Is it possible that you could avoid the obvious abortion clinic troll while we discuss another topic?
Or is your intellect so stunted that you can't see we aren't discussing individuals and their actions, but STATE SPONSORED SUPPRESSION OF SCIENCE through violence?
"Because when people make silly and unsupported claims..."
Like you did about what I said. You lied. It wasn't sarcasm it was a lie.
And frankly, you can try to act as though muslims don't engage in religiously motivated violence, but you'd be pretty dumb for trying. Calling that claim unsupported is just about the height of ignorance.
"and as per your comment, there are mass burnings in the street every year"
Please quote the section where I say "there are mass burnings in the street every year" or admit you can't.
There is nothing more frustrating than trying to have an intelligent discussion only to be assaulted by people like you who can't read worth a damn and rely on straw men to buoy your arguments.
I never said what you claim I said, so stop lying please.
"It's the exact same thing that's going on in America. The Jesus freaks utterly reject anything that might come into conflict with their preconception of GOD MADE THE EARTH IN SEVEN DAYS AND IF YOU SAY OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOREVER."
While the muslims do the same but actually set you on fire. In the street. Right now.
So no, it's not the exact same thing that's going on in America. Others will chime in with their opinions of why it is, but they'll have a hard time finding comparable behavior amongst religiosos in the US.
"Firstly, no one is claiming that things in the US or UK are worse than what's happening in Burma."
Yes they are, and you didn't read all the comments, because it's right there, modded up for all to see. YES, THEY ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY ARE NOT DOING.
"Just because worse things are happening doesn't mean that censorship on a lesser scale is okay "
See, THAT is what "no one is claiming". Nowhere is that point made or implied.
What is being said is that Burma gives great insight into the depth of ignorance of people commenting on censorship in other places. Said people repeatedly and continuously cry censorship, when it's clear base don the issues they claim prove censorship that they are ignorant of what the word means.
"it's like showing you a picture of what "real violence looks like", as I slam a fist into someone's face."
No, it's like shooting you in the face while you're complaining about your hair being pulled and crying about how hair pulling is the greatest horror ever to be visited on mankind. It's about the distorted perception of individuals who claim to have a clear understanding of what censorship is. It's about calling people like that on the hyperbole and propaganda they use because reality doesn't support their rants.
"You're conveniently remembering that the kid was being held on the ground by at least four police officers when he was tased, and wasn't resisting arrest by that point."
And you're lying.
We can watch the video, and I can tell you exactly where and what you're lying about, but you won't listen. I can tell you he pulled his arms free and sat up (while supposedly being held down by four officers) eight seconds before he's tasered, which is clearly shown in the video, but you won't listen.
"It's also pretty doubtful that there was ever the risk of him causing any sort of physical harm..."
No way of knowing that, so again you're a liar. More importantly, his failure to recognize lawfully given commands makes him a threat regardless of what you think about it. But you won't listen.
"It's a very clear-cut case of police brutality, especially given the number of people who caught it on film"
Another lie.
"The police instigated a confrontation"
Yet another. The guy did it himself by failing to follow police instructions. You can't claim they instigated anything when that idiot was the originator of the conflict.
"and after he had fully submitted to them, he was attacked once again."
Another fucking lie. He pulled his arms free and sat up, again with four cops on him, so no liar, he hadn't submitted to ANYTHING, and lying won't make it different.
Is to regurgitate a decades old book, then you need to expand your horizons a bit.
"Of course, we've always been at war with Eastasia."
There is no "eastasia", it's fake. See that? F-A-K-E. Not Real. Made up. And stupidly mixing fiction with your opinion indicates how unqualified you are to discuss this subject.
1984 is as much fiction as Star Wars, but for some stupid fucking reason you political trolls rush to whore karma by quoting it.
Well, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...
1. Being the only one of its kind: the unique existing example of Donne's handwriting.
2. Without an equal or equivalent; unparalleled.
3.
1. Characteristic of a particular category, condition, or locality: a problem unique to coastal areas. 2. Informal. Unusual; extraordinary: spoke with a unique accent.
The bolded part shows why you're wrong. But if that weren't enough...
