Actually these are bureaucrats refusing to do their master's bidding... guess what their chances are... I worked at the EU. The organisation isn't even democratic (the real power is in the hands of an unelected body, the european comission).
Any demands for accountability of the leaders will be shot down faster than it would have been in Iran, or on the Tiananmen square. The EU is all about how it looks. About the wages of the "fonctionnaires" (this is a word that will join a dictionary in 2050 with references to "fuhrer", "KGB", "SS" and "comissar"). It is european after all. Not about substance.
Complaining about substance will get you sued faster than saying "real prophets don't rape 6-year old girls" will get you killed in Iran, however true the claims may be.
You cite sources, admit they are weak, and then say "look them up yourself". Sorry, you don't have a leg to stand on. Modern Islam rarely takes on a form for "forced militant behavior" other than extremism we have seen in cults and terrorist groups. And as I have said, all religious groups, ALL, have had their share of human rights abuse in the past.
"rarely"... that seems an odd place for such a word. You don't even believe what you're saying yourself. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
And of course, you can't answer for the absurdity of your claim, except by logical fallacies. You just repeat the absurd claim and assume I will let it pass without examining... Let's analyse your idiotic claim (I can use repetition too as a way to convince people) :
"And as I have said, all religious groups, ALL, have had their share of human rights abuse in the past."
Now this answer you give because you can't answer the question that was posed. The paedophile prophet is a monster, and you cannot point to equivalent actions in the Christian faith, by Jesus Christ. So you just state your point, which obviously requires ignoring this difference. Jesus Christ, whether he was a real person or not, is, in the books of Christianity, a peaceful, wise, patient and sympathetic man that would never hurt a fly. Muhammad, real or not, is, in the books of islam, a vindictive genocidal paedophile rapist and massacrer who killed people merely because someone said they talked about him. That's the example muslims hold their kids to.
And you say "it's just the same thing". Does it really need to be argued that it's not ? Apparently it does...
So since you don't have an answer on the atrocities that Christians talk their children into. The atrocities Christians ask their children to commit when they ask them to imitate Jesus Christ, there are none, so attempting to answer the question would be extremely contraproductive for you...
Furthermore, even if you count the crimes of every last Christian that were comitted in the name of Christianity (which would obviously require that you'd be fair and hold islam itself responsible for 9/11, not "just" bin laden himself, but every muslim), there seems to be a bit of a degree difference. Even ignoring that Christianity is the source of the human rights idea in the first place, there seems to be a historical difference.
Christians are accused of killing somewhere between 10.000 and 100.000 people because of religion, over the course of more than 2 millenia. These claims are generally shady, and nearly all of these people were convicted in the contemporary equivalent of a court (which does not necessarily make it fair of course, or even that they knew about the conviction beforehand*, but it's something, I'm not claiming that)
* like in today's sharia courts that convict people who don't know that they stand accused. Then send out, not the police, but "the muslims" a horde, to burn the witch.
By contrast, the source of the islamic "faith" killed over 10.000 people HIMSELF merely for their belief, for being jews, and a few for being black. Muslims, over the centuries killed over a billion people. 300 million hindus in India at least, and that's just the east side. Many millions in Northern africa : so many that there aren't any black North africans left. Massacre upon massacre. Millions of Persians.... At least several million in Turkey... the list goes on, and on, and on...
I am not saying anyone, or any ideology is without fault. I am merely stating facts about a specific religion. Please don't imply things I didn't say. Here's what I am saying, with references, even if they are low-quality references at best.
Everyone knows that the prophet is to islam what Jesus Christ is for christianity. For Christians, the question is "what would Jesus do ?" for muslims the question is "what would the prophet do ?" and the answers are somewhat... different than those you're used to from christians :
the prophet raped a minor girl, fact (involuntary sex, whether within marriage or not is rape, especially if the girl did not know about the marriage) he raided caravans, stealing, raping and kidnapping people into slavery, fact (none of these sources are very good themselves, please look up the primary sources yourself) he comitted SEVERAL religious massacres, fact
Jihad means "holy war". Or at least that's what it meant from the 7th to the late 20th century, in every muslim source. The massacres in arabia, the muslim massacres that eradicated the blacks from north africa, and the utterly massive massacre muslim comitted in India are referred to, in any muslim historical source as "jihads". Whatever else jihad means, clearly to muslims it includes these massacres, so please have your translation include that fact. I realise calling jihad "holy war", with massacre implied, that that is very politically incorrect, but that IS what it means.
Just like "islam" means "submission" yes, but it very VERY strongly implies militarily enforced submission, and certainly does not mean voluntary submission. You are a muslim if you're militarily dominated by islam, if your family does that for example, not if you "believe". Most muslims don't believe, not in the sense that they have faith in God (if you read the quran you'll understand why faith in god is nonexistent in islam, you see allah is a vindictive asshole and the prophet even more, they kill for no reason at all, criminally insane and dangerous individuals, even by muslim standards, and certainly nothing like Jesus Christ in the new testament)
Read the primary sources. Draw your own conclusions. E.g.
