There used to be strong religious taboos and social morays that kept people faithful, but after the sexual revolution of the 60s and cheap and effective birth control, the gloves are now pretty much off.
...and the youngins used to respect their elders.
Giacomo Casanova was a real guy, you know? And the fact that the ten commandments have to mention infidelity TWICE, while murder only once, indicates how much of that was going around (and kept going around) WAY before "the 60s".
Actually, there are some excellent articles on primate behavior that suggest there are many reasons for infidelity among both sexes. Its not to hard to figure out why women are sneakier... think people, men outweigh women by 50% or more and have twice the muscle mass. If your spouse can kill you with their bare hands,you tend to unconsciously avoid circumstances where that behavior might be expressed. Duh! Many women are taught from an early age to marry a good provider, but when Mr. Oh My Gawd shows up... stuff happens.
Why go down to the biological level or even psychological level? Women ARE better at social interaction. That's it. Human relationships (including love triangles, rectangles etc.) are literally exactly that - any relationship between two or more individuals. End of story.
One time a technological solution and an army of tech savvy individuals would actually be able to fix a real world problem in a simple and elegant way - you all either succumb to provocations of religious haters of one kind or another, or you go on professing your own religious and cultural hatred generalizing across the board.
Nearly 500 comments, and maybe one or two that actually mention tech. Everything else being one kind of hating or the other and people enabling those haters by giving credence to their posts through replies and arguing with them.
Guys! It's a fucking scientific blog being hacked by a bunch of fucktard script kiddies. WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT KIND OF BOOK OR FLAG THEY ARE WAIVING IN THE AIR?!!!
To quote the summary:
How do we route around damage like this?"
It's a tech problem. You are supposed to be the tech guys.
In all these years, this is the first time I'm kind of ashamed for being a part of this community. Kinda getting a vibe as if it's 1930's and I'm with a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals in some public drinking place, and everyone is arguing about pros and cons of German, Italian and Japanese railway systems.
Probably to reduce the number of entries consisting only of a repackaged oximeter and a colorful video, going around and pillaging academic and other resources, taking up testing time and resources (they will need people with confirmed diagnoses to test the solutions on) and generally devaluing the reputation of the contest.
Basically, if you can't jump on this when the registration is only $5000, or can't accumulate $25000 later - you're probably not a serious contestant but a cook with a "3kord-R" sticker pasted on your TV remote. Or a fraud, looking for gullible investors.
Named Makeb, the planet will be launched as part of the new Rise of the Hutt Cartel pack and will be the only place in the game where players can select "flirtatious" dialogue options with characters of the same gender.
Go to Makeb, bekaM gay.*
*There's a campaign slogan for Makeb tourist board in there somewhere. Maybe a transparent postcard with Makeb printed on one side, read as bekaM from the other...
In the case of the 'vortex' device you link to, the argument is essentially that ~$1 worth of stamped metal could markedly improve the performance and fuel economy of most vehicles without other notable modifications. Short of a full-scale Petroleum-industrial-complex coverup, why aren't these things being bolted on at the factory?
Because Company/Lobby X paid them $$$ NOT to include thingamajig that would save you money by not buying the product X or by buying less of it - making less money for the Company X.
The discovery was made after messages were sent to newspapers and broadcasters, with the sender claiming details of a computer virus were strapped to a cat living on an island near Tokyo.
Trying to make us think that a dog wrote that. Even referring to a human as your "master". Dogs are not capable of conjuring such a deceitful line of thought without breaking into praise of balls, either organic or rubber ones. Several times.
Japan's well-resourced National Police Agency (NPA) was embarrassed after it emerged officers had extracted "confessions" from four people who had nothing to do with the emails.
TFA does not mention the color of confessors' skin.
The Red Army was 100% armed citizenry, and they were fighting professional troops (virtually all officers were aristocrats, and they fought for the White Army.) The armed peasants won.
Coming out of a 4-year war they were less "armed peasants" than the Allied forces in WWII were "armed farmers".
Revolution took place in 1917 - after years of fighting in WWI devastated their army and the economy. That provided both a tired and disgruntled military and a plentiful number of civilians familiar with the use of guns. 19 million went to war - by 1917, 2 million deserted, 1.8 million were killed, 5 million were wounded and 2 more million were prisoners of war. The Red Guard itself was formed from factory workers, soldiers and sailors - look up the role of the cruiser Aurora in the October Revolution.
Meanwhile, WWI is still ongoing. Not being an actual, formally trained, centrally commanded army, the Red Guard militia is torn to pieces by the German army. So, while signing a treaty with the Germans, Soviets formed the Red Army - and started recruiting. Now the peasants came - but not directly to battle the Whites. Instead they went to recruitment centers, to be properly trained.
Those "peasants" you speak of were trained recruits, lead by experienced veterans, united under one command - fighting a loose confederation of warlords without central command, leadership or united political goal.
The most important criticism, in my opinion, is that it hides scandals:
It's not just the images. They are doing it across the board. And in a way that makes me feel rather uncomfortable when thinking what else is possibly hidden from search results now.
