We discovered that the US military hides information from the public which would have severe impact on the citizens opinion over US military policies
We did? When was this?
The army knew that the public would disagree so they purposely acted against the interests of the US people. You know how we call that in the rest of the world? Fraud and treason.
lol. Oh, I see. You're one of those guys. Yes, everything the military does is treasonous. Make love, not war! You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms! Pass the joint, would ya?
The collection of capitalists, crooks, psycopaths and scum that make up most Westen governments rely almost exclusively on fear and propaganda to maintain themselves in power against the true will of the people, or else you wouldn't have billionaire cunts paying minimal taxes and getting away with whatever they want around the world.
That's hilarious:) Let me guess - liberal arts degree at the local college, right?
And the problem with democracy is that it doesn't last
Nonsense. If we're doing comparisons, communism doesn't come close to the longevity of democracy. If we're talking absolutes, it depends on how you define "democracy", but many nations can realistically claim to have been democratic for thousands of years.
It seems like mandatory democracy is actually superior
Pft. Look, it's obvious to everyone that you've got a crush on northern europe, but that doesn't mean you get to claim that everything they do is better. Either support your claims, or GTFO.
Government is basically a structure designed to make up for the fact that most people won't act in their own interest
More bullshit. Government is a way to organize people - nothing more, nothing less.
Likewise, if you were arrested with a firearm, you were returned your firearm and given six or so shells for your weapon. Yes, that's right, felons were re-armed if they were arrested with a firearm.
If you were arrested for public intoxication, sure. Anything else, you would probably have been hung, and I doubt your corpse would have been re-armed prior to burial.
It's easy to have loose gun laws in a society where capital punishment is meted out with little - if any - judicial review, and where public duels result from minor insults and offenses. I'm pretty sure Somalia has similar gun laws, and a similar attitude towards law and order. It's much harder to have those types of laws in a first-world nation.
Hey, no problem. New rule: green card holders don't get police or judicial protection, any medical services unless they provide cash up-front, and can't use any roads without first paying a fee. Problem solved!
The only way to stop that shit is to get the citizenry turned around to the point where they don't think that it's a triumph for freedom when their kids join the military and get exported to some other nation to bomb brown people.
That's true enough; getting people to believe your lies is usually the first step in controlling them.
Familial military tradition is one of the worst blights on peace the world has ever known.
In a war with a peer enemy... say China just for illustration here... one of the first things they'll do is fire off ASAT's at our orbiting assets like GPS and communications satellites.
The Chinese are nowhere near a "peer-enemy", and unlikely to become one for several decades at least. Meanwhile, what do you think this bad-boy is for?
No, but then I would expect you to regard the fact that you had to shoot someone as a bad thing as well even it is was in self defense.
That doesn't follow either, unless you have a very black-and-white version of "good vs. bad". Real life is a little more complicated.
I take it from this that you regard the American revolution as a bad thing which just necessary like a shooting in self-defense.
I regard it as a less-than-ideal way of arriving at a positive result. If a non-violent approach could have led to the same result, I would favor that approach. If the same action had led to a brutal dictatorship, I would consider it a "bad thing". You can't (usually) say that a particular action is "bad" in and of itself - you need to look at it in context.
For people from a country founded by revolutionaries you would not expect them to regard most* revolutions as a bad thing.
How in the world would you come to that conclusion? If I shoot a man who's trying to kill me, would it be ironic for me to believe that most shootings are bad? If I take aspirin when I get a headache, would it be ironic for me to say that most drugs are bad?
I wasn't confused about what you were trying to say - I just don't think you've thought this through very well. There's nothing ironic about the situation you're describing.
"They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count... What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control.... Comment: A more precise name for these zones would be Dar al-Islam, the place where Muslims rule."
The sensitive urban zones (ZUS) are infra-urban areas in France defined by the authorities to be a high-priority target for city policy, taking into consideration local circumstances related to the problems which the inhabitants of these areas have.
