all species have homosexuals to some low percentage. its simply a genetic aberration, like low sperm count or infertile eggs, that simply means some individuals don't reproduce. harmless and natural phenomenon
so allow homosexuals to be homosexuals, they won't hurt you or society in anyway, because there is no ill effects to their homosexual behavior. society will still reproduce, because the majority will always be naturally inclined to produce offspring
so if we are doomed, mr. pessimist, why are you arguing with me if its so inevitable?
go build your survivalist cave, and leave the argument to those who actually believe they might win the argument. what's the point of arguing if you've already accepted defeat? i believe in the possibility of progress and the curtailing of governmental intrusive powers. you apparently don't
you're simply a coward: you've given up the fight. you're weak: you see the threat, and moan and cry that you can't stop it. well i believe we can stop it. does that make me deluded? perhaps. but if government power is ever going to be curtailed, it will be done by the optimists, not by the likes of you. 1% chance of success is better than 0% chance of success (because you've given up)
the words you have written above do not actually define reality. well, actually, they do define a reality: your future reality (not mine). you have chosen for yourself (not for me) the path of defeatism and helplessness. do not confuse your character failings with the reality we actually live in. your words only define the parameters by which you have chosen to be a slave and a loser. i am still my own master, and your self-subjugation only tears you down, not me. your self-chosen limitations do not limit me at all, and do not define the reality we actually live in, only your self-chosen, sad, dim future
if we ever are going to have a doomed future of autocratic domination, it will be mostly due to losers like yourself: those who have hysterically and proactively given up their own freedoms, and sacrificed them to those who intend us harm. there are always those who intend harm. but often the amount of harm they actually inflict is not defined by their intent, but simply by the vast number of losers like yourself who simply roll over and accept it
therefore, if our future is orwellian, it is because of people who think like you: those who accept their slavery, in abject, self-defined helplessness
stand up and fight for your rights, or shut the fuck up
but when you argue in the realm of the realistic, then its obvious that men seek to accumulate women 99x more times than the reverse, and that the romantic harem may exist, but for the other 99% of harems, its pretty much a financial arrangement
occam's razor: when you hear hoofbeats, its going to be horses, not zebras
likewise, when you talk about polygamy, you're talking about a rich guy with a bunch of women
the exotic theoretical offerings you allude to simply have no probative value or logical coherence, because they are so exceedingly rare, and always will be (this is where you argue that your exotic utopian visions are possible. yes, all sorts of things are possible if you can miraculously make people behave like they won't on their own. zzz)
as for your women with legal protections: again i'm certain you can find me the odd weirdo who is happy to share a man romantically, but for the vast majority of women, polygamy is simply the surrendering of the possibility of romance, and sacrificing the pursuit of happiness for the sake of financial security
additionally, you have not examined my simple mathematical inevitable truth: polygamy results in a population of poor men with no hope of finding a mate, through no fault of their own, and this degrades society as any group of angry loveless rootless forlorn nothing to lose no future men would
you're an ivory tower type: you've made a fanciful exotic argument in a void of any realistic understanding of human nature. you're a college kid with a lot of book reading, but no real life experience with real human beings
you should stand against polygamy, for the sake of society and the individual. to conclude otherwise is ivory tower foolishness. you're deluding yourself. not that my post will stop you. now is where you begin furiously building a wall of denial against my words, to preserve your psychological dependence on your blind idealism
a poor country doesn't have money. they can't pay. the drug company with the ip won't be making money from that country, ever. if they give poor country drugs for free, they won't make money. if they deny the poor country the drugs it needs, they won't make money. getting a poor country cheap drugs, or not, makes no difference to the financial bottom line
meanwhile, they'll make plenty of profit from rich countries. the fact that the rich will pay and the poor won't pay does not in any way change the pharmaceutical company's fortunes or inclination to do research
so its a simple act of charity to look the other way on ip laws in poor countries and save some lives
but you, you'd rather squeeze a poor country for cash (and not get any), rather than save lives. therefore, you are an immoral low iq douchebag
the slippery slope argument is not an effective argument against power grabs. so when i argue against slippery slopes, i am not arguing for power grabs, i am merely arguing for better tactics. understand?
