So I could probably run gparted to move my/home partition off my / partition into a new one of its own, then run Mint's installer, then edit fstab to "restore" my/home partition.
1. In Mint's installer, how would I config the custom partitioning scheme to use that? 2. In fstab, what would I change to "restore" my/home partition? 3. Maybe there's a way I could edit the Mint installer to roll my own distro that always installs like that by default?
But the category difference is what matters first. We are not arguing about the degree of theocracy in the US. Or at least only you are, moving the goalposts in teh actual argument in this subthread. We are arguing about whether the US is a theocracy at all. You just admitted that the US is a theocracy. The US is supposed to be totally free of theocracy, but it is not. Even if you admit it's mild, especially compared to the most ruthless theocracies (so far). So that argument is done.
As to the degree, two abortion doctors executed by theocrats is pretty bad, but that wasn't the government. The government is the one that has eliminated abortion in a solid minority of states, because it's a sin. Other state governments are busy working on it, and even the Federal government has eliminated many abortions by prohibiting funding and other assistance to that medical field. That's theocracy, and it harms many thousands of people every year (and for the rest of their lives) in the name of fighting sin. North Carolina just amended its constitution to prevent homosexual sinning, and dozens of states have laws doing the same, even superfluous ones just for the theocratic zeal of it. Then there's laws prohibiting alcohol sales or even sales at all on "the Sabbath". How about marijuana prohibition, still in force partly as a pander to its "immorality". TV can show mass murder and exquisite torture to anyone at any time, but a nipple slip sends an entire Federal bureaucracy into gear, issuing costly and humiliating recriminations - for the entertainment of the theocrats in the audience. There's far more examples than that. And these theocrats are a small minority of the population - each of them has far more political influence than a secular person, whose many agenda items wallow while the theocracy swamps us all.
That is a lot of theocracy. No it's not Iran, nor is it the Vatican, or even Israel or Benares India. But "not as theocratic as Saudi Arabia" isn't what the separation of church and state is measured by. We have a lot of theocracy, far too much.
If I download and burn the installer DVD, can I just boot the DVD and click something to upgrade the machine's original Ubuntu (v11.10) to Mint, with little or no further intervention? Which will let me reboot and launch Evolution and Firefox with all my configs and data intact?
And if I don't like it, can I boot from an Ubuntu installer CD to revert? Or maybe something even easier?
All of that waste is product consumers buy, but can't consume. So it doesn't put off the next time they buy more. There's no way condiment bottlers are going to use this invention that means you'll buy replacements less often.
I'm not talking about the difference in degree. The difference in degree is an excuse to ignore the identity in category. Theocracy that denies rights like marriage isn't as severe as theocracy that executes sinners, but they're both theocracy. The argument here is whether or not the US has theocracy, not whose theocracy is worse.
It's not any more odd to call it that than it is to call water a "solvent" prior to pouring it into a salt to make a solution. These are terms that are meaningful because they describe what is being done. It's necessary to refer to the ingredients in terms of the product, even before they're in the product that makes them ingredients instead of just the "materials" they were before adding them.
Those anti-gay laws are pushed by Christians, citing their bible. They insist their definition of marriage, from their churches, be adhered by everyone, even nonbelievers. They're having a hard enough time getting their theocracy enshrined in marriage inequality, but they're getting it. Then they'll move to the harder stuff.
It's obvious that it's Christianity at work here. It's also totally obvious that I replied to a post denying Christians subject non-Christians to biblical laws, which is how it's related to Sharia. Your comment is complete BS.
You might not be able to think straight because your paranoid of Sharia drowns out everything else. But the fact is that all you just said is that Christian theocracy has a hold of US law, even if Christians don't yet execute people for homosexuality here. The more people like you justify Christian theocracy here by fallacies like pointing over there, the more the Christians who would execute gays have power to do so here.
Go ahead and make out with your gay spouse, or perform an abortion, in many Christian communities in the USA. Now see how many Christians threaten you.
Different religions have different values on which they oppress nonbelievers. You are the one ignoring reality to make an easily rebutted distinction. It is religion itself that is the problem, since every religion has its abusive values and applications of them.
There are no Sharia "courts". There are Muslim arbitration tribunals that use Sharia law, but they are not courts. UK courts are binding on those whose cases are being decided, even if those subjects refuse the court's jurisdiction. Arbitration tribunals are binding only on those who voluntarily agree to the rules used in them. Arbitration tribunals can use any rules whatsoever, including arbitrary contracts. These kinds of tribunals are commonly used to decide family matters, like division of estates, where the family's traditions are not part of the law, specifically because the traditions are not recognized by the law. Jews for example have the same opportunity to apply Jewish tradition in arbitrations where they mutually accept them going in. When people voluntarily accept those rules, even if they waive rights protected by law (so long as the law does not forbid waiving those rights), they have an orderly way to operate under them. And so the law's recognition of them is completely legitimate. Yet that doesn't introduce those voluntary rules into law, any more you can write a contract you have arbitrated as a way of subverting the law.