Even the article you cite - as biased as it is - doesn't make the claim that these are areas "where EMS will no longer go because they'll be attacked", as you initially did. So even your own source doesn't support your claims. The wikipedia article I cited adds further clarification, and this article pretty much decimates your claims. It talks about the initial formation of shanty towns post-WW2, the internment of Algerians in internment camps, the building of low-cost areas in order to alleviate the poverty situation, and the inevitable desertion of these areas by the more affluent white population paralleled by the influx of "visible minorities". It's quite clear that the present difficulties in these ghettos has a starting point many decades in the past, and has little to do with Islam in particular. It's also clear that ingrained French bigotry is exactly the reason why these areas are mainly populated by racial and religious minorities. For instance:
According to the BBC, the unemployment rate for university graduates of French origin is 5%; this can be compared to the unemployment rate of 26.5% for university graduates of North African origin.
If you build a society which discourages integration, you don't get to act shocked when immigrants fail to integrate.
So.... yeah.
On the other hand, I have to give you credit for at least trying to provide some evidence. Most bigots and islampohobes don't bother to support their allegations (in fact, you're honestly the only person who's ever attempted to answer my question on the subject), which leads me to believe that you're probably quite a bit more rational and intelligent than the rest of that crowd. Do some more research on the subject, and I think you'll find that it's a much more complex issue than the anti-islam fanatics are making it out to be.
Oh, and I should probably add as a disclaimer that I certainly do see militant islam as an ongoing problem, and I'm fully aware of the issues that police and EMS personnel (along with other government representatives) face in ghettos around the globe. I just think it's asshole-ish of you to try and create a causative link between the two by misrepresenting and exaggerating the situation in France, while ignoring similar ghettos where muslims are represented in far lower numbers.
History doesn't repeat itself, except in the most broad, generic, useless sense (people are born, they do stuff, they die).
People who repeat that phrase generally either have no understanding of history, no understanding of current events, no understanding of human psychology, or some combination of the above. Looking at history through the lens of current events is no different than looking at the clouds and seeing a pirate ship. Your mind is creating patterns based on your past experiences - that doesn't mean the patterns are real.
If the US is complicit in Chinese traffic filtering, then gun manufacturers are complicit in all bank robberies, knife manufacturers are complicit in muggings, and beer manufacturers are complicit in bar-brawls.
Then we can pop over to europe. Those are documented fairly well, including the enclaves in france and norway where EMS will no longer go because they'll be attacked. They're not ethnic enclaves, they're religious enclaves, where they have their own rule of law, inside the rule of law.
I don't suppose you could document these well documented claims? For some reason, in all the times I've asked that question, I've never gotten a real response.
And yet the multiverse theory and string theory would be allowed in labs, I assume?
As preliminary theories, sure. And if someone comes up with an alternate theory which better explains the universe and is supported by vast amounts of evidence, then string theory and the multiverse would become every bit as laughable as creationism. In the meantime, we'll work towards trying to either verify or disprove the theories which we have.
Intelligent Design is a stupid theory to be sure, but because it has origins in religion, its viewed as evil, as opposed to an equally baseless theory like multiverse or string theory with its basis in a living guys brain and theoretical mathematic systems?
First of all, it's not viewed as "evil", it's viewed as an ignorant, disingenuous attempt to bring creationism back into the political sphere. Second, ID isn't just "stupid", it's completely unsupported by ANY evidence, AND it's not falsifiable. It's a god-of-the-gaps argument dressed up to look like science, in order to fool people who don't understand how science works.
Fine, creationists ought not to be doing research on evolution, but to say you wouldn't want to see them in a lab is pretty narrow-minded, don't you think?
No, I don't. Is it narrow minded to say that I don't want a witch-doctor working at the local hospital? That I don't want a flat-earther working as a cartographer? That I don't want a geocentricist developing navigational programs for NASA?
Can't they just be wrong like countless scientists every day?
I have no problem with them being wrong; the problem is that they're not even wrong.
Because all creationists are churches with tax-exempt status, and research isn't specifically funded by the government with real money in labs and universities across the country.
If you were trying to make a point, I missed it.
Also, thats a fair assumption to make with the tone of his post and the usual Slashdot thinking.
Or you could just be overly defensive. Personally, I think thou dost protest too much.
The words "religious" and "creationist" don't mean the same thing. If you're a religious person who also happens to be curious, interested in science, and capable of using reason, logic, and the scientific method instead of accepting things on blind faith, then I don't have a problem with you. Let's go do some science! On the other hand, if you're a troglodyte who thinks magic-man miracled the world into existence 6,000 years ago, I don't want you anywhere near a lab.
