You said "you aren't allowed to be disgusted" not "all censorship is wrong no matter where it is" which most would agree with, certainly in the United States. It's also very telling you describe holocaust cartoons as "aimed to show western hypocricy" while Cartoons mocking a religious figure is "dividing, needless, harmful exercise". News flash: we are *already* divided. We find genocide offensive. They find mockery of a long dead paedophile warlord offensive. I have no problem with such a divide or, for that matter, widening it.
Again. Both are a threat. I acknowledge that. I think most people would. It's you who is refusing to acknowledge Islam as any threat to western society despite the over 18,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. It's you who refuse to acknowledge Islam is even "bad" in any way shape of form, as if to do so would cause some internal short circuit.
Yes, Shariah legislation is mostly redundant because of the first amendment, but there is nothing wrong with redundancy. Also, there is a difference between wearing religion on your sleeve, which is a protected first amendment right, and seeking to establish it as a system of government, which is not. Would you have a problem with your local government passing a law guaranteeing there would never be "dominionist" courts running things, if only it were as a symbolic effort?
Minor mistake on the statistics. It's four in ten women in turkey, not one in four. That's 40% of women. And those who think this is limited to muslims in "those" countries -- sorry. 6 out of 10 Imams in Sweden were recently found to be giving out illegal advice on domestic abuse. And that's according to Swedish state tv. I don't see why so many in the west insist on shoving their heads in the sand in the name of "tolerance" (as if domestic violence was something that deserved tolerance). If a holy book tells people to do something, there is a pretty good chance they will.
I'm an agnostic and I agree with you that Santorum was a threat. That being said, to say that Islam is not a threat or that many Muslims do not seek to enforce Shariah in the United States would be a lie. Americans who seek to establish anti-Shariah legislation are merely seeking to avoid a situation like in the UK where there are already Shariah courts. The GP does have a point in that people like you who selectively criticize religion do come off as prejudiced. If you're going to criticize religion, at least criticize them all.
It matters because Muhammad is considered an example for all Muslims to follow. His marrying Aisha at 6 (and bedding her at 9) sets the precedent for modern day child marriage and sex in the Muslim world. One famous example: Ayatollah Khomeni, who married a 10 year old. You don't have to look far to find thousands of other examples. What about Qur'an 4:34 (pick a translation on quran.com) which commands a husband to beat his wife. Could that not have something to do with the 90% of women in Pakistan who have suffered domestic abuse (or the one in four in Turkey, considered the most "progressive" of Muslim countries?) All religion is poison but some are worse than others.
Why? Many Muslim organizations and individuals freely admit they would like to replace the constitution with Sharia. Some Christian organizations ( if you can find them ) say the same. Why is it OK to acknowledge one as a threat but not the other. It's not racism to acknowledge a religion as a danger. Look at the UK where Sharia courts are already established and the controversy surrounding that (needless to say, what they do is far more than what was originally advertised).
No. We're allowed to be disgusted, just as Muslims are allowed to be disgusted. What we aren't allowed to do is go rioting through the streets, stabbing people, killing the artists, burning down embassies, and causing actual physical harm to others in retaliation. When was the last time you saw a Jew do that over a holocaust cartoon?
War crimes? Please. The Palestinians are the cause of their own misery. You should read both sides. The could have had a state from day one. Go preach gay rights in Gaza or Ramallah if you give that much of a fuck. I'm gay and I vote republican. Do I believe Obama when he suddenly "evolves" after Biden puts his foot in his mouth? No. Obama had plenty of opportunity to push gay marriage through. He didn't. He even defended DOMA when he had no obligation to do so. At least the Republicans are the devil I know on the matter.
I see. They are invalid because you have decided so. Also you appeal to the majority because, god knows, if most people say "X", it's probably right. Gotcha. Tell me why heredity based systems should be dismissed as invalid. Is this based on your world-view? Your personal morality of what is right or wrong. What if the democratic majority would result in disaster -- or a war. What if a dictator who suppresses the violent will of the masses is the only thing holding a country back from destruction.
