Indonesia Moves To Ban Same-Sex Emojis On Messaging Apps (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The Indonesian government has this week demanded that instant messaging apps available in the country remove all same-sex emoticons from their platforms, or face heavy sanctions. While homosexuality is not illegal in the country, it remains a controversial issue in the Muslim-dominated country. Now in the latest effort to crackdown on gay rights, Indonesian authorities want to ban emojis, stickers and emoticons which depict same-sex couples, the rainbow flag, and any symbol that symbolises the lesbian, bay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. Apps that have been targeted by the demands include the popular Asian messaging app LINE, Whatsapp, Facebook and Twitter. The Indonesian Communication and Information Ministry added that a particular concern was that children would find the bright coloured stickers appealing.

Comments

Re:IBBT?

[MiniMike]

I think you meant to type LBBT. Was just going to comment on that.

Has proofreading also been banned (ganned?) in Indonesia?

But they're not white, so it's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OK for non-whites to be homophobic.

SJWs have lower standards for non-whites, especially if the homophobes are Islamic - because the SJWs are awfully quiet when Islamic "culture" says EXECUTING gays is OK.

Hell, if you're Islamic you can be misogynistic, too.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

And Americans are awfully quiet when christian politicians harass transsexuals with bathroom bills, and christians try to introduce bills that would authorize the killing of LGBTti people (fortunately, after the paperwork was filed, a judge ruled the attempt unconstitutional).

Muslim extremists, Christian extremists - they're just two sides of the same coin. Fortunately, the majority in both camps don't go along with this crap. As for the SJWs, they're so full of it that the only people listening to them are other SJW wannabes.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[110010001000]

People put way too much credence on what they read on the Internet. And reading it from "multiple sources" means nothing either, because all those "sources" just copy each other.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

And Americans are awfully quiet when christian politicians harass transsexuals with bathroom bills, and christians try to introduce bills that would authorize the killing of LGBTti people (fortunately, after the paperwork was filed, a judge ruled the attempt unconstitutional).

Muslim extremists, Christian extremists - they're just two sides of the same coin. Fortunately, the majority in both camps don't go along with this crap. As for the SJWs, they're so full of it that the only people listening to them are other SJW wannabes.

BULLSHIT.

Again:

Muslim extremists, Christian extremists - they're just two sides of the same coin.

BULLSHIT

Who was killed over Piss Christ?

NO ONE.

Got the balls to say how many people were killed at Charlie Hebdo?

Got the stones to say how many people were killed of Mohammad cartoons?

Thank you so very much for demonstrating my point about SJWs having lower standards for non-white Islamic mores.

You fucking USELESS idiot.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[serviscope_minor]

One could argue that the extremists are those who insist on dragging paedoterrorists, er... I mean SJW into every sodding thread regardless of it's relevance.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Penguinisto]

There's a *huge* difference between...

* some overheated and breathless clickbait that stretches the ideological-but-otherwise-mundane true story well beyond credibility (e.g. the example you posted), and...

* actual, no-shit instances of overt and government-sanctioned discrimination (e.g. TFA).

So, please, knock off the false equivalency; it serves no beneficial purpose, and actually masks the fact that there are some no-shit barbarians out in the world, some of whom run whole governments.

Let me put it this way - geography aside, would you rather live in a nation generally run by Judeo-Christian values (e.g. US), or Islamic ones (e.g. Saudi Arabia)?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Penguinisto]

BULLSHIT

Who was killed over Piss Christ?

NO ONE.

Got the balls to say how many people were killed at Charlie Hebdo?

Got the stones to say how many people were killed of Mohammad cartoons?

Insults removed, but the salient point really should left intact for emphasis, as it is quite valid.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

BULLSHIT

Who was killed over Piss Christ?

NO ONE.

Got the balls to say how many people were killed at Charlie Hebdo?

Got the stones to say how many people were killed of Mohammad cartoons?

Insults removed, but the salient point really should left intact for emphasis, as it is quite valid.

Who would try to create a moral equivalence between Christian fundamentalists who merely say you're going to hell but still pray for you, and Muslim extremists who actually try to send you there?

There's just no equivalence. One thinks you're wrong, the other actually tries to and often does kill. Literally, there's no equivalence. And anyone who tries to create a moral equivalence between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic extremists is at best intellectually suspect - at best.

And that's just a nice way of saying "idiot".

So IMO what you called insults - while strongly worded - were actually accurate.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[serviscope_minor]

The fuck?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Trailer Trash]

And Americans are awfully quiet when christian politicians harass transsexuals with bathroom bills, and christians try to introduce bills that would authorize the killing of LGBTti people (fortunately, after the paperwork was filed, a judge ruled the attempt unconstitutional).

Did you even read that article? "After the paperwork was filed"? What does that even mean? He filed it with the "justice department" (all lowercase) according to the article.

So, in order to make something into law all I have to do is write it up and submit it to "the justice department", right?

Do you understand how utterly fucking stupid that whole thing sounds? Do you know how a state legislature even works?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[bozzy]

Except the Christian extremists in America tend to not get their way. In Muslim countries, the extremists do get their way.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Coren22]

I would also add on to that:

Mohammed would be proud of Muslim extremists
Jesus would condemn Christian extremists

Jesus taught that you should love those who are different
Mohammed was a warlord who practiced slavery

It is hard to believe that Islam stems from Christianity, they are opposites in so many ways.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[Coren22]

Um, wasn't it the Jewish temple that Jesus kicked the money lenders out of? The Jewish religion has no qualms about banks. The Christian religion is ok with them, just not practicing in the temple/church.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Kind of hard to deny it's happening when you can watch the people backing these bills saying so on the news.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

SJW is mainly a straw man.
Yes, there are people who are completely bonkers, but they are so few that I am more inclined at thinking it is the people that misuses SJW for everyone they don't like that are the bigger problem.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[FunkSoulBrother]

The common thread is that they both perverted Judaism by turning it into a proselytizing religion.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Nobody evr said the kkk was a christian organization - just that their members are white christian racists. See the difference? Of course not.

Religious extremism, whether by muslims, christians, or anyone else, is the problem. It may manifest itself in different ways, but nonetheless, it's the same problem.

Also, the current assault on women's right to have an abortion, which is vocally backed by fundie christians, if successful, is going to kill a lot of women. If men could get pregnant, you'd be able to get the morning-after pill at the local convenience store along with a 6-pack and some Doritos.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

You might want to read the final chapter in the bible - the apocalypse. Doesn't sound all that full of loving-kindness. Also, Paul told early christian slaves that if their master would not grant them freedom, they should be content to be slaves. And this practice continued for almost 2 millennia. Or have you forgotten how runaway slaves were treated? And how they were "recruited" in the first place?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

They're all wannabes - they wanna be having an inordinate influence on society, trying to impose their breed of dogma and oppression, same as religious fundamentalists. Or have you not been around the last few years?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Which religion has the longer history of slavery? Christianity, since it was founded 600 years before the muslim religion. And who came up with the crusades? And there are plenty of christians out there today who believe they are doing god's will by shooting those they oppose - "no more baby parts".

The guy's a terrorist just as much as any other terrorist. They all say they are doing the will of god.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

The post about the guy introducing a bill to kill gays is a fact. Until a judge peremptorily ruled against it, even the state attorney-general couldn't have stopped it being put to a vote.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

The jews had quite strict rules. When you lent another jew money, there was to be no interest. As well, there was the Jubilee practice of forgiving all debts. So your assertion that the jewish religion has no qualms about banks is a lie based on ignorance.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Which religion has the longer history of slavery? Christianity, since it was founded 600 years before the muslim religion. And who came up with the crusades? And there are plenty of christians out there today who believe they are doing god's will by shooting those they oppose - "no more baby parts".

The guy's a terrorist just as much as any other terrorist. They all say they are doing the will of god.

Between Islam and Christianity, which one voluntarily eliminated slavery from its midst first, then enforced that elimination on the rest of the world as best it could?

I bet you won't answer that one, just as you have yet to answer how many people died at Charlie Hebdo nor how many people have already been killed because of the Muhammad cartoons.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

No, but apparently you don't know how to read. If you had even taken the time to read what I wrote - "christians try to introduce bills that would authorize the killing of LGBTti people" - nothing I wrote said that it would automatically become law. But then again, what can you expect from trailer trash, right?

"Under [California] law, any citizen who properly submits an initiative (and pays the $200 fee) is entitled to gather signatures for their pet proposal.” This is how ballot initiatives work. Stupid troll.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Except the Christian extremist do tend to get their way in places like Uganda, with encouragement from American evangelicals. Exporting hate is a growth industry.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Don't forget homo extremists, forcing and aggressing (sic) against others to associate with their deviant behavior.

Really? Someone force you to a pride parade against your will? Or do you not like that gay wedding cake the couple in line in front of you ordered and are afraid that the mere sight of it will give you "gay cooties"?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Christianity had slavery for longer than the muslim religion has existed, so it would take a few more centuries for muslims to catch up, even though the majority of muslims don't believe in slavery. And lest you forget, the US resisted attempts by other countries, such as England, to abolish slavery.

Paul condoned slavery - all it would have taken was for Jesus to say "Hey people, thou can't own other people." But no, that wasn't even on the radar, even though the practice was so wide-spread that it would have been impossible to ignore.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Penguinisto]

So the bill literally said "kill gays" or some variation thereof, right?

Oh, wait - it most likely didn't.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Trailer Trash]

You said "bill", now you're saying "ballot proposal". Two different things.

The frothing loon who wrote the linked article doesn't understand any more than you do, apparently.

There's a reason you're part of the "looney left"....

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

So the bill literally said "kill gays" or some variation thereof, right?

Oh, wait - it most likely didn't.

Ohh yes it does. It also called for anyone to do the same if the state refuses to enforce the law for 1 year. The actual text:

a) The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

b) Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.

c) No person shall distribute, perform, or transmit sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority. Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurrence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.

d) No person shall serve in any public office, nor serve in public employment, nor enjoy any public benefit, who is a sodomite or who espouses sodomistic propaganda or who belongs to any group that does.

e) This law is effective immediately and shall not be rendered ineffective nor invalidated by any court, state or federal, until heard by a quorum of the Supreme Court of California consisting only of judges who are neither sodomites nor subject to disqualification hereunder.

f) The state has an affirmative duty to defend and enforce this law as written, and every member of the public has standing to seek its enforcement and obtain reimbursement for all costs and attorney’s fees in so doing, and further, should the state persist in inaction over 1 year after due notice, the general public is empowered and deputized to execute all the provisions hereunder extra-judicially, immune from any charge and indemnified by the state against any and all liability.

g) This law shall be known as “The Sodomite Suppression Act” and be numbered as section 39 in Title 3 of the Penal Code, pertaining to offences [sic] against the sovereignty of the state. The text shall be prominently posted in every public school classroom. All laws in conflict with this law are to that extent invalid.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

The two are equivalent in this case. The ballot proposal is for a bill that would change the law.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Wycliffe]

  Now watch as the ACs that have Mod Points Punish-Mod me from my currently Punish-Modded "Good" (down from "Excellent" in one day about a week ago) to "Poor". I'll keep you posted.

ACs don't get mod points. You have to be logged in and be a moderately active user to get mod points. Now a logged in user can post as an AC (although I'm suspect how anonymous it is because I've noticed that I can't comment as an AC and then mod my own post up) but someone who isn't logged in can't earn mod points.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[painandgreed]

SJW is mainly a straw man.

I would think it's an ad hominem as you are attacking the person rather than the person's argument.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[vel-ex-tech]

Citation provided!

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[tnk1]

The problem with that reasoning is assuming ACs are a bloc of people who think the same and are willing to mod you down for dissing ACs in general. There is no such bloc of people because most ACs have different reasons for being an AC.

