Slashdot Mirror
10-Year-Old Muslim Boy Probed For 'Terrorist House' Spelling Error (bbc.com)
AmiMoJo writes: A 10-year-old Muslim boy who mistakenly wrote that he lived in a "terrorist house" during an English lesson at school has been investigated by police. The pupil, who attends a primary school in Lancashire, meant to say he lived in a "terraced house." The boy was interviewed by Lancashire Police at his home the next day, and the family laptop was examined. The 2015 Counter Terrorism and Security Act means that teachers have been legally obliged to report any suspected extremist behavior to police since July. Miqdaad Versi, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, the UK's largest umbrella group for Islamic associations, said he was aware of dozens of cases similar to that of the schoolboy.
They should change the slogan to "Half-Story Clickbait to Bring the Foaming-at-the-Mouth People to the Site". Not catchy enough?
The kid's background doesn't come into it - if any kid had written that they live in a terrorist house, it would be checked out. This is not a case of profiling, no matter how much the Muslim Council of Britain tries, without actually saying so, that it was targeted at a Muslim.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Bullshit
I have no fear of Muslims, and I'm not one. I do have a fear of pretentious pseudo-artists who feel that whatever they slop on the wall should be immediately revered by all who see it, and feel that they should be immune from all criticism no matter how well deserved.
Even though the boy made a simple mistake, it won't take the great British press long to find some super tenuous connection to an act of terrorism and link him to it.
Summation 2
A man received the following text from his neighbor:
I am so sorry Bob. I've been riddled with guilt and I have to confess. I have been helping myself to your wife, day and night whenever you're not around. In fact, probably more than you. I do not get it at home, but that's no excuse. I can no longer live with the guilt and I hope you will accept my sincerest apology and with my promise that it won't ever happen again.
The man, anguished and betrayed, went into his bedroom, grabbed his gun, and without a word, shot his wife and killed her.
A few moments later, a second text came in:
Damn autocorrect! I meant "wifi, not "wife" . . . . .
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I live on a street called a 'Terrace' ... when I first moved here, and changed all of my magazine subscription addresses... one of them came next month addressed to "S.E. Terrorist"....
Now he has to meet the president and get an all expenses paid trip through school.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
But we aren't really, not any more than we were before mass media.
It's the constant news "telling" you what it is and how you should feel about it.
Stop consuming mass media, watch your fear level drop.
Try it.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I'm not much of one to sympathize with politicians but I'm pretty certain this is what we sound like to someone in office:
Terrorist attack...
Constituents: "Why didn't you stop all these people from dying? Do something to keep it from happening again."
Does something...
Constituents: "Why are you attacking the freedoms of all these innocent people? You are being racist and evil."
Terrorist attack...
Constituents: "Why didn't you stop all these people from dying? Do something to keep it from happening again."
Well, then he can submit to being stripped, probed and otherwise humiliated just like the rest of us.
If by "gunned down by maniacs" you mean some geek clicks a drop down and down mods bad art, then yes, that's criticism.
I noticed some link a friend had posted with a news parody site with the headline "Schoolboy anxiously spellchecks homework after writing about the iris in his garden".
When I was a little kid I wrote "When I grow up I want to be a scientist and work in a lavatory". I did grow up to be a scientist but, fortunately, I work in a laboratory.
first, this wouldn't have been news if the 10 year old had ratted out his father for cooking meth. It was news because of the terrorist plus muslim terms being applied. all that said, whilst I agree that we are all becoming wimps, the risk adverse public folks (school, police) would rather be 'safe than sorry,' given that they'd be unemployable if they had info and didn't follow up. last, this does seem like a reprise of clock boy 2.0. Sniffs as far too convenient.
If not for the subject line, I might have bought that.
It's a sad commentary on society when:
A) We assume it's natural for police to stop by after a kid's spelling mistake. (My 9 year old makes similar mistakes all the time.)
and
B) My first instinct was to praise the department for the "measured" response of not hauling the kid into the station in handcuffs, interrogating him for hours without his parents, and then (when they realize the deep trouble they're in) leaking a story that the kid/family is secretly evil in some way.