It's by chance that yesterday someone in one of my online social circles decided to struck up a conversation regarding a recent ban on bestiality in Germany and how it was all, quote: "wtf?". Apparently, there's been no law against it since 1969.
Now... The tricky part starts rearing it's ugly head when you try to find out why was it so. Turn on "safe search" and google bestiality laws - first result is the Wikipedia page ON LAW. You know... what is a law. Google bestiality or zoofilia - and they don't exist.
But the real fun part comes when you try to figure out WHY was there no law against bestiality since 1969. Then you find out that such things are usually covered under sodomy laws, as it is considered an "unnatural act" - just like gay, anal and oral sex. BTW... Sodomy also does not exist in the "safe search land".
And knowing that the new, safer, better, doubleplusgood search hides "explicit" content even when turned off (google a name of a well known porn star on google.com and on google.ca with "safe search" turned off) - one must wonder what else is deemed unnatural or explicit enough to be hidden or sanitized. Are instances of reports on sexual crimes now being hidden from google search results? I don't know. Maybe. Can't be sure anymore.
Promotion of traditional marriage and opposition to sex outside of marriage
Support for a traditional role for women in the family.
Opposition to same-sex marriage
Support for complementarianism[6][7][8]
Opposition to legalized induced abortion
Support for abstinence education
Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation
Page 25: Any effort to address global social problems must be firmly placed within a context of respect for the fundamental social institutions of marriage and family. We reject any treaty or convention that would contradict these values. For that reason, we support protecting the rights of families in international programs and oppose funding organizations involved in abortion.
Page 81: Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.
Page 84: We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendmentâ(TM)s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.
It doesn't alter that individual's genetic predisposition toward intelligence. By allowing the individual to more successfully reproduce, the makup of the population changes. Uh oh...
Two, you are assuming a "spherical" population. There are many, MANY other factors to "successful breeding" of humans beyond our food intake or some other factor that might be primary if we were talking about worms or mice. Cultural barriers, educational barriers, various social customs, mating rituals such as dancing... We are FAR more than just our genes.
So imagine a society (culture, continent, race, species, country, whatever...) that has never had welfare. You add welfare. There is a sudden initial increase in intelligence, followed by a slow decline. Some ballpark estimates for the timescale would be 1 to 3 generations (15 to 150 years) for the increase, and 2 or more for the decrease.
Then, your timescale is messed up on several levels. A generation is ~25 years, slowly moving towards 30. Again, we are not mice. The better off we are economically, the less babies we are likely to produce. It's not paradoxical at all when you take into account that we are NOT merely machines for gene-reproduction. Honest. We ARE more.
So, that 15-year lower limit is not valid for a society that is moving up in intelligence and economy. And even in a mice-like model of "breeding" 150 years would be 10 generations, not 3.
So if we are actually talking ballparked 2-3 generations + 2 more - that's 125-150 years. TODAY, not in the future, to-day - that means that the kids being born today will get to see their great-grandchildren being a little dumber than their respective parents. That's not a trend - that's merely a fluctuation.
And that's IF there is a decrease. Also, it again assumes a steady, measurable growth of economic factors and family's intelligence. No one ever marries a dumb blond or a successful businessman or a Nobel prize winner or whatever...
Then, in general, you seem to be assuming that intelligence levels in a society are a permanently growing function and that there is some "greater gain" awaiting us later down the road. Which simply is not true. At least from the genetic point of view. Sooner or later we WILL hit that plateau where we, as a species, will reach the limits of our "genetic heritage".
Thing is, you can pretty much bet that the plateau will be reached looooong before that on the right side of the curve - while most of he population will be far below. Always. It has to. Unless we start breeding and cloning only "the worthy specimens".
So, reaching our "genetic potential" gets us almost nowhere.
What society (you know... the majority of the curve) benefits the most from, is rising of the AVERAGE intelligence. What is the most beneficial way to do that? Increase the lower, left, side of the curve. Make those millions and billions of "dumb" kids a little smarter and more productive.
Besides, those guys on the other side of the curve are useless anyway without a good education program - which you get from a society that has a good general education program - which you only get from a society that cares equally for all its members - which means social programs - which means "welfare".
Meanwhile, those 2-3 generations mentioned above would be happening in OUR future. Future where we will reach a number of 9 billion humans around 2050 - in less than 2 generations. Future of another century of technologi
Hmm... It could be either source-envy - cause my post actually has sources for my claims, OR it could be my suggestion that welfare system is actually beneficial to the society?
Naaah... It's probably simply low reading comprehension by moderators. I mean, yeah... sure. Human intelligence peaked some 2-6 millennia ago after all.
Dude... You do realize that you reaching for the same all-encompassing generalizations as those people you are condemning? Granted, you did weasel in a few concessions at some places (almost no muslims, Arab Muslim obsession) but still, you are aware you're accepting the rules of the game imposed on you by those very people you are condemning? They make up a "game of hatin" and you jump right in. Let's see who can hate more people the most. Wo-hoo!
