I have read the same thing as well, though I have also seen evidence of Muslims applying the dhimmi status to Hindus as well. I can't back this up, though. Suffice it to say that I believe the rule is inconsistenly applied.
You can be better and still suck. I hear news like this and get feelings of disgust, but I'd still rather live in Sweden than here in the USA.
And how much would Sweden have to suck before it stars being worse than the USA? The exercise goes like this: Start taking away (alleged) Swedish liberties one by one, and raise your hand when the liberty removed breaches the threshold and causes living in the USA to be preferable to Sweden.
If you run that exersie through your mind and discover that you still feel disgust and disdain for the USA no matter how many (alleged) Swedish liberties you remove, then voila: you're an anti-American. It means that you define the USA as the evil enemy. It means that all the prattle about rights and liberties and "police state" is rhetoric. In other words, you don't really give a shit about rights or liberties. It means that you care about weakening or destroying that which you have defined, regardless of any evidence, as evil to begin with: the USA.
Does this apply to you? That question is not only for the parent poster. It's for anyone who is reading this.
I remember debating with my fully-"progressive" sister who because zealotized when she moved to the UK. In one conversation, she blurted out at me, "The United States has the WORST human rights record!" In response, I asked her, "Really? Worse than North Korea?"
I got a deer-in-the-headlights look that I'll remember fondly for the rest of my life. However, her inability to answer merely showed weakness in her resolve. If she were fully committed to the anti-American cause, then she would have revved up the engine that robotically bleats out, "All of the information you've been told by the Imperial and Greedy Western Media about the glorious People's State of North Korea is LIES! They can feed all of their citizens if not for Western Greed and Imperialism! They need nuclear weapons to defend themselves against Greedy Capitalist Imperialist pigs from the West!"
That's the litany of the anti-American zealot. And that type of zealotry is just like all other types of zealotry: full devotion to the cause (whatever it may be) is of prime importance. All other concerns, including facts, logic, human life, happiness, etc, are secondary. It sounds an awful lot like Ash on the Nostromo, doesn't it? Robotic, cruel, and stupid.
But you can't call it unprincipled. And that's precisely why it's attractive.
The Koran tells Muslims to give the kufr three choices: submit to Islam, pay the jizya as a dhimmi, or fight. So you don't have to "convert or die." You can, alternatively, live as a oppressed citizen under Islamic law.
Christians INVENTED the concept of "heresy", murdering people who believe very slightly differently than the way you do.
But Christians have completely dropped the ball when it comes to enforcing that invention. Muslims, on the other hand, have perfected the concept of heresy (ijtihad) and made good on it, many times over. Please give credit where it is due! Perhaps you are aware of the prophet Muhammad saying, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him"? It's found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as well as many other Islamic sources. (Did Jesus ever say anything like that?)
YouTube has been banning anti-Muslim videos much more often than anti-Christian videos because the anti-Muslim videos have been MUCH more offensive and racist.
What race is Islam again?
YouTube has rules against posting offensive and racist videos.
And the method of enforcing these rules shows Youtube's / Google's ulterior motives. "Christianity is the enemy, therefore Islam must be defended" is what they are standing up for. They shroud this in the "we ban offensive and racist material" bullshit. And it is most certainly grade-A bullshit.
Honestly, it's fine with me if Youtube / Google is run by progressive liberals. It's NOT okay with me if they support and defend Islam because they stubbornly and blindly cling to the ridiculous idea that Christianity is the greatest threat to human progress and happiness.
Well not anymore. They used to burn you at the stake, go on crusades, and generally kill anyone that was not christian.
You're absolutely correct. In order to get an equal comparison between Islam and Christianity, you have to compare modern-day Islam with medieval Christianity. Once you turn on the time machine solely for the Christians, then the two religions look pretty similar.
Though I don't remember the Inquisition ever choosing to execute victims of rape, so the comparison still isn't perfect.
What happened under Saddam wasn't working together, at all. It was being stopped from killing each other by rather harsh means. So yeah, your point is as valid as mine, we're just looking at things from two different directions.
Indeed, and thank you for the clarification. The reason that we see things from "different directions" is because we have different values. When I speak of "values", I'm referring to the things that we "just know" are True(TM). These aren't really opinions, but rather the things that we stand up for because they are part of who we are. The reason why it's so hard to change one's values is because it necessitates that we deny who we are, and probably change who we are. That's hard to do. In fact, it is sometimes excruciatingly painful to do. When I lost my faith in Christianity I had to completely re-invent who I was, and I found that to be anguishing. Was it worth it? Sometimes I don't know.
