Yes, you are. By implying, that the victims — White and Christians (mostly) — are in any way, shape, or form responsible — even if in part (however small) — for their own deaths, you are blaming them and are thus no different from those justly-denounced policemen, who explain rapes by mini-skirts.
And AT&T, in its time, was also happy to get a deal with the US government, that granted them a monopoly on telephone service. Why must Google's opinion on this matter influence ours? They have the best search engine today, alright. Is that why I must accept their interests as those guiding public policy?
Currently, many people have a complete monopoly situation in broadband.
Something must be done. This is something. Therefor it must be done! Is that your argument?
It seems to me you're knee jerking on regulation
I just don't want to see the Internet-service provision added to the sorry list already containing electricity-delivery and public roads...
Words have meaning — not just consequences. Deal with it.
Wow, proof by ignorance.
Whatever. The burden of proof is on you — you made the claim: "movie-theater was set on fire by Christians because it showed a movie Christians hated". As evidence, you provided a link to an article, which neither substantiated your claim nor made any such claims itself (with or without substantiation). Your claim is thus dismissed as unsubstantiated. Have a nice day.
Do you deny that they were assholes?
Do you deny, that slutty-dressed rape-victims were dressed like sluts? These ladies would like to talk to you...
Hey good job Sheldon Cooper.
Khmm, I sense certain frustration...
That I didn't link to every single source but synthesized them and linked to a simple one means I am completely wrong and also full of moral turpitude!
It means, the claims you made remain unsubstantiated. They may still be valid — but we don't know. Although, considering the number of times you've already replied without including any other links, we probably do know...
I suspect all such behavior by religious "moderates" (including Christians) is simply explained away by suppression of cognitive dissonance.
I'm unaware of Christian God (or any of His prophets) calling for killing in his name. As for "cognitive dissonances" — well, that's covered by one of the options I listed: "in denial".
There's no need to call these people out as being "ignorant, in denial or just lying -- either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause".
Whether or not there is a "need" to post it publicly, it is still a correct observation...
yet still promote the GPL out of fear of persecution by their comrades
So, they are lying — just as I said. Their lie is due to the fear of persecution — an option I listed...
When anybody not even excuses, but merely explains rape by the victim's "slut-like" clothing or suggestive behavior, we tend to get (justly) outraged by such blame-the-victim attitude.
Why should attempts to explain murders by the nebulous "being treated like shit" by the victims be treated any different?
You do believe in competition as a market force, don't you?
I certainly do believe that. I also know — both from past history and the current state of affairs — that government regulation reduces rather than increases competition.
providing a level playing field to build a market on is very much the job of government
The proposed reclassification of Internet-service as "public utility" has nothing to do with "leveling the playing field". Directly it neither levels nor upends it. Indirectly — by increasing the regulatory burden — it increases the barrier to entry to anyone, who'd challenge existing monopoly(ies) — the way Google is currently challenging them, for example.
If that was half-way true then Europe would now be a war-ravaged waste land after 44-odd million Muslims living in Europe took to arms over the Danish cartoon published years ago.
No, this would've happened, if the 44-odd million Muslims actually followed their professed religion in full. Fortunately, they don't — not all of them. Unfortunately, enough of them do...
My point remains — their religion actually does mandate capital punishment for anybody insulting it or its prophets — unlike any other modern religion. And for that reason, it is the moral duty of all civilized people to mock it, ridicule it, and otherwise prevent it from spreading and, better yet, eradicate it for good.
Nor does it allege, the theater fire was an arson.
Dude, it is right there in the fucking TITLE of the article.
The title reads: "Police Suspect [emphasis mine -mi] Arson In Fire at Paris Theater". Suspicion is not allegation — indeed, the article itself states: "The fire, if [emphasis mine -mi] it proves to be arson, would be...". As I said, there is no allegation — only suspicions. And it happened in 1988 — surely enough for the matter to settle and any suspicions to be either confirmed or rejected... That no search brings up articles confirming that suspicion today, can only mean one thing: it was rejected and NY Times had nothing agenda-advancing to publish...
