I can't call a bill that more than half of the opposition voted for anything but bipartisan, so why word the results in a partisan way? The blame should correctly fall on *all but the 32 who voted no*.
The wording is partisan, but not the way you think. It is expressing disappointment with the democrats for not living up to their public image of being pro civil-liberties. The republicans have an image of being anti civil-liberties, so it's no surprise they would vote for such a thing.
Of course, anyone paying attention for the last few decades knows that the democrats' public image of being pro-civil liberties is mostly false, if for no other reason than in recent years it has been promulgated by the republican party looking to use it as a way to denigrate the democratic party for being 'soft on crime.'
Heck, if the census-takers had all been DNA screened against the criminal database, I'd worry a bit less about the possibility of my family letting them into the house.
That's faulty logic. Just because they haven't been caught doesn't mean they aren't criminals. You can not rely on a database check to prove that someone is anything other than not in the database. There are plenty of criminals that have not been caught, for example nearly 40% of murders go unsolved in the USA.
Did you miss about 1500 years of Roman Catholic church, which revers Mary almost as much as Jesus and God? In fact, many roman catholics pray directly to the mother and not to Jesus or God.
Plenty of catholics pray directly to all kinds of different saints. If anything, that argument has the reverse of your intent, putting her on the same level as a thousand different saints. Meanwhile catholics are far from the sum total of christianity.
I'm saying that's the logic behind the UK banning of depictions of it.
No, you said "I think we can all agree" about something which we categorically do not all agree. Everything else has been you dancing around that absurd statement.
Indeed -- but the point here is that if that's what it was, there would be no death threats, riots, or banning of websites from entire countries (except maybe Ireland or Rome).
Or the philippines (hyper-catholic and a strong hold for Opus Dei and worse) or maybe malayasia and indonesia, the two of which have laws against 'disrespecting' someone's religion, and despite being majority muslim, they tend to apply them in 'defense' of all the major religions.
Listen, we went into Iraq because there was a need.
You clearly think it was a valid need and that it justified all of the expected civilian casualties. You are wrong.
what is psychotic is your insistence that we never do anything that may harm someone who's innocent
Eat your words because those are not mine. My insistence is that saying the US has the high moral ground because we do not deliberately target civilians is facetious ass covering. We kill civilians and we do it with plenty of foreknowledge. You want to disclaim the foreknowledge because we don't know the exact specifics and that's psychotic.
Being against child molestation is logical morality. Very, very, very few people will believe that raping a child is acceptable.
Big freakin deal. Since no child is molested in the process of drawing a cartoon all of that is irrelevant. You might as well claim that all those movies out of hollywood are horrid and depraved since murder - an act certainly worse than molestation - is so frequently depicted.
So far all of your analogies have demonstrated complicated abdication.
Even this one because it fails to acknowledge that when we went into Iraq we knew there would be civilians in harms way. Hell, you even spell out the psychotic denial by saying "what we did was separate from what was done afterward." Change your analogy to put the danger falling rocks sign before the no-trespassing sign and you'd have something relevant.
We have no record of how old Mary the Mother of Jesus was when she married Joseph.
And yet muslims revere her more than christians do - she has an entire chapter in the quran and it is the only chapter in the book with a woman's name.
I think we can all agree that there's a big difference between depictions of child molestation/rape and cartoons poking fun at a religious figure.
What? I fail to see ANY difference. What, you don't think no one has has ever felt that blasphemy was horrid, sick and depraved? I'm pretty sure those terms have been applied to all kinds of blasphemy from all kinds of religions.
For one thing, I didn't say hundreds of millions of events affect a company, I said that all those occur and out of all of those, a couple of them are likely to affect PERCEPTION of the company.
Nor am I failing to account for knowledge of those events. One does not even need to be directly aware of the event, it need only be reflected in something that the trading system is aware of - like the change in the value of the shares of another company in a similar market. Same thing on your analysis critique, more failure think it all through.
And so what if it takes minutes to find out after the fact - it doesn't matter how much time passes between the event happening and your knowledge of it, only the difference in time since you gained knowledge of the previous event. It's a pipeline.
So the drawing of Mohammad fucking a pig in front of some arabic flag with a roll of toilet paper made from pages from the koran is OK? Good, it will be my facebook profile picture tomorrow
That only benefits the people who refresh the financial news every other second and can respond immediately to changes.
Bullshit. Ever try to sell shares of a thinly traded company? In the past the only buyer would be the market maker who would frequently turn around and sell your shares 30 minutes later with a 15% mark-up. Either that or there were no buyers at all. Either way it's got nothing to do with lightening trading and everything to do with the small investor.
Explain how stock trading liquidity is a benefit in and of itself -
Because the alternative is market makers who really rape anyone trying to buy or sell a stock that does not have good liquidity. Those thieves are the ones who massively "extract wealth from the markets." Good riddance to those bastards.
