslims that doesn't mean it is blasphemic to the Hindus or the Christians.
To ban Internet just because of the "Islamic blaspheme" is to exercise the "Tyranny of the Majority" rule.
Imagine if America set up a law banning open prayer due to "noise pollution" - that would certainly makes the lives of many Muslims that bit tougher, wouldn't it?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You still haven't answered how you're going to enforce these laws. In a country where the laws require a raped woman to have 4 male witnesses, how do you think you're going to enforce your new Western laws? The locals will not stand for it, and will not help you. We have similar problems here in our inner cities where the minorities will never talk to the cops; it's basically anarchy in those places as a result. You can't have effective policing without help from the community unless you erect a totalitarian police state, and that requires enormous resources. And where are we going to get people to be police in all these countries that we now have to conquer? It's not like we're going to have tons of Westerners lining up to go live in Saudi Arabia and Iran and be policemen there, living among the locals, learning their language, and enforcing unpopular Western laws. This is the same problem every occupying power has: it takes a LOT of resources to occupy a country and force its people to the occupier's will. Or are you one of those morons who really believed the Iraqi people would greet the American invaders as liberators?
The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you don't seem to understand that things are like this in those countries because the people in those countries like it that way.
I seriously doubt that the 50% of the population that's female really likes it.
If we could somehow reach THEM, things would change FAST.
"Oh, you really think you're going to go run around with the Taliban tonight, wearing a turban and shooting that AK47? You do that, you ain't getting any for a month! And shave that damned beard, too! It looks like you've grown a squirrel's tail on your chin!"
Women. They've got half the money and all the pussy.
The lift of the ban for 3 minutes on a global scale followed by a new global ban rather than first peek through the software is no surprise. Of course they took a peek through the firewalls first!
This looks much more a well planed statement as a botched trial.
The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you don't seem to understand that things are like this in those countries because the people in those countries like it that way.
The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you don't seem to understand that not ALL the people in those countries like it that way. And no, I am not one of the morons who through Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators but I am one of the morons who thinks that Iraqis will be much better off in the long run as a result of the invasion and that other countries in the region will be better off as well as a knock off effects of the invasion, already visible in the "Arab spring" and protests in Iran. Yes "those people" are really just like us, they like freedom too. People act in accordance with cultural memes of the their time and place not by rational thinking. 500 years ego in Europe you would have probably said that people like the iron rule of the Church and burning of witches and if you had a poll they would have probably voted that way too, and yet that was changed. And no I do not support invading country after country, but I do support rejection of the prevailing chickenshit cultural relativism in the Western countries and for standing up for better and more human ways of organizing a society. Islamic countries are a black hole in the modern world when it comes to basic human rights and we are not doing them any favors by saying that that's ok.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Go live in a cave!
It came to me in a dream; God spoke to me, she said "those that are offended should go live in a cave, ascetic lifestyle, ftw"
"But lord, are you saying they're righteous?" I countered
"Not at all," she replied "this way those who won't do as I wish won't screw it up for the rest of you living in the 21st century."
I know you don't believe me, but may God smite the earth and destroy it, RIGHT NOW, if I am wrong!
See? Nothing happened, therefore I am God's messenger!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
(insane Dark Ages barbaric rant deleted)
I sure hope that's satire.
Is there no such thing as equality, no such thing as natural rights?
And if that's not satire...
Pakistan has what? 10 nukes? Maybe a bit more? The US has what? TEN FUCKING THOUSAND?
Bring it, you FUCKING BARBARIANS
I've seen the Pakistani military in action. It's a fucking JOKE. Helo hangers on "naval" vessels are used as chicken coops. Illiterate Pakistani "techs" have to be taught that "magic" makes the radar work.
That the Pakistanis have nukes is more threatening to themselves. They're like a Thalidomide baby playing with a hand grenade.
The world would have been a better place if the near-war India and Pakistan had in late 2001 had happened, and India had cleaned out that cesspool with some blinding white flashes of their own.
You're really naive if you believe that shit.
For one thing, many women do like it this way. They're taught this shit from the time they're born, so a lot of them believe it. It's sorta like Stockholm Syndrome, except worse when you're taught that you're good for nothing besides making babies from the time you're old enough to talk.
And of those who are smart enough to realize it's all bullshit, what are they going to do? Women are smaller and weaker than men. If they refuse to let their men have sex with them, they're going to be beaten to a pulp or worse. We used to do that here in America too, and the police were complicit. In some areas (Arizona City), they still are.
Women have zero power in those regions of the world. Women only have the power they do here in the West because society at large allows them to have that power, thanks to laws and a society that believes (more or less) in gender equality and equal rights for all. It took us centuries to achieve this; you can't force societal values like this on another society by force, they have to evolve it themselves. We've been trying to push our values on many places in the world like this for decades, and it's only made things worse. Iran used to be a very progressive place, probably the most progressive in the entire Middle East. Then their democratically-elected leaders did something to piss off the US government (didn't want to give them the best prices on oil), so the CIA overthrew them and installed the Shah, who was a brutal dictator. So much for Western values of equality and justice, huh? Well the Iranians got pissed off at this, overthrew the Shah (which the US is still mad about), and installed a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. This is what happens when people react to outside interference: they become extremists. The exact same thing happened in Afghanistan, which also was a rather progressive place with pretty advanced women's rights (for the region, compared to now), until the Soviets invaded. The Islamic extremism in that region of the world is entirely the fault of the USA and the USSR.
I'm shocked there is blasphemy on this Institution! (Where are my winnings?)