Take Egypt for example. Now that the big bad evil dictator Mubarak is gone, the people by democratic will are going to vote in somebody who will throw the peace treaty with Israel out -- very likely leading to war. Over 70% see Saudi Arabia as a model for social policy (stoning, etc...) as opposed to 17% for the increasingly less moderate Turkish model. This is a situation where a dictator protected a population from it's own religious idiocy. It also protected minorities (Copts, for example) from the tyranny of the majority. Now that the dictator is gone, the Copts are being slaughtered. Your morality might say that the people, however wrong, should be allowed to be as self destructive as they choose. Others might argue that a stong central dictatorship progressively modernizing society and removing the destructive influences of religion might be a far more "Moral" choice in the long run. If there is a war with Israel and all hell breaks loose, it'll be hard to argue democracy was good thing for the region.
The point I'm trying to make is that not everything is so cut and dry when it comes to what is "valid" and what is not. Systems that are appropriate in one place might be totally disastrous in another. The idea that all cultures are equal or that all people want the same thing leads to nothing but disaster.
If I rented land from the government, that would be perfectly applicable. What about those who own? What about those like that in TFA who can be entirely self sufficient and take nothing from the government. Why should those who take nothing from the system be forced to pay in. I'm all for paying for what you get, but people shouldn't be forced to pay for things they don't need or want.
If I rented land from the government, that would be perfectly applicable. What about those who own? What about those like that in TFA who can be entirely self sufficient and take nothing from the government. Why should those who take nothing from the system be forced to pay in. I'm all for paying for what you get, but people shouldn't be forced to pay for things they don't need or want.
To be fair you stated taxes were "voluntary". Taxes are not. I don't think you'll find a "right winger" / libertarian anywhere who will tell you private charity is theft.
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate and ask why those viewpoints aren't valid. Is it because they justify evil? What exactly is evil and who gets to define it? What makes "evil" tactics invalid if it serves some greater good? I might not agree with such viewpoints, but I certainly can't see them as "invalid" or somehow irrational. Sometimes horrible views are perfectly rational and in a sense, valid. Thankfully most of us live in democracies where the viewpoints seen as valid by the majority are generally more humane.
True, but if politics were such a science, everybody would vote the same way. Until some objective political truth is established, one viewpoint is as good as another.
Ever notice how posters with lower UIDs are more likely to express conservative values. Just give it time. Once upon a time I was "grr.. republicans evil -- democrats good". Now I hate them both but am more likely to side with those at least pretending to express a desire to reduce the size of government.
You running it on windows? I've never had this problem in my c2d 2600 MBP or my i7 hackintosh. I have noticed it's a lot slower in windows, however, and far more buggy. I suspect this is at least in part by design so users get the idea this is Windows' fault.
The former is the common person's islam. The latter is somebody who has actually read the Qur'an and follows it's commands. Islam is anything but a religion of peace.
Breivik called religion a crutch. Not many who believe in what the Bible said and who call themselves Christian would agree with that statement. He saw religion as a useful placebo -- one that he used during his attacks to avoid the fear of death. When he referred to himself as Christian he was doing so in the cultural sense (in the same sense as many neo nazis do), not in the Religious sense. He saw Christianity itself, as a religion, as far too pacifist for his goals and would be in need of reform. Nowhere in the New Testament (what Christians follow) will you find any incitement to violence. The Qur'an is an entirely different matter. It has entire chapters dedicated to warfare (8, 9, among others). Note that I am not a Christian. I'm just trying to be fair. All religions are bad, but some religions are far more dangerous than others.
You can capture at an extremely high frame rate (in the thousands of fps) and use those frames to "sample" your own frames by averaging them together. By overlapping the samples of each frame, you could have a longer exposure length than the frame rate.
Holy crap. I thought you were joking until I googled the guy. He probably should have researched teh Streisand Effect before trying to pull this nonsense off.