Also, are you seriously referencing a tale from 14 centuries ago, of questionable veracity, and then finding joy in harm supposedly done to a person of disputable and potentially non-existent historicity?
Dude! That's almost like cheering when the "bad guy gets it" while watching a cartoon. Only... you know... more harmful to you as I suppose that you're not going to build up your understanding of the world around what happens on, say, Smurfs. You only hurt yourself by hatin.
As for "How else do you explain..." - how about "Those are extremist assholes." Or better yet "ignorant extremist assholes". Seems to me that it fits the description perfectly, and it doesn't require reaching for all-encompassing generalizations that put entire religious, ethnic, national etc. etc. groups into same bag.
You know... Like saying "All Jews are... something-something." Or "All Trinidadians are... something-something."
Don't forget that in the distant past, people with a very low IQ were at enough of a competitive disadvantage that they were much more likely to qualify for a Darwin Award. Today, they just get welfare (or whatever it is called in other countries) and keep having kids.
You do realize that those "welfare kids", by your own admission of them living better than "in the distant past" have a more favorable environment than those "kids of the past", while at the same time genetics tends to correlate around "fuck all" for all but identical twins?
Meaning that, not only are those "low IQ" getting smarter on welfare, it also doesn't matter much how smart (or not) your dad (or mom) was. Clearly, we need more welfare. And it should include more and better education.
Hmm... That's a rather strange sentiment for Anonymous Cowards here on Slashdot.
Israel did not ask to be attacked by their neighbors in 48, 68, and 73.
'68?
Did you perhaps mean 1967? You know... as in the War of Attrition, which was continuance of the Six-Day War, which was started by Israel, in which they've taken a shitload of land, from Jordan, Syria and Egypt - causing the War of Attrition AND the Yom Kippur War of 1973?
Also, you ARE aware that the attack of 1948 started as a civil war, arising from Jewish-Arab conflicts from way back when the region was under the British rule?
The Jews did not ask to be labeled "Apes" and "Pigs" in the 7th century Mein Kampf read every day by Muslims worldwide.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa Nelly! Did you actually read that line in Qur'an somewhere?
Cause... For one thing, that language there sounds A LOT like some claims I've seen in some "educational videos" about Jews. Only, the claim was how Jewish holy scripture claims that all non-Jews were cattle etc. And the video originated from a site where people have a strange fetish for Gothic Script fonts and Hugo Boss clothing.
Naturally, Googling for those passages I found no such claims in actual Jewish scripture (sorry, don't recall what part of Tanakh was misquoted), and where there was SOME similarity to the claims in the video it was stretched and distorted beyond recognition so it would fit that Gothic Script mold.
For the other thing... Applying the same principle to your statement and Qur'an, again... I found no such quote. Searching for Jews, there appear to be some lines mentioning Jews in various brackets, which may sound inflammatory if one goes there looking for a fight - until you click on the full text and find no mention of Jews in the actual text.
It's almost as if someone was INTERPRETING JEWS into those lines, in a rather informatory way. Like when they were designing the site. Hmm... And what's even funnier, all those lines found there that do mention Jews specifically, are from contemporary translations. 20th century and newer. Hmm...
THERE IS a mention of apes and pigs though.
Say, "O People of the Scripture, do you resent us except [for the fact] that we have believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed before and because most of you are defiantly disobedient?"
Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way."
Now... one might bend and stretch those words and say that they refer to Jews and Jews alone and that they are being called "apes and pigs".
Or... One might take it at face value and say that those lines recognize prior scripture (Jewish and Christian), addresses those followers of such scripture who have something against Muslims solely on account of them being Muslim, and then slyly evokes Pascal's Wager against those haters - cause we all know how god is known for doing nasty shit to non-believers.
Just because two people are fighting and have been at it for a long time does not mean both sides are guilty. Sometimes there is an aggressor and a victim.
If the conflict lasts for two or more generations, and there are people from those generations killed fighting on both sides - yes, they are both guilty.
It no longer matters who started it first. All it matters is who will have the balls to end it peacefully instead of making the next generation a slave of conflict started generations ago.
as I was merely commenting on when it started being used for this purpose.
Oh, come on. That's bullshit and you know it.
The government introduced a law some time ago against inciting religious hatred and so forth to prevent people burning Korans and starting a riot amongst muslims in the UK as a result.
The problem is then that some of the Islamic extremists in the UK started burning things like poppies on remembrance day, and burning the British flag and so forth. Obviously a lot of people were pissed off at the hypocrisy of this, so the Police then started enforcing the law against this sort of burning too.
You started with the presupposition that the law it all revolves around is about inciting religious hatred, basing THAT supposition on your presupposition of "The Battle of West & Islam". Nothing more. Then when it is pointed out to you that the law used in this case NEVER had to do with ANYTHING religious, you try dodging it by saying you were "merely commenting on when it started being used for this purpose".
And not just that, you are setting up your argument as if protection of one group from A has somehow caused that group to commit B.
The government introduced a law... against A to prevent a riot amongst group 1. The problem is then that some from the group 1 started doing B and so forth.
