>> There is a specific agenda against LGBT in much of the Christian community
Of course there is! The Bible is the defining book of their religion. and both the old and new testaments say homosexuality is an abomination and just plain wrong. Knowing that, why would you reasonably expect any good Christians to say/think anything else? Similarly, the quran denounces homosexuality, so good muslims are bound to just the same.
The big important difference that you strangely seem to want to keep denying/ignoring/avoiding/missing is that the new testament doesn't call for believers to kill all homosexuals where as the quran does.
Well clearly, you're one of those many people that aren't going let something like actual facts inconveniently get in the way when political correctness is at stake. Just keep right on with your passive-aggressive insults. You're just playing right into the terrorists agenda.
Interesting parallel but we;re not talking about a conventional war. I'm not demonizing people for their race/country. I'm questioning a multinational group's own free choice in continuing to believe in something that is by its own words openly barbaric, viral and allows no individual interpretation, so therefore directly affects how all muslims interact in the world. So no its not really a good analogy. The only example I can think of might be Naziism in WW2, since it became kind of a cult especially in the upper ranks of the SS, but even then not really a good comparison since even Hitler knew better than to enforce performing acts of genocide, torture and treating your own women worse than animals as a basic requirement of every Nazi.
>> Christianity is still fighting against gay, lesbian, and transsexual rights, and also promoting violence against lgbt.
The beleif that being gay is sick and wrong isn't shared by all christians, nor is it only limited to christians, so your point is completely irrelevant.
I don't see too many Christians openly rounding up all gays at gunpoint and throwing them off the tops of tall buildings, like ISIS are doing in the name of Islam all over Syria and Iraq.
According to the quran itself, that is a fundamentally contradictory and inconsistent position to being a "good" muslim.
>> If the self-identified Muslims want to believe that God expects them to be peaceful and loving, why the hell would you want to tell them they're wrong?
I have no trouble with people believing whatever they want, as long as it doesn't also affect me, but when they claim its Islam and in accordance with the quran they are perpetrating a snow job on all of us.
Sigh yet another irrational anti-christian rant based entirely on the old testament. I'm not even slightly religious and certainly not a Christian but even I can see you're waaay off track there by choosing to simply ignore the last 2000 years.
You yourself pointed out that there were no Christians during old testament times then you say Christians are bad because what the old testament says.You can't have it both ways. Even your argument is internally self-contradictory.
As to bringing up support for repealing gay sex or whatever, thats an obvious emotional strawman that is completely irrelevant to the actual argument.
Like I said in another answer in this thread: I think ALL religions are bad. Yes the old testament has violent stuff in it, but (since I'm not a Christian) as far as I understand , unlike Islam and the quran, most Christians consider the old testament is an outdated anachronism, so don;t follow it, and only focus on the much more gentle new testament, which does not have anything like the qurans barbaric crap in it, and also unlike "good" muslims, "good" christians remain free to interpret their book in al sorts of ways other than literally. I get and agree with your point that there can very easily be an inherent bias depending on perspective, but it also seems clear that modern Christianity in real-life implementation is not even half as fundamentally barbaric and therefore uncivilized as modern Islam in real-life implementation, not that I like or agree with either.
Firstly let me just say that I think all religion is bad, Christianity included. To address your point though, as far as I am aware even the old testament doesnt tell Christians to torture unbelievers or to treat women like cattle. or do things like this shit: http://www.themalaymailonline....
Yes the old testament has violent stuff in it, but not even close to the scale of the quran. And as far as I understand, most christians consider the old testament is an outdated anachronism and only focus on the much more gentle new testament, and interpret it al sorts of ways other than literally. Unlike Christianity, Islam fundamentally requires the quran to be taken completely literally. The quran states in at least 109 different verses (see here: http://www.thereligionofpeace....) that order to be a good muslim, you must(not should, MUST) do what we in the West would consider seriously screwed up stuff, including commit Jihad and kill any/all non believers. As a Muslim If you do anything else or interpret the writings any differently you are literally not following islam, and are commiting apsotacy so have now made yourself a target, since the penalty for apostasy is death (and the penalty relies at the core of it on an authentically verified Hadith from Prophet Muhammad so is considered especially fundamentally unquestionable by all other good muslims). You can now see how Islam itself is fundamentally constructed to be viral, it contains many such cleverly constructed mechanisms like this entirely designed to hold on to and extend the number of believers simply through fear of persecution and even quran-sanctioned death from their own communities. Show me anything of that even remotely scale anywhere in the new testament and then I'll believe what you claim.