When asked whether his soldiers should or should not rape female captives in war, the prophet answered, wait, let me just point you to the source and have you answer this yourself
He said that, not only was raping them okay, but if they were impregnated, that would not matter.
Now my challenge to you, point me to the section of the new testament were Jesus orders his soldiers to rape captive women. Oh you can't ? Well well, isn't that interesting ?
So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.
No, don't you read? You just have to kill the leader.
Aren't Obama and McCain leaders ? Okay maybe Obama is a puppet, so perhaps it'd be better to kill Joe Biden on the democrat side, but other than the names of the current "leaders", the principle is correct ?
By that standard, we'd probably have to shoot Obama AND McCain, you know, just in case they're "originators". Such EVIL !
Not really, they're merely iterations, the 44th to be precise.
So we should not only shoot Obama and McCain, but both Clintons, both Bushes, Joe Lieberman, and all ex-presidential candidates ?
I think by 44th iteration of leaders you're saying we should kill them, and all their predecessors in the 44 previous campaigns ?
Mind if I tell you something about the world ? It's going to sound trivial. It's going to sound insultingly simple.
That's because it IS insultingly simple :
Different ideologies are...... different.
So unfortunately you're wrong. If you replace those words, it doesn't make sense anymore. Not from a historical perspective.
It only makes a good soundbyte. The problem ?
Christians killed a few tens of thousand questionable characters for religion. Many of these were murderers and otherwise criminals. Yes there are innocents amongst them, I don't deny that. Most, however, were not innocent.
Muslims killed a BILLION people in spreading islam. They killed several hundred million of their own in the process too.
If you actually believed 10% of the things muslims claim about the Jews then you could also fill in Judaism in that sentence, and it wouldn't make sense either.
Indeed, it's their ideology that's danguerous, because it induces others to kill, not the person himself/herself. Alone they're mere little crybabies, trying to weasel out of everything. It's not the ideology that makes them evil, but it's the ideology that empowers them to induce others to do their evil for them on a huge scale.
Of course some ideologies are much more potent enablers of evil than others. Democracy, for instance, isn't very useable for a dictator. Stuff like communism or islam on the other hand... (unless you enjoy genocide you're not going to like the history of either communism or islam very much).
Does that make these ideologies evil in themselves ? Yes.
Does it absolve people who accept those ideologies from responsability ? Of course not. In fact it makes them at least partially guilty from the moment they accept that ideology.
Actually yes, the ideology is certainly not innocent. And those people, the nazi's, are not innocent, first in accepting those principles as an ideology, and later a small part of them in killing to preserve them.
Nazism was a "moderate" socialist/communist ideology (certainly more moderate than Stalin's, though probably not what one would call a "moderately socialist" opinion in an American) which led to Germany not being able to care for it's own people.
Which led to the demand for "lebensraum", ie more land. Also this led to the demand to "tax the rich", and prevent the rich from taking over again, as their power remained. As a populist measure Hitler scratched "rich" from karl marx' script and filled in "rich jewish arms merchants", and continued on. Of course this did not change anything.
So pretty soon (took about 10-15 years) there wasn't much left to steal in Germany, so the ideology of stealing continued on : it attacked it's neighbour states and started stealing from them (talk to any survivor, you'll see how much emphasis the "reich" put on stealing art, money and treasure, and how regulated this stealing was, just like islam regulates stealing (goods stolen from infidels are considered legally acquired and taxed 20% in sharia)).
So they attacked. Obviously many, many prisoners were the result, they weren't like the muslims, who historically started conquests with a massacre, they respected the white flag and took survivers prisoner and cared for them if possible, at least initially. But it went still worse with Germany economically, since they were still following communist/socialist dogma, and still failing even further. So they had a HUGE war prisoners population they couldn't take care off... conditions worsened. First gradually, but more and more. Eventually they stopped putting brakes on military vehicles, including prisoner transports.
They also had a national healthcare plan, that became utterly unpayable. So rather than admitting defeat, they killed cripples and anyone "not productive" that was a strain on their healthcare resources. Medicines weren't yet as expensive, so most money went to patients needing full-time or part-time help and tools, like cripples or blind people. They did this, again, not because they planned it or out of spite or hate against their victims, they did it to be able to keep saying their national healthcare worked. They killed for the same reason muslims kill : because it's the only way to preserve their ideology. Without constant honor killings, islam would quickly be overwhelmed by human nature itself. The concentration camps, some of them, were actually part of the German national healthcare system, and were meant initially as a cost cutting measure, increasing the number of cripples per nurse/docter by cutting travel.
Initially the racist nature of nazism only demanded that these patients/prisoners/jews/dissidents not have children.
However pretty soon it became, due to the further deterioration of Germany, and due to the pressure caused by the counterattack by Britain and the USSR, impossible to man the "camps", both prisoner camps and "healthcare" camps, with sufficient guards to prevent massive outbreaks or military medical personnel that could be used at the frontline. But those people couldn't be released, and left to care for themselves, that would mean nazism and therefore their brand of socialist/communist law had failed.
And then someone came up with the "final solution"...