Do you see the non sequitur there?
There is no Grand BattleTM of X and Y in this case. You brought the Great BattleTM cause and effect line of reasoning to the table - based on your idea that there has to be a Great BattleTM.
What there is - is a bad law and a dick (or a troll) cop, bumping into each other and making this mess.
You do realise that the problem is that you've read far more hatred into my statement than is actually there? are you suggesting the West hasn't had a battle to get to grips with the issues raised by the Islamic faith and the culture surrounding it? Are you seriously suggesting that as the world has become globalised and the West has become more multicultural that everything has gone perfectly?
If you believe that you're so far lost in the world of political correctness in pretending there aren't issues that you've clearly lost all sight of the real world.... Were you just looking for a fight for the sake of it, or what? I think your mistake may have been in deciding to enforce some kind of political correctness where it made no sense to.
And multiple straw men! YAY!
I'm a live and let live type of person, I don't really like religion and I think it's foolish to believe in such tosh nowadays, but if people want to then that's their choice. I'm not going to close my eyes, cover my ears, and pretend that there isn't a conflict of ideologies going on between the west and Islam however.
Actually, you don't really seem to be. Live and let live type of person. But I have a sense that you would like to be, only you're not there yet. Which is a great ideal to strive to, don't get me wrong. It's just...
You ARE clearly still clinging to some presuppositions, which you may have even osmotically picked up along the way but haven't gotten around to question yet. You're probably not even consciously generalizing up to a point where you have two generalizations of global proportions - and then deciding that since some specific parts of one generalization were at some point in conflict with some specific parts of the other generalization - both generalizations you created clearly are in conflict.
The fact that you've crammed so much in both of your generalizations and decided that they
Use of the law for that sort of thing has most definitely come about in response to the religious hatred laws because it specifically came about when there was a showdown between the EDL and the "Muslims against crusades" group:
Muslims against crusades was founded in 2010. The burning poppies arrest was made "under section 127 of the Communications Act" - from 2003.
Which basically states that one could be arrested for trolling. Also, for making shit up on the internets.
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, heâ" (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, (b)causes such a message to be sent; or (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
No mention of burning symbols, religious or not.
Under such a law, YOU TOO could also end up in jail for up to 6 months, because of the following statement:
This is in part, part of the West's battle with Islam, and is not the first time this has been done.
See... you just generalized an entire hemisphere of this planet of ours and several dozens of cultures and civilizations, an entire family of religions and the followers of all those religious flavors - and then you've put them on opposing sides of a statement by which you claim that those sides are in a "battle" with each other. You do realize that all those generalizations make your statement either a phenomenal pile of bullshit - or a conscious lie. I.e. "a message that you know to be false".
And considering that barring, maybe, Chinese you've managed to include a grater part of the population of the planet into your generalizations - it is just a matter of statistics for your generalizations to offend SOMEBODY. I.e. Unless you want to argue some... "inability to comprehend" on your part - you wrote all that, ON the internets, to purposefully cause "inconvenience or needless anxiety to another".
Applying it that way wouldn't really be "being applied consistently and fairly" - now, would it? On a positive side, it should cause all those annoying penis enlargement advertisements on the internets to disappear forever.
I don't blame the police, they're simply enforcing the law fairly and making it clear that it's a two way street.
Actually, THAT is exactly who you should blame. Along with those who created such a law.
It is a poorly written, overgeneralized law which tries to regulate and/or predict the effect of ANYTHING transmitted by "public electronic communications network" - on some imaginary "offended person". I.e. It's fucking nonsense. Police officer who would make an arrest under such a law is either deliberately trolling the judicial system, or is making an arrest out of spite.
The problem is that in this case, the law shouldn't exist at all whether it's for the Koran, a flag, or a poppy, but fundamentally it's got to be one or the other, either you can burn poppies, flags, and Korans, or you can burn none of them.
Well... You're half-right there. In theory, there should be no such law. In theory, we should all be "brothers and sisters of humanity" to each other.
Then again, we live in a world of "extremists or just general dicks", who's aim is to cause emotional harm and to bully people. As such, if we want such cases to be handled in civilized fashion by the representatives of a democratically elected government, instead of in an "eye for an eye" fashion - then we need SOME laws and regulations to handle such cases. But they need to be better written. And all sides - possible future offenders, those offended and the police should be both educated
Slashdot Mirror
There used to be strong religious taboos and social morays that kept people faithful, but after the sexual revolution of the 60s and cheap and effective birth control, the gloves are now pretty much off.
...and the youngins used to respect their elders.
Giacomo Casanova was a real guy, you know?
And the fact that the ten commandments have to mention infidelity TWICE, while murder only once, indicates how much of that was going around (and kept going around) WAY before "the 60s".
Actually, there are some excellent articles on primate behavior that suggest there are many reasons for infidelity among both sexes. Its not to hard to figure out why women are sneakier... think people, men outweigh women by 50% or more and have twice the muscle mass. If your spouse can kill you with their bare hands,you tend to unconsciously avoid circumstances where that behavior might be expressed. Duh! Many women are taught from an early age to marry a good provider, but when Mr. Oh My Gawd shows up... stuff happens.
