If everyone calling themselves a muslim was like the secular Christians who put up Christmas lights but don't go to Church every Sunday or study the Bible, then there'd be no terrorists and nobody would have any problem with islam.
Just as you can be a committed Christian and go to Church and read the Bible without wanting to kill people, so you can also be a committed Muslim and go to your Mosque and study the Koran without wanting to kill people. Otherwise, there would be literally millions of terrorists just in Europe.
Fuck off Islam apologist. Sure, not all muslim are islamist, but all Islamist are muslim.
Not all people in Northern Ireland during the Troubles were terrorists, but all the Northern Irish terrorists during the Troubles were from Northern Ireland, so anyone from Northern Ireland was probably a terrorist.
The argument is ludicrous. Hint: the number of terrorists is tiny compared with the total population.
I love how on slashdot the surveillance society is pure fascist evil, until the surveillance isn't quite good enough and something bad happens, then it's the government's fault for not doing the surveillance right and stopping the terrorists.
I was thinking the same thing. Mention "Singularity" or "AI" and Slashdotters start talking about uploading themselves to a cloud and computers who are going to take over the world.
Meanwhile my Mac can't even connect to wifi reliably. But yeah, I'm sure AI is right around the corner.
Didn't you get the memo that the pro-AI crowd achieved AI by defining AI to include things like my radio alarm clock "interacting" with me. Oh look, it can tell the time and wake you up, it's smarter than a chimpanzee.
I don't buy into this Internal Combustion Engine gimmick. I looked at a self-powered vehicle last time I was in the market. It seemed to add more cost, complexity and potential reliability issues for no real gain. Instead I got a regular stagecoach. Still transports people and goods, and I never have the administration overhead of having to manage it.
Yeah, ha ha, but very few people actually owned their own stagecoach, whereas nearly everybody already has a fridge.
The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Feminists.
FTFY.
Because everything that is wrong in the world is because of Feminists. Especially Feminism. Or, as me and my friends like to say Feminazism. Geddit? See they're like feminists and nazis together, which is bad, because socialism.
The rest of what you put down is an incoherent rant that really doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand.
You have to understand, he really hates Hillary Clinton, regardless of facts.
Oh, and government, he really hates all government. And black people. Just be glad the topic isn't black people, black people in government, or government helping poor black people.
Except everybody wants to drive giant guzzler SUVs that are bigger than ever.
I'd sure love to find one, now... all I'm seeing on the road lately are these Piece of Crap CUVs that are just oversized unibody station wagons. Who the hell wants to go offroad with that? Powertrain on them will most likely break just from jumping a curb at 3 MPH (Yes, I know. Hyperbole).
The vast majority of drivers never take their vehicles off road, as you presumably know.
But no doubt you're a special case who lives 200 miles from civilization and has to be able to haul 5 ton boulders, and therefore requires an eight wheel Mil Spec heavy truck.
you're conveniently ignoring the fact that even liberals are mainly interested in taxing people other than themselves
On the contrary, most liberals or left wing people think that everyone should pay tax, just according to their ability. It's ultra-rich right wingers who can afford to pay for tax avoidance schemes.
All taxes are regressive. This is just another example of regressive tax ideas from the left, trying to even out the playing field.
Um. What? Left wing politicians tend to find regressive taxation *less* desirable because it results in low to middle income earners paying disproportionately more of their earnings.
I don't think the OP knows what the difference between a progressive and regressive tax is. A tax like a sales tax (VAT here in the UK) is regressive, since the tax amount on a particular is the same whether you're dirt poor or a billionaire. Whereas income tax at x% means you pay more if you earn more.
By definition, the right favour regressive taxes and the left progressive ones, since regressive taxes favour the rich and progressive ones favour the poor, unless you start to get silly about what left and right mean in politics.
Most people I know (I'm in my early 30's) have grown utterly disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats and are now more-or-less libertarians. I think it's a trend that will grow as more and more people realize that both Republicans and Democrats have utter contempt for civil rights and personal choice.
And how precisely would libertarians defend civil rights and personal choice, other than for those with the most money and power who would be free to shit over everyone else without any checks or balances?
Don't forget, "most people" aren't going to be in the top 1% (or 0.1%).
My first thought was Dice clickbait; but on second thought, I realized that Slashdot's readership is becoming more and more hyper-political and hyper-partisan, and that's why pure science and nerd culture posts have only the title displayed on the front page, and political, religious, or other contentious posts go in the "Top of the..." list. I blame an influx of people from 4chan and Reddit.
When people say things like this it always makes me wonder whether they think there is some requirement to read every story and every post on slashdot.
I would find it more amusing to watch them plugged full of.50 BMG slugs. It's a proven man stopper that has mowed down men far more honorable than terrorist scum that ignore every rule of civilized warfare.
If you think that the Japanese or Nazis in WW2 were more honorable than Al Qaeda, you've got an interesting view of morality.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an expert so I don't pretend to know the answer but...
...I'm going to give one anyway because this is the fucking internet.
If everyone calling themselves a muslim was like the secular Christians who put up Christmas lights but don't go to Church every Sunday or study the Bible, then there'd be no terrorists and nobody would have any problem with islam.
Just as you can be a committed Christian and go to Church and read the Bible without wanting to kill people, so you can also be a committed Muslim and go to your Mosque and study the Koran without wanting to kill people. Otherwise, there would be literally millions of terrorists just in Europe.
Fuck off Islam apologist. Sure, not all muslim are islamist, but all Islamist are muslim.
Not all people in Northern Ireland during the Troubles were terrorists, but all the Northern Irish terrorists during the Troubles were from Northern Ireland, so anyone from Northern Ireland was probably a terrorist.
