It's nice to get the real answer amidst all the bullshit. I experienced nearly 20 years of those processor speedups, and it was glorious. Too bad it came to an end. If the trend had continued, we'd all be using some terahertz CPUs by now.
But you claimed it was special, and then used that as a lame example of how Islam isn't inherently what I say it's been all along.
However, you have completely failed to distinguish Muslim actions from Christian actions.
Bullshit. I can't help it if you have your head in the sand. This is now my third time having this debate with you (previously: 1, 2), and all you do is keep repeating a version "not all Muslims" while trying to equate all religions as equally bad, while ignoring their roots, history, and reality on the ground today.
Sharia is based on Mohamed's rules, sayings, and actions:
"The Sharia comes from the Koran, the sacred book of Islam, which Muslims consider the actual word of God. The Sharia also stems from the Prophet Muhammad's teachings and interpretations of those teachings by certain Muslim legal scholars. Muslims believe that Allah (God) revealed his true will to Muhammad, who then passed on Allah's commands to humans in the Koran."
[..]
"The Koran sets down basic standards of human conduct, but does not provide a detailed law code. Only a few verses deal with legal matters. During his lifetime, Muhammad helped clarify the law by interpreting provisions in the Koran and acting as a judge in legal cases. Thus, Islamic law, the Sharia, became an integral part of the Muslim religion."
Muhamed btw. basically only proposed to fight against pagans, and mainly he fought against other muslims, ironic, isn't it?
Except he actually fought against Christians and Jews, too, though of course there's always some pretext to justify it. And what other "Muslims" did Mohamed fight against, seeing as how Muslims are followers of Islam and its founding prophet Mohamed?
Muhameds plan was to spread the "true god"... the same god christians and jews worship... to pagans.
You're missing the part about how Christians and Jews were corrupted, and Mohamed was to be the final and "true" word about "God"/"Allah". Don't think you should stick your ass in the air 5 times a day to Allah? Don't think Mohamed is a real prophet? Then you're an infidel and will burn in hell. The endgame of Islam is to have the entire world submit to Islam.
No they are not. They follow their own weird mindset.
Since you're just repeating yourself, I'll do the same: "You seriously need to watch the video I linked in my last post and take the quoted text from my other link seriously. ISIS is fundamental Islam, following the example of Mohamed. Their founders are steeped in Islamic studies, and everything they do has justification in Islam.
Sharia was introduced and formalized in books to read long after Mohamed.
The same can be said about Christianity. Yet Islamic scholars believe Sharia is authentic and trace back to Mohamed, though differences exist among sects, just as they do in Christianity.
While Sharia popped up here and there 200 years after Mohameds death, it never was very popular. E.g. the biggest islamic nation probably was the Ottoman Empire. It never had Sharia.
Your own Wikipedia link says otherwise: "The Ottoman legal system accepted the religious law over its subjects. At the same time the Qanun (or Kanun), a secular legal system, co-existed with religious law or Sharia.[133] "
Converting to Islam, basically did not happen under "islamic rule".
Uh huh. That's why countries that were largely Christian turned into Muslim countries after being conquered, and had nothing to do with their second-class citizen status.
If those countries have regions that are violent (like indonesia): then it is because they want to separate, not because they want Sharia as the "better law".
Funny how you earlier claimed, "All those nations have no problems with radical Muslims or Sharia.", but when I point out the problems, you ignore the root religious cause. It's always some other reason, and never Islam, despite the sources saying exactly what they care about is Islam. You were wrong, but continue to wear your rose-colored glasses.
Ah, yes, Pakistan, how can you be so wrong?
Are you talking to yourself with regards to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan? From your
You're making very broad statements here, and not providing any support for them.
No, that would be you, except for your anecdotal, "I know some Muslims". I'm the one who's been providing links which support my case.
Your complaint about the Golden Age of Islam appears to be that " that society was formed by conquering, and that non-Muslims were second-class citizens [wikipedia.org]." without telling me in what way that differed from any other society of the period.
You're the one who claimed Muslim society was a special golden age of vibrancy and tolerance back then. They conquered other societies, made Islam supreme, and relegated other religions to second class status. That's fundamental Islam, as it was and as it is now.