Why go down to the biological level or even psychological level? Women ARE better at social interaction. That's it.
Human relationships (including love triangles, rectangles etc.) are literally exactly that - any relationship between two or more individuals.
End of story.
One time a technological solution and an army of tech savvy individuals would actually be able to fix a real world problem in a simple and elegant way - you all either succumb to provocations of religious haters of one kind or another, or you go on professing your own religious and cultural hatred generalizing across the board.
Nearly 500 comments, and maybe one or two that actually mention tech.
Everything else being one kind of hating or the other and people enabling those haters by giving credence to their posts through replies and arguing with them.
Guys!
It's a fucking scientific blog being hacked by a bunch of fucktard script kiddies.
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT KIND OF BOOK OR FLAG THEY ARE WAIVING IN THE AIR?!!!
To quote the summary:
How do we route around damage like this?"
It's a tech problem. You are supposed to be the tech guys.
In all these years, this is the first time I'm kind of ashamed for being a part of this community.
Kinda getting a vibe as if it's 1930's and I'm with a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals in some public drinking place, and everyone is arguing about pros and cons of German, Italian and Japanese railway systems.
That's a terrible age to be a grumpy old man.
since the President doesn't have that power to begin with.
Why?
Cause his birth certificate does not mention his midi-chlorian count?
Probably to reduce the number of entries consisting only of a repackaged oximeter and a colorful video, going around and pillaging academic and other resources, taking up testing time and resources (they will need people with confirmed diagnoses to test the solutions on) and generally devaluing the reputation of the contest.
Basically, if you can't jump on this when the registration is only $5000, or can't accumulate $25000 later - you're probably not a serious contestant but a cook with a "3kord-R" sticker pasted on your TV remote.
Or a fraud, looking for gullible investors.
Named Makeb, the planet will be launched as part of the new Rise of the Hutt Cartel pack and will be the only place in the game where players can select "flirtatious" dialogue options with characters of the same gender.
Go to Makeb, bekaM gay.*
*There's a campaign slogan for Makeb tourist board in there somewhere.
Maybe a transparent postcard with Makeb printed on one side, read as bekaM from the other...
In the case of the 'vortex' device you link to, the argument is essentially that ~$1 worth of stamped metal could markedly improve the performance and fuel economy of most vehicles without other notable modifications. Short of a full-scale Petroleum-industrial-complex coverup, why aren't these things being bolted on at the factory?
Because Company/Lobby X paid them $$$ NOT to include thingamajig that would save you money by not buying the product X or by buying less of it - making less money for the Company X.
It's all a part of the plan.
...by the hacker in question.
The discovery was made after messages were sent to newspapers and broadcasters, with the sender claiming details of a computer virus were strapped to a cat living on an island near Tokyo.
Wrong goddamn prefecture, wrong goddamn island.
Hopefully, next time he will strap the memory card to a rabbit - on the correct island for that.
Trying to make us think that a dog wrote that. Even referring to a human as your "master".
Dogs are not capable of conjuring such a deceitful line of thought without breaking into praise of balls, either organic or rubber ones. Several times.
From TFA:
Japan's well-resourced National Police Agency (NPA) was embarrassed after it emerged officers had extracted "confessions" from four people who had nothing to do with the emails.
TFA does not mention the color of confessors' skin.
Are unemployment payouts really 4 times higher now than in 2001? Whats going on?
It's $520 billion for the last 5 years, making the average per year cost $104 billion.
And the numbers are shrinking.
In December of 2011 accumulated costs were $434 billion. Making 2012 $18 billion below average.
The Red Army was 100% armed citizenry, and they were fighting professional troops (virtually all officers were aristocrats, and they fought for the White Army.) The armed peasants won.
Coming out of a 4-year war they were less "armed peasants" than the Allied forces in WWII were "armed farmers".
Revolution took place in 1917 - after years of fighting in WWI devastated their army and the economy.
That provided both a tired and disgruntled military and a plentiful number of civilians familiar with the use of guns.
19 million went to war - by 1917, 2 million deserted, 1.8 million were killed, 5 million were wounded and 2 more million were prisoners of war.
The Red Guard itself was formed from factory workers, soldiers and sailors - look up the role of the cruiser Aurora in the October Revolution.
Meanwhile, WWI is still ongoing.
Not being an actual, formally trained, centrally commanded army, the Red Guard militia is torn to pieces by the German army.
So, while signing a treaty with the Germans, Soviets formed the Red Army - and started recruiting.
Now the peasants came - but not directly to battle the Whites.
Instead they went to recruitment centers, to be properly trained.
Those "peasants" you speak of were trained recruits, lead by experienced veterans, united under one command - fighting a loose confederation of warlords without central command, leadership or united political goal.
Adam Savage talks there about making a GRAIL DIARY belonging to Henry Walton Jones, Sr. - NOT the diary of Henry Walton "Indiana" Jones, Jr.
