who comes from that classic heartless eugenics-oriented pov that we as a species are getting physically unfit as we allow the autistic, the downs symdrome, the epileptic, etc., to survive and breed. in classic trollish fashion, he insisted the cavemen had it right when they just left the old, infirm, etc. to die outside in the snow
my response was to question the supremacy of physical fitness. for example, the rise of humans in larger groups, cities, drives the emphasis on new genes: human empathy, for example, being a highly desirable survival advantage in large groups. and the less physically fit in large groups can still contribute to the survival of the group. such that a well-organized group of less physically fit humans can outcompete very fit physical specimens that unfortunately aren't as well wired for human empathy, and therefore are out there, loners, failng to coordinate with othwer humans for the successful passing on of their genes. the rise of cities changing the emphasis onto new genes for survival
which, ironically, given his utter lack of empathy for the less physically fit, put him on the lower end of the "fit" gene pool, where "fit" now means more empathetic, not bigger biceps
perhaps we should leave him out in the snow i wondered?;-)
you frequently scold the technocracy in beijing on limitations on personal freedoms who act in the name of the "harmonization" of society
you frequently scold the theocracy in tehran on limitations on personal freedoms due to the need for a "virtuous" society
you frequently scold the autocracy in moscow in limitations ono personal freedoms due to the pressing need for "strength" in society
well, at least those assholes pretend to be working for the common in man in their evil propaganda
pray tell, when you sublimimated your understanding of what the founding father meant in the founding documents of this country to become a whore of a corporatocracy, did you even blink?
a corporation is an all consuming machine. it will destroy our culture by putting toll booths on every derivative of every utterance possible if they could with their legions of lawyers. in order to make one penny more
but there is more riches in this world than corporate coffers. cultural riches: books, music, movies. our shared cultural inheritance
and you can't even sing happy birthday without owing someone something
fucking h christ, this wrong
i'm not talking to you, mr. whore of the corporatocracy in washington dc, you're already bought and sold, a slave. you're unredeemable, pointless, corrupt. a waste of effort
i'm talking to you, average american in the street: fight back against these corporations, use every technological and socially disruptive means at your disposal. corporations are giant sucking vampires, that will mindlessly encroach more and more on our public domain, and they will not stop until even every single thought you possess has a price tag on it
bring the fucking corporations down, bring them to heel, break them. bring them to respect OUR shared cultural space. they will not do it. their paid whores in washington dc will not do it. only we can do it, the citizens the founding fathers had in mind, which aren't even considered in the decision making halls in washington dc anymore apparently on questions of media and its rightful relationship to our consumption as our shared heritage
i guess you've never been with a woman giving birth
with that attitude, i can see the clawmarks from her fingernails in your shoulder already after saying "no hurry at all honey, we'll just wait for a cab"
if with that atittude you get as far as actually impregnating a woman
downs syndrome children you say should just be left out in the snow in wintertime? like the cavemen did?
what about the autistic?
how about the socially awkward?
how about the elderly?
where do you draw the line?
howabout only super-optimal fit and intelligent 20 somethings allowed to live, the rest turned into protein shakes? sounds good? do you fall in that group?
or maybe turn the less fit into slaves?
nah, i have a better idea. because in the path from the caves to the cities, we made some progress. one of the greatest points of progress that we made is to turn a warmer eye to our fellow human beings. we had to, as a SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE. because you see, oh great genius that you are (not), a GROUP of organized, subintelligent, physically unfit humans can outcompete a lone superfit supersmart human for survival
so honestly, then, if we were ever to bring back the just-put-them-outside-in-the-snow approach to the less than physically and mentally optimum humans amongst us, i would nominate people who think like you to be stuck out there first;-)
you've displayed that you lack a very important survival gene: you devalue your fellow human beings. us, the group, we understand then that you are not going to work with us, but against us: cast a cold uncaring eye on some of us and think about discarding some of us, who, despite having limited means, are wholly devoted to working with the group- a much more desireable survival trait
we have found that you are problem that, how should i put this, let me find the right words: "consumes resources of a half-dozen productive men". where productive men are those who work with the group, not cast an eye towards dismantling some of it. best to discard you, you are malformed;-)
you, my friend, are on the low end of the gene pool, where the new important gene is the one for simple human empathy
more important then strength. more important than intelligence
enjoy your extinction, dinosaur, and you're welcome for the intellectual charity for you in this post, dear dim little troll
you rush her into the car, strap on the seatbelt, and start heading towards the hospital. on the way there, the "check engine" maintenance light comes on
do you:
1. stop the car, and call for an ambulance 2. drive on, ignoring the light
i think we all know what the obvious answer is
folks: people could die without these radioisotopes. additionally, the safety issue is probably something extremely circumspect
please, no more scolding lectures about safety first, the canadian government did the right thing
that you don't care about those who manipulate science
i loathe them
it's important to be impartial in all things... EXCEPT towards those who are consciously and purposely partisan, who aren't concerned with the neutral truth, but are interested in actively skewing of it
when i see a creationist raping the truth, i will get involved to stop the rape
i'm glad your conscience is so wooden that you can see someone rape the truth, and remain uninterested in attempting to stop that
your impartiality, to a smaller degree than you portray, is admirable. but beyond a certain degree, and your deadened uncaring attitude towards creationists as a threat becomes self-defeating
you should care about those who attempt to destroy science, reason, and logic. they are impotent WITHIN the search for truth, yes. but they are not impotent in their desires and attempts to destroy all that underpins the search for truth. in the social structure that supports the search for truth: in the funding of universities and science departments, in the warping of young minds who are needed to refresh those departments, etc.