Nazi's didn't kill because they liked it. They did it because they liked it more than the alternative (giving up power, risking revolution, admitting defeat). They did it because otherwise people wouldn't listen to the "obvious concerns for the planet" they had : population had to go down, and the "best bred people, the best genes" had to survive. Eugenics. The fit (=nazi's to a nazi) would no longer rule, but idiots, and the rich would rule again.
Sssshhhh this is slashdot. The position is that muslims, having killed millions upon millions of people in religious massacres, have recently come to the discovery that they really want to live peacefully from now on, ending a killing spree of over 1300 years.
All these muslims today, you see, are totally different from all their predecessors, and share nothing with them. Except a book commanding them to commit religious massacres, rape children (google "aisha age"), murder in order to stifle dissent (google "asma bint marwan"), and worse.
And the result will not be a dead hellhole where nothing survives. The result of not defending against these massacrers will be the final utopia, where everyone will live happily ever after.
You should try going against the consensus in slashdot. You might mention the fact that the founder of the islamic "religion" comitted multiple religious massacres.
You could even suggest that this probably means that islam itself is, to say the least, "not opposed" to the idea of religious massacres. You might even say that "jihad" seems to include the practice of religious massacres, both historically and contemporary (e.g. Sudan).
And of course, by any objective standard, you'd be right.
But the consensus on slashdot will be put down firmly. After all regressives (since "progressives" want to let these idiots bring back the 8th century, I refer to them as regressives)
Sshhhhhhh... these people are "progressive". They have to be able to deny the history, contents and ideas of islam.
Of course islam is antisemitic. The prophet killed 1200 jews in one of his religious massacres (e.g. google for "khaybar"). Saying that religiously massacring jews is wrong is saying islam is evil.
Of course if you do think that massacres are evil, then you're not going to be a fan of the quran, you're going to think the prophet is a monster (which he is, much more so than many others we call monsters), and islam to be excluded from allowed religions, and that muslims are at best as good as nazi's. You can talk very nice with most of them too, after all.
At least McCain has (some) stated goals that agree with your goals, even if you (rightly, imho) doubt he will implement them.
Obama's stated goals are the exact opposite of yours, and he equally fails to implement them (and apparently he'll invade pakistan. He's just stupid about the use of military force, attacking "friends" (troubled friends, VERY troubled friends, but still some -sometimes a bit unclear- measure better than enemies) instead of enemies, he's not really using less of it).
Are you only pro-Obama because you feel he's the more incompetent of the two ? If you're really libertarian, what other possible motivation can there be ?
It baffles the mind how one can vote democrat and claim libertarianism as an ideology. Cradle to grave government healthcare really is (as any idiot knows) cradle to grave government control. With that the government literally decides who lives and who dies.
To say the least, the essential part of democrat policy is the very antithesis of libertarianism.
1) there's no such thing as "rightly" getting off scott-free for any criminal, and this has nothing to do with the evidence. Crime and guilt are utterly independent of evidence. It's just that we're human and limited and need evidence to be confident about truth. Evidence doesn't change truth. 2) rich kids get off, poor ones don't. Does this really deserve to be argued ? Obviously someone who pays a lawyer to go over every last letter ever written down by anyone involved in the case is going to discover procedural errors. No lawyer does this pro-bono. 3) there are many cases where I could live with "without a warrant". A murder isn't excused because a police officer broke down a door in real life. Only in law it is (I am sorry... I mean can be if you're rich enough). 4) that's only the "way the system is supposed to work" if you think of the letter of the law as a goal in itself. If it's justice you're after, that is not -at all- how the system is supposed to work. It's just "admitting defeat" on the part of the police/judge/court/... Admitting that because someone screwed up, and can't trust their evidence anymore, and the case can't continue. It does not in any way change the crime. It does not make bodies come to life. It does not unrape a person.
A question comes to mind... especially since you think this is how the system's supposed to work... are you a lawyer ? Law student perhaps ? The law is a (very) imperfect method to achieve some (low and equally imperfect) measure of justice. It is NOT the definition of justice.
That's okay - most lawyers fail in making that distinction.
Is it so inconceivable that two men of diverse backgrounds could end up with similar policies? I am aware that there are differences, and that some of these are important in the short term. Taking the long view, however, results in an identical push by both candidates for more government and less individual freedom. These ramifications won't be made apparent for another 10-20 years, but they will show up. I cannot vote for any candidate who will (sometimes with the best intentions) do such a thing to my country.
If this is truly your position then you should vote republican. Unless you seriously believe that having medical care "administered" (meaning some guy in washington decides whether you can get cancer treatment or not, without possibility for a second opinion). This is just one example, because Obama wants many more things regulated : your finances for example, how & where you put your money. Or the way your children are educated and by whom (and what those people say to your children).
And yes, maybe you're right about the loss of freedom. But at least McCain will delay the loss of freedom somewhat.
Uhuh... I don't mean to be intruding but... ahem... There's this slight issue that you seem to leave out.
aren't good lawyers more expensive than bad lawyers ? And if that is so, then doesn't the "upper class" have better interpretations of the law on their side. Furthermore there is corruption to spoil your broth further and there are plain and simple lyers.
Ever tried to sue the phone company ? You should, it will teach you a very good lesson about how & when the police will actually do something.