ACs aren't going anywhere. The mod system was set up with them in mind. If they're really trolls, they do get modded down. If they merely irritate you with their speech, that's not trolling, that's free speech. The signal to noise ratio is less favorable, but there is some information you will never see while people have to be identified. And frequently, you want to see people's anger about things. You want to know that people like that exist or you get blindsided when Donald Trump wins the election and you never even saw it coming. (That was an example, I don't think it is really going to happen).

Now, I don't agree that the only terrorists out there are Muslim ones, but I can see why he'd think so based on how it is reported these days. In any event, he has a right to make his comment, and he clearly seems to believe it, so he's not being a troll, even if he says something you don't like. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[sudon't]

No one is perfect. I find Single Jewish Women incredibly appealing, and can forgive many of their other faults. Unless you're speaking of Stupid Jingoistic Whites?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[vel-ex-tech]

Disregard. I suck cocks. Wrong comment and citation already provided above.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[macs4all]

Now watch as the ACs that have Mod Points Punish-Mod me from my currently Punish-Modded "Good" (down from "Excellent" in one day about a week ago) to "Poor". I'll keep you posted.

ACs don't get mod points. You have to be logged in and be a moderately active user to get mod points. Now a logged in user can post as an AC (although I'm suspect how anonymous it is because I've noticed that I can't comment as an AC and then mod my own post up) but someone who isn't logged in can't earn mod points.

What I meant was, Users that have Mod points, yet logon or post as AC to avoid Karmic Responsibility when they want to bash someone, would downmod me (as themselves). Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[macs4all]

ACs aren't going anywhere. The mod system was set up with them in mind. If they're really trolls, they do get modded down.

But those mods don't actually count against their (real User's) Karma, do they?

If they do, then fine; I stand corrected. But if not, then that is a serious hole in the Karmic "justice" system on Slashdot.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

"Muslim extremists, Christian extremists - they're just two sides of the same coin."

There are certainly similarities, but when was the last time that a christian extremist strapped a bomb to their chest and walked up to a supermarket and detonated it? And is there a group of christian extremists taking over land in any country while executing christians and muslims that aren't extreme enough in horrible ways? The christian extremist you mention proposed a bill, whereas the muslim extremists are just throwing the suspected homosexuals off of roofs.

Now, if you compare the muslim extremists of today to the christian extremists of a thousand years ago, now we've got something. But present day, I wouldn't say they are different sides of the same coin. Unless it's a weird magic coin.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[SvnLyrBrto]

Jerry Falwell would have loved to send you to hell; perhaps not personally, but definitely by proxy. The difference is that we have a two-hundred year tradition in this country of not putting up with that sort of crap. Before that? Some of our earliest colonists were christian loons who are famous for murdering a bunch of people whom they thought might be wiccans.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[unixisc]

I think bringing in race here was misplaced on part of the GP, but everything else he said was correct. SJW groups that would love to force a Christian bakery to provide a cake to a gay wedding, and which also support Islamic activists worldwide, suddenly find themselves on the receiving end even in 'moderate Muslim' countries like Indonesia. Can one spell 'schadenfreude'?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Grishnakh]

And Americans are awfully quiet when christian politicians harass transsexuals with...

Oh bullshit. Anyone who isn't a Christian decries this crap all the time. And then, in response, the Christian conservatives all bitch and complain about how Christians are being "persecuted" for wanting to "exercise their freedom of religion". It's even an issue on the GOP side with the Presidential election.

Did you somehow sleep through the media flap when that fat, ugly woman in Kentucky on her 4th marriage refused to sign marriage licenses for homosexuals?

Muslim extremists, Christian extremists - they're just two sides of the same coin. Fortunately, the majority in both camps don't go along with this crap

That's incorrect. Pew research has conducted polls showing that majorities of regular, everyday Muslims believe in policies like those.

The thing we have going for us here in "Christian countries" (the West) is that 1) much of Christianity has gotten away from the Medieval, violent stuff thanks to the Enlightenment (unfortunately, it seems that parts of America are slow to catch up; all the craziest and most extreme Christians are here in the US), and 2) the native-born occupants of Western nations are (thankfully) becoming less and less religious, and more secular. However, the same is not true in Islamic countries: everyone there is Islamic, there is no growing agnostic or atheist movement, and Islam never went through the Enlightenment.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[Grishnakh]

You're a complete idiot.

ISIS holds territory, and defends it militarily. They collect taxes, and they provide services to the populations under their control. They have a government, they pass laws, and they enforce those laws with police. They are a state in every sense of the term. You don't have to be recognized by other nations to be a valid state, you just have to be able to hold and defend your territory and have a government, which they do.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Grishnakh]

I'm not a Christian, but Paul was not Jesus, and didn't even live at the same time. Just because some other people took Paul's writings, shoved them into a book together with 4 other guy's books who wrote down orally-passed-down stories about some guy named Jesus, and called it "the Holy Bible" does not mean that Jesus endorsed this Paul guy who lived decades later.

Now, I'll agree that everything in the Bible is part and parcel of "Christianity", because modern Christians believe it so, but the OP never said anything about Christians, he specifically opined about what *Jesus* would think, not what Paul or any other Christian, ancient or modern, would think.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[sumdumass]

But why should that matter to anyone?

I post AC every once in a while specifically because of karma. Sometimes I have things to say that i know will be down moderated because the truth hurts people's feelings. Sometimes the comments are attempts at humor but might be slightly offensive. Sometimes I am on another computer (untrusted) just reading and do not want to drag my log in onto it but want to comment on something.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[sumdumass]

That's one of the faults with being Pentecostal apostolic. Anyone can claim Christianity. This is also where people look like idiots when they attempt to attribute actions or claims of a subset to the actions of the entire group. They often are opposed which is why there are subsets of groups - they do not all agree on everything except that of Jesus Christ. Technically, all you need is to believe in Christ to call yourself a Christian.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Darinbob]

There's a big market for whitening products in Indonesia though.

I've heard no one be quiet when someone says executing gays is ok. There's a huge outcry over that for anyone interested in social justice.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Falconhell]

Perhaps try not constantly posting Apple shilling and see how you get on.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Darinbob]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Darinbob]

What about Christian fundamentalists who do kill? Terrorists or just misguided? There's an equivalence when the mainstream of both religions is against terrorism, except that with Christians there is acknowledgement that the violent acts are just some fringe wackso, but with Muslims there's so much propaganda out there that eveyr Muslim is a potential terrorist.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[Darinbob]

The KKK says that they are a Christian organization.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Falconhell]

All of which could be said about the biblical Jewish kings.
It's funny how quickly you've forgotten the Christian terrorism of the IRA, the KKK, and others.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Penguinisto]

Hate to break this to you, but that's a ballot initiative, and not a bill.

Anybody with $200 and a paltry number of signatures can introduce a ballot initiative.

It's not a legislative action (that is, a bill), as you falsely stated in the beginning.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Hognoxious]

christian politicians harass transsexuals with bathroom bills

They send you an invoice for taking a leak?

That's nearly as bad as Belgium.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Darinbob]

There are more references to violence in the Old Testamant than in the Koran. I think Mohammed would not be proud of the extremists when they act contrary to what he actually said. The most common theme in the Koran is mercy. The caliphates allowed Christians and Jews to live in their lands, albeit with extra taxes. Remember that Christians during ante-bellum South defended the most brutal form of slavery using the Bible, probably the biggest religious schism in America came from protestant churches dividing over the issue of slavery.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Penguinisto]

You might want to read the final chapter in the bible - the apocalypse.

Indeed - though that particular book is chock-a-block full of metaphors (unless you want to contend that, say, 1/4 of the planet's surface area will literally be on fire...)

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Penguinisto]

Err, nitpick: you'd be talking about St John of Patmos, not Paul. ;)

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[Darinbob]

Jesus wasn't against money, but the defiling of the temple, the abuse of the money lenders charging exhorbitant fees to poor temple visitors. If the money lenders were fair and not predatory, and remained respectful while offering a necessary service, would Jesus have been so angered?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[macs4all]

Perhaps try not constantly posting Apple shilling and see how you get on.

Is it "Linux Shilling" when users continuously trumpet that "Open Source is teh Bestest. Always!"?

If so, then why oh why is it NEVER EVER EVER called that on Slashdot?

However, I don't think you know what the term "Shill" really means.So, here you go.

So, as you should be able to plainly see, an "enthusiast" (which I most certainly am) != a "Shill" (which I most certainly am NOT).

And "free speech" SHOULD apply to everyone here, even Apple enthusiasts, and without fear of Punish-modding. Remember, the Slashdot Axiom: " '-1 Disagree' is NOT a mod option for a reason.".

But obviously, you don't share that opinion, do you?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Falconhell]

Lol, I don't use Linux myself. The reality is, your one eyed Apple support regardless of fact is what gets you modded down.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[reboot246]

You will know them by their fruits. Never listen to what a man says; watch what he does. His actions speak more about his faith than a billion words.

Oh, and I'm tired of "judge not, lest ye be judged" being used over and over out of context. Read the whole book and learn what it really means.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[macs4all]

Lol, I don't use Linux myself. The reality is, your one eyed Apple support regardless of fact is what gets you modded down.

If you read back through my posts, I almost always try to support my position with links to factual articles. That's a lot different than your assertion of "Apple support regardless of fact."

Oh, and I wish I had .0001 penny for every time some Linux fan posts some absolutely bullshit "fact" (NEVER with any attribution!) about Apple or its "motives", and I watch as that post gets Up-Modded, called "Insightful", "Interesting", etc., while my post refuting the abovementioned gets either completely ignored, or worse yet, downmodded, DESPITE HAVING FACTUAL SUPPORT. I invite you to look at my posting history (I have been on here since 2003 or '04), and go research them in context. In fact, when I start to write a post that I cannot back-up with facts, I almost always will just hit "Cancel" instead of just posting a rant without a factual basis.

THAT's what sucks. And it has gotten REALLY worse over the past few years.

Perhaps what I should REALLY do it stop browsing at -1, so I don't "engage" the idiots.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Rakarra]

Matthew McLaughlin is the real deal, and you can read his proposal for the Sodomite Suppression Act on the California Attorney General website. Now, it's not anything introduced in the legislature (no legislator wanting to keep his job would be so stupid), it's just one guy trying to get attention for the cause who was willing to pay the $200 filing fee.

I thought at first this a Jonathan Swift style satire, but after reading through McLaughlin's WordPress site I have to think he's actually a true believer. He was also pushing for an initiative twelve years ago to have all California public school students read the King James Bible in literature classes (with students being able to opt-out).

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[Rakarra]

ISIS is not a de facto state. That's utter nonsense.

Of course it's not nonsense, but leaders of other countries are trying to fight a propaganda war that gets harder if other people think they're a country. Just because Western countries don't want to recognize them doesn't mean they aren't a de facto state. They tend to bring more order and rule to the areas they occupy than the previous weak countries whose land they stole.

Land that you can take, land that you can keep, that's how countries have been formed as long as there has been civilization. The US did it as well throughout the 1800s with the doctrine of Manifest Destiny (it's God's Will that the US occupy the lands to the Pacific Ocean), stealing the lands of the American Indian, and naturally, the Mexican American war. Conquest is a time-honored way of solidifying your hold on land. Not something the US has done recently, the last I could remember was the late 19th century with the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

I guess you missed the war in Syria - "Christian" countries are bombing the sh*t out of the place, 250,000 dead so far, and no way out. And all this arose from foreign policy from "christian nations" that gave rise to al quada and isis.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

What a load of horse crap from a false initial premise. The enlightenment opposed religious dogma, including christian dogma. Also, see this non-christian society's ban on slavery more than 2,000 years ago. And Japan abandoned slavery in 1590. Hardly Christians ... And then there's the Taipign Heavenly Kingdom in 1851 ... again, not christian. That was 10 years before the US civil war, which was basically about the economics of slavery.