This boiling water is feeling much more comfortable. Ribbit!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Terraced and terrorist don't sound that much alike, unless you pronounce them kinda like George W. Bush, perhaps. Now here's the thing you're missing. What if the kid's father really is a terrorist and the kid is scared out of his mind about what his dad and friends are up to? At 10, any school kid should know what the word "terrorist" looks on paper and sounds like when spoken if they live in the English-speaking world. It's right up there with the word "pedophile" with only deaf people who've been living in caves their whole lives having an excuse to say "what does that word mean?"
Terriorist attack imminent.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Here's how you "investigate" the problem. Here's how teachers would have "investigated" things before laws saying that anyone saying something slightly wrong had to be reported to the police.
Teacher: What do you mean by "terrorist" in this sentence?
Boy: Well, the houses are joined together in both sides.
Teacher: Are you sure you're using the right word?
Boy: Um well I'm not sure how to spell it but I thought that was it, I heard it yesterday.
Teacher: Yesterday we used [these words], was it any of these?
Boy: Ohhh! it was "terraced".
Here's how teachers are expected to behave now:
Teacher: A likely spelling error! I MUST CALL THE POLICE OR I CAN GO TO JAIL!
I would not have children in the UK today. I'm terrified by this environment. My father was brought up in a dictatorship, and taught in a school under that same dictatorship, and not even he was supposed to monitor kids like this.
The Christian bible is just as bad ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
... liies a smolderiin' [moulderin'] in the ground.
When I was young, I thought the lyric was "smolderin'," and I wondered what John Brown did to make so many people happy that he was smoldering in hell.
Of course the song laments the death of John Brown and the the lyric is "moulderin'."
Kids use the words they hear most often.
Unfortunately, "terrorist" is a much more common word than "terraced."
While it might initially look that way, I think that this exposes two problems, the first is the kid's fault and the second is the schools. The first problem is with people who use automated spellchecking and do not proof read what they wrote before committing it as a final work. The second is that it shows it is probably a mistake to assume that anything that is output from a computer which might looks peculiar is necessarily anything that resembles what the person that allegedly wrote it actually meant to say. Society is already adapting in this respect to text messaging, because of how outlandishly bad autocorrect goofups can be, but we haven't really similarly adapted to such spellchecking corrections on home computers or laptops.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It could just as easily have been a slip in saying something he shouldn't as a misspelling.
No, sadly, the brownshirts of today are the SJW's who would happily abolish basic freedoms like free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion in favor of enforcing their own ideology by force of law. And they're not in waiting. They're already here.
And I say that as a former liberal who is no longer welcome in the movement due to my belief in the freedom of expression above all.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraced_house
Do we really think that terrorists call themselves terrorists at home and in front of their kids?
Its not merely whether the parents utter the word "terrorist". Its also whether the kid sees items *he* associates with terrorism in his mind. What might a child who saw the AK-47 in the house of a Paris attacker think? What might a child who say the pipe bombs in the house of the San Bernardino attackers think?
One does not know what put the word "terrorist" into the kid's mind. One has to investigate. And who in our society are trained investigators for possible criminal acts? He was **interviewed** at home the next day and a laptop examined?
If it were an Irish family the same thing would have occurred.
... that teachers apparently feel they are required to report obvious spelling errors and that the police feel they are worth investigating ...
How is it an obvious spelling error rather than motivated by a kid seeing things around the house he associates with terrorism? How might a 10 year old describe a house of one of the Paris attackers where an AK-47 may have been seen, or the San Bernardino attackers were a pipe bomb may have been seen? In our society the police are the trained investigators of possible criminal acts, not teachers.
Shouldn't searching the family laptop require some kind of check
You assume the owner did not grant permission. The police can ask, the owner can say yes.
I really doubt the probability of unfortunate spelling errors being reported to the police is the same for a nice 99% white school in rural Hampshire as for a 99% Muslim school in Birmingham.
