"tolerance" : an intolerant, and dangerous contradiction
Can someone please explain to me how there can be tolerance against gays, muslims and mexicans ?
Mexicans are massively (and I mean massively) against gay marriage. That's a fact, treat it as you will.
If you are publicly against the massacring of gays in a muslim state, you run yourself the risk of getting killed for it. Worse than that fact in and of itself, is that most moslims support that (and no "only in muslim-majority countries" is no serious objection : that's like saying you only kill when you're sure the other guy ends up dead).
These tolerance ideas are nice and all, but how do they work ? They are self-inconsistent. Are you tolerant to christianity and islam ? Are you tolerant to their intolerance towards gays ? Are you aware of the different treatment of gays in various cultures (e.g. massacring them islam-style, ignoring and generally having nothing to do with them jesus-style, and let's not start claiming these 2 are the worst, just, for example, look up how imperial japan (the party that's really the only political party in japan is a big fan of imperial days)
And this is keeping it politely. After all, there are many ideologies, including some truly horrendous monstrosities like islam. How about the variant of protestantism that fought a civil war for slavery ? How about muslim slave trade, an essential part of the islamic religion for over 1400 years ? How about nazi's ? Should you be tolerant to them ?
And if the answer is "you shouldn't be tolerant to intolerance"... where do you go with that. It's beyond obvious that large amounts of the muslim world are horribly intolerant, and so are the large majority of it's inhabitants. How do you plan to change their mind (note that most of them would respond violently to any attempt to change their mind), and most of their governments and police forces won't let you try in the first place...
So what do you do if you "do not tolerate the intolerant" ? Do you attack muslims in the US ? (Neo-)nazi's in the US ? Elsewhere ? Do you enforce what basically amounts to US law with an army world-wide ?
The question is, given a dielectric medium, an interface between 2 substances with different refractive indexes, will a push or a pull will be exerted on the interface surface given that the surface the light is coming out of has a lower refractive index than the substance the light is flying into.
(stops for a breather)
And I can't find the full answer in the article. (the full answer will contain how the force exerted depends on the refraction indices, ie. just "push" or "pull" is not enough. That's like saying the clock rotates to the right : it's correct half of the time)
Tell me, dear "Admiral Ag", while you are for the moment (ie. during hostilities) correct, you aren't correct generally.
The sea border of Gaza is perfectly open to the mediterranean. But an open coastline is not enough to get traffic going.
You need a functioning port. There used to be a functioning port in Gaza, built by Israeli's. However ports require regular baggering on the coast of the mediterannean (well, non-rocky coasts to be exact).
They haven't baggered their sole port for over 10 years now, meaning the only ships that can safely dock to gaza territory are rowboats. Even small fishing craft run unacceptable risk (meaning sooner or later they "run land" and are stuck for the forseeable future). Normally you could wait for the tide to come in in such cases, but what do you know, the mediterannean, while it indeed has a tide, has a very small one. Meaning if you run a ship into the coast of Gaza, it might very well stay stuck.
So while traffic is theoretically possible -outside of war- it can only be done by loading rowboats lightly from open sea and peddling to the coast. Or they could build a port, of course. But they'd have to actually DO this. Spend money on something other than weapons for once.
And of course, you know the concept of "international waters". There is NO jurisdiction there. Anybody has the right to do whatever they want to anyone they find on international waters. Everybody is perfectly free, even using a nuke on a pirate vessel would be a perfectly legal course of action on open waters. So that means Gaza would need to build up a marine force to defend their ships on water like every other nation had to do, or create (and hold themselves to) alliances in order to get safe access to open waters.
And that alliance in order to get access to international waters first and foremost requires peaceful relations with their neighbors. Gaza is de-facto at war with both of it's neighbours, meaning it's sea border is not exactly well secured.
This is how it works : on open sea, nobody has ANY rights whatsoever. Meaning you're pretty much on your own. No police, no army to protect you, no nothing. For a nation to get safe access to the sea requires peaceful relations, or at the very least a cease-fire agreement.
Since the very basis of hamas is "genocide on the jews, allah orders it" any alliance or cease-fire seems somewhat unlikely.
Of course, America *is* supporting pakistan *and* bangladesh. Over 10 million hindus perished during the "pakistan secession war", killed by muslim under cries of "allahu akbar".
