Slashdot Mirror
World Reacts To The Worst Mass Shooting In U.S. History (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Fifty people were killed inside Pulse, a gay nightclub, Orlando Police Chief John Mina and other officials said Sunday morning, just hours after a shooter opened fire in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. At least 53 more people were injured, Mina said. Police have shot and killed the gunman, he told reporters.
The shooter is not from the Orlando area, Mina said. He has been identified as Omar Saddiqui Mateen, 29, of Fort Pierce, about 120 miles southeast of Orlando, two law enforcement officials tell CNN.
Orlando authorities said they consider the violence an act of domestic terror. The FBI is involved. While investigators are exploring all angles, they "have suggestions the individual has leanings towards (Islamic terrorism), but right now we can't say definitely..."
In the discussion on this submission, Slashdot readers reported that Reddit is among the sites that have removed some discussions about the shooter's identity, with one reader even reporting "Posts directing people where and how to give blood have been removed."
The shooter is not from the Orlando area, Mina said. He has been identified as Omar Saddiqui Mateen, 29, of Fort Pierce, about 120 miles southeast of Orlando, two law enforcement officials tell CNN.
Orlando authorities said they consider the violence an act of domestic terror. The FBI is involved. While investigators are exploring all angles, they "have suggestions the individual has leanings towards (Islamic terrorism), but right now we can't say definitely..."
In the discussion on this submission, Slashdot readers reported that Reddit is among the sites that have removed some discussions about the shooter's identity, with one reader even reporting "Posts directing people where and how to give blood have been removed."
Will the jackass who keeps posting spam and saying Slashdot hates gays please leave permanently? The story has been posted, now STFU. Slashdot doesn't hate gays.
Buddhist?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
While investigators are exploring all angles, they "have suggestions the individual has leanings towards (Islamic terrorism), but right now we can't say definitely..."
This statement is about a perp who called 911 and proclaimed himself an agent of ISIS
No matter what you think about the civil rights aspect of our surveillance state, it is increasingly clear that it does not not work.
However, instead of calls to disband it, I'm sure there will be calls to make it even more intrusive. And there is no limit to that. If another event happens, we must not be surveilling the population enough...
He was radicalized by the NYPD
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And the circle jerk mentality they so love.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's a good thing all Americans can get guns. Because, you know, protection and all that. Really, this attack as terrible as it was is only a 1/3 uptick in the number of violent gun deaths in America today.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Can't vouch for this, but various sites are reporting...
TFA mentions that Mateen was interviewed by the FBI in 2013 and 2014, but not deemed dangerous. This reinforces my doubts that background checks will ever be very effective in general, whether for terrorism or any other type of bad behavior.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The reason not to act too hasty with a definitive declaration is that more evidence could come to light. What if it wasn't the perp, but someone else spreading disinformation? What if the perp himself was spreading disinformation to try and maximize the impact of his crime? That kind of thing. No, it isn't likely but it is too early to say definitively. Hence the "We think it is this, but can't say for sure." I think that is proper over all. Say what you think, but make sure to keep what you think and what you know clearly delineated.
The PC is the idiots who are either prohibiting discussion of this or worse, blaming American culture and it's supposedly ever-prevelant homophobia.
Queue the left for appeasement of Islam while vilifying gun owners.
Rather than responding to the darkness of terror with the cleansing sunlight of truth and free discussion, major discussion sites like Reddit are shutting down discourse on this major event? This is a grave disservice to everyone who believes in a free and open society. Comments that offer nothing but vitriol, hate, and anger should certainly be moderated, but locking and deleting entire threads because the task facing the moderators is too hard is not the answer.
I cannot imagine what the families and friends of those killed and injured are going through. Instead of politicizing this hours after it occurred, how about everyone take a long moment to focus on supporting those whose loved ones were killed or whose loved ones are still in limbo in the hospital. There will be plenty of time for fingerpointing, anger, and hate later. Showing the best humanity has to offer is the best response to the worst humanity has to offer.
According to the timeline posted by the media, the gunman initially exchanged fire with three cops at 2am. They did not pursue him. 100 cops arrive. They do not attempt to enter. At 5am, the SWAT team finally breaches and kills the terrorist.
That left the attacker with 3 whole hours to kill his hostages. Shades of Columbine, where the police were similarly afraid to respond until they had ridiculously overwhelming force.
Oh yeah, false flag. You're an idiot.
Hostages. Police do run in sometimes but it gets hostages and police killed. They sent in robots and saw what they thought were explosives. There weren't explosives so it sucks that there was a delay. How would you deal with it if it were in your town? Would you be the first to run in and take a shot to the helmet?
People tend not to fight back in these situations. Especially after they see bodies all over and watching so many others dying. One guy with a big gun can cause mayhem and basically do it without adversity. All the "what if's" won't help. At least the guy in California got stopped before he could do it there. People called the police and they looked into it. Disaster avoided.
The guy shot security, then a bunch of everyone else. Eventually he got shot by police after they felt it safe enough for them to rush in. Bunch of drunk people in a dance club didn't stand a chance. None have the always on mindset to fight back. The guys in France that stopped the train attack have the always on mindset and that is why they were successful. People in Cali thought the guy was acting wrong and they called 911. They saved lives with a phone call. If you see someone acting wrong, don't be afraid to call the police.
Lol, you want to know the difference between an "assault weapon" and a hunting rifle? It's purely cosmetic. That shit was nothing but feel good pandering of the worst sort, and did nothing to effect the deadliness of any available gun.
Certainly I understand the patrons can do little. The police, especially SWAT ought to be slightly more courageous. At least, they ought not be drunk. Of course assessment needs to be done, but continued fire and wounded victims indicates urgency. I would expect multiple-point breech (rip firedoors off) in about one hour.
I've noticed that when someone lacks any plausible argument, they tend to turn to making up lies about the people they see as their opposition. I don't know if you were fooled by the liar, or you are the liar.
At exactly 7:00 00 AM every Sunday, the Twitter account posts a verse. Why precisely 7:00 AM, never 7:01 or 6:58 AM? Because it's automated, scheduled the week before. So no, the tweet had nothing to do with the shooting that occurred several days after the tweet was scheduled.
Although he was born in the usa.
Afghans are... odd when it comes to homosexuality. Like all Muslims it's prohibited, but it is extremely common.
If you'd like to read more about the phenomenon, type Afghan Gay Thursday into google.
It's so common that Afghan men schedule their sex with other men for Thursdays so that they can pray on friday, the Muslim sabbath.
The two laws you mention ban weapons based largely on APPEARANCE, not functionality, and they don't mention at all the type of guns most often used in murders. You're advocating "scary looking" guns. Exactly what difference do you think a barrel shroud or folding stock would make?
Here's a look at the effectiveness of the "assault weapons" ban from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Certainly I understand the patrons can do little. The police, especially SWAT ought to be slightly more courageous. At least, they ought not be drunk. Of course assessment needs to be done, but continued fire and wounded victims indicates urgency. I would expect multiple-point breech (rip firedoors off) in about one hour.
I'm sorry if I missed it earlier in the discussion, but your qualifications for hostage rescue operations planning and execution are what exactly? XXX numbers of hours playing CounterStrike? I thought so.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
The same reason the manufacture and sale of AR-15 assault rifles to civilians is allowed in the US -- the federal Constitution has clauses (Amendments in these cases) which assure freedom of religion and the freedom to bear arms.
Not 100%, but there have been some successes..
Better question... why are you?
Silence is a state of mime.
http://www.theonion.com/articl....
The Onion, but not satire or humour.
Your snark misses a rather huge point - these were not hostages, they were targets.
Was Wounded Knee. Where the US Government killed 150 men, women and children. Over "gun control".
Contrary to popular belief and what the talking heads in the news claim, this wasn't an assault weapon. It was not automatic, and it required that scumbag piece of pig excrement to consciously and deliberately pull the trigger every single time he shot someone. And of course he also had a pistol with him as well, and apparently used it as well (which would be more effective in a crowded place).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The terrorist shooting this morning in Orlando was just awful.
And the reaction to it has in some cases been awful too.
No, this is not about gun control. I agree - the US has a horrible problem with guns, but Belgium doesn't, and they suffered attacks. France doesn't, and it suffered attacks. Israel doesn't and it's attacked regularly. The problem *in this instance* is nothing to do with gun control, and any claims to the contrary, including by Obama, are crass politicking. Awful. Shameful.
This is terrorism, but politicians and the press are afraid to call it what it really is -- *Islamist* terrorism. Yes, there are a few counter-examples in recent history to Islamist terrorism, but 99.5% of suicide attacks in the world are carried out by Muslims. ISIS is Muslim. Al Qaeda is Muslim. Al Nusra. Al Shabab. Boko Haram. The list goes on. All Muslim.
Over 30,000 people are murdered by terrorists world-wide, annually. Almost all of them by Muslim fanatics. Most of the dead are Muslim too, incidentally -- in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and many other fun tourist spots. Muslim terrorists have destroyed two airliners flying to/from Egypt and perhaps MH370 recently. Both Egypt and Malaysia are Muslim countries - not likely a coincidence.
So why doesn't the press call it what it is, in the US and elsewhere -- a Muslim Terrorist attack? Are they afraid of being targeted like Charlie Hebdo? Are they excessively politically correct? For shame.
Equally, this is about religion. Lots of people are quick to point out that this is not about religion, but they are wrong.
No, it's not your personal religious views. It's not reflective of the religious views of the majority of Muslims either. But to argue that this is not religiously motivated violence is pure fantasy. These killers are devout. That their beliefs are not mainstream does not invalidate them as religious beliefs. These terrorists are *Muslim* terrorists, not some other variety. They kill in the name of their god and in the name of their ideology. They share their God-belief with 1.6 billion others. Most of those 1.6B would never do anything like this, but a shocking number approve, at least in some circumstances.
Most Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim.
It's also weirdly ironic that the political left, so concerned about LGBTQ rights, are also very concerned about Islamophobia. I'm quite sure that the Muslim world is not at all concerned about LGBTQ rights, or about political freedom. Quite the contrary - anything remotely LGBTQ is punishable by extreme violence (at best) and death (at worst) in the Muslim world.
So get over yourselves. This is a problem with extreme Muslim ideology. The solution has to start with tackling that ideology, not pretending that the causes are elsewhere.
I have a condition along the Autism spectrum. While I may or may not be typical, in my experience the people along the Autism spectrum would most likely not get riled up on this matter. If your point in posting this was to trigger a response from a person or persons on the Autism spectrum, well done.