That article, and you, are claiming that Sharia has equal standing with UK law. It does not. It now merely has equal standing with other religious arbitration that has been recognized as legitimate and no threat for generations.
They're not giving a free pass to Islam. You however are giving a free pass to Christian theocrats. That comment replied to a comment about Sharia in the US, not the article's discussion of religion in Pakistan.
You are a Christaliban, who plays word games to protect your favored theocrats.
Where are Sharia courts established that are recognized as replacements for UK law?
Every democracy has groups that try to replace existing law with ones derived from their own personal heritage or interest, and many of those conflict with universal liberty as much as Sharia and other theocracy. Yes the US faces far more threats from Christian theocrats, atop existing laws that are just only according to Christianity (No alcohol sales on Sunday? No gay marriage?), than from Sharia. Anyone bringing up Sharia as a threat to the US must acknowledge that Christian theocracy is a far greater threat. People bringing up Christian theocracy as a threat don't have to indulge in a false equivalency that the actually impotent threat of Sharia is somehow an actual threat.
Really? "Death penalty for child porn" is a very common reaction when someone is busted for it. Look at any discussion thread in any news site that reports someone even accused of a child porn crime, even without conviction, even if not producing the porn (and so directly exploiting a child). I searched for "child pornography" discussion in Google news, and one of the first results that had comments called for "ball peen justice", which is death for child pornography. Possession, not production. It's very common.
Actually child porn that doesn't exploit actual children is worth trying to have a day to celebrate by creating it, if that's what you want to do.
Mainly because it would fail spectacularly, proving that child porn, even without actual children, is very different than cartoons of Mohammed. The only people who'd be into it are obviously sick, without any analysis or debate necessary. While the people who react violently to Draw Mohammed Day are also obviously sick.
Blasphemy might be entirely subjective. But the difference between child pornography and Mohammed cartoons is not legitimately the product of some arbitrary local customs.
1. No, many Pakistanis don't like it. Especially the many Pakistanis who have left Pakistan to live elsewhere.
2. Pakistan's religious oppression of rights and corrupt manipulation of communications both public and private in the service of an Islam that lets its rulers exploit its people is essential to the Afghanistan from which the Qaeda attacked America. It remains essential to the Taliban that form the core of that continuing threat to the US. It protected Binladen for years from being eliminated as an inspiration to further jihad against the US.
3. Rights are universal to all people. It takes people a while to recognize rights and the need to protect them. Even the US, which isn't necessarily the freest country anymore, took generations to protect the rights of Black people, of women, of children, and many others who didn't enjoy the status of the founders. While it's not necessarily a priority for the US to help foreigners to protect their rights, because the US has so many other pressing problems, it is always a benefit to the US. Universally free humans would see the US much less able to spend and waste time, money and lives in wars around the country, as the pretexts for starting them would be fewer, along with fewer actual threats caused by oppression abroad.
Helping Pakistanis get their government to protect their rights is in the US' interest in many ways. Likewise, the US could use more help from foreigners who can help in better protecting our own rights.
Trademark and copyright prevent plenty of websites, books and other publications in the US. The US is careful to act quickly, before popularity makes it harder. "Pornographic" cartoons have been declared unlawful, even when later generations find them harmless. Churches used to get burned down with the tacit approval of the state all the time.
The fact that Pakistan is worse than America doesn't mean America doesn't also practice these repressions to an unacceptable degree. "Not as bad as Pakistan" isn't really a good brag about American liberty.
No, we should not wait to knock on our neighbor's door. We should indeed clean up our own backyard, too. But consistency and a sensible strategy (to say nothing of ethical behavior) insist we oppose censorship wherever it damages anyone's rights.
And it's for the same reasons, too. Muslim churches want a monopoly over the use of any reference to Mohammed. Prohibiting all images of him (including their own) creates a symbol vacuum into which the churches pour rhetoric that gains power from occupying that role. They insist on a monopoly over rhetoric about Mohammed, too.
Yes, that is all exactly the same as copyright and trademark monopoly, except without any "fair use" allowances. Which is where the US and Europe are marching, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks!
So I could probably run gparted to move my /home partition off my / partition into a new one of its own, then run Mint's installer, then edit fstab to "restore" my /home partition.
1. In Mint's installer, how would I config the custom partitioning scheme to use that? /home partition?
2. In fstab, what would I change to "restore" my
3. Maybe there's a way I could edit the Mint installer to roll my own distro that always installs like that by default?
Thanks.
Of course the difference in degree matters.