So, if anyone tries explaining anything, it can be ignored because of Islam's "beating black heart"?
It's not explaining anything by ignoring the big picture and making excuses. Islam is authoritarian, violent, and expansionist, and that's reflected across the globe. Blaming US foreign policy doesn't cut it. But then I'm sure we've had this conversation before.
I know some Muslims around here who have no desire to install Sharia law.
Wow, I'm so relieved! I guess there's nothing to worry about then, because you know some Muslims who express that opinion. However, there are other Muslims who think otherwise.
In the US, I'm much more worried about fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their authoritarian beliefs which they claim were drawn from the bible.
In the US, you can have displays of "Piss Christ" and countless criticisms of Christianity without anybody getting killed, despite the United States being 70% Christian, but if you try to draw Mohammad you'll be attacked with guns, despite Muslims only being about 1% of the population.
Moreover, I do know some history, and there was a time when the most vibrant and very tolerant society was Muslim.
That's "McHistory", peddled by liberal professors and media. What they don't tell you is that society was formed by conquering, and that non-Muslims were second-class citizens. And by today's standards, fundamentalist Islamic countries are completely regressive and authoritarian.
The practice of Islam has changed since then, but it shows that Islam is not inherently evil or backward.
No, that's willful ignorance speaking. Islam is fundamentally authoritarian, violent, and expansionist. If anything, Islam is changing to get with modern times, even though useful idiots like the Southern Law Poverty Center like to brand reformers as "anti-Muslim extremists".
ISIS: Started in Iraq, after a US invasion created a power vacuum and allowed many groups against the US to flourish. Among them was an Al Qaeda affiliate, who are annoyed with the US's actions in Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war.
Doesn't change the fact that it's part of Islam's beating, black heart, following in the footsteps of their prophet Mohamed and seeking to reinstate an Islamic caliphate.
Iran: Political Islam was arguably created (as we know it), and definitely fostered, as a way of uniting people against the puppet installed by western interests.
Doesn't change the fact that it's part of Islam's beating, black heart, following in the footsteps of their prophet Mohamed and seeking to reinstate an Islamic caliphate.
So no, they didn't start in a vacuum - they were both formed as responses to US foreign policy.
Now go on and repeat your excuses for all the other places around the world where Islam is seeking or has gained authoritarian rule. The common factor is Islam.
That you wouldn't even mention that shows you either don't know about Islam, or are intellectually dishonest enough to consciously ignore it. Pick one.
*snort* Learn some history and study the basic tenants of Islam, and then look at the world around you. There's a reason Islam is the most violent, authoritarian, and expansionist mainstream religion in the world today. Islam has bloody borders:
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
The majourity of Muslims live in Asia! Particular Indonesia, Malaysia, India and China, and if you want to count it in: Pakistan. All those nations have no problems with radical Muslims or Sharia.
Indonesia: "Aceh Province, on the northern tip of Sumatra island, stands alone in having formally established Shariah law in Indonesia, a Muslim-majority country with a relatively secular Constitution. In Aceh, women are required to dress modestly, alcohol is prohibited, and numerous offenses -- from adultery to homosexuality to selling alcohol -- are punishable by public whipping.
Aceh (pronounced AH-chay) began its experiment with Shariah in 2001, after receiving special authorization from Indonesia's central government, which was intent on calming separatist sentiment in the deeply conservative region. Now, Shariah police officers roam the province, raiding everything from hotel rooms to beaches in a hunt for immoral activity.
In the decade and a half since, Indonesia as a whole has drifted in a conservative direction, and Aceh, once an outlier, has become a model for other regions of the country seeking to impose their own Shariah-based ordinances, alarming those who worry about the nation's drift from secularism."
Malaysia: "The Malaysian Parliament is set to debate a controversial bill that could see stricter forms of sharia law introduced in the state of Kelantan, but critics have warned the so called hudud bill would result in whippings and even the amputations of limbs for crimes such as theft. [..] Kelantan's state capital Kota Bahru is deeply religious and many of its citizens live by a strict adherence to Islam. At shops and supermarkets there are separate queues for males and females, while signs advising women to cover up are common outside offices and government buildings."