If he were an Irish kid the family would have been investigated, especially in years where the IRA was actively attacking people.
It's full of assholes like you who conflate the actions of a microscopic minority with the majority.
I might suggest that it would be a very a poor reflection of your character that such an observation might genuinely influence your judgement.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
They believe the Koran is good, but most Muslims disagree with the idea of torturing or killing people. They might "understand" a non-literal interpretation, they might rationalize that it only applies in a narrow historical context, they might just be ignorant of the actual passages in in. JUST LIKE CHRISTIANS, they believe what they want to believe anyway; which for most ends up being a cherry-picked, metaphorical, has-to-be-understood-in-context "understanding" that their holy text is all about peace and brotherhood.
If the self-identified Muslims want to believe that God expects them to be peaceful and loving, why the hell would you want to tell them they're wrong?
Home Made Clock?
THAT would have been a whole different story.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Instead of just mindlessly name calling, why dont you actually address my points with an intelligent counterargument?
Compare the number of Christians who fast during lent with the number of Muslims who fast during Ramadan, and you'll understand why the Quran is a much bigger problem than the Bible.
For protecting us from these dangerous spelling errors and ensuring fat paychecks for the private swat teams, security services, and cheesy gadget manufacturers who rely on your steadfast gaurd to line their pockets.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
And I say that as a former liberal who is no longer welcome in the movement due to my belief in the freedom of expression above all.
Do you believe that I should free to legally say "I will pay $1,000,000 to whoever murders $PERSON"? Note: I've got no intention of paying up, so it's speech only.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Because the short reply pretty well covered it? As did some others, but lets try again:
The Bible establishes the fundamental tenets of Christianity. No christian will disagree with the statement that literally believing and following everything in the Bible is absolutely fundamental to being a "good" christian.
http://www.1stap.com/en/html/t...
The Bible includes many passages on torture and death to all non-believers, and treating women like chattels.
http://www.whatchristianswantt...
http://othersidereflections.bl...
Many hundreds of thousands of "good" Christians around the world are acting on the Bible and are committing murder and torture of innocent people, and abuse of even their own women on a daily basis. Of the many millions of Christians around the world, a high percentage are clearly in at least quiet agreement with terrorist organizations like IRA's motives and methods.
It boggles my mind how any supposedly intelligent people can still seriously think anyone that voluntarily chooses to follow such a religion deserves to get given the benefit of all doubt, and even be treated like civilized people when they clearly aren't civilized BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.
Like I said in another answer in this thread:
I think ALL religions are bad.
Yes the old testament has violent stuff in it, but (since I'm not a Christian) as far as I understand , unlike Islam and the quran, most Christians consider the old testament is an outdated anachronism, so don;t follow it, and only focus on the much more gentle new testament, which does not have anything like the qurans barbaric crap in it, and also unlike "good" muslims, "good" christians remain free to interpret their book in al sorts of ways other than literally.
I get and agree with your point that there can very easily be an inherent bias depending on perspective, but it also seems clear that modern Christianity in real-life implementation is not even half as fundamentally barbaric and therefore uncivilized as modern Islam in real-life implementation, not that I like or agree with either.
You seem to forget that Christians had a centuries-long head start in barbarism, torture, etc.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
From your first link:
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text
Really? The numerous Christians who are supporting candidates who want to repeal gay sex, force transsexuals into the wrong bathroom (a risky proposition), and even put a bounty on the heads of gays don't exist?
If you had bothered to red the old testament, you would have already found the sections where god commanded his people to kill the non-believers, and take their wives and children into slavery. And the part where the tribe of Benjamin was told it's okay to raid the other tribes to capture their own wife. Sounds every bit as bad as ISIL.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No, I don't forget that Christianity WAS as much of a problem as Islam is now. But the key point here is : "WAS".
Christianity still is promoting murder in Africa, with government support. Christianity is still fighting against gay, lesbian, and transsexual rights, and also promoting violence against lgbt. Christians are still promoting hate, intolerance, and fear based on the bible, even to the level of the presidential race.