Pakistan and Bangladesh were both integral parts of India, and have been conquered by muslims in the last 30 years.
So if you were honest, and want to fix "recent history" you'd be calling for the abolishment of pakistan and deportation of all it's muslim inhabitants.
And if you were calling for cancelling all invasions, you would be calling for the abolishment of EVERY muslim nation. You'd be calling for restoring the Jewish city state of Mecca, the one the paedophile prophet massacred out of existence. The restoration of the city of Constantinople under the sole leader of the orthodox church. Restoring the glory of Bahrain, and it's many churches. Restoring egypt, and all of northern africa to be under the sole jurisdiction of the orthodox pope.
Another nice one : you are calling to let Serbia reconquer kosovo (talk about a recent occupation). Undo what clinton did, and bomb the crap out of the kosovar albanians.
But in reality, the only thing you want to do is to prevent Jews from defending themselves from those who would wipe them out. That's the only thing you're calling for. You have zero intrest in preventing occupation.
Just about every last inch of the world is "occupied territory". And most certainly every last inch of land where muslims live is occupied territory. But even outside of "the muslim hellhole ('world')" there are very few places indeed that cannot be said to be occupied.
Okay, then let's start by seeing you call for the abolishment of muslim-occupied india (pakistan and bangladesh), and recent changes in Afrika (Sudan, most pressingly, but also Eritrea and Somalia) FIRST, because both are more recently become "occupied" than Israel existed. Pakistan became occupied by muslims when they executed over 10 million Indian hindus, and separated from India. This happened in 1970. The extermination of blacks from Sudan is not at all finished, and arabs are comitting genocide there right now. It's also currently occupied territory.
And when those countries, pakistan, somalia, eritrea, and sudan have been given back, muslims removed from them, then we'll see about going further.
"You just don't like seeing slaughters". In other words, the only things you care about are the ones currently on TV. Please stop making yourself illusions about how "caring" you are, how "moral" your positions are.
You want to help people ? Go out and help them. Don't shout bullshit about some far off problem and repeat whatever you see on TV. Tons of people need help and they're not hard to find.
Or read about history before, how the situation was created. But trust me, after reading the history of the Jewish state and the province of palestina, you're not going to like the "palestinians" anymore. At all.
Generally people who side with genocidal maniaks don't get much politeness from me. Especially people who side with jew-killers. I don't feel sorry for that - at all.
Olive trees ? I'm guessing you haven't visited either Gaza or the West bank.
Yes there are some (non-muslim -heh-) berbers who live of the land in the West bank. The worst piece of land only, near the dead sea. THOSE are the original inhabitants. They are -literally- hunted down by the people you call the palestinians.
But I find that idea fantastic. Let's end occupation. Muslims conquered just about all land that is called "muslim land". So let's end occupation !
Let's END the muslim occupation of Northern Africa, the muslim occupation of pieces of Asia, and end all muslim occupation of all Saudi cities except medina.
That would be fair.
Let's end occupation ! Let's drive all muslims out of Africa, Asia and 99% of the middle east.
Pst. The original zionists got the entire province of palestine for themselves from someone who was generally referred to as "the caliph". There was no conquest involved.
Pst. There is no such thing as "muslim land". The only land that was peacefully converted to islam is a tiny part of 1 city : medina. All the rest was conquered. That would be "muslim-occupied land".
Pst. Let's drive muslims out of every piece of berber land (most of southern sahara). Christian land (north africa, egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia) and out of Hindu Land (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,...)
Let's be fair, and reject conquest. Let's drive all muslims into one neighboorhood of the only voluntary muslim neighboorhood.
Let's end the muslim occupation of northern africa ! Let's END islam in Africa, in the middle east and in Asia.
The problem is that Gazans are, in reality, responsible for the mess they're in. They'll literally kill every last Gazan in order to get to the jews and all other considerations are secondary.
Gazans literally throw babies (LITERALLY) in the path of bullets, just to get good shots for the media (and baby's are plenty there).
It's just reality. The socialists used to kill Jews themselves. Hitler and Stalin alike. Now they pay others to kill Jews and cry foul when they defend themselves. Crying foul when the Jews defended themselves is something Hitler did too, of course.