Laws don't change a thing about the fairness in society, nor do they make anyone honest. Afghanistan under the taliban lead the world in all these very fine trades : rapes, drug production and drug use, yet they had no shortage whatsoever of either laws or lawyers (drug production with lawyers on your side - sure that's legal, but don't you dare put tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag !).
The real issue is simple : it's ideology that matters, that defines the fairness of a society. What defines whether YOU think a society is fair is how well it's "system" matches YOUR values. E.g. there is obviously a nontrivial portion of muslims that find the taliban's system fair, since they're killing eachother over it ("taliban", incidentally, means "wise muslim").
Which is not to say that a lawyers advice cannot be useful to people. However laws are today, and will always remain, fundamentally flawed, and lawyers' motivation is fundamentally flawed : financial gain. That obviously is more easily available from the worst of people.
I think it's keenly observed that the priest "class" was replaced by lawyers in our society. The main difference is that the priests had good intentions, at least in theory (even if too often not in practice). Lawyers only want money. Those are the drivers of their respective professions. Priests want a fair society, that upholds high moral standards (in theory). Lawyers want money, whatever the consequences (again in theory).
A priest that's bad for justice is a priest that's less moral than his/her profession demands. A lawyer that's GOOD for justice is a lawyers that's MORE moral than his profession demand. The "default position" has been switched.
That's why rich child killers run free because of "procedural error" and people get in jail for refusing to pay a parking fine : a judge is a lawyer. Intentions nor reasonableness matter, only the letter of the law, and money. Granted priest-judges execute too many innocents, and are VERY opposed to freedom of expression, and prevent religions from being practiced freely, but let's not kid ourselves that courts are anywhere near perfect.
I am happy with the system we have. That doesn't make me blind : it's not perfect. Not by a long shot.
Guns as a deterrent depends on people valuing their lives, accepting mortality, but believing they can live longer if they're careful. If you're young enough, tough enough, dumb enough, or your life is shitty enough, that might not be the case, and thus you end up amplifying the mess by giving everyone a license to kill.
Are you a creationist ? Since what you say flies in the face of evolution theory. If any group of people thought like that, they would be extinct before they had any real amount of children, therefore said group wouldn't last long.
Now of course, the little hole in my argument is that gangs in LA do indeed not last long.
So rest assured, if there are indeed groups where more guns = more dead, then those groups will die out "naturally" (unless you consider evolution unnatural).
(and btw, guns are all but outlawed in LA, so it is a very good illustration why gun control doesn't work. An argument that outlawing guns only puts honest people at a disadvantage).
Perhaps you should read the link... Unless you're going to claim that it isn't logically proven (or "scientifically proven") by those facts. Of course since Godel we know that nothing can be logically proven. It could all be a great coincidence, and you can never exclude any amount of coincidences, therefore "any model fits". It could all be random. However if we really thought like that, we'd all still live in caves, so reasonable people are going to go with that the article proves it until something better comes along.
The cycle of violence, obviously was not started by the ban. However the ban, both on guns and later on knives, did not only NOT stop the problem, but actually accelerated it.
"An inconvenient truth" - one that is actually true
Actually a network requires constant maintenance and repairs (and adjustments when some script kiddie starts dossing). Not to mention power supply (which means diesel distribution) and staffing of the NOC's. A good network will keep working once the last guy dies for about 48 hours or so, even though some parts will remain operational for much, much longer.
If it didn't everybody and their dog would have a global network.
Does that change anything ? Everyone is biased. The fact mentioned in the article is not biased, it's simply true. Hamas supports obama, so does Bill Ayers.
Terrorists in the US, who aren't foreignors, e.g. Bill Ayers, has also clearly stated his preference (when he's not pissing on the flag). Take a wild guess.
What is it that these people see in Obama ? A chance, a chance to expand their power, to kill, maim and terrorize. That is, after all, all they see in anything.
Unless you disagree with the facts that hamas shoots or claim the "islamic resistance" is not religious.
Terrorists in the US, e.g. Bill Ayers, has also clearly stated his preference. Take a wild guess.
Hell, if Osama were still alive, we'd probably see a video of him threatening to destroy all other manhattan towers if americans choose mccain.
Must be a strange world you live in, where "redneck" and christian "religious fanatics" are the worst problems. Tell me, after the second star it was to the right, correct ?
Slashdot Mirror
Surely it must do this ... All the big ones do.
The only thing that might be problematic would be the "decent storage space" bit. But even there most isp's are good, and if they're not ... change ?
Actually these are bureaucrats refusing to do their master's bidding ... guess what their chances are ... I worked at the EU. The organisation isn't even democratic (the real power is in the hands of an unelected body, the european comission).
Any demands for accountability of the leaders will be shot down faster than it would have been in Iran, or on the Tiananmen square. The EU is all about how it looks. About the wages of the "fonctionnaires" (this is a word that will join a dictionary in 2050 with references to "fuhrer", "KGB", "SS" and "comissar"). It is european after all. Not about substance.
Complaining about substance will get you sued faster than saying "real prophets don't rape 6-year old girls" will get you killed in Iran, however true the claims may be.