The bibie:
One Book to rule them all,
One Book to find them,
One Book to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them.
Saying that someone else is worse nowadays is not an excuse.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Sigh yet another irrational anti-christian rant based entirely on the old testament. I'm not even slightly religious and certainly not a Christian but even I can see you're waaay off track there by choosing to simply ignore the last 2000 years.
You yourself pointed out that there were no Christians during old testament times then you say Christians are bad because what the old testament says.You can't have it both ways. Even your argument is internally self-contradictory.
As to bringing up support for repealing gay sex or whatever, thats an obvious emotional strawman that is completely irrelevant to the actual argument.
According to the quran itself, that is a fundamentally contradictory and inconsistent position to being a "good" muslim.
>> If the self-identified Muslims want to believe that God expects them to be peaceful and loving, why the hell would you want to tell them they're wrong?
I have no trouble with people believing whatever they want, as long as it doesn't also affect me, but when they claim its Islam and in accordance with the quran they are perpetrating a snow job on all of us.
>> Christianity is still fighting against gay, lesbian, and transsexual rights, and also promoting violence against lgbt.
The beleif that being gay is sick and wrong isn't shared by all christians, nor is it only limited to christians, so your point is completely irrelevant.
I don't see too many Christians openly rounding up all gays at gunpoint and throwing them off the tops of tall buildings, like ISIS are doing in the name of Islam all over Syria and Iraq.
Everyone is promoting hate, intolerance and fear. For example, that's what you are doing right now when you talk about Christians. Promoting hate, intolerance and fear is simply part of human nature.
Having said that, you are right, saying that someone else is worse is not an excuse. But what you are doing right now is defending Islam, which is a lot worse than Christianity, because Christianity is not all good. That's not a simple fallacy, that's plain crazy.
Let me put it this way : It's now a minority, but still a lot of Christians will condemn you and actively try to ostracize you because of what you are. As for Muslims, the majority of them on this planet will support your murder. You choose.
Not arrested, not handcuffed, not interviewed without without a responsible adult present, not excluded or expelled.
Seems like a text book example on how this should be handled, unlike some places I could mention.
You missed the big communist scare a few decades ago. Or Japanese-American hysteria during WWII. Whenever there is a conflict, there is a tendency to demonize everyone that shares any attributes with an enemy. Once the conflict is over, it always turns out that these are just regular folks who just happen to look/talk/pray like the evildoers.
How so?
What we fail to understand today is that in the Old Testament, God has different rules for different societies. Societies that had degenerated into little more than roving bands of serial murderers were wiped out. Societies that were kind to others and lived harmoniously they were told to spare. This is no different than the Allies going to war against Germany and Japan in WWII.
At no point does God tell Christians to kill their enemies. We are to love our enemies and treat them kindly in hopes that they will see a better way.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I suppose that depends on whether you're doing an stand-up routine or talking to a hitman at the time.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
A) These stories always happen with Muslim boys
B) Why investigate any kid for saying "terrorist house" when he meant "terranced house"?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Interesting parallel but we;re not talking about a conventional war.
I'm not demonizing people for their race/country.
I'm questioning a multinational group's own free choice in continuing to believe in something that is by its own words openly barbaric, viral and allows no individual interpretation, so therefore directly affects how all muslims interact in the world. So no its not really a good analogy.
The only example I can think of might be Naziism in WW2, since it became kind of a cult especially in the upper ranks of the SS, but even then not really a good comparison since even Hitler knew better than to enforce performing acts of genocide, torture and treating your own women worse than animals as a basic requirement of every Nazi.
There's a grammar nazi joke in there somewhere I'm sure, but I'm not going looking for it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There are sects that say that the Bible must be interpreted literally. Even the parts that are allegories! Yes, some of those people have issues. Christianity has been used to justify killing witches, killing gays, killing jews, keeping slaves, etc.
As for Islam, Jews and Christians were allowed to live in the early Caliphates (yes they had to pay taxes). Where those caliphs apostates for not killing them, or perhaps there is plenty of room for interpretations within Islam? As for Jihad, it means struggle. Struggling to stop smoking with help from God is a Jihad also.
