This issue has nothing to do with troops being shot, and to suggest otherwise is simply dishonest.
Terrorist extremists who wish to see Americans dead will do so whether or not any books are actually burned. Delusional, radical people will create reasons for their behavior, despite your every effort. This is a fact.
Rational people, who might be goaded into reacting to this, would likewise pause to realize that this is America. We endorse a whole host of behaviors far more offensive to Muslims than book burning. One the one hand you have over a million dead Iraqis - not to mention all the wonderful cancer, birth defects, and disease that the survivors get to look forward to from our efforts which will undoubtedly produce many more corpses - and on the other hand you have midget porn.
Reasons exist, and this behavior has more to do with capitalizing on the opportunity to kiss Arab ass than any threat to any actual persons.
So, Jeremy, why is it that YOU hate the troops so much you would sacrifice the very freedom they laid down their lives to protect?
In order to feel better about the lives to be lost, which will be lost with or without any burning of any books, you throw freedom and principle out the window.
But here, I'll play along; I'm sure there were some people who thought that what Hitler was doing was a bad thing, too, and he was completely free to ignore them.
Excellent example! When Hitler rounded up all the books he didn't like, and burned them, what, exactly did the world do?
In effect, due to the terrorists' impact on our culture, a man seeking to burn a single book he owns is now MORE EVIL than FREAKING HITLER.
They're official agents of the government. Any exercise of their rights needs to happen on their own time. Using their office as a bully pulpit for this is no different than for telling us we should all be Catholic or buy Verizon phones.
I do understand. I'm advocating consequences for Petraeus and Obama not taking their oaths with due seriousness.
Freedom isn't just some star-spangled jacket you take on and off as needed.
Meanwhile, let's make sure that any consequences for exercises of free speech are likewise within the realm of free speech. Condoning violence, by joining the voices 'warning', or really threatening, that it will happen, is simply 'more wrong'.
It's not race, it's culture. There are typical "black" and "white" subcultures in the US.
I thought this was already apparent by the likes of Halle Berry, Tiger Woods, and Barack Obama electing to call themselves 'black'. They're mixed race, all of them. But they don't claim their racial label, only their cultural one.
Well, for starters, the church now needs a new hosting provider. They'll need to incur the costs of that migration. So here, at a minimum, we have one business causing costs for another business, because they don't like what they are saying, and only recently did they decide not to like it. Only after the federal government, including POTUS, told everyone, including Rackspace, what they thought should be done.
What if it was a sexual harassment issue instead? What if they decided to fire a woman for her 'poor performance', but only right after she lodged a complaint against the CEO? Would that suspicion likewise be 'full of shit'? Because there's no evidence supporting an allegation of retaliation here either, and yet it is recognized by law.
Further if Rackspace wasn't enforcing their TOS against everyone uniformly (and we know they weren't because they allowed this to go on until Obama spoke), then there could well be a lawsuit in their future. All it would take is a series of examples of other sites still standing, also in violation, and they can claim discrimination.
So it seems that while the allegation against the Administration might not be punishable, it certainly isn't without any merit at all, due to these and other examples in our existing law.
1) Private parties that violate the tenets of natural rights ought to be stripped of them. They're taking out of the system without paying into it, and it is despicable. They do have a choice, but they ought to face the consequences of that later, by someone barring this right to them. Karma, perhaps, will resolve it. But until it does, one ought not defend deplorable behavior...
2) Nothing in the discussion would incite violence from non-terrorists (also known as reasonable people), so this point is completely moot.
3) There exists an equivalent *predictable* result because Dove merely suggested it. Or because a number of Americans agreed that he should be allowed to do it. Further, there exists an equivalent *predictable* upswing in violence as a negotiation tactic should we capitulate to the threat. In short, that pooch is already screwed. It isn't as if violent extremists actually require much provocation anyway.
This isn't criticism. This is trolling, and all it will achieve is angering muslims who didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and help those who did.
Well, if those angry Muslims exercise their free speech rights in retaliation, then we have started a discourse.