"USAGE NOTE For many grammarians, unique is the paradigmatic absolute term, a shibboleth that distinguishes between those who understand that such a term cannot be modified by an adverb of degree or a comparative adverb and those who do not. These grammarians would say that a thing is either unique or not unique and that it is therefore incorrect to say that something is very unique or more unique than something else. Most of the Usage Panel supports this traditional view. Eighty percent disapprove of the sentence Her designs are quite unique in today's fashions. But as the language of advertising in particular attests, unique is widely used as a synonym for "worthy of being considered in a class by itself, extraordinary," and if so construed it may arguably be modified. In fact, unique appears as a modified adjective in the work of many reputable writers. A travel writer states that "Chicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco," for example, and the critic Fredric Jameson writes "The great modern writers have all been defined by the invention or production of rather unique styles." Although these examples of the qualification of unique are defensible, writers should be aware that such constructions are liable to incur the censure of some readers. See Usage Notes at absolute, equal, infinite."
You are arguing for an absolute definition where it does not exist.
"There is no "study" to prove this, because it is a normative claim"
In other words, a claim you can't support with factual evidence.
Which just about says it all about you and your points.
"Additionally, this isn't about some kind of touchy-feely "diversity" - more languages means more data to work with, which presumably, is "good"."
Based on your repeated claims, which are based on nothing.
I don't know why you think you're going to get anywhere claiming it's not about touch feely diversity then giving me nothing but your feeling that diversity is just plain better period, in the absence of scientific fact.
"Even 50 years later the US-American ego is badly hurt by Soviet supremacy in space. "
No, as your post shows, that more from your perception than reality.
Soviet supremacy stopped being an issue 40 something years ago, and most people from my generation wouldn't be able to tell you what it meant.
I don't honestly think most people give a damn, and the ones that do are smart enough to realize that the US accomplishments in space outstrip anyone and everyone else.
"That may be your belief, but it's certainly not an established fact."
Um, thanks, I know, I just wrote that.
So, yeah, I know I'm right.
"Whether you want to admit it or not, certain disciplines do have a lot to gain not just from the knowledge of, but also the living existence of, multiple languages."
It has NOTHING to do with what I admit, and everything to do with YOU supporting your argument with SOME kind of fact or study, which you have not done.
You and the others just say "it's better with more diversity, trust me" and move on as though you've made your case.
See, that's the problem, I like facts and reason and you like saying "yes huh, I know so". Sadly for you, that's not going to cut it.
"but the majority of posts here seem to be along the lines of "Well it doesn't affect me, so who gives a f**k?" or "If they are dying out, they are just cruft"."
I have yet to see any such posts. If they are present, they're not moderated very highly.
"You see, a lot of those languages are dying out because the speakers of the more monolithic languages have forced them into extinction."
Bullshit, they're going extinct because the cultural isolation they enjoyed is at an end, and communication over distances is easier than ever before. This is a technological issue, and has not one thing to do with your boogeyman of "speakers of the more monolithic languages" doing anything.
With that said, I stopped reading your post right there. The kind of overwhelming cultural bias you display, combined with your clear desire to misrepresent facts leads me to believe I made a good decision in not reading on.
No, language is a tool used because it was the only tool available to those equipped with it. You make the common mistake of equating conveninence with necessity.
"Well, there's the second paragraph of my original post, and the numerous other posts that have pointed out the value of language to history, anthropology, and understandings of cognition in general."
Except they didn't, you just think they did.
The information is independent of the descriptor, so the "value" of language to objective fact certainly hasn't been established at all.
Slashdot Mirror
"Your original post was so trollishly offtopic that the irony of your above post is palpable..."
The subject is islam and science, and I was discussing islam...
Do you actually know hat off-topic means, or is that your catch all argument for those who have refuted you into submission?
Like I did.
Is it possible that you could avoid the obvious abortion clinic troll while we discuss another topic?
Or is your intellect so stunted that you can't see we aren't discussing individuals and their actions, but STATE SPONSORED SUPPRESSION OF SCIENCE through violence?
Is it that hard to stop your knee jerking?
"Abortion clinic bombings."
Have nothing to do with teaching science.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE POINT NOW? DO YOU GET IT? MY COMMENT WAS NOT ABOUT RELIGION, BUT HOW RELIGION TREATS SCIENTISTS FOR TEACHING SCIENCE.
Try to keep up, you'll be able to avoid irrelevant commentary, like your last post.
"Because when people make silly and unsupported claims..."
Like you did about what I said. You lied. It wasn't sarcasm it was a lie.
And frankly, you can try to act as though muslims don't engage in religiously motivated violence, but you'd be pretty dumb for trying. Calling that claim unsupported is just about the height of ignorance.
"The Jesus freaks prefer secret prisons in foreign countries..."
And they do that for teaching science?
Oh right, no they don't. So no, you're wrong. And a troll.
