Reopen the Gate of Ijtihad using the same critical methodologies to examine the Qu'ran, Hadith, and Sharia that Christians and Jews started using on the Bible over 250 years ago and the problems will evaporate. "Radical Islam" will be reduced to a strange, rag-tag curiosity, like the Westboro Baptists, holding signs "God Hates Yemen!" at funerals.
If Muslims are honest with themselves, they'll realize it has already started. I'm an idol-worshipping atheist (Buddhist flavoured), and get along great with my devout Muslim friends because we all agree that our most profound message is heart-wrenchingly simple: COMPASSION.
The Buddha was asked about the origin of the world.
He responded with a parable [well, my paraphrase thereof]:
"A man on a battlefield is struck by an arrow, and is bleeding badly from the wound.
What does he do? Does he calculate the trajectory of the arrow? Does he measure wind velocity? Does he survey and study his enemies' skills in archery to determine who among them could shoot so accurately? Does he analyze the composition of the arrowhead? Does he study the feathers? Does he evaluate the straightness of the shaft?
No, he removes the arrow and quickly binds the wound so that he does not bleed to death."
Global warmng: A, or non-A no longer matters. What matters now is where to move every coastal city, town, village, and port...where to move hundreds of millions of people...where to move agriculture...where to move civilization.
And, of course, how much it will cost you and your descendents.
There's only one thing left to do, and it doesn't matter if GW is A, or non-A. Move every coastal city to higher ground, because we all know the fossil fuel cartels will not stop making money off this stuff until there's and more money to be made.
Any estimates on how much it'll cost to move New York? And Los Angeles? Barcelona? Boston? London? Shanghai? Tokyo? Bangkok? Mumbai? The Netherlands? Sydney? Venice?
I'm glad it'll be your grandchildren footing the bill.
"Who on earth came up with that headline?" (Errr...the one posting it maybe?)
From the WMD Handbook:
Divert attention away from the original article, news report, or incident immediately. Guide the discussion towards safer topics, preferably topics embarrassing and controversial to "The West", but any topic will do. If this diversionary tactic fails, insults are you next course of action. Intimate that the commentator is unemployed, hides in his parents' basement, has no girlfriend, is a drug addict, etc.
So far, I've only seen Wikileaks zeroing in on one source of the world's shenanigans, and ignoring what everyone else is up to. It gives the illusion of neutrality, but seems just as much a unipolar political tool as Fox News. "Fair and balanced"? Not yet.
"Do not engage in dialog. Never answer difficult or revealing questions if the answer does not promote the interests of The Party.
The path to successfully guiding Internet communications in online forums away from areas damaging to The Party is simple. First, direct the attention of the reader away from China and the original question. For example, if Liu Xiaobo's name is mentioned, immediately bring up Bradley Manning. If they bring up the 6.4 Incident, respond by pointing out Waco and Kent State (see attachments for historical context). If this should fail, resort to insults and name calling.
By diverting attention away from uncomfortable questions, questions which have unflattering answers, harmonious dialog will be encouraged."
(from The Wumao Dang Handbook)
Perhaps "The Law" in China means one thing for businesspeople (which these people are... they're certainly not scientists advancing research in any meaningful way), but another thing for dissidents like Liu Xiaobo?
Being roused from my sleep in a factory festooned with nets to prevent me from committing suicide would be a close approximation of worker hell.
I've got other ethical problems, and don't need to make poor Chinese wage-slaves one of them.
. . . is that, no matter the source, no matter the content, no matter its significance, the Wu Mao Dang will spun it round, round, baby, right round. . .
You're being harmonized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
The other factor harmonizing online discourse in China, on Slashdot, and around the world is the Wmáo Dng.
If you don't think you're being harmonized here, you are truly naive.
ONLY thinks like child porn? ONLY things like mass produced soap operas?
I take it you welcome porn for adults, "Return of the Condor Heroes", news of the Jasmine Revolution?
BTW, the phrase "information shaping" is a bit revealing.
During my university classes I would knit, pausing to take only the most skeletal notes -- more like headings of broad topics covered during the course of the lecture. I always asked permission first (and always got it). I did better, marks-wise, in classes where I knit than where I didn't.
I trust that you'll allow us a few moments to ponder how very well the republic has worked over the past 7.5 years in making itself the shining light in scientific and technological prowess?
Slashdot Mirror
...and you've already surrendered everything. The Wu Mao Dang are eating what's left on your plate while you check Facebook.