so when i stand against slippery slope arguments, i am asking you and others to simply make more factual arguments against power grabs. the slippery slope argument is intellectually lazy at best, and is mostly just empty panic that in no way actually helps the good cause
ineffective impotent slippery slope argument: "don't pass the law against internet privacy! next they will confiscate our computers and declare martial law!" omg! the sky is falling! whatever...
influential coherent factual argument: "don't pass the law against internet privacy. the rationale for the law is based on an incorrect assumption that piercing the veil of anonymity will somehow reduce child pornography. it only punishes law abiding citizens while the child pornographers will continue their exploits." hmm. this is a good point. maybe we should reconsider our support for this law...
see the difference?
the slippery slope argument is a feeble mind cowering in the corner that convinces no one of anything except that you have are overreacting spastic fight-or-flight adrenaline junkie. i am asking you instead to have a level headed coherent mind, making influential arguments
nowhere in any logical argument will anyone ever refer to a slippery slope if they actually want to make a difference in this world. the concept of the slippery slope and an influential argument are mutually exclusive
every man with more than one woman represents an equal sized population of men without any woman, through no fault of their own
a man without a woman is rootless, loveless, forlorn, without a future, and nothing to lose. such a population of men hurt society in various ways
furthermore, a woman who chooses to share a man is making a financial agreement, not a romantic one. so it's classism: a rich man can simply afford more wives. classism degrades society in many ways, but denying some poor men a wife, and hollowing out some women's romantic life to an empty financial transaction, are amongst the more terrible forms of classism
a bunch of rich men (its about money, not love) taking up a bunch of women represents an equal sized population of poorer men who are now without a mate, through no fault of their own
so now you have a bunch of angry rootless loveless men in your society without any hopes for their future and nothing to lose. use your boundless imagination as to the effects of that
the slippery slope implies that there is no rational thinking people in the room
its the same argument used by those who stand against gay's right to marry: "if we let gays marry, then people will be marrying sheep! polygamy will be legal too!" bullshit. people understand that homosexual marriage is not bestiality or multiple wives
or howabout: "if they legalize marijuana they will legalize meth and heroin too!" no. meth is not marijuana. heroin is not marijuana. everyone understands the radical differences between these drugs
if you can understand that those who use the bullshit tactic of the slippery slope against gay marriage or marijuana legalization are trafficking in fear and hysteria, then maybe you can see that in your own words, is the exact same fear and hysteria
so, just so you clearly understand... no: a cyberattack is not piracy. a cyberattack is not pedophilia. common sense attempts to secure a network is not going to be confused with efforts against piracy. or pedophilia
really. we all understand the difference. really
people, please: shut up with the bullshit slippery slope arguments. whenever you find yourself arguing in terms of the slippery slope, you have lost your grasp on rationality and reason and are simply fearful, hysterical, and confused. there is no such thing as a slippery slope. repeat: there is no such thing as a slippery slope
its hard to understand how revolutionary governments are not your friend (referring to your examples). but it's pretty easy to understand corporate greed is not your friend
if they pirate the drug design and make the drugs without a license, guess what happens? THEY SAVE HUMAN LIVES
i think that pretty much trumps every goddamn thing you wrote, no?