And kudos for your last paragraph:) I wish more people would learn to think for themselves and evaluate the world around them from an objective point of view. Alas, those people are rare:)
Thank you, and I am glad that you are one who can appreciate such a thing. To me, it speaks volumes of your character.:)
The one thing that I would caution you against, if I can offer advice where it's neither warranted nor needed, is for you to avoid the phrase "thinking for themselves". I think everyone thinks for themselves! Back when I used to do a lot of pro-Christian and anti-Christian debate, I used to be accused of "not thinking for myself" by Christians and "not thinking for myself" by non-Christians. I think the reason why they said these things is becasue they couldn't accept the notion that I came to a different conclusion than they did. The reason why they couldn't accept it is because my conclusion upheld a value contrary to one of their own, and that meant that I accepted something that denied who they were. Therefore, it had to be False(TM). Think about some of the thing that you believe in very deeply. Can you imagine an ideological opponent accusing you of "not thinking for yourself" becasue you believe it? I bet you can. It's just as BS for them to say that of you as it it for you to say it of them. The real difference is a difference in values, not cognitive abilities.
Or maybe they're just dumbasses. Usually I'm too stupid to tell the difference.;)
What a wonderful compliment! If one thing I say may bring some peace of mind or greater understanding to one other person, then I'll count myself as fortunate.:)
The US is actually doing *exactly* that in Iraq: Do things our "democratic" way or we'll stay here and keep killing people.
I think this statement is not offensive for the sake of a difference in value judgment, but rather offensive for gross oversimplification and lack of logic.
The United States wants an end to sectarian violence in Iraq that prevents a democratic government from being successful. Likewise, sectarian fighters in Iraq want to continue committing acts of violence not only to kill their hated local enemies, but to embarrass the foreign invading power. To write that the US is "killing people" for not "doing it our way" suggest that the US is lining up random people (read: children) and executing them because the populace will not bow down the will of the US. I think that's completely unfair and inaccurate, though if you are skeptical of liberal capitalism then you may see it as spot-on and righteous (since, in that case, you would likely define the United States as the Enemy).
I must add here that I have given the short view what the Bush administration wants to achieve in Iraq. I completely disagree with what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq: it is short-sighted, politically correct, and destined to fail at the cost of American blood and treasure. My intent in disagreeing is to suggest to you that your view is inaccurate, which does not imply that the Bush administration is correct. I have to add this because of the tendency in this retarded political climate for people to immediately pigeon-hole me into "Bush worshipper" or "Bush hater" based on their own particular flavor of black-and-white thinking. I'm not talking about you, of course, but about the others who may read this and flame me as a "wingnut" or a "moonbat".
You can't force two peoples (in this case mainly divided along religious borders) to work together if they don't want to, and haven't in known history.
I see you write that, and I can't help but think of Saddam Hussein, who, through tyrannical rule, forced three peoples (in this case mainly divided among religious borders) to "work together" when they didn't want to. In fact, the notion that Saddam "brought stability" to Iraq is one that I have largely seen propagated by Europeans who oppose the Iraq war! Are you one of the ones to argue that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein because he prevented civil war from happening? If so, then it seems to contradict what you've written here ("You can't force two peoples...."). If not, then it would seem that the American nation-building fiasco is justified on some levels. Perhaps you see it a different way, but I see your position existing between a rock and a hard place.
Feel free to disagree, but that's my (possibly biased) point of view.
Of course you're biased. So am I. It only means that we have values and we stick up for them. There's a good chance that you'll think my values suck and I may likely have the same opinion of yours. The one thing I might ask of you is this: have you ever in your life radically changed the way you thought based on receiving and understanding contrary evidence? The number of times that you've done that is a measure of how open-minded you are. I'm generally not very impressed by individuals who "stand up for what they believe". Anybody can do that! It takes a very brave individual to change what they believe, and an even braver one who will examine things that they know are False(TM) knowing full well that it may change the way that they think and might even change who they are.
That said, Long live Western Culture! Islam delenda est!
3) The Bible is comprised of many different manuscripts from many different authors over many different times from both oral and written traditions and was subsequently altered by accident or volition by other humans at many different times for many different reasons.
Hence, the Bible is full of vague, nonsensical, and contradictory things.
The word "hate" is a clear mis-translation typical of a text that has had to forge the muddy waters of several languages, 2,000 years, and numerous cultural misunderstandings.
The one and only way to know that this is a "mis-translation" is to have the original autographa. Even the most staunch Christian apologists admit that the original autographa do not exist.