Arguably, this piece of filth used the 2A to buy his guns after being twisted and encouraged because someone else exercised their 1A rights. Should we prohibit the free exercise of speech and religion, since it was what drove him to his action?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Except in many places in the US you're not free to bear arms - and you weren't free to bear arms in the Pulse club, either.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You're wrong. No editors modded your comment up or down.
Nope. You're wrong.
... that made him do it. I was scratching my head at that one, as if that somehow THAT makes it better. Plus, I'd pretty much bet the farm his homophobia has roots in his religion (as it does for most homophobic Christians I know for that matter)
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Because the problem is less the religion than the mental balance of those who practice it.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Actually mental illness plays a pretty big role in human events, and the reason people try to downplay it is... actually pretty complicated, now that I stop to think of it... I started typing "because of the stigma associated with mental illness, but go ahead and keep playing this stupid game of"... but belligerence is another problem. Mental illness includes things that aren't belligerence, but belligerent behavior is considered especially heinous. When people think in terms of belligerence mental illness gets lumped in and people are so afraid of people with a mental illness who isn't belligerent getting hurt they are quick to say that a person who is belligerent isn't mentally ill. Arguably the people who want to harm any mentally ill person once the connection between mentally ill and belligerent is established in their mind are mentally ill... told you it was complicated. Anyways, it's long past time we all had a big sit-down about going the belligerent route as quick as we do, be it soldiers overseas or police here at home, and the quickness of Muslims to go the belligerent route, and the belligerence thing isn't limited to the West and Muslims. I'll stop pointing out groups at this point, but lets shine a huge spotlight on belligerence in general.
While the militia did include all free males of military age. The militia was subordinate to civilian authority whether the town council, the sheriff or the governor.
You did not have militia members running off on their own stockpiling guns. A miliita member was expected to drill as a member of the local or state militia, wear a proper uniform and maintain their weapons properly. A militia refusing to recognize civilian authority was considered an insurrection. The "Minutemen" was actually the elite select of the Massachusetts militia.
Serious question.
Because...Constitution. Serious answer.
Yaz
Contrary to popular belief and what the talking heads in the news claim, this wasn't an assault weapon.
Come on, aren't you going to try and belittle people by trying to tell them he picked an AR-15 because of the scary color?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
> the M16/AR15 was adopted by the US military in part because it's less deadly than its predecessors?
hahaha what on earth
I think you really need to add a source on this. That's an incredible claim.
When "innocent muslims" take a stand and disavow sharia, I'll be happy to support them.
Those that refuse to disavow capital punishment for being a homosexual are complicit in these types of terror attacks.
Look at an AR15 and a KelTec SU-16. Which is the assault weapon? Both have the EXACT same operation, caliber, and use the same magazines. Both have the same barrel and overall length. Yet one is "black" and scary, the other is not. So one is an "assault weapon". If you really wanted to be effective, do like Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood and use a high capacity pistol. Easier to wield in confined areas, plenty of firepower, and much less recoil making follow-up shots that much easier.
But back to the point of the "assault weapon". Militaries do NOT use an AR15 or the SU-16. What they use is quite different, with selective fire operation, usually shorter (illegal length) barrels, and more. If you've ever disassembled both you'd recognize the differences. And with considerably upgraded internals. If the AR15 used is an "assault weapon" equivalent to a military weapon, then your new Jeep Renegade is just like that HMMWV used by our military.
But they can be scary looking, and that's all that matters, right?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You're welcome to spend as much time as you want as an AC, writing out long-winded diatribes and bolding words if it makes you happy. We are not Reddit so we will allow you to do this as much as you want. Just know that you are wrong, and your posts are pretty stupid which is why people mod you down.
Every time a non-tech related story shows up, search the page for "news for nerds" and you're guaranteed to find this comment repeated verbatim by several idiots.
If you find a story uninteresting, then why not skip it and move on to the next one like a normal person? Instead of wasting time writing the same worthless comment, over and over again, bitching about how your precious time is being wasted?
It is a belief. It is an affirmative belief. It might qualify as a religion or creed depending on how you define those words. It is a belief because you can't prove something doesn't exist. It's a consequence of logic. All reason is necessarily based on a foundation of beliefs.
An agnostic is someone that neither believes in the supernatural nor does not believe in it. They are undecided or uncommitted.
People colloquially use the label atheist when they mean a person that atheist or agnostic since to them both are guilty.
Most people are agnostic no matter how much say they are atheistic and will readily prey when faced with imminent death.
Difference being that car accidents are not deliberate acts. Shooters kill deliberately. Fast foods have been selling soda and burger crap for years that give cancer or make you obese ; but they don't deliberately want you to get cancer.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
Contrast agnostic, those who say they don't know. Atheist CAN mean lack of belief, more often those who call themselves "atheist" have a strong, almost violent belief that rhere is no God. Most refuse to recognize that there are a thousand different concepts called "God", so really they are claiming "nothing can exist which can be called God." To some, the word God means essentially "nature", or "natural laws", which makes the atheist's position untenable.
Sorry, I thought it was the lives that mattered, not the intent behind their ending.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Society judges intents.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
If you read the papers and letters of the Founding Fathers you'll see that "bear arms" was always used in connection with military units:
Does the freedom of speech only apply to government?
Does the freedom from unreasonable search only apply to government?
The irony is that you think the 1st and 4th and 5th amendments apply to citizens, but not the 2nd.
Actually, yes! If you'll take the time to actually read the First Amendment, it says: "Congress shall not..." The Fourteenth Amendment then expanded all of the protections of the Constitution to States as well since they had gotten onto the very bad habit of restricting the Liberties guaranteed by that Constitution in the interest of "States Rights". But, cling bitterly to your beliefs, man.
Editors didn't mod any of those links up or down. What happened is, of the 300,000 unique visitors per day that view Slashdot, more than a handful decided that you're comments sucked and modded appropriately.
Damn right! Actually, the THIRD Amendment is the biggest threat! Defend your Home!!!
Actually, yes!
Either you didn't understand what I said, or you don't understand the Constitution.
For the moment, I'm going to assume it was the first one.
YOU have freedom of speech, you're allowed to speak and the government can pass no laws restricting your speech.
Likewise, YOU have the right to own guns, that right shall not be infringed.
In other words, the rights in the Constitution are for YOU, not the government.
Reddit is just another vehicle to either silence or deny the citizens of this country their viewpoints on topics they don't find attractive or don't fit their individual viewpoints
Freedom of the press isn't restricted to those that get paid to cover the news unless I misread the first amendment
Reddit is not the government, and hence is not bound by the first amendment. You are free to speak all you want on your own website, but if you are using someone else's website it is their choice on whether or not to let you speak. That being said, it was a major dick move on Reddit's part but they weren't violating the first amendment and your only recourse is to not use Reddit.
Enigma
But everyone in America except for a tiny minority of native Americans is an immigrant or descended from immigrants. Timothy McVeigh was descended from genocidal immigrants.
Allow me (different AC) to offer a different conspiracy theory. Taco Cowboy (and his obvious AC posts) is really APK. This posting is really quite similar to the way APK conducts himself and both are batshit crazy.
It is a belief. It is an affirmative belief. It might qualify as a religion or creed depending on how you define those words.
There are traditionally philosophical distinctions made between "strong" (or "positive") atheism vs. "weak" (or "negative") atheism. "Strong atheists" have a positive belief that no gods exist. Most atheists are merely "weak atheists," who don't actively believe in gods -- and may think they sound unlikely -- but don't have an (unprovable) belief in their non-existence. Lack of belief in something doesn't necessarily entail a positive (and equally unprovable) belief in an opposite.
It is a belief because you can't prove something doesn't exist. It's a consequence of logic. All reason is necessarily based on a foundation of beliefs.
This is a bit of a different issue, which is more related to the traditional definition of agnosticism. A traditional agnostic is someone who has a positive belief that the answers to some questions are unknowable. ("Gnostic" refers to knowledge, an agnostic believes that one can't have that knowledge.)
These days the word "agnostic" is often used for weak atheism, but it's actually a separate issue. An agnostic traditionally is someone who believes we CANNOT know whether God exists -- it's just not a question that can be verified one way or another on the basis of normal empirical evidence. (Philosophers sometimes draw a distinction between "strong" and "weak" agnosticism too.)
An agnostic is someone that neither believes in the supernatural nor does not believe in it. They are undecided or uncommitted.
Again, that's not the word traditionally meant. What you're describing is what philosophers and theologians would generally call weak atheism (i.e., lack of a "theist" belief, hence a-theism). Agnosticism is about what we ALL could possibly know on the basis of evidence, and whether we have sufficient grounds to justify belief, not about whether an individual believes or not.
People colloquially use the label atheist when they mean a person that atheist or agnostic since to them both are guilty.
Agreed, though as I noted -- there are even more distinctions that you make. Using these terms the way philosophers would, it's quite possible to be a gnostic atheist (i.e., a person who has a positive belief that God by definition doesn't exist and believes that he has certain knowledge of this fact), or an agnostic theist (i.e., a person who believes that God exists, but believes it is outside the possibility of science to prove it), or even other stranger combinations.
Most people are agnostic no matter how much say they are atheistic and will readily prey when faced with imminent death.
This is again a separate issue. If I were dying of starvation, I'd definitively prey on animals to survive... sure.
Yeah but it would also grind the economy to a screeching halt. Cars have huge beneficial value to society. Guns are specifically and exclusively for killing. That's why your straw man is not applicable.
.2A .22 is a relatively low powered rimfire cartridge.
An AR-15 is not a .22, it is a center fire rifle, commonly available in .223 (not to be confused with .22) 5.56x45mm .300, 7.52x39mm 5.45x39mm .45ACP 5.7x28mm 6.5mm 6.8mm .50 and .458
There probably are some AR-15's manufactured in .22 calibre, but it most https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... isn't "common".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Who doesn't want to condemn radical Islam? I don't get the point you're trying to make.
Can I recommend you actually learn about "assault weapons"?
This may come as a complete shock to you, but did you know that the M16/AR15 was adopted by the US military in part because it's less deadly than its predecessors? Yeah, sit down for this but the thinking is if you shoot and kill a soldier, you remove him from battle, if you shoot and wound a soldier, you remove him and the 4 guys who have to evac him from battle.
Yes, thats a quaint idea from a culture that themselves would actually incapacitate their fighting units in this way.
Not all militaries of the world would operate like that in actual combat. In a Soviet military unit its likely the KGB commissar would just put a bullet through the head of the wounded guy and tell the rest of the unit to carry on. And they would. ISIS probably has a similar doctrine.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Do you have any statistics to justify the tacit assumption that most mass shootings are perpetrated by recent immigrants or the descendants of recent immigrants?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"I am an immigrant. I came from China.
