Problem is groups not tied to a location getting the weapons because there is no counter strike to deter them.
For some of the groups there are available counter strikes. Mecca. Medina. The mosque at Jerusalem. This would likely result instantaneously in WWIII though. But a nuclear first strike on the US could well have such a result.
Politicians of the time really thought that the USSR was waiting for the excuse to invade Western Europe, and reacted to what they knew. That the information was completely wrong is neither here nor there (*why* it was so wrong is open to debate).
The stated goals of communism were worldwide communist revolution. Had they the capability, they would certainly have aimed to pursue those goals.
What they lacked was the capacity, not the willingness. It was quite correct, in my opinion, for the west to act as if the communists intended to carry out their plan of world domination, as they had already made enormous progress towards the possibility of achieving it.
monopoly
1.
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
Since the big four join together as the RIAA, they are indeed a monopoly.
The technology of warfare has evolved far beyond what is practical or reasonable for any individual to own, and thus, the right of ordinary civilians to keep and bear traditional arms is almost useless in the face of modern warfare.
I keep seeing this kind of comment, yet the military forces of the world continue to issue small-arms. Maybe they've figured out something about this that you haven't realised.
Surah 9
5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Fight and slay the pagans unless they establish regular prayers. Fight those who believe not in Allah. It is time you stopped lying about this.
I was referring to the non-citizen tax, which I don't consider to be an issue. Non-citizens in all countries today are subject to restrictions...
I know you don't have an issue with the dhimmi tax, and citizenship granted only to Muslims. You are Muslim after all. You'd be a citizen under this system, but I wouldn't be. I am one of those who you would have subdued until I pay 'Jizya'. That is why I didn't post in order to have a conversation with you, but to inform others of your views.
There is no point talking to you further as far as I can tell, because you have no problem with me being subdued by force into protection payments for not being muslim. I think your agenda was pretty clearly revealed when you refused to answer whose side you would be on in the event of jihad.
You can expect resistance to your attempts to subdue me. Your theocracy is not welcome here.
Regarding "killing pagans for not establishing regular prayers, and to require tribute from non-muslims under threat of violence" - he has said: "I don't see why this is such an issue." In context, it seemed to me that he approves of these practices. The relevant post.
Why is sexuality always the first thing that people go after but violence is accepted and even encouraged in entertainment?
Not commenting on any particular instance of this because there are many that don't fit this criteria, but:
Sex and violence are both socially acceptable in certain context.
Traditionally, acceptable context for sex is private, acceptable context to violence is public.
If a man in public view is violent in self defense it is accepted. If a man privately beats his wife it is not accepted.
If a couple have sex in the privacy of their own home, it is accepted. If a couple have sex on the sidewalk, it is not accepted.
Not claiming these as my views or anything near universal, just pointing out that the situation is not as absurd as it is often made out to be.
Which bible were you reading? The interpretations I've read say that as long as you know you're sinning it's a sin.
KJV I Corinthians 7:22
For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
I've never heard anyone interpret this, but here goes:
Slavery was common when this was written, so suppose a woman is a slave in Corinth, and becomes Christian. Her master uses her a sex slave to entertain guests, contrary to Christian morality. She faces harsh punishments, even death, if she refuses or escapes. What should she do, from a Christian perspective? My opinion, based on this verse, is that she can perform her 'duties' as a slave without sin. If she was free, she would be obligated (by her own conscience) to follow the moral code of Christianity.
So I should quit my job because they use MS Windows as their platform?
Based on this post earlier in the thread, I think the idea is that because you have chosen to use proprietary software for pragmatic reasons (keeping your job) you ought not "cast stones" at others who do the same, not that you have to quit your job.
Sure, open sourcers would still produce things, and there would be people willing to work for free for the fame or future job prospects or whatever, but not everybody wants to work for free! I like the idea of working hard and getting a higher income than the guy who doesn't, and having a nice house and a new car parked in front of it. I don't understand why people want to reduce the opportunity to do that.
I know what you mean. My brother in law works for RedHat. I keep telling him that he should get a house and car, his teepee and bicycle won't last forever. He should be getting paid. He insists that he does get paid, the lying hippie.
Except that it appears to be the case that "banning" guns actually increases murders with guns.
