Besides your entire post being a shotgun argument, (i.e. an informal fallacy), you also seem to think that a claim (i.e. threat to gays, women, jews etc.) is best supported by asking questions. So... let me respond in kind.
Where in Canada? By whom? How many cases? Are those cases a majority? Citation needed. Was there an official claim by "authorities" that they allow or support such behavior? If so when, where, by whom? Citation needed. Was there an official claim by "authorities" that they allow or support such behavior for a single religion, and not others? Again, citation needed. Since when can an idea hang people? Where did you hear about that? Who, when, where? Citation needed. Since when can an idea crash a plane? Is the case you describe a position of the majority of religious people belonging to that religion? Are there enough tall buildings and planes in the world to facilitate such a position, considering the number of people practicing that religion? Whose troops? Why don't you know how to use Google? Have you been alive during the past two decades? How about conscious? Did you watch any news during that time? Did you understand any of it? Are you retarded? Are you sure? Are you mommy and daddy brother and sister? How about father and daughter? Mother and son? Which case of acid throwing are you talking about? Where? When? Is that an isolated issue, only happening in one culture or country? Why are you a cherry picking cocksucker? What cartoons? Who was killed? By whom? How many cases? Citation needed. For every case. Is that a majority position? How does the number of incidents compare to other ideological murders? Which terrorist organization? Please list all of them. What ideas are those organizations representing? Who is their financial backer? Which public officials have supported or cooperated with their financial backers? Do you like having your nuts felt up? Why? Why not? Are you gay? Do you hate gays? Do you like gays? How can you suck cocks and still claim that you are not gay? Are you aware that you are talking about a mythological figure that may have never existed? You know, like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny or Jesus. Last two being the same person. Are you insane? Do you see or hear little people who talk to you? How about big people? How about horses? Why do you want to fuck a horse? Why do you want to be fucked by a horse? Does that hurt? More than being fucked by a bear? Why are you seeking out bears to fuck you? Do you do it while they hibernate? Are you aware that an anecdote of your imaginary encounter is not an argument? Why are you eating with dudes that don't let you look at them? Is that like an S&M thing? Why do you like being beaten up in public while eating? Have you talked to a professional about that? Like someone who could beat you up really good? Why? Why not? Why again? Have you looked for a jew, sikh, budist, christian, atheist, gay, indian, negro, asian, etc, etc who would be willing to tear you a new one for looking at him? Why not? How can you be sure it's not about you being a hating piece of shit? Why did you fail to mention white people threatening to beat you up? Is it because you think that they are "your people"? How about little girls? Have you ever been beaten up by a little girl? Would you like to be beaten up by a little girl again? Have you ever tasted the sharp edge of a razor-blade? Why not? You may like it... Why are you afraid of trying new things? What other phobias, besides racial ones, do you have? Do you hate your relatives or only yourself? Have you ever wondered what the concrete tastes like when you jump at it from the tenth floor? Why don't you go and check that and let us know how it went?
Should I assume that we'll find human women attached to those tits? I don't know that whole mountains of disembodied tits would benefit man or mankind very much.
The concept of truth is discussed and debated in several contexts, including philosophy and religion.
One - it's a weasel statement. One can "discuss and debate" gravity all day long - denying it or coming up with an alternative explanation on the other hand...
Two - it does not address the fact that truth is evidence-based at all. There's a lot of pseudo-intellectual smoke there, but nothing more.
Three - that's a line which serves only to give credibility to "philosophy and religion" - I.e. it's saying that BECAUSE philosophy and religion CAN discuss and debate truth, they are also qualified to determine what is and what isn't truth. Which is like saying that everyone in the world should set their dietary habits according to mine, because I am known for my ability to eat food, often several times per day.
Four - philosophical and religious discussions on truth are no more valid than philosophical and religious discussions on floppy drives. Because...
Five - philosophy and religion tend not to be scientifically rigorous, and often they are mostly comprised of faulty reasoning. I.e. False dichotomy. Every single school of philosophy is born from false dichotomy that said school is the "right one" while all others are false. As for religion... Why even go there.
Note that both religion and philosophy tend not to be experimentally or mathematically provable or even describable - which is a strong indicator of use of faulty logic.
Also...
The opposite of truth is falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also take on a logical, factual, or ethical meaning.
That too is nonsense disguising as insight. Also, it is a (not so) cleverly disguised lie. The line starts talking about truth, switches between it and falsehood, then "correspondingly", makes a claim that one or both can have "logical, factual, or ethical meaning".
It never sets that either truth or falsehood actually have "logical, factual, or ethical meaning(s)". It's a forgone conclusion, which "correspondingly" equates truth and falsehood.
Truth is evidence-based because reality is evidence-based. That's it. Nothing else to it. Just as there are no multiple versions of reality, there are no multiple versions of truth - there's only THE truth. All the rest are either falsehoods, delusions or incomplete truths.
I'm not exactly a religious person, but I do believe in tolerance of others beliefs, as long as their non-interfering...