Something needs to be done about these Governments. It seems that these religiously motivated governments are rampaging badly out of control. There needs to be a way to prevent this, and undermine the legitimacy of these governments. I don't know what to do, but this can't go on. The Internet is about the free exchange of ideas. Islamic governments around the world are like this.
Surely you aren't suggesting that Islam is the only religion that exerts an undesirable influence on government? Surely you grasp the fact that invoking any religion as the authority in law and government is, well..., stupid. Right?
Saying something like that would likely get her beaten and maybe even maimed/killed. It's hard for a woman to assert power in a culture where she is little more then property of her husband. I guess she could kill him while he slept, but unless she managed to coordinate her actions with all the other women in the village/city, that would still get her killed.
You didnt have a military.
You didn't have a national road network.
You didn't have free education, heathcare or things like that for ANYONE.
Hell, you didn't even have emergency services or telephones.
So go back to those bygone eras of no taxes and instead go to your draft office and sign up for your tour of duty in Afghanistan for no pay (there's no tax to pay for your salary and you're not working for your boss, so no payment for YOU).
"Oh, you really think you're going to go run around with the Taliban tonight, wearing a turban and shooting that AK47? You do that, you ain't getting any for a month! And shave that damned beard, too! It looks like you've grown a squirrel's tail on your chin!"
Women. They've got half the money and all the pussy.
They accept this because that's the way things work. Look at blacks in the Mormon church, and women who oppose the ordination of female clerics. Why do mothers participate in the mutilation of their daughters' genitals? These Uncle Toms are not commonly stepping outside of the roles they've accepted.
Chimps get a bad wrap. It's been downhill ever since Roddy McDowel started listening to Charlton Heston.
Heston ended up with a horse, a girl, a gun, an Oedipal complex and a paid position fronting for the NRA, and all we got was a war to mask 7 years of USGS surveys in the most God forsaken area of the Hindu Kush. Then, even with the most highly trained, best equipped military in the world, complete with satellites and drones, the U.S. military couldn't successfully fight a war on drugs there, let alone find Osama bin Laden without the help of his doctor.
Blashphemy is in the eye of the beholder.
Don't like blasphemy? Don't search for it.
You're welcome!
Only Allah could pass judgement and shut down YouTube in 3 minutes! Allahu Akhbar!
From experience (mostly Catholic and CoE) most would believe the devil exists. From that point it gets muddy because scripturally the devil is kind of vaguely described, and he makes no sense.
The notion that "the adversary" could challenge God is to imagine that Chevy Chase could in unarmed combat defeat and kill the entire US Marine Corps. Satan is a really strange character, with his role in Christianity being pretty inconsistent with the Jewish understanding. Although popular depictions aren't hard theology, they do hint at how people see these characters. God is the father, with a beard and living up in a cloudy place. Satan is a being, with horns and a tail, and he loves tempting good people and punishing the bad ones. Jesus was a blue-eyed bearded guy who was well groomed and dressed sharply. That's not far off the unsophisticated views that I've found common among Christians.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
The only part of your "they like freedom too" idea is that if you look, the governments these people have set up after Arab Spring are largely even more fundamentalist and anti-equal rights than the ones they replaced. So no, they don't like freedom, at least not for everyone. They simply set up governments which more accurately reflected the cultural mores of their people.
500 years ago in Europe, people did like the iron rule of the Church and the burning of witches. That was changed because the attitudes of European people changed over time, not because a bunch of invaders came and forced their own values on them. In fact, a bunch of invaders did come; they were called Moors, and they took over the Iberian peninsula for a while, but were eventually thrown out. Their culture and values were mostly not adopted by the locals.
No one's (at least I'm not) saying that Islamic countries' human rights records are OK. I'm disagreeing with the ridiculous notion that invading them, slaughtering them by the thousands, and then forcing puppet governments on them is going to somehow turn them into believers of Western values. We've been trying that for decades, and it hasn't worked. Iraq is still an extremely violent country right now, far worse than it was under Saddam (who again, the US installed into power).
"Innocence of muslims" has to be one of the worst pieces of film I've ever watched. It was quite clearly created to insult and enrage muslims.
However I would suggest to the Pakistani authorities that if they REALLY want to stop their sensitive southerners from getting enraged at the west, perhaps they need to have a word to their american friends about those drone bombers. I figure if I was in a targetted village it would be the drones, not some silly infantile troll video, that would be my major beef.
Bombing people is a Pakistani tradition. Especially if they're in hotels in India. Americans doing it is just joining in on the fun, isn't it?
Free will is generally used to explain why God doesn't protect children from rapists, not why He keeps His presence a secret. That is what faith is for. Faith is believing when there is no (or at least not sufficient) evidence. Of course, there is nothing inherently virtuous about faith...if someone chooses to believe (on faith) every con artist out to get his money, we don't consider that person virtuous. So why does God value faith so highly? That is where the "mysterious ways" justification comes in.
The bottom line is simple: a priest cannot give you compelling reasons to believe, nor can a priest explain why a divine and powerful being would abide such evil. So the priest must rely on these concepts to explain away the lack of compelling warrant for belief. But, any hypothesis that justifies its own lack of evidence remains a hypotheses with no evidence, and any model that explains why it makes no sense remains a model that makes no sense.
I agree that the civilised world ought to do something. Lets start with the USA, where the constitution of 7 or so states deny atheists the right to hold public office. Yes, I was surprised too but it's true...