Also, it was clause 30 of the Magna Carta (1215) that formed the basis of england's later abolition of slavery, not any religious pressure.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

As I pointed out elsewhere, some places abolished slavery before christianity even existed, and other non-christian societies banned the practice before the US civil war, while many of the "good white christians" of the united states fought to support it. Even Thomas Jefferson owned over 600 slaves.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Because people like you sure as shit aren't going to do it. You're too busy whining about your lack of taxpayer-funded free-fuck pills.

Really? Why in the world would women like myself ever need "fuck pills", free or otherwise? Just the thought is ludicrous. And I've sat through too many baptist sermons preaching about how god hates gays, lesbians, and transsexuals. Fundamentalist Christian churches are the problem, not the solution. Good people don't need religion to force them to do right.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Let me put it this way - geography aside, would you rather live in a nation generally run by Judeo-Christian values (e.g. US), or Islamic ones (e.g. Saudi Arabia)?

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa 198, that allows transsexual women in Iran to live as women, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and get married to men. Too many "christians" still claim that a male-to-female transsexual is "a man in a dress" and that their religion would consider it a same-sex relationship, and not allow them to marry.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Has nothing to do with jewish customs. Totally off-topic.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Don't use the bible as an argument - most christians haven't read it all. Heck, many, if not most, pastors and priests haven't read it all.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Jesus' silence on the issue of owning people speaks for itself.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Rakarra]

The two are equivalent in this case. The ballot proposal is for a bill that would change the law.

Those are not at all equivalent. A bill needs to be introduced in the legislature by a representative.

A ballot proposal has pretty much one requirement: that someone pay the $200 filing fee.
After that, he'd have to get a minimum number of signatures for it to be on the ballot. The only thing that happened was McLaughlin did not win a motion demanding it to be on the ballot after he failed to meet the minimum threshold.

So literally, it's one guy who put up $200 to bring notoriety to his hate speech, and he didn't really get anywhere other than free publicity from the outraged.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Learn the process. Every citizen's initiative bill has to go through public ballot. If it succeeds, the bill becomes law. If it fails, the bill doesn't become law. We even say "bills that die at the end of a session", not "proposals that die at the end of a session." Not all bills become law..

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

"Prominent discussion sites?" That would be facebook, not slashdot. It is what it is.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

No, they want to verify an individual's genitals (perverts will just LOVE this job), and their birth records, to see if the two match. And if they don't, they not only want to forbid you taking your leak, but also fine you.

Stupidly enough, they haven't thought of what happens if they force trans-men (many with beards) to use the women's washroom. Hilarity will certainly ensue, along with LOTS of youtube videos :-)

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

The bible is a collection of fairy tales and myths from previous religions, nothing more. After all, if you're going to plagiarize, might as well steal from stuff that has previously worked. :-)

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Rakarra]

They hope to be spared if Muslim extremists take over. They would't (be spared), of course. The Muslim extremists would say "thank you for your support. You made the whole world feel guilty and bend to our whims. Now you will be a martyr!" At that point, the SJWs who aren't completely inept would see the error in their ways and plead for their lives, but the extremists would just say "No no it's okay, being a martyr is good, you will be with Allah soon. ALLAH AKBAR" *CHOP*CHOP*CHOP* *scream*sob*gargle*

I don't think that would actually happen, because I believe they would be the type to quail and submit. The funny thing about the Muslim extremists is that they're harsher on what they would consider failed Muslims (IE, anyone not as extreme as them) than folks from other religions. There are Christians living in ISIS-controlled lands who are not under that much risk, because ISIS's interpretation of Islam demands either full conversion, or else 'submission.' That is, they pay a tithe, acknowledge ISIS's dominion over them, and... that's it. If they don't pay, the men are executed, and the women and children sold into slavery.

So I'm suspecting that the jizya will get paid pretty quickly.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Wycliffe]

I watch as that post gets Up-Modded, called "Insightful", "Interesting", etc., while my post refuting the abovementioned gets either completely ignored, or worse yet, downmodded, DESPITE HAVING FACTUAL SUPPORT.
THAT's what sucks. And it has gotten REALLY worse over the past few years.

Unfortunately, even the mod system doesn't really help mitigate the echo chamber. The mod system might even make the echo chamber worse when 60% of moderators agree with a comment and 40% disagree especially if they can't distinguish that a comment can be of a different opinion and still contribute.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[KGIII]

Err... Assuming he existed as is presented... He was dead by the time Paul was writing. Jesus probably also didn't say anything about pissing into the wind and, as the say, silence is golden.

Either way, it's tough to rebut when you're not there to do so.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[macs4all]

Unfortunately, even the mod system doesn't really help mitigate the echo chamber. The mod system might even make the echo chamber worse when 60% of moderators agree with a comment and 40% disagree especially if they can't distinguish that a comment can be of a different opinion and still contribute.

Well! then unfortunately! those people shouldn't have Mod Points.

I don't want to sound as high-handed as that probably does; but what I mean is that, in the microcosm of Slashdot, being given mod points is somewhat akin to serving on a Jury. In other words, it is Slashdot saying "Here. We trust you enough to let you help pass judgment on individual postings, and so influence and direct the conversation." And, like jury duty, it is no place to "convict" someone, simply because you don't like people with red hair.

I'm not trying to overstate this, honest. What I am saying is that I, too, have had mod points, several times. But I have NEVER used them to downmod someone's post, simply because I think they're full of shit, and certainly not because I like a different computer platform, FFS!

All I ask us that those with mod points extend me the same courtesy that I extend to all of them, even when I am sorely tempted to do a little punish-modding myself...

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[KGIII]

Witches. Not Wiccans. Wicca's not that old. I'd look it up but I'm a bit lazy. It was invented in the mid-1950s as I recall. They were burning witches, not Wiccans. That and, well... Wicca doesn't really have a whole hell of a lot to do with early paganism, as far as anyone knows. Those records are kind of absent so they're mostly just a mockery, devoid of any meaning, and flailing about as if they're actually doing something valid or valuable.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[penguinoid]

Who was killed over Piss Christ?
NO ONE.

Now, imagine if that "art" project had been tried when Christianity was the same age as Islam is now.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[penguinoid]

Jesus would condemn Christian extremists

Only if those extremists weren't following Jesus' teaching. But for sure, Jesus would condemn Christian moderates, because they behave exactly like non-believers who are half-heartedly pretending to be His followers.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Grishnakh]

How do you know he was silent? Were you there with him? All you have, assuming he was even a real person, is some oral histories that were passed around and then, after a few decades, finally written down as the "Gospels". Since there's no contemporary eyewitness accounts of Jesus' sermons, much less any video footage, no one really knows what he said, or if the stories were embellished the way Homer's Iliad was (the Iliad was a true story, to some extent, in that there really was a Trojan War, but it's pretty safe to assume that the Olympic gods were not present and taking part in it).

It sounds to me like you have some kind of issues with Jesus for some reason. Having issues with modern-day Christians is understandable, but having issues with characters from a book of third-hand stories from 2000 years ago is rather concerning.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[cyber-vandal]

I wish I had mod points right now

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

There is no proof of the existence of any $god, so why would I even give a crap about yet another purported "son of $diety"? It's all pretty stupid when you look at it this way.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[RogerWilco]

The original poster could have been more polite.

I will still try to answer the point.

It might not happen in your neighbourhood today, but Christianity and various other religions have been used to justify bloodshed and other atrocities. Sometimes quite recent and sometimes not that far away.

Witch hunts might no longer happen where you live, but there are large parts of the world where they still do.
Prosecution of gays happens in a lot of places in the world based on supposed Christian values and was the norm in most of the Western World fifty years ago.
For recent examples of people claiming to have killed others for religious reasons, not Islamic, go google, Barend Strydom, Ami Popper, Wade Michael Page, the IRA, UDA/UFF. I could probably find more, but that's what an initial google turned up.

I would agree with the argument that at the moment, the Islamic inspired religious fundamentalists seem the most numerous, violent and well funded. I primarily blame the recent oil weath in the Middle East for that, especially the Saudi-Arabia and Iran. The agenda of a very few, but suddenly very rich, religious fundamentalist people has shaped the region and the world tremendously over the past half century. You will find much woman wearing a headscarf in images from the sixties and seventies, let alone the full black dress and scarf you commonly see in the Middle East today. I've seen pictures of women in miniskirt in Kabul. Look at the funeral images of Nasser in Egypt in 1970.

The Middle East is a mess, but the former Ottoman Empire, and the borders drawn by colonial powers Britain and France after that have a lot to do with it, at least in Israel/Palestina/Iraq/Syria/Turkey/Libya/Pakistan/Lebanon. I put the primary blame on the Saudi's though for exporting and funding their ideas in the region over the past decades. I don't think Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS or the Taliban would exist without that, certainly not in their present form.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[techpeon]

Nothing wrong with getting kids to read the King James bible in a literature class. Kids should have knowledge of a broad range of classic fiction. Can't see it happening though, too much sex and supernatural elements for the conservative crowd.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Grishnakh]

You're so blinded with hate you're not even making any sense, you're just foaming at the mouth and unable to maintain a logical conversation.

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[Grishnakh]

ISIS represents a smaller percentage of the global Muslim population than did the KKK.

No, they don't. They have tens of thousands of fighters, and control a huge amount of territory including probably several million people. Since those people willingly allow themselves to be governed by ISIS, and there's zero evidence of any kind of resistance to their rule (from the Sunnis they govern), they can be considered ISIS citizens and sympathizers.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[dothasmurfysmurf]

I think you meant to say useful idiot.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[HornWumpus]

Per their own story. Saul/Paul never met Jesus.

He repressed them right up until his psychotic break on the road to Damascus.

Reading his letters, he clearly had deep psycho-sexual issues. I think he was molested as a child.

That said. He was the man who wrote 'if they will not work, they shall not eat' (para) the wisest words in that book of wishful thinking.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[HornWumpus]

Sure it's nonsense. But there are no bad reasons for getting good and drunk and dancing naked around a fire in the woods.

And most Wiccan groups have the reciprocal ratio of /. So even better.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Maybe if we were truthful with transsexuals instead of coddling them and lying to them about their condition, we'd have fewer transsexuals.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Really? So, if $god created everything, who created $god? Being a skeptic isn't hate - it's just common sense not to buy into a mass delusion, same as the tulip mania.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

A mutilated man in a dress is the fact on the ground.

Do you believe in 'Dolphinplasti' as well?

What makes one delusion different from the other? Political influence?

Considering the scientific evidence gathered in the last 20 years of a biological basis for transsexualism, you should try to keep up with the science behind it instead of making what are now silly claims.

Besides, we're everywhere. You may have even unknowingly lusted after, or had sex, with one of us.

And no no political influence wa necessary. Quite the contrary, we were accepted long before LGBT movement gained steam, and for several decades what we now call the gay white mafia has tried to erase the difference between us and them, while repeatedly throwing us under the bus to advance the gay agenda. We never needed them because we had the imprimatur of medical science long before they did. Many of the problems we experienced were reactions to the gay rights movement, which is not the same thing. - and when you point this out, they get all freaked out and say that you're "hurting the community." A community that has continuously mis-labeled us, and can go sit on a bathroom plunger and rotate as far as many of us are concerned.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

The ones with beards, etc., are not transsexuals, they're what's called "genderfucked". Has zero to do with transsexualism, and more in common with drag queens and other "performance artists."