It appears so. My point though, is that it is irrelevant even if they did decrease murders with guns, because people still murder. And there have been plenty of murders done with machetes, many in the Rwandan genocide, murders by Laskar Jihad and a number of multiple murders that have hit the news over the years.
The anti-gun crowd haven't tried to ban machetes though, leading me to the conclusion that they consider murder to be ok, as long as it's not done with a gun.
I don't understand why you would voice support for ideals that you consider to belong to someone else
which is the part I considered more important.
Presumably because they agree with that persons ideals. Its not like ideals are subject to exclusive ownership. If my political ideals get implemented, why should I care if anybody considers them X polititians ideals or mine? I doubt people are advocating any particular polititians ideals if they don't agree with them.
It's easy to have a government that does no wrong when it doesn't do ANYTHING.
Exactly, that's the point of this, isn't it:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
Why would anybody writing a letter to a government representative, of any sort, voice support for someone else's ideals?
Its a form of brand recognition. They may well see Ron Paul bumper stickers in their electorate, which they will then identify with the issues you brought up.
Brand recognition. Companies use it because it works.
The is no such thing as free health care. Someone has to pay. This is not a comment on whether government health systems are desirable or not.
So long as large amounts of people don't take reasonable measures to protect their own health (good diet, exercise, etc) no health care system will be adequate to cope, public or private. Too many resources are taken up by preventable illness. The cost is unsustainable.
You don't understand, those laws are great! I mean sure, people still get murdered, but it's more likely to be with a knife that a GUN *shrieks hysterically*. Wouldn't you feel much better to have yourself or a family member killed by a knife instead of a GUN *shrieks hysterically*. (Sorry, I have to shriek whenever that word is mentioned, it's the law)
Just how pathetic is it here? The QLD Police recommend screaming as one of the most effective self defense methods. If you can't run away that is. Its shameful.
It would be easier to buy firearms illegally than legally here, and even if you have a firearm legally, self defence is an illegal use of that firearm and would likely result in you being charged and loosing your license, even if it was against an armed intruder.
Note to USians: make adoption of the Bill of Rights a condition of US/Australia free trade agreements. Please. Or include much more liberal immigration agreements with us, make it easier for us to escape to freedom.
Helping others creates a culture of helping, and no one is so strong that they can guarantee they will never need help.
If you have assessed creating a culture of helping to be provision for your anticipated future needs, doesn't that fit in to the concept of "rational self-interest"?
For most people, being unselfish is selfish: it feels good.
ditto
Not through force, but through voluntary contract.
Eliminating the "looters" as would Ayn Rand? Would you make paying for social security, health care etc volutary?
I have only read about Ayn Rand, not read her work. Judging by your post, I'm probably closer to your views than hers. Personally, I think there are benefits to helping the poor for example, but I do not agree with compulsory taxation for social security payments. As a result, I give a portion of my income to charity, but I do not consider this giving to be altruism (selflessness) but I view it rather the way I would view an investment (although there are obvious substantial differences, I'm talking about my philisophical view of it).
Adherence to "rational self interest" does not exclude the possibility of charity.
Linux has never struck me as practical, from a user point of view and even less as a business model.
Oddly enough, as a user, I was convinced when I first saw it (RedHat 7.0) and read the GPL that it was the way of the future. Why?
For the user: free (as in beer). Not the only consideration, but a powerful one, particularly for individuals and organisations than want/need to be licence compliant but don't have much money. Admittedly not sufficient to overcome seriously substandard software, bringing me to:
The developer (commercial or otherwise): free (as in beer and freedom). Free tools and a large existing codebase to improve on. Collaboration over the internet. It was my opinion that this would lead to overcoming the problems of substandard software. Comparing RH 7.0 to any modern desktop distro seems to bear this out. The fact that there is still work to be done does not negate this point.
The business model: I haven't thought of a car analogy, so a road analogy will have to do. Proprietry software is like building roads that are then paid for by tolls, pay per use (or copy, in the case of software). FOSS are like roads built by collaboratively paying for the road developement once, with ongoing contracts for maintenence and repair. Software, particularly the operating system, is infrastucture. It is just as viable to build a business with it as it is to have road construction without tolls.