Well, I'm an atheist and to me "tolerating" someone's delusion is both dishonest and patronizing pandering on the level of treating them like small children who still believe in Santa AND it actually causes harm to others when those people try to shoehorn both themselves and everyone else into such a delusional vision of reality. I.e. Both buying into hateful bullshit about "them" (every religion has them) and opening oneself to abuse through faith-based gullibility (miracles and miracle workers, curses, exorcisms etc.) And that's all without the mention of what happens when such a delusional "reality" falls apart when it eventually collides with actual reality.
As for "non-interfering"... It's not really non-interfering when religious holidays are treated like national ones, religious "education" is crammed down kids' throats in schools, when religious officials keep meddling in every single issue from politics to business, when political officials are being favored and determined by their religious affiliation and not their competence... etc. etc.
From my short experience on this planet, religious people are not interfering only if they are not around. I.e. Never had an issue with Buddhists - as there are none around where I live.
I can't really be bothered to dig through all of your cognitive dissonance and other bullshit. Though I must say that I particularly like the bit where you link texts that "prove" non-existence of islamophobia - by a columnist who can't even keep his own straw man up.
From TFA, after rattling out a tirade of anecdotal crimes committed by Muslims:
Given the abundant evidence of violent cause and fearful effect, involving a small percentage of antagonists, the general charge of Islamophobia is an ideological fabrication.
See? There's no such thing as islamophobia as there is nothing to fear about Muslims - except in all these cases I just listed here, not trying to scare you or to say that "all" Muslims are bad, just the ones I know of.
Oh, and that bit of clairvoyance... Beautiful.
Then we have the genocides soon to come.
Or are you perchance a time traveler? Either way, why are you such an asshole? Why don't you go and warn those people? It should be easy for you to prove the veracity of your claims to them - after all, you have access to the future news.
We won't even talk about the historical genocides of approximately one million Armenians by Turkish jihadis in 1915, or the hundreds of thousands slaughtered by the two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions in World War II (raised by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni - the bastard who told Hitler the idea of the "Final Solution", stating "Who remembers the Armenians").
Being a Bosnian from Tuzla, I could point out that the nonsense stated above is beyond wildest dreams of right-wing idiots who favor the idea of an SS division comprised of local population. Seriously, there are local morons who would LOVE to be able to point to "hundreds of thousands slaughtered by the two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions" - on all the right sides. Right-wing Serbs would like to point them out as evil executioners of Serbs (despite well documented cooperation between both sides), while right-wing Muslims would like to take pride in being executioners to "hundreds of thousands" of Serbs. And right-wing Croats... Well, the unit WAS Croatian after all.
Trouble is... Well... First there's this problem of there being ONLY ONE Bosnian Muslim division - 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). Then there's the issue of it barely being a division, and the fact that they couldn't get enough Muslims to make it a division - so they liberally added Volksdeutschers and Catholic Croats to fill the ranks. Which is not surprising, since the division was raised by Croatian political leadership (originally they wanted to make it a "SS Ustasa Division", and the unit was referred to as "Croatian SS-Volunteer Division" - and since it was the brainchild of one Heinrich Himmler. All al-Husseini had with the entire project was some rather unsuccessful recruiting.
How unsuccessful? Well, besides the above mentioned lack of Muslims, the division is best remembered for the mutiny attempt during training in France. It is also well remembered for desertions and generally only being effective when they were vastly outnumbering the enemy.
As for the war crimes, all that the Communist Yugoslavian government could come up with was
The entire thing basically looks like the intro of Star Trek: Enterprise. Minus the singing. Also, practically minus the "future". All that trailer does is show things NASA "used to do". Making the ST: E intro far more inspirational.
On the other hand, "We are explorers" is not really the motto that syncs with Jar Jar's Trek - which is about lens flares, explosions, running, shooting and apparently tits in space. Not that there's anything wrong with tits in space, it's just that when talking about "exploration of celestial spheres" our goal should be set a little farther than a pair of double Ds.
I think that I agree completely with everything you said. Or at least, can't seem to find something I'd disagree with.
A rational being separates rational ethics from myth-based morality, and does not base entire systems of asserted "right action" on unverifiable post-mortem hypotheses born of some mix of imagination and con-artist greed way back in the most ignorant and brutal of times. In the end, that's what almost all of the world religions actually are.
I might only add that rationality itself is in fact... well... if not delusion then at least an illusion. We're not perfect robots with a built in set of laws. We are faulty organic beings.Very faulty.
It's just that unlike other organic beings on this planet, we are in position to be aware of some of those faults. So that we can fix them or avoid them. But we're still not "rational". No creature built around a reward system can be rational.
...and maybe even distorting the truth, but I'm guessing you picked those "facts" from Christians running to the argument of "...but that's the OLD testament". Which is bullshit.
New testament is ATTACHED to the old and based on it - it does not supersede it. They're in the same fucking book. And just go ask any priest (or Christian you're not currently debating) if Adam, Moses, king David and the rest of the lot are a part of the teaching of Christianity. They don't avoid a single thing. They embrace it.
Even this Slashdot topic is about a guy who's betting that everything in Genesis is true.
For fuck's sake, the entirety of Christianity is BASED on Jesus being of Davidic bloodline - through Joseph who (HA!) is not really his father. Immaculate conception bitches! It means what WE WANT IT TO MEAN! Maternal what now? Ancestral line who? Which part of "bitches! It means what WE WANT IT TO MEAN!" did you not understand? Maternal line is carried on through the father who is not his real father cause that makes Abraham his ancestor. Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think he is? HE'S THE GOD DAMN MESSIAH!
