Wow, that's got to me one of the most arrogant and dismissive posts I've ever seen on Slashdot. "Sorry, but I know better about your homeland than you do."
Hamas won the election with only 44.45% of the popular vote, with about 25% of the eligible population abstaining (Palestinian legislative election, 2006 [wikipedia.org]). You're blaming all Palestinians for a choice made by less than half of the voters, which is hardly fair.
No, we're blaming it on 69.45% of the population because that further 25% you mentioned either didn't care enough or was too intimidated to vote.
And quite frankly speaking, for the cases this law is intended for (let's ignore all the examples that don't support my point), the right of an individual to not have their life ruined by, say, completely made-up allegations of child abuse and rape quite clearly trumps your right of finding information I've decided I don't like.
You rephrasing the problem to cast the best light on your viewpoint does not eliminate all the people in this very comments section who are arguing the exact opposite viewpoint; ergo it is not "quite clear" at all.
It's trying to fix a social problem with a technological solution instead of a social one. Maybe people need to learn the definition of ACCUSED vs. CONVICTED. And for a lot of cases, stop and examine why cheating on your wife suddenly makes you incapable of exercising judgment in any other possible area of your life.
Also if you're a frequent Slashdot reader, you should know damn well that "what this law is intended for" and "what they use it for" are hardly ever the same. This is not new news.
What exactly is keeping you from enacting your plan exactly as advertised? I'm genuinely curious.
Maybe you'd need some special kind of strip club zoning or something? Because it's legal for people to take their clothes off there, for money even. And I guess there's some requirement for that kind of thing to not be visible from the street, so you'd have to cover the windows, too.
That you might enact the changes and immediately lose most of your revenue is beside the point. If city hall gave you the necessary permits 'n whatnot, it would be your prerogative as a business owner.
To address your original argument, the legality of contracts has been a field for a very long time so apparently somebody somewhere is watching the system and wants it the way it is. Phone companies can put all the shit they want up on the screen in fine print. Not calling them on it is implied consent on the part of the regulatory agencies.
So I guess my point is that when you said, "I can't just put up anything I want and have it be legal," yes...yes you can, if you're a telecom company and nobody calls you on it. That's the pragmatic truth.
The difference is that one specifically targets civilian infrastructure for destruction while the other only incidentally targets civilians, and not even the infrastructure at all. Saying the two are the same is gross misrepresentation.
I'm kind of curious why splitting it in half is unworkable. Both sides want the fertile land, or what? So divide the fertile land in half already.
If you look at my recent posting history from last Friday you'd see more of how I see the conversation but if I post it again I'm sure I'll get in another lengthy shouting match:-/
10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”[c] 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
From my reading, it sounds like those being talked about are Christians who are paying too much attention to what the Jews say, not the Jews themselves. You might recall that most all the books of the New Testament after Acts were letters written to certain congregations telling them to "hold firm in the faith" and advising them what their stumbling blocks were.
And then the Revelation passage is about those who falsely claim to be Jews, not True Scotsmen^WJews.
Not that I'm saying anything about current politics (in this post) but Jesus' attitude towards nonbelievers was usually one of pity and desire to convert. He did complain about obstinate ("stiff-necked") people, too, though.
That distinction sounds about as useful as colored vs. people of color i.e. not at all. Because what we really need for thorny issues nobody agrees on already is making the terminology difference a matter of mispunctuation.
I don't see how your two paragraphs are reconcilable. I assume that if they gave back the settlements, the Palestinian minority that is already launching rocket attacks would promptly do so from the regained territory.
I guess in this context, the whole question is how much the guys with the rockets are acting on behalf of the Palestinian authority, and however much either of those things exist. Can you justify invading a country if a minority of their population is attacking you without their authorization? A lot of people would say no. Israel currently says yes.
Old-style wars i.e. European wars prior to WWI. Most of the Napoleonic Wars were pretty much won by marching around their armies until one side was in a better position and the other surrendered.