What part of siding with the victims is victim blaming?
The calling them "assholes" part.
Getting beaten with a club for being in the audience is more than just a threat
The article mentions this — but without any details. We don't expect much from NY Times, but here on Slashdot an accusation — even if made anonymously — should contain links to evidence.
You misread. That was another attack and tear gas was not mentioned
I searched the article for the word "tear" — the only actual attack mentioned was that for an abortion-glorifying movie, not anything about Christians.
But, since you bring it up, do you think that attack was because of a secular objection to abortion?
I have no idea — and would rather not follow the excited NY Times' reporter's example of speculating. Many (all?) religions consider abortion to be an abomination — for all we know, it could've been Muslims. Plenty of non-religious people frown on the procedure too — if you wish to blame that attack on a misguided Christian, you'll need better evidence.
And here is a Muslim cleric justifying it. And he is doing a better job — while these outraged Muslims are simply denouncing the attack as contrary to their understanding of Islam, he provides Koran quotes objectively proving the opposite:This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
Thus, I tend to think, that these good people are either ignorant, in denial, or just lying — either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause.
Youngsters don't take up arms and blow themselves up because they're impressionable. They do so because they don't perceive that they have any better options. Take a hard look at the youth unemployment rate in France and the manner in which the immigrant Muslim community is treated.
Voila! It is France's own fault and they deserve what violence they get over it.
When you ostracize 7% (5M / 66M) of your population such outcomes are wholly predictable.
A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandateskilling people for certain speech...
They are instead considering the fact that their staff (with no decision on content) may not want to risk their lives over this.
Well, whether they are afraid of the terrorists or of their staff leaving over this, these editors definitely are cowards. By definition: coward -- (a person who shows fear or timidity).
Have you seen the cartoons? They aren't much more than being assholes for the sake of being assholes.
Even if this was true, you are justifying their murders... Nice job of blaming the victim.
they are now also symbols of civilization over depravity
Well, maybe, not all is lost for you...
AP has decided to censor other blasphemous photos like Serrano's Piss Christ.
It was incredibly offensive to Christians, but nobody was killed over it. Nor even credibly threatened with murder.
nobody considered censoring it back when one theater showing it was burnt to the ground, injuring 12, audiences in others got tear gassed and Scorsese got death threats
The NYTimes article you linked to makes no mention of any "threats". Nor does it allege, the theater fire was an arson. The sole tear-gas attack mentioned in the article was over a different movie — one glorifying abortions, rather than insulting Christianity.
Comparing a murder of 12 people to a tear-gas attack is quite mind boggling...
vertical integration led AT&T to have almost total control over communication technology in the country
That Google wants it is not surprising. That there are still enough Statists in this country, who think, it is a good idea, is rather flabbergasting...
Finally! Just what America needs - more and better guns!
You got it, my good man. We do need more and better of just about anything, that's legal and desired by consumers: TVs, refrigerators, toothbrushes, vibrators, cars, and, yes, weapons.
Now, where were you going with that maxim of yours?
If you want a gun, you prove to society you are capable and trained and responsible BEFORE you get one.
This may be a good argument for abolishing the Second Amendment. But, as long as it remains the law of the land, any attempts to impose the requirement(s) you want are just that: unconstitutional.
you don't acknowledge we ALREADY HAVE legal gun control
Oh, I do acknowledge we have it — my point is, it is against the Constitution.
Just owning a gun increases the jeopardy to you and your loved ones.
Historians are often asked what the Founders would
think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such
questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of
the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this
That's all you have? One source, acknowledging the question as "tricky to answer", but offering its opinion nonetheless?
would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia
I contend, they would be even more flabbergasted to learn, that producing and selling pornography is protected by the right to petition the government for redress of grievances...
But my argument is not that arms "help" — it is that, for better or worse, it is our right to keep and bear them. And that any laws and regulations infringing that right are unconstitutional and thus it is the citizens' moral duty to ignore or sabotage them.