if you think religius fanatics would not kill or poison science if they could, and pose no threat to you as a scientist, you aren't paying attention to history. reference galileo for starters
part of being a creationist is to never admit you are wrong, no matter how much logic data and reason is stacked up against you
creationism is not science. it never was. and it never will be. giving them or denying them info does not give them more or less data to suddenly turn into reasonable people. it is merely denying ammunition for a propaganda machine that is not nor ever was interested in the truth
it is in fact unscientific to manipulate data for competing scientific theories
it does not advance science in any way to give, or deny info to those who were never interested in the scientific process in the first place, and in fact act against science, always have, are now, and always will
manipulating info for actual scientists is wrong
manipulating info for those who will only use it in anti-scientific propaganda is just squelching the useless noise
plays a game that censors out the weight of all logic reason and science in what they say. and people who do that, in your mind, are to be afforded the same consideration they don't offer anyone else
is to never admit you are wrong, no matter how much logic data and reason is stacked up against you
creationism is not science. it never was. and it never will be. giving them or denying them info does not give them more or less data to suddenly turn into reasonable people. it is merely denying ammunition for a propaganda machine that is not nor ever was interested in the truth
it is in fact unscientific to manipulate data for competing scientific theories
it does not advance science in any way to give, or deny info to those who were never interested in the scientific process in the first place, and in fact act against science
creationism is not science. it never was. and it never will be. giving them or denying them info does not give them more or less data to suddenly turn into reasonable people. it is merely denying ammunition for a propaganda machine that is not nor ever was interested in the truth
"...35,000 years old, rather than from the known impact of 13,000 years ago"
the curent trend among creationists is poke holes in radiocarbon dating, and other half-life based dating methods
don't give the a-holes any ammo by saying things like this. obviously, it's from another impact, but they'll use it as evidence that radiodating rocks and fossils is faulty
because a theocracy is dominated by fundamentalists
all fundamentalist notions get all wrapped up in doomsday scenarios. a religious fundamentalist strapping on sticks of dynamite believes death is ok if he goes to heaven. now you are going to arm religious fundamentalist with a nuclear weapon, and trust them that this rationale will never appeal to them? cleansing the earth of wickedness and sin to make way for the arrival of the messiah, and to be reborn in heaven as a reward for your efforts. sounds crazy, right? well, religious fundamentalists firmly believe it, and act on it. and now a theocracy is contemplating getting nukes
in other words, you expect me, after seeing all of the loony tunes suicidal, fatalistic, and armeggeddeon thinking from religious fundamentalists, to suddenly believe that they will be full of common sense on the question of self-sacrifice if they were to use a nuke on the armies of satan, even if it kills them? oh no, they killed satan's armies, now they get rewarded with heaven
in iran they are looking for the mahdi i believe. a christian parallel of the mahdi would be the second coming of christ. doomsday scenarios are all the rage in ALL fundamentalist gorups, and a theocracy elevates fundamentalists to absolute power. suicide in the name of the religion isn't a problem when you get heaven for your efforts at killing satan. how does M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction, the principle of nukes in the cold war) work when one side is ready to die and go to heaven for the cause? that doesn't bother you? even if 99% of iranians would mind, a theocracy concentrates all the religious nutjobs in positions of absolute power
Shia and Mahdi Among Shi'ites "the Mahdi symbol has developed into a powerful and central religious idea"[5] Shia claim the Mahdi is their 12th Imam, that he is alive and in occultation for 1200 years and is eleven generations down from Muhammad. This is evidenced in a hadith from the Shia text (Kitab Al-Kafi) containing a conversation between the first Shia Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib and a man named al-Asbagh ibn Nubata.