You *might* also take a look at what happened last time they really opened up the gates of Gaza.
Not that what palestinians did to Egypt is very much different from what they tried to do in Syria (see Hafsa massacre) or Jordan (another massacre, but I can't find the reference currently).
You the type of guy that would blame the police for not attempting "peaceful resolution", for "using violence" when they're under fire with machine guns.
Let's fire qassams at your house. Let's see if you call the police - call them to commit violence on your behalf - or do what you would have the Israeli's do. Just let the attacks continue, even after, say your daughter gets killed.
You're incorrect. Agnosticism has no central dogma. Atheism does.
There is more to a "positive" statement than simply the lack of the word "no", you know. Non-existence of something is obviously a positive statement, one that requires proof.
Slashdot Mirror
"tolerance" : an intolerant, and dangerous contradiction
Can someone please explain to me how there can be tolerance against gays, muslims and mexicans ?
Mexicans are massively (and I mean massively) against gay marriage. That's a fact, treat it as you will.
If you are publicly against the massacring of gays in a muslim state, you run yourself the risk of getting killed for it. Worse than that fact in and of itself, is that most moslims support that (and no "only in muslim-majority countries" is no serious objection : that's like saying you only kill when you're sure the other guy ends up dead).
These tolerance ideas are nice and all, but how do they work ? They are self-inconsistent. Are you tolerant to christianity and islam ? Are you tolerant to their intolerance towards gays ? Are you aware of the different treatment of gays in various cultures (e.g. massacring them islam-style, ignoring and generally having nothing to do with them jesus-style, and let's not start claiming these 2 are the worst, just, for example, look up how imperial japan (the party that's really the only political party in japan is a big fan of imperial days)
And this is keeping it politely. After all, there are many ideologies, including some truly horrendous monstrosities like islam. How about the variant of protestantism that fought a civil war for slavery ? How about muslim slave trade, an essential part of the islamic religion for over 1400 years ? How about nazi's ? Should you be tolerant to them ?
And if the answer is "you shouldn't be tolerant to intolerance" ... where do you go with that. It's beyond obvious that large amounts of the muslim world are horribly intolerant, and so are the large majority of it's inhabitants. How do you plan to change their mind (note that most of them would respond violently to any attempt to change their mind), and most of their governments and police forces won't let you try in the first place ...
So what do you do if you "do not tolerate the intolerant" ? Do you attack muslims in the US ? (Neo-)nazi's in the US ? Elsewhere ? Do you enforce what basically amounts to US law with an army world-wide ?
So exactly how much is Al Gore's $30000 energy bill worth ?
That can only work for 2 or 3 neighbourhoods next to either a power plant or a waste oven.
How many of those are there ? Just a few "lucky ones" (who have to deal with the smell and/or with pollution).
So : Great Idea ! For a few thousand people. For the rest ... not so much.
Also the fact that you're paying for nuclear power while they're paying for oil power has something to do with it.
Nuclear is loads cheaper.
The question is, given a dielectric medium, an interface between 2 substances with different refractive indexes, will a push or a pull will be exerted on the interface surface given that the surface the light is coming out of has a lower refractive index than the substance the light is flying into.
(stops for a breather)
And I can't find the full answer in the article. (the full answer will contain how the force exerted depends on the refraction indices, ie. just "push" or "pull" is not enough. That's like saying the clock rotates to the right : it's correct half of the time)
Tell me, dear "Admiral Ag", while you are for the moment (ie. during hostilities) correct, you aren't correct generally.
The sea border of Gaza is perfectly open to the mediterranean. But an open coastline is not enough to get traffic going.
You need a functioning port. There used to be a functioning port in Gaza, built by Israeli's. However ports require regular baggering on the coast of the mediterannean (well, non-rocky coasts to be exact).
They haven't baggered their sole port for over 10 years now, meaning the only ships that can safely dock to gaza territory are rowboats. Even small fishing craft run unacceptable risk (meaning sooner or later they "run land" and are stuck for the forseeable future). Normally you could wait for the tide to come in in such cases, but what do you know, the mediterannean, while it indeed has a tide, has a very small one. Meaning if you run a ship into the coast of Gaza, it might very well stay stuck.