True but, unlike you he actually used the words parallel construction and linked to the wiki article.
And it was a stupid thing to do. Because, parallel construction in itself is not necessarily about illegally obtained evidence — according to that very link, it is usually used to protect informants and other secrets.
Also, the link is explicitly about DEA using data gathered by the NSA (illegally) — not about FBI.
FBI might be doing something very similar on occasion, but, given the negative publicity of the term, they are likely to be calling it something else.
Thus, using — and raising awareness of — this particular term is not useful. We just need to be aware, that the law-enforcement agencies do this sort of thing — whatever the name they may be using for it.
The somewhat redeeming thing is, they do it not because they wish to invade our privacy, but out of sincere belief, the end (capturing criminals and preventing terrorism) justifies the means — and that privacy of millions is a price worth paying for lives of hundreds. I can, sort of, see their side of it, even if I disagree.
You dimwitted nincompoop! A mee-too moron! What else do you think I meant, when I wrote: "They would need to — and sometimes do — invent some other explanations"? Huh? Huh? I can't hear you, waste of protoplasm... Crawl back to whence you limped from, but remember to logout...
Extremes that would have happened about 2% of the time in the 30 years prior to the 80's were happening about 6% of the time in the 30 years prior to 2010.
No reliable records exist beyond 1-2 centuries back. Today's data — with climate science being run by government officials and scientists alike with an enormous conflict of interest — can not be trusted either. It can be manipulated too easily ("hide the decline") and even raw unaltered data would depend greatly on where the sensors are placed. Temperature inside a city park can differ from the surrounding streets by as much as 5C, for example!
No, we do not have irrefutable scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming — what we are told is to act "just in case" it is true.
cohesive if you look at the temperature trend in the context of radiative physics
"Cohesive", huh? It is fairly simple to come up with a theory explaining the past. The global warming alarmists, however, are yet to come up with a theory predicting the future.
But I like your style — when it is cold in North America, well, that's a fluke. But when it is hot in Australia — that's evidence of Global Warming.
what we know about the atmospheric CO2 trend
What do we know about it? CO2 concentration helps plants grow — and is thus a self-regulating problem. What else do we know?
These were restriction that the Founding Fathers did not find onerous, burdensome, or illegal.
Citations?
The current school of purist 2nd Amendment ideology is an extremely modern one, showing up only in the last 40~50 years.
In response to the increasingly draconian restrictions on gun-ownership... BTW, you seem to use the word "purist" with a hint of disapproval — I wonder, why that is...
completing an electrical circuit is "work" -- which itself is prohibited - and thus using electricity is prohibited
Yes, it is quite interesting — but you got this particular part wrong. Using electricity is not prohibited. Turning things on is — because making fire was disallowed. Orthodox Jews can ride elevators, for example — but they can't push buttons. For this reason, some elevators in Israel have a special "Shabbat-mode" — on Saturdays they can not be called, but simply run up and down stopping (and opening) on every floor. By themselves...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you are. By implying, that the victims — White and Christians (mostly) — are in any way, shape, or form responsible — even if in part (however small) — for their own deaths, you are blaming them and are thus no different from those justly-denounced policemen, who explain rapes by mini-skirts.
And AT&T, in its time, was also happy to get a deal with the US government, that granted them a monopoly on telephone service. Why must Google's opinion on this matter influence ours? They have the best search engine today, alright. Is that why I must accept their interests as those guiding public policy?
Something must be done. This is something. Therefor it must be done! Is that your argument?
I just don't want to see the Internet-service provision added to the sorry list already containing electricity-delivery and public roads...
That's off-topic.
Words have meaning — not just consequences. Deal with it.
Whatever. The burden of proof is on you — you made the claim: "movie-theater was set on fire by Christians because it showed a movie Christians hated". As evidence, you provided a link to an article, which neither substantiated your claim nor made any such claims itself (with or without substantiation). Your claim is thus dismissed as unsubstantiated. Have a nice day.