In a hadith widely regarded as authentic[citation needed], Muhammad said,
Even if the entire duration of the world's existence has already been exhausted and only one day is left before the Day of Judgment, God will expand that day to such a length of time, as to accommodate the kingdom of a person out of Ahl al-Bayt who will be called by my name. He will then fill the Earth with peace and justice as it will have been filled with injustice and tyranny before then.
--Sahih Tirmidhi, V2, P86, V9, P74-75. The Mahdi, according to Shi'ite tradition, will arise at some point before the day of judgement, institute a kingdom of justice, and will in the last days fight alongside the returned Jesus against the Dajjal, the Antichrist.
However, like most religious concepts, various Muslim traditions have ascribed different characteristics to the Mahdi. Also, as Mahdiism is closely related to the leadership of the Ummah, it has had the potential to be abused as some leaders of secularly focused politico-religious movements in the name of Islam who have claimed to be the Mahdi.
now you tell me again that giving people who believe in doomsday scenario bullshit like this, getting nuclear fucking weapons, doesn't bother you, and isn't worse than say, a democratic republic with checks and balances (where even if the southern baptist in the white house says nuke them all, someone can intervene), or cold atheist technocrats in beijing, or autocratic nationalists in moscow
the assholes in beijing or moscow still want china and russia to continue existing. a fundamentalist nutjob thinks he will go to heaven if he dies fighting satan
ever hear of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
you honestly aren't worried about religious fundamentalist wackjobs with nukes?
so they went to the chelsea best buy, hundreds of them, in blue shirts, and pretended to be assistants throughout the store, perhaps more helpful than actual staff in some cases
customers were amused and bemused, management went apeshit, the best part is the the black chick who goes "it's like that movie, 'the thomas crown affair'"!
but seriously: this is all a case of people with too much time on their hands: the best buy "actors" in the original "event", AND the lawyers suing them
and isn't there some sort of legal protection for comedy, jokes, mockery? the law that protects political cartoons for example. would they have a case with that? obviously IANAL, as i can't even remember the legal term for this sort of "mockery" that is protected
all fundamentalist notions get all wrapped up in doomsday scenarios. a religious fundamentalist strapping on sticks of dynamite believes death is ok if he goes to heaven. now you are going to arm religious fundamentalist with a nuclear weapon, and trust them that this rationale will never appeal to them? cleansing the earth of wickedness and sin to make way for the arrival of the messiah, and to be reborn in heaven as a reward for your efforts. sounds crazy, right? well, religious fundamentalists firmly believe it, and act on it. and now a theocracy is contemplating getting nukes
in other words, you expect me, after seeing all of the loony tunes suicidal, fatalistic, and armeggeddeon thinking from religious fundamentalists, to suddenly believe that they will be full of common sense on the question of self-sacrifice if they were to use a nuke on the armies of satan?
so you want me to believe a crazy person is suddenly going to act sane
1. a crazed fundamentalist in the white house is restricted in his powers. in a theocracy, the crazed fundamentalist is the ultimate arbiter (except for god, of course... whom he speaks for). furthermore, after 4 or 8 years, the crazed fundamentalist is gone in a democracy. in a theocracy, they have power forever. this is significant. go read the constitution of the united states. go read the constitution of iran. i defy you to think that the threat of fundamentalists starting nuclear war in the usa is equivalent to that from iran. here, i'll help you with first sentence of the first amendment of the us constitution (compare to the iranian constitution i quoted above on the topic of religion): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2. i agree with you that no nation should have nukes. which means i am glad that you stand with me against iran getting nukes, right? while we also declare the usa should dismantle their stockpile, right?...or does believing no nation should have nukes mean we support iran getting nukes, because the usa has them?!
because if you dislike one extremist, that automatically means you are another kind of extremist. god forbid i'm a moderate who hates BOTH extremists, of ALL ideologies. is that concept so fucking hard for you to understand?