It's funny. Just yesterday it was described in the local papers how the performance of the current government was fabulous, beyond fantastic.
They reduced unemployment to 11,2% (from 13%) ...
And yes, I've checked, it's higher in Bangalore too.
You cite sources, admit they are weak, and then say "look them up yourself". Sorry, you don't have a leg to stand on. Modern Islam rarely takes on a form for "forced militant behavior" other than extremism we have seen in cults and terrorist groups. And as I have said, all religious groups, ALL, have had their share of human rights abuse in the past.
"rarely" ... that seems an odd place for such a word. You don't even believe what you're saying yourself. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad ...
And of course, you can't answer for the absurdity of your claim, except by logical fallacies. You just repeat the absurd claim and assume I will let it pass without examining ... Let's analyse your idiotic claim (I can use repetition too as a way to convince people) :
"And as I have said, all religious groups, ALL, have had their share of human rights abuse in the past."
Now this answer you give because you can't answer the question that was posed. The paedophile prophet is a monster, and you cannot point to equivalent actions in the Christian faith, by Jesus Christ. So you just state your point, which obviously requires ignoring this difference. Jesus Christ, whether he was a real person or not, is, in the books of Christianity, a peaceful, wise, patient and sympathetic man that would never hurt a fly. Muhammad, real or not, is, in the books of islam, a vindictive genocidal paedophile rapist and massacrer who killed people merely because someone said they talked about him. That's the example muslims hold their kids to.
And you say "it's just the same thing". Does it really need to be argued that it's not ? Apparently it does ...
So since you don't have an answer on the atrocities that Christians talk their children into. The atrocities Christians ask their children to commit when they ask them to imitate Jesus Christ, there are none, so attempting to answer the question would be extremely contraproductive for you ...
Furthermore, even if you count the crimes of every last Christian that were comitted in the name of Christianity (which would obviously require that you'd be fair and hold islam itself responsible for 9/11, not "just" bin laden himself, but every muslim), there seems to be a bit of a degree difference. Even ignoring that Christianity is the source of the human rights idea in the first place, there seems to be a historical difference.
Christians are accused of killing somewhere between 10.000 and 100.000 people because of religion, over the course of more than 2 millenia. These claims are generally shady, and nearly all of these people were convicted in the contemporary equivalent of a court (which does not necessarily make it fair of course, or even that they knew about the conviction beforehand*, but it's something, I'm not claiming that)
* like in today's sharia courts that convict people who don't know that they stand accused. Then send out, not the police, but "the muslims" a horde, to burn the witch.
By contrast, the source of the islamic "faith" killed over 10.000 people HIMSELF merely for their belief, for being jews, and a few for being black. Muslims, over the centuries killed over a billion people. 300 million hindus in India at least, and that's just the east side. Many millions in Northern africa : so many that there aren't any black North africans left. Massacre upon massacre. Millions of Persians .... At least several million in Turkey ... the list goes on, and on, and on ...
I am not saying anyone, or any ideology is without fault. I am merely stating facts about a specific religion. Please don't imply things I didn't say. Here's what I am saying, with references, even if they are low-quality references at best.
Everyone knows that the prophet is to islam what Jesus Christ is for christianity. For Christians, the question is "what would Jesus do ?" for muslims the question is "what would the prophet do ?" and the answers are somewhat ... different than those you're used to from christians :
the prophet raped a minor girl, fact (involuntary sex, whether within marriage or not is rape, especially if the girl did not know about the marriage)
he raided caravans, stealing, raping and kidnapping people into slavery, fact (none of these sources are very good themselves, please look up the primary sources yourself)
he comitted SEVERAL religious massacres, fact
Jihad means "holy war". Or at least that's what it meant from the 7th to the late 20th century, in every muslim source. The massacres in arabia, the muslim massacres that eradicated the blacks from north africa, and the utterly massive massacre muslim comitted in India are referred to, in any muslim historical source as "jihads". Whatever else jihad means, clearly to muslims it includes these massacres, so please have your translation include that fact. I realise calling jihad "holy war", with massacre implied, that that is very politically incorrect, but that IS what it means.
Just like "islam" means "submission" yes, but it very VERY strongly implies militarily enforced submission, and certainly does not mean voluntary submission. You are a muslim if you're militarily dominated by islam, if your family does that for example, not if you "believe". Most muslims don't believe, not in the sense that they have faith in God (if you read the quran you'll understand why faith in god is nonexistent in islam, you see allah is a vindictive asshole and the prophet even more, they kill for no reason at all, criminally insane and dangerous individuals, even by muslim standards, and certainly nothing like Jesus Christ in the new testament)
Read the primary sources. Draw your own conclusions. E.g.
When asked whether his soldiers should or should not rape female captives in war, the prophet answered, wait, let me just point you to the source and have you answer this yourself
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3432
He said that, not only was raping them okay, but if they were impregnated, that would not matter.
Now my challenge to you, point me to the section of the new testament were Jesus orders his soldiers to rape captive women. Oh you can't ? Well well, isn't that interesting ?
Just to make your thoughts more clear :
So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.
No, don't you read? You just have to kill the leader.