India: An interesting political situation with a complex history. The Muslims there are said to be very much not extremists. But maybe that's more because of the history and the current political climate, where Hindus are the dominant population and agitators (after having been dominated earlier by Muslims themselves), and the Muslims that are there were the ones who stayed in India, while practically all the Indians left Pakistan during the split. Even so, India still suffers Islamic terror attacks, especially from neighboring Pakistan (remember those bloody borders), and there are calls for Muslim-rule areas within India.
Pakistan: A hotbed of terrorism and militant Islam, and dominated by Sharia.
China has problems with Islamic separatists, but they are an authoritarian state and have managed to keep a lid on it.
Other countries you haven't mentioned:
Afghanistan: Taliban and al Qaeda.
Philippines: Home to an Islamic separatist movement. In the news recently.
Or I can name several countries in Africa, like Mali, Nigeria, and Somalia.
Or I could talk about Russia.
I'm going to stop here because I don't want to make an exhaustive list.
Turkey was "safe" before Erdogan came
Yes, because a popular military commander picked up the pieces from the Ottoman empire and forced a secular government on the nation. Several military coups and a nearly century later, it's being undone by an elected Muslim leader, and the last military coup has failed.
Do you see a pattern here? ISLAM HAS BLOODY BORDERS. It's founding prophet was a military warlord who imposed Sharia law.
The ISIS idiots on the other hands are simply power hungry idiots. That they es
I think taking steps to actually colonize other planets and become a multi-planetary species is important too.
I do too, and that's why I like the International Space Station and think we should be taking baby steps to colonize Mars. Like right now we should already have machines on the planet generating fuel from the atmosphere.
The problem with the original moonshot was that it took up a huge part of the budget, and once the public lost interest and the funding got pulled, it left a big, gaping hole at NASA.
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
I think as a PR move it's a dud. Trying to relive glory days of something we did 50 years ago is a big fat meh. Even when we first went to the Moon, whatever excitement people had quickly faded, even as the Moon landings were still happening.
I remember the first rover missions to Mars. That generated excitement without the enormous expense of a boots and flag mission. We need to spend our money wisely, and not just throw it away on PR stunts.
I think most people believe the ban is racist because Trump explicitly said during the campaign that he was going to ban all muslims.
Here's a big clue for "most people", then: Islam is not a race, and Muslims are followers of Islam. Islam is a religion/political ideology based on tyrannical rule over people's lives, and as such is not compatible with Western values.
But we already have the International Space Station. Going for a joy ride around the Moon 50 years after we landed there is just stupid.
Even if we want to continue manned missions, the most effective use of money is to continue the International Space Station and use robots to start building infrastructure for eventual human colonies. But big budget expenditures that accomplish nothing are stupid no matter how you slice it.
Translation: Leftwing nutjobs disillusioned gamers, broke political correctness, and in the immortal words of Michael Moore, helped elect Trump in "the biggest 'Fuck you' ever recorded in human history".
No, Obama and the "progressive" left broke a lot more than just Slashdot. Donald Trump was just a symptom and his election the effect of a perfect storm. Part of that storm is an extremely tolerant immigration policy, denigration of those who object, and a refusal to acknowledge the dangers if Islamic immigration and Islam in general.
Is keeping a job to pay rent considered poor "life choices"?
Having a day job is no excuse to eat like crap and not exercise. Cut out the sugar and other refined foods, and get 10-15 a day of exercise, and you'll be doing better than the majority of the population.
It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called "the narrative." We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.
Arguably there was some tangible benefit for boosting science, the spirit of the country, and the United States' standing in the world, but repeating what we did 50 years ago fails at even this level.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nice to get the real answer amidst all the bullshit. I experienced nearly 20 years of those processor speedups, and it was glorious. Too bad it came to an end. If the trend had continued, we'd all be using some terahertz CPUs by now.
I didn't say it was perfect.
But you claimed it was special, and then used that as a lame example of how Islam isn't inherently what I say it's been all along.
However, you have completely failed to distinguish Muslim actions from Christian actions.
Bullshit. I can't help it if you have your head in the sand. This is now my third time having this debate with you (previously: 1, 2), and all you do is keep repeating a version "not all Muslims" while trying to equate all religions as equally bad, while ignoring their roots, history, and reality on the ground today.