Do you deny, that slutty-dressed rape-victims were dressed like sluts? These ladies would like to talk to you...
Khmm, I sense certain frustration...
It means, the claims you made remain unsubstantiated. They may still be valid — but we don't know. Although, considering the number of times you've already replied without including any other links, we probably do know...
Citations needed. Try to stay on topic, though — this particular thread is not about race.
Wow, you can make anything sound bad, can you not?
I'm unaware of Christian God (or any of His prophets) calling for killing in his name. As for "cognitive dissonances" — well, that's covered by one of the options I listed: "in denial".
Whether or not there is a "need" to post it publicly, it is still a correct observation...
So, they are lying — just as I said. Their lie is due to the fear of persecution — an option I listed...
When anybody not even excuses, but merely explains rape by the victim's "slut-like" clothing or suggestive behavior, we tend to get (justly) outraged by such blame-the-victim attitude.
Why should attempts to explain murders by the nebulous "being treated like shit" by the victims be treated any different?
I certainly do believe that. I also know — both from past history and the current state of affairs — that government regulation reduces rather than increases competition.
The proposed reclassification of Internet-service as "public utility" has nothing to do with "leveling the playing field". Directly it neither levels nor upends it. Indirectly — by increasing the regulatory burden — it increases the barrier to entry to anyone, who'd challenge existing monopoly(ies) — the way Google is currently challenging them, for example.
No, this would've happened, if the 44-odd million Muslims actually followed their professed religion in full. Fortunately, they don't — not all of them. Unfortunately, enough of them do...
My point remains — their religion actually does mandate capital punishment for anybody insulting it or its prophets — unlike any other modern religion. And for that reason, it is the moral duty of all civilized people to mock it, ridicule it, and otherwise prevent it from spreading and, better yet, eradicate it for good.
My point is, the AP's decision was not driven by threat of violence and is therefor different from the topic at hand.
The title reads: "Police Suspect [emphasis mine -mi] Arson In Fire at Paris Theater". Suspicion is not allegation — indeed, the article itself states: "The fire, if [emphasis mine -mi] it proves to be arson, would be ...". As I said, there is no allegation — only suspicions. And it happened in 1988 — surely enough for the matter to settle and any suspicions to be either confirmed or rejected... That no search brings up articles confirming that suspicion today, can only mean one thing: it was rejected and NY Times had nothing agenda-advancing to publish...
The calling them "assholes" part.
The article mentions this — but without any details. We don't expect much from NY Times, but here on Slashdot an accusation — even if made anonymously — should contain links to evidence.
I searched the article for the word "tear" — the only actual attack mentioned was that for an abortion-glorifying movie, not anything about Christians.
I have no idea — and would rather not follow the excited NY Times' reporter's example of speculating. Many (all?) religions consider abortion to be an abomination — for all we know, it could've been Muslims. Plenty of non-religious people frown on the procedure too — if you wish to blame that attack on a misguided Christian, you'll need better evidence.
Here are folks in the Muslim community and what they say about the attacks.
And here is a Muslim cleric justifying it. And he is doing a better job — while these outraged Muslims are simply denouncing the attack as contrary to their understanding of Islam, he provides Koran quotes objectively proving the opposite:This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
Thus, I tend to think, that these good people are either ignorant, in denial, or just lying — either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause.
Voila! It is France's own fault and they deserve what violence they get over it.
A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandates killing people for certain speech...
Well, whether they are afraid of the terrorists or of their staff leaving over this, these editors definitely are cowards. By definition: coward -- (a person who shows fear or timidity).
Even if this was true, you are justifying their murders... Nice job of blaming the victim.
Well, maybe, not all is lost for you...
It was incredibly offensive to Christians, but nobody was killed over it. Nor even credibly threatened with murder.
The NYTimes article you linked to makes no mention of any "threats". Nor does it allege, the theater fire was an arson. The sole tear-gas attack mentioned in the article was over a different movie — one glorifying abortions, rather than insulting Christianity.