"and as per your comment, there are mass burnings in the street every year"
Please quote the section where I say "there are mass burnings in the street every year" or admit you can't.
There is nothing more frustrating than trying to have an intelligent discussion only to be assaulted by people like you who can't read worth a damn and rely on straw men to buoy your arguments.
I never said what you claim I said, so stop lying please.
"It's the exact same thing that's going on in America. The Jesus freaks utterly reject anything that might come into conflict with their preconception of GOD MADE THE EARTH IN SEVEN DAYS AND IF YOU SAY OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOREVER."
While the muslims do the same but actually set you on fire. In the street. Right now.
So no, it's not the exact same thing that's going on in America. Others will chime in with their opinions of why it is, but they'll have a hard time finding comparable behavior amongst religiosos in the US.
I was under the impression that standard DVDs use a different type of laser for reading and recording than blu ray.
So is this some type of hybrid/dual laser device? Or is it a blu ray that uses the blue laser to record on conventional DVDs? Or what exactly?
Doesn't the admission of error mean that there is now the possibility of legal action by the shareholders?
"and we have stood by in blissful ignorance of terrible things happening in a part of the world we dont live in and don't have to think about."
Speak for yourself please, I find it frustrating and tiresome that you generalize your own apathy and cowardice to others.
I have been acting on this situation for years, so you can save that "we" garbage.
"Firstly, no one is claiming that things in the US or UK are worse than what's happening in Burma."
Yes they are, and you didn't read all the comments, because it's right there, modded up for all to see. YES, THEY ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY ARE NOT DOING.
"Just because worse things are happening doesn't mean that censorship on a lesser scale is okay "
See, THAT is what "no one is claiming". Nowhere is that point made or implied.
What is being said is that Burma gives great insight into the depth of ignorance of people commenting on censorship in other places. Said people repeatedly and continuously cry censorship, when it's clear base don the issues they claim prove censorship that they are ignorant of what the word means.
"it's like showing you a picture of what "real violence looks like", as I slam a fist into someone's face."
No, it's like shooting you in the face while you're complaining about your hair being pulled and crying about how hair pulling is the greatest horror ever to be visited on mankind. It's about the distorted perception of individuals who claim to have a clear understanding of what censorship is. It's about calling people like that on the hyperbole and propaganda they use because reality doesn't support their rants.
It was about time someone questioned the reasoning of people who take their political lessons from a (mediocre) work of fiction.
That you don't like it makes it no less true.
"You're conveniently remembering that the kid was being held on the ground by at least four police officers when he was tased, and wasn't resisting arrest by that point."
And you're lying.
We can watch the video, and I can tell you exactly where and what you're lying about, but you won't listen. I can tell you he pulled his arms free and sat up (while supposedly being held down by four officers) eight seconds before he's tasered, which is clearly shown in the video, but you won't listen.
"It's also pretty doubtful that there was ever the risk of him causing any sort of physical harm..."
No way of knowing that, so again you're a liar. More importantly, his failure to recognize lawfully given commands makes him a threat regardless of what you think about it. But you won't listen.
"It's a very clear-cut case of police brutality, especially given the number of people who caught it on film"
Another lie.
"The police instigated a confrontation"
Yet another. The guy did it himself by failing to follow police instructions. You can't claim they instigated anything when that idiot was the originator of the conflict.
"and after he had fully submitted to them, he was attacked once again."
Another fucking lie. He pulled his arms free and sat up, again with four cops on him, so no liar, he hadn't submitted to ANYTHING, and lying won't make it different.
"And that is the standard we should hold our country to? No worse than anyone else? The leader of the free world is no worse than anyone else?"
I am fairly certain he wasn't suggesting that, so save your straw men, thanks.
"That doesn't mean the information isn't out there"
Then it's not censorship.
"You demonstrate with your own words the censorship that occurred there."
You're right, he was censoring the speech of the rest of the audience by monopolizing the proceedings.
"you know is what you've been told to think"
Ah the tired old, "all of you that don't agree with me are sheep" bullshit. THAT would be funny if it weren't so god damned pathetic.
Is to regurgitate a decades old book, then you need to expand your horizons a bit.
"Of course, we've always been at war with Eastasia."
There is no "eastasia", it's fake. See that? F-A-K-E. Not Real. Made up. And stupidly mixing fiction with your opinion indicates how unqualified you are to discuss this subject.
1984 is as much fiction as Star Wars, but for some stupid fucking reason you political trolls rush to whore karma by quoting it.