And please don't give me that crap about Bible/Christianity being less violent, misogynist or pedophilic. You don't need to go further than numbers 31:7-31:19 to fix that:
7They did battle against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed every male. 8They killed the kings of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, in addition to others who were slain by them; and they also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. 10All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, 11but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animals. 12Then they brought the captives and the booty and the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the Israelites, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp. 14Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15Moses said to them, âHave you allowed all the women to live? 16These women here, on Balaamâ(TM)s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Kill ALL the men, take all their possessions and take their wives and children as slaves? Fuck THAT shit! Moses says fuck slaves! Kill ALL those women, and all the boys... but keep the virgin girls as sex slaves. Voices told him that's what should be done... I mean God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And there's plenty more where that came from.
And while one COULD even argue that Islam is a more peaceful religion - that too would be bullshit as it accepts and builds on both the old and the new testament. Same prophets, same stories, same god - they only wrap it in a new cover and add a chapter or two more. Abraham 3.11 for Workgroups.
Though, you gotta give it to them for at least making all of those messiahs just mortal men instead of "sons of God", leaving the "Most Arrogant Religion Ever" medal for the Christians. Though there ARE contenders out there for
...and provable. Regardless of one's personal beliefs and inclinations. There are no "truths". There is A truth and various levels of knowledge and understanding of it. And then there are delusions. Like faith.
And regardless of the number of fans a particular delusion has, it can never become the truth.
BTW, which Gods where you speaking of in your signature....
Why, mythological ones. What other kind is there? Rhetorical question.
Threat to who or what? Other religions? Why? Shouldn't their faith protect those who believe from Islamic influence? It's not a disease. Atheists? How? They don't believe in that mumbo-jumbo anyway?
I'm having a feeling that by "Islam" you actually mean something else. Something more along the lines of "them people" as opposed to "us".
BTW... that phrase... "current threat"? That kinda means now, as opposed to some other time. Islam was just fine and perfectly ignorable a decade or two ago. Heck... It was even favorable, compared to godless commie bastards. You know... back when the THEN "current political situation" was more agreeable to it.
You're trying to explain that he is more of The God if he has a fancier name.
I am asking, why does an omnipotent creator of all existence need any of that charade? Shouldn't his The God status be self-evident because he simply IS that which he claims to be?
What does an omnipotent creator of all existence need with a title? If he is such as it is claimed, wouldn't every single of his traits be self-evident in every aspect of such a creature - including the name? Wouldn't the name itself be... magical?
Also, wouldn't any other approximation of the name other than the magical one be a blasphemy? Which brings us again to what does a God care about blasphemy? Is he perhaps insecure about his own godhood? Does he have ego problems, that need regular stroking through prayer and worship?
Had he expressed hatred or prejudice based on their religion, like the AC above did with Islam...
Fuck Christianity. The only thing it has going for it is that it's not quite as evil as Islam.
...that would be bigotry. You know... picking A religion as being "more evil" based on current political situation, when every single flavor of Abrahamic religion has uncountable crimes to answer for, and those others aren't much different either.
Pointing out that all brands of Christianity are the same fairytale (only told a bit differently) is just telling the truth. Just like pointing out that all religions are evil as they teach the people to build their view of reality based on a delusion - basically, inducing billions with cognitive dissonance bordering on insanity. Meanwhile, staying politically correct and letting them carry on with their delusion without at least pointing out the most glaring flaws in it - that would be hypocrisy. Also, infliction of harm through inaction.
The technique sought to be authorized here is not the substantive equivalent of a wiretap authorization. On the facts of this case, a wiretap authorization alone would not allow the police to obtain the information that Telus was required to provide under the general warrant. Three separate authorizations would be required in order to provide the police with the means to access the information provided to them under the general warrant. Therefore, even if one were to accept reading into s. 487.01(1)(c) a âoesubstantive equivalencyâ test, neither the facts nor the law would support its application in this case.
I.e. What they were asking for was not covered by a single type of warrant. They would need three different authorizations for all that.
The conditions for issuing a production order are similar to those for a search warrant. The issuing justice or judge must be satisfied by information on oath that an offence has been or is suspected to have been committed, the documents or data will afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence and that the person to whom the order is directed has possession or control of the documents or data (s. 487.012(3)). In addition, the person to whom the order is directed cannot be a person under investigation (s. 487.012(1)).
unlike search warrants and production orders that may be issued by judges or justices of the peace, general warrants may only be issued by judges (s. 487.01(1)). Second, âoethe judge [must be] satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the warrantâ (s. 487.01(1)(b)). Third, a general warrant must âoecontain such terms and conditions as the judge considers advisable to ensure that the search or seizure authorized by the warrant is reasonable in the circumstancesâ (s. 487.01(3)). Fourth, a general warrant may be issued only if âoethere is no other provision . . . that would provide for a warrant, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be doneâ (s. 487.01(1)(c)). In other words, a general warrant may not be used to authorize a âoetechnique, procedure or device to be used or . . . thing to be doneâ if there are other provisions in the Code (or elsewhere) that could authorize it.