BTW - everyone has an "adam's apple". The difference between the sexes is the angle at which the two plates join - in females, it's less acute, hence less visible. Go educate yourself.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Science has confirmed it as a condition with biological roots. Of course, you're free to go back to primitive religious beliefs instead and continue to live in denial.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[hucker75]

Indeed. What needs banning is religion, all of it.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

How about that "no more baby parts" Christian extremist who is proud that he killed 3 people and shot 9 others? And all the other christian nutters ...

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Give it time, give it time ... in the meantime, some nut is asking for donations to raise $25,000 to translate the bible into emojis ... anything for a buck and 15 minutes of what passes for "fame" nowadays.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

No need to ban it - it's already dying out on it's own

Ironically, the rise of the Christian Right over the course of the past three decades may well end up being the catalyst for Christianity’s rapid decline. From the moment Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980, evangelical Christians, who account for roughly 30 percent of the U.S. population, identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. Michael Spencer, a writer who describes himself as a post-evangelical reform Christian, says, “Evangelicals fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith. Evangelicals will be seen increasingly as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.”

In light of the recent backlash against Republicans who supported the right-to-discriminate bills across 11 states, Spencer’s words seem prophetic. Republican lawmakers had expected evangelicals to mobilize in the aftermath of Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s veto of SB1062. Instead, legislatures in states like Mississippi, Kansas, and Oklahoma have largely backed down from attempts to protect “religious freedom” after a national outcry branded the proposed bills discriminatory.

Every denomination in the U.S. is losing both affiliation and church attendance. In some ways the country is a half-generation behind the declining rate of Christianity in other western countries like the U.K., Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, and the Netherlands. In those countries, what were once churches are now art galleries, cafes and pubs. In Germany more than 50 percent say they do not believe in any god, and this number is declining rapidly. In the U.K., church attendances have halved since the 1970s.

or as the bible would put it - "sowing the seeds of their own destruction" ...

A recent study into the beliefs of people living in 137 countries concludes that religious people will be a minority in many developed countries by 2041. Nigel Barber, an Irish bio-psychologist, based his book, Why Atheism Will Replace Religion, on the findings. His book also debunks the popular belief that religious groups will dominate atheistic ones because they collectively have more children. “Noisy as they can be, such groups are tiny minorities of the global population and they will become even more marginalized as global prosperity increases and standards of living improve,” writes Barber.

and

Research has shown that religion declines not just with rising national wealth but with all plausible measures of the quality of life, including length of life, decline of infectious diseases, education, the rise of the welfare state, and more equal distribution of income. Clearly there is less of a market for religion in societies where ordinary people feel secure in their daily lives. In the most developed countries, such as Japan and Sweden, the quality of life is so good that the majority is already secular.

In my book I asked how long it would take for the average country in the world to reach a similar level of development as countries that already have secular majorities. This transition was measured either as a minority believing in God or a minority seeing religion as important. The average rate of economic development was assessed both in terms of GDP (corrected for local prices, PPP) and the human development index (HDI), which includes health and education as well as GDP. So I calculated four estimates of when the average country in the world is likely to transition to a secular majority, and the average estimate was 2041. The more reliable HDI method predicts an earlier transition than does GDP alone.

Religious people will become the new "red shirts".

Re: But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Unlike you, I do have muslim friends, and you can be sure they are not terrorists, and they do not believe in the crap you seem to think they believe. But the religious extremists, no matter what brand, are all cut from the same cloth of intolerance and ignorance.

As for the insult in your first two words, just goes to prove my point :-)

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[hucker75]

Yes, religion is dying out in the UK. And perhaps it's beginning to in the USA, but Muslim countries won't become atheist for a very long time. They're way behind us in evolution.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Grishnakh]

You should probably seek professional help, because you're trying to argue religion with someone who obviously isn't a believer. You're so hateful of Christianity that you can't even follow a logical discussion about it, you just froth at the mouth.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The science is highly quesitonable, given the abuse the scientists put several kids through, driving them to suicide with their surgical mutilation.

In any right society, the scientists who lie to the transgendered and mutilate them would be in jail for sexual abuse.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[KGIII]

I'm not admitting to anything but I may have been to a May Pole celebration or two. Or three... Or four... However, word to the wise, some women are meant for dating, some are not. There's a certain point where insanity is no longer a 'feature.' Where that line is and how one finds it is a trip for each individual. But, well... Hmm... Yeah, some of the folks I've encountered at these events are not exactly dating material. That does not mean they're not fun. It just means you don't bring them back to your house.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[HornWumpus]

Strictly 'catch and release'...

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Dog-Cow]

I've come to the realization that karma on /. means exactly shit, and I never post anonymous unless I already modded and I really don't want to lose those mods. More often than not, I say "screw it" and post non-anon.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Religion is a mass delusion. Unfortunately, when arguing with religious people, you have to knock down the basis of their beliefs, such as the existence of any sort of god, the fact that Jesus is not a historical figure, etc. If you don't get that, you're the one who needs to seek help.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

If you believe that you've been following too many writers with ulterior religious prejudices. Reparative therapy (pushed by both religious groups and discredited (mostly gay) psychiatrists who see transsexuals as just "gay men in dresses" who can be "cured") has been banned in many places because it not only doesn't work, but causes a LOT of harm. Get real - it's people standing in the way of medical treatment, and people like you who continue to spread uninformed lies, who are the problem.

the overall mortality rate was only significantly increased for the group operated on before 1989. However, the latter might also be explained by improved health care for transsexual persons during 1990s, along with altered societal attitudes towards persons with different gender expressions.

The mental health quality of life of trans women without surgical intervention was significantly lower compared to the general population, while those transwomen who received FFS, GRS, or both had mental health quality of life scores not significantly different from the general female population.

In any right society, the people who lie to transsexuals and discourage them from seeking treatment would be in jail for willful endangerment. That includes you.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Grishnakh]

No, you need help because you're arguing with someone who isn't religious as if he were, and you're not following a coherent line of thought in any way. You can't even follow a logical discussion about the topic.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Grishnakh]

Well (assuming he was real) he lived for 30-something years, so obviously he said a lot of stuff that wasn't written down in the Gospels. Those books aren't *that* long.

The problem with Christians is that they claim that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God", so while they obviously recognize that there's more to Jesus's life than what's written there, and even that there's a giant gap between his childhood and when he was around 30, they also believe that all the important stuff is captured there, since, after all, it was "divinely inspired".

The problem with Barbara is that she seems to somehow think that if there isn't line in the Bible ascribed to Jesus, then he must have not have said it, and worse, he must actually endorse something if he didn't specifically criticize it and have this criticism written down in the Bible. I can understand having issues with Christianity (since, after all, if you listen to the sects (most of them) who claim it's the "inerrant word of God", and that the whole thing is valid, including the anti-gay parts even though Jesus was never written to have said anything about homosexuality, along with the other Old Testament barbarity like the Israelites murdering other tribes because God told them to, and of course the parts endorsing slavery), but blaming all that on Jesus who is only in one part of the Bible, may or may not be a real person (or could be a composite), may be like other ancient texts where the real story was massively embellished with fantastical fictional bits, and his sermons and actions and words are written down by people who only lived after he died, and wrote down orally-passed-around stories.

As for your church idea, it's not unprecedented. Just look at Joseph Smith: he made up some wacky story about finding a "new testament" about Jesus somehow coming to Mesoamerica before European colonizers and finding it on gold plates, left there by some angel who showed him the location along with a "seer stone" to read them with. Of course, no one ever saw these holy plates again, and the stuff he "translated" from these plates flatly contradicts all available archaeological evidence, but it doesn't matter: there's millions of people who believe that shit. Even crazier, he also supposedly found an ancient Egyptian text called the "Book of Abraham", which he somehow translated, and it tells about how if you're a good Mormon, you'll become the god of another planet after you die. They believe that too!

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[squiggleslash]

It's a shame the term is so meaningless that you probably believe it as strongly as someone who believes that you are an SJW (after all, you advocate for transgender people) believes that you are one too.

Be honest: it's a meaningless term, usually applied by anyone who feels uncomfortable about their own racism or sexism (or other prejudices), applied to anyone who made them uncomfortable in any way. If I say "Isn't it a shame the average, well qualified, woman is going to have to fight harder than the average, average qualified, man to get and hold on to a job in IT", it's a simple observation, but I'll get labelled an SJW as a result.

And you? Well, you personally might not. I don't know. You know I'm fairly left wing, and sympathetic to the plight of minorities, but I'm also happy to say when I think people are unfairly demonized, such as Pax Dickinson or the parents of Leelah Alcorn (and to a certain extent you and I had disagreements on the latter, which doesn't surprise me.)

So, given that, what's the point of using the term? Is it used, in practice, for any real life use other than shutting down debate? "OMG! This person suggested I might have certain advantages in life that aren't available to black people, let's call him an SJW and then nobody will take him seriously!"

'cos that's how I see it used. It might, once, by some people, have been used to denote a particular type of over-zealous and highly obnoxious troll who used social justice issues as their weapon, but it doesn't today, and when you use it on Slashdot, you use it in an environment where virtually nobody is referring to those trolls. You're using it in an environment in which it'll be read, and understood, as referring to feminists, civil rights activists, LGB(T*) activists, and, transgender activists, regardless of whether they're hysterical, or just do passive, entirely optional, advocacy, say, in the forms of videos explaining carefully how they feel movies or video games could be improved so that they're not unintentionally a problem for many women.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I believe that those who have decided that reparative therapy is somehow harm, are being more abusive than the reparative therapists ever were.

So-called "trans women" have been lied to and mutilated by sadistic quacks who should not be considered "doctors". Proper treatment would be to actually solve the issue, not create more issues. You are the one preventing people with this mental illness from getting proper treatement- because you were denied proper treatment.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Pointing out a fact shouldn't earn (or tar) someone with the label "SJW." Making up or distorting facts, on the other hand ...

To use your example, women are often paid less than men. That's a fact. Saying that this is "because the patriarchy works to oppress women" is both way too simplistic and pushes a story arc that is both divisive and false. Men are not saying "when my daughter grows up, I want her to earn less just because she's a woman." Or "My wife should earn less, even though we could really use the extra money." People would pretty much universally see the unfairness of it.

The wheels have been set in motion - women are graduating and entering professions at higher rates than men, and that's already changing our culture at many levels - it'll get to the top eventually, but, as in the current presidential race, the fact that someone has a vagina is not a reason to vote for her, contrary to what Madeleine Albright says. That's pure identity politics, and is rightfully being called out even by democrats.

SWJ is a term with a relatively short half-life. It's as stupid as "road warrior" for people working on a laptop or tablet while going from place to place, and you don't hear the general population using either term much, if at all. These self-styled "road warriors" use it in a kind of "see how hard I have to work" appeal to martyrdom, but those outside "the anointed" will mostly just roll their eyes.

And yet there are SJW wannabes, such as Briana Wu, who manufactured drama, and yet don't have the guts to acknowledge the real elephant in the room, and in failing to do so and moving on, just drew more attention to it rather than trying to effect any sort of constructive dialog. Carolyn Cossey (Bond girl) didn't run away from it when she was outed. Neither did Lynn Conway. And yet neither of them is labeled an "SJW." Probably because neither acts like a hysterical drama queen (like pretty much all SJWs), but address the issue in a straightforward, sober manner. And there's the difference - the people who are truly working for social justice aren't self-promoting drama queens with Patreon accounts asking for money to help fight the battle for woman's rights because, in Wu's case, after blowing through a couple hundred thousand dollars in angel (mostly parents) money in not one, but 2 businesses as a "game designer", she needs to find another job.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

I believe that those who have decided that reparative therapy is somehow harm, are being more abusive than the reparative therapists ever were.

So-called "trans women" have been lied to and mutilated by sadistic quacks who should not be considered "doctors". Proper treatment would be to actually solve the issue, not create more issues. You are the one preventing people with this mental illness from getting proper treatement- because you were denied proper treatment.