poor countries can't afford to abide by ip law, genius
so they have my blessing and the blessing of everyone else with a simple moral compass, to rip off a rich country's pharmaceutical research TO SAVE LIVES
corporate profit is not important than human life, despite the fact that so many douchebags like yourself think otherwise
no one is going to allow hollywood to do that. even in the most cynical pessimistic point of view where that might happen in the usa, there's no leverage the usa has that would make that acceptable to other countries, even very close friends of the usa
i really wonder why these assholes believe acta is anything but a farce
they would basically turn the west into the corporate equivalent of the bullshit that goes on with the internet in china or iran: centralized monitoring and control, for the sake of $ (rather than political control)
in other words, they would force a conflict: the ideals of western liberal democracy, versus the corporate imperative to strangle everything to make a buck
now you can be a complete cynic and pessimist about this conflict, but personally, talking completely out of realism i think, they're fucking out of their mind: people won't stand for it. some of us will make it their passionate life pursuit to circumvent such controls, and those who are successful at routing around the controls will be folk heroes
i really don't see this weak ass acta subsuming the ideals of western liberal democracy. i'm sorry, but every goddamn teenager will take it as a personal joy to render acta a joke, and they'll be able to do it: all you need is technical knowhow. it beats all the lawyers, all the laws, all the international agreement
acta is a form of delusion, its doomed. but let them try, just see them crash and burn
india already flouts laws on hiv drugs. no one is stopping them because it pits humanitarian ideals versus craven corporate interests. the negative pr hit is far larger than any pittance they'd get from a poor country (nevermind the moral argument of lives in the balance, we are talking about corporations here)
so acta can be as draconian as they want. again, i'd like to see them actually try to enforce the bullshit
how do these assholes actually expect to enforce acta?
you can pass all the laws you want. but in terms of actually stopping the spread of pirate media, they would have to fundamentally alter the internet in such a way as to also negate any value anyone attaches to the internet. in other words, they would start a revolt. not an armed revolt, just a sort of utter rejection of their vision of complete centralized control
it would also be extremely expensive, and they would also have to somehow control the internet internationally AND completely. they would, paradoxically, turn those outsider countries that aren't on the usa's bff list, into outposts of internet freedom
acta, to me, it seems like a completely desperate ploy, or clueless (or both)
really, in terms of enforceability, acta is a fucking joke
According to legends recorded by the missionaries in the 1860s, the island originally had a very clear class system, with an ariki, king, wielding absolute god-like power ever since Hotu Matua had arrived on the island. The most visible element in the culture was production of massive moai that were part of the ancestral worship. With a strictly unified appearance, moai were erected along most of the coastline, indicating a homogeneous culture and centralized governance. In addition to the royal family, the island's habitation consisted of priests, soldiers and commoners. The last king, along with his family, died as a slave in the 1860s in the Peruvian mines.[citation needed] Long before that, the king had become a mere symbolic figure, remaining respected and untouchable, but having nominal authority.
For unknown reasons, a coup by military leaders called matatoa had brought a new cult based around a previously unexceptional god Make-make. In the cult of the birdman (Rapanui: tangata manu), a competition was established in which every year a representative of each clan, chosen by the leaders, would swim across shark-infested waters to Motu Nui, a nearby islet, to search for the season's first egg laid by a manutara (sooty tern). The first swimmer to return with an egg and successfully climb back up the cliff to Orongo would be named "Birdman of the year" and secure control over distribution of the island's resources for his clan for the year. The tradition was still in existence at the time of first contact by Europeans. It ended in 1867. The militant birdman cult was largely to blame for the island's misery of the late 18th and 19th centuries. Each year's winner and his supporters short-sightedly pillaged the island after the victory. With the island's ecosystem fading, destruction of crops quickly resulted in famine, sickness and death.[citation needed]
why do the moderate muslims not see that all eyes are on them?