But that's not what you're worried about with 'angry muslims', is it? You're expecting violence. In short you're going as far as condoning the violence by suppressing the man's rights, because you're afraid of it.
Kinda puts the word 'terror' in 'terrorism', doesn't it?
To all the people claiming that this violates this church's right to free speech, please inform me of how this is a government action. Because that is what is protected under the First Amendment. Hell, it's the first three words of the fucking amendment...
I started to correct you, but others have already done that better than I would have... So, I'll offer this instead:
If you're willing to allow this non-government violation of his rights, then you should be entitled to forfeit yours as well. Therefore, kindly delete your post* and have a nice day. Or is it simply that HIS speech isn't as important as YOURS because you just don't LIKE it?
Freedoms are absolute because of this double standard exactly.
*figuratively speaking, I do realize that slashdot doesn't allow that sort of thing...
There's that double standard again. How long do we have to put up with it?
Yes! This!! Very, very this!
This is precisely why I support the man's actions in doing it. We are America, the land of the free. The Muslims have the right to build their Mosque on property they own, and the Christians have the right to set fire to books that they own, and NO ONE in our government has ANY RIGHT to interfere with ANY OF IT. Any public figure weighing in against any of these activities should be impeached immediately. 'Freedom' means freedom from opinion as well. Those public servants surrendered their right to impune others for their protected speech the moment they were sworn in.
This is about freedom, and if you're against it, you clearly do not understand WHY we have the rights we do. Further I put forward that if you're in favor of Obama going on TV against it, then you'd likewise support laws against it, and if that is the case then you should genuinely be ashamed of who the terrorists have made you become. If you oppose freedom of religion and protected speech, then you don't deserve either.
Talk about gross oversimplification. Our soldiers are being attacked because the people they displaced from power want it back.
This is pretty close. Our soldiers are being attacked because they stepped in and attempted to do something that only an actual civil war/revolution can accomplish. We sought to replace the existing government without actually being 'from' there. This is infinitely more complex than the actual citizenry standing together to overthrow the seated government.
In short, we're dieing over there because of a longshot, nation-building idea that probably will never work out.
Not that those being deposed don't genuinely deserve it, but it just isn't 'our' job to do it, because at the end of the campaign, we'll all just go home to the only country we genuinely care about.
There's no question of rights or freedom here. This is about a guy being an absolute asshole and other people telling him that he should stop being an asshole.
He is, of course, completely free to ignore them.
Don't you think at least one person thought even Ghandi was an asshole?
Doing what you believe is right isn't necessarily a popularity contest.
Years and years of experience with consumer electronics.
Or is the iPad made of magical pixie dust and will therefore not be subject to industry norms? I can see Jobs now, "Profit be damned! There will be only one iPad, and no one will ever want to upgrade it, EVER!"
I still don't get why Gold is an investment...especially if the world breaks down. It's always said that if the civilazation ends, Gold will be the last thing worth something. If the world is at it's edge, the last thing I'd want to carry around would be gold.
People have held it as valuable since the dawn of time. Why would anything change that?
Besides, all the 'really valuable' stuff is either completely intangible (like knowledge) or transient (like food/water). You simply cannot carry these things in any appreciable quantity...
Slashdot Mirror
This issue has nothing to do with troops being shot, and to suggest otherwise is simply dishonest.
Terrorist extremists who wish to see Americans dead will do so whether or not any books are actually burned. Delusional, radical people will create reasons for their behavior, despite your every effort. This is a fact.
Rational people, who might be goaded into reacting to this, would likewise pause to realize that this is America. We endorse a whole host of behaviors far more offensive to Muslims than book burning. One the one hand you have over a million dead Iraqis - not to mention all the wonderful cancer, birth defects, and disease that the survivors get to look forward to from our efforts which will undoubtedly produce many more corpses - and on the other hand you have midget porn.
Reasons exist, and this behavior has more to do with capitalizing on the opportunity to kiss Arab ass than any threat to any actual persons.