Well, snowflake, the courts have decided you are wrong. In at least one state, people offering reparative therapy have been successfully sued for damages under consumer protection laws for false advertising when claiming they could "repair" a person. Many governments are banning the practice because it has been proven harmful, and even deadly. Maybe you should read how reparative therapy is practiced, and you'd see who the real quacks are.

In the case of children, it is now clearly child sexual abuse (after 2 investigations of Kenneth Zucker, his gender clinic that practiced reparative therapy was closed down and he apparently is in hiding, possibly from law suits from survivors and the parents of non-survivors - people are really angry at how they were deceived and mistreated for years - would like to have a "little conversation" with him.

Proper treatment does solve the issue - just not in the way you would want it to. This has been proven with a 98% satisfaction rate in recent decades Even breast augmentation doesn't have anywhere near as much of a satisfaction rating. Too bad, the world doesn't work they way either you or the bible say it does.

Oh, BTW - its no longer classified as a mental disorder as of 2013, 40 years after the APA (1973) stopped classifying same-sex attraction as a mental disorder. However, most people treating transsexuals dropped the "mental disorder" model long ago, based on their observations of their own patients.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Penguinisto]

Jesus' silence on the issue of owning people speaks for itself.

I can tell you're a bit ignorant on the subject of how slavery worked in Israel...

Jewish slavery was a system of being voluntarily owned in order to pay off debts. If you owed Joe Hebrew 600 bucks and couldn't pay it, you became his servant in exchange for writing the debt off. As a bonus, according to Judaic law, the term could only last for seven years, as every Jubilee (which happened every seven years) automatically freed anyone bound to this servitude.

The only lifetime-involuntary-type slaves were those owned by the Romans.

As for speaking out against slavery, well, you'd be fairly wrong on that count too:

"... to proclaim release to the captives to set free those who are oppressed"

-Luke 4:18

A better explanation of the philosophical opposition to slavery in principle can be explained thus:

"New Testament writers, like Jesus their Master, opposed the dehumanization and oppression of others. In fact, Paul gave household rules in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4 not only for Christian slaves but for Christian masters as well. Slaves are ultimately responsible to God, their heavenly Master. But masters are to “treat your slaves in the same way” — namely, as persons governed by a heavenly Master (Ephesians 6:9). Commentator P.T. O’Brien points out that “Paul’s cryptic exhortation is outrageous” for his day.2

Given the spiritual equality of slave and free, slaves even took on leadership positions in churches. Paul’s ministry illustrates how in Christ there is neither slave nor free, when he greeted people by name in his epistles. Some of these people had commonly used slave and freedman names. For example, in Romans 16:7,9, he refers to slaves such as Andronicus and Urbanus (common slave names) as “kinsman,” “fellow prisoner,” and “fellow worker” (NASB). The New Testament’s approach to slavery is contrary to aristocrats and philosophers such as Aristotle, who held that certain humans were slaves by nature (Politics I.13).

Paul reminded Christian masters that they, with their slaves, were fellow-slaves of the same impartial Master. Thus, they were not to mistreat them but rather deal with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul called on human masters to grant “justice and fairness” to their slaves (Colossians 4:1, NASB). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons (Colossians 3:22–25) who, like their Christian masters, are “brothers” and part of Christ’s body (1 Timothy 6:2).3 Christians — slave and master alike — belong to Christ (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). Spiritual status is more fundamental and freeing than social status."

ref: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.or...

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Penguinisto]

You're welcome to your opinion, but I would have hoped for an opinion that wasn't plagiarized from the typical Atheist groupthink. ;)

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Penguinisto]

There are more references to violence in the Old Testamant than in the Koran.

Partially correct. There are more references to violence in general, but not much in the way of condoning violence, and very few after the first five books.

Meanwhile, the Quran is chock-a-block with exhortations to kill, torture, rape, deceive, etc... unless of course your victim is Muslim.

 

Remember that Christians during ante-bellum South defended the most brutal form of slavery using the Bible, probably the biggest religious schism in America came from protestant churches dividing over the issue of slavery.

That schism should have told you something, especially considering that said schism kind of destroys your argument that "Christians" were responsible for pre-Civil-War slavery. ;) Also note that the whole Abolitionist movement relied on Christianity itself as the philosophical and ideological basis for abolishing slavery.

Meanwhile, slavery is still practiced fairly widely in too may parts of the world today. Care to guess how nearly all of the modern slave-owners pray?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Penguinisto]

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa 198...

I see that you fall for propaganda all too easily. Now how about contacting and conversing with folks in Iran who are homosexual and/or surgically altered. Betting that you won't have an easy time doing that...

PS: as for the whole gender-bending thing? I prefer to stick with DNA as the arbiter (that is, XX versus XY) - the rest of that controversy is mentally-oriented (mind, I won't assign a judgement value to that mental orientation, just stating it for what it actually is.) For the incredibly rare among us who have chimeric/hermaphroditic DNA? They are the few who can rightly (at least in biological terms) determine which gender they prefer to become (though sadly their parents often make that decision for them at or near birth).

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

You seem to miss that the gospel was "for the jew first, but also for the gentile." (romans 1:16). At that time, jews were allowed to own gentiles for the life of the slave.

Luke 4:18 was about the spiritual freedom from eternal condemnation granted by the gospel. Context counts. :-)

To say that slaves even took leadership positions in the church is irrelevant - by that time, slaves were running much of the Roman government, doing the actual reading and writing for their masters, taking care of businesses for them, raising and teaching their children, etc. No big deal.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The courts are bribed by the very people who want to exploit trans individuals for the porn industry. The courts are not trained in reality anymore, which is why they are more willing to indulge mental illness than actually point out that you can't change your genes.

The APA is a political organization and bears no resemblence to science.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

It wasn't plagiarized. I came to it on my own after abandoning the evangelicals when looking at the crapfest of the stories contradicted by science, historic inaccuracies, and plain "this just doesn't make sense". It was a relief to return to atheism. And I'm not the only one.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

If you're going to use dna as the basis, please do it honestly, without such a simplistic interpretation. It's not just the genes, but how they are expressed, which is dependent on many things. In the case of transsexuals, parts of the brain develop as that of the opposite sex under control of the individual's genes. That's now a proven, accepted fact. We can't change the brain, so we fix the body to match. You might prefer to change the brain to match, but not only is that not possible, but that would also drastically change the person's mind, not just their brain. Are you willing to basically destroy a person's essential self, rather than affirm it? I'm not.

It's been tried - administering hormones as the same biological sex results in violence and suicide. "Reparative therapy" is now illegal in many areas because it cannot change the brain structures involved, and in children the techniques often cross over the line to sexual abuse.

As for Iran, for years after the fatwa, it was THE sex change capital of the world. Lots of medical tourism because the procedures were safe, more than competitive in price, etc.

The treatment of homosexuals in Iran is not the same as transsexuals, and I never said otherwise. You're either being silly or intellectually dishonest comparing the two. Come on, your position wrt genes isn't scientifically tenable and is rejected by doctors, and your position wrt the treatment of transsexuals in Iran (which is better than many parts of the US) is kind of sad ...

Even Cuba has a better policy towards transsexuals - including free sex changes for citizens. Can you beat that?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

You are one f*cked up conspiracy nutcase.

First, learn how laws work. The courts don't pass laws, they just administer them. Governments pass laws, based on pressure brought by, in this case, the victims of "reparative therapy" who were able to prove to legislators and consumer protection departments that it is a fraud, that none of the claims it made are true, and that there is no medical basis for it. In other words, people who believe in "reparative therapy" are suffering from a psychosis, believing in something that isn't real despite all the evidence proving the contrary, "because".

The techniques used on children were abusive on their face, and only a sociopath would do such things.

How does it feel to be on the losing side of history?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Coren22]

There is absolutely nothing preventing that except no one having the means, opportunity, and motivation at the same time.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[squiggleslash]

To use your example, women are often paid less than men. That's a fact. Saying that this is "because the patriarchy works to oppress women" is both way too simplistic and pushes a story arc that is both divisive and false

That wasn't actually my example, but OK. Now, who is making this claim, as simplistically as you're making it? Who is saying "The pay gap" (to use your example) or "The addtional hurdles women need to pass to be taken seriously in IT" (to use mine) "is entirely the result of" (what I assume you to mean) "deliberate sexism" (I assume, because "the patriarchy" is a description of a result, not a description of a cause per se except that institutional sexism is inherently partially self sustaining.)

Answer: there really isn't anyone. The argument being rejected by those who scream "SJW" as an insult is not "Deliberate sexism is the cause of all women's problems", it's "X is a form of sexism that harms women", "The substantial pay gap between men and women is evidence that sexual discrimination is occurring" ,"Women are having specific avoidable problems in the workplace that do not apply to men, in large part because workplaces are built around traditional male culture."

Saying those things are what gets you labelled an SJW. And your views and opinions consigned to the bit bucket.

Men are not saying "when my daughter grows up, I want her to earn less just because she's a woman." Or "My wife should earn less, even though we could really use the extra money."

But again, this is a straw man. If someone said "Yeah, all men are deliberately oppressing women" then, sure, we can laugh at them. But that's something said by very few people, I haven't heard anyone say it. The much despised "Third wave feminism" actually differs in large part because it's male positive compared to its predecessor, men are seen as positive participants, and the focus is on social structures that (usually) unintentionally harm women, not on deliberately sexist institutions and acts. Germaine Greer was writing in a world where husbands would "discipline" their wives for buying her books. Anita Sarkeesian is doing video series on how to avoid sexist cliches when you design your video games that you probably didn't realize were sexist to begin with, to an audience it's presumed actively wants to know these things.

[SJW] is a term with a relatively short half-life. It's as stupid as "road warrior" for people working on a laptop or tablet while going from place to place, and you don't hear the general population using either term much, if at all. These self-styled "road warriors" use it in a kind of "see how hard I have to work" appeal to martyrdom, but those outside "the anointed" will mostly just roll their eyes.

It is, thankfully, a term I never hear in real life. If I hear a real life person judge another by calling them a beta cuck SJW, I'll probably defriend them. Is it me, or do Gamergaters sound like they've had half their brains removed?

SJW is meaningless. It is, in reality, no matter how you use it, applied to anyone who suggests some groups are at an unfair disadvantage compared to, in the US, white English speaking men, for reasons beyond simple biology.

Until it really does start being used against that tiny minority of extremists, and not to everyone pointing out issues with society and discrimination, it can't really be said to have meaning.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, I simply do not accept the reality you're trying to abusively shove down everybody's throat. The reality is you were born male, and no amount of mutilation or play acting will change that.

The victim stories from reparation therapy were bought and paid for by the real abusers- the porn industry that needs LGBT people to exploit.

As for the losing side of history- the current method is simply not evolutionarily sustainable. You idiots are dinosoars- you will go extinct eventually because you've forgotten that procreation requires males and females.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Can't argue with that :-)

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

1. Never said I wasn't assigned male at birth. So what's your point?

2. The victim stories are from the patients and their parents. Anyone who knows how "reparative therapy" is practiced would know that it is abusive and exploitative. There is absolutely no proof that the porn industry is involved in any way. And you've been watching too much porn.

3. I have two daughters. Caitlyn Jenner has 6. There are also transsexuals who don't have children who store their sperm before treatment. And seriously, we already have 4-6 billion people too many. But if you want to talk about evolutionary sustainability, maybe we're the next step in human evolution, in nascent form? Got any proof otherwise?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[MitchDev]

Why care about it? If you don;t care enough to put you "name" on it, you don;t care very much about it. Fearing "karma points" is just stupid...

