Oh please please pretty please? Could you kick us out of UN either way? I'm REALLY sick of my country giving MY money (stolen as taxes) over to a corrupt bunch of terroris-lovers.
Just in case you don't get it - TONS of people here in US would love nothing more than to be rid of this stinking dead baggage you call UN. Especially seing as how US pays most of UN's budget.
The guy was an office assistant working for the City. Do you actually expect someone at that job to be even marginally intelligent? If so, you never dealt with government (epsecially NYC) employees.
> This is why we have all this horror shlock on the Sci-Fi channel and things like Farscape get cancelled.
Uhm... NO.
You get the above outcome because: 1) Sci-Fi channel, like ALL other non-premium channels, is in the business of selling ad space to advertisers. 2) For whatever reason, there's either a fact or perception that "all this horror shlock" - or my pet peeve, "monster movies" - provide better return on investment to advertisers (due to amount of people who watch them and/or due to the way the viewers respond to ads and/or other reasons). 3) Therefore, the shows which advertisers pay more to place ads on will win (e.g. Sci-Fi-channellesque crap), and shows like FireFly lose.
It's all very simple economics, stupid, to paraphrase that cheating jerk.
And if YOU don't like it, go produce better shows yourself, and market them to people like you. Worked for some people (Kevin Smith).
> I don't think evolution progresses only towards adaptedness - Look at humans. What specific task have we evolved towards?
Survival and propagation on genetic level. Same as anything else. Although some theories postulate that we evolved as a supreme method of creating umbrella coctails.
> Evolution progresses only towards survival.
"adaptedness" which you rejected above means survival. However, there's a balance between survival in a current environment (ensuring survival/propagation of the organism carrying a gene), and survival in the whole system, which means being able to change as the system parameters change.
Look at sharks - they are already supremely adapted to their environment and have no "need" to progress. And if that doesn't convince you, look at viruses and baceria. neither saw it fit to become extinct just to suit your aesthetical need for more complexity.
> We've evolved the brains we have because it lets us suit more situations.
Not really. We evolved the brains we have because the balance between avialability of better food (meat), and needs to get it (socializing more) allowed the genes which cause the complicated brain to be more successful in that *particular* environment.
> The more situations you evolve to suit the more complex you have to be.
Cocoroaches are suitable to many more environments/situations than humans.
Which is why they survived almost unchanged for a VERY long time and humans were on the verge of extinction many times; and still are reasonably close to it - till we develop viable self-sustainig off-earth capability, since we are rather badly suited to survive as a species if environmental conditions change dramatically ala 65Mil years ago.
You may also believe in the Great Pumpkin. Mathematical rule governing evoluion (mostly, game theory), have NO bias towards complexity or simplicity. Whichever is most adapted to the environment and most stable in it, wins.
> What if they were just huge bats? The description sounds awful bat-like to me.
There's a concept in biology called "convergence".
Namely, given a similar set of evolutionary pressures, similar solutions would have evolved.
As an example, dolphins and whales look absolutely remarkably similar to fishes, to teh point that tons of people even these days don't realize they are mammals, not fishes.
Certain eye designs are independently evolved in completely unrelated species.
Bat and Pterausaur wings are quite possible an example of such convergence.
> My question is this: why haven't US and UK based hackers taken action against these sites? It certainly seems like a slightly more productive use of time and energy than writing viruses.
Because they are too busy posting to/. explaining how Bush is more evil than Bin Ladin, or moderating up any anti-Bush post, even if the thread is not even remotely connected to the topic (witness today's poll).
By your definition, among the examples of fools are Newton, Einstein, and a bunch of Physics and CS PhDs I know personally. Yup. They are sure all dumber than you are.
-- "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes".
- OB1.Kenobi (to bring this flamefest thread back on topic).
> The religious authorities hated him with a passion, yet they could not deny the miracles he performed. All they could do was claim that he had performed them by the power and the devil, rather than God.
Eh? What are you smoknig and where can I get some? "the devil" that you mention was - guess what - a Cristian invention.