So, Jeremy, why is it that YOU hate the troops so much you would sacrifice the very freedom they laid down their lives to protect?
In order to feel better about the lives to be lost, which will be lost with or without any burning of any books, you throw freedom and principle out the window.
But here, I'll play along; I'm sure there were some people who thought that what Hitler was doing was a bad thing, too, and he was completely free to ignore them.
Excellent example! When Hitler rounded up all the books he didn't like, and burned them, what, exactly did the world do?
In effect, due to the terrorists' impact on our culture, a man seeking to burn a single book he owns is now MORE EVIL than FREAKING HITLER.
How, exactly, does that even work?
Contract enforcement needs to be fair, or the terms can be nullified in court.
I'll say it again, in a post directed just to you:
Using their office as a bully pulpit for this is no different than telling us we should all be Catholic or we should all buy Verizon phones.
They're official agents of the government. Any exercise of their rights needs to happen on their own time. Using their office as a bully pulpit for this is no different than for telling us we should all be Catholic or buy Verizon phones.
I do understand. I'm advocating consequences for Petraeus and Obama not taking their oaths with due seriousness.
Freedom isn't just some star-spangled jacket you take on and off as needed.
Meanwhile, let's make sure that any consequences for exercises of free speech are likewise within the realm of free speech. Condoning violence, by joining the voices 'warning', or really threatening, that it will happen, is simply 'more wrong'.
Provided the enforcement of such clauses is uniform, in good faith, and not in any way arbitrary.
None of these criteria appear to be the case here.
It's not race, it's culture. There are typical "black" and "white" subcultures in the US.
I thought this was already apparent by the likes of Halle Berry, Tiger Woods, and Barack Obama electing to call themselves 'black'. They're mixed race, all of them. But they don't claim their racial label, only their cultural one.
I call BS. There's nobody that defends corporate power over THEIR OWN speech.
Well, for starters, the church now needs a new hosting provider. They'll need to incur the costs of that migration. So here, at a minimum, we have one business causing costs for another business, because they don't like what they are saying, and only recently did they decide not to like it. Only after the federal government, including POTUS, told everyone, including Rackspace, what they thought should be done.
It isn't as if nothing at all has changed, is it?
What if it was a sexual harassment issue instead? What if they decided to fire a woman for her 'poor performance', but only right after she lodged a complaint against the CEO? Would that suspicion likewise be 'full of shit'? Because there's no evidence supporting an allegation of retaliation here either, and yet it is recognized by law.
Further if Rackspace wasn't enforcing their TOS against everyone uniformly (and we know they weren't because they allowed this to go on until Obama spoke), then there could well be a lawsuit in their future. All it would take is a series of examples of other sites still standing, also in violation, and they can claim discrimination.
So it seems that while the allegation against the Administration might not be punishable, it certainly isn't without any merit at all, due to these and other examples in our existing law.
1) Private parties that violate the tenets of natural rights ought to be stripped of them. They're taking out of the system without paying into it, and it is despicable. They do have a choice, but they ought to face the consequences of that later, by someone barring this right to them. Karma, perhaps, will resolve it. But until it does, one ought not defend deplorable behavior...
2) Nothing in the discussion would incite violence from non-terrorists (also known as reasonable people), so this point is completely moot.
3) There exists an equivalent *predictable* result because Dove merely suggested it. Or because a number of Americans agreed that he should be allowed to do it. Further, there exists an equivalent *predictable* upswing in violence as a negotiation tactic should we capitulate to the threat. In short, that pooch is already screwed. It isn't as if violent extremists actually require much provocation anyway.
Your reasons aren't much, I'm afraid.
This isn't criticism. This is trolling, and all it will achieve is angering muslims who didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and help those who did.
Well, if those angry Muslims exercise their free speech rights in retaliation, then we have started a discourse.
But that's not what you're worried about with 'angry muslims', is it? You're expecting violence. In short you're going as far as condoning the violence by suppressing the man's rights, because you're afraid of it.