i don't want war, you don't want war. the great moderate middle of all parts of the worlld does not want war
the problem is that the current ideological climate in the west and in the middle east seems to favor the extremists, who do want war. let us moderates regain the upper hand before the extremists achieve their wish
Slashdot Mirror
therefore, you are on the lower end of the "fit" gene pool
;-)
where "fit" now means larger empathy, not larger biceps
therefore, we should leave you out in the snow
it's always good to dismantle a harmful pseudoscience's "facts" and show that their "facts" are nothing more than propaganda
we can let loose the final salvo: game shows
a good dose of "deal or no deal" puts you at an effective 10-20 point iq deficit
who comes from that classic heartless eugenics-oriented pov that we as a species are getting physically unfit as we allow the autistic, the downs symdrome, the epileptic, etc., to survive and breed. in classic trollish fashion, he insisted the cavemen had it right when they just left the old, infirm, etc. to die outside in the snow
;-)
my response was to question the supremacy of physical fitness. for example, the rise of humans in larger groups, cities, drives the emphasis on new genes: human empathy, for example, being a highly desirable survival advantage in large groups. and the less physically fit in large groups can still contribute to the survival of the group. such that a well-organized group of less physically fit humans can outcompete very fit physical specimens that unfortunately aren't as well wired for human empathy, and therefore are out there, loners, failng to coordinate with othwer humans for the successful passing on of their genes. the rise of cities changing the emphasis onto new genes for survival
which, ironically, given his utter lack of empathy for the less physically fit, put him on the lower end of the "fit" gene pool, where "fit" now means more empathetic, not bigger biceps
perhaps we should leave him out in the snow i wondered?
or rather, in carl sagan's "contact"?
the first visual broadcast transmissions we've sent to the stars was bloody farking hitler himself, addressing the 1936 berlin games
THAT's our announcement to the galaxy
could we have possibly done worse as a species?
we stood up, we cleared our throat, and the first utterance out of our technological mouths and we go and godwin the whole of human civilization
fark us
you frequently scold the technocracy in beijing on limitations on personal freedoms who act in the name of the "harmonization" of society
you frequently scold the theocracy in tehran on limitations on personal freedoms due to the need for a "virtuous" society
you frequently scold the autocracy in moscow in limitations ono personal freedoms due to the pressing need for "strength" in society
well, at least those assholes pretend to be working for the common in man in their evil propaganda
pray tell, when you sublimimated your understanding of what the founding father meant in the founding documents of this country to become a whore of a corporatocracy, did you even blink?
a corporation is an all consuming machine. it will destroy our culture by putting toll booths on every derivative of every utterance possible if they could with their legions of lawyers. in order to make one penny more
but there is more riches in this world than corporate coffers. cultural riches: books, music, movies. our shared cultural inheritance
and you can't even sing happy birthday without owing someone something
fucking h christ, this wrong
i'm not talking to you, mr. whore of the corporatocracy in washington dc, you're already bought and sold, a slave. you're unredeemable, pointless, corrupt. a waste of effort
i'm talking to you, average american in the street: fight back against these corporations, use every technological and socially disruptive means at your disposal. corporations are giant sucking vampires, that will mindlessly encroach more and more on our public domain, and they will not stop until even every single thought you possess has a price tag on it
bring the fucking corporations down, bring them to heel, break them. bring them to respect OUR shared cultural space. they will not do it. their paid whores in washington dc will not do it. only we can do it, the citizens the founding fathers had in mind, which aren't even considered in the decision making halls in washington dc anymore apparently on questions of media and its rightful relationship to our consumption as our shared heritage
i guess you've never been with a woman giving birth
with that attitude, i can see the clawmarks from her fingernails in your shoulder already after saying "no hurry at all honey, we'll just wait for a cab"
if with that atittude you get as far as actually impregnating a woman
downs syndrome children you say should just be left out in the snow in wintertime? like the cavemen did?
;-)
;-)
what about the autistic?
how about the socially awkward?
how about the elderly?
where do you draw the line?
howabout only super-optimal fit and intelligent 20 somethings allowed to live, the rest turned into protein shakes? sounds good? do you fall in that group?
or maybe turn the less fit into slaves?
