It really doesn't take bigotry (vis a vis intolerance); a certain amount of ignorance can do, or some misinformation, and they can grow to fear or worry about a people.
Agreed, ignorance can turn into bigotry. But it's still bigotry, and the solution isn't to bow to the wishes of the bigots; to coddle them and treat them as if their beliefs are valid. Tt's to carry on, while educating those interested in learning, and disregarding those who would prefer to live in ignorance.
They criticize the Chinese about freedom of the press and then do everything they can to prevent truth escaping into the wild in Canada.
Forget that, they ran on a platform of transparency. Hell, one of their primary talking points was that the Liberals were corrupt and secretive. And then we see this bullshit. Gotta love the hypocrisy...
No, even if you assume people can tell the difference, you're still trampling on their feelings.
Huh? Anyone who isn't a bigot or an islamophobe wouldn't have hurt feelings in the first place.
All of whom are presumably going to go to your church/mosque even if you move it slightly.
But why the hell should they move it at all? There's literally no reason, unless you believe that Islam == 9/11 == terrorism.
Who said I was protesting it? I'm pointing out that not everyone who's upset is being unreasonable.
Really? Because I have yet to see a *reason* for objecting to this mosque/community center, save to protect the feelings of a few bigots. And that's no reason at all.
The FBI spent about a half hour talking with Jones, but church spokesman Wayne Sapp would not disclose what they discussed. Agents leaving the church wouldn't talk to an Associated Press reporter.
Jones said earlier this week that agents have visited him twice since he announced his plans in July, the last visit about two weeks ago.
Uhuh... so Jones was visited *three separate times*. Never once did he claim to have been coerced.
But its the big old bad gubbermint that's just strong-arming him.
Right. Sure buddy.
Did you consider that maybe, just maybe, they were talking about potential violence both at his rally, and directed at his parishioners as a result of it? That the FBI really was just concerned with "public safety"?
No, of course not. It's gotta be an evil conspiracy. The pastor was just mysteriously silenced, and has remained strangely reticent to tell anyone...
Yeah, sure buddy. Gimme some evidence or I'm assuming this is just made-up right-wing propaganda. And no, a story in Faux News doesn't count, I said evidence, not made-up bullshit speculation.
why is it that when people disagree with liberals, they're bigots, but when liberals disagree with others, they're enlightened?
Why is it that when someone refers to a belief as bigoted, the assumption is that person is a liberal? Are you saying conservatives can't believe in bigotry?
can you get over the "everyone but me is racist"
Racist? What? Hint: Islam is a religion, not a race.
It takes some serious balls and a bad attitude to make a decision like that when you know damn well THAT people are going to be upset and WHY
Only if you assume people are bigoted assholes who can't differentiate between a religion and a bunch of extremist terrorists.
Do you really think so little of people? If so, maybe that highlights the *real* problem, don't you think?
And even if you say that once it's built it's just a house of worship that people use normally--who would move into a place like that knowing its location?
Uh, maybe the many muslims who've lived, worked, and worshipped in the area for decades?
If a Christian church was set up in a place a Christian had deliberately attacked, I would expect as a sign of decency that they would have some obvious, public way for attendees to offer prayers to those hurt, which would hopefully be permanent.
People can pray for whatever the fuck they want to pray for. Why the fuck should any such facility be obligated to continuously apologize for the acts of a bunch of assholes, save that people are too stupid to understand that said assholes don't represent the entirety of said religion?
But it doesn't matter, because all of this is missing the entire fucking point:
These people bought and paid for a piece of *private property*. They are now building a *legal facility* on those grounds. Protest it all you want, but that is their right, and neither the people nor the government have any right to interfere. Don't like it? Change the constitution.
Man, this needs to be modded up +1 Informative and Hilarious...
As an aside, let's say, for the moment, that the amusingly misinformed twat GP was right... it still wouldn't fucking matter. The US is a country built on ideals. Either those ideals exist and are to be lived by, or they don't. Either these people have the right to do with their private property what they choose, or they don't.
'course, as always, the rabid right has once again demonstrated that they believe strongly in the constitution and the bill of rights... unless, of course, your exercising those rights offends them in some way. And this is especially true when its election season and the base needs riling up...