if the crazies in the muslim world are to be counteracted, its not going to be by the us military, that's completely ineffective, as this is a war of ideas. the only tool against islamic wackjobs is... moderate muslims
what i think is that the inaction of moderate muslims is the problem here
take back your own countries, moderate muslims, because, honestly, no one else can. the usa doesn't have a right to trample over your countries, and even when the usa does trample over your countries, they don't change a single thing
and the lunatic fringe of muslims don't have a right to rule your countries via intimidation and fear. so stand up, and rule, or be forever trampled between the american military or suicide bombing wackjobs. the only thing that will stop the american military and suicide bombing wackjobs is YOU, the moderate muslim. no one else can make the change, no one else is able to
its up to you moderate muslims, it really is, its completely up to you, and no one else. and i didn't say it was easy: look what is happening to moderate muslims in iran for defying the theocratic regime. but inaction is even WORSE, because via inaction by moderate muslims, nothing will ever change for the muslim world
step up to the plate, stand and deliver, please
moderate muslims honestly don't have a right to stay on the sidelines if they really care about their own muslim communities. because only they can rescue their communities from the seething homegrown madmen and the intrusive foreign militaries
only you, moderate muslim, only you
you hold the key to what the future will be, no one else
they're extremely courageous about their completely ignorant ideas. so conviction in your intolerance doesn't decide the issue as you assert it does. because the grossly ignorant are actually in fact often extremely courageous about their bigotry
no, what decides the issue is westboro baptist church is tolerated, even thought they are obviously ignorant low iq assholes. you really have to tolerate the muhammad cartoons, even though some are obviously bigotted, because not tolerating them is a form of weakness, not of strength
if the muslim world is intolerant of criticism, no matter crude and stupid, the muslim world suffers. a culture and society that allows the free expression of all ideas, no matter how repugnant, is a healthy society. but the stifling of bad ideas, under any pretense, results in the stifling of good ideas, under false pretense. a society that does not abide by the free exchange of ideas is a society that stagnates in terms of progress, because all forms of progress are at one time or another extremely controversial
in the usa for example, at one time suggesting that blacks or women should vote would be something that some might say should be banned. NOT banning these controversial (at the time) ideas allows those ideas to flourish, and take root, because they are obviously the correct ideas, no matter how controversial in their times. that's how progress occurs
but if you live in a society where controversial ideas are not tolerated, the society stagnates, and fails to progress to a more liberal and open and rich society. there are forces in the usa in fact right now working very hard to stifle free speech. they must always be fought, these forces, forever. but if the muslim world does not have the stomach to fight censorship, then the muslim world will stagnate and never improve
that's the real stakes here. and the west should adhere to its ideals of open exchange, regardless of how crude. why should the west empower the forces in the muslim world that dominate through censorship of free thought?
i agree 100% with you that economic development, education, and healthcare are far more important than rabble rousing
however, what i see that you don't is that if those issues are ever going to be addressed, it will be done by YOU
you are the majority? then you solve your problems in muslim communities. do you want to know why the muslim world has the problems you dislike? i'll tell you why:
"Almost all Muslims (both in the "West" and in the "East") have no beef with anyone or anything, and just want to go ahead living their lives."
no, you can't go on living your life. you are part of the problem BECAUSE YOU DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEMS IN YOUR COMMUNITY
you don't have the right to just go on living your life. you have the RESPONSIBILITY to clean up your community. if that doesn't cdome first, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO ON WITH YOUR LIFE UNMOLESTED. not by the west, but by the lunatics in your own community. clean them up!
if the demagogues are in charge, it is because the majority, you, let them be
you are to blame. because you don't understand this IS your problem
as the obvious reciprocal corollary, as an american i loathe gw bush and the tea party morons with every fibre of my being for being the ignorant propagandized sheep they are. and i will do my best to make sure these crackpots and assholes do not get power in my country again
now i am asking you to say the same about your lunatics
and if we fail, god save us. if we are the moderate middle in this world, it is our responsibility to keep the keys of power out of the hands of the stupid and the evil, in BOTH our communities. and if we don't, god save us all, because it is nothing but suffering for all of us
before major religions, mankind was much worse off. yes, really, according to any metric of suffering
of course religion introduced new forms of suffering and didn't stop others, but it certainly was an improvement over the tribal world
the next step is the sublimation of religions themselves into something more global and general
you do this THROUGH religions from the inside, not by somehow supplanting them. with what? religions are never going away, ever. if you magically somehow removed all religions in the world, new ones would spring into being and fill the void. they are simply and inevitably part of mankind's social existence. make peace with that fact, and focus on defanging and detoothing religions, like me, not somehow denying inevitable reality
and you talk of religions as if they were some sort of fixed static identity!