That's right. Neither of the two religious authorities in existance in Israel at the time - Roman priests and/or Jewish Pharesees - had a concept of "devil".
BTW, "The religious authorities hated him with a passion" is just as much bullshit.
The *authorities* hated him with a passion 'cause he was undermining them by having mass following. Theological issues nonwithstanding. If he was just a simple violator of the First commandment (which he was), they most likely wouldn't have bothered with him - the self-declared messiahs at the time were a dime a dozen. Worst thing they would have done would have been excommunicate him, or whatever the proper technical term for the procedure was in Judaism at that time.
> Living as a Jedi is probably even easier than living as a Christian, since there is no form of written text upon which to base any sort of dogma.
Wrong on both counts:
1) "living as a Christian" entails only ONE thing. Believing that JC was G-d's son who died to take everyone else's sin and redeem all humans. I'm probably butchering the fine points but that's the only *required* idea.
- There is written Jedi "Dogma". It was simply lost after Vader and the Emperor exterminated the Jedi, except for some archival materials Luke could find (Hi! I'm DVK, and I'm a SW geek... All together now: HI DVK!!!)
Or, if you're talking outside of Star Wars Universe, "Jedi Dogma" is a set of Lucas-approved SW material, mostly movies/books/comics.
> St. Paul admonishes us to criticize people in private and not make a public spectacle out it or ourselves, and only if the issue is not addressed to elevate it to a broader and broader forum as needed.
Uhm... just to be clear about this - it wasn't exactly St. Paul's or Christians' invention to avoid criticism in public. It was an existing rule in Judaism (there's a pretty involved set of laws called Lashon Hara that deals with saying bad things to/about others).
Except for violating the whole MAIN commandement (the one about there's only one Big guy Upstairs) by claiming to be divinity himself.
BTW, that *is* a main commandment, not only in the order-of-list sense, but in a spiritual as well as legalistic one - if in some situation more than one commandment clashes, there's a strict hierarchy of what take precedence. This one is at the top.
> Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group
Uhm... may be because Muslims are *NOT* a racial group by any stretch of definition of one, that is if you know anything at all about Islam and ethnicities on Earth?
Muslim pupulation ranges from purely Aryan Iranians (for those not aware, the real Aryans, as far as ethnicity goes, live in Iran, despite nazi's rantings); to Arabs (who are racially closest to - *drumroll please* - you guessed it, Jews, being of semitic origin); to Mongoloids (Tatars in Russia) to Pushtuns/Uzbeks and their ethnic relatives in "-stan" area; to blacks (never mind modern American blaks - think Moors); to Philipinos; to Indonesians, to Chinese (some parts of China are Muslim). These days you can even add lots of pure caucasians, due to Muslimization of Europe.
To sum it up, there's almost no major or even mid-size race you can come up with that's nor represented in Islam, and thus the only "race" that Muslims can be recognized as would be Homo Sapience.
BTW, as a card-carrying/. geeks, you all should be ashamed of yourselves. Difference between race and religion is as fundamental as can be for someone with half a brain - one is a domain of genes, one of memes. It's excusable for brainless politicians (are there any other kind) to mix them up, but not for anyone with a clue.
NOTE: I'm not saying that there aren't people who hate all Muslims 'cause of their religion. I just have a beef with a part your statement I quoted above.
> There really are other things you could spend your time worrying about than how someone looks.
The question wasn't "How should you evaluate other people" - i'm not exactly sure who you're preaching at or for what purpose.
The question was "Will Body Modifications Hinder IT Professionals?" - and if you are a professional, it means you work for a client (be they internal or external), and anything that hinders your selling of your product to your client hinders you as a professional, whether the reason for taht is fair or not, logical or not.
YOU need your clients (if you are a professional), not the other way around.
Last week, we had a very interesting lecture by one of the heads of company's Client Service Group on client meetings/presentations.
At one point, she said something quite wise about appearances, that is a perfect answer to the article's question:
"When a client leaves a meeting with you, the client should remember WHAT YOU SAID, and NOT how you looked".
As a background, I work for a software development company that sells to large financial companies; many of us "geeks" get to meet clients so the lecture was very popular.