... the pursuit of happiness". Sounds like a trivial thing, but in a way that little phrase states that each person is a goal unto him/herself. Few nations (or none at all) ever explicitly expressed a similar notion of individuality. Which I think should be included in the universal human rights, and extended to include not only the freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. Or rather: freefom from religious laws and prosecution. (Having a Christmas tree in front of city hall is fine)
On the flip side, it was the USA that came up with something as profound as "the right to
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Are you saying that your opinion on things is more valid than everyone else's?
Frankly? YES.
The ban this time wasn't because of more blasphemous videos... rather, after reading a couple random comments, they decided to ban YouTube on principle.
a victimless crime.
We were in the nick of time. You were in great blasphemy.
... I Bet you're gay.
I don't think I was.
You were, Sir Galahad, You were in terrible blasphemy.
Look, let me go back in there and face the blasphemy.
It's too blasphemous.
Look, it's my duty as a knight to try and sample as much blasphemy as I can.
No, no, we must find the Grail.
Oh, let me go and have a bit of blasphemy?
No. It's unhealthy.
No, I'm not.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Old enought to talk old enough to get kissed full on the lips because of being an adorable young girl.
Face it, young gurls are cute.
Just think of the word girl, it makes you happy.
Marry little girls.
Defeat the feminist global hegemony.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 (in hebrew)
God does not protect young girls from (pedophile) rape.
Girls were created for men.
Marry young girls
Without free will we'd be just little pre-programmed robots running about, and how uninteresting we'd be. Give us the ability to make our own decisions, now you've got something entertaining and worth watching.
I'm sure that all those other people believe the exact same thing about their own opinions. Nearly everyone thinks their opinions are more valid than everyone else's.
Well, historically, there is a lot of evilness to go around.
Kill them if they don't obey. That is the way it's done with non whipped men. American and western men are the toy dogs of women. Eastern glittle girls are the toys of eastern men. Which is good.
Iran during the Shah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfOY-gSMnm8
I think you might be confused, during the Shah the Iranian people and woman more importantly had many more rights than they do these days. Albeit the secret tortures going on in the background were not good. But you are wearing fucking blinders if you think the woman are more happy in that society today, if they could tear off those headscarves and wear short dresses they would rip the burka right off.
Once again go ahead and watch some Youtube videos of Iranian woman being hauled off by the secret islamic morality police.
Kind of pathetic to blame the U.S. for all their problems when that was like 30 years ago and say "This is what happens when people react to outside interference: they become extremists". WRONG! Sorry but the Iranian people have got their heads up their asses on this one and outside interference should not cause you to turn into a Jew hating Islamic extremist who votes in another dictator.
Take off the mittens and dish it out to the Iranians, do it all day long with other countries. Ahhhhh poor poor Iranians victimized by themselves.
Example: The recent Iranian leader they voted in, he implements changes to the constitution and the people start to revolt.
Ooooopps not what you voted for? Wait no... it's the USA's/Jews fault he tried to take away our constitutional rights. Idiot Iranian people don't even realize there is somebody pulling the strings on their leader. But no... blame USA.
As a free man, I derive enormous satisfaction from living with a free woman who stays with me because she chooses to do so.
By labelling a woman as "property" rather than "partner", you condemn yourself to never knowing such satisfaction. I wish I could say, "Your loss, asshole"--except it's your women who do the suffering.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
That wasn't a case of us pushing our values on another country. It was us sacrificing shared values in favor of perceived financial and political gain.
Go on, get!
Your statements regarding Jesus (al-Masih) run counter to what is written in the Quran.
I therefore name you liar, blasphemer, troll.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
To be fair it does appear the Pakistani government would actually rather have youtube unblocked. Sadly this may be more due to international pressure than due to liberals in government, or even the need to garner the support of the intellectual class (or at least mitigate the damage to their support). It seems to me that the church is behind the outrage, but how does a government go about reforming a church? I don't think it's even a government's role to do that. With such a large following and organisational power the church can be quite an enemy for any government. Although with events like bomb kills at least 19 Shiite pilgrims in Pakistan causing ill feeling between the Sunni and Shi'a communities and perhaps even fractions within the sunni community, any chance of enough people working together to seriously threaten the government is out of the window. Providing the people are sufficiently well fed, entertained and allowed to worship.
Although I'm no expert, I know little of Pakistan, governance or religion so what I just wrote could all be total and utter hogwash.
Once the movie is made, no extra harm is made or even potentially made by making more copies.
And paintings and other illustrations CAN BE ruled as porn and if of children therefore kiddie porn if it has no artistic merit, blah de blah blah or whatever the US law says on porn.
PS see Janet Jackson's nipple.
Oh, can't: it got taken down quickly.
PPS see Wikileaks.
Oh. Damn.
Ohhh - I just HATE that blue eyed white guy picture of Jesus. Granted that many slashdotters think that anyone who believes in God is a fool, I'll go one step further on the "fool" bit.
Jesus Christ was born a Jew. The Jews were a rather dark skinned people, with kinda wooly hair, dark eyes. They are related to Arabs. Both of those groups are a blend of African people, and Persians. You don't find blonde, blue eyed, pasty white people in abundance among any of those groups.
Any "Christian" who reads his Bible can find a description of Jesus in the Revelations.
Reading that description, you can almost see the late Colonel Omar Khadafy.
Anyone wanting a picture of Jesus can just hang a picture of the Colonel over their altar. All those drawings and paintings done by middle ages Englishmen and Frenchmen and Germans can be thrown in the garbage.