The most important criticism, in my opinion, is that it hides scandals:
It's not just the images. They are doing it across the board.
And in a way that makes me feel rather uncomfortable when thinking what else is possibly hidden from search results now.
It's by chance that yesterday someone in one of my online social circles decided to struck up a conversation regarding a recent ban on bestiality in Germany and how it was all, quote: "wtf?".
Apparently, there's been no law against it since 1969.
Now... The tricky part starts rearing it's ugly head when you try to find out why was it so.
Turn on "safe search" and google bestiality laws - first result is the Wikipedia page ON LAW. You know... what is a law. Google bestiality or zoofilia - and they don't exist.
But the real fun part comes when you try to figure out WHY was there no law against bestiality since 1969.
Then you find out that such things are usually covered under sodomy laws, as it is considered an "unnatural act" - just like gay, anal and oral sex.
BTW... Sodomy also does not exist in the "safe search land".
And knowing that the new, safer, better, doubleplusgood search hides "explicit" content even when turned off (google a name of a well known porn star on google.com and on google.ca with "safe search" turned off) - one must wonder what else is deemed unnatural or explicit enough to be hidden or sanitized.
Are instances of reports on sexual crimes now being hidden from google search results?
I don't know. Maybe. Can't be sure anymore.
I meant to moderate it "Overrated".
http://www.securityweek.com/authors/tal-beery
They file it under "family values":
Promotion of traditional marriage and opposition to sex outside of marriage
Support for a traditional role for women in the family.
Opposition to same-sex marriage
Support for complementarianism[6][7][8]
Opposition to legalized induced abortion
Support for abstinence education
Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation
As for specifically being against it:
2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/Conventions/RNC-2004platform.pdf
Page 25:
Any effort to address global social problems must be firmly placed within a context of respect for the fundamental social institutions of marriage and family. We reject any treaty or convention that would contradict these values. For that reason, we support protecting the rights of families in international programs and oppose funding organizations involved in abortion.
Page 81:
Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.
Page 84:
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendmentâ(TM)s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.
It doesn't alter that individual's genetic predisposition toward intelligence. By allowing the individual to more successfully reproduce, the makup of the population changes. Uh oh...
Two assumptions there.
One, that genetic predisposition towards anything is a fixed value. It's not. Stress and stress-relief have a genetic impact.
Two, you are assuming a "spherical" population.
There are many, MANY other factors to "successful breeding" of humans beyond our food intake or some other factor that might be primary if we were talking about worms or mice.
Cultural barriers, educational barriers, various social customs, mating rituals such as dancing...
We are FAR more than just our genes.
So imagine a society (culture, continent, race, species, country, whatever...) that has never had welfare. You add welfare. There is a sudden initial increase in intelligence, followed by a slow decline. Some ballpark estimates for the timescale would be 1 to 3 generations (15 to 150 years) for the increase, and 2 or more for the decrease.
Then, your timescale is messed up on several levels.
A generation is ~25 years, slowly moving towards 30. Again, we are not mice. The better off we are economically, the less babies we are likely to produce.
It's not paradoxical at all when you take into account that we are NOT merely machines for gene-reproduction.
Honest. We ARE more.
So, that 15-year lower limit is not valid for a society that is moving up in intelligence and economy.
And even in a mice-like model of "breeding" 150 years would be 10 generations, not 3.
So if we are actually talking ballparked 2-3 generations + 2 more - that's 125-150 years.
TODAY, not in the future, to-day - that means that the kids being born today will get to see their great-grandchildren being a little dumber than their respective parents.
That's not a trend - that's merely a fluctuation.
And that's IF there is a decrease.
Also, it again assumes a steady, measurable growth of economic factors and family's intelligence.
No one ever marries a dumb blond or a successful businessman or a Nobel prize winner or whatever...
Then, in general, you seem to be assuming that intelligence levels in a society are a permanently growing function and that there is some "greater gain" awaiting us later down the road.
Which simply is not true. At least from the genetic point of view.
Sooner or later we WILL hit that plateau where we, as a species, will reach the limits of our "genetic heritage".
Thing is, you can pretty much bet that the plateau will be reached looooong before that on the right side of the curve - while most of he population will be far below. Always. It has to.
Unless we start breeding and cloning only "the worthy specimens".
So, reaching our "genetic potential" gets us almost nowhere.
What society (you know... the majority of the curve) benefits the most from, is rising of the AVERAGE intelligence.
What is the most beneficial way to do that? Increase the lower, left, side of the curve. Make those millions and billions of "dumb" kids a little smarter and more productive.
Besides, those guys on the other side of the curve are useless anyway without a good education program - which you get from a society that has a good general education program - which you only get from a society that cares equally for all its members - which means social programs - which means "welfare".
Meanwhile, those 2-3 generations mentioned above would be happening in OUR future.
Future where we will reach a number of 9 billion humans around 2050 - in less than 2 generations.
Future of another century of technologi
Hmm... It could be either source-envy - cause my post actually has sources for my claims, OR it could be my suggestion that welfare system is actually beneficial to the society?