I will say this --- Close down the border"
Not too surprising. In basically any human endevour there's the sociopath come saying "I already got mine, now you can change the rules so no others can!"
How can you tell when your post is modded by a registered user versus an editor? I'm not aware of anything to indicate who mods up or mods down my posts.
He's comments sucked? WTF does that mean?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Why is it everyone who worships the second Amendment has never heard of the first?
Learn to love Alaska
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Typo
Probably because a handful of the 300,000 people on this site think your comment is longwinded and pointless and they see it modded as 5, so they do it justice and knock it back to -1. Us editors do not give enough shits about your comments to sit there modding them up or down. You have some sort of complex thinking you are important and you're being wronged somehow.
There are also places in the US where you are not free to express your religion. E.g. some schools not allowing prayer (at least in forms that makes it apparent to others that one is praying). & we all know what some in the government seem to think of the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps the world should wake up and realize that the problem isn't muslims.
Wake up! The problem is islam. The ideology is toxic, dangerous and totally incompatible with Western civilization.
So rather than close the borders, close up islam. Close the hate-temples, forbid their religious practices, ban koran, just do not facilitate islam in any way. Stop allowing islam in our sociëty. World-wide. Those who can't live without it, will have to go find a country where it's allowed.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
If you read the papers and letters of the Founding Fathers you'll see that "bear arms" was always used in connection with military units
If you read the documents and histories of the period you'll see that the revolution with fought largely with privately-owned weapons: Pistols, rifles, cannon, rockets, warships, ...
It would have been hard to fight it with government-owned weapons. Those were mostly in the hands of the forces of the British Crown.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
As frequent Meta-Modder and one who gets mod points sometimes twice times a week some strange things have occurred. I am not saying that the rants about a conspiracy are true but I have modded on a thread and seen the results melt away in a matter of minutes. Perhaps some deeper investigation into these matter IS warranted. I hardly think that now with the overall traffic at a low point in this sites history, I know I've been here a long time, that comment modding doesn't generally occur that rapidly.
As a side note why does your ID and comment NOT note your status as an editor ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Is he even aware of the difference between editors and moderators? Perhaps with all the negative mods, he has never gotten mod points and doesn't actually know? .
That being said, there were factions of people in the past with sock puppet accounts who did mod bomb users. They would go into their posting history and start down moderating every post. My understanding is that has been fixed and I haven't personally seen it in a while. But is it possible it has returned to some degree? It would explain this idiots instance on editors following him around and down moderating.
> when you can change the definition for the word god
Obviously people do have different conceptions of God, but most religious people agree on God's own definition, so that's a solid foundation to start with. Christians, Jews, and Muslims consider Exodus to be scripture*. In Exodus Moses asked God who he is, and God replied "I am that which always is", or "I am the permanent/timeless". (Translation from ancient Hebrew is of course inexact).
Though each person has their own understanding, that basis, that God is what is unchanging, has itself been definitional for at least 2,600 years. Gravity, magnetism, etc are unchanging principles, so it seems, by the words of God, that God is gravity, magnetism, and anything other unchanging principle of the universe.
* Exodus is generally considered allegorical, scripture, illustrating spiritual truths in ancient stories that were down via oral tradition, not historical facts. Though some facts are confirmed by Egyptian records, such as the central event of the Egyptian army chasing the jews from Egypt.
Because you have a President Obama instead of a President Trump.
This is obviously still you dude. You should change the tone of your messages if you're to remain anonymous.
One would have thought that one of the special people would have a greater degree of self control.
Requiem for the American Dream
Everyone who is not a native american in the USA is an immigrant, or the child, grandchild, etc. of an immigrant.
Defending a society does not mean closing borders. A society is not a physical entity. Defending a society means enforcing the values that are central to it, and offering those who want to join it the choice of accepting those values, or not getting in.
To make a progressive society, you need to allow some space around the status quo, because new and different impulses can make the society better. New ideas need to come from somewhere. However, you need to remember two things. First, that you still need an idea of what your values are, even if you are ready to let them evolve. You can't replace it with anything goes. You need to clearly and openly and repeatedly state that this value is not up for discussion. In western societies, that is the basic human rights, for example. And secondly, you need to understand when someone is not bringing a slightly different point of view to the discussion, but wants to sabotage the discussion.
Just like a democracy needs to be wary against people who run in elections and play all the games, but their actual intention is to undo all of that once they are in power, a society needs to be wary of those whose intention is not to add to the culture, but to remove anything that is not theirs.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I don't care much about religion, regardless which variety. But I do not consider islam to be a religion. It is an ideology, an all-encompassing view on how civilization should be ran. And it is totally incompatible with our civilization. It is out to infiltrate and destroy our civilization.
Muslims are the result of islam. They are inspired by their sick ideology. Muslims don't get born as killers, they get turned into killers by the brain-poison that islam is. Islam is the root. Remove and ban the root. If you prevent people from being exposed to islam, perhaps you can stop them from becoming muslim, and they won't be killers.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Real problem is countries like Pakistan who wholeheartedly train, support and fund terrorism. I am sure there are many more.
hilarious
How would you know? The low user ID suggests he should know how slashdot works, though I have no idea of any way to see the source of mods.
Oh wait, you're one of the new owners.
Anyway, the mod system remains one of the largest rooms for improvement on slashdot. Wasting the keystrokes, but the user mods and comment mods should be more clearly related and the dimensions of evaluation should be more clearly orthogonal. I also think the visible scoring should be logarithmic and the power of moderation should be related to a user's own reputation. Etc.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
My theory is that some of the trolls have squads of automated sock puppet accounts that are just active enough to earn some mod points. When they see a post they don't like, they use the puppets that have today's mod points to target it.
However, the entire mod system is so badly broken that it scarcely matters. And the new ownership has been in place long enough to say that no significant changes are likely to happen before you have to stop holding your breath.
In addition, I think Godwin's Law is overdue for repeal.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Why should society be progressive?
Are Japan and Korea wrong to take few, if any, immigrants?
We heard a lot recently as the US gives lessons from high tribunes to other lands about homosexuality. Was it a good idea politicizing this issue? Attracting unwanted attention to people who are vulnerable even without this? Gaining doubtful political benefits on backs of others?
I received a specific post a week ago predicting that a false flag like this would happen. Fits perfectly with hillary's agenda to disarm the population.
There is a little icon next to the UID that marks that poster as an editor.
How about the worst mass shooting in American history, you ignorant piece of shit.
Yes, I know about that one. What about all the others?
You're the problem.
Don't blame this one on me. My country hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Also historically the bandsmen and various others got the wounded out. It takes a lot of people to being a fight and some of those that are not actual combat troops can drop everything while combat continues.
That staggering amount of ammo used now has to be carried in by someone for instance.
Why should society be progressive?
It's a choice, I didn't it's the only choice, but if you made that choice (and western societies have), you can't be regressive in one selected area. That's like being a virgin, but only on Mondays.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There is a crucial difference between atheism and religious belief: the importance of evidence. If a god were to appear and demonstrate their existence in an empirically measurable way then atheists would mentally move them from the category of things that don't exist to things that do, though they would likely no more 'believe' in the god than they believe in a chair. Things that are measurable can be safely assumed to exist (for a purely utilitarian definition of 'exist').
There are an infinite number of things that don't exist. Atheists don't typically go around enumerating all of them any more than a Christian goes around enumerating all of the Egyptian, Norse, Roman, and so on gods that he or she doesn't believe in.
I'm slightly astonished by people who find it easy to disbelieve hundreds of religions and superstitions that have precisely as much evidence supporting them as their own are unable to understand how someone else disbelieves one more than them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is a tragedy, and this is the world we are living in now. Politicians will surely use this to increase control and restrain individual liberties one way or another : it's what they do.
People can be manipulated because they are uneducated and unhappy. The idea of improving education, teaching humanism and philosophy, better healthcare especially for the mentally unstable seems a straightforward answer to this. Alas I dream : money first, who cares about a few human lifes?
We'll get some news, we'll get advertising between shocking images, we'll get bored and will move on. Nothing will change. Some people will argue against guns, some will say that answer to violence is to ensure that idiots can have guns (and we are all idiots, just thing the last time you did something stupid because of anger, alcohol, pain, ...).
I'm just curious about one thing : when the French shooting happened, Donald Trump has been quoted saying : "Paris terror attacks would not have been as deadly if the French had GUNS". (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/639692/Donald-Trump-Paris-terror-attacks-not-as-deadly-if-the-French-had-GUNS)
The only thing I don't know is what lie will this horrible Trump narcissist say now ?
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
I'm fascinated by how much of this I see in the UK's referendum debate - there are an awful lot of immigrants declaring they want out to stop immigration.
Interestingly there are groups that want out to change immigration, for example, Pritti Patel a Conservative MP for the Brexit campaign wants out so that rather than having large numbers of European migrants, we can instead increase the number of Bangladeshi migrants acting as curry workers (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/minister-priti-patel-quit-eu-to-save-our-curry-houses-a3251071.html). They had an interview with a Malaysian student (who can vote, because she's a commonwealth citizen resident in the UK) who said she will vote out because she wants less Polish immigrants and wants it to be easier for her and other Commonwealth people from countries like Nigeria to immigrate instead.
Personally I'm not the anti-immigration type, it's not affected me negatively and just like every politician that comes into power I realise it creates a net economic good for the countries (something that contrary to the rhetoric has been shown in a number of studies such as that from Oxford's migration observatory, and from the ICL) but I never cease to be amazed at the complete selfish shit fight going on amongst those who are immigrants, and as such I propose that if we're going to close our doors and remove people that the first people we kick out are the intolerant ones, because my country was always built on tolerance and if they don't like that they can fuck off home.
The people that are going to be most surprised though are British natives who are voting out for xenophobic anti-immigrant reasons and are going to get a sore surprise when they realise that it isn't going to decrease immigration for the reasons above. Instead of Poles who are reasonably educated, and have a similar culture and so integrate fairly well they're going to be faced with Pritti Patel's Bangladeshi migrants which will be fun, given that poor integration of nationals from poorer Islamic nations in the UK is the one thing that's created most our nation's anti-immigration sentiment in the first place.
I think it's sad that so many people come to countries like ours to take advantage of the wealth and then would deny it to others. I wonder how much Taco Cowboy will be parroting the closed borders policy when the next step is to also start deporting folks like him back home?