Of course, very few people apply even the least bit of logic to their religion.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Wow, yet another "crazy Mooslims" story. Meanwhile, the United States government has just re-upped warrantless wiretapping and indefinite military detention of Americans. And a recent document release shows the collusion between the banks and the highest levels of government in crushing the Occupy movement.
Meanwhile, both sides of the coin, I mean aisle, are thankful for the media/public fixation on the Sandy Hook shootings. Democrats, because focusing liberal rage on mass shootings distracts from FISA and the NDAA and cuts to Social Security onto the issue of gun control, which will go nowhere. Republicans, because it will get the NRA and the teabaggers all poutraged about "taking their guns away" rather than the Fascism of the combination of government and corporate power. But hey, I guess it's a change from threatening Iran with armageddon over the nuclear weapons program our own government admits they don't have.
But hey, lets forget about Bush's worldwide torture regime, forget about Obama's drone wars and violation of the War Powers Act, and focus on what those Crazy Mooslims are doing this week. Nevermind when those corrupt theocratic governments are to our left on fundamental civil liberties.
No, for the willfully obtuse, that's not saying that the U.S. == theocratic third would countries. It's saying we should not throw stones in fucking glass houses until we've taken steps to ensure our own shit does not stink. Stop the fucking shrieking about their molehills from on top your mountain.
Too bad then that he never said his candidate was Ron Paul or that he had a chance of being elected.
I don't know about that. I think having faith in someone you love is a virtuous thing. Even showing trust in a complete stranger is an admirable trait in my opinion. I am not a wealthy man by any means, but I think karma has been good to me. Life is a cold and ugly place for the cynical.
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
Nobody's fucking dying over cartoons and silly videos. They're pissed that their lands and people have been bombed for 10+ years, suffered a torture regime under the previous president, a civilian-slaughtering drone war under the current president, and watched as western governments have spent more than 50 years talking about supporting freedom and democracy while supporting dictators and overthrowing democratically elected governments.
Look at what the U.S. has spent the last ten years doing in the name of one day, and think about what your reaction would be if you suffered the population equivalent of a 911 every few weeks, either directly at the hands of the U.S. or as the result of instability brought by the U.S.
It's saying we should not throw stones in fucking glass houses until we've taken steps to ensure our own shit does not stink. Stop the fucking shrieking about their molehills from on top your mountain.
I wasn't quite with you, but at least reading with an open mind until I hit this part. Now, for someone who's apparently knowledgeable about civil liberties I'd have assumed you better at common sense logic than this. We shouldn't cite the censorship or other civil rights violations of other countries until the US has become a paragon of justice? So, you're advocating we censor ourselves too, now? I'm sorry. Fuck you. I'll "throw stones" at everyone's glass houses, even if my own is made of sugar. I can take criticism, I've got tough skin, I'm not afraid to bruise my ego, I change shit that I find wrong with me -- I don't need a house for protection. Think this through: Only the perfect can comment on the state of the world. Holy shit man, get real.
Now if you want to see more stories like the ones you've mentioned appear on Slashdot -- Then Submit Them You Fool!
Stop the fucking shrieking about their molehills from on top your mountain.
Shouts the flea from high on the mole's arse.
Child pornography is banned because it causes harm.
Not quite correct. There is nothing intrinsically harmful about the child pornography in and of itself. That is like saying that guns cause harm, when they do nothing to cause harm, but simply enable people to cause harm more efficiently.
Child pornography certainly is evidence of wrong doing, but banning it because it MIGHT cause harm is a slippery slope. Why not devote your efforts to catching those who produce it, rather than try to bust anyone who has it? While it is morally repugnant material, so is half the porn on the Internet.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
It's no the sensibilities of your god that worries me. It's the sensibilities of the primates that have appointed themselves as his/her/it's guardians and spokesmen.
Funny how the Christians conveniently forget that whole 'don't judge others' shit when it suits them, huh?
Christians can't live with em, can't nail them to a cross...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I picture this very similarly in my head.
Prior to the election, back when Romney was up in the polls, the 700 Club started a prayer campaign to "save our nation". They would pray each day until the election that God would save the USA and provide us with righteous leaders.
Suddenly, out of nowhere, a monster storm appeared and slammed into the east coast of the USA. In the aftermath, Obama won the election.
The odd thing is that the 700 Club people don't see that their prayer was answered.
Religious people, both Christian and Muslim, don't hear the voice or see the hand of God anymore. Politics have made them blind and deaf.
As a Pakistani, I can only find this hilarious, albeit morbidly so.
You see, all they have succeeded in making sure that *every* one knows how to use proxies.
You see, as long as people got their damn facebook and youtube, no one gave a flying hoot about anything else. We (including I myself) didn't know there was even a way to access websites banned by the PTA, and since we were *good* boys and girls, we didn't care about *bad* websites being closed, so we didn't bother finding out how we could access them.
Now, they can't access youtube, well guess what, people started asking, how can we access restricted websites? Answer: Proxies etc.
We are not bad people, right? We just want to access youtube to watch University lectures (pakistan's virtual university has a youtube channel with all their lectures online), how to stitch clothes (my mom's favourite, she learnt many a good cloth making designs on youtube) etc...
And while we are doing this to only access youtube now, well, a proxy opens the way to *all* websites.
Now even the websites they would *genuinely* want people to stop visiting (porn etc) are open to all. Guess what, my dear local mullah, you have only succeeded in making sure people now have the tools to visit the same evil websites you wanted to stop.
Yeah, all that, um, *effort*, that 15 year old kid did to find and collate a list of 780,000 porn websites for the govt to ban? The internet routes around obstructions, b'ch!