So while traffic is theoretically possible -outside of war- it can only be done by loading rowboats lightly from open sea and peddling to the coast. Or they could build a port, of course. But they'd have to actually DO this. Spend money on something other than weapons for once.
And of course, you know the concept of "international waters". There is NO jurisdiction there. Anybody has the right to do whatever they want to anyone they find on international waters. Everybody is perfectly free, even using a nuke on a pirate vessel would be a perfectly legal course of action on open waters. So that means Gaza would need to build up a marine force to defend their ships on water like every other nation had to do, or create (and hold themselves to) alliances in order to get safe access to open waters.
And that alliance in order to get access to international waters first and foremost requires peaceful relations with their neighbors. Gaza is de-facto at war with both of it's neighbours, meaning it's sea border is not exactly well secured.
This is how it works : on open sea, nobody has ANY rights whatsoever. Meaning you're pretty much on your own. No police, no army to protect you, no nothing. For a nation to get safe access to the sea requires peaceful relations, or at the very least a cease-fire agreement.
Since the very basis of hamas is "genocide on the jews, allah orders it" any alliance or cease-fire seems somewhat unlikely.
And even if we have pics. They're obviously part of the conspiracy !
It isn't because you're paranoid that they aren't out to get you.
Of course, America *is* supporting pakistan *and* bangladesh. Over 10 million hindus perished during the "pakistan secession war", killed by muslim under cries of "allahu akbar".
Pakistan and Bangladesh were both integral parts of India, and have been conquered by muslims in the last 30 years.
So if you were honest, and want to fix "recent history" you'd be calling for the abolishment of pakistan and deportation of all it's muslim inhabitants.
And if you were calling for cancelling all invasions, you would be calling for the abolishment of EVERY muslim nation. You'd be calling for restoring the Jewish city state of Mecca, the one the paedophile prophet massacred out of existence. The restoration of the city of Constantinople under the sole leader of the orthodox church. Restoring the glory of Bahrain, and it's many churches. Restoring egypt, and all of northern africa to be under the sole jurisdiction of the orthodox pope.
Another nice one : you are calling to let Serbia reconquer kosovo (talk about a recent occupation). Undo what clinton did, and bomb the crap out of the kosovar albanians.
But in reality, the only thing you want to do is to prevent Jews from defending themselves from those who would wipe them out. That's the only thing you're calling for. You have zero intrest in preventing occupation.
Just about every last inch of the world is "occupied territory". And most certainly every last inch of land where muslims live is occupied territory. But even outside of "the muslim hellhole ('world')" there are very few places indeed that cannot be said to be occupied.
So the idea of US soldiers locking Gazans in, is just muslim (let's start calling the enemy by name, shall we ?) propaganda.
And the GP failed to check the facts, and fell for an enemy lie. It's as simple as that.
Israel however isn't ancient history.
Okay, then let's start by seeing you call for the abolishment of muslim-occupied india (pakistan and bangladesh), and recent changes in Afrika (Sudan, most pressingly, but also Eritrea and Somalia) FIRST, because both are more recently become "occupied" than Israel existed. Pakistan became occupied by muslims when they executed over 10 million Indian hindus, and separated from India. This happened in 1970. The extermination of blacks from Sudan is not at all finished, and arabs are comitting genocide there right now. It's also currently occupied territory.
And when those countries, pakistan, somalia, eritrea, and sudan have been given back, muslims removed from them, then we'll see about going further.
"You just don't like seeing slaughters". In other words, the only things you care about are the ones currently on TV. Please stop making yourself illusions about how "caring" you are, how "moral" your positions are.
You want to help people ? Go out and help them. Don't shout bullshit about some far off problem and repeat whatever you see on TV. Tons of people need help and they're not hard to find.
Or read about history before, how the situation was created. But trust me, after reading the history of the Jewish state and the province of palestina, you're not going to like the "palestinians" anymore. At all.
How "courageous" is it, exactly, to condemn Jewish actions ? Not at all obviously.
How utterly despicable are the persons you're allying yourself with. Well I'll let hamas do the talking on that point :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBYtij4Q7sE&eurl=http://www.onejerusalem.org/
How courageous is joining the massacrers ? Not courageous at all. Just as joining "the champion of the poor" was not at all courageous in 1930.