Slashdot Mirror
all species have homosexuals to some low percentage. its simply a genetic aberration, like low sperm count or infertile eggs, that simply means some individuals don't reproduce. harmless and natural phenomenon
so allow homosexuals to be homosexuals, they won't hurt you or society in anyway, because there is no ill effects to their homosexual behavior. society will still reproduce, because the majority will always be naturally inclined to produce offspring
sorry, no gay panic for you
so if we are doomed, mr. pessimist, why are you arguing with me if its so inevitable?
go build your survivalist cave, and leave the argument to those who actually believe they might win the argument. what's the point of arguing if you've already accepted defeat? i believe in the possibility of progress and the curtailing of governmental intrusive powers. you apparently don't
you're simply a coward: you've given up the fight. you're weak: you see the threat, and moan and cry that you can't stop it. well i believe we can stop it. does that make me deluded? perhaps. but if government power is ever going to be curtailed, it will be done by the optimists, not by the likes of you. 1% chance of success is better than 0% chance of success (because you've given up)
the words you have written above do not actually define reality. well, actually, they do define a reality: your future reality (not mine). you have chosen for yourself (not for me) the path of defeatism and helplessness. do not confuse your character failings with the reality we actually live in. your words only define the parameters by which you have chosen to be a slave and a loser. i am still my own master, and your self-subjugation only tears you down, not me. your self-chosen limitations do not limit me at all, and do not define the reality we actually live in, only your self-chosen, sad, dim future
if we ever are going to have a doomed future of autocratic domination, it will be mostly due to losers like yourself: those who have hysterically and proactively given up their own freedoms, and sacrificed them to those who intend us harm. there are always those who intend harm. but often the amount of harm they actually inflict is not defined by their intent, but simply by the vast number of losers like yourself who simply roll over and accept it
therefore, if our future is orwellian, it is because of people who think like you: those who accept their slavery, in abject, self-defined helplessness
stand up and fight for your rights, or shut the fuck up
anything is possible
but when you argue in the realm of the realistic, then its obvious that men seek to accumulate women 99x more times than the reverse, and that the romantic harem may exist, but for the other 99% of harems, its pretty much a financial arrangement
occam's razor: when you hear hoofbeats, its going to be horses, not zebras
likewise, when you talk about polygamy, you're talking about a rich guy with a bunch of women
the exotic theoretical offerings you allude to simply have no probative value or logical coherence, because they are so exceedingly rare, and always will be (this is where you argue that your exotic utopian visions are possible. yes, all sorts of things are possible if you can miraculously make people behave like they won't on their own. zzz)
as for your women with legal protections: again i'm certain you can find me the odd weirdo who is happy to share a man romantically, but for the vast majority of women, polygamy is simply the surrendering of the possibility of romance, and sacrificing the pursuit of happiness for the sake of financial security
additionally, you have not examined my simple mathematical inevitable truth: polygamy results in a population of poor men with no hope of finding a mate, through no fault of their own, and this degrades society as any group of angry loveless rootless forlorn nothing to lose no future men would
you're an ivory tower type: you've made a fanciful exotic argument in a void of any realistic understanding of human nature. you're a college kid with a lot of book reading, but no real life experience with real human beings
you should stand against polygamy, for the sake of society and the individual. to conclude otherwise is ivory tower foolishness. you're deluding yourself. not that my post will stop you. now is where you begin furiously building a wall of denial against my words, to preserve your psychological dependence on your blind idealism
are you serious? you can't possibly be serious
if you're trolling: not biting. if you're joking: lol. if you're serious: LOL, moron
a poor country doesn't have money. they can't pay. the drug company with the ip won't be making money from that country, ever. if they give poor country drugs for free, they won't make money. if they deny the poor country the drugs it needs, they won't make money. getting a poor country cheap drugs, or not, makes no difference to the financial bottom line
meanwhile, they'll make plenty of profit from rich countries. the fact that the rich will pay and the poor won't pay does not in any way change the pharmaceutical company's fortunes or inclination to do research
so its a simple act of charity to look the other way on ip laws in poor countries and save some lives
but you, you'd rather squeeze a poor country for cash (and not get any), rather than save lives. therefore, you are an immoral low iq douchebag
the slippery slope argument is not an effective argument against power grabs. so when i argue against slippery slopes, i am not arguing for power grabs, i am merely arguing for better tactics. understand?