Not that the govt cares either way, they are busy making sure the bhutto dynasty can continue on... these are all attention diversion tactics, to hide the fact that I can't find gas for a week (btw, Gas means CNG in local context, Petrol is hardly ever used, though even *that* has run out! yeah our govt is awesome)
And it's not like *anyone* is pretending they are *not* using youtube; for example, TV channels often put their programs on youtube for people to view, and obviously they must be using proxies, since they haven't switched to other websites. They bald-faced-ly give links to the youtube version on their facebook page, for example.
But no one can dare admit that the youtube ban is a farce, or they will be part of the *blasphemous* campaign. Also, apparently, by Pakistan banning youtube, we have brought down Google to it's knees (I have seen actual *statistics* to that effect, don't ask me where they got their figures from), we are winning! We can't give up a step away from victory!
Vive la révolution islamique!
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
But but...
Jesus is the Son of God.
God is perfection.
Thus God is white, Jesus was half-white, and had a long reddish-blond mane, bright blue eyes, and freckles!
Don't trust the Jewish description of him. They had him killed. Likely were jealous of the hair.
Iranians got pissed off at this, overthrew the Shah (which the US is still mad about), and installed a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.
That's their fucking problem, not ours. They CHOSE to read the book of a pedophile, not us. They can suffer the very hell spawn pit they created...and like it!!!
Life is not for the lazy.
Denmark was bombed?
I do not believe in god....Reason
Occums Razor.....
I am from India and at a point of time we had more gods(330 Million) than our population and still we fucked it up. look at the law and order situation over there and the democratic situation also. If there was god and one of them looked after one person when India would have been a much better place to live in. I love my Country and I think you cannot have more freedom in any part of the world, I live in the Middle East so I know how it is over here. So if we are talking about Blasphemy Indians would do it knowingly or unknowingly everyday....in daily chores you do you would do somethings that would offend 10,000 gods and according to the hindu scriptures if you do it the god will bring its wrath upon you.
But yes i have my believe and in its simplicity is the most powerful ally I have against any threat.
It's saying we should not throw stones in fucking glass houses until we've taken steps to ensure our own shit does not stink.
Ok then, I'll take your advice.
Checking... no problems accessing youtube or the video in question. Our house is in order. Your point was... what exactly? That nobody should be able to criticize anybody else if they ever do anything "wrong"? Ok then, I can accept that, but it will require you to STFU or provide proof of your own perfection.
So you want to what? Invade and install puppet governments? Yeah, that really embodies the ideals of freedom and self-determination, doesn't it?
I dunno, you tell me- you're the only one who suggested that as a "solution".
The governments in these countries exist because they have popular support
Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Might want to check up on news results for Syria, I don't think support is nearly as popular as you think it is.
There is no Free Market.
Well said. The problem with Islam is there is no new testament. It is a barbaric tribal religion. The Taliban fundamentalists that operate from Pakistan are probably the worst. The weapon to use against them is to remove their daughters and women to a safe haven. Even though many of them are indoctrinated, it is utimately for their good. The Taliban will soon stop.
wikiislam.net will highlight how barbaric Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia Law can be. Quite authoritative. Warning - graphic content on some pages.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Duno where this three minutes story popup, it took almost three hours for one of the largest broadband provider (PTCL) to block youtube again. They unblocked it on Saturday around 15:00 pm and then blocked back @ 17:30 pm.
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
I don't know about that. I think having faith in someone you love is a virtuous thing. Even showing trust in a complete stranger is an admirable trait in my opinion. I am not a wealthy man by any means, but I think karma has been good to me. Life is a cold and ugly place for the cynical.
Trust should be based on the probability of claim(s) being valid and the risks associated with showing trust. I meet a guy in a bar, and he tells me that his wife is from Galway. I trust him, even though I've nothing to go on beyond his word on the matter. His claim is not extraordinary, and there's no obvious risk in accept it. Continuing our discussion, the stranger tells me that his wife is a rich princess, and that he needs plane fare to get back home. Of course he'll wire the money to me when he gets home, with a handsome reward on top - his wife is a fabulously rich princess! Would it be admirable to hand over the money? No, it'd be foolish. He's making an extraordinary claim which, if accepted at face value, is likely to result in my losing money to a con artist.
That's not be cynical. It's about weighing up the claims and the associated risks. A while back I loaned somewhere just south of 200 euro to a friend who was struggling financially, and had a wife and daughter to care for. Having known him on and off for 10 years, I trusted him and wanted to help. It transpired that I wasn't the only one loaning him money, and he was lying to me and others. In the end, he vanished leaving a trail of unpaid debts. Personally I'd have let him off the money if he'd just been honest, and I no-longer trust him at all. That hasn't stopped me loaning money to friends I trust, because I don't judge everyone by his actions. I am much more careful though in setting clear deadlines on when money is to be returned.
Life is a cold and ugly place for people who grant faith for no good reason. In reality there are few people cynical enough to have absolutely no faith in anyone or anything. Doesn't mean we're always good at weighing things up, but generally there is some kind of process. Christians will probably believe me if I say that I feel God's message of love inside of me, and that he wants me to go out in to the world to offer aid to the sick. Now how about if I tell them that Jesus told me I should ask good Christians to provide 10% of their salaries to support my efforts? I'm guessing that most would at that point withdraw their faith in me, and for good reason. That's healthy scepticism, triggered because accepting my initial claim carried no risk, while my second claim carries with it a great deal of risk. If a homeless guy asks me for money for food, do I give him money? Normally not. I prefer to offer to buy them something to eat, and if they accept, I return with the food. We chat a while, and if they seem pretty straight I may leave them some money. I do this because I see a lot of homeless people here, sitting around drinking anything vaguely alcoholic. I'd prefer to be certain that they've had a meal than give money to a stranger who could be investing it in their steady downwards spiral. Cynical? Maybe, but based on a fair bit of experience with the homeless.