Aren't Obama and McCain leaders ? Okay maybe Obama is a puppet, so perhaps it'd be better to kill Joe Biden on the democrat side, but other than the names of the current "leaders", the principle is correct ?
By that standard, we'd probably have to shoot Obama AND McCain, you know, just in case they're "originators". Such EVIL !
Not really, they're merely iterations, the 44th to be precise.
So we should not only shoot Obama and McCain, but both Clintons, both Bushes, Joe Lieberman, and all ex-presidential candidates ?
I think by 44th iteration of leaders you're saying we should kill them, and all their predecessors in the 44 previous campaigns ?
Mind if I tell you something about the world ? It's going to sound trivial. It's going to sound insultingly simple.
That's because it IS insultingly simple :
Different ideologies are ... ... different.
So unfortunately you're wrong. If you replace those words, it doesn't make sense anymore. Not from a historical perspective.
It only makes a good soundbyte. The problem ?
Christians killed a few tens of thousand questionable characters for religion. Many of these were murderers and otherwise criminals. Yes there are innocents amongst them, I don't deny that. Most, however, were not innocent.
Muslims killed a BILLION people in spreading islam. They killed several hundred million of their own in the process too.
If you actually believed 10% of the things muslims claim about the Jews then you could also fill in Judaism in that sentence, and it wouldn't make sense either.
So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.
By that standard, we'd probably have to shoot Obama AND McCain, you know, just in case they're "originators". Such EVIL !
Indeed, it's their ideology that's danguerous, because it induces others to kill, not the person himself/herself. Alone they're mere little crybabies, trying to weasel out of everything. It's not the ideology that makes them evil, but it's the ideology that empowers them to induce others to do their evil for them on a huge scale.
Of course some ideologies are much more potent enablers of evil than others. Democracy, for instance, isn't very useable for a dictator. Stuff like communism or islam on the other hand ... (unless you enjoy genocide you're not going to like the history of either communism or islam very much).
Does that make these ideologies evil in themselves ? Yes.
Does it absolve people who accept those ideologies from responsability ? Of course not. In fact it makes them at least partially guilty from the moment they accept that ideology.
Actually yes, the ideology is certainly not innocent. And those people, the nazi's, are not innocent, first in accepting those principles as an ideology, and later a small part of them in killing to preserve them.
Nazism was a "moderate" socialist/communist ideology (certainly more moderate than Stalin's, though probably not what one would call a "moderately socialist" opinion in an American) which led to Germany not being able to care for it's own people.
Which led to the demand for "lebensraum", ie more land. Also this led to the demand to "tax the rich", and prevent the rich from taking over again, as their power remained. As a populist measure Hitler scratched "rich" from karl marx' script and filled in "rich jewish arms merchants", and continued on. Of course this did not change anything.
So pretty soon (took about 10-15 years) there wasn't much left to steal in Germany, so the ideology of stealing continued on : it attacked it's neighbour states and started stealing from them (talk to any survivor, you'll see how much emphasis the "reich" put on stealing art, money and treasure, and how regulated this stealing was, just like islam regulates stealing (goods stolen from infidels are considered legally acquired and taxed 20% in sharia)).
So they attacked. Obviously many, many prisoners were the result, they weren't like the muslims, who historically started conquests with a massacre, they respected the white flag and took survivers prisoner and cared for them if possible, at least initially. But it went still worse with Germany economically, since they were still following communist/socialist dogma, and still failing even further. So they had a HUGE war prisoners population they couldn't take care off ... conditions worsened. First gradually, but more and more. Eventually they stopped putting brakes on military vehicles, including prisoner transports.
They also had a national healthcare plan, that became utterly unpayable. So rather than admitting defeat, they killed cripples and anyone "not productive" that was a strain on their healthcare resources. Medicines weren't yet as expensive, so most money went to patients needing full-time or part-time help and tools, like cripples or blind people. They did this, again, not because they planned it or out of spite or hate against their victims, they did it to be able to keep saying their national healthcare worked. They killed for the same reason muslims kill : because it's the only way to preserve their ideology. Without constant honor killings, islam would quickly be overwhelmed by human nature itself. The concentration camps, some of them, were actually part of the German national healthcare system, and were meant initially as a cost cutting measure, increasing the number of cripples per nurse/docter by cutting travel.
Initially the racist nature of nazism only demanded that these patients/prisoners/jews/dissidents not have children.
However pretty soon it became, due to the further deterioration of Germany, and due to the pressure caused by the counterattack by Britain and the USSR, impossible to man the "camps", both prisoner camps and "healthcare" camps, with sufficient guards to prevent massive outbreaks or military medical personnel that could be used at the frontline. But those people couldn't be released, and left to care for themselves, that would mean nazism and therefore their brand of socialist/communist law had failed.
And then someone came up with the "final solution" ...
Nazi's didn't kill because they liked it. They did it because they liked it more than the alternative (giving up power, risking revolution, admitting defeat). They did it because otherwise people wouldn't listen to the "obvious concerns for the planet" they had : population had to go down, and the "best bred people, the best genes" had to survive. Eugenics. The fit (=nazi's to a nazi) would no longer rule, but idiots, and the rich would rule again.