The whole immigration debate is flooded with nonsense and bile from top to bottom including from those who have most benefited from the status quo. The real problem is that sociopaths like him aren't the isolated cases. If we could figure out how to spot them a mile off and deny them entry in the first place then I suspect the whole immigration issue would be a whole lot less problematic, but maybe there's something to that? Maybe people who leave their country behind in the first place are more inclined to be selfish and be the type that just looks out for themselves, whilst those that stay behind and try and fix their country are inherently more selfless in general, hence why we end up with so much hypocritical dross like we're seeing here?
Yep, and to add to that (well, I didn't watch the youtube links, texts are preferred), at the very latest the 2nd amendment was obsoleted in 1973 when conscription stopped.
The original organisation was closer to the current Swiss army organisation, though the Swiss army is federal, while the 2nd amendment is about state vs federal.
Similar wording appear in earlier texts:
(Article VI of the Articles of Confederation)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
PG Tips.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm pretty sure a properly configured HOSTS file would have prevented this tragedy
>Most people are agnostic no matter how much say they are atheistic and will readily prey when faced with imminent death.
That works very well - if the death is from starvation and you prey on something edible.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Saudi Arabia is the biggest paymaster for terrorism
Saudi Arabia is also the biggest paymaster for the imams all over the world
They also fund the millions of madrassa where hundreds of millions of kids are being indoctrinated with the Wahabi ideology which opposes democracy, freedom, equality and is very anti-infidel
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Boo hoo, you got downmodded.
It doesn't matter who does it or why they do it, this is a private website, and you have absolutely no cause to complain. If you're annoyed that people don't want to read your spamming bullshit posts here, find somewhere else to post them.
Eat the rich.
I've talked with Muslim colleagues about this and what they said was that even though Islam is against gays, they leave judgement to their god. So this guy can be anti-gay, as many people are, but it was his decision to go shooting the place up.... just your regular nutso who had pented up frustration/anger to release.
Most people are agnostic no matter how much say they are atheistic and will readily prey when faced with imminent death.
Bull. Shit.
Eat the rich.
Whenever there's a story on the Internet about an Islamist act of terrorism, the comments will talk about how evil Christianity is.
Slashdot does not hate gays. Slashdot does not have any problem with gays
The main problem in Slashdot is that Slashdot sides with the moslems
If you ever dare to post anything of the ugly truth about Islam or the the savegery of the moslems your message will be deleted
No, not modded down, but DELETED
In the matter of fact, this message is in danger of being deleted as well
Is that you, Taco Cowboy?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The bears might have something to say about people wanting to bare bear arms.
> because there is no personification of these forces, they cannot be given authority -
Gravity. It Isn't Just a Good Idea. It's the Law.
But nobody enforces the law of gravity. There are no priests of science that burned Einstein at the stake for altering Newton's version.
The Spinozan wonder relies on the acceptance that our understanfing of the universe is incomplete and will be altered by new knowledge. Thats the opposite of an auhoritative view. Also many scientists these days would suggest it was a mistake to ever call our theories about the observed behaviour of the universe 'laws'.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The problem is that there are people who will do terrible things. When they're determined to do terrible things they will find a way to do them.
For all those blaming gun laws would you feel better if he had bought them illegally or stolen them? Would that vindicate your disdain for existing working gun laws because criminals always follow the laws. He legally owned firearms and that discussion is settled.
Would any of the rabid anti-gun people feel better had he made a dozen or so pipe bombs and threw those around the club instead? And then would you be screaming for background checks before buying home repair supplies?
If he truly was unstable enough to hook his actions to DAESH then of course they're going to jump on and take credit. It keeps them as a newsworthy 'viable threat' and only furthers their agenda. Whether or not they actually had any direct involvement will probably never be proved.
The problem is nutjobs. AKA people. When they're weak and broken enough to buy into a belief system of hate and then decide they're a holy warrior it's already too late to stop them. Single people acting alone are almost impossible to find before they do things like this. Hindsight is going to find things - all sorts of things - but at the time those same things wouldn't set off warning bells.
So stop trying to find a way to vilify inanimate objects for what happened, stop using blanket statements about any particular religion because all of them create people like this, and put the blame where it belongs. On the nutjob.
Guns were an important part of the founding of the country?
Oh you're suggesting that the population of the time was prescient, and anticipated a future we've not yet experienced, where Washington uses force in such a creative and impotent way that the population can only defend itself with firearms.
So "a tiny minority of native Americans" were spontaneously generated in the Americas?
Pretty cool.
No brain, no pain.
I was under the impression that systemD was the correct way to stop this
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Well that may very well be true as the old M14s shot the big boy .30-06 rounds which do pack substantially more punch and would likely kill more effectively. The M16 was a lighter gun and the ammo was also lighter, so while it has less range most firefights take place at distances where that doesn't matter as the M16 in battle conditions is the more effective weapon with its reduced recoil, lighter weight, and ability to carry more ammo. The days of the full power round used in a main battle rifle ended in WWII for the most part with the US military being the main holdout for a while.
Time to offend someone
thats not what they are saying though, they are saying close the borders.... and make sure everyone comes in the way I had to. level playing field and all...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Nobody enforces the biblical admonition to avoid eating unrefrigerated shellfish lest one get sick either. Nor the biblical fact that if you start a building without estimating the cost and end up with a half-finished building, you'll be laughed at. Nor that a man who finds a wise and faithful wife is truly blessed. Nor that adultery causes trouble. Nor that the wise save up stores of choice grain. Nor most of the other biblical adminitions.
It seems that you personally have this idea of a -person- enforcing truth through punishment. Some people think that way; it is by no means universal.
The words we most often translate as "sin" aren't just used in a "moral" context. They are cognates of the words hata and
hamartano, which mean roughly "miss the mark". In an archery competition, when an archer did not hit the target, that was hata. In another competition, many participants got prizes. Those who didn't qualify for a prize were hamartano. Same for someone who dug a well where there was no water, who co-signed a loan for someone who failed to make payment, etc.
Your vision of God isn't altogether uncommon, yet it's certainly not the only one. Most who have studied enough to know a few words of the original greek and hebrew have a different conception than what you have conveyed.
When the authorities gave their first press briefing after the Orlando shootings, they had a local imam speak. He spoke at length about how no one should immediately think this was a Muslim nor should they think he was linked in any way to ISIS. What he did not do was condemn the murders. Not one word about how horrific they were, how it was wrong, etc etc. I kept waiting for him to condemn the act, but he never did.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Pleas stop saying it was the worst. There were many native American massacres.
Speaking of punishment, some see that as a useful analogy. See failblog for examples of people punished for disregarding the law of gravity.
The Lt. Governor of Texas tweeted to indicate they reaped what they sowed. He later removed the tweet but the Country and the world has a right to know.
Everyone who is not a native american in the USA is an immigrant, or the child, grandchild, etc. of an immigrant.
By your definition everyone in the USA is an immigrant. Unless you believe that "native americans" spontaneously appeared in North America. As far as I know, the current belief is that the native americans ancestors migrated here via the Bering land bridge 15K to 20K years ago. The majority of the "native americans" had been wiped out by plague just prior to the European settlers arrival, and that there was no nation of native americans, at least by any current definition of a nation. Either both the native americans and the Europeans were settlers, or they were both immigrants.
I am an immigrant. I came from China.
Good for you.
I will say this --- Close down the border
No.
Yes, I am saying this, as an immigrant
Pulling up the ladder behind yourself is a common sociapathic action.
No longer I want to see America suffer
America doesn't suffer because of immigrants.
No longer I want to see any of my fellow Americans killed by someone related to immigrants
By definition that ain't happening. We're all related to immigrants. It's a nation of immigrants.
Yes I know, that moslem fucker was born in America, but if his immigrant parents didn't move to America from abroad he wouldn't have been born inside America and kill innocent people!
Because violence within our borders solely comes from immigrants? No.
In fact immigrants commit far less violence and crime than native born.
I know a lot of folks will send hate mail my way. .
You deserve it.
They will call me a hypocrite. .
Because you are.
They will challenge me to move back to China. .
No I won't.
They will want to see that I, along as all my children, be thrown out of USA.
No I don't.
I know that will happen, but I am still going to stick to what I have said --- "CLOSE DOWN THE BORDERS"
No.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"Posts directing people where and how to give blood have been removed."
While straight-up removal of such posts may not be the best approach, the intent behind such removals is likely honorable.
Donated blood needs to be screened for infectious diseases and otherwise processed before it can be used; it generally takes at least a couple of days before blood from a donor's arm can get to a patient's bedside. The blood that helps the victims of the Orlando massacre isn't the stuff that the Red Cross collects today and tomorrow; it's the blood that was donated last week or the week before. And blood has a limited shelf life--creating a big oversupply now doesn't help unless there's an enormous disaster in the next few weeks.
Donating blood now might make the donor feel good about themselves, but it's not actually a particularly constructive thing to do. If you want to help, put a reminder in your calendar to donate blood in two or three weeks, after this glut has made its way through the system. Or donate blood when the Red Cross (or whichever agency handles blood products in your jurisdiction) indicates a shortage. Better yet, get in the habit of donating blood regularly--help maintain a stable blood supply over the long term.
~Idarubicin
Yeah, he's barely on par with the 43th concerning safety at home or abroad.
He's still short about 3000 bodies. At home. Don't know right now how much he's behind abroad.
Amateur!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Drop it on the guy? Or where?
You ARE aware that it's not possible to bomb an idea away, yes? What do you want to drop the bomb on? Please name a target, ONE FUCKING TARGET to bomb that would not make the whole shit WORSE.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
OK, it's terrorism.
Does it make you feel better? Does it make the dead alive? Then what the fuck is this about?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That was some natives, that was another time, that weren't people who have disposable income... I am sure we find other reasons, too.
Oh, and we did it. Not some towelhead that we can now use as an excuse for whatever we wanna do.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And likewise we wanted to say "Meh", but then again, we knew from experience what happens when someone kicks the schoolyard bully's shin.
And behold, we had to suffer for it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Are you insane? What kind of junta do you want to live under that you want your own soldiers on your roads? Are you high? Or just dumb?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, considering that there was some asshole who wouldn't stop spamming every single thread about this bullshit because "/. is anti-gay for not posting it", I do consider it a good thing. At least that way we can return to important stories tomorrow once everyone can post again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
First, constitution.
Second, what will happen if you outlaw a religion? Imagine your favorite religion gets outlawed (or, if you're atheist, imagine you'd be forced to become $devotee_of_certain_woo). What would you do?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Would you please travel back about 24 hours and tell the police? Because they sure could have used that information.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A lot of immigrants aren't just of the "I've got mine, screw everyone else" but they are also the sorts that have fully embraced their adopted culture. They have fully bought into the system. Quite often they did things in terms of the "straight and narrow". So they are likely going to be more "law and order" types because of that.