nah, i have a better idea. because in the path from the caves to the cities, we made some progress. one of the greatest points of progress that we made is to turn a warmer eye to our fellow human beings. we had to, as a SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE. because you see, oh great genius that you are (not), a GROUP of organized, subintelligent, physically unfit humans can outcompete a lone superfit supersmart human for survival
so honestly, then, if we were ever to bring back the just-put-them-outside-in-the-snow approach to the less than physically and mentally optimum humans amongst us, i would nominate people who think like you to be stuck out there first
you've displayed that you lack a very important survival gene: you devalue your fellow human beings. us, the group, we understand then that you are not going to work with us, but against us: cast a cold uncaring eye on some of us and think about discarding some of us, who, despite having limited means, are wholly devoted to working with the group- a much more desireable survival trait
we have found that you are problem that, how should i put this, let me find the right words: "consumes resources of a half-dozen productive men". where productive men are those who work with the group, not cast an eye towards dismantling some of it. best to discard you, you are malformed
you, my friend, are on the low end of the gene pool, where the new important gene is the one for simple human empathy
more important then strength. more important than intelligence
enjoy your extinction, dinosaur, and you're welcome for the intellectual charity for you in this post, dear dim little troll
you rush her into the car, strap on the seatbelt, and start heading towards the hospital. on the way there, the "check engine" maintenance light comes on
do you:
1. stop the car, and call for an ambulance
2. drive on, ignoring the light
i think we all know what the obvious answer is
folks: people could die without these radioisotopes. additionally, the safety issue is probably something extremely circumspect
please, no more scolding lectures about safety first, the canadian government did the right thing
you know you should educate yourself the slightest bit about a subject matter before injecting yourself into a discussion about it, or you look pretty stupid
then you seem to imply that i'm part of a camp that considers science a religion
(rolls eyes)
shoot first, ask questions later, huh? such as: how baseless a smear should i attempt?
that you don't care about those who manipulate science
i loathe them
it's important to be impartial in all things... EXCEPT towards those who are consciously and purposely partisan, who aren't concerned with the neutral truth, but are interested in actively skewing of it
when i see a creationist raping the truth, i will get involved to stop the rape
i'm glad your conscience is so wooden that you can see someone rape the truth, and remain uninterested in attempting to stop that
your impartiality, to a smaller degree than you portray, is admirable. but beyond a certain degree, and your deadened uncaring attitude towards creationists as a threat becomes self-defeating
you should care about those who attempt to destroy science, reason, and logic. they are impotent WITHIN the search for truth, yes. but they are not impotent in their desires and attempts to destroy all that underpins the search for truth. in the social structure that supports the search for truth: in the funding of universities and science departments, in the warping of young minds who are needed to refresh those departments, etc.
if you think religius fanatics would not kill or poison science if they could, and pose no threat to you as a scientist, you aren't paying attention to history. reference galileo for starters
part of being a creationist is to never admit you are wrong, no matter how much logic data and reason is stacked up against you
creationism is not science. it never was. and it never will be. giving them or denying them info does not give them more or less data to suddenly turn into reasonable people. it is merely denying ammunition for a propaganda machine that is not nor ever was interested in the truth
it is in fact unscientific to manipulate data for competing scientific theories
it does not advance science in any way to give, or deny info to those who were never interested in the scientific process in the first place, and in fact act against science, always have, are now, and always will
manipulating info for actual scientists is wrong
manipulating info for those who will only use it in anti-scientific propaganda is just squelching the useless noise
plays a game that censors out the weight of all logic reason and science in what they say. and people who do that, in your mind, are to be afforded the same consideration they don't offer anyone else
is to never admit you are wrong, no matter how much logic data and reason is stacked up against you
creationism is not science. it never was. and it never will be. giving them or denying them info does not give them more or less data to suddenly turn into reasonable people. it is merely denying ammunition for a propaganda machine that is not nor ever was interested in the truth
it is in fact unscientific to manipulate data for competing scientific theories
it does not advance science in any way to give, or deny info to those who were never interested in the scientific process in the first place, and in fact act against science
to protect those who act against reason?
creationism is not science. it never was. and it never will be. giving them or denying them info does not give them more or less data to suddenly turn into reasonable people. it is merely denying ammunition for a propaganda machine that is not nor ever was interested in the truth
"...35,000 years old, rather than from the known impact of 13,000 years ago"
the curent trend among creationists is poke holes in radiocarbon dating, and other half-life based dating methods
don't give the a-holes any ammo by saying things like this. obviously, it's from another impact, but they'll use it as evidence that radiodating rocks and fossils is faulty
how does opposing ALL extremists make one an extremist? i'm an extreme moderate? isn't that like dry water or bright darkness? an impossible paradox?