A progressive Christian is someone who actually does what the Bible says to do:
Okay, let's see how well you do.
Love one's neighbor more than one's self
You are mis-quoting scripture and mis-quoting Christ. To wit:
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18) "love your neighbor as yourself" (Mat 19:19) "love your neighbor as yourself" (Mat 22:39) "love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31) "love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:33) "love your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27) "love your neighbor as yourself" (Rom 13:9) "love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal 5:14) "love your neighbor as yourself" (James 2:8)
Nowhere does scripture or Jesus say "love your neighbor more than one's self" and thus imply the self-deprecation and self-denigration that is popular in "progressive" thought. Just because fundamentalist Christians rewrite scripture to bash gays and women does NOT mean you have the right to rewrite scripture to match your own politics.
It's pretty much that simple.
Is it really pretty much that simple? I beg to differ. Take this mandate from Christ, for example:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple." Lk 14:26, words of Christ.
Do you "do what the Bible says to do", as, by definition, a "progressive" Christian should, in regards to what Jesus said in Lk 14:26? Now here is where we will see the "progressive" Christian start to mimic the fundamentalist Christian in another nasty way by playing the game of "That's what it says, but that's not what it means!"
In short, a "progressive" Christian is a "progressive" with Christian trappings. Likewise, a fundamentalist Christian is a conservative with Christian trappings. Your claims about "doing what the Bible says" are just bunk because the Bible cannot be used as a decent moral guide due to its being both immoral and nonsensical. As for nonsense, consider what was revelaled by the scripture that I quoted in this very post. Jesus said that all the law and the prophets hang on "love your neighbor as yourself", yet he also indicated that you can't be his disciple unless you hate your own life. Hence, you are to love your neighbor as you love yourself, which, since you have to hate your own life, means you don't love your neighbor at all!
I know, I know. "That's what it says, but that's not what it means!" I can only shake my head when normally very intelligent and critical people on/. suddenly lose all ability to think logically when the subject of religion comes up.
My point is that many who use tables for layouts do not make sure they are accessible.
You're absolutely correct. Over here, don't give a flying fig about accessibility. And the most we will suffer from this choice is some sanctimony on slashdot. I think I can handle that!:)
<div id="left"><div class="column">Left column<br/><br/><br/>Here's some more text</div></div> <div id="center"><div class="column">Center column</div></div> <div id="right"><div class="column">Right column</div></div>
<div id="footer">This is the footer</div>
You'll see that the left column extends all the way to the bottom but the middle and right columns are cut short. Now this isn't a knock against you, against CSS, or even against the famed "buggy implementation" of CSS in today's (and tomorrow's) browsers. It's a knock against the ridiculous bitchiness of CSS adherents who, for religious reasons, think that using a table for layout is the same thing as pureeing a panda cub into a beverage and enjoying it with a garnish of baby.
I'm glad that someone here is mindful enough to point out what you did: oil is the lifeblood of the industrialized world. Without oil, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.
The scary part is: there are also quite a few people who see the deaths of hundreds of millions of people as a Good Thing. They regard humanity as a curse and a scourge on the face of Mother Earth. Perhaps this was the unspoken part of the parent posters's comment? Wishing for genocide isn't politically correct in all forums. But I don't doubt that there are some environmentalists who are quite excited by the idea.
They have an entire website [willyoujoinus.com] dedicated to the problem of peak oil. Peak Oil is a simple FACT. It's not a question of IF, it's merely a matter of WHEN and HOW.
Spoken like a true cultist! "willyoujoinus.com"? Sounds a bit like the Movementarians, doesn't it?
Two or three years (oil peak: 2010) is not that far away. It is *now* that we need to stop "not caring".
I don't buy it. I have my own life and the lives of my loved ones to worry about, and you're preying on the most powerful motivator that humans have ever exploited: fear. Go sell your fear somewhere else.
(See also: "global AIDS pandemic", "overpopulation", "global cooling", et al other bullshit fearmongering. I'm simply not worried, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to change that!)
Fine - go get yourself all jacked up with HIV. Wait a few years, and THEN tell me HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
In fact, the burden of proof is on you to actually find me some HIV with which to inject myself. HIV itself has not been detected (reverse transcriptase activity does not count since it is not unique to retroviruses). This is why antibody tests are used: there is no gold standard for HIV infection, and the "HIV tests" admit this.