Native borns also really don't have any perspective to speak of. They're lazy and apathetic. They may think that there is no point in working too hard or they might simply not realize how good they have it.
This is why countries that can handle immigrants find them useful. They're fresh blood. However, that only helps if the fresh blood is willing to assimilate and be productive.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The natives around here would scalp you. They did not go quietly. They're nothing like the saps from the first Thanksgiving.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
While not to diminish the tragedy and horror of what happened in Orlando, one only needs to review the history of the US to see that there have been many mass shootings. Some notable ones dealt with the shooting of Native Americans, African Americans, Mormons, striking miners, troops vs civilians and troops vs prisoners (Civil War and American Revolution) and the list goes on.
Using violence against people and groups you disagree with is, unfortunately, nothing new.
That was some natives, that was another time, that weren't people who have disposable income... I am sure we find other reasons, too.
Oh, and we did it. Not some towelhead that we can now use as an excuse for whatever we wanna do.
So the adjective "worst" is now a subjective instead of objective term? As for the "towelhead" comment, he was a US citizen born in the state of New York.
Islam like any religion has a wide range of beliefs and practices. But Islam as practiced in many parts of the world is also more than just a religion in a modern western sense because widespread Islamic practice it is used to dictate the laws of the government and how they are determined. We aren't just talking about the medieval Islamic beliefs of a fringe group like ISIS, but the template for laws in a dozen or so countries which give primacy or deference to Islamic Law over any contemporary legal system.
In this regard, a more medieval form of Islam is better compared to Liberty and democracy, civil or common law or other political forms versus Christianity or another religion which in their modern forms have been divorced to a much larger degree from government.
Sure, if you look at medieval Christianity or even Christianity from a couple hundred years ago you see that religious institutions, beliefs and political institutions and people overlapped much more frequently. That overlap however has been steadily eroding.
No he was modded up a bit and modded down a bit more by regular, active users.
Traffic is actually up about 10% since January
I'm sorry, I am not up to date with the current PC bullshit. What skin color matters currently? And what can we currently condemn as the big evil?
It changes so fast, and I really have better shit to deal with than keeping up to date with who may hate whom.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Arguably, this piece of filth used the 2A to buy his guns after being twisted and encouraged because someone else exercised their 1A rights. Should we prohibit the free exercise of speech and religion, since it was what drove him to his action?
More likely, it was his mental illness that drove him to this action as he was diagnosed with severe bipolar disorder. The real question to be asked is how did somebody with mental illness so easily get a hold of the guns used?
So you have no qualifications to judge others, but do. That makes you a hypocrite.
Learn to love Alaska
"In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty. In others, such as Algeria, Maldives, Malaysia, Qatar, Somalia and Syria, it is illegal."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Systematic violence and repression against gay people is prevalent in many Islamic countries, not just among a relative fringe group like IS. On issues of violence against gay people or indeed on issues of systemic repression of many non-muslims we are very much right to note their association and demand reform to spread Islamic teachings that promote peaceful coexistence rather than medieval violence, persecution and oppression.
I'm sorry, I am not up to date with the current PC bullshit. What skin color matters currently? And what can we currently condemn as the big evil?
It changes so fast, and I really have better shit to deal with than keeping up to date with who may hate whom.
Don't know what any of that has to do with the definition of "worst" or not. Please explain.
Atheism is the belief that there are exactly zero gods, taken with no proof, as an assumption.
Monotheism is the belief that there are exactly one god, taken with no proof, as an assumption.
Both are religions -- a predetermined belief that is not subject to reconsideration, made without comparison to the truth.
Now, consider these two statements of Agnosticism:
1. We cannot tell the nature of God or Gods, and we never ever will be able to -- it is forever beyond the understand of man.
2. We cannot tell the nature of God or Gods today. At some point, we will understand what that actually means, and whether or not they exist.
One of those is a religion. The other is an acknowledgement of science and the current state of science.
I am not being a troll here. If you are thinking of modding me down for "troll", please consider this point:
Science has consistently been the question, "What is beyond ?".
We have gone from "What is beyond this region of the planet?" (when understanding that the world was round, before we understood gravity), to "what is beyond this solar system?", to "What is beyond this galaxy?", to now "What is beyond this universe?".
We are now at the point of asking if there is a multiverse, with multiple branes and a bulk; or, if there is a single uncollapsed wave function instead of the presumption of a wavefunction that collapses all the time; and if it does collapse all the time, does it only collapse once or does it collapse into multiple states, and if so, is there any way to send information from one to the other; does gravity actually go across all these universes or states; are virtual particles actually particles traveling from one brane to another; etc.
If there is a bulk, and there is a possibility of some form of awareness that exists outside this brane that can look at this brane, then what?
If this "universe" is a "black hole", and we know that black holes have their full state exposed on the surface, and some observer outside the black hole can read the state of the black hole? Not to mention that a black hole both radiates information out, and can take energy in?
We might not understand "God" today. Heck, I'd argue that we don't even have a single fixed concept behind the label. But we're trying to understand what's outside the stuff that can be detected by light. We've determined that gravity shows things that light does not; we've determined that there's strange types of mass we don't understand, as well as energy as a property of space that we don't understand. We're trying to push the limits of what we can understand, even to asking how our "black hole" / "brane" / "universe" might fit in with others -- and at the moment, using math as the tool to do so.
Religious? How about this: "The math that describes the universe will be correct, no matter how absurd the prediction it makes seems to be". So far, that has an alarmingly high correctness factor.
If you're born there, you are a native, don't let the scumbags redefine things.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Whatever "moslems" are, they haven't deleted your comment or removed your ability to post more, so it seems Slashdot will be fine under them.
From the link you provided in your linked comment:
Matthew Doyle, reportedly a partner in a London-based talent and PR agency, posted a tweet on Wednesday morning saying: "I confronted a Muslim woman yesterday in Croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said 'nothing to do with me.' A mealy mouthed reply."
Frankly, I'm okay with police arresting jackasses who harass random people for things that have nothing to do with them. It's kinda what police are for.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I don't think that leave behind a country, your country is an easy choice. I'm from Paraguay and people leave behind their families , husbands , wives, children , looking for a future that a corrupt country like ours can not give them.
Your logic is incredibly small minded and you completely sidestepped the issue and thrust of his argument. If you can perceive verifiable negative effects from a certain course of action, reconsidering that course of action based on those negative effects is an i4ntelligent, solution based strategy. Continuing the course of action in spite of negative effects could be considered insanity.
You posted a combined ad hominem/genetic fallacy attack on his argument and got mod points. Well done. Still doesn't mean you're right, or even sane.
I would have preferred some specifics about how our open borders policy is helping America in every conceivable metric.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Who again did I judge?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Worst has always been subjective. The worst thing that could happen to me is different from the worst thing that could happen to you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Perhaps the world should wake up and realize that the problem isn't muslims.
Wake up! The problem is islam. The ideology is toxic, dangerous and totally incompatible with Western civilization.
So rather than close the borders, close up islam. Close the hate-temples, forbid their religious practices, ban koran, just do not facilitate islam in any way. Stop allowing islam in our sociëty. World-wide. Those who can't live without it, will have to go find a country where it's allowed.
Have you heard of the First Amendment?
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
Ideologies are secular religions. You simply don't notice them as such because whatever you grew up with is "normal" to you. For West, the ideas of Christianity, Enlightenment and - to a lesser extent - Capitalism are what our civilization is built on. As are centuries of oppression, strife and domination. Our problems are caused by the conflicts and contradictions between the Big Three which gives opportunities to the darker aspects of our heritage to resurface under the guise of finding a scapegoat. Muslims currently serve as that, just like Jews did in centuries past.
No, but people who have tried to gain power through xenophobia in the past have actually come pretty close to doing just that. And it seems people like you never learn to ignore them.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Worst has always been subjective. The worst thing that could happen to me is different from the worst thing that could happen to you.
Worst is quantitative, like least and most. The worst thing that could happen to you is not dependent on the worst thing that could happen to me. The worst mass shooting in US history is not dependent on shootings that occur anywhere else, so in the US, what mass shootings have their been and from that, which is the worst?
am only just catching up with this story and my first thought was how did he get weapons past security ?
Who else has so many excess mod points
Yo. Whenever I start posting on Slashdot again, I typically get more mod points than I care to spend. I know, I know, it's good to self-police the community, but it just takes so much time.
And after looking at your comment..... Yeah, I'd mod down that piece of shit.
Seriously: " in actual fact, part of the European continent becomes hyper-euphoric every time Jews got murdered" !?
What the fuck are you smoking? You're coming off as unhinged and unstable. You're suggesting Muslims are in control of Europe. Which is laughable at best. Crazed conspiracy theorist at worst. In your head, parts of Europe celebrate Jewish people getting murdered. You're a crackpot. Batshit crazy. Off your meds. Deserving of the final moderation you received. What's scary is that there are 3 other people with mod points who actually agree with you.
First, let's look at the reason why car insurance happens:
http://asirt.org/initiatives/i...
"Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year"
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/...
"annual rates of 69.2 for bathtubs for those under 5 to 58.2 for accidental firearm deaths for those under 15."
Should we get bathtub insurance as well?
Insurance only works when there is a large enough pool to justify the overhead - neither bathtub accidents or firearm accidents are common enough to justify it.
> I think that the religious concept of God is the same thing as life itself.
You say "the religious concept of God" is the same thing as "life itself". :D
You believe in life itself.
Therefore you believe in the religious concept of God.
Not what you meant?
I think you've gotten yourself a bit twisted trying to talk about what "religious people believe". Billions of different religious people believe a great many different things, so it's not normally true or useful to say "religious people believe", with some rare qualified exceptions. Honestly, you just confuse the issue if you pretend that all religious people believe the same things; they very rarely do. In fact, most religious people have substantial changes to their beliefs over time. For example, the founder of the largest church in the US, Robert Morris, long thought that God is not concerned with us humans, that he created us and then left. Now Robert thinks that proposition is ridiculous. So not even an individual religious leader believes the same thing he did 20 years ago.
Let's look at what YOU believe, recognizing that the different people believe many different things. It seems that the big contrast you wish to draw is "I don't think that there is anything ... intelligent to the whole thing". Is that my understanding accurate?
Are you by chance familar with ion pumps, the structures in each cell wall which pump molecules in and out? If not, surely you're familiar with the water cycle, the way water is naturally cleaned and recycled. Also the carbohydrate cycle, animals need oxygen and carbs to survive, and produce CO2 and water as waste. Coincidentally, plants do the exact opposite - they take in water and CO2, producing oxygen and carbohydrates. It's all rather clever, wouldn't you say? By clever I don't mean to imply "designed by a really old guy with a flowing white beard". Just how it all fits together so nicely, it's a clever system.