all fundamentalist notions get all wrapped up in doomsday scenarios. a religious fundamentalist strapping on sticks of dynamite believes death is ok if he goes to heaven. now you are going to arm religious fundamentalist with a nuclear weapon, and trust them that this rationale will never appeal to them? cleansing the earth of wickedness and sin to make way for the arrival of the messiah, and to be reborn in heaven as a reward for your efforts. sounds crazy, right? well, religious fundamentalists firmly believe it, and act on it. and now a theocracy is contemplating getting nukes
in other words, you expect me, after seeing all of the loony tunes suicidal, fatalistic, and armeggeddeon thinking from religious fundamentalists, to suddenly believe that they will be full of common sense on the question of self-sacrifice if they were to use a nuke on the armies of satan, even if it kills them? oh no, they killed satan's armies, now they get rewarded with heaven
in iran they are looking for the mahdi i believe. a christian parallel of the mahdi would be the second coming of christ. doomsday scenarios are all the rage in ALL fundamentalist gorups, and a theocracy elevates fundamentalists to absolute power. suicide in the name of the religion isn't a problem when you get heaven for your efforts at killing satan. how does M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction, the principle of nukes in the cold war) work when one side is ready to die and go to heaven for the cause? that doesn't bother you? even if 99% of iranians would mind, a theocracy concentrates all the religious nutjobs in positions of absolute power
here, read about the mahdi
now you tell me again that giving people who believe in doomsday scenario bullshit like this, getting nuclear fucking weapons, doesn't bother you, and isn't worse than say, a democratic republic with checks and balances (where even if the southern baptist in the white house says nuke them all, someone can intervene), or cold atheist technocrats in beijing, or autocratic nationalists in moscow
the assholes in beijing or moscow still want china and russia to continue existing. a fundamentalist nutjob thinks he will go to heaven if he dies fighting satan
ever hear of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
you honestly aren't worried about religious fundamentalist wackjobs with nukes?
http://www.improveverywhere.com/2006/04/23/best-buy/
so they went to the chelsea best buy, hundreds of them, in blue shirts, and pretended to be assistants throughout the store, perhaps more helpful than actual staff in some cases
customers were amused and bemused, management went apeshit, the best part is the the black chick who goes "it's like that movie, 'the thomas crown affair'"!
but seriously: this is all a case of people with too much time on their hands: the best buy "actors" in the original "event", AND the lawyers suing them
and isn't there some sort of legal protection for comedy, jokes, mockery? the law that protects political cartoons for example. would they have a case with that? obviously IANAL, as i can't even remember the legal term for this sort of "mockery" that is protected
all fundamentalist notions get all wrapped up in doomsday scenarios. a religious fundamentalist strapping on sticks of dynamite believes death is ok if he goes to heaven. now you are going to arm religious fundamentalist with a nuclear weapon, and trust them that this rationale will never appeal to them? cleansing the earth of wickedness and sin to make way for the arrival of the messiah, and to be reborn in heaven as a reward for your efforts. sounds crazy, right? well, religious fundamentalists firmly believe it, and act on it. and now a theocracy is contemplating getting nukes
in other words, you expect me, after seeing all of the loony tunes suicidal, fatalistic, and armeggeddeon thinking from religious fundamentalists, to suddenly believe that they will be full of common sense on the question of self-sacrifice if they were to use a nuke on the armies of satan?
so you want me to believe a crazy person is suddenly going to act sane
got it
1. a crazed fundamentalist in the white house is restricted in his powers. in a theocracy, the crazed fundamentalist is the ultimate arbiter (except for god, of course... whom he speaks for). furthermore, after 4 or 8 years, the crazed fundamentalist is gone in a democracy. in a theocracy, they have power forever. this is significant. go read the constitution of the united states. go read the constitution of iran. i defy you to think that the threat of fundamentalists starting nuclear war in the usa is equivalent to that from iran. here, i'll help you with first sentence of the first amendment of the us constitution (compare to the iranian constitution i quoted above on the topic of religion): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
...or does believing no nation should have nukes mean we support iran getting nukes, because the usa has them?!
2. i agree with you that no nation should have nukes. which means i am glad that you stand with me against iran getting nukes, right? while we also declare the usa should dismantle their stockpile, right?
because if you dislike one extremist, that automatically means you are another kind of extremist. god forbid i'm a moderate who hates BOTH extremists, of ALL ideologies. is that concept so fucking hard for you to understand?
i don't want war, you don't want war. the great moderate middle of all parts of the worlld does not want war
the problem is that the current ideological climate in the west and in the middle east seems to favor the extremists, who do want war. let us moderates regain the upper hand before the extremists achieve their wish
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
that plugs more support and concern for the criminals than the victims of crime