To add to that, my own view is "If you need to distinguish yourself from other people by what you look like, there's a big chance you have no other beneficial qualities to dinstinguish yourself with". There are exceptions to this, but not many in my experience.
-DVK
-- "Can't act. Can't sing. Balding. Can dance a little."
- Human Resources Department judgment on Fred Astaire's Hollywood screen test in the early 1930s.
Oy. Typical liberal overgeneralization. Just for reference, I'm about as much from being "car-obsessed" as you can get - namely, I don't own a car (never had) and haven't driven one in about 4 years. Next criticism?
> There is a big legal difference between a crime of violence and a crime against property.
AINAL, so I wouldn't comment on the legal difference.
But sometimes, there's no *real* difference. 1) Psychological damage can be more severe than any physical damage. Much more long-lasting too.
2) The owner of the property might have had to sacrifice a lot - including in terms of their health - to gain posession of said property, and/or suffer if deprived of it, depending on what the peoperty is.
For a very good example, think for a minute why horse-stealing in the Wild West was a hangin' offense.
> Just because something is bad long-term for a community doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for the company. While the 'bad publicity' argument you're basically using holds most of the time, it won't hold always. Sometimes there just ain't any negative side-effects to being the bad boy.
I fail to see how that's different from society in general and its individual members.
Humans, for most part, are selfish pigs (they are finely tuned biological machines designed for that), and by and large can't think long-term (that's a well known fact in psychology).
Proof?
Did YOU ever drive while drunk?
Well, guess what, you effectively committed attempted murder for the sake of immediate gratification of getting drunk.
Congratulation, you just became a LOT more evil than most "evil" corporations that don't usually try attempted murders for such a small benefit.
> Shareholders? Fuck them. Sorry, they do absolutely nothing except move money. They bring exactly zero value to the system. Accumulation of wealth is not creating wealth.
Oy. At least, the groupthink didn't yet mod the parent drivel up.
Go learn a bit about how the capital markets work.
Shareholders provide money which is used to pay for the PROCESS of creating wealth. Y'know, the salaries of people who work, and the tools they use to do their work. Oh, and BTW, your grandmother who has a pension plan - and you yourself if you have one - is an evil shareholder as well. In case your dumb ass didn't know it, pension plans are among the BIGGEST investors in the market.
While at it, go get a nickel and buy a clue - your job (being on/., you're most likely some computer geek by trade) does, in large part, exists because capital markets and their need for number crunching were the second most important pusher behind technology development after the all-around-hated-on-/. military.
> So while you contend that the OT doesn't apply to modern people (care to back that up? not saying it can't be, just want to see fi you can)
Well, for *most part*, OT - as far as the laws go - only applies to Jews. Some laws (the Noahite laws, to be specific - the seven commandments of the sons of Noah), are applicable to anyone human, but they don't carry the same penalties for violation, with one exception [ "Whoso sheds man's blood, and whoso eats the blood of any flesh, shall be destroyed from the earth . . . (Genesis 7:20-39) ]
Any other "backing up" that you need?
As for "Bible is full of authorization to do violence to others" - not sure about NT, but OT absolutely HAS to have that - it's as much a religious book as a code of laws, and ANY code of laws requires a set of punishments for violting them. As far as OT laws were concerned, the punishments were rather non-severe (especially viewed in the frame of the fact that Jewish legal system, based on OT, is VERY fair towards the accused - including severely punushing anyone giving false testimony to the judges). Again, let me stress the point - most of the law+punishment stuff is ONLY applicable to Jews.
BTW, read up on why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Hint: it wasn't the sodomy part:)
> If you think "terrorists" are a real danger to you, I'm afraid your mind has been polluted.
Ahh, yeah. You don't like my views, so my "mind has been polluted". How typical. If you don't think terrorists are real danger - incliding to me personally - you're a dumb moron. Simple as that. I *WAS* at WTC on 9/11. I felt the impact of the first plane while in North tower and watched the second one fly into the South tower right above my head. I'm sure you would just chalk it up to government propaganda if you were there. Too bad not all of the people killed that day were dumbasses like you who are not only too fucked up in the head to correctly percieve reality behind your ideological glasses, you also stop the rest of us from protecting ourselves from said reality.