An authorization to intercept private communications under Part VI of the Code allows police to receive messages as they are being sent or received by subscribers. These sorts of authorizations are subject to even more strict conditions than those which apply to general warrants. They may only be issued by a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction. The Attorney General, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or a specially designated agent must bring the application (s. 185(1)). There are specific and detailed provisions relating to what must be placed before the judge. The issuing judge must be satisfied not only that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the authorization but also that the so-called âoeinvestigative necessityâ test has been met (s. 186(1)). This means that the judge must be satisfied that âoeother investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative proceduresâ (s. 186(1)). The authorization may generally not be valid for more that 60 days (s. 186(4)(e)) and there are notice and reporting requirements (s. 196).
In short, they'd need to "rubberstamp" the Attorney General or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
The thing to remember is that the US is a much larger country. This is in terms of population. For that reason, there are likely to be more extremes in the US, just as a numerical property of a larger population.
The grandparent poster meant "extremes" as in "people who lean towards extreme positions on some scale". The actual word he was looking for is "extremists".
And yes, a larger population would have a greater number of extremists - all other things being equal. Which they are kinda not.
Total number of extremists in a given population is a function of the percentage of their prevalence in said population and the size of that very same population. 2 million gingers in a country of 200 million here they represent 1% of population, is not the same situation as 2 million gingers in a country of 4 million where they are 50% of population.
Most of them, especially the cheap P&S or cell phone cameras that people would actually be likely to have on them, have a hard time picking up the stars too, even though they're plainly visible to anybody who bothers to look.
Well, besides those shots not being taken by a "cheap P&S or cell phone", and the photo where you actually see the lights being clearly overexposed or photoshopped to make the lights visible (the entire sky is glowing from the photo-manipulation) - I was asking has anyone ACTUALLY seen that stunt, live. Not, if it would be visible, perhaps, maybe, at certain conditions, with binoculars, from a certain angle, if you are 7 feet tall, standing on a hill... whatever.
Has anyone actually witnessed it take place?
Cause to me... that looks like a failed performance. Cause, if you gotta zoom in and overexpose and whatnot just so the camera would catch that light (as opposed to a human eyeball with no zoom capability, and highly limited night vision) - they could have just as well done the whole thing on a computer, and upload that to youtube instead.
Then again, quadcopters equipped with invisible lights, performing for an audience of none, WOULD BE a publicity stunt very in the spirit of the movie. All hype, no substance and no actual relation to the established canon or plot.
"You f*cking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.
You might wanna check that quote again, seeing how Fray "wrote a letter to Clinton begging her forgiveness for saying things about her without factual foundation" - i.e. he apologized for LYING.
Clinton accuser wants to make amends Posted: Wednesday, July 19, 2000
The Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) - The man who is accusing Hillary Rodham Clinton of using an ethnic slur against him during an argument in 1974 has a colorful past.
Paul Fray can no longer practice law because someone paid him to alter a court document, and he surrendered his law license to the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1980.
He suffered a cerebral hemorrhage that led to seizures, addiction to prescription pain killers, erratic behavior and memory loss, according to court records.
He wrote a letter to Clinton begging her forgiveness for saying things about her without factual foundation.
On Tuesday, Fray said he'd like to meet with Clinton and resolve the controversy about his accusation, which has surfaced in a new book this week in the midst of her Senate campaign.
"This matter will go away," he told the Fox News Channel. "I don't want to adversely affect her race."
Fray did not return several calls from The Associated Press.
Fray's accusation about the slur has rocked the first lady's campaign and become fodder for Web sites, newspaper headlines and cable TV news shows.
Clinton unequivocally denied calling him a "Jew b---' during an emotional news conference Sunday in the garden of her Westchester home. The president phoned a New York Daily News managing editor and called the accusation "crap."
Fray claims that Hillary Clinton made the comment in Fayetteville, Ark., on the night that Bill Clinton lost a Congressional election. Fray had worked on the campaign.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the first lady when he was running for Senate against her before dropping out of the race, spoke in her defense Tuesday.
"What she did say or didn't say 26 years ago, I can't imagine it has any relevance today," he said.
I'd recheck those other sources too, if I was you.
I'm not certain about the whole immoral thing. Morality is such a fickle, societal, arbitrary thing, you know?
I'd rather say that ANY elitism is simply silly and pointless. An "elite" is just a group of people who take pride in keeping their pissing contest medals shiny and prominently displayed on their chests.
Why is everyone only focusing on his crimes and not on his love or how he was a capable businessman? Compared to say... Richard Nixon, he is barely guilty of anything! And he even dressed up like a clown to entertain sick children!
Slashdot Mirror
Besides your entire post being a shotgun argument, (i.e. an informal fallacy), you also seem to think that a claim (i.e. threat to gays, women, jews etc.) is best supported by asking questions.
So... let me respond in kind.