Why should society be progressive?
Because it's a whole lot better than being regressive. Sorry old guys, but the 40s and 50s are over, they're not coming back. Instead of trying to drag us back there, let's work on moving forward.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
This was proven false a while back. We put a bunch of antelope in an airtight container and waited for Native Americans to spontaneously appear and hunt the antelope. They did not.
Killing two birds with one stone, after the antelope died (it being an airtight container and all), we reproduced the results of earlier spontaneous generation experiments when we failed to notice any maggots appearing on the antelope carcasses.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
Sorry, but no. "Worst" is qualitative. The worst shooting can be something very different for you, me, or anyone else, all depending on their personal opinion. If you think native Americans don't count, or if you think that anything more than a century ago doesn't matter, then the wounded knee massacre doesn't enter the equation. Because it's probably not even "bad" to such a person, let alone "the worst". Then again, even Wounded Knee could not be considered "the worst" if you take into account what happened in Mesoamerica during the age of the Conquistadors. If you only care about what happened in what is today the USA and ignore the rest of what the world considers "The Americas", though...
And I'm certain it should not be too hard to find some PETA activist that would consider "the worst shooting" on US soil being the elimination of the Buffalo herds, ignoring any human bodycount.
You get the picture.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm fascinated by how much of this I see in the UK's referendum debate - there are an awful lot of immigrants declaring they want out to stop immigration.
From the commonwealth perspective, they aren't as immigrant as you imply. The commonwealth is like a single "country" by today's standards. Like the US's Puerto Rico, they are all under the central government's rule. The Queen is the current head of government for all. All of the passports are issued under the authority of the Queen, and thus share a single central government. That the local administrators on behalf of the Queen are setting up some barriers between the Commonwealth States doesn't make them as separate as you insist.
Learn to love Alaska
Questioning the qualifications of others implies you've judged them to be inadequately substantiated.
Learn to love Alaska
I didn't read his original post because, yeah, I'm lazy.
But I do have a friend, who teaches music at a public school in London. They have to BEG the parents to let their children take music. Because music is against Islam, according to the parents. They also got invited to perform in the national cathedral because of the quality of the choir, NONE of the kids were allowed to go. Same reason.
She wasn't complaining about this, it just sort of came out, she seems to view it as "just one of those teaching things", and if they don't cater to it the parents will put their kids in a mosque school that sucks.
So there's some truth to it.
Yes, the natural world is a very complex and beautiful system, both in terms of life as well as the other natural processes (such as the water cycle). None of this is evidence that it was designed by an intelligent being, though. I'm not willing to claim that I know what happened over the last several billion years, with all of the complexities involved, so I'm not going to claim that I know that there is or is not an actual being who designed and built the entire system. That's a preposterous position to take. I don't think that any such entity exists, because I haven't seen any evidence that it does. Maybe it does, I don't know, I just haven't seen any evidence. I'm not going to make an extraordinary claim if I don't have extraordinary evidence with which to back it up.
You say "the religious concept of God" is the same thing as "life itself".
I was trying to describe my belief that theists have taken the complexity of life, added intelligence, omniscience, and whatever else they want to add, and call it "God". In other words, God is life plus superstition and mythology.
Coincidentally, plants do the exact opposite - they take in water and CO2, producing oxygen and carbohydrates. It's all rather clever, wouldn't you say?
It seems to be the only way it can work, actually. If a planet was produced where animals need carbohydrates and oxygen, and they generate waste products that are needed by plants, which produce carbohydrates and oxygen, then this is the only way it can work. Maybe it works completely differently on another planet, I wouldn't doubt that for a second, but on this planet the reason it works that way is because that is the only way it can work on this planet. Or, at the very least, that's the way that "won". Consider that all life started as single-celled organisms only a billion or so years after the Earth formed, and for the next 3 billion years or so, all life was single-celled eukaryotes, prokaryotes, bacteria, etc. Fundamental processes like glycolysis and ATP formed very early on. They had 3 billion years to shape the environment while the Earth calmed in order to allow for the rise of multi-cellular life. Even after multi-cellular life appeared, it would be several hundred millions of years later that the first plants appeared on land. So, is it any wonder that the plants which thrived on land were uniquely suited to living in an environment dominated by animals? The plants had just come out of the oceans, which were full of primitive animal life. And, then, is it any wonder that the animals which thrived on land are uniquely suited to living in an environment dominated by plants? All of that happened several hundred millions of years ago, the genus Homo is only around 2 million years old and some of its members like to claim that all of this is for us, and that we were designed by some supernatural being. It seems very short-sighted.
Not that I don't understand where it comes from, though. I've seen the volcanoes in Hawaii, for example. If I was a native of Hawaii several hundred years ago, with no interaction with anyone who isn't also a Hawaiian, and I walked up and looked into that burning caldera, and someone told me that that's where Pele lives, I wouldn't have any reason to not believe them. Of course the fire god lives there, what else would that be? If I'm living several thousand years ago and I'm watching a volcano erupt which looks like this (I realize that's a time-lapse), of course I'm going to believe that there is some sort of supernatural being involved. I don't blame people thousands of years ago for believing in gods. But we know about plate tectonics, we understand the processes behind volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, rain, lightning, thunder, etc.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Aside from the fact that this is completely impossible in any society that respects civil rights, it's wrongheaded. I'm not particularly fond of Islam, but most Muslims are peaceful people getting through their lives, just like adherents of any other large religion. There was a time when the most advanced and dynamic civilization in the world was Muslim. If Islam was the problem, that would not have happened.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Everyone wants to focus on guns...
Terrorists killed 3,000 people using box cutters 15 years ago...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
One person killed 87 people using matches and gasoline...
If you want to kill people, you don't need guns to do it. This hyper focus on guns completely misses the point.
Mental health, security in crowded locations, having an environment where families who know someone is unstable can do something about it, etc...
More guns, less guns, and tech, won't do anything to stop this.
Thanks for writing all of that.
When my one-year-old finely ran out of energy in the evening, she would say "I go night-night." When her ipad ran out of energy, I explained to "ipad is going night-night" and she understood. Her vocabulary didn't include the words "battery" or "electricty", of course. As she learned a bit more vocabulary she said "ipad sleeping". This was a good analogy, she correctly understood the basic concept. Her description was neither complete nor wrong, it was simply limited by her vocabulary and understanding.
You can probably draw a water molecule, H2O of course looks like Mickey Mouse. That's the correct depiction of H2O. If we use an electron scanning microscope, we see it looks nothing like that. The Mickey Mouse picture of H2O is useful, and correctly depicts fundamental aspects of the molecule, so it's not really wrong; it's very limited. But correct enough to be useful! Kind of an analogy, or vocabulary-limited representation.
> I'm willing to bet that those people living thousands of years ago were wrong
I'm willing to bet that my understanding of the creation of everything in the entire universe is well under 1%. Essentially, I'm at the "ipad go night-night" level of understanding. As were people 2000 or 4000 years ago. The Mickey Mouse molecule is outdated in that we (humans) know more detail now, yet it's still a useful tool for me to personally understand the chemistry. Some of the biblical analogies and explanations (written in a language with a total vocabulary of hundreds of words) are limited and outdated. That doesn't mean they are wrong. Perhaps Moses was right when he said Ipad is night-night.
Ps: On a side-note, check out the US government instructions for removing black mold from a house, then read the mold removal instructions in Leviticus. It's interesting.
More people are killed in car accidents each year than in shootings. Are you going to ban cars? Maybe just SUVs? How about just limiting their capacity to only two passengers? And maximum speed to 30 mph? That would help save more lives than banning guns, so I'm sure you'd be more than happy to campaign for it.
The people who make this argument are tedious,
Not as tedious as the poster's rant of "Oh no, guns kill so many, why can't we do anything to save lives?", without any thought as to what the numbers break down to. If 13,000 drug dealers are killed by other drug dealers, I don't care. If 13,000 children are killed on the playground, I care a lot more. With the reality being somewhere in between, the number is truly meaningless, especially in a country of over 300,000,000 people.
because the fact is, car safety regulation is a serious concern
I never said it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that more people are killed by them than by guns. If the OP's point is that we should ban things that kill people, cars have to be on the list.
AND exposure to automotive vehicles is comparatively high.
In comparison to brussels sprouts, maybe.
Fun Fact #1: There are more guns in the US than there are cars.
Fun Fact #2: There are more guns in the US than there are people.
In light of those two facts, I would think that exposure to guns is comparatively high as well. In comparison to cars, even.
Your average American will be exposed to a lot more cars in operation than guns.
Using the standard definition of "average", and in light of the two facts above, the average American is exposed to more guns than cars.
Why do I bring these up?
Because you don't actually know what your agrument is?
So people like you will acknowledge that we do take automobile safety as a serious and real concern,
Was that even part of the discussion? Are you implying that gun safety isn't a serious concern? Have you ever been to a gun safety course?
and that your raw number comparison is a useless statistic with no value except being vacuous rhetoric.
Useless to people who want to take away my rights, and not so useless in pointing out that it would save fewer lives than removing everyone's 'privilege' of driving.
You won't though, it'd hurt your brain too much.
Why would acknowledging the validity of automobile safety hurt my brain?
How about you acknowledging the fact that there are fewer cars in the US than there are guns, yet they are responsible for more deaths than guns? Or does that fact hurt your brain?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
If the FBI "have suggestions the individual has leanings towards (Islamic terrorism), but right now we can't say definitely...".
Ahem. Immediate aftermath. No one knows anything. In any case, when an organization wants to write something, but has nothing to back it up, they have their office-mate 'suggest' to them something they write on a piece of paper.
If the FBI knew something about this guy being a "bad guy", then why the fuck did they not stop him, if they are so goddamned smart?
Everything is subjective if you change the context. Of course doing so is really just a strawman tactic. Keeping on topic and in context, worst is a measure of degree. Particularly in the context of this story. Put differently, in the United States, has there been a mass shooting that is worse than the Orlando shooting. The answer is yes, several of them, ergo the Orlando shooting is not the worst.
With regards to what may or may not be perceived as worst for me versus you or even PETA, it is still objective as it is based on the view of the subject (you, me, PETA, etc.). What is worst for me has no impact on what is worst for you. If we are in agreement as to what is worst for either of us, it is merely a coincidence. What is worst can even change at time, because when the valuation is made conditions have changed. So what is worst for me today, may be replaced by something else, tomorrow. This is no different than the use of the words least or most and nobody would argue that they are subjective.