That is wrong, at that time Sharia did not exit.
Sharia is based on Mohamed's rules, sayings, and actions:
"The Sharia comes from the Koran, the sacred book of Islam, which Muslims consider the actual word of God. The Sharia also stems from the Prophet Muhammad's teachings and interpretations of those teachings by certain Muslim legal scholars. Muslims believe that Allah (God) revealed his true will to Muhammad, who then passed on Allah's commands to humans in the Koran."
[..]
"The Koran sets down basic standards of human conduct, but does not provide a detailed law code. Only a few verses deal with legal matters. During his lifetime, Muhammad helped clarify the law by interpreting provisions in the Koran and acting as a judge in legal cases. Thus, Islamic law, the Sharia, became an integral part of the Muslim religion."
Muhamed btw. basically only proposed to fight against pagans, and mainly he fought against other muslims, ironic, isn't it?
Except he actually fought against Christians and Jews, too, though of course there's always some pretext to justify it. And what other "Muslims" did Mohamed fight against, seeing as how Muslims are followers of Islam and its founding prophet Mohamed?
Muhameds plan was to spread the "true god" ... the same god christians and jews worship ... to pagans.
You're missing the part about how Christians and Jews were corrupted, and Mohamed was to be the final and "true" word about "God"/"Allah". Don't think you should stick your ass in the air 5 times a day to Allah? Don't think Mohamed is a real prophet? Then you're an infidel and will burn in hell. The endgame of Islam is to have the entire world submit to Islam.
No they are not. They follow their own weird mindset.
Since you're just repeating yourself, I'll do the same: "You seriously need to watch the video I linked in my last post and take the quoted text from my other link seriously. ISIS is fundamental Islam, following the example of Mohamed. Their founders are steeped in Islamic studies, and everything they do has justification in Islam.
Sharia was introduced and formalized in books to read long after Mohamed.
The same can be said about Christianity. Yet Islamic scholars believe Sharia is authentic and trace back to Mohamed, though differences exist among sects, just as they do in Christianity.
While Sharia popped up here and there 200 years after Mohameds death, it never was very popular. E.g. the biggest islamic nation probably was the Ottoman Empire. It never had Sharia.
Your own Wikipedia link says otherwise: "The Ottoman legal system accepted the religious law over its subjects. At the same time the Qanun (or Kanun), a secular legal system, co-existed with religious law or Sharia.[133] "
Converting to Islam, basically did not happen under "islamic rule".
Uh huh. That's why countries that were largely Christian turned into Muslim countries after being conquered, and had nothing to do with their second-class citizen status.
If those countries have regions that are violent (like indonesia): then it is because they want to separate, not because they want Sharia as the "better law".
Funny how you earlier claimed, "All those nations have no problems with radical Muslims or Sharia.", but when I point out the problems, you ignore the root religious cause. It's always some other reason, and never Islam, despite the sources saying exactly what they care about is Islam. You were wrong, but continue to wear your rose-colored glasses.
Ah, yes, Pakistan, how can you be so wrong?
Are you talking to yourself with regards to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan? From your
You're making very broad statements here, and not providing any support for them.
No, that would be you, except for your anecdotal, "I know some Muslims". I'm the one who's been providing links which support my case.
Your complaint about the Golden Age of Islam appears to be that " that society was formed by conquering, and that non-Muslims were second-class citizens [wikipedia.org]." without telling me in what way that differed from any other society of the period.
You're the one who claimed Muslim society was a special golden age of vibrancy and tolerance back then. They conquered other societies, made Islam supreme, and relegated other religions to second class status. That's fundamental Islam, as it was and as it is now.
So, if anyone tries explaining anything, it can be ignored because of Islam's "beating black heart"?
It's not explaining anything by ignoring the big picture and making excuses. Islam is authoritarian, violent, and expansionist, and that's reflected across the globe. Blaming US foreign policy doesn't cut it. But then I'm sure we've had this conversation before.
I know some Muslims around here who have no desire to install Sharia law.
Wow, I'm so relieved! I guess there's nothing to worry about then, because you know some Muslims who express that opinion. However, there are other Muslims who think otherwise.
In the US, I'm much more worried about fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their authoritarian beliefs which they claim were drawn from the bible.