But the category difference is what matters first. We are not arguing about the degree of theocracy in the US. Or at least only you are, moving the goalposts in teh actual argument in this subthread. We are arguing about whether the US is a theocracy at all. You just admitted that the US is a theocracy. The US is supposed to be totally free of theocracy, but it is not. Even if you admit it's mild, especially compared to the most ruthless theocracies (so far). So that argument is done.
As to the degree, two abortion doctors executed by theocrats is pretty bad, but that wasn't the government. The government is the one that has eliminated abortion in a solid minority of states, because it's a sin. Other state governments are busy working on it, and even the Federal government has eliminated many abortions by prohibiting funding and other assistance to that medical field. That's theocracy, and it harms many thousands of people every year (and for the rest of their lives) in the name of fighting sin. North Carolina just amended its constitution to prevent homosexual sinning, and dozens of states have laws doing the same, even superfluous ones just for the theocratic zeal of it. Then there's laws prohibiting alcohol sales or even sales at all on "the Sabbath". How about marijuana prohibition, still in force partly as a pander to its "immorality". TV can show mass murder and exquisite torture to anyone at any time, but a nipple slip sends an entire Federal bureaucracy into gear, issuing costly and humiliating recriminations - for the entertainment of the theocrats in the audience. There's far more examples than that. And these theocrats are a small minority of the population - each of them has far more political influence than a secular person, whose many agenda items wallow while the theocracy swamps us all.
That is a lot of theocracy. No it's not Iran, nor is it the Vatican, or even Israel or Benares India. But "not as theocratic as Saudi Arabia" isn't what the separation of church and state is measured by. We have a lot of theocracy, far too much.
They'd rather change the label on a slightly bigger bottle, put "10% MORE!" and raise the price 12%, while continuing to waste 2% sticking inside.
Unless they never do it, and nobody ever hears about it, and it's the same free ride as ever.
Time savings.
Asshole.
If I download and burn the installer DVD, can I just boot the DVD and click something to upgrade the machine's original Ubuntu (v11.10) to Mint, with little or no further intervention? Which will let me reboot and launch Evolution and Firefox with all my configs and data intact?
And if I don't like it, can I boot from an Ubuntu installer CD to revert? Or maybe something even easier?
All of that waste is product consumers buy, but can't consume. So it doesn't put off the next time they buy more. There's no way condiment bottlers are going to use this invention that means you'll buy replacements less often.
I'm not talking about the difference in degree. The difference in degree is an excuse to ignore the identity in category. Theocracy that denies rights like marriage isn't as severe as theocracy that executes sinners, but they're both theocracy. The argument here is whether or not the US has theocracy, not whose theocracy is worse.
"Damaged by dogma" indeed.
It's not any more odd to call it that than it is to call water a "solvent" prior to pouring it into a salt to make a solution. These are terms that are meaningful because they describe what is being done. It's necessary to refer to the ingredients in terms of the product, even before they're in the product that makes them ingredients instead of just the "materials" they were before adding them.
Confronting people frankly with their delusions doesn't necessarily make you a rude arrogant cunt.
However, calling me stupid and arrogant makes you a rude, arrogant cunt.
You lose. No wonder your 20 years "debating" Creationists has seen them only get stronger. Goodbye.
Those anti-gay laws are pushed by Christians, citing their bible. They insist their definition of marriage, from their churches, be adhered by everyone, even nonbelievers. They're having a hard enough time getting their theocracy enshrined in marriage inequality, but they're getting it. Then they'll move to the harder stuff.
It's obvious that it's Christianity at work here. It's also totally obvious that I replied to a post denying Christians subject non-Christians to biblical laws, which is how it's related to Sharia. Your comment is complete BS.
You might not be able to think straight because your paranoid of Sharia drowns out everything else. But the fact is that all you just said is that Christian theocracy has a hold of US law, even if Christians don't yet execute people for homosexuality here. The more people like you justify Christian theocracy here by fallacies like pointing over there, the more the Christians who would execute gays have power to do so here.
That's interesting. Any scale where the surface tension overcomes gravity is a straightforward application environment.
But the environment I'm interested in is the mesoscale, human living environments like architecture and vehicles.
Go ahead and make out with your gay spouse, or perform an abortion, in many Christian communities in the USA. Now see how many Christians threaten you.
Different religions have different values on which they oppress nonbelievers. You are the one ignoring reality to make an easily rebutted distinction. It is religion itself that is the problem, since every religion has its abusive values and applications of them.
Yeah, those laws and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage aren't Sharia, so they're not subjecting non-Christians to biblical laws.
You're a liar, a fool, or both.