Where in Canada? By whom? How many cases? Are those cases a majority? Citation needed. Was there an official claim by "authorities" that they allow or support such behavior? If so when, where, by whom? Citation needed. Was there an official claim by "authorities" that they allow or support such behavior for a single religion, and not others? Again, citation needed. Since when can an idea hang people? Where did you hear about that? Who, when, where? Citation needed. Since when can an idea crash a plane? Is the case you describe a position of the majority of religious people belonging to that religion? Are there enough tall buildings and planes in the world to facilitate such a position, considering the number of people practicing that religion? Whose troops? Why don't you know how to use Google? Have you been alive during the past two decades? How about conscious? Did you watch any news during that time? Did you understand any of it? Are you retarded? Are you sure? Are you mommy and daddy brother and sister? How about father and daughter? Mother and son? Which case of acid throwing are you talking about? Where? When? Is that an isolated issue, only happening in one culture or country? Why are you a cherry picking cocksucker? What cartoons? Who was killed? By whom? How many cases? Citation needed. For every case. Is that a majority position? How does the number of incidents compare to other ideological murders? Which terrorist organization? Please list all of them. What ideas are those organizations representing? Who is their financial backer? Which public officials have supported or cooperated with their financial backers? Do you like having your nuts felt up? Why? Why not? Are you gay? Do you hate gays? Do you like gays? How can you suck cocks and still claim that you are not gay? Are you aware that you are talking about a mythological figure that may have never existed? You know, like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny or Jesus. Last two being the same person. Are you insane? Do you see or hear little people who talk to you? How about big people? How about horses? Why do you want to fuck a horse? Why do you want to be fucked by a horse? Does that hurt? More than being fucked by a bear? Why are you seeking out bears to fuck you? Do you do it while they hibernate? Are you aware that an anecdote of your imaginary encounter is not an argument? Why are you eating with dudes that don't let you look at them? Is that like an S&M thing? Why do you like being beaten up in public while eating? Have you talked to a professional about that? Like someone who could beat you up really good? Why? Why not? Why again? Have you looked for a jew, sikh, budist, christian, atheist, gay, indian, negro, asian, etc, etc who would be willing to tear you a new one for looking at him? Why not? How can you be sure it's not about you being a hating piece of shit? Why did you fail to mention white people threatening to beat you up? Is it because you think that they are "your people"? How about little girls? Have you ever been beaten up by a little girl? Would you like to be beaten up by a little girl again? Have you ever tasted the sharp edge of a razor-blade? Why not? You may like it... Why are you afraid of trying new things? What other phobias, besides racial ones, do you have? Do you hate your relatives or only yourself? Have you ever wondered what the concrete tastes like when you jump at it from the tenth floor? Why don't you go and check that and let us know how it went?
Should I assume that we'll find human women attached to those tits? I don't know that whole mountains of disembodied tits would benefit man or mankind very much.
Well, benefits of disembodied sexual organs is has been previously pointed out.
Note a couple of things about that quote.
The concept of truth is discussed and debated in several contexts, including philosophy and religion.
One - it's a weasel statement. One can "discuss and debate" gravity all day long - denying it or coming up with an alternative explanation on the other hand...
Two - it does not address the fact that truth is evidence-based at all. There's a lot of pseudo-intellectual smoke there, but nothing more.
Three - that's a line which serves only to give credibility to "philosophy and religion" - I.e. it's saying that BECAUSE philosophy and religion CAN discuss and debate truth, they are also qualified to determine what is and what isn't truth.
Which is like saying that everyone in the world should set their dietary habits according to mine, because I am known for my ability to eat food, often several times per day.
Four - philosophical and religious discussions on truth are no more valid than philosophical and religious discussions on floppy drives. Because...
Five - philosophy and religion tend not to be scientifically rigorous, and often they are mostly comprised of faulty reasoning. I.e. False dichotomy.
Every single school of philosophy is born from false dichotomy that said school is the "right one" while all others are false.
As for religion... Why even go there.
Note that both religion and philosophy tend not to be experimentally or mathematically provable or even describable - which is a strong indicator of use of faulty logic.
Also...
The opposite of truth is falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also take on a logical, factual, or ethical meaning.
That too is nonsense disguising as insight. Also, it is a (not so) cleverly disguised lie.
The line starts talking about truth, switches between it and falsehood, then "correspondingly", makes a claim that one or both can have "logical, factual, or ethical meaning".
It never sets that either truth or falsehood actually have "logical, factual, or ethical meaning(s)".
It's a forgone conclusion, which "correspondingly" equates truth and falsehood.
Truth is evidence-based because reality is evidence-based. That's it. Nothing else to it.
Just as there are no multiple versions of reality, there are no multiple versions of truth - there's only THE truth.
All the rest are either falsehoods, delusions or incomplete truths.
I'm not exactly a religious person, but I do believe in tolerance of others beliefs, as long as their non-interfering...
Well, I'm an atheist and to me "tolerating" someone's delusion is both dishonest and patronizing pandering on the level of treating them like small children who still believe in Santa AND it actually causes harm to others when those people try to shoehorn both themselves and everyone else into such a delusional vision of reality.
I.e. Both buying into hateful bullshit about "them" (every religion has them) and opening oneself to abuse through faith-based gullibility (miracles and miracle workers, curses, exorcisms etc.)
And that's all without the mention of what happens when such a delusional "reality" falls apart when it eventually collides with actual reality.
As for "non-interfering"...