The Quran establishes the fundamental tenets of Islam. No muslim will disagree with the statement that literally believing and following everything in the Quran is absolutely fundamental to being a "good" muslim. http://www.quran-islam.org/art...
The quran includes many passages on torture and death to all non-believers, and treating women like chattels. http://www.thereligionofpeace....
Many hundreds of thousands of "good" Muslims around the world are acting on the quran and are committing murder and torture of innocent people, and abuse of even their own women on a daily basis. Of the many millions of Muslims around the world, a high percentage are clearly in at least quiet agreement with terrorist organizations like IS's motives and methods.
It boggles my mind how any supposedly intelligent people can still seriously think anyone that voluntarily chooses to follow such a religion deserves to get given the benefit of all doubt, and even be treated like civilized people when they clearly aren't civilized BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.
Very clueless idea to try and force a company or anyone to do something not in their own interest. Even worse idea to single out one company.
What he should have said is that he would change the tax environment to make it in their interest to do the right thing. Say, provide tax incentives to encourage not only Apple but everyone to source/build/work in the US, and tax disincentives to do it offshore. Ultimately any company would still be free to build in China or anywhere else if they really want, they just need to end up paying more than it would cost them locally for the pleasure. Trust me, if the government did that, everything would change VERY quickly, since companies REALLY don't like giving up money.
Sigh. There's always one. I'm amazed that there apparently really are still a few people around trying to keep that old argument alive, even though it hasn't actually been true for literally decades.
yes, but just because its got Microsoft written on it there's a very large blind spot in society so it gets an almost free pass from them.
I consider that phenomenon as being almost but not quite analogous to the way that very many Apple customers are anally obsessive about annually throwing away a perfectly good phone and wasting another $650 to re-buy a pretty much functionally identical one, just because it has version n not version (n-1) written on it.
True, but you get my point. If not you can easily replace the setence inquestion with: "when, for example they find some Windows-specific menu isn't identical on Linux, they seriously think the computer itself must be broken/faulty in some way.
The vast majority of PC users out there are non-technical and just expect everything to look and work identical to MS Windows, and when, for example some Windows hotkey combination doesn't also work on Linux, they seriously think the computer itself must be broken/faulty in some way. The problem Linux has to overcome is that the vast majority of non-technical users still don't even understand that the MS Windows interface isn't some inherent property of all computers.
It boggles my mind that even migrating from one version of Windows to the next apparently results in what they consider to be a giant learning curve, so how can you realistically ever expect them to adapt from Windows to Linux more easily?
I read a study somewhere that looked at people that had never used any computer before. They found for those people, Linux was much easier to learn from scratch than Windows from scratch. They also found that nearly all people that had learnt to use Windows first before they ever saw Linux that considered Linux much harder to learn/use than Windows. The trouble is, the second group pretty much represents the majority of all people on the planet.
I think having like 5 or 6 kids very early is average in their culture, so it doesn't surprise me that many of the women are still back in Syria looking after the kids and expecting the next moneygram from Germany. Once they get to Europe and experience freedom, I wonder how many of the men just start a new life and totally ignore their liability back home.
Speaking as a European that now lives in the US (so I've seen both sides), thats not actually true. In fact by comparison to the attitudes of most European women, the attitudes that many American women apparently consider normal makes them look like completely self-centred gold diggers.
There is no altruism on Microsoft's part here, this is just an obvious ploy to compete against Node.JS.
The only newsworthy part here is that Nadella is clearly not innovative enough to move away from the same tired old Microsoft playbook of getting to the market years late with a bad copy of somebody elses already dominant product.
Slashdot Mirror
>> There is a specific agenda against LGBT in much of the Christian community
Of course there is! The Bible is the defining book of their religion. and both the old and new testaments say homosexuality is an abomination and just plain wrong. Knowing that, why would you reasonably expect any good Christians to say/think anything else?