The idea that superstition should be respected is silly
People's rights should be respected. In this case, the rights of an owner of a private piece of property to build a facility on it, and within that facility to exercise their right to freedom of belief and expression. Religion, itself, has fuck all to do with it.
And when pretty much 99.9999% of the people who oppose the Iraq war criticize it because "those durn Amerikkkan Neokkkon Fascist hicks are at it again"
They do? Weird. Because I'm pretty sure most people opposed the Iraq war because, you know, it was justified with lies.
But hey, what do I know, I'm not a total fucking idiot...
Its interesting to compare the reaction of the Muslims supporting the mosque and community centre being build in the area damaged by the planes with the carmalite convent as auschwits, which was relocated.
Except, of course, that's completely different. The convent wasn't relocated because some hate-filled "Catholics" ran the camp, but because the Jewish community felt it would distract from the suffering jews were subjected to. Oh, plus the convent was going to be built right on the periphery of the camp. Not a couple blocks away, but literally right there.
'course, I also think that case was fucking ridiculous. But that's neither here nor there. The point is, it's a totally different situation.
And yes I would oppose converting a building damaged by a christian anti-abortion bomber to a church, or the opening of an irish Catholic centre at the site of the Baltic exchange.
Why? Religion didn't cause those acts. People did.
No offense, but your position strikes me as both irrational and bigoted. Doubly so given the area is known for having a large muslim population (it was once nicknamed Little Syria, ffs), and that this facility is actually a couple blocks away from ground zero.
How can you oppose a mosque a couple blocks away from ground zero and not be, at least a little bit, anti-Islamic? Upon what other basis would you oppose such a thing, save that you believe the 9/11 terrorists == Islam, and therefore Islam is bad and a mosque is somehow, by it's very association with that religion, "disrespectful" of the victims of 9/11?
Would you similarly oppose a church being built a couple blocks away from the site of an abortion clinic bombing?
Well, except, of course, he went with yeast, not algae, a totally different species. And the food is mass produced, not grown in people's back yards. But other than that, yeah, it's identical.:)
Given Gartner are Microsoft shills, this pronouncement should hardly be surprising given the sheer amount of Win7 mobile hype we've been seeing lately. Hell, I'm surprised it took them this long...
As far as I'm aware most browsers don't do this, and certainly not cache screendumps to permanent storage, with the exception of Opera and Chrome's "Speed Dial" feature requiring a thumbnail of the page.
Why would they? They cache *the entire page contents, including a pre-rendered DOM*.
Seriously, if you're worried about little screenshots in your iPhone, your PC is probably a *far FAR* bigger problem for you.
So you spent, what, 400-500 words, saying absolutely nothing except "durr, you're stupid".
You *could've* provided counter-arguments, citations, or other information to back your position. Heck, even a reasoned argument would've been something. But no. No, apparently that wasn't worth the effort. Instead, you wasted everyone's time with ad hominem attacks and unsupported denialism.
What, so you can pull a small percent more oil out of the ground? Yay you, you've found a way to put off peak oil for a few months, maybe a year or two. Bully for you!
It is as far as fuel is concerned. However there's lots more than that that oil is used for, so it'll still be extracted even when it costs more energy to extract than it gives.
No, because you'd be better off not burning that fuel in the first place, and instead just using it for plastics or whatever the alternative application is.
Downloading creates a copy. If done in the USA without the permission of the copyright owner it infringes the copyright in the downloaded work.
Well, no, to be very technical, copyright covers the act of distributing unauthorized copies. So it's the uploader that's infringing, not the downloader.
'course, either way, it's still unethical (and yes, I download content all the time... I just try to assuage my guilt by purchasing the content I like:).
And thus you've introduced a new party that could stand to benefit from the elections.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of a neutral third party.
Go look up Elections Canada and see how it can be done, and done well. Just because you Americans can't seem to sort this stuff out, doesn't mean its impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
It really doesn't take bigotry (vis a vis intolerance); a certain amount of ignorance can do, or some misinformation, and they can grow to fear or worry about a people.
Agreed, ignorance can turn into bigotry. But it's still bigotry, and the solution isn't to bow to the wishes of the bigots; to coddle them and treat them as if their beliefs are valid. Tt's to carry on, while educating those interested in learning, and disregarding those who would prefer to live in ignorance.