It's not really non-interfering when religious holidays are treated like national ones, religious "education" is crammed down kids' throats in schools, when religious officials keep meddling in every single issue from politics to business, when political officials are being favored and determined by their religious affiliation and not their competence... etc. etc.
From my short experience on this planet, religious people are not interfering only if they are not around.
I.e. Never had an issue with Buddhists - as there are none around where I live.
Again - why the titles then?
If he is a "I am", what are the titles for? Why would he need them? Wouldn't the I-am-ness be obvious?
Stormy I guess, heh?
I can't really be bothered to dig through all of your cognitive dissonance and other bullshit.
Though I must say that I particularly like the bit where you link texts that "prove" non-existence of islamophobia - by a columnist who can't even keep his own straw man up.
From TFA, after rattling out a tirade of anecdotal crimes committed by Muslims:
Given the abundant evidence of violent cause and fearful effect, involving a small percentage of antagonists, the general charge of Islamophobia is an ideological fabrication.
See? There's no such thing as islamophobia as there is nothing to fear about Muslims - except in all these cases I just listed here, not trying to scare you or to say that "all" Muslims are bad, just the ones I know of.
Oh, and that bit of clairvoyance... Beautiful.
Then we have the genocides soon to come.
Or are you perchance a time traveler?
Either way, why are you such an asshole? Why don't you go and warn those people?
It should be easy for you to prove the veracity of your claims to them - after all, you have access to the future news.
We won't even talk about the historical genocides of approximately one million Armenians by Turkish jihadis in 1915, or the hundreds of thousands slaughtered by the two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions in World War II (raised by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni - the bastard who told Hitler the idea of the "Final Solution", stating "Who remembers the Armenians").
Being a Bosnian from Tuzla, I could point out that the nonsense stated above is beyond wildest dreams of right-wing idiots who favor the idea of an SS division comprised of local population.
Seriously, there are local morons who would LOVE to be able to point to "hundreds of thousands slaughtered by the two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions" - on all the right sides.
Right-wing Serbs would like to point them out as evil executioners of Serbs (despite well documented cooperation between both sides), while right-wing Muslims would like to take pride in being executioners to "hundreds of thousands" of Serbs.
And right-wing Croats... Well, the unit WAS Croatian after all.
Trouble is... Well...
First there's this problem of there being ONLY ONE Bosnian Muslim division - 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian).
Then there's the issue of it barely being a division, and the fact that they couldn't get enough Muslims to make it a division - so they liberally added Volksdeutschers and Catholic Croats to fill the ranks.
Which is not surprising, since the division was raised by Croatian political leadership (originally they wanted to make it a "SS Ustasa Division", and the unit was referred to as "Croatian SS-Volunteer Division" - and since it was the brainchild of one Heinrich Himmler.
All al-Husseini had with the entire project was some rather unsuccessful recruiting.
How unsuccessful? Well, besides the above mentioned lack of Muslims, the division is best remembered for the mutiny attempt during training in France.
It is also well remembered for desertions and generally only being effective when they were vastly outnumbering the enemy.
As for the war crimes, all that the Communist Yugoslavian government could come up with was
The entire thing basically looks like the intro of Star Trek: Enterprise. Minus the singing.
Also, practically minus the "future". All that trailer does is show things NASA "used to do".
Making the ST: E intro far more inspirational.
On the other hand, "We are explorers" is not really the motto that syncs with Jar Jar's Trek - which is about lens flares, explosions, running, shooting and apparently tits in space.
Not that there's anything wrong with tits in space, it's just that when talking about "exploration of celestial spheres" our goal should be set a little farther than a pair of double Ds.
I think that I agree completely with everything you said. Or at least, can't seem to find something I'd disagree with.
A rational being separates rational ethics from myth-based morality, and does not base entire systems of asserted "right action" on unverifiable post-mortem hypotheses born of some mix of imagination and con-artist greed way back in the most ignorant and brutal of times. In the end, that's what almost all of the world religions actually are.
I might only add that rationality itself is in fact... well... if not delusion then at least an illusion.
We're not perfect robots with a built in set of laws. We are faulty organic beings. Very faulty.
It's just that unlike other organic beings on this planet, we are in position to be aware of some of those faults. So that we can fix them or avoid them.
But we're still not "rational". No creature built around a reward system can be rational.
And if it could be it would be soooooooo boring.
...and maybe even distorting the truth, but I'm guessing you picked those "facts" from Christians running to the argument of "...but that's the OLD testament".
Which is bullshit.
New testament is ATTACHED to the old and based on it - it does not supersede it. They're in the same fucking book.
And just go ask any priest (or Christian you're not currently debating) if Adam, Moses, king David and the rest of the lot are a part of the teaching of Christianity.
They don't avoid a single thing. They embrace it.
Even this Slashdot topic is about a guy who's betting that everything in Genesis is true.
For fuck's sake, the entirety of Christianity is BASED on Jesus being of Davidic bloodline - through Joseph who (HA!) is not really his father.
Immaculate conception bitches! It means what WE WANT IT TO MEAN!
Maternal what now? Ancestral line who?
Which part of "bitches! It means what WE WANT IT TO MEAN!" did you not understand?
Maternal line is carried on through the father who is not his real father cause that makes Abraham his ancestor.
Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think he is? HE'S THE GOD DAMN MESSIAH!
And please don't give me that crap about Bible/Christianity being less violent, misogynist or pedophilic.
You don't need to go further than numbers 31:7-31:19 to fix that:
7They did battle against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed every male. 8They killed the kings of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, in addition to others who were slain by them; and they also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. 10All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, 11but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animals. 12Then they brought the captives and the booty and the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the Israelites, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp. 14Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15Moses said to them, âHave you allowed all the women to live? 16These women here, on Balaamâ(TM)s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Kill ALL the men, take all their possessions and take their wives and children as slaves? Fuck THAT shit!
Moses says fuck slaves!
Kill ALL those women, and all the boys... but keep the virgin girls as sex slaves.
Voices told him that's what should be done... I mean God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
And there's plenty more where that came from.
And while one COULD even argue that Islam is a more peaceful religion - that too would be bullshit as it accepts and builds on both the old and the new testament.
Same prophets, same stories, same god - they only wrap it in a new cover and add a chapter or two more.
Abraham 3.11 for Workgroups.
Though, you gotta give it to them for at least making all of those messiahs just mortal men instead of "sons of God", leaving the "Most Arrogant Religion Ever" medal for the Christians.
Though there ARE contenders out there for
...and provable. Regardless of one's personal beliefs and inclinations. There are no "truths".
There is A truth and various levels of knowledge and understanding of it. And then there are delusions.
Like faith.
And regardless of the number of fans a particular delusion has, it can never become the truth.
BTW, which Gods where you speaking of in your signature....
Why, mythological ones. What other kind is there? Rhetorical question.
Threat to who or what?
Other religions? Why? Shouldn't their faith protect those who believe from Islamic influence? It's not a disease.
Atheists? How? They don't believe in that mumbo-jumbo anyway?
I'm having a feeling that by "Islam" you actually mean something else. Something more along the lines of "them people" as opposed to "us".
BTW... that phrase... "current threat"? That kinda means now, as opposed to some other time.
Islam was just fine and perfectly ignorable a decade or two ago.
Heck... It was even favorable, compared to godless commie bastards.
You know... back when the THEN "current political situation" was more agreeable to it.
You're trying to explain that he is more of The God if he has a fancier name.
I am asking, why does an omnipotent creator of all existence need any of that charade?
Shouldn't his The God status be self-evident because he simply IS that which he claims to be?
You're missing the point.
What does an omnipotent creator of all existence need with a title?
If he is such as it is claimed, wouldn't every single of his traits be self-evident in every aspect of such a creature - including the name?
Wouldn't the name itself be... magical?
Also, wouldn't any other approximation of the name other than the magical one be a blasphemy?
Which brings us again to what does a God care about blasphemy?
Is he perhaps insecure about his own godhood?
Does he have ego problems, that need regular stroking through prayer and worship?
Not very omnipotent any of it...
The TARDIS.
I just wanted to ask a question. What does God need with a title?
Had he expressed hatred or prejudice based on their religion, like the AC above did with Islam...
Fuck Christianity. The only thing it has going for it is that it's not quite as evil as Islam.
...that would be bigotry.
You know... picking A religion as being "more evil" based on current political situation, when every single flavor of Abrahamic religion has uncountable crimes to answer for, and those others aren't much different either.
Pointing out that all brands of Christianity are the same fairytale (only told a bit differently) is just telling the truth.
Just like pointing out that all religions are evil as they teach the people to build their view of reality based on a delusion - basically, inducing billions with cognitive dissonance bordering on insanity.
Meanwhile, staying politically correct and letting them carry on with their delusion without at least pointing out the most glaring flaws in it - that would be hypocrisy.
Also, infliction of harm through inaction.
It's "wiretap authorization". And more...
From the ruling:
The technique sought to be authorized here is not the substantive equivalent of a wiretap authorization. On the facts of this case, a wiretap authorization alone would not allow the police to obtain the information that Telus was required to provide under the general warrant. Three separate authorizations would be required in order to provide the police with the means to access the information provided to them under the general warrant. Therefore, even if one were to accept reading into s. 487.01(1)(c) a âoesubstantive equivalencyâ test, neither the facts nor the law would support its application in this case.
I.e. What they were asking for was not covered by a single type of warrant. They would need three different authorizations for all that.
The conditions for issuing a production order are similar to those for a search warrant. The issuing justice or judge must be satisfied by information on oath that an offence has been or is suspected to have been committed, the documents or data will afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence and that the person to whom the order is directed has possession or control of the documents or data (s. 487.012(3)). In addition, the person to whom the order is directed cannot be a person under investigation (s. 487.012(1)).
unlike search warrants and production orders that may be issued by judges or justices of the peace, general warrants may only be issued by judges (s. 487.01(1)). Second, âoethe judge [must be] satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the warrantâ (s. 487.01(1)(b)). Third, a general warrant must âoecontain such terms and conditions as the judge considers advisable to ensure that the search or seizure authorized by the warrant is reasonable in the circumstancesâ (s. 487.01(3)). Fourth, a general warrant may be issued only if âoethere is no other provision . . . that would provide for a warrant, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be doneâ (s. 487.01(1)(c)). In other words, a general warrant may not be used to authorize a âoetechnique, procedure or device to be used or . . . thing to be doneâ if there are other provisions in the Code (or elsewhere) that could authorize it.