So maybe you were suggesting that I inject myself with the blood of an "HIV positive" person? The burden of proof is on you to show me: A) which proteins reacted, B) how those proteins (assuming you use western blot, p24 only? others? be specific!) are known to be indicative of HIV infection, and C) how those antibodies must NOT be cross-reacting, since HIV researchers have admitted this possibility and the polyclonal properties of antigens are well-known.
The burden of proof is on YOU. I do not accept "correlation implies causation" as science, I do not accept authority as science, I do not accept insults as science, and I do not accept consensus as science. You have to tell me how and why your science is correct, especially when it is concerning a retrovirus which is alleged to be incurable and fatal and an alleged treatment which produces the same symptoms of the syndrome itself.
Note to mods: I know that what I am writing is extremely politically incorrect. AIDS is part of our culture and has broad support on both the Left and the Right. Saying that I don't believe in HIV is one million times more offensive than saying that I don't believe in Jesus. Studying HIV and AIDS is difficult, rigorous, heavy reading, but to choose not to accept the mainstream theory is NOT tantamount to believing in conspiracy theories or engaging in pseudoscience. I hate all conspiracy theories and my objection to the mainstream theory is grounded in what I believe is systematic bad science. Do not mod me down for being a dissenter. If my views lack merit then they will be destroyed by reason once all the facts are laid out and the bullshit is removed.
Actually, the amount of wealth relative to others is what determines your freedom. Poverty is generally measured, not by how little you have, but by how much less you have than average.
This is a ballsy revelation that your politics are centered around wealth envy. This underpinning value gives you a much different spin on reality than I see. For instance:
In a more socialist system, by contrast, higher taxes and moderate salaries means that everyone is working for each other
Actually, they're working for the government.
contributing to a community.
Actually, they're "contributing" to the government. ("Contribution" implies a voluntary donation, whereas government operates by force.)
But they're happy, and together, they've built something: a society, where people feel wanted and protected and cared for, so that they don't feel the need to sleep with guns in the drawer, or shoot their classmates.
Christians and Muslims also paint gushing, rosy portraits of utopian society if everyone were just FORCED to obey what they thought was right. When will you admit that your world view is very much like theirs but with different mystical beliefs? Never! After all, Christianity and Islam, being totalitarian world views like yours, are your direct competitors. But this won't stop you from some enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend opportunism, which is why we see alliances between Muslims and "progressives".
Prevent popup windows - there's no reason to popup a window to make a small choice. Just switch the DIV with AJAX and make the choice done from within it.
This is bad news. Basically, it means that advertisers will exploit AJAX to make mind-blowingly annoying ads. This is why we have popup blockers in the first place: the marketplace of eyeballs has limits on how much it can stand to be annoyed. It's also why the Flashblock extension exists: to block the world's most annoying ads. But now we have applications that will depend on AJAX (a.k.a. JavaScript) to function, which means that we have no way of blocking out that "div" which will likely be something so annoying it will make you want to bite your monitor. What else can people do beside shutting off JavaScript altogether?
it is crucial how populations in mostly 3rd world countries perceive the US. After all that is where most of the terrorism currently originates.
Calling Muslim countries "3rd world countries" is deceptive. Most "terrorists" are muslims following jihad. (Specifically, the "lesser jihad".) If this is an discussion about "terrorism", then I'd like to shift it to the subject of jihad and the mujahedin ("jihadists"), as I think "terrorism" is useless rhetoric.
Unless the US will be perceived as more benevolent America will remain front and center in the crosshair.
How the US is perceived is very malleable by media organizations. It's time for the notion that news media is an "unbiased observer" to die a painful death. All news media is biased. You just choose the media that says what you would like to hear. What I think stinks is when the media is married to a government that is hostile to the USA. Think France2 or the BBC.
I think Canada is all around a saver place to bring up my kids.
If you're speaking very, very, very generally (the USA is a very big place!), then I would agree with you. The Canadian people are kind and benevolent people, and Canada is free of many of the gangs and violent poor that America has.
I ask that you read an insightful article by Jean-Francois Revel. Far too many people in Western Europe take "America = Evil" as an article of faith, and, as with all faiths, it is harmful.
The "Stand Your Ground / Shoot First" law took effect in my state (Georgia) on July 1, 2006. So far, the effects of it have not been newsworthy, as evidenced by the fact that I was still under the impression that it hadn't taken effect yet. The law's arrival onto the mass-murder scene seems to have gone largely unnoticed by point-and-click killing aficionados.
Slashdot Mirror
I have read the same thing as well, though I have also seen evidence of Muslims applying the dhimmi status to Hindus as well. I can't back this up, though. Suffice it to say that I believe the rule is inconsistenly applied.