Slashdot Mirror
You said "you aren't allowed to be disgusted" not "all censorship is wrong no matter where it is" which most would agree with, certainly in the United States. It's also very telling you describe holocaust cartoons as "aimed to show western hypocricy" while Cartoons mocking a religious figure is "dividing, needless, harmful exercise". News flash: we are *already* divided. We find genocide offensive. They find mockery of a long dead paedophile warlord offensive. I have no problem with such a divide or, for that matter, widening it.
Again. Both are a threat. I acknowledge that. I think most people would. It's you who is refusing to acknowledge Islam as any threat to western society despite the over 18,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. It's you who refuse to acknowledge Islam is even "bad" in any way shape of form, as if to do so would cause some internal short circuit. Yes, Shariah legislation is mostly redundant because of the first amendment, but there is nothing wrong with redundancy. Also, there is a difference between wearing religion on your sleeve, which is a protected first amendment right, and seeking to establish it as a system of government, which is not. Would you have a problem with your local government passing a law guaranteeing there would never be "dominionist" courts running things, if only it were as a symbolic effort?
Minor mistake on the statistics. It's four in ten women in turkey, not one in four. That's 40% of women. And those who think this is limited to muslims in "those" countries -- sorry. 6 out of 10 Imams in Sweden were recently found to be giving out illegal advice on domestic abuse. And that's according to Swedish state tv. I don't see why so many in the west insist on shoving their heads in the sand in the name of "tolerance" (as if domestic violence was something that deserved tolerance). If a holy book tells people to do something, there is a pretty good chance they will.
I'm an agnostic and I agree with you that Santorum was a threat. That being said, to say that Islam is not a threat or that many Muslims do not seek to enforce Shariah in the United States would be a lie. Americans who seek to establish anti-Shariah legislation are merely seeking to avoid a situation like in the UK where there are already Shariah courts. The GP does have a point in that people like you who selectively criticize religion do come off as prejudiced. If you're going to criticize religion, at least criticize them all.
It matters because Muhammad is considered an example for all Muslims to follow. His marrying Aisha at 6 (and bedding her at 9) sets the precedent for modern day child marriage and sex in the Muslim world. One famous example: Ayatollah Khomeni, who married a 10 year old. You don't have to look far to find thousands of other examples. What about Qur'an 4:34 (pick a translation on quran.com) which commands a husband to beat his wife. Could that not have something to do with the 90% of women in Pakistan who have suffered domestic abuse (or the one in four in Turkey, considered the most "progressive" of Muslim countries?) All religion is poison but some are worse than others.
Phobia implies irrational fear. Fear of religion is not irrational. If anything the absence of fear towards religion should be considered irrational.
[citation needed]
Why? Many Muslim organizations and individuals freely admit they would like to replace the constitution with Sharia. Some Christian organizations ( if you can find them ) say the same. Why is it OK to acknowledge one as a threat but not the other. It's not racism to acknowledge a religion as a danger. Look at the UK where Sharia courts are already established and the controversy surrounding that (needless to say, what they do is far more than what was originally advertised).
No. We're allowed to be disgusted, just as Muslims are allowed to be disgusted. What we aren't allowed to do is go rioting through the streets, stabbing people, killing the artists, burning down embassies, and causing actual physical harm to others in retaliation. When was the last time you saw a Jew do that over a holocaust cartoon?
War crimes? Please. The Palestinians are the cause of their own misery. You should read both sides. The could have had a state from day one. Go preach gay rights in Gaza or Ramallah if you give that much of a fuck. I'm gay and I vote republican. Do I believe Obama when he suddenly "evolves" after Biden puts his foot in his mouth? No. Obama had plenty of opportunity to push gay marriage through. He didn't. He even defended DOMA when he had no obligation to do so. At least the Republicans are the devil I know on the matter.
I see. They are invalid because you have decided so. Also you appeal to the majority because, god knows, if most people say "X", it's probably right. Gotcha. Tell me why heredity based systems should be dismissed as invalid. Is this based on your world-view? Your personal morality of what is right or wrong. What if the democratic majority would result in disaster -- or a war. What if a dictator who suppresses the violent will of the masses is the only thing holding a country back from destruction.