Words like worst imply absolutes to measure against, but in a society that is drunk with the Kool-Aid of relativism, absolutes are taboo and therefore, words like worst must be redefined to no longer be an absolute measure. So, while it is objectively not the worst mass shooting in the United States, for the many who only view the world in their own self centered reality, it is the worst.
(NOTE: I am not saying that you fall into this category)
I'm not saying it was aliens. But... aliens.
Don't worry, there will be an even larger shooting, and probably sooner than you think.
Actually, I just spent a couple of tedious hours crunching the numbers (I had to re-start the post - form expired.). About 50% chance of the next record breaker being between 5 and 9 years from now, with between 51 and 63 casualties. (The variance in date is greater than the variance in body count.) All, of course, assuming there isn't something significant happen, like Americans taking guns out of the hands of civilians. Which isn't likely for at least a couple of electoral cycles.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Here's the exact quote:
Emphasis added, obviously.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I certainly understand why someone with limited knowledge of firearms might point to an gun in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie and say "nobody needs to have THAT. I don't know exactly what that is, but it should be illegal." Of course what Arnold is holding is an oatmeal box with a four pieces of PVC pipe hot glued to it, painted black. So while their comment is understandable, it's not an intelligent way to make policy. You just end up outlawing Quaker oatmeal boxes.
> Would you rather it specify that only bolt-action weapons are legal?
Many things have been tried, so we get to look at how well they worked. A couple of things have worked, in combinations. Most effective has been a combination of tough sentences for using a weapon in the commission of a felony ALONG WITH advertising those tough sentences. Texas had ads on city busses and other places saying things like this:
Robbery: Five years in prison.
ARMED robbery: 20 years.
and:
Car theft: 5 years in prison
Having a gun when stealing a car: 15 years
The ads worked. Thugs learned - leave any guns and knives at home if you're going to commit a crime. In at least one case, video shows the crook ditching their weapon before stealing a car.
After that success, the same idea was applied when Texas got shall-issue carry licenses. They advertised that the good guys, the "victim", might shoot you. That also worked, though not as dramatically.
I'm fascinated by how much of this I see in the UK's referendum debate - there are an awful lot of immigrants declaring they want out to stop immigration.
Interestingly there are groups that want out to change immigration, for example, Pritti Patel a Conservative MP for the Brexit campaign wants out so that rather than having large numbers of European migrants, we can instead increase the number of Bangladeshi migrants acting as curry workers (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/minister-priti-patel-quit-eu-to-save-our-curry-houses-a3251071.html). They had an interview with a Malaysian student (who can vote, because she's a commonwealth citizen resident in the UK) who said she will vote out because she wants less Polish immigrants and wants it to be easier for her and other Commonwealth people from countries like Nigeria to immigrate instead.
Personally I'm not the anti-immigration type, it's not affected me negatively and just like every politician that comes into power I realise it creates a net economic good for the countries (something that contrary to the rhetoric has been shown in a number of studies such as that from Oxford's migration observatory, and from the ICL) but I never cease to be amazed at the complete selfish shit fight going on amongst those who are immigrants, and as such I propose that if we're going to close our doors and remove people that the first people we kick out are the intolerant ones, because my country was always built on tolerance and if they don't like that they can fuck off home.
The people that are going to be most surprised though are British natives who are voting out for xenophobic anti-immigrant reasons and are going to get a sore surprise when they realise that it isn't going to decrease immigration for the reasons above. Instead of Poles who are reasonably educated, and have a similar culture and so integrate fairly well they're going to be faced with Pritti Patel's Bangladeshi migrants which will be fun, given that poor integration of nationals from poorer Islamic nations in the UK is the one thing that's created most our nation's anti-immigration sentiment in the first place.
I think it's sad that so many people come to countries like ours to take advantage of the wealth and then would deny it to others. I wonder how much Taco Cowboy will be parroting the closed borders policy when the next step is to also start deporting folks like him back home?
The whole immigration debate is flooded with nonsense and bile from top to bottom including from those who have most benefited from the status quo. The real problem is that sociopaths like him aren't the isolated cases. If we could figure out how to spot them a mile off and deny them entry in the first place then I suspect the whole immigration issue would be a whole lot less problematic, but maybe there's something to that? Maybe people who leave their country behind in the first place are more inclined to be selfish and be the type that just looks out for themselves, whilst those that stay behind and try and fix their country are inherently more selfless in general, hence why we end up with so much hypocritical dross like we're seeing here?
The problem is GUNS, and unrestricted access to them. My grand-daughter age 12 could order one by mail-order.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
31% of the global population are Christian.
23% are Muslim.
Even if we pretend there are no Jewish people, not only do "most religious people" accept Exodus, the majority of people do. So yes, that's "lowest common denominator", minimum definition of God accepted by "most religious people" (over 75%) and most people (over 55%).
I think the point that several people were trying to make to him is that sometimes having a good point scattered throughout a post doesn't make up for the post being full of ridiculously crazy shit. As in "this still is so off-the-wall, so stereotypical, I'm pretty sure I'm just being trolled for kicks."
There's a lot of anger being posted, and lots of opinions about things.. but I'm just busy feeling sad for the 100+ people who have had their lives destroyed or ended. This was a weekend to celebrate with loved ones, and it was turned into a tragedy. Everybody needs to stop yelling at each other, put down the arguments, find your shmooey shmoo, and give them a big hug. You don't know when they will be taken from you. Every day matters. Hug them every day.
[1] Paging whipslash - if you happen to read this. It'd be cool to have better thread filtering. We used to just be able to set the threshold to a number (-1 to 5) and read all comments at or above that number. Much simpler IMO. Thanks!
I'd like a option to not only collapse -1 threads, but to not see any responses to those threads either. Have them totally collapsed together into one line.
That's so I not only have to see super-troll posts, I don't see the replies of people who ought to know better and quote and respond to the original troll post. Even on moderated boards, that nonsense will make stuff get out of hand and hard to sort through as well.
Um, that's not even remotely what the Commonwealth is, it sounds more like you're describing crown depedencies which are typical self-governing (to varying degrees) sovereign British territory, this includes places like the Falkland Islands.
Commonwealth states are very much independent sovereign nations, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria and so on. They maintain links to the Queen in ceremony only, she and those around here hold absolutely no actual political power over these sovereign nations whatsoever.
"Your Beliefs Doesn't Make You A Better Person; Your Behavior Does" --Unknown
Casteism
If you want to say the "deadliest" or the one with the "highest bodycount", these are quantifiable absolutes. And they can be measured by objective criteria. E.g. how many people died.
If you want to talk about "worst", "most horrible" or "most atrocious", you're talking about a quality. And that is by definition dependent on the subjective perception of the person talking.
What was the worst day in US history in the past 100 years? Ask 100 people and I promise you, you WILL get at the very least 10 different answers. Pearl Harbor. Shooting of JFK. Shooting of MLK. 9/11. All of them valid and, if you confront the people with the other answers given, they will insist that their answer is more correct than the other ones.
Worst is an absolute. Yes. But not an objective one. What I perceive as "the worst $x" is by no means guaranteed to be seen in the same way by you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, assume for every group of five guys, one is a designated driver. Cut down the ratio for those people using cabs (say half), and you've got 10%.
Say only 10% of people are willing to properly train and obtain CCW - now you've got 1%.
In a group of 100+, that's at least one more good guy with a gun than before.
Now, of course the first few seconds of mayhem cannot be stopped - people are going to die. But for every good guy with a gun, ready to respond, more lives are saved.
They are saying it is the "worst mass shooting" So that should be verifiable. Were the other mass shootings that had greater numbers shot? If so, then it is not the worst mass shooting. If not, then it is. Of they said it was the "worst day in US history," then I agree, that would be subjective. But in this case, they are specifically applying the measure ("worst") to a particular type of event ("mass shooting") as such, it is objective, not subjective. If the object of the statement is objective and quantifiable, then so is the term worst. If it is subjective, as in the worst taste or worst smell, then the use of the word worst, is improper, but as used would be subjective.
No matter how one phrases it, words like least, most and worsts are absolute measures of something. For something to be measured, means it must be objective. By their very nature, they require a context, or set of data to work from. That does not make them any less objective than any other valuation based on set theory. They only become subjective when they are used for inferences outside their data set, which is actually a fallacy.
The statement "The worst mass shooting in US history" is a restatement of "Of all of the mass shootings in the history of the US, this one is the worst." That statement excludes all non-mass shootings in the US and outside and all mass shootings other than in the US. From there, the data set is well defined and readily determinable if this is in fact the worst or not. It isn't a feeling. It isn't subjective. It is an observation of fact and therefore objective.
The Queen is the sole head of the nation. It's not in "ceremony" but in law. Sure, if she ever used that power, the laws would be changed, but all of the commonwealth countries formally have the Queen as their head of government. Also, if you wish to prove me wrong, name a single country in the Commoneealth that doesn't have the Queen mentioned or depicted on their passport. Note, she's not in the US passport, or Russia's, so it's not an issue of "everyone does it", but that the Commonwealth does it, and nobody else.
You do realize that "The Commonwealth" is short for (or derived from) "The British Commonwealth", right? And you are arguing that members of The British Commonwealth have no link to the British.
The commonwealth is a collection of linked "independent" states, same as the states in the EU, or the states in the US. The only discussion is the level of "collection" vs "independence". The "independent sovereign nations" of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all formally recognize Queen Elizabeth II as the formal head of their government.
Learn to love Alaska
You either lack reading comprehension, or lacked imagination when declaring 'show me proof' by pretending to wonder if I was surmising.
a single tweet is probably all it took
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Think of when the ban was put in place and I'll bet you'll find that it was referring to the older gun.
You still have not the slightest clue what the commonwealth is or how it works.
It's an organisation comprising 53 states, only 14 of these states choose to have the Queen as their ceremonial head of state, but few of them grant her any actual political power, and of those that do the powers are so pointless as to be nothing more than a nod to her as a sign of respect. You seem to be under the assumption that a role of ceremonial head of state automatically imbues actual legal political power, but it simply does not.
Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth, but it does not recognise the Queen as head of state, nor does it reference her in their passports. Some Commonwealth members like Rwanda were never even under British rule and hence never even had a link to the Queen as head of state. It's trivial therefore for me to name a member of the Commonwealth that has neither the Queen as ceremonial head of state, nor has her on their passport, in fact, such nations comprise about 40 or so out of 53 of the nations in the Commonwealth, that is, the vast majority of them. Why would you even make such a challenge to me that I could trivial oblige you and embarrass you on, surely no one is that stupid? Are you just trolling?