You can be better and still suck. I hear news like this and get feelings of disgust, but I'd still rather live in Sweden than here in the USA.
And how much would Sweden have to suck before it stars being worse than the USA? The exercise goes like this: Start taking away (alleged) Swedish liberties one by one, and raise your hand when the liberty removed breaches the threshold and causes living in the USA to be preferable to Sweden.
If you run that exersie through your mind and discover that you still feel disgust and disdain for the USA no matter how many (alleged) Swedish liberties you remove, then voila: you're an anti-American. It means that you define the USA as the evil enemy. It means that all the prattle about rights and liberties and "police state" is rhetoric. In other words, you don't really give a shit about rights or liberties. It means that you care about weakening or destroying that which you have defined, regardless of any evidence, as evil to begin with: the USA.
Does this apply to you? That question is not only for the parent poster. It's for anyone who is reading this.
I remember debating with my fully-"progressive" sister who because zealotized when she moved to the UK. In one conversation, she blurted out at me, "The United States has the WORST human rights record!" In response, I asked her, "Really? Worse than North Korea?"
I got a deer-in-the-headlights look that I'll remember fondly for the rest of my life. However, her inability to answer merely showed weakness in her resolve. If she were fully committed to the anti-American cause, then she would have revved up the engine that robotically bleats out, "All of the information you've been told by the Imperial and Greedy Western Media about the glorious People's State of North Korea is LIES! They can feed all of their citizens if not for Western Greed and Imperialism! They need nuclear weapons to defend themselves against Greedy Capitalist Imperialist pigs from the West!"
That's the litany of the anti-American zealot. And that type of zealotry is just like all other types of zealotry: full devotion to the cause (whatever it may be) is of prime importance. All other concerns, including facts, logic, human life, happiness, etc, are secondary. It sounds an awful lot like Ash on the Nostromo, doesn't it? Robotic, cruel, and stupid.
But you can't call it unprincipled. And that's precisely why it's attractive.
Beer contains alcohol and is thus haraam. Hence, your pro-Canadian comments are Islamophobic (pbuh).
You either convert -- or die.
The Koran tells Muslims to give the kufr three choices: submit to Islam, pay the jizya as a dhimmi, or fight. So you don't have to "convert or die." You can, alternatively, live as a oppressed citizen under Islamic law.
Christians INVENTED the concept of "heresy", murdering people who believe very slightly differently than the way you do.
But Christians have completely dropped the ball when it comes to enforcing that invention. Muslims, on the other hand, have perfected the concept of heresy (ijtihad) and made good on it, many times over. Please give credit where it is due! Perhaps you are aware of the prophet Muhammad saying, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him"? It's found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as well as many other Islamic sources. (Did Jesus ever say anything like that?)
YouTube has been banning anti-Muslim videos much more often than anti-Christian videos because the anti-Muslim videos have been MUCH more offensive and racist.
What race is Islam again?
YouTube has rules against posting offensive and racist videos.
And the method of enforcing these rules shows Youtube's / Google's ulterior motives. "Christianity is the enemy, therefore Islam must be defended" is what they are standing up for. They shroud this in the "we ban offensive and racist material" bullshit. And it is most certainly grade-A bullshit.
Honestly, it's fine with me if Youtube / Google is run by progressive liberals. It's NOT okay with me if they support and defend Islam because they stubbornly and blindly cling to the ridiculous idea that Christianity is the greatest threat to human progress and happiness.
Well not anymore. They used to burn you at the stake, go on crusades, and generally kill anyone that was not christian.
You're absolutely correct. In order to get an equal comparison between Islam and Christianity, you have to compare modern-day Islam with medieval Christianity. Once you turn on the time machine solely for the Christians, then the two religions look pretty similar.
Though I don't remember the Inquisition ever choosing to execute victims of rape, so the comparison still isn't perfect.
What happened under Saddam wasn't working together, at all. It was being stopped from killing each other by rather harsh means. So yeah, your point is as valid as mine, we're just looking at things from two different directions.
:) I wish more people would learn to think for themselves and evaluate the world around them from an objective point of view. Alas, those people are rare :)
:)
;)
Indeed, and thank you for the clarification. The reason that we see things from "different directions" is because we have different values. When I speak of "values", I'm referring to the things that we "just know" are True(TM). These aren't really opinions, but rather the things that we stand up for because they are part of who we are. The reason why it's so hard to change one's values is because it necessitates that we deny who we are, and probably change who we are. That's hard to do. In fact, it is sometimes excruciatingly painful to do. When I lost my faith in Christianity I had to completely re-invent who I was, and I found that to be anguishing. Was it worth it? Sometimes I don't know.