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Marxist Hacker 42]

1. Playacting as female is a lie. That you have convinced yourself of the lie, doesn't change reality.
2. There is plenty of proof that the porn industry is involved with the sexual revolution- and that the real reason for the entire sexual revolution is to change sex from being procreative to recreative.
3. Once you transition, you can't reproduce. In fact, that is the entire intent of the surgery, to trick you.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

1, Medical science says otherwise. The name has been changed from gender identity disorder to gender dysphora, and it will probably be completely removed from the DSM in DSM6. So who am I to believe - some fundamentalist dweeb with no medical background, or a team of medical specialists?
The law also says otherwise. Even if I agreed with you (which I don't), who are we to argue with all the evidence to the contrary?

2. Since you're a bible thumper, I suggest you read Genesis. The proposition there is Adam and Eve were normally-functioning human beings, and there were no kids around. It was only after the fall that they were told to "go forth and multiply."
Not that I believe such fairy tales, but there is no reason to say that sex should not naturally be recreational as well. I know when I see two dogs going at it, they're both having a good time, Enjoyment is a survival matter - those who enjoy it are more likely to reproduce, not less.

Also, dolphins enjoy sex. They really, really enjoy sex.

3. Once any woman reaches a certain age, they can't naturally reproduce. So what's your point again?

I've got two great daughters, and that's alll I want. So how have I been tricked? If I wanted more, I could have banked sperm, as others do, as I pointed out and you refuse to acknowledge because it's a huge flaw in your claims.

Breeders like the Duggers are irresponsible parents, as we've seen from then covering up their son's sexual assaults on their daughters. And in a world of shrinking resources, people like you are a problem on several levels, trying to impose false beliefs from a god, that has no evidence that it even exists, on others.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Marxist Hacker 42]

1. Medical Science is currently poltically controlled by sexual revolutionists, who have let their biases and wishes dictate the "science". The DSM is a political document, not a scientific document, and always has been.
2. I am not a Bible thumper at all. I see the biology- true biology, not your fake "Medical science" dictates male and female.
3. Better a breeder than a human extinctionist genocidal maniac.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Better to be me than an ignorant conspiracy nutter like you. :-) It must be hard to be happy when you think everything is a conspiracy. Of course, the easiest explanation is that I'm part of a conspiracy against people like you . Here's a clue - no conspiracy necessary.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Coren22]

Do you consider the Koran to only be the difference of the Bible and Koran? As I understood it, the Koran contained the entirety of the Bible, so how could the Koran possibly contain less violence?

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Knew that already that your kind wants to destroy heteronormative society.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Knew that already that your kind wants to destroy heteronormative society.

Why would you say that? I have no problem with a man and a woman having consensual sex.

Oh, right, because giving rights to someone else somehow magically takes away from your rights. What a nutcase.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Because destroying the concept of physical gender is an early step to removing parental rights, like Obergefell did.

Re:But they're not white, so it's OK

[BarbaraHudson]

Really? I still have all my parental rights. ALL. And the concept of physical gender doesn't change - otherwise there could be no conflict between physical gender and gender identity, so your argument not only is wrong, it starts out with a concept "destroying the concept of physical gender" that is seriously at odds with reality.

And what the hell (if anything) does same-sex marriage have to do with this? It's an individual decision, not something that requires a partner (of either sex). Two completely different topics. A sex change doesn't affect parental rights and obligations.

You wanna know how I know you're gay?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think a brightly colored emoji will be more appealing than a vagina.

The deep insecurity of Islam

[blind biker]

I am not talking about Muslims in general, because generalizations are impossible, but Islam itself is founded on some deep insecurities of men.

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[Opportunist]

Oh as if any other delusion is any more secure. Remember, the Christian god is a jealous one. And jealousy is usually a pretty good sign of insecurity.

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[gstoddart]

Bah ... if there's a god of the universe he made it with cool shit like gravity waves and other things we can understand using things like relativity, filled it with vast and complex things to amaze and delight us, and gave us the capacity to investigate and understand it, and ponder our own place in it.

That god is sitting around going "what the fuck are the little squishy ones on that little fucking rock doing ?"

It's the fucking humans which are the whiny little petulant assholes who can't get over our own bullshit and fantasies about shit like this.

Narrow minded people need to imagine a narrow minded god.

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[Opportunist]

The problem I have with the christian god is that he is inconsistent. Not only in his actions, that's normal with megalomaniac lunatics. No, in his psychological makeup.

He's insecure and jealous. Not my idea, his own manual says so. Ok. He's got the personality of an opera diva and wants constant worship from everyone. And anyone not worshiping him needs to be converted or sent on a one-way trip to hell. Because he wants a bigger audience. So far, so sensible. Typical egotist with a megalomaniac streak, which is not uncommon with people who not only get lifted on pedestals by their peers but also have a lot of power.

And then he does everything to make himself obsolete. Take this universe. Time and again I get to hear how this is a proof for god because it's so "perfectly tuned". Aside of being impossible to observe were it any other way (because we didn't exist then), wouldn't a god that wants groveling and worship ensure that we KNOW it's his doing and ONLY his doing, that keeps us alive? He's all powerful, and if only half the stories in his ad brochure are true he also has no problem observing any physical limitations or pesky little things like conservation of energy. It would be trivial for him to ensure we KNOW he's there.

But instead he hides and gives us every reason to not believe in his existence because it is possible to explain this universe, from its creation to its current state, without there ever being some kind of supernatural entity required.

How does this get together with that diva personality?

Sorry, christians, your god makes no sense. Get a more sensible one that doesn't look like something Michael Bay would want to make a movie of (seriously, he's big with the special effects in his ad publication but poor with dialogue and sensible content... much like a Bay movie) and we can talk.

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[UnknownSoldier]

> He's insecure and jealous. Not my idea, his own manual says so.

His/Her manual also says in Jer 8:8:

'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

Blaming God because (some) Men distort the truth is tossing the baby out with the bathwater. i.e. Sacrifices were never commanded (Jer 7:22)

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

Jesus clarified the spiritual immaturity & stupidity of Judaism when he quotes Hosea 6:6

But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

> But instead he hides

If everyone knew God existed it wouldn't change a single thing. Why? Because you're forgetting about a little experiment called Earth:

Free Will

> because it is possible to explain this universe ... without there ever being some kind of supernatural entity required.

And the Laws of Physics just "magically" appeared one day?? Or are you saying they have always existed ??

The first law of Thermodynamics tells us:

Energy can not be created nor destroyed.

Ergo, the universe has always existed, which implies the Laws of Physics have always existed.

Either way it takes faith to believe in an Eternal Universe or Eternal God. Infinity is curiouser and curiouser that way.

What you are missing is that, at the end of the day, who cares where your faith is placed?? What DOES matter is your _actions_ towards others. There is a reason ALL the major religions teach The Golden Rule. Look, ALL Religions bibles, holy works, and theology can be summarized in 2 words:

Love Unconditionally

THAT'S the point of pure Spirituality, not the corrupted versions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam selling Heaven Insurance.

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[SvnLyrBrto]

Oh, and not only does this dog disappear into obscurity, he actively works to *hide* his presence:

- Fake dinosaur skeletons, complete with the carbon isotopes tampered with so they appear to be 65 million years old instead of 6000.
- The whole geologic record for that matter, also with falsified carbon isotopes.
- Lots of fake light inserted into space, supposedly originating from sources hundreds, thousands, and millions of light-years away. Said light is tampered with further: red-shifted to support that wacky "Big Bang" theory.
- A star to orbit that's so dense that it takes than the 6000 years that the universe has existed for energy to travel from the core, where the fusion takes place, to the surface, where it can then be radiated toward the Earth.
- You know... radioactive decay and outer space in general are both poor things for this god to have invented, unless he *REALLY* didn't want to be found.

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[unixisc]

I am not talking about Muslims in general, because generalizations are impossible, but Islam itself is founded on some deep insecurities of Mohammed.

FTFY

As for Muslims, is there a good way of sorting out Muslims who don't believe in Islam from those who do?

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[Toshito]

Slashdot is really going down the drain when such drivel can be modded to +4.

Ergo, the universe has always existed

What about the big bang??? Where have you been these last 100 years, hiding in a church?

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[sarku]

Right. Friggin. On.

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[UnknownSoldier]

> What about the big bang???

What about it? "Something" just "magically" appeared from nothing without any cause ??? Can I have some of what you're smoking please?

> Where have you been these last 100 years, hiding in a church?

Considering a Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre invented the Big Bang theory your lame attempts to be condescending are misguided at best. There are numerous problems with it but let's conveniently ignore those.

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[UnknownSoldier]

>> "Something" just "magically" appeared from nothing without any cause ???
> Why not?

You keep using this word nothing. It doesn't mean what you think it means. You just might want to re-take that Logic & Mathematics course until you understand.

> We don't know that existence itself must have a cause.

Aside from the All-Parent, show me _anything_ that exists without a cause. I got time for you enumerate and exhaust the universe ...

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[HornWumpus]

God is she and is on a 4000 year cycle.

When she sent down the old testament she was PMSing.

New testament, ovulating.

Count the years and keep your head down. We're back to god of wrath. Best just go fishing.

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[UnknownSoldier]

> But instead he hides and

Blaming others because you are looking in the wrong place, is well, let's just leave it at that.

The Source is found inside, not outside as Jesus summarized in Luke 17:21:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

He clarified:

And Jesus answered: "Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is living word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture which is without life. God so made life and all living things that they might by the everlasting word teach the laws of the true God to man. God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; in your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your ears, and in every little part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in the earth, in the plants, in the sunbeams, in the depths and in the heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue and the will of the living God. But you shut your eyes that you may not see, and you shut your ears that you may not hear. I tell you truly, that the scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in His works? And wherefore do you study the dead scriptures which are the work of the hands of men?"

The principles which can be found earlier in the Torah at Deuteronomy 30:6:

The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

One of the few things Paul the Corruptor got right was in 1 Cor 6:19-20

Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

Even Rabbi's know this.

Re:The deep insecurity of Islam

[volmtech]

God is an alien, of course his actions may not make sense to us. The manual you reference has two parts. In the second part we are told no one is under the Law anymore. We are to spread the Word, nothing else. Christians are only told to not allow members to be part of their church group who do certain things. We are to harm no one. People who think other wise are flat out wrong.

If I am going to believe God could create the entire universe why then couldn't he create starlight between the galaxies and dinosaur bones under the ground? I know it sounds silly but I'm too old to change.

Re:Religion

[Hognoxious]

It's the start of the slippery slope toward total barbarism

I'd say it's a good thing.

You did mean that they'll eventually ban all emojis, right?

Re:Curious

[Opportunist]

Hmm... 72 virgins... a 90s LAN party?

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't started blowing themselves up yet. Not even participating in the traditional weekly mass shooting...

Re:Curious

[N1AK]

The claim in Christianity is that infants that die before baptism, and people who die having never even heard of Christ, go to hell and suffer for eternity... That's all you need to know about Christianity.

Re:Republitards?

[Opportunist]

Actually, they should get along pretty well.

Dawkins help us if they ever find out how much they have in common and stop shooting each other.

This just in

[Opportunist]

Religious nutjobs create law without any connection to reality. Film at 11.

Re:And...

[gstoddart]

Hmmm ... let's see ... wants to define what others can do based on their own religion ... are 100% convinced of their right to do so ... wish to impose own standards of decency/morality on the rest of the world whether the rest of the world likes it or not ... thinks the rest of the world needs to let them do as they please while refusing to respect other beliefs ... wants their religion taught in school and to supersede science and facts ... firmly think god is personally on their side and can do no wrong.

It's hard to see how they're that much different.

Of course, they'll claim it's entirely different, because they're the True Believers and everyone else is wrong. And in the process will prove the point through a level of irony neither can appreciate.