Comparing a murder of 12 people to a tear-gas attack is quite mind boggling...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You mean, like AT&T before them? That sure turned out well, didn't it?
That Google wants it is not surprising. That there are still enough Statists in this country, who think, it is a good idea, is rather flabbergasting...
You got it, my good man. We do need more and better of just about anything, that's legal and desired by consumers: TVs, refrigerators, toothbrushes, vibrators, cars, and, yes, weapons.
Now, where were you going with that maxim of yours?
This may be a good argument for abolishing the Second Amendment. But, as long as it remains the law of the land, any attempts to impose the requirement(s) you want are just that: unconstitutional.
Oh, I do acknowledge we have it — my point is, it is against the Constitution.
Irrelevant.
That's all you have? One source, acknowledging the question as "tricky to answer", but offering its opinion nonetheless?
I contend, they would be even more flabbergasted to learn, that producing and selling pornography is protected by the right to petition the government for redress of grievances...
Gun lovers? Simple swords are illegal in most of the country — as are brass-knuckles.
Ah, yes, whoever disagrees with you must simply be lacking intelligence. Founding fathers were still alive, when Hans Christian Andersen dealt with this sort of argument. Feel free to educate yourself...
Chicago, where even a museum can not showcase a WW2 rifle, and Washington D.C., where one can get imprisoned for using an empty shell-case as ashtray, have more violent crime, than Texas' cities, where guns are relatively easy to obtain.
But my argument is not that arms "help" — it is that, for better or worse, it is our right to keep and bear them. And that any laws and regulations infringing that right are unconstitutional and thus it is the citizens' moral duty to ignore or sabotage them.
And it was a stupid thing to do. Because, parallel construction in itself is not necessarily about illegally obtained evidence — according to that very link, it is usually used to protect informants and other secrets.
Also, the link is explicitly about DEA using data gathered by the NSA (illegally) — not about FBI.
FBI might be doing something very similar on occasion, but, given the negative publicity of the term, they are likely to be calling it something else.
Thus, using — and raising awareness of — this particular term is not useful. We just need to be aware, that the law-enforcement agencies do this sort of thing — whatever the name they may be using for it.
The somewhat redeeming thing is, they do it not because they wish to invade our privacy, but out of sincere belief, the end (capturing criminals and preventing terrorism) justifies the means — and that privacy of millions is a price worth paying for lives of hundreds. I can, sort of, see their side of it, even if I disagree.
You dimwitted nincompoop! A mee-too moron! What else do you think I meant, when I wrote: "They would need to — and sometimes do — invent some other explanations"? Huh? Huh? I can't hear you, waste of protoplasm... Crawl back to whence you limped from, but remember to logout...
No reliable records exist beyond 1-2 centuries back. Today's data — with climate science being run by government officials and scientists alike with an enormous conflict of interest — can not be trusted either. It can be manipulated too easily ("hide the decline") and even raw unaltered data would depend greatly on where the sensors are placed. Temperature inside a city park can differ from the surrounding streets by as much as 5C, for example!
No, we do not have irrefutable scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming — what we are told is to act "just in case" it is true.
"Cohesive", huh? It is fairly simple to come up with a theory explaining the past. The global warming alarmists, however, are yet to come up with a theory predicting the future.
But I like your style — when it is cold in North America, well, that's a fluke. But when it is hot in Australia — that's evidence of Global Warming.
What do we know about it? CO2 concentration helps plants grow — and is thus a self-regulating problem. What else do we know?
Citations?
In response to the increasingly draconian restrictions on gun-ownership... BTW, you seem to use the word "purist" with a hint of disapproval — I wonder, why that is...
Yes, it is quite interesting — but you got this particular part wrong. Using electricity is not prohibited. Turning things on is — because making fire was disallowed. Orthodox Jews can ride elevators, for example — but they can't push buttons. For this reason, some elevators in Israel have a special "Shabbat-mode" — on Saturdays they can not be called, but simply run up and down stopping (and opening) on every floor. By themselves...