You will get no help or support from the kernel people if you have a kernel problem when your kernel is tainted.
Basically giving average users another reason not to run linux.
While that's true, it is due to practical rather than ideological reasons. The kernel developers cannot fix problems in binary only drivers. If you unload those drivers and can reproduce the bug, you will get help with it. This is the only realistic way for them to operate.
Second, beggars can't be choosers. A lot of people rely on in-kind donations of computer hardware
People relying on donations of hardware and software might perhaps consider that if it is worth complaining about licencing issues of the software that the hardware ought also not be expempt from complaints. Therefore, if they won't complain about the hardware....
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is groups not tied to a location getting the weapons because there is no counter strike to deter them.
For some of the groups there are available counter strikes. Mecca. Medina. The mosque at Jerusalem. This would likely result instantaneously in WWIII though. But a nuclear first strike on the US could well have such a result.
Politicians of the time really thought that the USSR was waiting for the excuse to invade Western Europe, and reacted to what they knew. That the information was completely wrong is neither here nor there (*why* it was so wrong is open to debate).
The stated goals of communism were worldwide communist revolution. Had they the capability, they would certainly have aimed to pursue those goals. What they lacked was the capacity, not the willingness. It was quite correct, in my opinion, for the west to act as if the communists intended to carry out their plan of world domination, as they had already made enormous progress towards the possibility of achieving it.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
monopoly
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently
Since the big four join together as the RIAA, they are indeed a monopoly.
I use "sudo su -" when I'm using Ubuntu.
5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Fight and slay the pagans unless they establish regular prayers. Fight those who believe not in Allah. It is time you stopped lying about this. I know you don't have an issue with the dhimmi tax, and citizenship granted only to Muslims. You are Muslim after all. You'd be a citizen under this system, but I wouldn't be. I am one of those who you would have subdued until I pay 'Jizya'. That is why I didn't post in order to have a conversation with you, but to inform others of your views.
There is no point talking to you further as far as I can tell, because you have no problem with me being subdued by force into protection payments for not being muslim. I think your agenda was pretty clearly revealed when you refused to answer whose side you would be on in the event of jihad.
You can expect resistance to your attempts to subdue me. Your theocracy is not welcome here.
"In the end, Samsung got my money because they decided to support Linux."
Did you let them know why? It is a good idea.
He is a Muslim.
Regarding "killing pagans for not establishing regular prayers, and to require tribute from non-muslims under threat of violence" - he has said: "I don't see why this is such an issue." In context, it seemed to me that he approves of these practices. The relevant post.
Why is sexuality always the first thing that people go after but violence is accepted and even encouraged in entertainment?
Not commenting on any particular instance of this because there are many that don't fit this criteria, but:
Sex and violence are both socially acceptable in certain context.
Traditionally, acceptable context for sex is private, acceptable context to violence is public.
If a man in public view is violent in self defense it is accepted. If a man privately beats his wife it is not accepted.
If a couple have sex in the privacy of their own home, it is accepted. If a couple have sex on the sidewalk, it is not accepted.
Not claiming these as my views or anything near universal, just pointing out that the situation is not as absurd as it is often made out to be.
For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
I've never heard anyone interpret this, but here goes:
Slavery was common when this was written, so suppose a woman is a slave in Corinth, and becomes Christian. Her master uses her a sex slave to entertain guests, contrary to Christian morality. She faces harsh punishments, even death, if she refuses or escapes. What should she do, from a Christian perspective? My opinion, based on this verse, is that she can perform her 'duties' as a slave without sin. If she was free, she would be obligated (by her own conscience) to follow the moral code of Christianity.
So I should quit my job because they use MS Windows as their platform?
Based on this post earlier in the thread, I think the idea is that because you have chosen to use proprietary software for pragmatic reasons (keeping your job) you ought not "cast stones" at others who do the same, not that you have to quit your job.
Sure, open sourcers would still produce things, and there would be people willing to work for free for the fame or future job prospects or whatever, but not everybody wants to work for free! I like the idea of working hard and getting a higher income than the guy who doesn't, and having a nice house and a new car parked in front of it. I don't understand why people want to reduce the opportunity to do that.
