... and the implication is that makes Mohammed (and apparently, by association, every Muslim who ever has or ever will live) a horrible person not worthy of attention, right? That's funny.
It certainly makes him someone we should not look to for moral guidance.
Assuming that A) Mohammed was a real person, and B) he was, by period standards, a pedophile, which was my point.
Edgar Allen Poe, Lewis Carroll
Both authors, not moral leaders. If you look to the writings of Poe or Carroll for moral guidance you have serious issues.
I'll give ya that one, 'specially with Poe. That dude was effin' creepy, yo.
Rather, it is a condemnation of bullshit double standards and the egocentric asshats who perpetuate them.
Why should we not have two standards for two different things? Authors of fiction are not moral leaders.
IMO, Mohammed is fiction as well, so the real question is, why are the entirely made up actions of a fairy tale character more relevant than the actual pedophilia of real people?
One has to wonder how "Christians" would react had someone made a movie implying that Jesus was a pedo... Considering that they'll bomb abortion clinics over less, here's hoping we never have to find out.
Allow me to preface this post by stating that I vehemently disagree with Terry Jones' ideology.
I disagree. I consider them mentally ill. It is known that certain actions will cause them to become violent, this pastor was warned before his Quaran burnings by the FBI about this and did it anyways (resulting in many deaths), the blood is on his hands.
This; this is exactly the attitude that results in our government justifying spending trillions of our tax dollars on security theater and domestic surveillance.
See, we supposedly have an inalienable right to free speech in this nation. Over time, someone's expression of free speech will inevitably piss someone else off. Sometimes, that someone else uses the threat of violence in an attempt to violate the first person's right to free speech.
By giving in to the violence-seekers, you're giving them just what they want. By censoring free speech, using the tired excuse of "if you say that you'll have blood on your hands," you ensure not only that the terrorists win, but that free speech will be killed off eventually. Today it's violent Muslim extremists; tomorrow it may be violent Christian extremists, or violent anti-abortion extremists, or violent anti-gun extremists.
Don't give in to extremism. Don't fall victim to lowest-common-denominator thought processes. Don't demand the rest of us be pussies. Man up and stand up for what's right, threats of violence be damned.
... and the implication is that makes Mohammed (and apparently, by association, every Muslim who ever has or ever will live) a horrible person not worthy of attention, right? That's funny.
Why, you may ask? Because it's a silly double standard - for example, it's a well known fact that Edgar Allen Poe, considered one of the greatest poets of all time, married his 13-year-old cousin less than 2 centuries ago, yet nobody calls him a(n inbred) pedophile, nor do they accuse his readership of supporting pedophilia.
Lewis Carroll wrote "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" in order to convince an 11-year-old to let him fuck her, but nobody calls Lewis Carroll a pedophile (well, almost nobody - myself being an obvious exception).
Shit, a few thousand years ago, the Greeks made a career out of fucking kids, but nobody I've ever met thinks that all Greeks are disgusting perverts.
But then some non-Muslim makes a movie portraying the Muslim prophet as a filthy child-buggerer, and all of a sudden it's proof positive that every Muslim in the world agrees with pedophilia.
So, to summarize: Real white people who like to fuck kids == no worries; Possibly imaginary prophet of one of the worlds largest religions is speculated to be a pedo == ALL MUSLIMS MUST DIE IN FIRE!!!
I guess that's not funny; It's stupid. Really, really stupid.
Note that this post should not be taken as being supportive of pedophilia; quite the opposite. Rather, it is a condemnation of bullshit double standards and the egocentric asshats who perpetuate them.
In any case, no matter how detestable the content of the film, it's just speech. The responsibility for the deaths here lies entirely on the heads of the people who meet speech with violence.
you realize that jews and christians are doing this same type of crap, right?
You can say anything you want about Jesus and no Christian will kill you. In fact, Jesus specifically told us you would and that we should do nothing. So say anything you want about my religion. It's okay. I forgive you.
Congratulations, you at least have an idea what it means to actually be Christian (more to it than forgiving transgressors, obviously).
Sadly, very few who claim to followers of Jesus Christ are as wise to the tenements of the faith as you seem to be. Therein lies the issue.
If they want to have histrionics and violence, bomb them into dust. If [they] wants to be batshit crazy and violent, fine. But let's not pretend they're anything but that.
Yea, fuck those damn fundamentalist Christians!