Life is a cold and ugly place for people who grant faith for no good reason, and they'll hurt their friends and family when they make poor decisions.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
I must be slipping - I must get more blasphemous content on there so they find it even faster.
If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?
Read Genesis, there is no Satan in Genesis. There is only a serpent in the Garden.
While we're at it, there are two creation myths in Genesis and they contradict each other. You'd think if the book was divinely inspired it would at least be consistent. And don't even think about handing me that crap about how they don't contradict each other, Christian mind-numbing at its worst.
Just for giggles, when did Jesus say he'd return? Why within one generation of the time he died. Maybe he got delayed.
My own belief is that when Jesus does return, it will be with trumpets blaring, the clouds parting, and Jesus descending quite exquisitely. He goes about holding babies, saying kind things, shaking hands, "How are ya? Jesus Christ here". Then, Jesus looks at his watch and says that times is pressing, things to do, etc. The trumpets blare, Jesus ascends quite exquisitely, the clouds fold in. Ythbbia, ythbbia...That's all Folks!
I hate to break this news, but it turns out Jesus was actually Swedish, hence the blue eyes.
The tribal regions of Pakistan have sucked pretty much their whole history...mostly because of Islam. The Taliban in Afghanistan were no better, read up on the history a bit. After the Russians left, which the U.S. helped them with, they decided the people they couldn't stand the most were other Afghanis. They then used Al Qaeda as shock troops to clear out a village so their Pashtun tribesmen could have a bit more room to spread out. They got to feeling so good about themselves that even taking a poke at the U.S. seemed like a good idea.
>It's the sensibilities of the primates that have appointed themselves as his/her/it's guardians and spokesmen
This is bullshit. No Muslim scholar claims that law against blasphemy is to protect Allah. Law against blasphemy is implemented as a law given by Allah. It does not have to be justified within Islamic jurisprudence.
Religion != God. Protection of religion != protection of God. Get your basic linguistic straight.
Islamic jurisprudence is supposed to cover 5 aspects of human behavior: protection of religion, life, human dignity, property and family.
Your lol-talk (sensibilities of the primates) is quite a bizarre attitude towards this problem. What does have a taxonomical identification of humans has to do with this?
I congratulate you on bumping upon 4 other atheists morons who upvoted you.
Get a brain.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
These muslims all ended up in deserts and sand where no sane person would go. Ask yourself why. The answer is they were driven there by other races and faiths because they are lying cheating scumbags along with their relatives jews (who are more of a religious sect than a people). Muslims by the doctrine al-Taqqiya are allowed to lie: So You can't believe a thing they say. I wish they would just be men instead of the lying cowards they are, and fight it out with the jews once and for all instead of dragging all others into their mess.
I'm not quite certain if you're being facetious - but that is precisely the rationale that I hear from people affiliated with the Aryan Nation and the KKK.
Scary, isn't it?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Of course, very few people apply even the least bit of logic to their religion.
Apply to much logic to your god or your wife and you will have neither one.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Might want to check up on news results for Syria, I don't think support is nearly as popular as you think it is.
You obviously know nothing of the situation there. Syria's government does have popular support; they wouldn't exist otherwise. It's just not the whole population that supports them. Just like Iraq, there's different ethnic groups there, and they don't like each other very much. The groups allied with the government support that government, and are happily fighting the "rebels" to keep that government in power. The rebels are groups which don't like the government, and don't like those other ethnic groups. When you have different ethnic groups in a country that hate each other and struggle for power over each other, you get what we call a "civil war". We saw the same thing over and over in Iraq, and it's still going on there. In case you don't recall, Saddam was well-liked by his people (the Sunnis). He just wasn't liked by the other groups (Shias and Kurds) that his people oppressed.
I dunno, you tell me- you're the only one who suggested that as a "solution".
No, that's the standard US solution, and that's the solution you imply in your previous post where you say "something needs to be done". If you meant something else, then spell out exactly what your solution is.
Only if masturbation counted.
I wish people could embrace the simple concept of not looking at things that offend them. It's not hard; it's not like YouTube will randomly show you videos containing blasphemy just because it doesn't like you.
If people could merely choose to not look at that which offends them rather than bitch, censorship wouldn't happen. But somehow folks have this bizarre idea that just because something offends them, *no one else should see it either*. And that is where society goes wrong...
I have switched to VPN already. The ban is just BS, I can't contest it since I would get unwanted attention but it's hilarious how little they know about "internet stuff". I am glad they haven't discovered other websites yet. Oh wait, most website ban access to Pakistan already. You know what most webmasters should do? THEY SHOULD START banning Pakistan users. That will teach those Camel humping trolls.
Trust in at least this: the comment was absolutely facetious. Rolled a 20 on my Spurious Logic check.
:P ).
Agree though on the scary factor zealots cause, that's the reason for the added line about hair-envy: wishful thinking that I managed to push the comment past any hint of seriousness (realised the freckles weren't enough
Re: the nuttier religions :>)
.