Similarly, the quran denounces homosexuality, so good muslims are bound to just the same.
The big important difference that you strangely seem to want to keep denying/ignoring/avoiding/missing is that the new testament doesn't call for believers to kill all homosexuals where as the quran does.
Well clearly, you're one of those many people that aren't going let something like actual facts inconveniently get in the way when political correctness is at stake.
Just keep right on with your passive-aggressive insults. You're just playing right into the terrorists agenda.
Interesting parallel but we;re not talking about a conventional war.
I'm not demonizing people for their race/country.
I'm questioning a multinational group's own free choice in continuing to believe in something that is by its own words openly barbaric, viral and allows no individual interpretation, so therefore directly affects how all muslims interact in the world. So no its not really a good analogy.
The only example I can think of might be Naziism in WW2, since it became kind of a cult especially in the upper ranks of the SS, but even then not really a good comparison since even Hitler knew better than to enforce performing acts of genocide, torture and treating your own women worse than animals as a basic requirement of every Nazi.
>> Christianity is still fighting against gay, lesbian, and transsexual rights, and also promoting violence against lgbt.
The beleif that being gay is sick and wrong isn't shared by all christians, nor is it only limited to christians, so your point is completely irrelevant.
I don't see too many Christians openly rounding up all gays at gunpoint and throwing them off the tops of tall buildings, like ISIS are doing in the name of Islam all over Syria and Iraq.
According to the quran itself, that is a fundamentally contradictory and inconsistent position to being a "good" muslim.
>> If the self-identified Muslims want to believe that God expects them to be peaceful and loving, why the hell would you want to tell them they're wrong?
I have no trouble with people believing whatever they want, as long as it doesn't also affect me, but when they claim its Islam and in accordance with the quran they are perpetrating a snow job on all of us.
Sigh yet another irrational anti-christian rant based entirely on the old testament. I'm not even slightly religious and certainly not a Christian but even I can see you're waaay off track there by choosing to simply ignore the last 2000 years.
You yourself pointed out that there were no Christians during old testament times then you say Christians are bad because what the old testament says.You can't have it both ways. Even your argument is internally self-contradictory.
As to bringing up support for repealing gay sex or whatever, thats an obvious emotional strawman that is completely irrelevant to the actual argument.
Like I said in another answer in this thread:
I think ALL religions are bad.
Yes the old testament has violent stuff in it, but (since I'm not a Christian) as far as I understand , unlike Islam and the quran, most Christians consider the old testament is an outdated anachronism, so don;t follow it, and only focus on the much more gentle new testament, which does not have anything like the qurans barbaric crap in it, and also unlike "good" muslims, "good" christians remain free to interpret their book in al sorts of ways other than literally.
I get and agree with your point that there can very easily be an inherent bias depending on perspective, but it also seems clear that modern Christianity in real-life implementation is not even half as fundamentally barbaric and therefore uncivilized as modern Islam in real-life implementation, not that I like or agree with either.
Firstly let me just say that I think all religion is bad, Christianity included.
To address your point though, as far as I am aware even the old testament doesnt tell Christians to torture unbelievers or to treat women like cattle. or do things like this shit:
http://www.themalaymailonline....
Yes the old testament has violent stuff in it, but not even close to the scale of the quran. And as far as I understand, most christians consider the old testament is an outdated anachronism and only focus on the much more gentle new testament, and interpret it al sorts of ways other than literally.
Unlike Christianity, Islam fundamentally requires the quran to be taken completely literally.
The quran states in at least 109 different verses (see here: http://www.thereligionofpeace....) that order to be a good muslim, you must(not should, MUST) do what we in the West would consider seriously screwed up stuff, including commit Jihad and kill any/all non believers. As a Muslim If you do anything else or interpret the writings any differently you are literally not following islam, and are commiting apsotacy so have now made yourself a target, since the penalty for apostasy is death (and the penalty relies at the core of it on an authentically verified Hadith from Prophet Muhammad so is considered especially fundamentally unquestionable by all other good muslims). You can now see how Islam itself is fundamentally constructed to be viral, it contains many such cleverly constructed mechanisms like this entirely designed to hold on to and extend the number of believers simply through fear of persecution and even quran-sanctioned death from their own communities.