And kudos for your last paragraph
Thank you, and I am glad that you are one who can appreciate such a thing. To me, it speaks volumes of your character.
The one thing that I would caution you against, if I can offer advice where it's neither warranted nor needed, is for you to avoid the phrase "thinking for themselves". I think everyone thinks for themselves! Back when I used to do a lot of pro-Christian and anti-Christian debate, I used to be accused of "not thinking for myself" by Christians and "not thinking for myself" by non-Christians. I think the reason why they said these things is becasue they couldn't accept the notion that I came to a different conclusion than they did. The reason why they couldn't accept it is because my conclusion upheld a value contrary to one of their own, and that meant that I accepted something that denied who they were. Therefore, it had to be False(TM). Think about some of the thing that you believe in very deeply. Can you imagine an ideological opponent accusing you of "not thinking for yourself" becasue you believe it? I bet you can. It's just as BS for them to say that of you as it it for you to say it of them. The real difference is a difference in values, not cognitive abilities.
Or maybe they're just dumbasses. Usually I'm too stupid to tell the difference.
What a wonderful compliment! If one thing I say may bring some peace of mind or greater understanding to one other person, then I'll count myself as fortunate. :)
The US is actually doing *exactly* that in Iraq: Do things our "democratic" way or we'll stay here and keep killing people.
I think this statement is not offensive for the sake of a difference in value judgment, but rather offensive for gross oversimplification and lack of logic.
The United States wants an end to sectarian violence in Iraq that prevents a democratic government from being successful. Likewise, sectarian fighters in Iraq want to continue committing acts of violence not only to kill their hated local enemies, but to embarrass the foreign invading power. To write that the US is "killing people" for not "doing it our way" suggest that the US is lining up random people (read: children) and executing them because the populace will not bow down the will of the US. I think that's completely unfair and inaccurate, though if you are skeptical of liberal capitalism then you may see it as spot-on and righteous (since, in that case, you would likely define the United States as the Enemy).
I must add here that I have given the short view what the Bush administration wants to achieve in Iraq. I completely disagree with what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq: it is short-sighted, politically correct, and destined to fail at the cost of American blood and treasure. My intent in disagreeing is to suggest to you that your view is inaccurate, which does not imply that the Bush administration is correct. I have to add this because of the tendency in this retarded political climate for people to immediately pigeon-hole me into "Bush worshipper" or "Bush hater" based on their own particular flavor of black-and-white thinking. I'm not talking about you, of course, but about the others who may read this and flame me as a "wingnut" or a "moonbat".
You can't force two peoples (in this case mainly divided along religious borders) to work together if they don't want to, and haven't in known history.
I see you write that, and I can't help but think of Saddam Hussein, who, through tyrannical rule, forced three peoples (in this case mainly divided among religious borders) to "work together" when they didn't want to. In fact, the notion that Saddam "brought stability" to Iraq is one that I have largely seen propagated by Europeans who oppose the Iraq war! Are you one of the ones to argue that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein because he prevented civil war from happening? If so, then it seems to contradict what you've written here ("You can't force two peoples...."). If not, then it would seem that the American nation-building fiasco is justified on some levels. Perhaps you see it a different way, but I see your position existing between a rock and a hard place.
Feel free to disagree, but that's my (possibly biased) point of view.
Of course you're biased. So am I. It only means that we have values and we stick up for them. There's a good chance that you'll think my values suck and I may likely have the same opinion of yours. The one thing I might ask of you is this: have you ever in your life radically changed the way you thought based on receiving and understanding contrary evidence? The number of times that you've done that is a measure of how open-minded you are. I'm generally not very impressed by individuals who "stand up for what they believe". Anybody can do that! It takes a very brave individual to change what they believe, and an even braver one who will examine things that they know are False(TM) knowing full well that it may change the way that they think and might even change who they are.
That said, Long live Western Culture! Islam delenda est!
Yes, it appears that we are in agreement with each other.
I hate it when I find out I've been fighting with someone who agrees with me!
I vote for the excluded middle:
3) The Bible is comprised of many different manuscripts from many different authors over many different times from both oral and written traditions and was subsequently altered by accident or volition by other humans at many different times for many different reasons.
Hence, the Bible is full of vague, nonsensical, and contradictory things.