I know what you mean. My brother in law works for RedHat. I keep telling him that he should get a house and car, his teepee and bicycle won't last forever. He should be getting paid. He insists that he does get paid, the lying hippie.
Except that it appears to be the case that "banning" guns actually increases murders with guns.
It appears so. My point though, is that it is irrelevant even if they did decrease murders with guns, because people still murder. And there have been plenty of murders done with machetes, many in the Rwandan genocide, murders by Laskar Jihad and a number of multiple murders that have hit the news over the years.
The anti-gun crowd haven't tried to ban machetes though, leading me to the conclusion that they consider murder to be ok, as long as it's not done with a gun.
It's easy to have a government that does no wrong when it doesn't do ANYTHING.
Exactly, that's the point of this, isn't it:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Why would anybody writing a letter to a government representative, of any sort, voice support for someone else's ideals?
Its a form of brand recognition. They may well see Ron Paul bumper stickers in their electorate, which they will then identify with the issues you brought up.
Brand recognition. Companies use it because it works.
...with decent free health care
The is no such thing as free health care. Someone has to pay. This is not a comment on whether government health systems are desirable or not.
So long as large amounts of people don't take reasonable measures to protect their own health (good diet, exercise, etc) no health care system will be adequate to cope, public or private. Too many resources are taken up by preventable illness. The cost is unsustainable.
Funny how the reality of the situation escapes people like you in your rush to spew snide remarks all over the place.
Yes, the open complaining about oppression, without repercussion, is one of the reasons my wife and I want to emigrate to the US.
They could put ads in without making a custom distro.
Oh you mean like how the Australian parliament figured out the implications of the and rejected them in favour of sanity?
You don't understand, those laws are great! I mean sure, people still get murdered, but it's more likely to be with a knife that a GUN *shrieks hysterically*. Wouldn't you feel much better to have yourself or a family member killed by a knife instead of a GUN *shrieks hysterically*. (Sorry, I have to shriek whenever that word is mentioned, it's the law)
Just how pathetic is it here? The QLD Police recommend screaming as one of the most effective self defense methods. If you can't run away that is. Its shameful.
It would be easier to buy firearms illegally than legally here, and even if you have a firearm legally, self defence is an illegal use of that firearm and would likely result in you being charged and loosing your license, even if it was against an armed intruder.
Note to USians: make adoption of the Bill of Rights a condition of US/Australia free trade agreements. Please. Or include much more liberal immigration agreements with us, make it easier for us to escape to freedom.
Helping others creates a culture of helping, and no one is so strong that they can guarantee they will never need help.
If you have assessed creating a culture of helping to be provision for your anticipated future needs, doesn't that fit in to the concept of "rational self-interest"?
For most people, being unselfish is selfish: it feels good.
ditto
Not through force, but through voluntary contract.
Eliminating the "looters" as would Ayn Rand? Would you make paying for social security, health care etc volutary?
I have only read about Ayn Rand, not read her work. Judging by your post, I'm probably closer to your views than hers. Personally, I think there are benefits to helping the poor for example, but I do not agree with compulsory taxation for social security payments. As a result, I give a portion of my income to charity, but I do not consider this giving to be altruism (selflessness) but I view it rather the way I would view an investment (although there are obvious substantial differences, I'm talking about my philisophical view of it).
Adherence to "rational self interest" does not exclude the possibility of charity.
For the user: free (as in beer). Not the only consideration, but a powerful one, particularly for individuals and organisations than want/need to be licence compliant but don't have much money. Admittedly not sufficient to overcome seriously substandard software, bringing me to:
The developer (commercial or otherwise): free (as in beer and freedom). Free tools and a large existing codebase to improve on. Collaboration over the internet. It was my opinion that this would lead to overcoming the problems of substandard software. Comparing RH 7.0 to any modern desktop distro seems to bear this out. The fact that there is still work to be done does not negate this point.
The business model: I haven't thought of a car analogy, so a road analogy will have to do. Proprietry software is like building roads that are then paid for by tolls, pay per use (or copy, in the case of software). FOSS are like roads built by collaboratively paying for the road developement once, with ongoing contracts for maintenence and repair. Software, particularly the operating system, is infrastucture. It is just as viable to build a business with it as it is to have road construction without tolls.