Why, you'd think anybody who values freedom, free speech, liberty, and the right of self determination would immediately start sending out as many homojis as they could find to defend such censorship and imposition of lack of freedom on the world.

(And I hereby grant homojis to the world to use freely and without license ;-)

Re:And...

[jmac_the_man]

How is the christianist wing of the Republican Party (AOT,K) any different than any other fundamentalist sect of a religion?

Well for one thing, the people behind this are trying to pass a law banning gay emojis. Can you point to a Republican that's trying to ban gay emojis?

Wow

[PeeAitchPee]

This article is about yet another Muslim country implementing homophobic laws, and half of the comments are already immediately teeing off on Christianity without even a nod to the article itself. Nothing constructive or insightful . . . just an attempt to deflect and scream "but the other team is even worse!" Fuck you . . . you're not helping.

Re:Wow

[gstoddart]

Honestly, what insight is there to be had about religious bigotry?

Neither side is different, at the extremes they both do the exact same fucking things, under the name of the exact same fucking god (the Muslim god IS the Christian god, like it or not). Religious extremism is no different, no matter what it is (there's extremist Buddhists, so I'm not singling anybody out here.)

Why do people think it's OK when one group does it but not another? The hypocrisy is why people point it out.

It's not like "yarg, teh batshit crazy Muslims" is any different from "yarg, teh batshit crazy Christians".

Re:Wow

[halivar]

It's not like "yarg, teh batshit crazy Muslims" is any different from "yarg, teh batshit crazy Christians".

I know right? Refusing to bake a gay wedding cake is literally and exactly like dragging them into the street and stoning them to death. It is, as you say, "the exact same fucking thing."

Re:Wow

[gstoddart]

I'll tell you what ... when these same Christians endorse the right of someone else to say "we don't serve your kind", great, you can claim to have a logically coherent position.

But you can't claim to be exempt from being discriminated against on religious grounds, while using your religion to claim the right to be able to discriminate against someone else. Fuck that.

But if someone said "get out of my store, I won't serve you" to a Christian, the yowling and cries of oppression would be epic ... which means I don't respect that your religion makes you a special fucking little snowflake.

And, for the record, there ARE Christians who do advocate pretty much that.

Boo hoo, I don't give a fuck about your god, and I don't recognize he's granted you any special fucking rights. Believe what you want, but don't think that exempts you from anything or confers any obligation to me.

If your fucking god doesn't like it, let him take it up with me. I don't recognize your authority to act as his proxy.

Re:wow

[Lodlaiden]

They're worried children will turn gay because they like rainbows? I'm in awe.

My little pony has been twisting the minds of small boys for generations now.

Re:Wow

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Tell you what, let's invent this thing called "freedom", and let people be free to live their insane lives as they see fit.

So, regardless of your religion, or your politics-as-religion, your Great Ideas end where my nose begins.

No cake baking for ceremonies you are religiously offended by.

No orders to twitter to delete gay emojis.

My, what a nice, peaceful place.

Re:Wow

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The problem isn't, and has never been, who wields the power. The problem has always been the existence of that kind of power at all.

Re:Wow

[bugs2squash]

I know right? Refusing to bake a gay wedding cake is literally and exactly like dragging them into the street and stoning them to death. It is, as you say, "the exact same fucking thing."

Not to the same degree, no. But certainly the same side of the scale, just a question of being more emboldened after that.

Re:Wow

[iamacat]

Child marriage is legal in Indonesia. If you were a baker there, would you want to be forced to bake cakes for underage ceremonies?

Re:Wow

[thegarbz]

Fuck you . . . you're not helping.

Helping what? The notion that there's a sane religion out there that exists for the welfare of the people? Hint: Imaginary friends stopped being cool when you turned 10.

Re:Wow

[bugs2squash]

If the children are both consenting adults marrying of their own free will, and if I were a baker in Indonesia then I'd happily bake them a cake. On the other hand if I were a baker in the USA and I was asked to bake a cake to celebrate two gay minors being forced into marriage then I would refuse.

Complex, isn't it.

Not much trumps the rights of children to be protected until they are adult and certainly not some false comparison between gay marriage and child abuse

Re:Wow

[ilsaloving]

The problem is that religious nutjobs will take your inch and try to steal a mile. They will do their damndest to shove their nose in your business, and will use any means to do so, at every possible opportunity, even if it's illegal. I mean, look at what's happening in the US right this moment.

Michigan just banned sodomy despite the fact that have a whackton of real and devastating problems that are costing people their lives.

Republicans are actively waging a war against women, cause vaginas are skeery. They went so far as to produce fraudulent footage of planned parenthood just so they could open an investigation. It has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, repeatedly, that they they lied and cheated in order to accomplish what they wanted, and yet somehow people are letting them.

So what is the result? Women are now dying because of various medical issues that would have been trivially prevented by Planned Parenthood, because they either didn't have, or didn't know they had, options.

So yeah, your idea of freedom is great in an ideal world. So is Communism. We don't live in an ideal world.

At least fanatic Muslims are honest about wanting to murder you. Christian fanatics prefer to murder you by indirect means so that they can pretend that they are the good guys.

Re:Wow

[SvnLyrBrto]

Christians would be doing exactly that if we let them get away with it. And note that is from California, which is generally one of the more progressive states in the "not murdering gay people" department.

Re:Wow

[SvnLyrBrto]

You know, I really wish that a bakery had not become the test case for the issue of businesses and public accommodations refusing to sell to gay people. Because to sue over something as trivial as a bakery does make the plaintiffs look a bit silly and petty. And I say that as a someone who's 100% on the side of the plaintiffs. The problem is, of course, not so much bakeries, but grocery stores, gas stations, doctors, banks, insurance companies, real estate agencies, and so on. If it had been JP Morgan Chase or Blue Cross that refused to do business with gay people on the basis of their orientation, I suspect there'd be hardly any controversy.

Re:Wow

[bugs2squash]

I hear what you're saying, but in some ways it is a good example because it is so trivial. If the first case had been about access to lifesaving drugs or something more clearly essential then the question of whether gay couples should be allowed to buy groceries would remain untested. A cake is pretty far down the list of essentials to life so establishing a precedent there makes it hard to slide under the bar for other things.

Re:Wow

[pagedout]

*yawn* Lets see above post was on wackjobs, nice to see you (as a wackjob) decided to chime in.

Michigan issue - Here is the snopes 'mostly false'
http://www.snopes.com/michigan...

I won't go into the war on women statement is just a talking point so commenting on it means nothing.

Fraudulent Footage - Not sure what you mean is fraudulent about it (unless you are calling most investigative journalism fraudulent). Snopes again has a good write up on it. They show it as mixed. Short videos were obviously edited for impact. Long videos show some of the same things but are obviously not as impactful being spaced out over 2 1/2 hours of conversation.
http://www.snopes.com/pp-baby-...

Communism is a great idea... I can't even see an ideal world where Communism would be a great idea. Maybe a world where there were no humans but now you are into the Pixie Dust type solutions (wouldn't it just be great if pixie dust just solved all our problems...).

Speaking (or writing) as an agnostic I would say that rabid atheists (such as you in case you missed the point here) are about on the same level as evangelical Christians. Both believe their positions based on dogma. So, neither tend to have discussions that are anything but talking points and emotional appeals. Neither really care about those that their positions hurt. Not actively evil just kind of sad.

Re:Wow

[halivar]

Michigan just banned sodomy despite the fact that have a whackton of real and devastating problems that are costing people their lives.

This is false.

They went so far as to produce fraudulent footage of planned parenthood just so they could open an investigation.

This is false. People said inconvenient things for PP.

It has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, repeatedly, that they they lied and cheated in order to accomplish what they wanted

This is true! Also, unclear on the concept of an undercover expose (with the accent mark; thanks for being there when I need you, Unicode).

Women are now dying because of various medical issues that would have been trivially prevented by Planned Parenthood, because they either didn't have, or didn't know they had, options.

You could mean two things with this, and both things are false. First, if you're referring to the much ballyhoo'd mammograms, it would be helpful here to mention that PP doesn't perform them anyway, and never has. Second, if you're referring to women somehow not being aware of the fact that abortions exist, and need to be counselled on it's existence, then that simply stretches credulity.

Re:wow

[Darinbob]

And twisting the minds of 40 year old men as well.

Re:Wow

[iamacat]

Why should age of consent be 18? Why not 21 like drinking? 16 like in many countries, including UK and Indonesia? Does everyone have to be forced to participate in whatever ceremonies conform to YOUR believes on this matter?

Re:wow

[sumdumass]

Its not kid turning gay because of the colors but the entire premise behind using the rainbow in the first place. It was picked as the symbol for gay rights specifically because god said it was a sign that he would never destroy the world by flood again in genesis. The usage is to say your god will not do anything.

Religion attempts to teach children how to act often by using fear. The gay rainbow more or less is intended to say there is nothing to fear.

Re:Wow

[Rakarra]

Michigan just banned sodomy despite the fact that have a whackton of real and devastating problems that are costing people their lives.

No they didn't. It banned folks who had sex with animals from getting another pet. The bit about "banning sodomy" is made up based on someone's misinterpretation of the wording of the law. That Michigan did NOT just ban sodomy is one of the very few issues that Michigan Democrats and Republicans agree on.

Re:Wow

[Rakarra]

And note that is from California, which is generally one of the more progressive states in the "not murdering gay people" department.

California is the state of Reagan, it has large, large sections that are far more conservative than other people would suspect. Said nutcase is from Orange County, an extremely conservative area.

Re:Wow

[ilsaloving]

Thank you for the correction regarding the sodomy laws. But the PP thing is absolutely NOT false. There has been so much publicity about the whole ridiculous affair that I can't believe you're even trying to deny it.

As far as woman's heath, I'm talking about services that PP provided to women (and men) who needed them, like STD checking or other basic health assistance. PP were the only ones that provided this kind of assistance to the public at large.

Abortions in particular are a huge issue, because they occur whether Republicans like it or not. The difference is that without places like PP, women resort to more brutal methods like the cliche coathanger. The abortions *still* occur, but now with the additional risk of possibly killing the mother as well.

Re:Curious

[The Grim Reefer]

The claim is men that martyr themselves get 72 virgins when they die.

I've never understood the appeal for this. I mean, it's the afterlife. I would assume that STD's are no longer an issue. I would think that two ridiculously attractive whores would be preferable.

Or maybe we've really misunderstood the true meaning of this. Perhaps Islam is really opposed to martyrdom. It could be such a bad thing in Islam that if you do so, you will nagged for all eternity by 72 women with whom you can never have sex.

What do the women get when they martyr themselves?

They get to be one of the 72 women who nag some stupid man to insanity for all of time. Hell, there's 72 of them and not an AK47 in site. They can stone him to death over and over.

Re:Republitards?

[Knightman]

Dawkins help us if they ever find out how much they have in common and stop shooting each other.

Doesn't matter if they find out how much they have in common, they all believe that their specific belief is the right one and everyone else are the spawn of satan, ie. the situation will get even more polarized if they compare notes.

Re:Curious

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant "The Son".

captcha: giggled

Re:IBBT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the Lesbian Bay area. There is a big LBBT community here.

Re:Curious

[MitchDev]

Yep, it's just as barbaric as "extremist islam"

Re:And...

[MitchDev]

Claim your dog is telling you the truth of the universe and how life should be run, they lock you up in a mental institution. Claim your "god" is doing the same thing and get tax exempt status...

Re:Suggested islamic emoji

[MitchDev]

Or crucified Mohammed in a jar being pissed on...

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... what about the abortion clinic bombings/shootings that have happened? Christian extremists just have different targets.

Re:And...

[Penguinisto]

Here's a fun question: Would you rather live in a society dominated by Judeo-Christian values, or Islamic ones?

But I guess false equivalency is more comforting, no?

bay...