The word "hate" is a clear mis-translation typical of a text that has had to forge the muddy waters of several languages, 2,000 years, and numerous cultural misunderstandings.
The one and only way to know that this is a "mis-translation" is to have the original autographa. Even the most staunch Christian apologists admit that the original autographa do not exist.
A progressive Christian is someone who actually does what the Bible says to do:
/. suddenly lose all ability to think logically when the subject of religion comes up.
Okay, let's see how well you do.
Love one's neighbor more than one's self
You are mis-quoting scripture and mis-quoting Christ. To wit:
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Mat 19:19)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Mat 22:39)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:33)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Rom 13:9)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal 5:14)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (James 2:8)
Nowhere does scripture or Jesus say "love your neighbor more than one's self" and thus imply the self-deprecation and self-denigration that is popular in "progressive" thought. Just because fundamentalist Christians rewrite scripture to bash gays and women does NOT mean you have the right to rewrite scripture to match your own politics.
It's pretty much that simple.
Is it really pretty much that simple? I beg to differ. Take this mandate from Christ, for example:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple." Lk 14:26, words of Christ.
Do you "do what the Bible says to do", as, by definition, a "progressive" Christian should, in regards to what Jesus said in Lk 14:26? Now here is where we will see the "progressive" Christian start to mimic the fundamentalist Christian in another nasty way by playing the game of "That's what it says, but that's not what it means!"
In short, a "progressive" Christian is a "progressive" with Christian trappings. Likewise, a fundamentalist Christian is a conservative with Christian trappings. Your claims about "doing what the Bible says" are just bunk because the Bible cannot be used as a decent moral guide due to its being both immoral and nonsensical. As for nonsense, consider what was revelaled by the scripture that I quoted in this very post. Jesus said that all the law and the prophets hang on "love your neighbor as yourself", yet he also indicated that you can't be his disciple unless you hate your own life. Hence, you are to love your neighbor as you love yourself, which, since you have to hate your own life, means you don't love your neighbor at all!
I know, I know. "That's what it says, but that's not what it means!" I can only shake my head when normally very intelligent and critical people on
My point is that many who use tables for layouts do not make sure they are accessible.
:)
You're absolutely correct. Over here, don't give a flying fig about accessibility. And the most we will suffer from this choice is some sanctimony on slashdot. I think I can handle that!
Simple and effective. The very definition of elegance. I'd friend you if I had more slots available, but it seems that I hate too many people. ;)
Consider the following code, a slight modification to your attempt: You'll see that the left column extends all the way to the bottom but the middle and right columns are cut short. Now this isn't a knock against you, against CSS, or even against the famed "buggy implementation" of CSS in today's (and tomorrow's) browsers. It's a knock against the ridiculous bitchiness of CSS adherents who, for religious reasons, think that using a table for layout is the same thing as pureeing a panda cub into a beverage and enjoying it with a garnish of baby.
Just use a table!
I'm glad that someone here is mindful enough to point out what you did: oil is the lifeblood of the industrialized world. Without oil, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.
The scary part is: there are also quite a few people who see the deaths of hundreds of millions of people as a Good Thing. They regard humanity as a curse and a scourge on the face of Mother Earth. Perhaps this was the unspoken part of the parent posters's comment? Wishing for genocide isn't politically correct in all forums. But I don't doubt that there are some environmentalists who are quite excited by the idea.
They have an entire website [willyoujoinus.com] dedicated to the problem of peak oil.
Peak Oil is a simple FACT. It's not a question of IF, it's merely a matter of WHEN and HOW.
Spoken like a true cultist! "willyoujoinus.com"? Sounds a bit like the Movementarians, doesn't it?
Two or three years (oil peak: 2010) is not that far away. It is *now* that we need to stop "not caring".
I don't buy it. I have my own life and the lives of my loved ones to worry about, and you're preying on the most powerful motivator that humans have ever exploited: fear. Go sell your fear somewhere else.
(See also: "global AIDS pandemic", "overpopulation", "global cooling", et al other bullshit fearmongering. I'm simply not worried, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to change that!)
Fine - go get yourself all jacked up with HIV. Wait a few years, and THEN tell me HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
In fact, the burden of proof is on you to actually find me some HIV with which to inject myself. HIV itself has not been detected (reverse transcriptase activity does not count since it is not unique to retroviruses). This is why antibody tests are used: there is no gold standard for HIV infection, and the "HIV tests" admit this.