Oh, I don't know Al-Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood and its spin-offs, etc.
Oh, so you have now gone from talking about the subject - a facebook demonstration - at hand to picking the worst case example in the world. Good thing there is less than a handful of those to the point of being practically meaningless.
Then why was the car bomb placed in front of Viacom the parent of Comedy Central?
Except it wasn't. Viacom just happens to be near by. In fact the car was parked in front of the Minskof theater entrance at least a hundred feet away from corner of the viacom building. Furthermore the Pakistani Taliban released a pre-recorded tape saying that the bombing was in retaliation for the drone killing in 2009 of their previous leader. Even furthermore the bomber himself has told his interrogators that he was motivated by Anwar al-Awlaki's writings which are concerned with a lot more serious accusations and were read long before South Park did their bit. But, if you had bothered to spend 60 seconds with google you would have learned all that by yourself - that you didn't suggests faith in a narrative rather than interest in facts and reason.
No, the point is there is a big difference between speech that has no effect on you (Danish Cartoons, South Park) and speech that you helped fund (Piss Christ).
So death threats are OK if you are mad about someone insulting you with your own fraction of a penny, and just because you weren't actually killed too.
Also, note the difference, was there any attempt on the artist of Piss Christ's life? No. Were there multiple attempts on the Danish cartoonist? Yes.
Ah, so we are back to focusing on the one worst case example you know of. Well, two can play that game. MLK - he had multiple bounties on his head, by organizations of lunatics. Oh wait, excuse me, MLK didn't draw cartoons, he just wrote and spoke eloquently, so that's not comparable at all.
Explain to me just what a multi-billion company could do in under a second that would fundamentally change the value of their stock?
You are begging the question. It isn't what a single company could do in under a second, it is what external events might occur to change the perception of a company's prospects. Given the hundreds of millions of events that occur every second it is no stretch to believe a handful of them are relevant to a single company, even if only minutely so.
Sure you become more vulnerable to cascade effects, but you also get plenty of benefits like significantly increased liquidity.
They are not comparable. There is a difference between receiving "death threats" from random lunatics and having an organization of lunatics out to kill you over art.
What "organization of lunatics" are you referring to? Don't be so foolish to confuse accusations of blasphemy with death threats.
Look at the South Park controversy, there is a big difference no one tried to put a car filled with explosives over Piss Christ.
Huh? No one did that over the South Park 'controversy' either. And the entirety of the 'controversy' was a single veiled threat made by a single poster on a pissant website that no one had even heard of before the news picked it up.
And also, the main reason why Piss Christ was so controversial is because it received taxpayer funds, had it been purely funded by private means, there would be little to no controversy.
So, death threats over misspent taxes are OK? Else what is your point?
How about a photo? Like maybe Andreas Serrano's "Piss Christ".......as far as I know, Serrano is still walking the streets (no bodyguards) without fear of being beheaded.
On the flipside, Michael Moore had to hire a handful of bodyguards after he released Fahrenheit 9/11.
Or how about Jesse Helms stating that Bill Clinton had "better bring a bodyguard" if he comes to North Carolina?
It's amazing that a bunch of punk kids from Australia, US and UK can have this kind of impact, lol.
Its not them per se, its a slow news day so they got lots of publicity from CNN and Fox at which point it became front page news and the ultra-conservatives couldn't ignore that. That's kinda the way "news" works - its designed to either make you mad or make you sad. This one has been a vicious circle where one group gets to get mad about what another group does in response to news making them mad.
The actual problem is that an image of Mohammed might lead to Mohammed worship instead of worship of Allah. Of course, that's not the way it's treated any more.
That's partly true. There are plenty of images of Mohamed in arabic history books. There are even rulings by various religious authorities that such images are fine. Of course there are also rulings by the more crazy authorities that those images in the books are not OK.
But there is also a whole bunch of attitude about insulting Mohamed that is in addition to the idolatry prohibition. Its comparable to all the ultra-conservative catholics freaking out about Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" or Serrano's "Piss Christ" - those guys both got plenty of death threats in response to their work.
I may be funny, but YOUR messed up logic is psychotic. You completely abdicate all responsibility for scrambling the eggs. That's the root cause, and no amount of obfuscation based on what came after can change that basic fact.
And yet it is far too easy to convince oneself that an evil is necessary. All those guys using human shields in iraq for example. They whole question would be moot if we weren't there in the first place. No amount of justification in the moment can override the fact that we went in for bullshit reasons knowing full well that there would be plenty of these "necessary evils" - which specifically does make the US guilty of intentionally killing civilians which hedwards disclaimed.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't call a bill that more than half of the opposition voted for anything but bipartisan, so why word the results in a partisan way? The blame should correctly fall on *all but the 32 who voted no*.