so when i stand against slippery slope arguments, i am asking you and others to simply make more factual arguments against power grabs. the slippery slope argument is intellectually lazy at best, and is mostly just empty panic that in no way actually helps the good cause
ineffective impotent slippery slope argument: "don't pass the law against internet privacy! next they will confiscate our computers and declare martial law!" omg! the sky is falling! whatever...
influential coherent factual argument: "don't pass the law against internet privacy. the rationale for the law is based on an incorrect assumption that piercing the veil of anonymity will somehow reduce child pornography. it only punishes law abiding citizens while the child pornographers will continue their exploits." hmm. this is a good point. maybe we should reconsider our support for this law...
see the difference?
the slippery slope argument is a feeble mind cowering in the corner that convinces no one of anything except that you have are overreacting spastic fight-or-flight adrenaline junkie. i am asking you instead to have a level headed coherent mind, making influential arguments
nowhere in any logical argument will anyone ever refer to a slippery slope if they actually want to make a difference in this world. the concept of the slippery slope and an influential argument are mutually exclusive
every man with more than one woman represents an equal sized population of men without any woman, through no fault of their own
a man without a woman is rootless, loveless, forlorn, without a future, and nothing to lose. such a population of men hurt society in various ways
furthermore, a woman who chooses to share a man is making a financial agreement, not a romantic one. so it's classism: a rich man can simply afford more wives. classism degrades society in many ways, but denying some poor men a wife, and hollowing out some women's romantic life to an empty financial transaction, are amongst the more terrible forms of classism
a bunch of rich men (its about money, not love) taking up a bunch of women represents an equal sized population of poorer men who are now without a mate, through no fault of their own
so now you have a bunch of angry rootless loveless men in your society without any hopes for their future and nothing to lose. use your boundless imagination as to the effects of that
the slippery slope implies that there is no rational thinking people in the room
its the same argument used by those who stand against gay's right to marry: "if we let gays marry, then people will be marrying sheep! polygamy will be legal too!" bullshit. people understand that homosexual marriage is not bestiality or multiple wives
or howabout: "if they legalize marijuana they will legalize meth and heroin too!" no. meth is not marijuana. heroin is not marijuana. everyone understands the radical differences between these drugs
if you can understand that those who use the bullshit tactic of the slippery slope against gay marriage or marijuana legalization are trafficking in fear and hysteria, then maybe you can see that in your own words, is the exact same fear and hysteria
so, just so you clearly understand... no: a cyberattack is not piracy. a cyberattack is not pedophilia. common sense attempts to secure a network is not going to be confused with efforts against piracy. or pedophilia
really. we all understand the difference. really
people, please: shut up with the bullshit slippery slope arguments. whenever you find yourself arguing in terms of the slippery slope, you have lost your grasp on rationality and reason and are simply fearful, hysterical, and confused. there is no such thing as a slippery slope. repeat: there is no such thing as a slippery slope
and i'm not buying it
its hard to understand how revolutionary governments are not your friend (referring to your examples). but it's pretty easy to understand corporate greed is not your friend
morality check: which is more important?