Kinda puts the word 'terror' in 'terrorism', doesn't it?
To all the people claiming that this violates this church's right to free speech, please inform me of how this is a government action. Because that is what is protected under the First Amendment. Hell, it's the first three words of the fucking amendment...
I started to correct you, but others have already done that better than I would have... So, I'll offer this instead:
If you're willing to allow this non-government violation of his rights, then you should be entitled to forfeit yours as well. Therefore, kindly delete your post* and have a nice day. Or is it simply that HIS speech isn't as important as YOURS because you just don't LIKE it?
Freedoms are absolute because of this double standard exactly.
*figuratively speaking, I do realize that slashdot doesn't allow that sort of thing...
There's that double standard again. How long do we have to put up with it?
Yes! This!! Very, very this!
This is precisely why I support the man's actions in doing it. We are America, the land of the free. The Muslims have the right to build their Mosque on property they own, and the Christians have the right to set fire to books that they own, and NO ONE in our government has ANY RIGHT to interfere with ANY OF IT. Any public figure weighing in against any of these activities should be impeached immediately. 'Freedom' means freedom from opinion as well. Those public servants surrendered their right to impune others for their protected speech the moment they were sworn in.
This is about freedom, and if you're against it, you clearly do not understand WHY we have the rights we do. Further I put forward that if you're in favor of Obama going on TV against it, then you'd likewise support laws against it, and if that is the case then you should genuinely be ashamed of who the terrorists have made you become. If you oppose freedom of religion and protected speech, then you don't deserve either.
It it pure cowardice. We stand behind our freedoms... until someone says they'll hurt us, then we cave.
And this is how the terrorists genuinely win. If we're no longer America, what the hell are we??
Talk about gross oversimplification. Our soldiers are being attacked because the people they displaced from power want it back.
This is pretty close. Our soldiers are being attacked because they stepped in and attempted to do something that only an actual civil war/revolution can accomplish. We sought to replace the existing government without actually being 'from' there. This is infinitely more complex than the actual citizenry standing together to overthrow the seated government.
In short, we're dieing over there because of a longshot, nation-building idea that probably will never work out.
Not that those being deposed don't genuinely deserve it, but it just isn't 'our' job to do it, because at the end of the campaign, we'll all just go home to the only country we genuinely care about.
There's no question of rights or freedom here. This is about a guy being an absolute asshole and other people telling him that he should stop being an asshole.
He is, of course, completely free to ignore them.
Don't you think at least one person thought even Ghandi was an asshole?
Doing what you believe is right isn't necessarily a popularity contest.
If the world goes to shit, adornment will go away overnight...
...and will make a comeback the following day.
What's your point?
I wonder how far it is from Whoosh, North Dakota?
As dental material, at a minimum.
Again, that was in the post above.
Adornment isn't likely to stop overnight either.
How many school children have had unsupervised access to your devices?
You didn't read what I wrote, did you?
You cannot carry enough food to matter. Either you are going to locate a long-term supply of it, or you're going to die.
Same for water, but much worse.
Gold requires a certain level of civilization for it's OOOH SHINY effect to be worth while.
Even monkeys understand economics. Google it.
Again, as far as portable wealth goes, rare metal isn't too bad an option.
Plus if you need a replacement tooth-substance that your body won't necessarily reject, you're good to go.
Years and years of experience with consumer electronics.
Or is the iPad made of magical pixie dust and will therefore not be subject to industry norms? I can see Jobs now, "Profit be damned! There will be only one iPad, and no one will ever want to upgrade it, EVER!"
Yeah, no.
I still don't get why Gold is an investment...especially if the world breaks down. It's always said that if the civilazation ends, Gold will be the last thing worth something. If the world is at it's edge, the last thing I'd want to carry around would be gold.
People have held it as valuable since the dawn of time. Why would anything change that?
Besides, all the 'really valuable' stuff is either completely intangible (like knowledge) or transient (like food/water). You simply cannot carry these things in any appreciable quantity...