I think you meant "name the war since the advent of 'modern'/total war."
I am saying that when one fights a war, one should fight to win in as short a time as possible. The only way to win a war is convince the civilian population of the other side that any price they might have to pay is better than for the war to continue.
You are arguing in favor of terrorism.
The other way, the valid way, is to defeat the military opponent.
Well I suppose we *would* call it Total War but that usually means "destroy their ability to make war" and more or less all of the Palestinian's shit has already been destroyed but they continue to fight anyway.
Me: So all the Jews should have just got back on their boats and left? You: Yes.
FTFY. It seems obvious this conversation between us is never going to work. I won't accept that 100.00% of the problem is the Israelis' fault and you won't seem to accept anything less.
Oh, and please don't use the quote function if you're going to lump together statements I made in two separate posts into one paragraph. That's misrepresentation.
I suppose the only way to solve the problem is to just get the Israelis to all lie down on their backs, open the gates, and just let their enemies in to kill them all.
Oh...you wanted a reasonable, liberal solution? I was confused by the conversation we were actually having.
Wow, that's so utterly and totally not what I'm saying it's comical.
So all the Jews should have just got back on their boats and left? This was during WWII. They should have just gone back to Germany (while we're on the topic of ovens), right? The whole conversation reads like a joke.
Jews: Can we stay here? We're kind of being exterminated* at home. Arabs: No. Jews: Umm...okay. We'll stay anyway. British: We don't want any trouble. Be cool with this, Arabs. Jews: So...maybe we could both have a say in government? That way nobody gets stomped on. Arabs: No. We refuse to participate in any government that has even one Jew in it. Jews: Hmm. Okay then. So...a two-state solution? Arabs: No, we want it all. Jews: So you're basically saying, "Fuck off, back into the water with you." Arabs: Yup. British: Sooooo...we're tired of dealing with you guys' shit. We're leaving now. Best of luck. Jews: OH SHI- [promptly gets attacked by the militaries of pretty much all neighboring Arab countries in addition to the Palestinians]
The Israelis are always a bit out of control, but I see why when I look at the history. Any time they let their guard down for a second, they get curb-stomped. And their enemies have frequently demonstrated that showing them any leniency will just come back to bite them in the ass. So we're reduced to "can I hit this guy hard enough that he won't come back at me." The answer seems to be no.
But I've come to the realization that most of the world's problems can't actually be solved. If they could, they would have been already, in all the biggest cases.
Bombing schools and hospitals, sometimes more than once, and killing over 500 people.
I assume that the reason said hospitals are bombed is, like Bosnia, that people are hiding military equipment in them. If you want hospitals to be safe, don't fucking do that. But to avoid getting bombed, they hide their stuff in hospitals in order to take advantage of the other side's proper conduct in war. If they DON'T bomb the hospital then, they're never going to stop putting anything they don't want destroyed in it. And they then complain about the hospital getting bombed. This whole argument is so massively retarded I can't even find words to say what's wrong about it. The only thing more bloody than a war is a war where the sides won't even follow the baseline rules.
Thanks so much for your input. I post a perfectly balanced view saying both sides are to blame and your response is, "Hate the Jews more. You're not hating them enough."
Call it very un-PC and on-the-nose, but I wonder whether these Arab guys in Palestine didn't get so bent out of shape about this because they were generally used to just conquering anyone who disagreed with them historically.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever. Fact is, this situation is...
Wow, that's got to me one of the most arrogant and dismissive posts I've ever seen on Slashdot. "Sorry, but I know better about your homeland than you do."
Hamas won the election with only 44.45% of the popular vote, with about 25% of the eligible population abstaining (Palestinian legislative election, 2006 [wikipedia.org]). You're blaming all Palestinians for a choice made by less than half of the voters, which is hardly fair.
No, we're blaming it on 69.45% of the population because that further 25% you mentioned either didn't care enough or was too intimidated to vote.