Seriously, though, how in reason's name can anyone capable of cogent thought even entertain the idea that the actions of a small handful of people represent the entire demographic? A better question, how can someone make such a generalization without realizing that they're exhibiting the exact same behavior of those their criticizing? What, you think the difference between what you believe and what they believe somehow makes you a better person? It doesn't - hate is hate is hate.
You're just as big a douche as the people you're accusing of being douches, and in the exact same way.
OK, why don't you just point out to everyone the page in the local statute book which enshirines in law your right to be an absolute arsehole, then we'll all listen to you?
Here's a better idea - why don't you piddle along in the left lane, refusing to make way for faster traffic, and see how long it takes before you get pulled over and ticketed for obstructing traffic.
If there's a car in front of you, you DO NOT HAVE RIGHT OF WAY OVER IT. It doesn't matter how slow it is, how ugly the driver is, or anything else. They're on a public road the same as you.
Right, the same public road I pay for too, so why do they have a right to obstruct the flow of traffic (which, FYI, is illegal)?
PS is it illegal to drive under the influence of drugs where you live? If so, I hope someone sends the cops an anonymous tip off, because a fucknut like you shouldn't be allowed to drive, and I can only charitably assume you have a steroid abuse problem.
No, I have a hyperbolic jackass problem, and you're not helping it one bit
So I take it the only way to win IE is not to play. In that case, how does one start with a store-bought PC and download something better such as Firefox,
sudo apt-get install firefox
Chrome,
sudo apt-get install chromium-browser
or a whole different operating system, without playing?
I agree that certain folks shouldn't have guns. What I disagree with is the idea that the federal government has (or even should have) the right to control and monitor who does and doesn't keep arms, as it (the federal government) is expressly prohibited from doing so by the Constitution.
That is a decision which, Constitutionally speaking, should be left to the states.
Hrm, the article refers to DNA evidence as a "gold standard". I suppose its better than fingerprint analysis, but I do wonder if DNA evidence is also trusted too far.
I don't think ProPublica was trying to imply that DNA evidence is in itself infallible - it is the "gold standard" in the sense that DNA forensics is based on actual science, whereas most-if-not-all other forensic techniques are steeped in voodoo, speculation, and the purchase of various "certifications." DNA still has it's setbacks, namely in how it's collected and stored, but overall it is the only forensic 'science' that's actually deserving of the title.
There are plenty of ways to approach it, but the reality is, there are too many people making too much money to go along with any of this willingly. It would have to be mandated by law.
Tell ya what, while I don't know enough about economics to personally confront my Congressperson about implementing these very good ideas y'all have posited, I'll happily add my name to a Change.org petition anyone creates to that effect, and recommend all I know sign it as well.
I posted this link on a related story some time back. This is a must see if you think you know how bad forensic science (or lack of science) really is:
If by "liberal", you mean "Allen Greenspan", then yes. He famously, privately averred that the government shouldn't prohibit fraud, that the marketplace would sort it out more efficiently.
So, like most who claim to be conservatives, but are actually the furthest thing from it, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
FTFY.
Don't fall into the trap of politically motivated hyperbole - Republicans are just as liberal as Democrats, albeit in a different way. Of course, being a 'liberal' or 'conservative' leaning individual has absolutely nothing to do with economics, although I doubt many of the corporate media viewers realize that.
Ideology aside, there's a slight issue with Republican's claim to support the concept of a 'free market economy' - namely, that they don't.
From Dictionary.com:
free market noun
an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
In layman's terms, no rules, no regulations, no subsidies, no tax breaks - it's survival of the fittest spreadsheet, with absolutely zero interference from the government.
No part of any Republican or Democrat economic plan supports a free market per the definition of the term. Granted, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
It certainly makes him someone we should not look to for moral guidance.
Assuming that A) Mohammed was a real person, and B) he was, by period standards, a pedophile, which was my point.
Edgar Allen Poe, Lewis Carroll
Both authors, not moral leaders. If you look to the writings of Poe or Carroll for moral guidance you have serious issues.
I'll give ya that one, 'specially with Poe. That dude was effin' creepy, yo.
Rather, it is a condemnation of bullshit double standards and the egocentric asshats who perpetuate them.
Why should we not have two standards for two different things? Authors of fiction are not moral leaders.
IMO, Mohammed is fiction as well, so the real question is, why are the entirely made up actions of a fairy tale character more relevant than the actual pedophilia of real people?
One has to wonder how "Christians" would react had someone made a movie implying that Jesus was a pedo... Considering that they'll bomb abortion clinics over less, here's hoping we never have to find out.