Well, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...
"and people are much more likely to do things that are easy for them"
Like speak one language instead of two, right?
1. Being the only one of its kind: the unique existing example of Donne's handwriting.
2. Without an equal or equivalent; unparalleled.
3.
1. Characteristic of a particular category, condition, or locality: a problem unique to coastal areas.
2. Informal. Unusual; extraordinary: spoke with a unique accent.
The bolded part shows why you're wrong. But if that weren't enough...
http://www.answers.com/topic/unique?cat=technology
"USAGE NOTE For many grammarians, unique is the paradigmatic absolute term, a shibboleth that distinguishes between those who understand that such a term cannot be modified by an adverb of degree or a comparative adverb and those who do not. These grammarians would say that a thing is either unique or not unique and that it is therefore incorrect to say that something is very unique or more unique than something else. Most of the Usage Panel supports this traditional view. Eighty percent disapprove of the sentence Her designs are quite unique in today's fashions. But as the language of advertising in particular attests, unique is widely used as a synonym for "worthy of being considered in a class by itself, extraordinary," and if so construed it may arguably be modified. In fact, unique appears as a modified adjective in the work of many reputable writers. A travel writer states that "Chicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco," for example, and the critic Fredric Jameson writes "The great modern writers have all been defined by the invention or production of rather unique styles." Although these examples of the qualification of unique are defensible, writers should be aware that such constructions are liable to incur the censure of some readers. See Usage Notes at absolute, equal, infinite."
You are arguing for an absolute definition where it does not exist.
"They're asking to be paid a fair price, not to be stiffed."
I think that's perfectly reasonable.
Now what about if I listen and decide it was a waste of my time? What would be fair compensation there?
"There is no "study" to prove this, because it is a normative claim"
In other words, a claim you can't support with factual evidence.
Which just about says it all about you and your points.
"Additionally, this isn't about some kind of touchy-feely "diversity" - more languages means more data to work with, which presumably, is "good"."
Based on your repeated claims, which are based on nothing.
I don't know why you think you're going to get anywhere claiming it's not about touch feely diversity then giving me nothing but your feeling that diversity is just plain better period, in the absence of scientific fact.
"Even 50 years later the US-American ego is badly hurt by Soviet supremacy in space. "
No, as your post shows, that more from your perception than reality.
Soviet supremacy stopped being an issue 40 something years ago, and most people from my generation wouldn't be able to tell you what it meant.
I don't honestly think most people give a damn, and the ones that do are smart enough to realize that the US accomplishments in space outstrip anyone and everyone else.
"I hope you know how old the internet concept is. And the initial reason for its conception. This actually proves my point."
Only if your point is that you're able to ignore those facts which clearly refute you in order to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Which you've done several times now.
"That may be your belief, but it's certainly not an established fact."
Um, thanks, I know, I just wrote that.
So, yeah, I know I'm right.
"Whether you want to admit it or not, certain disciplines do have a lot to gain not just from the knowledge of, but also the living existence of, multiple languages."
It has NOTHING to do with what I admit, and everything to do with YOU supporting your argument with SOME kind of fact or study, which you have not done.
You and the others just say "it's better with more diversity, trust me" and move on as though you've made your case.
See, that's the problem, I like facts and reason and you like saying "yes huh, I know so". Sadly for you, that's not going to cut it.
"but the majority of posts here seem to be along the lines of "Well it doesn't affect me, so who gives a f**k?" or "If they are dying out, they are just cruft"."
I have yet to see any such posts. If they are present, they're not moderated very highly.
"You see, a lot of those languages are dying out because the speakers of the more monolithic languages have forced them into extinction."
Bullshit, they're going extinct because the cultural isolation they enjoyed is at an end, and communication over distances is easier than ever before. This is a technological issue, and has not one thing to do with your boogeyman of "speakers of the more monolithic languages" doing anything.
With that said, I stopped reading your post right there. The kind of overwhelming cultural bias you display, combined with your clear desire to misrepresent facts leads me to believe I made a good decision in not reading on.
"Language is a unique expression of humanity"
No, language is a tool used because it was the only tool available to those equipped with it. You make the common mistake of equating conveninence with necessity.
Stop romanticizing the equivalent of a pencil.
"Well, there's the second paragraph of my original post, and the numerous other posts that have pointed out the value of language to history, anthropology, and understandings of cognition in general."
Except they didn't, you just think they did.
The information is independent of the descriptor, so the "value" of language to objective fact certainly hasn't been established at all.