Wait, why do you even propose any sort of consideration of ordering or partial ordering of any religions? Once something is in the class of "nutty", is it worth trying to determine which is nuttier than the other and which is more acceptable? (especially in the province of religion in general )
(
Example: he protestants broke off over dissent, the lutherans broke off over dissent, and all over indiana and illinois the lutherans split off into more and more ever finely granulated subdivisions of lutheranism based upon fine distinctions and interpretations... Is it worth trying to generate any sort of ordering of these sub-disciplines of lutheranism? especially since the statement of "I am righter than every other religion" can be applied to every religion. (I use lutherans as an example because of my family tree plus experience and grand-parental religion. These concepts probably equally apply to all religions and religious concepts)
.
It seems to be worthwhile to be socially conversant in the concepts and ideas of religions, but I have never (in my short life span) found it worthwhile to argue or debate someone about their or anyone else's relgious beliefs or ideas.
It's a skeleton with eyes. Not creepy at all.
Or you could learn something about different religions, and not project the theology of Christianity on every other religion.
If there really is a wise and loving god,
These are muslims, where in the quran or generally anywhere do you find allah is a loving god ? They use 99 arabic words to describe allah, one of them is "massacrer", none of them points to love. A dozen other of those names point out that allah often kills. The vast majority of those names point to power.
In general, yes, Christianity has a loving God. Islam has a god that is most often described as powerful (or "often merciful", which in my opinion does more to call attention to the implied "sometimes not merciful" part). Hinduism has a god (and "helper gods") that are best described as uncaring (like a volcano would be uncaring), ...
Frankly, reading historical materials it would be very easy to make a claim that God exists. After all he is present in many more historical sources than, say, Julius Caesar. Yet nobody doubts Julius Caesar's existence (for whom we really have about 5 historical sources, compared to thousands for God).
I think this sort of attitude is a result of the Christian attitude of first, having a bible that is internally consistent (and thus very, very hard to disprove), and then the church making just that challenge to scientists, who of course proceed to fail to disprove the Christian God. Of course, failing to disprove it, they change the rules of the game.
And of course, lots of proofs don't count. Nobody dreams of asking psychologists to carry the physics-grade burden of proof. Hell, not even Chemists are asked that. But of course theologists have to satisfy that standard : there has to be a trivial, personally replicatable, experiment that definitively proves the existence of God.
So anecdotes, no matter how many or from what source (e.g. sources that have proven extremely reliable on other points) are discarded. Observations that point out sudden interference in say, epidemics or wars or ... discarded as not-repeatable. Observations of situations that every theory we have should rapidly devolve into disaster, yet nothing happening, discarded : not-repeatable.
But most sciences that we have no problem believing don't satisfy that standard either. You could even make the argument that present-day physics doesn't satisfy the repeatability criterion : for the Higgs boson's existence we have 2 not-quite-independant observations on very similar equipment ... yet that's accepted beyond any doubt ? What if I want to verify for myself.
A big part of chemistry, specifically the modern chemistry that deals with nuclear phenomena and stability and properties of high numbered elements ... is essentially non-repeatable (because often they were lucky beyond belief to get a measurement in the first place). Nobody really doubts that.
And these are pure sciences. As far as applied science is concerned, the big development in the last 15 years is that not every system we have behaves entirely the way Newton predicted. Yes, the last 15 years, you read that correctly. Now we actually have one system in general use that was designed with relativity in mind (GPS, in case you're wondering). But buildings are designed based on principles that were originally written down before Rome was even a republic, and needless to say, they don't even agree with Newton (buildings are designed as interconnected springs on an immovable plate held in the aether with a perfectly constant force of gravity pointing straight down).
When it comes to getting halfway between exact science and humanities, we find medicine. You know what, by far, the best treatment is ? The placebo effect. The placebo effect cures between 30 and 50% of cases of any disease. There are few medicines that can make a claim like that for any specific disease, but for all of them ? What the fuck. The placebo effect is so strong that if you don't correct for it, you wouldn't even see the effect of real medication in the data. Think about that.
And then we have the place where theology is traditionally placed : the humanities. They have *zero* standard of proof, and have problematic observations. Sometimes psychologists do measure effects of certain treatments the way doctors do (although doctors merely get the statistics wrong, psychologists ... let's not go there), and they find that the human mind, over periods of mere decades, changes beyond recognition. Treatments that worked very well decades ago are completely ineffective today. Why ? Has the human mind changed in some way in the last 30 years ? I think not. Of course the doctors' answer is that they're effectively researching the placebo effect. Maybe.
And psychology is by far the science that uses the most act
No one's (at least I'm not) saying that Islamic countries' human rights records are OK. I'm disagreeing with the ridiculous notion that invading them, slaughtering them by the thousands, and then forcing puppet governments on them is going to somehow turn them into believers of Western values. We've been trying that for decades, and it hasn't worked. Iraq is still an extremely violent country right now, far worse than it was under Saddam (who again, the US installed into power).
I would argue that US hasn't really been trying, in Iraq and Afghanistan. It installed puppet governments, yes, but in local affairs those were given free reign, more or less, and e.g. Afghanistan is officially an Islamic republic now where any law that contradicts Sharia is automatically null and void - yes, it's right there in the constitution.
But there are successful examples of socio-cultural uplift through colonization. I would dare say that Philippines is one such for US. Another would be Russian colonization of Central Asia.
The Philippines were over a century ago. The world doesn't seem to look too kindly on that kind of colonization any more. Don't forget, the European powers tried colonization in Africa around the same timeframe, and it was a complete disaster, and most of Africa is still a complete mess because of it.
IMO, the best policy is to leave those places alone, to their own devices. Give them access to information from the outside world so they can learn the ways of developed countries if they want, give them access to a certain amount of fair trade, but that's it. If they want to change, they will.