I disagree. I consider them mentally ill. It is known that certain actions will cause them to become violent, this pastor was warned before his Quaran burnings by the FBI about this and did it anyways (resulting in many deaths), the blood is on his hands.
This; this is exactly the attitude that results in our government justifying spending trillions of our tax dollars on security theater and domestic surveillance.
See, we supposedly have an inalienable right to free speech in this nation. Over time, someone's expression of free speech will inevitably piss someone else off. Sometimes, that someone else uses the threat of violence in an attempt to violate the first person's right to free speech.
By giving in to the violence-seekers, you're giving them just what they want. By censoring free speech, using the tired excuse of "if you say that you'll have blood on your hands," you ensure not only that the terrorists win, but that free speech will be killed off eventually. Today it's violent Muslim extremists; tomorrow it may be violent Christian extremists, or violent anti-abortion extremists, or violent anti-gun extremists.
Don't give in to extremism. Don't fall victim to lowest-common-denominator thought processes. Don't demand the rest of us be pussies. Man up and stand up for what's right, threats of violence be damned.
it portrays Mohammed as a... pedophile...
... and the implication is that makes Mohammed (and apparently, by association, every Muslim who ever has or ever will live) a horrible person not worthy of attention, right? That's funny.
Why, you may ask? Because it's a silly double standard - for example, it's a well known fact that Edgar Allen Poe, considered one of the greatest poets of all time, married his 13-year-old cousin less than 2 centuries ago, yet nobody calls him a(n inbred) pedophile, nor do they accuse his readership of supporting pedophilia.
Lewis Carroll wrote "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" in order to convince an 11-year-old to let him fuck her, but nobody calls Lewis Carroll a pedophile (well, almost nobody - myself being an obvious exception).
Shit, a few thousand years ago, the Greeks made a career out of fucking kids, but nobody I've ever met thinks that all Greeks are disgusting perverts.
But then some non-Muslim makes a movie portraying the Muslim prophet as a filthy child-buggerer, and all of a sudden it's proof positive that every Muslim in the world agrees with pedophilia.
So, to summarize: Real white people who like to fuck kids == no worries; Possibly imaginary prophet of one of the worlds largest religions is speculated to be a pedo == ALL MUSLIMS MUST DIE IN FIRE!!!
I guess that's not funny; It's stupid. Really, really stupid.
Note that this post should not be taken as being supportive of pedophilia; quite the opposite. Rather, it is a condemnation of bullshit double standards and the egocentric asshats who perpetuate them.
In any case, no matter how detestable the content of the film, it's just speech. The responsibility for the deaths here lies entirely on the heads of the people who meet speech with violence.
Couldn't agree with you more.
you realize that jews and christians are doing this same type of crap, right?
You can say anything you want about Jesus and no Christian will kill you. In fact, Jesus specifically told us you would and that we should do nothing. So say anything you want about my religion. It's okay. I forgive you.
Congratulations, you at least have an idea what it means to actually be Christian (more to it than forgiving transgressors, obviously).
Sadly, very few who claim to followers of Jesus Christ are as wise to the tenements of the faith as you seem to be. Therein lies the issue.
Here, if you don't/can't see the video..
Too awesome.
Mind blown.
That is one bad-ass looking welding helmet!
Being able to see what you're welding on is just a pleasant side effect.
If they want to have histrionics and violence, bomb them into dust. If [they] wants to be batshit crazy and violent, fine. But let's not pretend they're anything but that.
Yea, fuck those damn fundamentalist Christians!
Seriously, though, how in reason's name can anyone capable of cogent thought even entertain the idea that the actions of a small handful of people represent the entire demographic? A better question, how can someone make such a generalization without realizing that they're exhibiting the exact same behavior of those their criticizing? What, you think the difference between what you believe and what they believe somehow makes you a better person? It doesn't - hate is hate is hate.
You're just as big a douche as the people you're accusing of being douches, and in the exact same way.
Hardly, the IPO was an amazing success for facebook stockholders.
FTFY
... so the NSA could install their backdoors.
OK, why don't you just point out to everyone the page in the local statute book which enshirines in law your right to be an absolute arsehole, then we'll all listen to you?
Here's a better idea - why don't you piddle along in the left lane, refusing to make way for faster traffic, and see how long it takes before you get pulled over and ticketed for obstructing traffic.
If there's a car in front of you, you DO NOT HAVE RIGHT OF WAY OVER IT. It doesn't matter how slow it is, how ugly the driver is, or anything else. They're on a public road the same as you.