In the US, you can have displays of "Piss Christ" and countless criticisms of Christianity without anybody getting killed, despite the United States being 70% Christian, but if you try to draw Mohammad you'll be attacked with guns, despite Muslims only being about 1% of the population.
Moreover, I do know some history, and there was a time when the most vibrant and very tolerant society was Muslim.
That's "McHistory", peddled by liberal professors and media. What they don't tell you is that society was formed by conquering, and that non-Muslims were second-class citizens. And by today's standards, fundamentalist Islamic countries are completely regressive and authoritarian.
The practice of Islam has changed since then, but it shows that Islam is not inherently evil or backward.
No, that's willful ignorance speaking. Islam is fundamentally authoritarian, violent, and expansionist. If anything, Islam is changing to get with modern times, even though useful idiots like the Southern Law Poverty Center like to brand reformers as "anti-Muslim extremists".
ISIS: Started in Iraq, after a US invasion created a power vacuum and allowed many groups against the US to flourish. Among them was an Al Qaeda affiliate, who are annoyed with the US's actions in Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war.
Doesn't change the fact that it's part of Islam's beating, black heart, following in the footsteps of their prophet Mohamed and seeking to reinstate an Islamic caliphate.
Iran: Political Islam was arguably created (as we know it), and definitely fostered, as a way of uniting people against the puppet installed by western interests.
Doesn't change the fact that it's part of Islam's beating, black heart, following in the footsteps of their prophet Mohamed and seeking to reinstate an Islamic caliphate.
So no, they didn't start in a vacuum - they were both formed as responses to US foreign policy.
Now go on and repeat your excuses for all the other places around the world where Islam is seeking or has gained authoritarian rule. The common factor is Islam.
That you wouldn't even mention that shows you either don't know about Islam, or are intellectually dishonest enough to consciously ignore it. Pick one.
*snort* Learn some history and study the basic tenants of Islam, and then look at the world around you. There's a reason Islam is the most violent, authoritarian, and expansionist mainstream religion in the world today. Islam has bloody borders:
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
The majourity of Muslims live in Asia! Particular Indonesia, Malaysia, India and China, and if you want to count it in: Pakistan. All those nations have no problems with radical Muslims or Sharia.
Indonesia: "Aceh Province, on the northern tip of Sumatra island, stands alone in having formally established Shariah law in Indonesia, a Muslim-majority country with a relatively secular Constitution. In Aceh, women are required to dress modestly, alcohol is prohibited, and numerous offenses -- from adultery to homosexuality to selling alcohol -- are punishable by public whipping.
Aceh (pronounced AH-chay) began its experiment with Shariah in 2001, after receiving special authorization from Indonesia's central government, which was intent on calming separatist sentiment in the deeply conservative region. Now, Shariah police officers roam the province, raiding everything from hotel rooms to beaches in a hunt for immoral activity.
In the decade and a half since, Indonesia as a whole has drifted in a conservative direction, and Aceh, once an outlier, has become a model for other regions of the country seeking to impose their own Shariah-based ordinances, alarming those who worry about the nation's drift from secularism."
Malaysia: "The Malaysian Parliament is set to debate a controversial bill that could see stricter forms of sharia law introduced in the state of Kelantan, but critics have warned the so called hudud bill would result in whippings and even the amputations of limbs for crimes such as theft. [..] Kelantan's state capital Kota Bahru is deeply religious and many of its citizens live by a strict adherence to Islam. At shops and supermarkets there are separate queues for males and females, while signs advising women to cover up are common outside offices and government buildings."
India: An interesting political situation with a complex history. The Muslims there are said to be very much not extremists. But maybe that's more because of the history and the current political climate, where Hindus are the dominant population and agitators (after having been dominated earlier by Muslims themselves), and the Muslims that are there were the ones who stayed in India, while practically all the Indians left Pakistan during the split. Even so, India still suffers Islamic terror attacks, especially from neighboring Pakistan (remember those bloody borders), and there are calls for Muslim-rule areas within India.
Pakistan: A hotbed of terrorism and militant Islam, and dominated by Sharia.
China has problems with Islamic separatists, but they are an authoritarian state and have managed to keep a lid on it.