Shooting rockets that kill 2 or 3 people...over and over and over...for years...with no sign of stopping.
But yes, Israel should just be patient and sit out what seems to be a neverending ~war.
There are people in the Middle East Israel hasn't already pissed off?
And quite frankly speaking, for the cases this law is intended for (let's ignore all the examples that don't support my point), the right of an individual to not have their life ruined by, say, completely made-up allegations of child abuse and rape quite clearly trumps your right of finding information I've decided I don't like.
You rephrasing the problem to cast the best light on your viewpoint does not eliminate all the people in this very comments section who are arguing the exact opposite viewpoint; ergo it is not "quite clear" at all.
It's trying to fix a social problem with a technological solution instead of a social one. Maybe people need to learn the definition of ACCUSED vs. CONVICTED. And for a lot of cases, stop and examine why cheating on your wife suddenly makes you incapable of exercising judgment in any other possible area of your life.
Also if you're a frequent Slashdot reader, you should know damn well that "what this law is intended for" and "what they use it for" are hardly ever the same. This is not new news.
Or you can post on Slashdot about how everyone are sheeple and offer no constructive dialog otherwise.
Those looking for damning information should therefore look for news that the person in question was CONVICTED of X, not CHARGED WITH X.
Or we can just be incompetent twats and force Google to do our homework for us. Obviously that's the better choice.
I wait hopefully for the Pirate Bay-type website that will inevitably pop up where you can find lists of all the blocked terms.
*acquitted
I thought we were talking about how supposedly every war throughout human history has involved rampant civilian slaughter.
Or option 3, your analogy sucked.
What exactly is keeping you from enacting your plan exactly as advertised? I'm genuinely curious.
Maybe you'd need some special kind of strip club zoning or something? Because it's legal for people to take their clothes off there, for money even. And I guess there's some requirement for that kind of thing to not be visible from the street, so you'd have to cover the windows, too.
That you might enact the changes and immediately lose most of your revenue is beside the point. If city hall gave you the necessary permits 'n whatnot, it would be your prerogative as a business owner.
To address your original argument, the legality of contracts has been a field for a very long time so apparently somebody somewhere is watching the system and wants it the way it is. Phone companies can put all the shit they want up on the screen in fine print. Not calling them on it is implied consent on the part of the regulatory agencies.
So I guess my point is that when you said, "I can't just put up anything I want and have it be legal," yes...yes you can, if you're a telecom company and nobody calls you on it. That's the pragmatic truth.
Maybe it would be less confusing if you didn't reply to people you agree with with, "No, ..."
If they don't want to abide by your crazy rules but still want to eat there, you can always deny them service/ask them to leave your property.
The difference is that one specifically targets civilian infrastructure for destruction while the other only incidentally targets civilians, and not even the infrastructure at all. Saying the two are the same is gross misrepresentation.
I'm kind of curious why splitting it in half is unworkable. Both sides want the fertile land, or what? So divide the fertile land in half already.
If you look at my recent posting history from last Friday you'd see more of how I see the conversation but if I post it again I'm sure I'll get in another lengthy shouting match :-/
The context of that Titus quote is:
10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”[c] 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
From my reading, it sounds like those being talked about are Christians who are paying too much attention to what the Jews say, not the Jews themselves. You might recall that most all the books of the New Testament after Acts were letters written to certain congregations telling them to "hold firm in the faith" and advising them what their stumbling blocks were.
And then the Revelation passage is about those who falsely claim to be Jews, not True Scotsmen^WJews.
Not that I'm saying anything about current politics (in this post) but Jesus' attitude towards nonbelievers was usually one of pity and desire to convert. He did complain about obstinate ("stiff-necked") people, too, though.
That distinction sounds about as useful as colored vs. people of color i.e. not at all. Because what we really need for thorny issues nobody agrees on already is making the terminology difference a matter of mispunctuation.
I don't see how your two paragraphs are reconcilable. I assume that if they gave back the settlements, the Palestinian minority that is already launching rocket attacks would promptly do so from the regained territory.