Take Egypt for example. Now that the big bad evil dictator Mubarak is gone, the people by democratic will are going to vote in somebody who will throw the peace treaty with Israel out -- very likely leading to war. Over 70% see Saudi Arabia as a model for social policy (stoning, etc...) as opposed to 17% for the increasingly less moderate Turkish model. This is a situation where a dictator protected a population from it's own religious idiocy. It also protected minorities (Copts, for example) from the tyranny of the majority. Now that the dictator is gone, the Copts are being slaughtered. Your morality might say that the people, however wrong, should be allowed to be as self destructive as they choose. Others might argue that a stong central dictatorship progressively modernizing society and removing the destructive influences of religion might be a far more "Moral" choice in the long run. If there is a war with Israel and all hell breaks loose, it'll be hard to argue democracy was good thing for the region.
The point I'm trying to make is that not everything is so cut and dry when it comes to what is "valid" and what is not. Systems that are appropriate in one place might be totally disastrous in another. The idea that all cultures are equal or that all people want the same thing leads to nothing but disaster.
If I rented land from the government, that would be perfectly applicable. What about those who own? What about those like that in TFA who can be entirely self sufficient and take nothing from the government. Why should those who take nothing from the system be forced to pay in. I'm all for paying for what you get, but people shouldn't be forced to pay for things they don't need or want.
If I rented land from the government, that would be perfectly applicable. What about those who own? What about those like that in TFA who can be entirely self sufficient and take nothing from the government. Why should those who take nothing from the system be forced to pay in. I'm all for paying for what you get, but people shouldn't be forced to pay for things they don't need or want.
To be fair you stated taxes were "voluntary". Taxes are not. I don't think you'll find a "right winger" / libertarian anywhere who will tell you private charity is theft.
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate and ask why those viewpoints aren't valid. Is it because they justify evil? What exactly is evil and who gets to define it? What makes "evil" tactics invalid if it serves some greater good? I might not agree with such viewpoints, but I certainly can't see them as "invalid" or somehow irrational. Sometimes horrible views are perfectly rational and in a sense, valid. Thankfully most of us live in democracies where the viewpoints seen as valid by the majority are generally more humane.
True, but if politics were such a science, everybody would vote the same way. Until some objective political truth is established, one viewpoint is as good as another.
Ever notice how posters with lower UIDs are more likely to express conservative values. Just give it time. Once upon a time I was "grr.. republicans evil -- democrats good". Now I hate them both but am more likely to side with those at least pretending to express a desire to reduce the size of government.
4) He came to alternative conclusions than you did. Doesn't make them any more or less valid.
You running it on windows? I've never had this problem in my c2d 2600 MBP or my i7 hackintosh. I have noticed it's a lot slower in windows, however, and far more buggy. I suspect this is at least in part by design so users get the idea this is Windows' fault.
Runs pretty nicely in Linux. It's a good deal faster than FF anyway.
The former is the common person's islam. The latter is somebody who has actually read the Qur'an and follows it's commands. Islam is anything but a religion of peace.
Breivik called religion a crutch. Not many who believe in what the Bible said and who call themselves Christian would agree with that statement. He saw religion as a useful placebo -- one that he used during his attacks to avoid the fear of death. When he referred to himself as Christian he was doing so in the cultural sense (in the same sense as many neo nazis do), not in the Religious sense. He saw Christianity itself, as a religion, as far too pacifist for his goals and would be in need of reform. Nowhere in the New Testament (what Christians follow) will you find any incitement to violence. The Qur'an is an entirely different matter. It has entire chapters dedicated to warfare (8, 9, among others). Note that I am not a Christian. I'm just trying to be fair. All religions are bad, but some religions are far more dangerous than others.
Sadly, with a lot of new TVs, you can't turn this effect off.
You can capture at an extremely high frame rate (in the thousands of fps) and use those frames to "sample" your own frames by averaging them together. By overlapping the samples of each frame, you could have a longer exposure length than the frame rate.
Holy crap. I thought you were joking until I googled the guy. He probably should have researched teh Streisand Effect before trying to pull this nonsense off.