The argument is ludicrous. Hint: the number of terrorists is tiny compared with the total population.
we are not called Trekkies
Oh yes you are. It's funnier.
I love how on slashdot the surveillance society is pure fascist evil, until the surveillance isn't quite good enough and something bad happens, then it's the government's fault for not doing the surveillance right and stopping the terrorists.
I was thinking the same thing. Mention "Singularity" or "AI" and Slashdotters start talking about uploading themselves to a cloud and computers who are going to take over the world.
Meanwhile my Mac can't even connect to wifi reliably. But yeah, I'm sure AI is right around the corner.
Didn't you get the memo that the pro-AI crowd achieved AI by defining AI to include things like my radio alarm clock "interacting" with me. Oh look, it can tell the time and wake you up, it's smarter than a chimpanzee.
I don't buy into this Internal Combustion Engine gimmick. I looked at a self-powered vehicle last time I was in the market. It seemed to add more cost, complexity and potential reliability issues for no real gain. Instead I got a regular stagecoach. Still transports people and goods, and I never have the administration overhead of having to manage it.
Yeah, ha ha, but very few people actually owned their own stagecoach, whereas nearly everybody already has a fridge.
But kudos for shoehorning in a car analogy.
The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Feminists.
FTFY.
Because everything that is wrong in the world is because of Feminists . Especially Feminism . Or, as me and my friends like to say Feminazism . Geddit? See they're like feminists and nazis together, which is bad, because socialism.
Just a thought.
LOL, this is like watching a parade of delusion.
Are you sure you aren't APK?
What, with not a single refernce to HOSTS files? Unlikely.
You have to understand, he really hates Hillary Clinton, regardless of facts.
Oh, and government, he really hates all government. And black people. Just be glad the topic isn't black people, black people in government, or government helping poor black people.
I'm guessing he's not a big Obama fan then?
Conjecture is ammunition to the intellectually lazy....or in most cases...the stupid.
You really must be new here.
In other words: Would you do it if your mom was watching / would know?
I was going to say "well what about having sex" but then I remembered where I was.
Except everybody wants to drive giant guzzler SUVs that are bigger than ever.
I'd sure love to find one, now... all I'm seeing on the road lately are these Piece of Crap CUVs that are just oversized unibody station wagons. Who the hell wants to go offroad with that? Powertrain on them will most likely break just from jumping a curb at 3 MPH (Yes, I know. Hyperbole).
The vast majority of drivers never take their vehicles off road, as you presumably know.
But no doubt you're a special case who lives 200 miles from civilization and has to be able to haul 5 ton boulders, and therefore requires an eight wheel Mil Spec heavy truck.
you're conveniently ignoring the fact that even liberals are mainly interested in taxing people other than themselves
On the contrary, most liberals or left wing people think that everyone should pay tax, just according to their ability. It's ultra-rich right wingers who can afford to pay for tax avoidance schemes.
All taxes are regressive. This is just another example of regressive tax ideas from the left, trying to even out the playing field.
Um. What? Left wing politicians tend to find regressive taxation *less* desirable because it results in low to middle income earners paying disproportionately more of their earnings.
I don't think the OP knows what the difference between a progressive and regressive tax is. A tax like a sales tax (VAT here in the UK) is regressive, since the tax amount on a particular is the same whether you're dirt poor or a billionaire. Whereas income tax at x% means you pay more if you earn more.
By definition, the right favour regressive taxes and the left progressive ones, since regressive taxes favour the rich and progressive ones favour the poor, unless you start to get silly about what left and right mean in politics.
Most people I know (I'm in my early 30's) have grown utterly disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats and are now more-or-less libertarians. I think it's a trend that will grow as more and more people realize that both Republicans and Democrats have utter contempt for civil rights and personal choice.
And how precisely would libertarians defend civil rights and personal choice, other than for those with the most money and power who would be free to shit over everyone else without any checks or balances?
Don't forget, "most people" aren't going to be in the top 1% (or 0.1%).
My parents never talked politics. They never mentioned who they were voting for. Or even IF they were voting.
That pretty much amounts to child neglect in my eyes.
You don't seem to grasp the concept "infinity".
It's a mathematical concept, not a description of the real universe.
IS is in large part the modern incarnation of the Baath party
Except that IS has a religious rather than secular ideology.
Those atrocities they carry out? they're straight out of the Baath party's playbook from the last 40 years
Hitler, the PIRA and Pol Pot all carried out atrocities, that doesn't make them ideologically similar.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief system in its own right.
and after WW2 we allowed the Nazis to remain in power under a different name
Well, apart from the ones we tried and hanged.
My first thought was Dice clickbait; but on second thought, I realized that Slashdot's readership is becoming more and more hyper-political and hyper-partisan, and that's why pure science and nerd culture posts have only the title displayed on the front page, and political, religious, or other contentious posts go in the "Top of the..." list. I blame an influx of people from 4chan and Reddit.
When people say things like this it always makes me wonder whether they think there is some requirement to read every story and every post on slashdot.
No, he's one of the "career intelligence officers" who missed the memo about not admitting that one is an intelligence officer.
You're allowed to be an ex-intelligence officer, surely?
I would find it more amusing to watch them plugged full of .50 BMG slugs. It's a proven man stopper that has mowed down men far more honorable than terrorist scum that ignore every rule of civilized warfare.
If you think that the Japanese or Nazis in WW2 were more honorable than Al Qaeda, you've got an interesting view of morality.
I can't envision a world where cars can be easily home built from standard parts.
I thought we'll all be 3D printing our cars and houses in five years time?