"as far as I am aware even the old testament doesnt tell Christians to torture unbelievers or to treat women like cattle.
As I pointed out, this was a totally ignorant comment to make, since there were no christians at that time.
then you say Christians are bad because what the old testament says.
Paul (new testament writer, see 1 Cor.21-24) continued to condone slavery. His words were used to justify slavery for centuries. You can't ignore the last 2,000 years either.
And I notice you have no response to my remark about Christian leaders persecution of gays and lesbians, which called for the death penalty in places as diverse as Uganda and the United States. Ted Cruz doesn't mind it, and neither do Huckabee or Jindal.
Also, when you write "As to bringing up support for repealing gay sex or whatever, thats an obvious emotional strawman that is completely irrelevant to the actual argument.", you seem to have missed that Paul also attacked gays (Romans 1:26-27). Certainly it's relevant when showing that Christians aren't all sweetness and light, and never have been since the earliest days of Christianity. Also, you have no reply
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Sadly, no mod points today.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Not all muslims are throwing gays off buildings, does that mean we should overlook those in ISIS that do? Of course not.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
First, I am standing up against ignorance and hate, which Christians have a 2000 year history of indulging in. Pointing out the emperor has no clothes (or that Christianity has a long history of intolerance) is stating the facts, unlike the fairy tales christians have used to justify their mistreatment of others for two millennia.
And I certainly have not defended islam by pointing out that christians used to do what ISIS does today.
When you write:
a lot of Christians will condemn you and actively try to ostracize you because of what you are. As for Muslims, the majority of them on this planet will support your murder. You choose.
You need to buy a clue. They know what I am, and none of my Muslim friends would support my murder. You're pushing a very limited stereotype. And Christians actively ostracizing me? The majority wouldn't - but that doesn't mean that the bigoted minority shouldn't be called out on it. So I'm pretty good with either choice (maybe because I live in the real world instead of Faux News?)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Lets see - Jesus never condemned slavery (how hard is it to say "You can't own people!"). Paul encouraged slaves to stay slaves if they couldn't convince their owner to free them, rather than rebel. And of course, Paul also roundly condemned gays, same as many christians do today "in the name of jesus."
As for "At no point does God tell Christians to kill their enemies.", Jesus said (Matthew 10) "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Skip forward to Revelation and find out just how cruel the "lamb of god" can be. Bloodthirsty bastard (in both senses).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
According to the quran itself, that is a fundamentally contradictory and inconsistent position to being a "good" muslim.
But that's the same Koran that they are ignorant of, reinterpreting, or ignoring anyway. They can just as easily be ignorant of, reinterpret, or ignore those parts of the Koran too.
I don't see why the strict "Koranic Literalists" should get to define Islam when clearly most Muslims are not literalists (even if they think they are). Biblical Literalists are a small, very disliked minority of Christianity, so why would Islam be different?
And I'm pointing that you are also an emperor with no clothes. We all are. Like everyone, you are also promoting hate, intolerance and fear. The way you use the pretense of history to justify your own hate is a clear indication of that. Do I blame you for creating your own enemies? Not really. As I said, it's human nature and we all have a need to fight our own windmills.
As for buying a clue, I already did. I saw the hate behind the hypocrisy. I'll certainly acknowledge only a minority of Muslims living in the West would truly (or at least openly) hate you for no other reason than who you are, but Muslims in the West are certainly not representative of the rest of the world. You said you live in the real world? Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure your circle is not typical. Are you sure you can extrapolate the attitude of your friends to the rest of the world?
As a whole, Christians and Muslims on this planet are really not in the same category when it comes to submission to their own religion. On a more direct note, I never really had problems with Christians for being who I am, but I certainly had with Muslims. Of course not with all of them, like you I have Muslim friends, but my friends are certainly not representative of the Muslim world.
BTW, I don't watch Fox News. I'm not American. I'm an atheist, moderately anti-theists and even anti-capitalist. On the other hand, I'm certainly not a social justice warrior, nor a feminist, so I fight different windmills.