I guess in this context, the whole question is how much the guys with the rockets are acting on behalf of the Palestinian authority, and however much either of those things exist. Can you justify invading a country if a minority of their population is attacking you without their authorization? A lot of people would say no. Israel currently says yes.
Old-style wars i.e. European wars prior to WWI. Most of the Napoleonic Wars were pretty much won by marching around their armies until one side was in a better position and the other surrendered.
I think you meant "name the war since the advent of 'modern'/total war."
I am saying that when one fights a war, one should fight to win in as short a time as possible. The only way to win a war is convince the civilian population of the other side that any price they might have to pay is better than for the war to continue.
You are arguing in favor of terrorism.
The other way, the valid way, is to defeat the military opponent.
Well I suppose we *would* call it Total War but that usually means "destroy their ability to make war" and more or less all of the Palestinian's shit has already been destroyed but they continue to fight anyway.
The land was formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, which lost in World War I, ergo "we get their land" which was the long-standing tradition.
Me: So all the Jews should have just got back on their boats and left?
You: Yes.
FTFY. It seems obvious this conversation between us is never going to work. I won't accept that 100.00% of the problem is the Israelis' fault and you won't seem to accept anything less.
Oh, and please don't use the quote function if you're going to lump together statements I made in two separate posts into one paragraph. That's misrepresentation.
I suppose the only way to solve the problem is to just get the Israelis to all lie down on their backs, open the gates, and just let their enemies in to kill them all.
Oh...you wanted a reasonable, liberal solution? I was confused by the conversation we were actually having.
Wow, that's so utterly and totally not what I'm saying it's comical.
So all the Jews should have just got back on their boats and left? This was during WWII. They should have just gone back to Germany (while we're on the topic of ovens), right? The whole conversation reads like a joke.
Jews: Can we stay here? We're kind of being exterminated* at home.
Arabs: No.
Jews: Umm...okay. We'll stay anyway.
British: We don't want any trouble. Be cool with this, Arabs.
Jews: So...maybe we could both have a say in government? That way nobody gets stomped on.
Arabs: No. We refuse to participate in any government that has even one Jew in it.
Jews: Hmm. Okay then. So...a two-state solution?
Arabs: No, we want it all.
Jews: So you're basically saying, "Fuck off, back into the water with you."
Arabs: Yup.
British: Sooooo...we're tired of dealing with you guys' shit. We're leaving now. Best of luck.
Jews: OH SHI-
[promptly gets attacked by the militaries of pretty much all neighboring Arab countries in addition to the Palestinians]
The Israelis are always a bit out of control, but I see why when I look at the history. Any time they let their guard down for a second, they get curb-stomped. And their enemies have frequently demonstrated that showing them any leniency will just come back to bite them in the ass. So we're reduced to "can I hit this guy hard enough that he won't come back at me." The answer seems to be no.
But I've come to the realization that most of the world's problems can't actually be solved. If they could, they would have been already, in all the biggest cases.
Bombing schools and hospitals, sometimes more than once, and killing over 500 people.
I assume that the reason said hospitals are bombed is, like Bosnia, that people are hiding military equipment in them. If you want hospitals to be safe, don't fucking do that. But to avoid getting bombed, they hide their stuff in hospitals in order to take advantage of the other side's proper conduct in war. If they DON'T bomb the hospital then, they're never going to stop putting anything they don't want destroyed in it. And they then complain about the hospital getting bombed. This whole argument is so massively retarded I can't even find words to say what's wrong about it. The only thing more bloody than a war is a war where the sides won't even follow the baseline rules.
*ACTUAL genocide
Thanks so much for your input. I post a perfectly balanced view saying both sides are to blame and your response is, "Hate the Jews more. You're not hating them enough."
Call it very un-PC and on-the-nose, but I wonder whether these Arab guys in Palestine didn't get so bent out of shape about this because they were generally used to just conquering anyone who disagreed with them historically.