> Don't forget, that you are bound to international laws as a country. Terrorists, and not in the kind they've been hyped by the US gov ("everyone who disagrees with our views") did not sign any treathy, or anything alike.
First off, terrorists have a very clear definition independent of US Govt. It's people who commit, attempt to commit, or threaten to commit acts of violnce against non-combatants for political aim. Terrorism is a definition of actions and methods, NOT particulat political goals, views or affiliations.
Second, let me explain something very simple, which even a moron like you should get: if an entity (country, or terrorist organization) didn't sign a treaty, they are *not protected* by it, unless the treate explicitly includes non-signees. The only people US is legally obligated to treat according to Geneva Convention are the ones Geneva convention says are protected. The ones you try to apply the convention to aren't covered by it.
> You slightly suggest that you can ignore certain laws as long the -imagined- treath is big enough.
Learn to read. And turn off your paranoia. I didn't *suggest* anything. I simply stated the *fact* that Geneva convention only applies in certain situations. It was designed that way. If you don't like it, go take it up with whoever wrote it.
> The US has done some serious damage in the Gulf, the kiddies from then have grown old... You're just reaping the fruits, my friend. Known that the kiddies from today will grow old as well.
I wasn't living in the US during Gulf war. So what actions of mine was I reaping on 9/11 when i lucked out by a couple of minutes from biting the dust for good?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please please pretty please? Could you kick us out of UN either way?
I'm REALLY sick of my country giving MY money (stolen as taxes) over to a corrupt bunch of terroris-lovers.
Just in case you don't get it - TONS of people here in US would love nothing more than to be rid of this stinking dead baggage you call UN. Especially seing as how US pays most of UN's budget.
"but still, he wasn't very bright."
The guy was an office assistant working for the City.
Do you actually expect someone at that job to be even marginally intelligent?
If so, you never dealt with government (epsecially NYC) employees.
> This is why we have all this horror shlock on the Sci-Fi channel and things like Farscape get cancelled.
Uhm... NO.
You get the above outcome because:
1) Sci-Fi channel, like ALL other non-premium channels, is in the business of selling ad space to advertisers.
2) For whatever reason, there's either a fact or perception that "all this horror shlock" - or my pet peeve, "monster movies" - provide better return on investment to advertisers (due to amount of people who watch them and/or due to the way the viewers respond to ads and/or other reasons).
3) Therefore, the shows which advertisers pay more to place ads on will win (e.g. Sci-Fi-channellesque crap), and shows like FireFly lose.
It's all very simple economics, stupid, to paraphrase that cheating jerk.
And if YOU don't like it, go produce better shows yourself, and market them to people like you. Worked for some people (Kevin Smith).
> I don't think evolution progresses only towards adaptedness - Look at humans. What specific task have we evolved towards?
Survival and propagation on genetic level. Same as anything else. Although some theories postulate that we evolved as a supreme method of creating umbrella coctails.
> Evolution progresses only towards survival.
"adaptedness" which you rejected above means survival. However, there's a balance between survival in a current environment (ensuring survival/propagation of the organism carrying a gene), and survival in the whole system, which means being able to change as the system parameters change.
Look at sharks - they are already supremely adapted to their environment and have no "need" to progress. And if that doesn't convince you, look at viruses and baceria. neither saw it fit to become extinct just to suit your aesthetical need for more complexity.
> We've evolved the brains we have because it lets us suit more situations.
Not really. We evolved the brains we have because the balance between avialability of better food (meat), and needs to get it (socializing more) allowed the genes which cause the complicated brain to be more successful in that *particular* environment.
> The more situations you evolve to suit the more complex you have to be.
Cocoroaches are suitable to many more environments/situations than humans.
Which is why they survived almost unchanged for a VERY long time and humans were on the verge of extinction many times; and still are reasonably close to it - till we develop viable self-sustainig off-earth capability, since we are rather badly suited to survive as a species if environmental conditions change dramatically ala 65Mil years ago.