Also, "The Commonwealth" is NOT short for "The British Commonwealth", that name was dropped in 1949 precisely to reflect the fact that it was no longer and organisation related to British rule, but instead an organisation for mutual cooperation between states as equals.
You may want to consider spending at least 30 seconds to get familiar with a topic before making such a laughing stock of yourself in future. There is literally no link between the Queen as ceremonial head of the commonwealth and power over sovereignty of member states. The link between those few nations in the commonwealth that do retain the Queen as ceremonial head of state do so outside of and regardless of the commonwealth.
Some truth to... What exactly?
Because some kids have religious parents and don't want them to take music or go to a competing religious ceremony? Somehow that shows the truth that they get euphoric when jews get murdered? Huh?
Or the school system in London is somehow leading to Slashdot being controlled by Islam?
Or that it's dangerous to criticize Islam In Europe?
Because so far nothing in the offhand story from your teacher friend in London lends weight to anything he's mentioned in this thread.
Hey, radicalized Islam sucks. Radicalized Christianity sucks too. You'd probably get the same sort of reaction from some people here in the states if the choir was invited to the science center. (And also that anti-evolution "Discovery Center" place. I know I would) Moderate amounts of religion is perfectly fine. This guy who went nuts drank WAY too deep of the religious rhetoric. But he could have just as easily come from the deep south or conservative parts of Poland or Utah or Latin America and the story would have been the same. And of course a school should try and cater to the parents, why wouldn't it?
I'd say that there is a strong political factor lashing out against people who condemn the strict uptight and unreasonable religious conservatism of Islam while also somehow supporting their own strict uptight and unreasonable flavor of religious conservatism. The hypocrisy is just a little too thick. Hey, let's imagine your teacher friend told a student that their parents religion is stupid and they should come sing at the cathedral. Can you imagine the clusterfuck that teacher would face if they tried to tell a staunch Baptist that their religion was stupid and they should let their kids sing the call to prayer at a mosque? And maybe, just maybe, it's not that the parents believe music is against Islam, but rather the choir at the public school has too close of ties to the catholic church for the tastes of the Islamic parents? You know, what with being invited to a cathedral and all.
And of course trying to lump everyone in a religion to a few nutballs is wrong. Saying all Muslims are terrorists is as laughable as saying all gay people are fashionable, all Christians don't believe in evolution, or all Trump supporters want to watch the world burn. That's classic stereotyping, and while it might be easy and tempting, it's wrong. If you want everyone to be open-minded and free, GREAT. Part of that is accepting people who aren't as open-minded as you. And as long as they don't shoot up a bunch of gays, or celebrate anyone's murder, they're allowed to keep their kids away from whatever they feel like.
But please, explain to me exactly what this truth is you're trying to get at.
You still have not the slightest clue what the commonwealth is or how it works.
I'm a citizen of a member of the commonwealth. Are you?
Learn to love Alaska
Yep, though I'm not sure how that helps you, as it doesn't change the fact you clearly have no idea of the organisation your nation is a part of.
I guess that was some kind of desperate way to salvage things after you've made such a fool of yourself?
Nope. Everything I've said is true. You are arguing theory vs practice without recognizing both are valid. You are the only one here that's wrong. Your absolutism in denying the Queen is irrational. The Queen is explicitly the head of the government in places you named like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and has the power to do things like disband parliament and other things if she felt like it. She never would, because the laws would be changed after, but she, at least theoretically, is the sole head of government. That the power is used only figurehead-like doesn't mean it's not still there explicitly. Perhaps you need to learn what the Commonwealth is.
Learn to love Alaska
I've met many people on the internet, especially Slashdot, who can't accept when they're wrong, but you really are a special case.
Never before have I encountered someone so completely and utterly wrong, whom issued a challenge, which I kindly obliged, hence even proving you wrong on your own terms, and yet who still so desperately tries to pretend that he's right.
You really are one very special case in believing that you are somehow right, and it's not that I don't recognise the fact that you're now trying to reframe the argument in that you're declaring you're right whilst now trying to back away from your original claim and focus only on nations who choose to have the Queen as head of state, but that even that is still completely wrong for the aformentioned reason that the Commonwealth simply does not define head of state, that happens separately from the Commonwealth, again, why so many Commonwealth countries have Queen as head of state.
Now, I'm not going to argue with you any further because you're obviously a very broken, defective, failure of a human being when even in the face of being shown to be so completely and utterly wrong about something you enter some kind of weird reality denial mode. I am however going to give you one piece of advice, that even if when you are so completely wrong about something, you desperately cling on in the hope you can somehow pretend you're right, even though that will never happen to any rational observer, that you are making yourself stupid. You aren't accidentally stupid, because you had a poor upbringing, or a learning difficulty or some other thing - you're wilfully stupid because you favour trying to desperate salvage your pride from an unsalvageable position on the internet over gaining a bit of humility and simply admitting that you did not realise something was the case.
Or, you could keep being wrong, and we could keep laughing at your wilful stupidity and hopeless attempts at trying to salvage your shattered argument.
You are the one who is wrong, who asserted that the Queen wasn't the head of state for Australia, NZ and Canada. I proved otherwise, and you still argue the point. You are pitiul, and your complaints against me are obviously just you trying to save face. After all, must win all arguments on the Internet, right?
Learn to love Alaska
Oh god, so now you think you can make me wrong by simply changing the argument and pretending you're engaging in a debate that never actually happened and by claiming I said things I never said?
Let's just recap here with a direct copy and paste quote of what you said:
"The Queen is the sole head of the nation. It's not in "ceremony" but in law. Sure, if she ever used that power, the laws would be changed, but all of the commonwealth countries formally have the Queen as their head of government. Also, if you wish to prove me wrong, name a single country in the Commoneealth that doesn't have the Queen mentioned or depicted on their passport."
Let's just quote that bit again:
"but all of the commonwealth countries formally have the Queen as their head of government"
You know you can just post "Sorry Xest, it looks like you're right" yeah? You don't have to flap around like a dying fish on a deck of a fishing boat, you can just give up and accept that you posted about something you had no clue about and made a fool of yourself. I'm sure you think that trying to reframe the argument by slowly agreeing with me that you'll somehow be able to get out of this hole you've dug yourself, first by dropping the idea that all Commonwealth countries have the Queen as head of state, and secondly now by dropping the idea that the Commonwealth has any bearing on what head of state a country has. In reality though all you're doing is slowly agreeing that you were wrong by moving to agreement with my post without actually having the balls or humility to grow up and formally actually admit it. You've reached a level of desperation where you're now basically taking my argument against your incorrect post and trying to claim it as your own, that's really kind of special.
Again, your argument, for the third time, because you know, I just want to make certain you are aware of the idiocy you posted before you try and creep out of it even further:
"but all of the commonwealth countries formally have the Queen as their head of government"
You got wrecked and you've failed so hard as a human being in the face of it.
Commonwealth states are very much independent sovereign nations, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria and so on. They maintain links to the Queen in ceremony only, she and those around here hold absolutely no actual political power over these sovereign nations whatsoever.
Correct for Nigeria, but not Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. But I'm sure that you'll find a way to make your wong statement my error again.
You know you can just post "Sorry Xest, it looks like you're right" yeah?
I'm sorry Zest, but it looks like you are a fucking idiot. "Although held by individuals, all Canadian passports remain property of the Queen of Canada (the Government of Canada), as stated on the inside front cover of the booklet." The Queen *is* the government, and the sole authority given for the issuance of Canadian passports is The Queen. Same (or similar) for Australian and New Zealand passports.
Learn to love Alaska
Really? you're still trying to deny it in the face of 3 copies of your direct quote.
You can keep pretending I ever denied SOME Commonwealth countries have the Queen as a monarch, but you'll still be wrong, because I never did. You can keep pretending that you didn't claim the Commonwealth imposes a leader on a nation, but you'll still be wrong, because you did.
Just to be certain you didn't somehow fail to read the last post, let's just quote you again:
"but all of the commonwealth countries formally have the Queen as their head of government. Also, if you wish to prove me wrong, name a single country in the Commoneealth that doesn't have the Queen mentioned or depicted on their passport."
Let's just quote me:
"It's an organisation comprising 53 states, only 14 of these states choose to have the Queen as their ceremonial head of state"
So yes, I love the fact you're agreeing with me now, it's wonderful, I'm just not sure why you have to pretend otherwise, apart from the obvious fact you think you're an internet big man who can make up for his real world insecurities by being right on the internet somehow - I'll give you a hint, you real can't. Now you've seen these quotes it's clear you've accepted you were wrong and I was right, but what's driving you to still not be able to say it? You really just can't stop yourself digging that hole ever deeper?
Serious question, how many times do you think you can ignore your own claim before your attempt to twist reality becomes reality? I mean you obviously believe that if you deny reality long enough that you can form a new reality, I'm just wondering how long you think that takes?
Really? you're still trying to deny it in the face of 3 copies of your direct quote.
You are the one denying your own quote.
You can keep pretending I ever denied SOME Commonwealth countries have the Queen as a monarch, but you'll still be wrong, because I never did.
3 of 4 of your examples did. Did you even read your own words?
Learn to love Alaska
"You are the one denying your own quote."
I see illiteracy is still strong in you Alaskans, no wonder you ended up with someone as thick as you are as governor by way of Palin if you can't even read basic English. Given that it's pretty understandable that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about as you'd have to be able to read to understand why you're wrong. I did think it was odd you didn't just Google before posting your original wholly incorrect post and making a fool of yourself (and continuing to do so ever since), but now I know you're illiterate it all makes sense.
Wonderful, but none of those things actually give her any real practical power, hence, she's a figurehead. Just like here in the UK where she's also our head of state, but also has not the slightest amount of political power whatsoever. Sure in theory she could try to disband the government etc., but everyone would ignore her and carry on as usual. To have actual power a leader needs people who would follow them, the monarch does not have that precisely because she's understood as purely ceremonial in role, which is precisely why she'd never try it in the first place - no point giving orders that would be ignored and remove you and your family from your palace permanently.
Having your face on currency, having an oath sweared to you, doesn't actually give you any kind of power whatsoever. The Governor Generals are themselves picked by the prime minister not the Queen. Of course, you should know this, it's your fucking country.
She's also not imposed on you as part of your Commonwealth membership, you have her because you choose to continue to have her regardless of the Commonwealth.
If you don't like having her as a symbolic figurehead then get rid of her, she can't stop you, again, because she has no actual power, but don't pretend she's there for any reason other than the fact you like having a symbolic figurehead.