Right, the same public road I pay for too, so why do they have a right to obstruct the flow of traffic (which, FYI, is illegal)? PS is it illegal to drive under the influence of drugs where you live? If so, I hope someone sends the cops an anonymous tip off, because a fucknut like you shouldn't be allowed to drive, and I can only charitably assume you have a steroid abuse problem.
No, I have a hyperbolic jackass problem, and you're not helping it one bit
Also, whoever decided that screenshots should be saved as jpeg by default (assuming it is default) should be fired.
From a cannon.
Into the sun.
So I take it the only way to win IE is not to play. In that case, how does one start with a store-bought PC and download something better such as Firefox,
sudo apt-get install firefox
Chrome,
sudo apt-get install chromium-browser
or a whole different operating system, without playing?
wget http://mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/ubuntu-releases/lucid/ubuntu-10.04.1-desktop-i386.iso
Arthur C Clarke suggested that a leader shoud just be selected at random from the population.
... and one has to wonder, considering the fruits of our current selection process - could we do any worse?
I agree that certain folks shouldn't have guns. What I disagree with is the idea that the federal government has (or even should have) the right to control and monitor who does and doesn't keep arms, as it (the federal government) is expressly prohibited from doing so by the Constitution.
That is a decision which, Constitutionally speaking, should be left to the states.
without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
I think there's a fundamental flaw in their definition.
Agreed, but I think it's close enough to make my point with.
Hrm, the article refers to DNA evidence as a "gold standard". I suppose its better than fingerprint analysis, but I do wonder if DNA evidence is also trusted too far.
I don't think ProPublica was trying to imply that DNA evidence is in itself infallible - it is the "gold standard" in the sense that DNA forensics is based on actual science, whereas most-if-not-all other forensic techniques are steeped in voodoo, speculation, and the purchase of various "certifications." DNA still has it's setbacks, namely in how it's collected and stored, but overall it is the only forensic 'science' that's actually deserving of the title.
Have you used it for a phone call yet?
Wait - this thing makes phone calls???
Those are the same ideas I've had.
There are plenty of ways to approach it, but the reality is, there are too many people making too much money to go along with any of this willingly. It would have to be mandated by law.
Tell ya what, while I don't know enough about economics to personally confront my Congressperson about implementing these very good ideas y'all have posited, I'll happily add my name to a Change.org petition anyone creates to that effect, and recommend all I know sign it as well.
People watch shows like Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime and think forensic results are infallible and always available in less than 40 minutes.
What, you mean they can't magically increase the pixel resolution of any image or video, just by looking at it and saying, "enhance" over and over???
Blasphemer!
I posted this link on a related story some time back. This is a must see if you think you know how bad forensic science (or lack of science) really is:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/
Here's the ProPublica article written in conjunction with the PBS Frontline episode linked above, for those who like to read rather than watch.
So, like most who claim to be conservatives, but are actually the furthest thing from it
Sooo... the majority of the republican leadership for the last 30 years?
Yea, pretty much since they swapped places with the Democrats regarding social liberalism.
Most of the Republican followership, too.
Wait... he's not allowed to play "pin the tail on the donkey?"
That's no tail... but it most definitely is a donkey!
>But are they complaining about it?
Yes, it's called hypocrisy.
Well, in that case, fuck 'em.
How do you like your "free market" now, bitches? HA!
What you don't understand is that the party that rails against regulations is now the victim of fraud.
But are they complaining about it?
For the record, I did not RTFA.
If by "liberal", you mean "Allen Greenspan", then yes. He famously, privately averred that the government shouldn't prohibit fraud, that the marketplace would sort it out more efficiently.
So, like most who claim to be conservatives, but are actually the furthest thing from it, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
FTFY.
Don't fall into the trap of politically motivated hyperbole - Republicans are just as liberal as Democrats, albeit in a different way. Of course, being a 'liberal' or 'conservative' leaning individual has absolutely nothing to do with economics, although I doubt many of the corporate media viewers realize that.
Ideology aside, there's a slight issue with Republican's claim to support the concept of a 'free market economy' - namely, that they don't.
From Dictionary.com:
free market
noun
an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
In layman's terms, no rules, no regulations, no subsidies, no tax breaks - it's survival of the fittest spreadsheet, with absolutely zero interference from the government.
No part of any Republican or Democrat economic plan supports a free market per the definition of the term. Granted, that's not necessarily a bad thing.