I mean sure, you're right. Individuals choose
Sssshhhh this is slashdot. The position is that muslims, having killed millions upon millions of people in religious massacres, have recently come to the discovery that they really want to live peacefully from now on, ending a killing spree of over 1300 years.
All these muslims today, you see, are totally different from all their predecessors, and share nothing with them. Except a book commanding them to commit religious massacres, rape children (google "aisha age"), murder in order to stifle dissent (google "asma bint marwan"), and worse.
And the result will not be a dead hellhole where nothing survives. The result of not defending against these massacrers will be the final utopia, where everyone will live happily ever after.
You should try going against the consensus in slashdot. You might mention the fact that the founder of the islamic "religion" comitted multiple religious massacres.
You could even suggest that this probably means that islam itself is, to say the least, "not opposed" to the idea of religious massacres. You might even say that "jihad" seems to include the practice of religious massacres, both historically and contemporary (e.g. Sudan).
And of course, by any objective standard, you'd be right.
But the consensus on slashdot will be put down firmly. After all regressives (since "progressives" want to let these idiots bring back the 8th century, I refer to them as regressives)
Sshhhhhhh ... these people are "progressive". They have to be able to deny the history, contents and ideas of islam.
Of course islam is antisemitic. The prophet killed 1200 jews in one of his religious massacres (e.g. google for "khaybar"). Saying that religiously massacring jews is wrong is saying islam is evil.
Of course if you do think that massacres are evil, then you're not going to be a fan of the quran, you're going to think the prophet is a monster (which he is, much more so than many others we call monsters), and islam to be excluded from allowed religions, and that muslims are at best as good as nazi's. You can talk very nice with most of them too, after all.
At least McCain has (some) stated goals that agree with your goals, even if you (rightly, imho) doubt he will implement them.
Obama's stated goals are the exact opposite of yours, and he equally fails to implement them (and apparently he'll invade pakistan. He's just stupid about the use of military force, attacking "friends" (troubled friends, VERY troubled friends, but still some -sometimes a bit unclear- measure better than enemies) instead of enemies, he's not really using less of it).
Are you only pro-Obama because you feel he's the more incompetent of the two ? If you're really libertarian, what other possible motivation can there be ?
It baffles the mind how one can vote democrat and claim libertarianism as an ideology. Cradle to grave government healthcare really is (as any idiot knows) cradle to grave government control. With that the government literally decides who lives and who dies.
To say the least, the essential part of democrat policy is the very antithesis of libertarianism.
1) there's no such thing as "rightly" getting off scott-free for any criminal, and this has nothing to do with the evidence. Crime and guilt are utterly independent of evidence. It's just that we're human and limited and need evidence to be confident about truth. Evidence doesn't change truth. ... I mean can be if you're rich enough).
2) rich kids get off, poor ones don't. Does this really deserve to be argued ? Obviously someone who pays a lawyer to go over every last letter ever written down by anyone involved in the case is going to discover procedural errors. No lawyer does this pro-bono.
3) there are many cases where I could live with "without a warrant". A murder isn't excused because a police officer broke down a door in real life. Only in law it is (I am sorry
4) that's only the "way the system is supposed to work" if you think of the letter of the law as a goal in itself. If it's justice you're after, that is not -at all- how the system is supposed to work. It's just "admitting defeat" on the part of the police/judge/court/... Admitting that because someone screwed up, and can't trust their evidence anymore, and the case can't continue. It does not in any way change the crime. It does not make bodies come to life. It does not unrape a person.
A question comes to mind ... especially since you think this is how the system's supposed to work ... are you a lawyer ? Law student perhaps ? The law is a (very) imperfect method to achieve some (low and equally imperfect) measure of justice. It is NOT the definition of justice.
That's okay - most lawyers fail in making that distinction.
The people representing the defendants in RIAA suits are lawyers.
And who, exactly, is representing the RIAA ? In fact that firm that's actively sabotaging networks ... isn't that a lawyer firm ? Hmmm ...
I'm probably stating the obvious. And stop threatening me.
Is it so inconceivable that two men of diverse backgrounds could end up with similar policies? I am aware that there are differences, and that some of these are important in the short term. Taking the long view, however, results in an identical push by both candidates for more government and less individual freedom. These ramifications won't be made apparent for another 10-20 years, but they will show up. I cannot vote for any candidate who will (sometimes with the best intentions) do such a thing to my country.
If this is truly your position then you should vote republican. Unless you seriously believe that having medical care "administered" (meaning some guy in washington decides whether you can get cancer treatment or not, without possibility for a second opinion). This is just one example, because Obama wants many more things regulated : your finances for example, how & where you put your money. Or the way your children are educated and by whom (and what those people say to your children).
And yes, maybe you're right about the loss of freedom. But at least McCain will delay the loss of freedom somewhat.
Uhuh ... I don't mean to be intruding but ... ahem ... There's this slight issue that you seem to leave out.
aren't good lawyers more expensive than bad lawyers ? And if that is so, then doesn't the "upper class" have better interpretations of the law on their side. Furthermore there is corruption to spoil your broth further and there are plain and simple lyers.
Ever tried to sue the phone company ? You should, it will teach you a very good lesson about how & when the police will actually do something.