The wording is partisan, but not the way you think. It is expressing disappointment with the democrats for not living up to their public image of being pro civil-liberties. The republicans have an image of being anti civil-liberties, so it's no surprise they would vote for such a thing.
Of course, anyone paying attention for the last few decades knows that the democrats' public image of being pro-civil liberties is mostly false, if for no other reason than in recent years it has been promulgated by the republican party looking to use it as a way to denigrate the democratic party for being 'soft on crime.'
Heck, if the census-takers had all been DNA screened against the criminal database, I'd worry a bit less about the possibility of my family letting them into the house.
That's faulty logic. Just because they haven't been caught doesn't mean they aren't criminals.
You can not rely on a database check to prove that someone is anything other than not in the database.
There are plenty of criminals that have not been caught, for example nearly 40% of murders go unsolved in the USA.
Did you miss about 1500 years of Roman Catholic church, which revers Mary almost as much as Jesus and God? In fact, many roman catholics pray directly to the mother and not to Jesus or God.
Plenty of catholics pray directly to all kinds of different saints. If anything, that argument has the reverse of your intent, putting her on the same level as a thousand different saints. Meanwhile catholics are far from the sum total of christianity.
I'm saying that's the logic behind the UK banning of depictions of it.
No, you said "I think we can all agree" about something which we categorically do not all agree. Everything else has been you dancing around that absurd statement.
at least I don't fuck old ladies.
According to your username, you want to, apparently you can't even score with them.
Indeed -- but the point here is that if that's what it was, there would be no death threats, riots, or banning of websites from entire countries (except maybe Ireland or Rome).
Or the philippines (hyper-catholic and a strong hold for Opus Dei and worse) or maybe malayasia and indonesia, the two of which have laws against 'disrespecting' someone's religion, and despite being majority muslim, they tend to apply them in 'defense' of all the major religions.
Listen, we went into Iraq because there was a need.
You clearly think it was a valid need and that it justified all of the expected civilian casualties.
You are wrong.
what is psychotic is your insistence that we never do anything that may harm someone who's innocent
Eat your words because those are not mine. My insistence is that saying the US has the high moral ground because we do not deliberately target civilians is facetious ass covering. We kill civilians and we do it with plenty of foreknowledge. You want to disclaim the foreknowledge because we don't know the exact specifics and that's psychotic.
Being against child molestation is logical morality. Very, very, very few people will believe that raping a child is acceptable.
Big freakin deal. Since no child is molested in the process of drawing a cartoon all of that is irrelevant.
You might as well claim that all those movies out of hollywood are horrid and depraved since murder - an act certainly worse than molestation - is so frequently depicted.
So far all of your analogies have demonstrated complicated abdication.
Even this one because it fails to acknowledge that when we went into Iraq we knew there would be civilians in harms way. Hell, you even spell out the psychotic denial by saying "what we did was separate from what was done afterward." Change your analogy to put the danger falling rocks sign before the no-trespassing sign and you'd have something relevant.
It would have been highly unusual if she was over the age of about 15, though, at least for the time.
Seems that would make God a pedophile then since Joseph never touched her.
We have no record of how old Mary the Mother of Jesus was when she married Joseph.
And yet muslims revere her more than christians do - she has an entire chapter in the quran and it is the only chapter in the book with a woman's name.
I think we can all agree that there's a big difference between depictions of child molestation/rape and cartoons poking fun at a religious figure.
What? I fail to see ANY difference. What, you don't think no one has has ever felt that blasphemy was horrid, sick and depraved? I'm pretty sure those terms have been applied to all kinds of blasphemy from all kinds of religions.
Yeah. but I fucked your mother and made you. So you are the son of a moron.
No you are just limited by your imagination.
For one thing, I didn't say hundreds of millions of events affect a company, I said that all those occur and out of all of those, a couple of them are likely to affect PERCEPTION of the company.
Nor am I failing to account for knowledge of those events. One does not even need to be directly aware of the event, it need only be reflected in something that the trading system is aware of - like the change in the value of the shares of another company in a similar market. Same thing on your analysis critique, more failure think it all through.
And so what if it takes minutes to find out after the fact - it doesn't matter how much time passes between the event happening and your knowledge of it, only the difference in time since you gained knowledge of the previous event. It's a pipeline.
So the drawing of Mohammad fucking a pig in front of some arabic flag with a roll of toilet paper made from pages from the koran is OK? Good, it will be my facebook profile picture tomorrow
Of course it is. Why are you even asking?
That only benefits the people who refresh the financial news every other second and can respond immediately to changes.
Bullshit. Ever try to sell shares of a thinly traded company? In the past the only buyer would be the market maker who would frequently turn around and sell your shares 30 minutes later with a 15% mark-up. Either that or there were no buyers at all. Either way it's got nothing to do with lightening trading and everything to do with the small investor.