Naaah... It's probably simply low reading comprehension by moderators. I mean, yeah... sure.
Human intelligence peaked some 2-6 millennia ago after all.
Dude...
You do realize that you reaching for the same all-encompassing generalizations as those people you are condemning?
Granted, you did weasel in a few concessions at some places (almost no muslims, Arab Muslim obsession) but still, you are aware you're accepting the rules of the game imposed on you by those very people you are condemning?
They make up a "game of hatin" and you jump right in. Let's see who can hate more people the most. Wo-hoo!
Also, are you seriously referencing a tale from 14 centuries ago, of questionable veracity, and then finding joy in harm supposedly done to a person of disputable and potentially non-existent historicity?
Dude! That's almost like cheering when the "bad guy gets it" while watching a cartoon.
Only... you know... more harmful to you as I suppose that you're not going to build up your understanding of the world around what happens on, say, Smurfs.
You only hurt yourself by hatin.
As for "How else do you explain..." - how about "Those are extremist assholes." Or better yet "ignorant extremist assholes".
Seems to me that it fits the description perfectly, and it doesn't require reaching for all-encompassing generalizations that put entire religious, ethnic, national etc. etc. groups into same bag.
You know... Like saying "All Jews are... something-something."
Or "All Trinidadians are... something-something."
Don't forget that in the distant past, people with a very low IQ were at enough of a competitive disadvantage that they were much more likely to qualify for a Darwin Award. Today, they just get welfare (or whatever it is called in other countries) and keep having kids.
You do realize that those "welfare kids", by your own admission of them living better than "in the distant past" have a more favorable environment than those "kids of the past", while at the same time genetics tends to correlate around "fuck all" for all but identical twins?
Meaning that, not only are those "low IQ" getting smarter on welfare, it also doesn't matter much how smart (or not) your dad (or mom) was.
Clearly, we need more welfare. And it should include more and better education.
Hmm... That's a rather strange sentiment for Anonymous Cowards here on Slashdot.
Israel did not ask to be attacked by their neighbors in 48, 68, and 73.
'68?
Did you perhaps mean 1967?
You know... as in the War of Attrition, which was continuance of the Six-Day War, which was started by Israel, in which they've taken a shitload of land, from Jordan, Syria and Egypt - causing the War of Attrition AND the Yom Kippur War of 1973?
Also, you ARE aware that the attack of 1948 started as a civil war, arising from Jewish-Arab conflicts from way back when the region was under the British rule?
The Jews did not ask to be labeled "Apes" and "Pigs" in the 7th century Mein Kampf read every day by Muslims worldwide.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa Nelly!
Did you actually read that line in Qur'an somewhere?
Cause... For one thing, that language there sounds A LOT like some claims I've seen in some "educational videos" about Jews.
Only, the claim was how Jewish holy scripture claims that all non-Jews were cattle etc.
And the video originated from a site where people have a strange fetish for Gothic Script fonts and Hugo Boss clothing.
Naturally, Googling for those passages I found no such claims in actual Jewish scripture (sorry, don't recall what part of Tanakh was misquoted), and where there was SOME similarity to the claims in the video it was stretched and distorted beyond recognition so it would fit that Gothic Script mold.
For the other thing...
Applying the same principle to your statement and Qur'an, again... I found no such quote.
Searching for Jews, there appear to be some lines mentioning Jews in various brackets, which may sound inflammatory if one goes there looking for a fight - until you click on the full text and find no mention of Jews in the actual text.
It's almost as if someone was INTERPRETING JEWS into those lines, in a rather informatory way.
Like when they were designing the site. Hmm...
And what's even funnier, all those lines found there that do mention Jews specifically, are from contemporary translations.
20th century and newer. Hmm...
THERE IS a mention of apes and pigs though.
Say, "O People of the Scripture, do you resent us except [for the fact] that we have believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed before and because most of you are defiantly disobedient?"
Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way."
Now... one might bend and stretch those words and say that they refer to Jews and Jews alone and that they are being called "apes and pigs".
Or... One might take it at face value and say that those lines recognize prior scripture (Jewish and Christian), addresses those followers of such scripture who have something against Muslims solely on account of them being Muslim, and then slyly evokes Pascal's Wager against those haters - cause we all know how god is known for doing nasty shit to non-believers.
Just because two people are fighting and have been at it for a long time does not mean both sides are guilty. Sometimes there is an aggressor and a victim.
If the conflict lasts for two or more generations, and there are people from those generations killed fighting on both sides - yes, they are both guilty.
It no longer matters who started it first.
All it matters is who will have the balls to end it peacefully instead of making the next generation a slave of conflict started generations ago.
as I was merely commenting on when it started being used for this purpose.
Oh, come on. That's bullshit and you know it.
The government introduced a law some time ago against inciting religious hatred and so forth to prevent people burning Korans and starting a riot amongst muslims in the UK as a result.
The problem is then that some of the Islamic extremists in the UK started burning things like poppies on remembrance day, and burning the British flag and so forth. Obviously a lot of people were pissed off at the hypocrisy of this, so the Police then started enforcing the law against this sort of burning too.