-DVK
You may also believe in the Great Pumpkin.
Mathematical rule governing evoluion (mostly, game theory), have NO bias towards complexity or simplicity. Whichever is most adapted to the environment and most stable in it, wins.
> What if they were just huge bats? The description sounds awful bat-like to me.
There's a concept in biology called "convergence".
Namely, given a similar set of evolutionary pressures, similar solutions would have evolved.
As an example, dolphins and whales look absolutely remarkably similar to fishes, to teh point that tons of people even these days don't realize they are mammals, not fishes.
Certain eye designs are independently evolved in completely unrelated species.
Bat and Pterausaur wings are quite possible an example of such convergence.
-DVK
> My question is this: why haven't US and UK based hackers taken action against these sites? It certainly seems like a slightly more productive use of time and energy than writing viruses.
/. explaining how Bush is more evil than Bin Ladin, or moderating up any anti-Bush post, even if the thread is not even remotely connected to the topic (witness today's poll).
Because they are too busy posting to
> In short, anyone who is religious is a fool.
By your definition, among the examples of fools are Newton, Einstein, and a bunch of Physics and CS PhDs I know personally. Yup. They are sure all dumber than you are.
--
"Only a Sith thinks in absolutes".
- OB1.Kenobi (to bring this flamefest thread back on topic).
> The religious authorities hated him with a passion, yet they could not deny the miracles he performed. All they could do was claim that he had performed them by the power and the devil, rather than God.
Eh? What are you smoknig and where can I get some?
"the devil" that you mention was - guess what - a Cristian invention.
That's right. Neither of the two religious authorities in existance in Israel at the time - Roman priests and/or Jewish Pharesees - had a concept of "devil".
BTW, "The religious authorities hated him with a passion" is just as much bullshit.
The *authorities* hated him with a passion 'cause he was undermining them by having mass following. Theological issues nonwithstanding. If he was just a simple violator of the First commandment (which he was), they most likely wouldn't have bothered with him - the self-declared messiahs at the time were a dime a dozen. Worst thing they would have done would have been excommunicate him, or whatever the proper technical term for the procedure was in Judaism at that time.
-DVK
Can you do a split in a commodities market?
> Living as a Jedi is probably even easier than living as a Christian, since there is no form of written text upon which to base any sort of dogma.
Wrong on both counts:
1) "living as a Christian" entails only ONE thing. Believing that JC was G-d's son who died to take everyone else's sin and redeem all humans. I'm probably butchering the fine points but that's the only *required* idea.
- There is written Jedi "Dogma". It was simply lost after Vader and the Emperor exterminated the Jedi, except for some archival materials Luke could find (Hi! I'm DVK, and I'm a SW geek... All together now: HI DVK!!!)
Or, if you're talking outside of Star Wars Universe, "Jedi Dogma" is a set of Lucas-approved SW material, mostly movies/books/comics.
> St. Paul admonishes us to criticize people in private and not make a public spectacle out it or ourselves, and only if the issue is not addressed to elevate it to a broader and broader forum as needed.
Uhm... just to be clear about this - it wasn't exactly St. Paul's or Christians' invention to avoid criticism in public. It was an existing rule in Judaism (there's a pretty involved set of laws called Lashon Hara that deals with saying bad things to/about others).
> No, Jesus was an exemplary Jew.
Except for violating the whole MAIN commandement (the one about there's only one Big guy Upstairs) by claiming to be divinity himself.
BTW, that *is* a main commandment, not only in the order-of-list sense, but in a spiritual as well as legalistic one - if in some situation more than one commandment clashes, there's a strict hierarchy of what take precedence. This one is at the top.
> Better written than the romance in the book of Genesis...
Uhm... try reading OTHER parts of the book. Song of Songs, for example.
> Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group
/. geeks, you all should be ashamed of yourselves. Difference between race and religion is as fundamental as can be for someone with half a brain - one is a domain of genes, one of memes. It's excusable for brainless politicians (are there any other kind) to mix them up, but not for anyone with a clue.