There are no Sharia "courts". There are Muslim arbitration tribunals that use Sharia law, but they are not courts. UK courts are binding on those whose cases are being decided, even if those subjects refuse the court's jurisdiction. Arbitration tribunals are binding only on those who voluntarily agree to the rules used in them. Arbitration tribunals can use any rules whatsoever, including arbitrary contracts. These kinds of tribunals are commonly used to decide family matters, like division of estates, where the family's traditions are not part of the law, specifically because the traditions are not recognized by the law. Jews for example have the same opportunity to apply Jewish tradition in arbitrations where they mutually accept them going in. When people voluntarily accept those rules, even if they waive rights protected by law (so long as the law does not forbid waiving those rights), they have an orderly way to operate under them. And so the law's recognition of them is completely legitimate. Yet that doesn't introduce those voluntary rules into law, any more you can write a contract you have arbitrated as a way of subverting the law.
That article, and you, are claiming that Sharia has equal standing with UK law. It does not. It now merely has equal standing with other religious arbitration that has been recognized as legitimate and no threat for generations.
They're not giving a free pass to Islam. You however are giving a free pass to Christian theocrats. That comment replied to a comment about Sharia in the US, not the article's discussion of religion in Pakistan.
You are a Christaliban, who plays word games to protect your favored theocrats.
Where are Sharia courts established that are recognized as replacements for UK law?
Every democracy has groups that try to replace existing law with ones derived from their own personal heritage or interest, and many of those conflict with universal liberty as much as Sharia and other theocracy. Yes the US faces far more threats from Christian theocrats, atop existing laws that are just only according to Christianity (No alcohol sales on Sunday? No gay marriage?), than from Sharia. Anyone bringing up Sharia as a threat to the US must acknowledge that Christian theocracy is a far greater threat. People bringing up Christian theocracy as a threat don't have to indulge in a false equivalency that the actually impotent threat of Sharia is somehow an actual threat.
Really? "Death penalty for child porn" is a very common reaction when someone is busted for it. Look at any discussion thread in any news site that reports someone even accused of a child porn crime, even without conviction, even if not producing the porn (and so directly exploiting a child). I searched for "child pornography" discussion in Google news, and one of the first results that had comments called for "ball peen justice", which is death for child pornography. Possession, not production. It's very common.
Actually child porn that doesn't exploit actual children is worth trying to have a day to celebrate by creating it, if that's what you want to do.
Mainly because it would fail spectacularly, proving that child porn, even without actual children, is very different than cartoons of Mohammed. The only people who'd be into it are obviously sick, without any analysis or debate necessary. While the people who react violently to Draw Mohammed Day are also obviously sick.
Blasphemy might be entirely subjective. But the difference between child pornography and Mohammed cartoons is not legitimately the product of some arbitrary local customs.
Go for it!
1. No, many Pakistanis don't like it. Especially the many Pakistanis who have left Pakistan to live elsewhere.
2. Pakistan's religious oppression of rights and corrupt manipulation of communications both public and private in the service of an Islam that lets its rulers exploit its people is essential to the Afghanistan from which the Qaeda attacked America. It remains essential to the Taliban that form the core of that continuing threat to the US. It protected Binladen for years from being eliminated as an inspiration to further jihad against the US.
3. Rights are universal to all people. It takes people a while to recognize rights and the need to protect them. Even the US, which isn't necessarily the freest country anymore, took generations to protect the rights of Black people, of women, of children, and many others who didn't enjoy the status of the founders. While it's not necessarily a priority for the US to help foreigners to protect their rights, because the US has so many other pressing problems, it is always a benefit to the US. Universally free humans would see the US much less able to spend and waste time, money and lives in wars around the country, as the pretexts for starting them would be fewer, along with fewer actual threats caused by oppression abroad.
Helping Pakistanis get their government to protect their rights is in the US' interest in many ways. Likewise, the US could use more help from foreigners who can help in better protecting our own rights.
No, rights are inherent to our humanity. We create governments to protect them, not the other way around.
You are a fool, and a coward who won't even use a userID.
Trademark and copyright prevent plenty of websites, books and other publications in the US. The US is careful to act quickly, before popularity makes it harder. "Pornographic" cartoons have been declared unlawful, even when later generations find them harmless. Churches used to get burned down with the tacit approval of the state all the time.
The fact that Pakistan is worse than America doesn't mean America doesn't also practice these repressions to an unacceptable degree. "Not as bad as Pakistan" isn't really a good brag about American liberty.
No, we should not wait to knock on our neighbor's door. We should indeed clean up our own backyard, too. But consistency and a sensible strategy (to say nothing of ethical behavior) insist we oppose censorship wherever it damages anyone's rights.
And it's for the same reasons, too. Muslim churches want a monopoly over the use of any reference to Mohammed. Prohibiting all images of him (including their own) creates a symbol vacuum into which the churches pour rhetoric that gains power from occupying that role. They insist on a monopoly over rhetoric about Mohammed, too.
Yes, that is all exactly the same as copyright and trademark monopoly, except without any "fair use" allowances. Which is where the US and Europe are marching, too.