1. saving human lives
2. enforcing ip law
if they pirate the drug design and make the drugs without a license, guess what happens? THEY SAVE HUMAN LIVES
i think that pretty much trumps every goddamn thing you wrote, no?
poor countries can't afford to abide by ip law, genius
so they have my blessing and the blessing of everyone else with a simple moral compass, to rip off a rich country's pharmaceutical research TO SAVE LIVES
corporate profit is not important than human life, despite the fact that so many douchebags like yourself think otherwise
no one is going to allow hollywood to do that. even in the most cynical pessimistic point of view where that might happen in the usa, there's no leverage the usa has that would make that acceptable to other countries, even very close friends of the usa
i really wonder why these assholes believe acta is anything but a farce
completely unenforceable, really
they would basically turn the west into the corporate equivalent of the bullshit that goes on with the internet in china or iran: centralized monitoring and control, for the sake of $ (rather than political control)
in other words, they would force a conflict: the ideals of western liberal democracy, versus the corporate imperative to strangle everything to make a buck
now you can be a complete cynic and pessimist about this conflict, but personally, talking completely out of realism i think, they're fucking out of their mind: people won't stand for it. some of us will make it their passionate life pursuit to circumvent such controls, and those who are successful at routing around the controls will be folk heroes
i really don't see this weak ass acta subsuming the ideals of western liberal democracy. i'm sorry, but every goddamn teenager will take it as a personal joy to render acta a joke, and they'll be able to do it: all you need is technical knowhow. it beats all the lawyers, all the laws, all the international agreement
acta is a form of delusion, its doomed. but let them try, just see them crash and burn
india already flouts laws on hiv drugs. no one is stopping them because it pits humanitarian ideals versus craven corporate interests. the negative pr hit is far larger than any pittance they'd get from a poor country (nevermind the moral argument of lives in the balance, we are talking about corporations here)
so acta can be as draconian as they want. again, i'd like to see them actually try to enforce the bullshit
how do these assholes actually expect to enforce acta?
you can pass all the laws you want. but in terms of actually stopping the spread of pirate media, they would have to fundamentally alter the internet in such a way as to also negate any value anyone attaches to the internet. in other words, they would start a revolt. not an armed revolt, just a sort of utter rejection of their vision of complete centralized control
it would also be extremely expensive, and they would also have to somehow control the internet internationally AND completely. they would, paradoxically, turn those outsider countries that aren't on the usa's bff list, into outposts of internet freedom
acta, to me, it seems like a completely desperate ploy, or clueless (or both)
really, in terms of enforceability, acta is a fucking joke
which is the best story of what happens when human overpopulate and use up all the resources (civilization collapse is the result)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Easter_Island#Pre-European_society
in the past, when facing problems not resolved in a manner timely enough for me, i have referred to tech vendors as "fucking meat puppets"
but, thanks to this vendor educational material, i now know to refer to tech vendors i am displeased with as "fucking sock puppets"
i regret the past inaccuracy
what is that? some sort of missing evolutionary link between different textbook phenotypes?
i am responsible for the policies of my country
meanwhile, a pakistani is responsible for his country, and a turk for there's
moron: what exactly is racist about what i said?
you bigotted fuck: you wish to vilify the entire religion?
try meeting some actual real muslims someday and actually talking to them, rather than stewing in ignorant hateful faux news all day
they aren't alien invaders, they're simple human beings like you and me. well at least like me. you're the real nonhuman, you hate-filled pus bag
your thinking is the way to suffering and war. your way is ignorance. you're the enemy of peace in this world with your willful moronic hatred
die you ignorant hate filled twatstain
by stop buying oil from the middle east
electric cars, nuclear power: the most effective way to promote peace in the middle east
why do the moderate muslims not see that all eyes are on them?
