quran 9:5 "009.005 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
Because telling people to kill others is bad, m'kay?
I'll tell you how little I know though about the Quran though- I never even realised the fucker was written in English!
And no, I do not believe there is freedom from being offended.
Who does?
I was stupid, in that I'd gotten the impression from TFA that NetSol had seen the film, and concluded that it incited violence against Muslims. I was wrong, and am thoroughly ashamed....
I love mocking religion, but feel strongly that 'hatespeech' (by which I mean, the direct encouragement of violence against an individual or group because of their beliefs) should be banned.
I know quite a few Muslims, and they are as likely to do bad stuff as all the other religious people I know, and just as easy to wind up.
I agree with you, and as I have already said to a few other commenters, I was confused by TFA into assuming NetSol had seen the film. I am a fool. Sorry.
As I've said to 2 other posters now, I was wrongly assuming that NS had some inside knowledge that incitement of violence was part of the film. I was confused, you are right, I was wrong. All apologies.
I love violence. I love free speech. Pretty much everything that's 'dangerous to the mental health of out youth' kicks ass. But if the film, say, encourages people to go out and punch a muslim, then yes, it should be banned.
Surely you can appreciate that some stuff should be banned. (Kiddie porn?)
If you can get your head around that, then you must realise that in some, limited instances, the right to offend is superseded by the right not to be harmed.
As this film hasn't been released, I give Network Solutions the benefit of the doubt.
I myself think that it's difficult to be too nasty to any religion. But difficult is not the same as impossible. For instance, if this film incites violence against adherents of Islam, then a ban (and prosecution of those responsible) is the right move.
You miss the point (but I hid it pretty well). We will shortly be able to directly tweak the brain's pleasure zones, producing anything from a heroin high to a multiple orgasm. That will be cool.
It's a shame the term 'Trojan' is already taken. Then again, perhaps this is best described in those terms.
This is a PR nightmare- All Apple needed to do in order to generate more market share is to keep not being Microsoft. It seems the veil has slipped a bit.
QuickTime not only installed itself on my only windows machine, but made itself the default app for a bunch of file types instead of VLC.
(I almost returned our brand new MacBook Pro I was so pissed off, but whenever I approached it, my missus emitted a guttural, territorial growl that said 'Back the fuck away from my shiny precious')
...but the reason Apple won't face any lawsuits for this is because they are breaking into the Windows browser market...
Actually, the real reason people won't issue lawsuits is that the initial homepage is set to a video of The Steve, saying with a hand-wave "Firefox is not the browser you're looking for, move along".
Slashdot Mirror
I'll tell you how little I know though about the Quran though-
I never even realised the fucker was written in English!
I would welcome that reaction as an opportunity to explain my immutable beliefs, and to Royally take the piss.
I was stupid, in that I'd gotten the impression from TFA that NetSol had seen the film, and concluded that it incited violence against Muslims. I was wrong, and am thoroughly ashamed....
I love mocking religion, but feel strongly that 'hatespeech' (by which I mean, the direct encouragement of violence against an individual or group because of their beliefs) should be banned.
I know quite a few Muslims, and they are as likely to do bad stuff as all the other religious people I know, and just as easy to wind up.
The only one I have a problem with is 4:89, I would demand the redaction of that line before it could be published in Naughty Bobland.
I agree with you, and as I have already said to a few other commenters, I was confused by TFA into assuming NetSol had seen the film. I am a fool. Sorry.
I agree.
As I've said to 2 other posters now, I was wrongly assuming that NS had some inside knowledge that incitement of violence was part of the film. I was confused, you are right, I was wrong. All apologies.
As I said to someone else, I'd wrongly assumed that NS had inside info on something in the film- you are right and I am wrong. Shame on me.
You are right, I was wrongly assuming that NS had some specific information on the specifics of the film.
If it says 'Non-Muslims are wrong, you are commanded to kill them', then yes, when I am king that will be banned.
But I've heard many moderate Muslims state that no such instruction exists.
I love violence. I love free speech. Pretty much everything that's 'dangerous to the mental health of out youth' kicks ass. But if the film, say, encourages people to go out and punch a muslim, then yes, it should be banned.
Surely you can appreciate that some stuff should be banned. (Kiddie porn?)
If you can get your head around that, then you must realise that in some, limited instances, the right to offend is superseded by the right not to be harmed.
As this film hasn't been released, I give Network Solutions the benefit of the doubt.
I myself think that it's difficult to be too nasty to any religion. But difficult is not the same as impossible. For instance, if this film incites violence against adherents of Islam, then a ban (and prosecution of those responsible) is the right move.
If you are wanting high-tech grow lamps, LEDs are where it's at.
And while all that is happening, you are able to tunnel your way to freedom using spoons?
Let's strike a deal- You don't try to defend the indefensible, and I promise not to call shenanigans, K?
All my love, Naughty Bob X
You seem to be suggesting that I should go for MSFT over Apple, yet you call me perverse???
(for your info, there is a cure for rabies, and I'm a Linux user by choice).
You miss the point (but I hid it pretty well). We will shortly be able to directly tweak the brain's pleasure zones, producing anything from a heroin high to a multiple orgasm. That will be cool.
Astonishing, isn't it- I mean, someone, on the internet, being wrong!?
This is a PR nightmare- All Apple needed to do in order to generate more market share is to keep not being Microsoft. It seems the veil has slipped a bit.
I think a lot more of Apple than I do of MSFT, but then I'd rather catch rabies than AIDS....
QuickTime not only installed itself on my only windows machine, but made itself the default app for a bunch of file types instead of VLC.
(I almost returned our brand new MacBook Pro I was so pissed off, but whenever I approached it, my missus emitted a guttural, territorial growl that said 'Back the fuck away from my shiny precious')
It seems that the decision required of those turned off MSFT, specifically because of wacky stunts like this, just got a whole lot easier.
I don't like Slashdot and Slashdot editors being critical of Apple...
Fixed that for you.