The Philippines were over a century ago. The world doesn't seem to look too kindly on that kind of colonization any more.
Yes, and maybe that's a mistake (I'm not necessarily implying that it is - I honestly don't know).
Don't forget, the European powers tried colonization in Africa around the same timeframe, and it was a complete disaster, and most of Africa is still a complete mess because of it.
True enough. Though one can also argue that European powers did more exploitation than uplifting in Africa, and that was the inevitable result. Even there, there was a pretty wide spectrum, from the hell of Congo Free State to reasonably well-off countries such as Nigeria.
IMO, the best policy is to leave those places alone, to their own devices. Give them access to information from the outside world so they can learn the ways of developed countries if they want, give them access to a certain amount of fair trade, but that's it. If they want to change, they will.
The ethical dilemma still remains. You can't see those countries and nations strictly as singular, atomic entities: they consist of people. When a minority (even a large minority) is oppressed by a majority, they may want to change a great deal, but it isn't happening without outside intervention. Do you think we should have not intervened in Rwanda (and much earlier than we actually did)? Or, looking back at past history, was it really moral, the way European powers stood by and watched Turks massacre a million Armenians in extremely brutal ways?
I think there is a certain line, behind which it stops being their internal affair and becomes an affront to humanity as a whole. Your neighbor and his wife might argue, but the moment he strikes her, we call the cops and they take him away. Of course, we don't have cops on international arena, nor proper laws - but we do have some basics outlined in UNDHR and similar documents, and we do have international courts of law that rule on them, so it would seem that there is a logical extension of that idea to have an armed force to enforce those. I'm not talking about some kind of "democracy force" here - it would have to have support of countries like China and Russia to be effective, in any case - but something that could effectively intervene at least in cases like Rwanda or Sudan.
For non-genocidal but less oppressive countries, I agree with you that just going in and taking over is not going to work. Or rather it might - even if they hate you afterwards - but it would require many decades of occupation, running the country directly (no puppet government, no experiments with democracy etc), and lots and lots of money poured into education and infrastructure to bring the quality of living up, educate women and oppressed minorities, etc. No country in the world would be willing to go with such expenses. So, realistically, we can't do it.
What we can do is welcome any refuge from those oppressive nations to freer countries, and enforce one simple rule: no-one can be denied exit from their country, other than in a few narrow cases (convicted criminal, person with access to sensitive national security materials etc). So, international freedom of movement, so long as your country of destination is willing to take you on. And harsh sanctions against any country that does not comply with that. It still doesn't solve the problem entirely, since sometimes (as you have yourself noted), the oppressed are themselves the oppressors of someone else. And then, of course, they might not have the funds necessary for such a move - but there's no reason why we can't sponsor such immigrants, and it would be hell of a lot cheaper than trying to fix their countries.
The problem is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are very, very few examples (I honestly can't think of any, except maybe Japan and Germany post-WWII, and even there there was a lot of graft and profiteering going on) where interventionism was really a good thing. We citizens think lofty thought about how we should intercede and help out the underdog and make things fair, but it never actually works out that way. Sociopaths get in there and turn things to their advantage so they can profit, like with Halliburton, Blackwater, etc., and soldiers on the ground are seen as an enemy and violent conflict ensues with each side hating the other and committing atrocities, as always happens in a war. It's bad enough when your own people commit horrible acts to you, but to a tribal species like our, it's always seen as much, much worse when an outside group comes in and commits horrible acts. Notice how much bad press there is when a US Marine rapes an Okinawan girl; do other Okinawans or Japanese never commit child rape (or any rape)? Of course they do, it happens everywhere. But it doesn't make international news and create massive protests when it's one local raping another; they just send the police to deal with the problem and throw the rapist in jail (or worse in some locales). But when it's an outside force that's carrying guns, it's different. We've already had lots of problems with US soldiers committing atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq; that never earns the respect and admiration of a people.
I'm sure Gene Roddenberry thought a lot about this himself, and that's why he invented his fictional Prime Directive. Getting intimately involved with other groups of people, using force to make them follow your viewpoint, almost never works out well.
You even mention wife-beating. That rarely goes well too; ask any cop what he thinks about intervening in a domestic dispute, and he'll tell you he'd probably rather go up against heavily-armed gang members. Domestic disputes are a cop's worst nightmare, because there's rarely a clear-cut victim. You'd think a woman being beaten by some asshole husband is obviously the victim, yet you try to come to her aid and frequently she'll physically attack you, which is exactly what happens to cops who try to intercede in these situations. Or, at best, she'll refuse to press charges, because she "loves him", "he'll change", etc. When you intercede in another country's internal conflicts, the same dynamic happens most of the time: the "victims" will see you outsiders as a greater enemy than the other group they were fighting against. If some other nation tried invading the US, supposedly to free us Blue States from the tyranny of the Red States, do you think the Blue States would greet them as liberators? No, the country would quickly unite and fight the common enemy. If we ever get invaded by extraterrestrials (some which aren't too terribly powerful, so we actually have a chance of defeating them), we'd see humanity as a whole unite very quickly.
I do agree about welcoming refugees from oppressed regions. It can be argued, however, that that acts as a safety valve, preventing change from coming as quickly. Also, there's practical considerations; no developed nation can handle an influx of 100 million impoverished and unskilled foreigners, and too many outsiders coming in too fast creates big internal problems. Personally, I do think we should bring in more female (no male) refugees from Afghanistan though, since they're so poorly treated there and some of them really do want a better life, but just get acid thrown in their faces or shot for their efforts.