An authorization to intercept private communications under Part VI of the Code allows police to receive messages as they are being sent or received by subscribers. These sorts of authorizations are subject to even more strict conditions than those which apply to general warrants. They may only be issued by a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction. The Attorney General, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or a specially designated agent must bring the application (s. 185(1)). There are specific and detailed provisions relating to what must be placed before the judge. The issuing judge must be satisfied not only that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the authorization but also that the so-called âoeinvestigative necessityâ test has been met (s. 186(1)). This means that the judge must be satisfied that âoeother investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative proceduresâ (s. 186(1)). The authorization may generally not be valid for more that 60 days (s. 186(4)(e)) and there are notice and reporting requirements (s. 196).
In short, they'd need to "rubberstamp" the Attorney General or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
The thing to remember is that the US is a much larger country. This is in terms of population. For that reason, there are likely to be more extremes in the US, just as a numerical property of a larger population.
The grandparent poster meant "extremes" as in "people who lean towards extreme positions on some scale".
The actual word he was looking for is "extremists".
And yes, a larger population would have a greater number of extremists - all other things being equal.
Which they are kinda not.
Total number of extremists in a given population is a function of the percentage of their prevalence in said population and the size of that very same population.
2 million gingers in a country of 200 million here they represent 1% of population, is not the same situation as 2 million gingers in a country of 4 million where they are 50% of population.
It's a sandal!
Most of them, especially the cheap P&S or cell phone cameras that people would actually be likely to have on them, have a hard time picking up the stars too, even though they're plainly visible to anybody who bothers to look.
Well, besides those shots not being taken by a "cheap P&S or cell phone", and the photo where you actually see the lights being clearly overexposed or photoshopped to make the lights visible (the entire sky is glowing from the photo-manipulation) - I was asking has anyone ACTUALLY seen that stunt, live.
Not, if it would be visible, perhaps, maybe, at certain conditions, with binoculars, from a certain angle, if you are 7 feet tall, standing on a hill... whatever.
Has anyone actually witnessed it take place?
Cause to me... that looks like a failed performance.
Cause, if you gotta zoom in and overexpose and whatnot just so the camera would catch that light (as opposed to a human eyeball with no zoom capability, and highly limited night vision) - they could have just as well done the whole thing on a computer, and upload that to youtube instead.
Then again, quadcopters equipped with invisible lights, performing for an audience of none, WOULD BE a publicity stunt very in the spirit of the movie.
All hype, no substance and no actual relation to the established canon or plot.
Cause, they look barely visible at 1080p, with or without the background lights.
Or your credit card to be issued by a bank situated in the USA.
"You f*cking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.
You might wanna check that quote again, seeing how Fray "wrote a letter to Clinton begging her forgiveness for saying things about her without factual foundation" - i.e. he apologized for LYING.
http://amarillo.com/stories/071900/usn_142-3950.shtml
Clinton accuser wants to make amends
Posted: Wednesday, July 19, 2000
The Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) - The man who is accusing Hillary Rodham Clinton of using an ethnic slur against him during an argument in 1974 has a colorful past.
Paul Fray can no longer practice law because someone paid him to alter a court document, and he surrendered his law license to the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1980.
He suffered a cerebral hemorrhage that led to seizures, addiction to prescription pain killers, erratic behavior and memory loss, according to court records.
He wrote a letter to Clinton begging her forgiveness for saying things about her without factual foundation.
On Tuesday, Fray said he'd like to meet with Clinton and resolve the controversy about his accusation, which has surfaced in a new book this week in the midst of her Senate campaign.
"This matter will go away," he told the Fox News Channel. "I don't want to adversely affect her race."
Fray did not return several calls from The Associated Press.
Fray's accusation about the slur has rocked the first lady's campaign and become fodder for Web sites, newspaper headlines and cable TV news shows.
Clinton unequivocally denied calling him a "Jew b---' during an emotional news conference Sunday in the garden of her Westchester home. The president phoned a New York Daily News managing editor and called the accusation "crap."
Fray claims that Hillary Clinton made the comment in Fayetteville, Ark., on the night that Bill Clinton lost a Congressional election. Fray had worked on the campaign.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the first lady when he was running for Senate against her before dropping out of the race, spoke in her defense Tuesday.
"What she did say or didn't say 26 years ago, I can't imagine it has any relevance today," he said.
I'd recheck those other sources too, if I was you.
I'm not certain about the whole immoral thing. Morality is such a fickle, societal, arbitrary thing, you know?
I'd rather say that ANY elitism is simply silly and pointless.
An "elite" is just a group of people who take pride in keeping their pissing contest medals shiny and prominently displayed on their chests.
Not just a serial killer!
Why is everyone only focusing on his crimes and not on his love or how he was a capable businessman?
Compared to say... Richard Nixon, he is barely guilty of anything!
And he even dressed up like a clown to entertain sick children!
Won't somebody please think of the children!?
He should get a harley.
A Harley? Nah man, Bush hasn't been the president since like... 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/11/facebook-users-reveal-intimate-secrets