Explain how stock trading liquidity is a benefit in and of itself -
Because the alternative is market makers who really rape anyone trying to buy or sell a stock that does not have good liquidity.
Those thieves are the ones who massively "extract wealth from the markets." Good riddance to those bastards.
Oh, I don't know Al-Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood and its spin-offs, etc.
Oh, so you have now gone from talking about the subject - a facebook demonstration - at hand to picking the worst case example in the world.
Good thing there is less than a handful of those to the point of being practically meaningless.
Then why was the car bomb placed in front of Viacom the parent of Comedy Central?
Except it wasn't. Viacom just happens to be near by. In fact the car was parked in front of the Minskof theater entrance at least a hundred feet away from corner of the viacom building.
Furthermore the Pakistani Taliban released a pre-recorded tape saying that the bombing was in retaliation for the drone killing in 2009 of their previous leader.
Even furthermore the bomber himself has told his interrogators that he was motivated by Anwar al-Awlaki's writings which are concerned with a lot more serious accusations and were read long before South Park did their bit. But, if you had bothered to spend 60 seconds with google you would have learned all that by yourself - that you didn't suggests faith in a narrative rather than interest in facts and reason.
No, the point is there is a big difference between speech that has no effect on you (Danish Cartoons, South Park) and speech that you helped fund (Piss Christ).
So death threats are OK if you are mad about someone insulting you with your own fraction of a penny, and just because you weren't actually killed too.
Also, note the difference, was there any attempt on the artist of Piss Christ's life? No. Were there multiple attempts on the Danish cartoonist? Yes.
Ah, so we are back to focusing on the one worst case example you know of. Well, two can play that game. MLK - he had multiple bounties on his head, by organizations of lunatics. Oh wait, excuse me, MLK didn't draw cartoons, he just wrote and spoke eloquently, so that's not comparable at all.
Explain to me just what a multi-billion company could do in under a second that would fundamentally change the value of their stock?
You are begging the question. It isn't what a single company could do in under a second, it is what external events might occur to change the perception of a company's prospects. Given the hundreds of millions of events that occur every second it is no stretch to believe a handful of them are relevant to a single company, even if only minutely so.
Sure you become more vulnerable to cascade effects, but you also get plenty of benefits like significantly increased liquidity.
They are not comparable. There is a difference between receiving "death threats" from random lunatics and having an organization of lunatics out to kill you over art.
What "organization of lunatics" are you referring to? Don't be so foolish to confuse accusations of blasphemy with death threats.
Look at the South Park controversy, there is a big difference no one tried to put a car filled with explosives over Piss Christ.
Huh? No one did that over the South Park 'controversy' either. And the entirety of the 'controversy' was a single veiled threat made by a single poster on a pissant website that no one had even heard of before the news picked it up.
And also, the main reason why Piss Christ was so controversial is because it received taxpayer funds, had it been purely funded by private means, there would be little to no controversy.
So, death threats over misspent taxes are OK? Else what is your point?
How about a photo? Like maybe Andreas Serrano's "Piss Christ".......as far as I know, Serrano is still walking the streets (no bodyguards) without fear of being beheaded.
On the flipside, Michael Moore had to hire a handful of bodyguards after he released Fahrenheit 9/11.
Or how about Jesse Helms stating that Bill Clinton had "better bring a bodyguard" if he comes to North Carolina?
It's amazing that a bunch of punk kids from Australia, US and UK can have this kind of impact, lol.
Its not them per se, its a slow news day so they got lots of publicity from CNN and Fox at which point it became front page news and the ultra-conservatives couldn't ignore that. That's kinda the way "news" works - its designed to either make you mad or make you sad. This one has been a vicious circle where one group gets to get mad about what another group does in response to news making them mad.
The actual problem is that an image of Mohammed might lead to Mohammed worship instead of worship of Allah. Of course, that's not the way it's treated any more.
That's partly true. There are plenty of images of Mohamed in arabic history books. There are even rulings by various religious authorities that such images are fine. Of course there are also rulings by the more crazy authorities that those images in the books are not OK.
But there is also a whole bunch of attitude about insulting Mohamed that is in addition to the idolatry prohibition. Its comparable to all the ultra-conservative catholics freaking out about Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" or Serrano's "Piss Christ" - those guys both got plenty of death threats in response to their work.
I may be funny, but YOUR messed up logic is psychotic. You completely abdicate all responsibility for scrambling the eggs. That's the root cause, and no amount of obfuscation based on what came after can change that basic fact.
Have you heard of the term "a necessary evil"?
And yet it is far too easy to convince oneself that an evil is necessary. All those guys using human shields in iraq for example. They whole question would be moot if we weren't there in the first place. No amount of justification in the moment can override the fact that we went in for bullshit reasons knowing full well that there would be plenty of these "necessary evils" - which specifically does make the US guilty of intentionally killing civilians which hedwards disclaimed.