(in case you don't know, the "champion of the poor" of the 1930's was hitler)
I did most certainly not mean figuratively.
<citation needed>
Generally people who side with genocidal maniaks don't get much politeness from me. Especially people who side with jew-killers. I don't feel sorry for that - at all.
Really ? Then what are all these attacks on Jews outside of Israel about ?
http://www.youtube.com/v/-96Hp5yNu-Y&hl=en&fs=1
Do these people want to be left alone ? You tell me ...
And what, exactly, does article 7 of the constitition of Gaza contain ? Look it up for me ...
Tell me, what are the "3 no's of khartoem" ... what, exactly, is the "cairo declaration of human rights" ?
The very constitution of gaza sees "allah's mission" as the only objective of any gazan : genocide on jews.
Tell me, having a state with the sole objective of genocide, does that -yes or no- violate geneva conventions ?
Olive trees ? I'm guessing you haven't visited either Gaza or the West bank.
Yes there are some (non-muslim -heh-) berbers who live of the land in the West bank. The worst piece of land only, near the dead sea. THOSE are the original inhabitants. They are -literally- hunted down by the people you call the palestinians.
But I find that idea fantastic. Let's end occupation. Muslims conquered just about all land that is called "muslim land". So let's end occupation !
Let's END the muslim occupation of Northern Africa, the muslim occupation of pieces of Asia, and end all muslim occupation of all Saudi cities except medina.
That would be fair.
Let's end occupation ! Let's drive all muslims out of Africa, Asia and 99% of the middle east.
Pst. The original zionists got the entire province of palestine for themselves from someone who was generally referred to as "the caliph". There was no conquest involved.
Pst. There is no such thing as "muslim land". The only land that was peacefully converted to islam is a tiny part of 1 city : medina. All the rest was conquered. That would be "muslim-occupied land".
Pst. Let's drive muslims out of every piece of berber land (most of southern sahara). Christian land (north africa, egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia) and out of Hindu Land (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, ...)
Let's be fair, and reject conquest. Let's drive all muslims into one neighboorhood of the only voluntary muslim neighboorhood.
Let's end the muslim occupation of northern africa ! Let's END islam in Africa, in the middle east and in Asia.
Because that would be "just", ending occupation.
Mod parent up !
The problem is that Gazans are, in reality, responsible for the mess they're in. They'll literally kill every last Gazan in order to get to the jews and all other considerations are secondary.
Gazans literally throw babies (LITERALLY) in the path of bullets, just to get good shots for the media (and baby's are plenty there).
It's just reality. The socialists used to kill Jews themselves. Hitler and Stalin alike. Now they pay others to kill Jews and cry foul when they defend themselves. Crying foul when the Jews defended themselves is something Hitler did too, of course.
Yes. Of course that neighbour has to agree, which is something that neither Israel nor Egypt do.
This has something to do with the free fireworks that tends to come when you open borders with palestinians.
You do realize that you're lying, right ? Egypt's border with Gaza is Egypt's to control.
But we wouldn't want to blame muslims for anything, right ? They're "victims".
"Victims" with guns. Smoking guns.
You *might* also take a look at what happened last time they really opened up the gates of Gaza.
Not that what palestinians did to Egypt is very much different from what they tried to do in Syria (see Hafsa massacre) or Jordan (another massacre, but I can't find the reference currently).
You the type of guy that would blame the police for not attempting "peaceful resolution", for "using violence" when they're under fire with machine guns.
Let's fire qassams at your house. Let's see if you call the police - call them to commit violence on your behalf - or do what you would have the Israeli's do. Just let the attacks continue, even after, say your daughter gets killed.
The only real feature I'm interested in (I don't know about the rest of you) is simple :
Linux support
FreeBSD support
If they could get that one done. Preferably with an apt-get option for at least ubuntu intrepid and debian.
I can't imagine that being very hard.
You're making a real good argument about the tolerance and non-violence of atheists.
I just don't think it's the one you want to be making.
Your only reply to a statement of faith are personal insults. You disgust me.
You're incorrect. Agnosticism has no central dogma. Atheism does.
There is more to a "positive" statement than simply the lack of the word "no", you know. Non-existence of something is obviously a positive statement, one that requires proof.