Get calls from Mark Cuban, visit Facebook and Google, get scholarships to ivy-league universities and visit the whitehouse?
I suppose that depends on whether you're doing an stand-up routine or talking to a hitman at the time.
The latter, or possibly just announcing it publicly and stating it is no joke. But I emphasise that I would never pay, so it is literally just speech, i.e. me talking.
If you accept that the latter is and should be illegal, then you are agreeing with the criminalisation some forms of speech. Again talking to a hitman is literally speech. If so, you agree that some sorts of speech are sufficiently dangerous that they should be illegal. IOW you do not support unrestricted speech above all.
If you agree, means that you think there is a line for speech which should not be crossed under penalty of law. That means you do not fundamentally disagree with people who want more restrictions, it merely means you have different opinions on where the line should be drawn.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
there is no point in addressing outright bigotry other than to call it what it is.
you deserve no more or less than that.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I think all religions are equally bad as well.
I also think they are equally good.
they're a mixed bag.
And I don't got around repeating links to bigoted BS, and accuse a fifth of the worlds population of being terrorists.
The worst part is you don't even see the things you say for what they are.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Well clearly, you're one of those many people that aren't going let something like actual facts inconveniently get in the way when political correctness is at stake.
Just keep right on with your passive-aggressive insults. You're just playing right into the terrorists agenda.
>> There is a specific agenda against LGBT in much of the Christian community
Of course there is! The Bible is the defining book of their religion. and both the old and new testaments say homosexuality is an abomination and just plain wrong. Knowing that, why would you reasonably expect any good Christians to say/think anything else?
Similarly, the quran denounces homosexuality, so good muslims are bound to just the same.
The big important difference that you strangely seem to want to keep denying/ignoring/avoiding/missing is that the new testament doesn't call for believers to kill all homosexuals where as the quran does.
>> Biblical Literalists are a small, very disliked minority of Christianity
I'm not so sure the bible is so irrelevant to Christianity as you seem to think.
>> so why would Islam be different?
Because there are far higher levels of fundamentalism in general in Islam than there are in Christianity. For example how many Christians do you know that take a special prayer break 4 times a day? Its a basic way of life for most muslims.
I'n mot sure why there is so much radicalism in Islam but I think its a combination of the viral nature of Islam, the way it fundamentally uses brainwashing and peer pressure, and the relatively poor levels of education in many islamic countries (since Shariah actively suppresses education, especially for the 50% of the population that are female). You can see that Islam really is very viral especially when compared to Christianity.
The Episcopal Church in the US has supported LGBT rights to the point that the larger Anglican Communion is taking some sort of action I don't entirely understand but probably makes sense to an Episcopalian or Anglican against that Church. No Episcopalians that I know (and that includes one priest) promote violence on an individual level.
Given any group X, not all members of group X are alike. There are denominations I despise, but I pretty much agree with the Episcopal Church except for some differences about theology.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Why do you think that the Bible is either taken literally or irrelevant to Christianity? There are plenty of Christians who consider it inspired by God but not literally true.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're not forgetting. Subscriptions are no longer available on Slashdot. From the subscription page:
Most of the subscriber benefits are available without charge to Excellent karma users anyway.
On SoylentNews, on the other hand, the subscription page still works.
The 2001 overreaction set up the 2012 Benghazi overreaction. It's like an allergic reaction only on the second exposure to an allergen.
People are missing the real culprit here.. The Evil, evil Spellcheck. This kid probably wrote terraced,.. and the Evil MS Empire changed it to "terrorist". the UK should be looking at them!.. Why do you hate freedom, Microsoft?... WHY!?!?!
I'll certainly acknowledge only a minority of Muslims living in the West would truly (or at least openly) hate you for no other reason than who you are, but Muslims in the West are certainly not representative of the rest of the world. You said you live in the real world? Are you sure?