So maybe you were suggesting that I inject myself with the blood of an "HIV positive" person? The burden of proof is on you to show me: A) which proteins reacted, B) how those proteins (assuming you use western blot, p24 only? others? be specific!) are known to be indicative of HIV infection, and C) how those antibodies must NOT be cross-reacting, since HIV researchers have admitted this possibility and the polyclonal properties of antigens are well-known.
The burden of proof is on YOU. I do not accept "correlation implies causation" as science, I do not accept authority as science, I do not accept insults as science, and I do not accept consensus as science. You have to tell me how and why your science is correct, especially when it is concerning a retrovirus which is alleged to be incurable and fatal and an alleged treatment which produces the same symptoms of the syndrome itself.
Note to mods: I know that what I am writing is extremely politically incorrect. AIDS is part of our culture and has broad support on both the Left and the Right. Saying that I don't believe in HIV is one million times more offensive than saying that I don't believe in Jesus. Studying HIV and AIDS is difficult, rigorous, heavy reading, but to choose not to accept the mainstream theory is NOT tantamount to believing in conspiracy theories or engaging in pseudoscience. I hate all conspiracy theories and my objection to the mainstream theory is grounded in what I believe is systematic bad science. Do not mod me down for being a dissenter. If my views lack merit then they will be destroyed by reason once all the facts are laid out and the bullshit is removed.
Actually, the amount of wealth relative to others is what determines your freedom. Poverty is generally measured, not by how little you have, but by how much less you have than average.
This is a ballsy revelation that your politics are centered around wealth envy. This underpinning value gives you a much different spin on reality than I see. For instance:
In a more socialist system, by contrast, higher taxes and moderate salaries means that everyone is working for each other
Actually, they're working for the government.
contributing to a community.
Actually, they're "contributing" to the government. ("Contribution" implies a voluntary donation, whereas government operates by force.)
But they're happy, and together, they've built something: a society, where people feel wanted and protected and cared for, so that they don't feel the need to sleep with guns in the drawer, or shoot their classmates.
Christians and Muslims also paint gushing, rosy portraits of utopian society if everyone were just FORCED to obey what they thought was right. When will you admit that your world view is very much like theirs but with different mystical beliefs? Never! After all, Christianity and Islam, being totalitarian world views like yours, are your direct competitors. But this won't stop you from some enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend opportunism, which is why we see alliances between Muslims and "progressives".
Prevent popup windows - there's no reason to popup a window to make a small choice. Just switch the DIV with AJAX and make the choice done from within it.
This is bad news. Basically, it means that advertisers will exploit AJAX to make mind-blowingly annoying ads. This is why we have popup blockers in the first place: the marketplace of eyeballs has limits on how much it can stand to be annoyed. It's also why the Flashblock extension exists: to block the world's most annoying ads. But now we have applications that will depend on AJAX (a.k.a. JavaScript) to function, which means that we have no way of blocking out that "div" which will likely be something so annoying it will make you want to bite your monitor. What else can people do beside shutting off JavaScript altogether?
it is crucial how populations in mostly 3rd world countries perceive the US. After all that is where most of the terrorism currently originates.
Calling Muslim countries "3rd world countries" is deceptive. Most "terrorists" are muslims following jihad. (Specifically, the "lesser jihad".) If this is an discussion about "terrorism", then I'd like to shift it to the subject of jihad and the mujahedin ("jihadists"), as I think "terrorism" is useless rhetoric.
Unless the US will be perceived as more benevolent America will remain front and center in the crosshair.
How the US is perceived is very malleable by media organizations. It's time for the notion that news media is an "unbiased observer" to die a painful death. All news media is biased. You just choose the media that says what you would like to hear. What I think stinks is when the media is married to a government that is hostile to the USA. Think France2 or the BBC.
I think Canada is all around a saver place to bring up my kids.
If you're speaking very, very, very generally (the USA is a very big place!), then I would agree with you. The Canadian people are kind and benevolent people, and Canada is free of many of the gangs and violent poor that America has.
I ask that you read an insightful article by Jean-Francois Revel. Far too many people in Western Europe take "America = Evil" as an article of faith, and, as with all faiths, it is harmful.
l eid.17764/article_detail.asp
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/artic
May reason bound by observation and the non-initiation of force bring us all together in peace and mutual understanding.
The "Stand Your Ground / Shoot First" law took effect in my state (Georgia) on July 1, 2006. So far, the effects of it have not been newsworthy, as evidenced by the fact that I was still under the impression that it hadn't taken effect yet. The law's arrival onto the mass-murder scene seems to have gone largely unnoticed by point-and-click killing aficionados.