if the crazies in the muslim world are to be counteracted, its not going to be by the us military, that's completely ineffective, as this is a war of ideas. the only tool against islamic wackjobs is... moderate muslims
what i think is that the inaction of moderate muslims is the problem here
take back your own countries, moderate muslims, because, honestly, no one else can. the usa doesn't have a right to trample over your countries, and even when the usa does trample over your countries, they don't change a single thing
and the lunatic fringe of muslims don't have a right to rule your countries via intimidation and fear. so stand up, and rule, or be forever trampled between the american military or suicide bombing wackjobs. the only thing that will stop the american military and suicide bombing wackjobs is YOU, the moderate muslim. no one else can make the change, no one else is able to
its up to you moderate muslims, it really is, its completely up to you, and no one else. and i didn't say it was easy: look what is happening to moderate muslims in iran for defying the theocratic regime. but inaction is even WORSE, because via inaction by moderate muslims, nothing will ever change for the muslim world
step up to the plate, stand and deliver, please
moderate muslims honestly don't have a right to stay on the sidelines if they really care about their own muslim communities. because only they can rescue their communities from the seething homegrown madmen and the intrusive foreign militaries
only you, moderate muslim, only you
you hold the key to what the future will be, no one else
for example, there's Westboro Baptist Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
they're extremely courageous about their completely ignorant ideas. so conviction in your intolerance doesn't decide the issue as you assert it does. because the grossly ignorant are actually in fact often extremely courageous about their bigotry
no, what decides the issue is westboro baptist church is tolerated, even thought they are obviously ignorant low iq assholes. you really have to tolerate the muhammad cartoons, even though some are obviously bigotted, because not tolerating them is a form of weakness, not of strength
if the muslim world is intolerant of criticism, no matter crude and stupid, the muslim world suffers. a culture and society that allows the free expression of all ideas, no matter how repugnant, is a healthy society. but the stifling of bad ideas, under any pretense, results in the stifling of good ideas, under false pretense. a society that does not abide by the free exchange of ideas is a society that stagnates in terms of progress, because all forms of progress are at one time or another extremely controversial
in the usa for example, at one time suggesting that blacks or women should vote would be something that some might say should be banned. NOT banning these controversial (at the time) ideas allows those ideas to flourish, and take root, because they are obviously the correct ideas, no matter how controversial in their times. that's how progress occurs
but if you live in a society where controversial ideas are not tolerated, the society stagnates, and fails to progress to a more liberal and open and rich society. there are forces in the usa in fact right now working very hard to stifle free speech. they must always be fought, these forces, forever. but if the muslim world does not have the stomach to fight censorship, then the muslim world will stagnate and never improve
that's the real stakes here. and the west should adhere to its ideals of open exchange, regardless of how crude. why should the west empower the forces in the muslim world that dominate through censorship of free thought?
i agree 100% with you that economic development, education, and healthcare are far more important than rabble rousing
however, what i see that you don't is that if those issues are ever going to be addressed, it will be done by YOU
you are the majority? then you solve your problems in muslim communities. do you want to know why the muslim world has the problems you dislike? i'll tell you why:
"Almost all Muslims (both in the "West" and in the "East") have no beef with anyone or anything, and just want to go ahead living their lives."
no, you can't go on living your life. you are part of the problem BECAUSE YOU DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEMS IN YOUR COMMUNITY
you don't have the right to just go on living your life. you have the RESPONSIBILITY to clean up your community. if that doesn't cdome first, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO ON WITH YOUR LIFE UNMOLESTED. not by the west, but by the lunatics in your own community. clean them up!
if the demagogues are in charge, it is because the majority, you, let them be
you are to blame. because you don't understand this IS your problem
as the obvious reciprocal corollary, as an american i loathe gw bush and the tea party morons with every fibre of my being for being the ignorant propagandized sheep they are. and i will do my best to make sure these crackpots and assholes do not get power in my country again
now i am asking you to say the same about your lunatics
and if we fail, god save us. if we are the moderate middle in this world, it is our responsibility to keep the keys of power out of the hands of the stupid and the evil, in BOTH our communities. and if we don't, god save us all, because it is nothing but suffering for all of us
before major religions, mankind was much worse off. yes, really, according to any metric of suffering
of course religion introduced new forms of suffering and didn't stop others, but it certainly was an improvement over the tribal world
the next step is the sublimation of religions themselves into something more global and general
you do this THROUGH religions from the inside, not by somehow supplanting them. with what? religions are never going away, ever. if you magically somehow removed all religions in the world, new ones would spring into being and fill the void. they are simply and inevitably part of mankind's social existence. make peace with that fact, and focus on defanging and detoothing religions, like me, not somehow denying inevitable reality
and you talk of religions as if they were some sort of fixed static identity!
(laugh)