Iran is the world's #1 capital for sex change surgery. Transsexuals have the approval of the Ayatollah, who issued a fatwa saying so. Last I looked, Iran was a Muslim country. So yes, I'm pretty sure.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
teachers have been legally obliged to report any suspected extremist behavior
You failed to highlight "suspected extremist behavior". It doesn't say they are legally obliged to report every damn meaningless thing.
School faculty who have a George W. Bush accent (as mentioned in dryeo's comment) are more likely to become suspicious of extremist behavior when hearing "terraced".
The error in your comment is that you assume all Muslims behave as you describe. The reality is that the crimes you mention would be committed in far greater numbers by Christians. But the religion isn't deemed to be relevant in that case. Nor is it relevant when a Muslim behaves badly. A person who commits those crimes is a bad person no matter what their religion. That's simple enough that even a bigot should be able to understand it. Maybe.
Only boring people are ever bored.
And those who don't convert? Read the next few chapters for all the pain and suffering they're in for as they go to their eternal punishment, all sanctified by Jesus, the lamb of God.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The big similarity that you don't seem to get is that most people who say they follow a religion, if you scratch a little bit deeper, don't really follow whatever their holy book say to do. Actions speak louder than words.
And, as I've already pointed out, recent Christian missionaries have backed killing gays. Same as ISIS. Again, actions speak louder than words.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Oh come on, just check the world news every day. You really can;t be seriously claiming that Christians are kiling even slightly as many people as Islam just because of their faith.
>> recent Christian missionaries have backed killing gays.
Then they aren't actually practicing Christianity.
>> . Same as ISIS
Then they are simply being good muslims.
See the difference yet?
>> Why do you think that the Bible is either taken literally or irrelevant to Christianity?
Perhaps not being a Christian I just don't get it, but whats the point of a religion having a book or even a name if everyone is just going to make whatever shit up they want and just follow that instead?
A muslim. He is, suspicious.S/muslim/non-white/ No further edits necessary.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
AH, the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Try again.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Those poor Christians - they rape children, drone civilians and plunder, and the whole world doesn't want to live with them! What's wrong with the whole world?
Christians tend to agree on some things, including most of the Nicene Creed and the holiness of the Bible. After that, there's historical research and individual revelations, some of which get popular. Some of the details can be interesting if you're into that sort of thing. (My wife's cousin was installed as a Lutheran pastor. Another pastor asked if he believed in the Nicene Creed, and then listed four other writings, one by Luther, and asked if said cousin believed those were compatible with the Nicene Creed.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Nicene Creed is just a short (9 sentences or so), basic statement of belief in God and Jesus. I'd be amazed if the majority of Christians couldn't aagree on that much. but If as you say, some Christians still can't even fully agree on just that much, and can still legitimately call themselves Christians, then it just validates my argument that Christianity, without taking at least the New Testament literally, is so woolly as to be essentially meaningless/pointless.
It is not a One-true-scottsman argument. There's absolutely nothing ad-hoc about my statement,
You can simply check the facts for yourself. Just the September Paris attacks accounted for 129 innocent deaths, and there are radical islaimic suicide bombings and opther attacks happening around the world daily.
Can you remember any redical christian attacks that caused equivalent numbers of deaths? You've basically got to go back and total up at least 20 years worth to get a number of deaths even close to just one day's worth of Islaimc attacks: http://www.alternet.org/tea-pa...
All your comebacks so far have all been based on emotional outbursts, attempts to sidetrack the issue, pruposeful misunderstandings, and lame attempts to incorrectly label. Its the only approach you acn make because you have no valid position that you can back up with actual facts or citations, since your emphasis is clearly entirely on enforcing political corerctness rather than having to deal with whats really going on.
If you want further responses from me, stay on track, stop with the emotional/personal attacks, and use facts and references to back up your argument.
First, I wrote "No true scostman fallacy" Not "One true scotsman fallacy", whatever the hell that is? You need to see what the "no true scotsman" fallacy means.
Me: recent Christian missionaries have backed killing gays.
You: Then they aren't actually practicing Christianity.
Classical "no true scotsman fallacy". "No real christian would do that."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.