Uhm... may be because Muslims are *NOT* a racial group by any stretch of definition of one, that is if you know anything at all about Islam and ethnicities on Earth?
Muslim pupulation ranges from purely Aryan Iranians (for those not aware, the real Aryans, as far as ethnicity goes, live in Iran, despite nazi's rantings); to Arabs (who are racially closest to - *drumroll please* - you guessed it, Jews, being of semitic origin); to Mongoloids (Tatars in Russia) to Pushtuns/Uzbeks and their ethnic relatives in "-stan" area; to blacks (never mind modern American blaks - think Moors); to Philipinos; to Indonesians, to Chinese (some parts of China are Muslim). These days you can even add lots of pure caucasians, due to Muslimization of Europe.
To sum it up, there's almost no major or even mid-size race you can come up with that's nor represented in Islam, and thus the only "race" that Muslims can be recognized as would be Homo Sapience.
BTW, as a card-carrying
NOTE: I'm not saying that there aren't people who hate all Muslims 'cause of their religion. I just have a beef with a part your statement I quoted above.
> Then I think it's safe to say that you don't have very much experience.
Either that, or I don't evaluate people by how creative they are at self-expression through outward appearance.
> There really are other things you could spend your time worrying about than how someone looks.
The question wasn't "How should you evaluate other people" - i'm not exactly sure who you're preaching at or for what purpose.
The question was "Will Body Modifications Hinder IT Professionals?" - and if you are a professional, it means you work for a client (be they internal or external), and anything that hinders your selling of your product to your client hinders you as a professional, whether the reason for taht is fair or not, logical or not.
YOU need your clients (if you are a professional), not the other way around.
-DVK
> I have a Linux machine that I use for most things, Windows on my laptop, and an iMac in the bedroom ...
/.-ers never get laid.
:) ]
See, that's the reason most
Now, I have a *woman* in my bedroom.
[ And if I don't get off the PC in the next 5 minutes, the Mrs. will drag my ass to that bedroom by brute force
--
"Documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; and when it is bad, it is better than nothing."
- Dick Brandon
Last week, we had a very interesting lecture by one of the heads of company's Client Service Group on client meetings/presentations.
At one point, she said something quite wise about appearances, that is a perfect answer to the article's question:
"When a client leaves a meeting with you, the client should remember WHAT YOU SAID, and NOT how you looked".
As a background, I work for a software development company that sells to large financial companies; many of us "geeks" get to meet clients so the lecture was very popular.
To add to that, my own view is "If you need to distinguish yourself from other people by what you look like, there's a big chance you have no other beneficial qualities to dinstinguish yourself with". There are exceptions to this, but not many in my experience.
-DVK
--
"Can't act. Can't sing. Balding. Can dance a little."
- Human Resources Department judgment on Fred Astaire's Hollywood screen test in the early 1930s.
Oy. Typical liberal overgeneralization.
Just for reference, I'm about as much from being "car-obsessed" as you can get - namely, I don't own a car (never had) and haven't driven one in about 4 years. Next criticism?
> There is a big legal difference between a crime of violence and a crime against property.
AINAL, so I wouldn't comment on the legal difference.
But sometimes, there's no *real* difference.
1) Psychological damage can be more severe than any physical damage. Much more long-lasting too.
2) The owner of the property might have had to sacrifice a lot - including in terms of their health - to gain posession of said property, and/or suffer if deprived of it, depending on what the peoperty is.
For a very good example, think for a minute why horse-stealing in the Wild West was a hangin' offense.
-DVK
> Just because something is bad long-term for a community doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for the company. While the 'bad publicity' argument you're basically using holds most of the time, it won't hold always. Sometimes there just ain't any negative side-effects to being the bad boy.
I fail to see how that's different from society in general and its individual members.
Humans, for most part, are selfish pigs (they are finely tuned biological machines designed for that), and by and large can't think long-term (that's a well known fact in psychology).
Proof?
Did YOU ever drive while drunk?
Well, guess what, you effectively committed attempted murder for the sake of immediate gratification of getting drunk.