Other countries you haven't mentioned:
Afghanistan: Taliban and al Qaeda.
Philippines: Home to an Islamic separatist movement. In the news recently.
Or I can name several countries in Africa, like Mali, Nigeria, and Somalia.
Or I could talk about Russia.
I'm going to stop here because I don't want to make an exhaustive list.
Turkey was "safe" before Erdogan came
Yes, because a popular military commander picked up the pieces from the Ottoman empire and forced a secular government on the nation. Several military coups and a nearly century later, it's being undone by an elected Muslim leader, and the last military coup has failed.
Do you see a pattern here? ISLAM HAS BLOODY BORDERS. It's founding prophet was a military warlord who imposed Sharia law.
The ISIS idiots on the other hands are simply power hungry idiots. That they es
I think taking steps to actually colonize other planets and become a multi-planetary species is important too.
I do too, and that's why I like the International Space Station and think we should be taking baby steps to colonize Mars. Like right now we should already have machines on the planet generating fuel from the atmosphere.
The problem with the original moonshot was that it took up a huge part of the budget, and once the public lost interest and the funding got pulled, it left a big, gaping hole at NASA.
Islam does not imply Sharia, hence it is just a religion and not a political ideology.
At the core of Islam is a beating, black heart. You think ISIS and Islamic rule in countries like Iran happens in a vacuum? It's there at the roots.
Lern to know your enemy, if you think you have one!
Indeed, here's two links for you to start you on your way:
Dr. Bill Warner - Why Are People Afraid
Islam has bloody borders:
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
I think as a PR move it's a dud. Trying to relive glory days of something we did 50 years ago is a big fat meh. Even when we first went to the Moon, whatever excitement people had quickly faded, even as the Moon landings were still happening.
I remember the first rover missions to Mars. That generated excitement without the enormous expense of a boots and flag mission. We need to spend our money wisely, and not just throw it away on PR stunts.
I think most people believe the ban is racist because Trump explicitly said during the campaign that he was going to ban all muslims.
Here's a big clue for "most people", then: Islam is not a race, and Muslims are followers of Islam. Islam is a religion/political ideology based on tyrannical rule over people's lives, and as such is not compatible with Western values.
But we already have the International Space Station. Going for a joy ride around the Moon 50 years after we landed there is just stupid.
Even if we want to continue manned missions, the most effective use of money is to continue the International Space Station and use robots to start building infrastructure for eventual human colonies. But big budget expenditures that accomplish nothing are stupid no matter how you slice it.
Translation: Leftwing nutjobs disillusioned gamers, broke political correctness, and in the immortal words of Michael Moore, helped elect Trump in "the biggest 'Fuck you' ever recorded in human history".
One question I keep asking myself is why there are a zillion ways to do everything in Linux.
Because it's an open ecosystem.
That's a bullshit excuse for eating like crap.
Donald Trump broke this place.
No, Obama and the "progressive" left broke a lot more than just Slashdot. Donald Trump was just a symptom and his election the effect of a perfect storm. Part of that storm is an extremely tolerant immigration policy, denigration of those who object, and a refusal to acknowledge the dangers if Islamic immigration and Islam in general.
You should be happy, as Slashdot lets you post your drivel just as much as the next guy.
Is keeping a job to pay rent considered poor "life choices"?
Having a day job is no excuse to eat like crap and not exercise. Cut out the sugar and other refined foods, and get 10-15 a day of exercise, and you'll be doing better than the majority of the population.
MSMBC ginning up fake Tea Party is racist story:
Correct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In what case?
2) If people aren't secure in their privacy, we've stripped them of their right to express themselves freely (also true)
That's a novel argument. This is a 4th amendment issue, and they have a warrant. Amazon's argument is specious.
MSMBC ginning up fake Tea Party is racist story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Katie Couric documentary deceptively edits gun supporters to make them appeared stumped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
CNN "shorthanded" call for taking black riots to suburbs as call for peace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
NBC edits call to make Zimmerman look racist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The New York Times and the narrative:
Then I'll just chalk it up to willful ignorance.
"Bro", read what I said.
Arguably there was some tangible benefit for boosting science, the spirit of the country, and the United States' standing in the world, but repeating what we did 50 years ago fails at even this level.