My comment was meant to illustrate the fact that Muslims would get just as worked up if the situation was reversed.
"Mooooom, he hit me first!"
Please. Quit acting like a fucking child. Seriously.
They criticize the Chinese about freedom of the press and then do everything they can to prevent truth escaping into the wild in Canada.
Forget that, they ran on a platform of transparency. Hell, one of their primary talking points was that the Liberals were corrupt and secretive. And then we see this bullshit. Gotta love the hypocrisy...
apply this line of thinking the next time you hear christians being painted as 'nothing but a bunch of right wing, fascist, racist rednecks.'
It happens a lot, and doesn't even require announcement of plans for the building of a church or community center to prompt the outrage.
Since when? Certainly *specific* Christians are labeled as such, probably because they are. *All* Christians? Hardly.
a) Pure supposition.
b) Even if that were true, that doesn't justify bigotry, it just illustrates it.
No, even if you assume people can tell the difference, you're still trampling on their feelings.
Huh? Anyone who isn't a bigot or an islamophobe wouldn't have hurt feelings in the first place.
All of whom are presumably going to go to your church/mosque even if you move it slightly.
But why the hell should they move it at all? There's literally no reason, unless you believe that Islam == 9/11 == terrorism.
Who said I was protesting it? I'm pointing out that not everyone who's upset is being unreasonable.
Really? Because I have yet to see a *reason* for objecting to this mosque/community center, save to protect the feelings of a few bigots. And that's no reason at all.
The FBI spent about a half hour talking with Jones, but church spokesman Wayne Sapp would not disclose what they discussed. Agents leaving the church wouldn't talk to an Associated Press reporter.
Jones said earlier this week that agents have visited him twice since he announced his plans in July, the last visit about two weeks ago.
Uhuh... so Jones was visited *three separate times*. Never once did he claim to have been coerced.
But its the big old bad gubbermint that's just strong-arming him.
Right. Sure buddy.
Did you consider that maybe, just maybe, they were talking about potential violence both at his rally, and directed at his parishioners as a result of it? That the FBI really was just concerned with "public safety"?
No, of course not. It's gotta be an evil conspiracy. The pastor was just mysteriously silenced, and has remained strangely reticent to tell anyone...
Yeah, sure buddy. Gimme some evidence or I'm assuming this is just made-up right-wing propaganda. And no, a story in Faux News doesn't count, I said evidence, not made-up bullshit speculation.
why is it that when people disagree with liberals, they're bigots, but when liberals disagree with others, they're enlightened?
Why is it that when someone refers to a belief as bigoted, the assumption is that person is a liberal? Are you saying conservatives can't believe in bigotry?
can you get over the "everyone but me is racist"
Racist? What? Hint: Islam is a religion, not a race.
It takes some serious balls and a bad attitude to make a decision like that when you know damn well THAT people are going to be upset and WHY
Only if you assume people are bigoted assholes who can't differentiate between a religion and a bunch of extremist terrorists.
Do you really think so little of people? If so, maybe that highlights the *real* problem, don't you think?
And even if you say that once it's built it's just a house of worship that people use normally--who would move into a place like that knowing its location?
Uh, maybe the many muslims who've lived, worked, and worshipped in the area for decades?
If a Christian church was set up in a place a Christian had deliberately attacked, I would expect as a sign of decency that they would have some obvious, public way for attendees to offer prayers to those hurt, which would hopefully be permanent.
People can pray for whatever the fuck they want to pray for. Why the fuck should any such facility be obligated to continuously apologize for the acts of a bunch of assholes, save that people are too stupid to understand that said assholes don't represent the entirety of said religion?
But it doesn't matter, because all of this is missing the entire fucking point:
These people bought and paid for a piece of *private property*. They are now building a *legal facility* on those grounds. Protest it all you want, but that is their right, and neither the people nor the government have any right to interfere. Don't like it? Change the constitution.
Man, this needs to be modded up +1 Informative and Hilarious...
As an aside, let's say, for the moment, that the amusingly misinformed twat GP was right... it still wouldn't fucking matter. The US is a country built on ideals. Either those ideals exist and are to be lived by, or they don't. Either these people have the right to do with their private property what they choose, or they don't.