Is this research done by Conservatives or Liberals? I need to know before I praise it or trash it!
If Muslims are honest with themselves, they'll realize it has already started. I'm an idol-worshipping atheist (Buddhist flavoured), and get along great with my devout Muslim friends because we all agree that our most profound message is heart-wrenchingly simple: COMPASSION.
It doesn't matter whether or not there IS a backdoor. All that matters is that their MIGHT be a backdoor.
He responded with a parable [well, my paraphrase thereof]:
"A man on a battlefield is struck by an arrow, and is bleeding badly from the wound.
What does he do? Does he calculate the trajectory of the arrow? Does he measure wind velocity? Does he survey and study his enemies' skills in archery to determine who among them could shoot so accurately? Does he analyze the composition of the arrowhead? Does he study the feathers? Does he evaluate the straightness of the shaft?
No, he removes the arrow and quickly binds the wound so that he does not bleed to death."
Global warmng: A, or non-A no longer matters. What matters now is where to move every coastal city, town, village, and port...where to move hundreds of millions of people...where to move agriculture...where to move civilization.
And, of course, how much it will cost you and your descendents.
"The Real Housewives of Hong Kong"
Any estimates on how much it'll cost to move New York? And Los Angeles? Barcelona? Boston? London? Shanghai? Tokyo? Bangkok? Mumbai? The Netherlands? Sydney? Venice?
I'm glad it'll be your grandchildren footing the bill.
What could possibly be the motive for the up-modding of such an absurd position?
"Who on earth came up with that headline?" (Errr...the one posting it maybe?) From the WMD Handbook: Divert attention away from the original article, news report, or incident immediately. Guide the discussion towards safer topics, preferably topics embarrassing and controversial to "The West", but any topic will do. If this diversionary tactic fails, insults are you next course of action. Intimate that the commentator is unemployed, hides in his parents' basement, has no girlfriend, is a drug addict, etc.
The are few actions as admirable as circumventing censorship laws.
So far, I've only seen Wikileaks zeroing in on one source of the world's shenanigans, and ignoring what everyone else is up to. It gives the illusion of neutrality, but seems just as much a unipolar political tool as Fox News. "Fair and balanced"? Not yet.
"You beat your wife, so why can't I beat mine?"
"Do not engage in dialog. Never answer difficult or revealing questions if the answer does not promote the interests of The Party. The path to successfully guiding Internet communications in online forums away from areas damaging to The Party is simple. First, direct the attention of the reader away from China and the original question. For example, if Liu Xiaobo's name is mentioned, immediately bring up Bradley Manning. If they bring up the 6.4 Incident, respond by pointing out Waco and Kent State (see attachments for historical context). If this should fail, resort to insults and name calling. By diverting attention away from uncomfortable questions, questions which have unflattering answers, harmonious dialog will be encouraged." (from The Wumao Dang Handbook)
Perhaps "The Law" in China means one thing for businesspeople (which these people are... they're certainly not scientists advancing research in any meaningful way), but another thing for dissidents like Liu Xiaobo?
Being roused from my sleep in a factory festooned with nets to prevent me from committing suicide would be a close approximation of worker hell. I've got other ethical problems, and don't need to make poor Chinese wage-slaves one of them.
. . . is that, no matter the source, no matter the content, no matter its significance, the Wu Mao Dang will spun it round, round, baby, right round. . . You're being harmonized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
The other factor harmonizing online discourse in China, on Slashdot, and around the world is the Wmáo Dng. If you don't think you're being harmonized here, you are truly naive.
ONLY thinks like child porn? ONLY things like mass produced soap operas? I take it you welcome porn for adults, "Return of the Condor Heroes", news of the Jasmine Revolution? BTW, the phrase "information shaping" is a bit revealing.
...you're very, very naive.
Bad in USA. Bad in China.
How long before the concrete degrades?
"Censoring technology doesn't censor people, people censor people!"
During my university classes I would knit, pausing to take only the most skeletal notes -- more like headings of broad topics covered during the course of the lecture. I always asked permission first (and always got it). I did better, marks-wise, in classes where I knit than where I didn't.
Coincidence? I think not. Could it be Satan?! (Who doesn't love us anymore?)
I trust that you'll allow us a few moments to ponder how very well the republic has worked over the past 7.5 years in making itself the shining light in scientific and technological prowess?