Laws don't change a thing about the fairness in society, nor do they make anyone honest. Afghanistan under the taliban lead the world in all these very fine trades : rapes, drug production and drug use, yet they had no shortage whatsoever of either laws or lawyers (drug production with lawyers on your side - sure that's legal, but don't you dare put tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag !).
The real issue is simple : it's ideology that matters, that defines the fairness of a society. What defines whether YOU think a society is fair is how well it's "system" matches YOUR values. E.g. there is obviously a nontrivial portion of muslims that find the taliban's system fair, since they're killing eachother over it ("taliban", incidentally, means "wise muslim").
Which is not to say that a lawyers advice cannot be useful to people. However laws are today, and will always remain, fundamentally flawed, and lawyers' motivation is fundamentally flawed : financial gain. That obviously is more easily available from the worst of people.
I think it's keenly observed that the priest "class" was replaced by lawyers in our society. The main difference is that the priests had good intentions, at least in theory (even if too often not in practice). Lawyers only want money. Those are the drivers of their respective professions. Priests want a fair society, that upholds high moral standards (in theory). Lawyers want money, whatever the consequences (again in theory).
A priest that's bad for justice is a priest that's less moral than his/her profession demands. A lawyer that's GOOD for justice is a lawyers that's MORE moral than his profession demand. The "default position" has been switched.
That's why rich child killers run free because of "procedural error" and people get in jail for refusing to pay a parking fine : a judge is a lawyer. Intentions nor reasonableness matter, only the letter of the law, and money. Granted priest-judges execute too many innocents, and are VERY opposed to freedom of expression, and prevent religions from being practiced freely, but let's not kid ourselves that courts are anywhere near perfect.
I am happy with the system we have. That doesn't make me blind : it's not perfect. Not by a long shot.
Actually the black guy qualifies in anyone's book as a rich white guy ... Unless you're totally obsessed with skin color.
millionaire - check
ivy league educated in law - check
wife and kids - check
lives in suburbs - check
"change" - well I guess not that much change. Okay, let me revise that, no change at all.
Obama is just another lawyer. One who doesn't have a principles stance of "freedom" but "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice".
Guns as a deterrent depends on people valuing their lives, accepting mortality, but believing they can live longer if they're careful. If you're young enough, tough enough, dumb enough, or your life is shitty enough, that might not be the case, and thus you end up amplifying the mess by giving everyone a license to kill.
Are you a creationist ? Since what you say flies in the face of evolution theory. If any group of people thought like that, they would be extinct before they had any real amount of children, therefore said group wouldn't last long.
Now of course, the little hole in my argument is that gangs in LA do indeed not last long.
So rest assured, if there are indeed groups where more guns = more dead, then those groups will die out "naturally" (unless you consider evolution unnatural).
(and btw, guns are all but outlawed in LA, so it is a very good illustration why gun control doesn't work. An argument that outlawing guns only puts honest people at a disadvantage).
Perhaps you should read the link ... Unless you're going to claim that it isn't logically proven (or "scientifically proven") by those facts. Of course since Godel we know that nothing can be logically proven. It could all be a great coincidence, and you can never exclude any amount of coincidences, therefore "any model fits". It could all be random. However if we really thought like that, we'd all still live in caves, so reasonable people are going to go with that the article proves it until something better comes along.
The cycle of violence, obviously was not started by the ban. However the ban, both on guns and later on knives, did not only NOT stop the problem, but actually accelerated it.
"An inconvenient truth" - one that is actually true
Actually a network requires constant maintenance and repairs (and adjustments when some script kiddie starts dossing). Not to mention power supply (which means diesel distribution) and staffing of the NOC's. A good network will keep working once the last guy dies for about 48 hours or so, even though some parts will remain operational for much, much longer.
If it didn't everybody and their dog would have a global network.
Does that change anything ? Everyone is biased. The fact mentioned in the article is not biased, it's simply true. Hamas supports obama, so does Bill Ayers.
They're biased too. Great, no ?
How is that relevant ? Does that make these massacrers any less nuts ? Does it make their support of obama any less ?
No ...
The worst "shoot-everything religious nutcases" support Obama. That was the statement I made and I do believe it stands proven.
Terrorists in the US, who aren't foreignors, e.g. Bill Ayers, has also clearly stated his preference (when he's not pissing on the flag). Take a wild guess.
What is it that these people see in Obama ? A chance, a chance to expand their power, to kill, maim and terrorize. That is, after all, all they see in anything.
Actually shoot-everything religious type people are on the side of Obama, actually :
There are also muslims in this world you know. They combine the religious fanatics and shoot-everything properties you so complain about ...
And ... they're obamatons too
Unless you disagree with the facts that hamas shoots or claim the "islamic resistance" is not religious.
Terrorists in the US, e.g. Bill Ayers, has also clearly stated his preference. Take a wild guess.
Hell, if Osama were still alive, we'd probably see a video of him threatening to destroy all other manhattan towers if americans choose mccain.
Must be a strange world you live in, where "redneck" and christian "religious fanatics" are the worst problems. Tell me, after the second star it was to the right, correct ?