[pruedz]

I support the bay rights!

wow

[pghmike4]

They're worried children will turn gay because they like rainbows? I'm in awe.

There are Same Sex Emoticons?

[mykepredko]

Seriously?

I'm guessing that somebody went out of their way to look for something like this and then was "shocked! shocked!" to find them.

Whatever happened to live and let live?

Re:There are Same Sex Emoticons?

[naris]

Whatever happened to live and let live?

That is not a thing in fundamentalist religious nations.

Re:There are Same Sex Emoticons?

[Darinbob]

How do you know the emoticons are the same sex? Do they drop their trousers and lift their skirts?

Re:And...

[gstoddart]

I want to live in no society which is controlled by either.

I know moderate Muslims, and moderate Christians ... and remarkably, they seem to share the same values, and have no interest in imposing them on anybody else.

Islam derives from the same lineage as gets you from Judaism to Christianity to Islam ... along all of the variations along the way.

It's not a false equivalency to say that "fundamentalist sect of a religion" is no different -- there are probably Christians who would agree with stoning someone for adultery.

Take your false equivalency and cram it up your ass, because I'm not saying all Christians or all Muslims. I'm saying the extreme versions of both are indistinguishable.

Emoticons have a gender?

[naris]

When did that happen?

Oh, they mean rainbows? Right!

Re:Emoticons have a gender?

[Zeroko]

They outnumber heterosexual emoji because there are 2 ways to pair up the same sex & only 1 way to pair up the opposite sexes (assuming exactly 2 sexes & unordered pairs). Which leads to the question: Since the pairs are not visually unordered, why not have separate variants for male-on-the-left & female-on-the-left? Otherwise someone could accuse Unicode of being sexist...or something.

Or, given the presence of other emoji variant selectors (e.g. skin color), why not just have each distinct type of pairing emoji & then sex variant selectors?

Re:Emoticons have a gender?

[unixisc]

Actually, there is just 1 way to pair up a heterosexual couple - one man and one woman - and nothing else counts. One typically doesn't toss in their kids, which would lend some variety. Whereas on the LGBT, you have 2 ways, and then they toss in kids and others, like 2 women & a boy, or 2 women & a girl to imply that the 2 women are lesbians.

Re:IBBT?

[LQ]

I think you meant to type LBBT. Was just going to comment on that.

Has proofreading also been banned (ganned?) in Indonesia?

I think you mean poofreading.

LMAO Get bent, fundies

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason religion should not be imposed by a state.

Re:Then how do to talk about them?

[Phreakiture]

Use your words.

Re:Curious

[Cro Magnon]

No longer. The new Pope says that's hogwash.

But is his ruling retroactive? What happens to all the babies that went to hell over the last ~2000 years?

And does it apply to non-Catholics, or is it only Catholics that get a "Get out of Hell free" card.

Re:And...

[wonkey_monkey]

Would you rather live in a society dominated by Judeo-Christian values, or Islamic ones?

Well, with those two sets of values being so universally unambiguously defined and understood in exactly the same way by every individual on the planet, that shouldn't be a hard question to answer.

Oh, wait...

What a bunch of regressive douchebags!

[Mysticalfruit]

Wow, it's 2016 and we're still worried about what the sky wizard thinks about where penises are or are not going. Really, this is what this is about. Let's also consider this a country whose women for the most part (97.5%) get to enjoy the practice of getting their clitorises cut off. Let that fact detonate in your brain.

Fuck these asshats and their shitty religious ideas.

Re:Curious

[macs4all]

Christianity is just a couple steps away from worshipping the sun. That's all you need to know about Christianity.

A COUPLE of steps?

More like ONE step.

Re:And...

[macs4all]

How is the christianist wing of the Republican Party (AOT,K) any different than any other fundamentalist sect of a religion?

Well for one thing, the people behind this are trying to pass a law banning gay emojis. Can you point to a Republican that's trying to ban gay emojis?

No.

Instead, they just went straight (no pun) to the heart (no pun) of the matter, and systematically attempted to "define marriage" by Constitutional Amendment in several states, before the Supreme Court put an end to their fun.

IMHO, that is a LOT worse than simply (and ridiculously) attempting to "ban" certain emojis.

How long would it take to discover 3 unichar seque

[John Allsup]

How long would it take to discover 3 unichar sequences like ðY'©ðY'ðY'© and ðY'ðY'ðY'?

Re: How long would it take to discover 3 unichar s

[John Allsup]

And finding out which forum websites don't mangle them...

Re:Curious

[UnknownSoldier]

And all the people who died before Jesus go where?

Just because (some) Christian Theology is so full of logic & doctrinal holes doesn't mean you toss the baby out with the bathwater.

> That's all you need to know about Christianity.

Incorrect. All one needs to know about Christianity, in fact the ENTIRE bible can be summed up in 5 words per when the Lawyer asked "What shall I do to inherit eternal life? @ Luke 10:27

Love God. Love Your Neighbor.

Or in the modern colloquialism: Be excellent to each other

Anything more is over-complicating it. Gee, I wonder why ALL the major religions teach the same thing: The Golden Rule /sarcasm, But let's conveniently ignore that fact.

Only time this is *ever* going to be on topic

[neminem]

Screw you, Indonesia, and have fun banning every emoticon...

8===>--- (_._)

p.s. screw you too, slashdot, for still totally failing at supporting basic non-US characters. That is a *remarkably* flat butt.

Re:And...

[AmiMoJo]

Sanity is defined by the norm. Since a large proportion of the human population believes in some kind of god, it's considered normal and sane. Because few people believe in aliens or unicorns, people who do are considered to have some kind of problem or flaw.

Indonesia sucks (mostly)

[azakem]

See title. My buddy was there over New Years 2015 at a hostel, cops came by and told them not to have any New Years celebration. A few people gathered on the beach anyway after midnight to hang out. Locals came by with clubs and machetes and attacked a few locals who were hanging with the foreigners. Cops came by after a long and highly suspicious delay, and let all the attackers off. Indonesia mostly sucks. That said, Bali and the Gili islands are pretty awesome.

Re:Indonesia sucks (mostly)

[azakem]

Ok, probably a bit unfair to say Indonesia mostly sucks based entirely off this, my buddy loved the place. But the government certainly seems to suck, and there are sizeable portions of the population who subscribe to stone age world views.

Re:Indonesia sucks (mostly)

[Falconhell]

Sounds just like the US to me.

Re:Curious

[unixisc]

The claim is men that martyr themselves get 72 virgins when they die.

What do the women get when they martyr themselves?

That’s all you need to know about Islam.

I think the men get 72 Helen Thomases. The women get 72 lesbian virgins as well.

Re:Suggested islamic emoji

[unixisc]

That already exists. It's called a spacebar or a carriage-return, and is already there on all keyboards.

Re:Republitards?

[unixisc]

If you're talking about Bush, Graham, Christie or Fiorina, I agree w/ you. The people who think Sunni Muslims are our friends. But if you're talking about people like Trump who want to end Muslim immigration, then you are wrong. Also, there is a big difference b/w not wanting to recognize gay marriages, or individuals not wanting to serve wedding cakes at gay marriages, vs a country's (Indonesia's) government banning gay emojis b/w 2 gay people. Even the most homophobic of 'Christianists' in the US wouldn't try to ban gay emojis: at most, they'd want the option of NOT having it on their own phones.

Re:And...

[MitchDev]

Exactly, just because the majority (at least the vocal majority) supports something does NOT make it "Right"

Re: And...

[bmo]

When they do it will be towards abortion clinics

They've already bombed abortion clinics.

--
BMO

Re: And...

[bmo]

Been doin' it since 1986, dude.

Why stop now? Because you say so?

--
BMO

Re:Curious

[Darinbob]

Which is why the Catholic church created the notion of limbo and various levels of hell, making fine distinctions of it all. The Bible however can be interpreted as not having a literal hell as well and just a separation from God. With all religions the fundamental core of the religions and cultural add-ons get muddled together and become hard to separate over time.

Gay men simply aren't men

[sarku]

They're more like women, and shouldn't be regarded as men. If a man wants to have sex with another man, that's up to him, but I will never see him as a true man until he forsakes that behavior and "Mans Up." Look, if gay men or women want to be in relationships with each other, fine, but don't try to tell people it's normal. It's not normal, it's a severe imbalance in the psyche. Plain and simple. So I will never, ever, teach my children that it's OK to be gay. I've raised them to be balanced in their gender reality. Not so-called "roles." There's a reality to being and man and a woman, that popular culture will never eradicate.

Re:Curious

[UnknownSoldier]

> What happens to all the babies that went to hell over the last ~2000 years?

. /sarcasm Because obviously a man gets to decide what happens post-death to others ... oh wait, he doesn't.

Re:And...

[sumdumass]

You mean all those attributed to Eric Rudolph?

Outside of someone creating a website with pics, names, and addresses of abortion doctors with a bullseye around the image, i do not know of any organized support for those murders.

Re:Curious

[Rakarra]

He's always been a Christian. Sure, you get protestants who say that THEIR way is the true Christian way, but Catholics are Christians, yes.

Re:Curious

[Rakarra]

I've never understood the appeal for this. I mean, it's the afterlife. I would assume that STD's are no longer an issue. I would think that two ridiculously attractive whores would be preferable.

Or maybe we've really misunderstood the true meaning of this. Perhaps Islam is really opposed to martyrdom. It could be such a bad thing in Islam that if you do so, you will nagged for all eternity by 72 women with whom you can never have sex.

It's meant to appeal to very young men who don't have any sexual prospects at all even in a society that greatly values men over women. It's supposed to turn the tables, instead of many men competing for the hand of few women, in the afterlife it would be the opposite.

Might sound dumb to us, but for the impoverished goat-fucker who has little value above his ability to strap a bomb to his chest, it's tempting.

Re:And...

[penguinoid]

But an even larger percentage believe in some kind of dog.

Impossible

[qaz123]

It's impossible to enforce such a ban. Unless they're going to make their own mobile operating OS an messaging apps

Re:And...

[jmac_the_man]

IMHO, that is a LOT worse than simply (and ridiculously) attempting to "ban" certain emojis.

The thing about emojis is that they're intended to be symbols that convey ideas.

If all the words for "homosexual" were banned, homosexuals wouldn't be able to identify each other for the purpose of being in a relationship. This is literally the idea behind newspeak in 1984. Trying to ban people from talking about "gay stuff" is trying to ban being gay. That's sinister.

By contrast, gay marriage bans weren't bans on gay people. Especially when coupled with civil union laws, they were an attempt to protect both sides of the argument from the loudest and most over-litigative from each faction.

Re:Suggested islamic emoji

[HornWumpus]

Mohamed: (((:~{>

Mohamed with a lit fuse out of his turban: *-(((:~{>

There are many more.

Re:And...

[macs4all]

IMHO, that is a LOT worse than simply (and ridiculously) attempting to "ban" certain emojis.

The thing about emojis is that they're intended to be symbols that convey ideas.

If all the words for "homosexual" were banned, homosexuals wouldn't be able to identify each other for the purpose of being in a relationship. This is literally the idea behind newspeak in 1984. Trying to ban people from talking about "gay stuff" is trying to ban being gay. That's sinister.

By contrast, gay marriage bans weren't bans on gay people. Especially when coupled with civil union laws, they were an attempt to protect both sides of the argument from the loudest and most over-litigative from each faction.

Considering the fact that the State has zero business being in the marriage business anyway, I would say your argument clearly outs you as being anti-gay. And considering those laws are universally driven by religious interests, government doubly has no business even entertaining such concepts.

Re:And...

[jmac_the_man]

You're a crazy person.

Re:And...

[macs4all]

You're a crazy person.

No, I'm not. My Mother had me tested!