Show me anything of that even remotely scale anywhere in the new testament and then I'll believe what you claim.
Instead of just mindlessly name calling, why dont you actually address my points with an intelligent counterargument?
The Quran establishes the fundamental tenets of Islam. No muslim will disagree with the statement that literally believing and following everything in the Quran is absolutely fundamental to being a "good" muslim.
http://www.quran-islam.org/art...
The quran includes many passages on torture and death to all non-believers, and treating women like chattels.
http://www.thereligionofpeace....
Many hundreds of thousands of "good" Muslims around the world are acting on the quran and are committing murder and torture of innocent people, and abuse of even their own women on a daily basis. Of the many millions of Muslims around the world, a high percentage are clearly in at least quiet agreement with terrorist organizations like IS's motives and methods.
It boggles my mind how any supposedly intelligent people can still seriously think anyone that voluntarily chooses to follow such a religion deserves to get given the benefit of all doubt, and even be treated like civilized people when they clearly aren't civilized BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.
This is in England. They don't have a president.
So what is the big deal? I mean how will this actually change anything?
Very clueless idea to try and force a company or anyone to do something not in their own interest. Even worse idea to single out one company.
What he should have said is that he would change the tax environment to make it in their interest to do the right thing.
Say, provide tax incentives to encourage not only Apple but everyone to source/build/work in the US, and tax disincentives to do it offshore.
Ultimately any company would still be free to build in China or anywhere else if they really want, they just need to end up paying more than it would cost them locally for the pleasure.
Trust me, if the government did that, everything would change VERY quickly, since companies REALLY don't like giving up money.
Sigh. There's always one.
I'm amazed that there apparently really are still a few people around trying to keep that old argument alive, even though it hasn't actually been true for literally decades.
yes, but just because its got Microsoft written on it there's a very large blind spot in society so it gets an almost free pass from them.
I consider that phenomenon as being almost but not quite analogous to the way that very many Apple customers are anally obsessive about annually throwing away a perfectly good phone and wasting another $650 to re-buy a pretty much functionally identical one, just because it has version n not version (n-1) written on it.
True, but you get my point. If not you can easily replace the setence inquestion with:
"when, for example they find some Windows-specific menu isn't identical on Linux, they seriously think the computer itself must be broken/faulty in some way.
The vast majority of PC users out there are non-technical and just expect everything to look and work identical to MS Windows, and when, for example some Windows hotkey combination doesn't also work on Linux, they seriously think the computer itself must be broken/faulty in some way.
The problem Linux has to overcome is that the vast majority of non-technical users still don't even understand that the MS Windows interface isn't some inherent property of all computers.
It boggles my mind that even migrating from one version of Windows to the next apparently results in what they consider to be a giant learning curve, so how can you realistically ever expect them to adapt from Windows to Linux more easily?
I read a study somewhere that looked at people that had never used any computer before. They found for those people, Linux was much easier to learn from scratch than Windows from scratch. They also found that nearly all people that had learnt to use Windows first before they ever saw Linux that considered Linux much harder to learn/use than Windows. The trouble is, the second group pretty much represents the majority of all people on the planet.
I think having like 5 or 6 kids very early is average in their culture, so it doesn't surprise me that many of the women are still back in Syria looking after the kids and expecting the next moneygram from Germany.
Once they get to Europe and experience freedom, I wonder how many of the men just start a new life and totally ignore their liability back home.
Speaking as a European that now lives in the US (so I've seen both sides), thats not actually true.
In fact by comparison to the attitudes of most European women, the attitudes that many American women apparently consider normal makes them look like completely self-centred gold diggers.
Well, see it from their angle, its probably the first time they've ever seen a woman that doesn't look like a small elephant trapped in a black tent.
There is no altruism on Microsoft's part here, this is just an obvious ploy to compete against Node.JS.
The only newsworthy part here is that Nadella is clearly not innovative enough to move away from the same tired old Microsoft playbook of getting to the market years late with a bad copy of somebody elses already dominant product.
Don't worry!
The entire population of Syria are already on their way to help.
Being concerned about privacy is not age-related.
Being an arrogant dick like you apparently is though.
I'm 27.
Is it just me or does anyone else here also have a personal policy to never buy any car that is "connected" or can "phone home"?