You started with the presupposition that the law it all revolves around is about inciting religious hatred, basing THAT supposition on your presupposition of "The Battle of West & Islam". Nothing more.
Then when it is pointed out to you that the law used in this case NEVER had to do with ANYTHING religious, you try dodging it by saying you were "merely commenting on when it started being used for this purpose".
And not just that, you are setting up your argument as if protection of one group from A has somehow caused that group to commit B.
The government introduced a law... against A to prevent a riot amongst group 1.
The problem is then that some from the group 1 started doing B and so forth.
Do you see the non sequitur there?
There is no Grand BattleTM of X and Y in this case.
You brought the Great BattleTM cause and effect line of reasoning to the table - based on your idea that there has to be a Great BattleTM.
What there is - is a bad law and a dick (or a troll) cop, bumping into each other and making this mess.
You do realise that the problem is that you've read far more hatred into my statement than is actually there? are you suggesting the West hasn't had a battle to get to grips with the issues raised by the Islamic faith and the culture surrounding it? Are you seriously suggesting that as the world has become globalised and the West has become more multicultural that everything has gone perfectly?
What you are doing there is committing an ignoratio elenchi and further more it is a loaded one.
If you believe that you're so far lost in the world of political correctness in pretending there aren't issues that you've clearly lost all sight of the real world. ...
Were you just looking for a fight for the sake of it, or what? I think your mistake may have been in deciding to enforce some kind of political correctness where it made no sense to.
And multiple straw men! YAY!
I'm a live and let live type of person, I don't really like religion and I think it's foolish to believe in such tosh nowadays, but if people want to then that's their choice.
I'm not going to close my eyes, cover my ears, and pretend that there isn't a conflict of ideologies going on between the west and Islam however.
Actually, you don't really seem to be. Live and let live type of person.
But I have a sense that you would like to be, only you're not there yet.
Which is a great ideal to strive to, don't get me wrong. It's just...
You ARE clearly still clinging to some presuppositions, which you may have even osmotically picked up along the way but haven't gotten around to question yet.
You're probably not even consciously generalizing up to a point where you have two generalizations of global proportions - and then deciding that since some specific parts of one generalization were at some point in conflict with some specific parts of the other generalization - both generalizations you created clearly are in conflict.
The fact that you've crammed so much in both of your generalizations and decided that they
Use of the law for that sort of thing has most definitely come about in response to the religious hatred laws because it specifically came about when there was a showdown between the EDL and the "Muslims against crusades" group:
Muslims against crusades was founded in 2010.
The burning poppies arrest was made "under section 127 of the Communications Act" - from 2003.
Which basically states that one could be arrested for trolling. Also, for making shit up on the internets.
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, heâ"
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
No mention of burning symbols, religious or not.
Under such a law, YOU TOO could also end up in jail for up to 6 months, because of the following statement:
This is in part, part of the West's battle with Islam, and is not the first time this has been done.
See... you just generalized an entire hemisphere of this planet of ours and several dozens of cultures and civilizations, an entire family of religions and the followers of all those religious flavors - and then you've put them on opposing sides of a statement by which you claim that those sides are in a "battle" with each other.
You do realize that all those generalizations make your statement either a phenomenal pile of bullshit - or a conscious lie.
I.e. "a message that you know to be false".
And considering that barring, maybe, Chinese you've managed to include a grater part of the population of the planet into your generalizations - it is just a matter of statistics for your generalizations to offend SOMEBODY.
I.e. Unless you want to argue some... "inability to comprehend" on your part - you wrote all that, ON the internets, to purposefully cause "inconvenience or needless anxiety to another".
Applying it that way wouldn't really be "being applied consistently and fairly" - now, would it?
On a positive side, it should cause all those annoying penis enlargement advertisements on the internets to disappear forever.
I don't blame the police, they're simply enforcing the law fairly and making it clear that it's a two way street.
Actually, THAT is exactly who you should blame. Along with those who created such a law.
It is a poorly written, overgeneralized law which tries to regulate and/or predict the effect of ANYTHING transmitted by "public electronic communications network" - on some imaginary "offended person".
I.e. It's fucking nonsense.
Police officer who would make an arrest under such a law is either deliberately trolling the judicial system, or is making an arrest out of spite.
The problem is that in this case, the law shouldn't exist at all whether it's for the Koran, a flag, or a poppy, but fundamentally it's got to be one or the other, either you can burn poppies, flags, and Korans, or you can burn none of them.
Well... You're half-right there.
In theory, there should be no such law. In theory, we should all be "brothers and sisters of humanity" to each other.
Then again, we live in a world of "extremists or just general dicks", who's aim is to cause emotional harm and to bully people.
As such, if we want such cases to be handled in civilized fashion by the representatives of a democratically elected government, instead of in an "eye for an eye" fashion - then we need SOME laws and regulations to handle such cases.
But they need to be better written.
And all sides - possible future offenders, those offended and the police should be both educated
White Russian.
I mean come on, this is kindergarten stuff.