'course, as always, the rabid right has once again demonstrated that they believe strongly in the constitution and the bill of rights... unless, of course, your exercising those rights offends them in some way. And this is especially true when its election season and the base needs riling up...
The idea that superstition should be respected is silly
People's rights should be respected. In this case, the rights of an owner of a private piece of property to build a facility on it, and within that facility to exercise their right to freedom of belief and expression. Religion, itself, has fuck all to do with it.
And when pretty much 99.9999% of the people who oppose the Iraq war criticize it because "those durn Amerikkkan Neokkkon Fascist hicks are at it again"
They do? Weird. Because I'm pretty sure most people opposed the Iraq war because, you know, it was justified with lies.
But hey, what do I know, I'm not a total fucking idiot...
Its interesting to compare the reaction of the Muslims supporting the mosque and community centre being build in the area damaged by the planes with the carmalite convent as auschwits, which was relocated.
Except, of course, that's completely different. The convent wasn't relocated because some hate-filled "Catholics" ran the camp, but because the Jewish community felt it would distract from the suffering jews were subjected to. Oh, plus the convent was going to be built right on the periphery of the camp. Not a couple blocks away, but literally right there.
'course, I also think that case was fucking ridiculous. But that's neither here nor there. The point is, it's a totally different situation.
And yes I would oppose converting a building damaged by a christian anti-abortion bomber to a church, or the opening of an irish Catholic centre at the site of the Baltic exchange.
Why? Religion didn't cause those acts. People did.
No offense, but your position strikes me as both irrational and bigoted. Doubly so given the area is known for having a large muslim population (it was once nicknamed Little Syria, ffs), and that this facility is actually a couple blocks away from ground zero.
How can you oppose a mosque a couple blocks away from ground zero and not be, at least a little bit, anti-Islamic? Upon what other basis would you oppose such a thing, save that you believe the 9/11 terrorists == Islam, and therefore Islam is bad and a mosque is somehow, by it's very association with that religion, "disrespectful" of the victims of 9/11?
Would you similarly oppose a church being built a couple blocks away from the site of an abortion clinic bombing?
Actually, that might be a good thing. It might disabuse people of the ridiculous notion that real life should be just like CSI...
Well, except, of course, he went with yeast, not algae, a totally different species. And the food is mass produced, not grown in people's back yards. But other than that, yeah, it's identical. :)
Given Gartner are Microsoft shills, this pronouncement should hardly be surprising given the sheer amount of Win7 mobile hype we've been seeing lately. Hell, I'm surprised it took them this long...
As far as I'm aware most browsers don't do this, and certainly not cache screendumps to permanent storage, with the exception of Opera and Chrome's "Speed Dial" feature requiring a thumbnail of the page.
Why would they? They cache *the entire page contents, including a pre-rendered DOM*.
Seriously, if you're worried about little screenshots in your iPhone, your PC is probably a *far FAR* bigger problem for you.
So you spent, what, 400-500 words, saying absolutely nothing except "durr, you're stupid".
You *could've* provided counter-arguments, citations, or other information to back your position. Heck, even a reasoned argument would've been something. But no. No, apparently that wasn't worth the effort. Instead, you wasted everyone's time with ad hominem attacks and unsupported denialism.
Good work, big guy. Well done.
What, so you can pull a small percent more oil out of the ground? Yay you, you've found a way to put off peak oil for a few months, maybe a year or two. Bully for you!
It is as far as fuel is concerned. However there's lots more than that that oil is used for, so it'll still be extracted even when it costs more energy to extract than it gives.
No, because you'd be better off not burning that fuel in the first place, and instead just using it for plastics or whatever the alternative application is.
Downloading creates a copy. If done in the USA without the permission of the copyright owner it infringes the copyright in the downloaded work.
Well, no, to be very technical, copyright covers the act of distributing unauthorized copies. So it's the uploader that's infringing, not the downloader.
'course, either way, it's still unethical (and yes, I download content all the time... I just try to assuage my guilt by purchasing the content I like :).
If your call records are subpoenaed... absolutely.
And thus you've introduced a new party that could stand to benefit from the elections.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of a neutral third party.
Go look up Elections Canada and see how it can be done, and done well. Just because you Americans can't seem to sort this stuff out, doesn't mean its impossible.