Congratulation, you just became a LOT more evil than most "evil" corporations that don't usually try attempted murders for such a small benefit.
-DVK
> Shareholders? Fuck them. Sorry, they do absolutely nothing except move money. They bring exactly zero value to the system. Accumulation of wealth is not creating wealth.
/., you're most likely some computer geek by trade) does, in large part, exists because capital markets and their need for number crunching were the second most important pusher behind technology development after the all-around-hated-on-/. military.
Oy. At least, the groupthink didn't yet mod the parent drivel up.
Go learn a bit about how the capital markets work.
Shareholders provide money which is used to pay for the PROCESS of creating wealth. Y'know, the salaries of people who work, and the tools they use to do their work. Oh, and BTW, your grandmother who has a pension plan - and you yourself if you have one - is an evil shareholder as well. In case your dumb ass didn't know it, pension plans are among the BIGGEST investors in the market.
While at it, go get a nickel and buy a clue - your job (being on
> So while you contend that the OT doesn't apply to modern people (care to back that up? not saying it can't be, just want to see fi you can)
:)
Well, for *most part*, OT - as far as the laws go - only applies to Jews. Some laws (the Noahite laws, to be specific - the seven commandments of the sons of Noah), are applicable to anyone human, but they don't carry the same penalties for violation, with one exception [ "Whoso sheds man's blood, and whoso eats the blood of any flesh,
shall be destroyed from the earth . . . (Genesis 7:20-39) ]
Any other "backing up" that you need?
As for "Bible is full of authorization to do violence to others" - not sure about NT, but OT absolutely HAS to have that - it's as much a religious book as a code of laws, and ANY code of laws requires a set of punishments for violting them. As far as OT laws were concerned, the punishments were rather non-severe (especially viewed in the frame of the fact that Jewish legal system, based on OT, is VERY fair towards the accused - including severely punushing anyone giving false testimony to the judges). Again, let me stress the point - most of the law+punishment stuff is ONLY applicable to Jews.
BTW, read up on why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Hint: it wasn't the sodomy part
> If you think "terrorists" are a real danger to you, I'm afraid your mind has been polluted.
Ahh, yeah. You don't like my views, so my "mind has been polluted". How typical.
If you don't think terrorists are real danger - incliding to me personally - you're a dumb moron. Simple as that.
I *WAS* at WTC on 9/11. I felt the impact of the first plane while in North tower and watched the second one fly into the South tower right above my head. I'm sure you would just chalk it up to government propaganda if you were there. Too bad not all of the people killed that day were dumbasses like you who are not only too fucked up in the head to correctly percieve reality behind your ideological glasses, you also stop the rest of us from protecting ourselves from said reality.
> Don't forget, that you are bound to international laws as a country. Terrorists, and not in the kind they've been hyped by the US gov ("everyone who disagrees with our views") did not sign any treathy, or anything alike.
First off, terrorists have a very clear definition independent of US Govt. It's people who commit, attempt to commit, or threaten to commit acts of violnce against non-combatants for political aim.
Terrorism is a definition of actions and methods, NOT particulat political goals, views or affiliations.
Second, let me explain something very simple, which even a moron like you should get: if an entity (country, or terrorist organization) didn't sign a treaty, they are *not protected* by it, unless the treate explicitly includes non-signees. The only people US is legally obligated to treat according to Geneva Convention are the ones Geneva convention says are protected. The ones you try to apply the convention to aren't covered by it.
> You slightly suggest that you can ignore certain laws as long the -imagined- treath is big enough.
Learn to read. And turn off your paranoia.
I didn't *suggest* anything.
I simply stated the *fact* that Geneva convention only applies in certain situations. It was designed that way. If you don't like it, go take it up with whoever wrote it.
> The US has done some serious damage in the Gulf, the kiddies from then have grown old... You're just reaping the fruits, my friend. Known that the kiddies from today will grow old as well.
I wasn't living in the US during Gulf war.
So what actions of mine was I reaping on 9/11 when i lucked out by a couple of minutes from biting the dust for good?