Are you saying we must believe either evolution OR intelligent design with no other theory being possible? I personally believe it's neither so I'm ignorant? Here's a really ignorant belief... "We just don't know and that's OK with me". Just keep on searching and someday the proof will come out.
Yes. If I ask "do you believe that 2+2 equals 4?" and you say "We just don't know and that's OK with me", you are ignorant.
Now, ignorance in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Ignorance is curable, as long as you're willing to learn. However, when you start pulling the "we don't know" card for one of the best supported theories in science, it becomes obvious that you're not just ignorant, you're willfully ignorant. And that, my friend, is a bad thing.
Keep them out? So can the religious get a tax refund proportional to the amount of government money spent on science?
Given that churches aren't taxed, religion already receives more government funding than science. So, I guess the answer is "it will be proportional when they start paying some taxes".
P.S: I love the fact that he said "keep the nut jobs out", and you automatically read that as "keep the religious out".
Slashdot Mirror
We discovered that the US military hides information from the public which would have severe impact on the citizens opinion over US military policies
We did? When was this?
The army knew that the public would disagree so they purposely acted against the interests of the US people. You know how we call that in the rest of the world? Fraud and treason.
lol. Oh, I see. You're one of those guys. Yes, everything the military does is treasonous. Make love, not war! You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms! Pass the joint, would ya?
The collection of capitalists, crooks, psycopaths and scum that make up most Westen governments rely almost exclusively on fear and propaganda to maintain themselves in power against the true will of the people, or else you wouldn't have billionaire cunts paying minimal taxes and getting away with whatever they want around the world.
That's hilarious :) Let me guess - liberal arts degree at the local college, right?
And the problem with democracy is that it doesn't last
Nonsense. If we're doing comparisons, communism doesn't come close to the longevity of democracy. If we're talking absolutes, it depends on how you define "democracy", but many nations can realistically claim to have been democratic for thousands of years.
It seems like mandatory democracy is actually superior
Pft. Look, it's obvious to everyone that you've got a crush on northern europe, but that doesn't mean you get to claim that everything they do is better. Either support your claims, or GTFO.
Government is basically a structure designed to make up for the fact that most people won't act in their own interest
More bullshit. Government is a way to organize people - nothing more, nothing less.
Likewise, if you were arrested with a firearm, you were returned your firearm and given six or so shells for your weapon. Yes, that's right, felons were re-armed if they were arrested with a firearm.
If you were arrested for public intoxication, sure. Anything else, you would probably have been hung, and I doubt your corpse would have been re-armed prior to burial.
It's easy to have loose gun laws in a society where capital punishment is meted out with little - if any - judicial review, and where public duels result from minor insults and offenses. I'm pretty sure Somalia has similar gun laws, and a similar attitude towards law and order. It's much harder to have those types of laws in a first-world nation.
Hey, no problem. New rule: green card holders don't get police or judicial protection, any medical services unless they provide cash up-front, and can't use any roads without first paying a fee. Problem solved!
The only way to stop that shit is to get the citizenry turned around to the point where they don't think that it's a triumph for freedom when their kids join the military and get exported to some other nation to bomb brown people.
That's true enough; getting people to believe your lies is usually the first step in controlling them.
Familial military tradition is one of the worst blights on peace the world has ever known.
Yeah. Conscription works SO much better.
So, how hard is it to access Slashdot on your Commodore 64?
In a war with a peer enemy... say China just for illustration here... one of the first things they'll do is fire off ASAT's at our orbiting assets like GPS and communications satellites.
The Chinese are nowhere near a "peer-enemy", and unlikely to become one for several decades at least. Meanwhile, what do you think this bad-boy is for?
No, but then I would expect you to regard the fact that you had to shoot someone as a bad thing as well even it is was in self defense.
That doesn't follow either, unless you have a very black-and-white version of "good vs. bad". Real life is a little more complicated.
I take it from this that you regard the American revolution as a bad thing which just necessary like a shooting in self-defense.
I regard it as a less-than-ideal way of arriving at a positive result. If a non-violent approach could have led to the same result, I would favor that approach. If the same action had led to a brutal dictatorship, I would consider it a "bad thing". You can't (usually) say that a particular action is "bad" in and of itself - you need to look at it in context.
For people from a country founded by revolutionaries you would not expect them to regard most* revolutions as a bad thing.
How in the world would you come to that conclusion? If I shoot a man who's trying to kill me, would it be ironic for me to believe that most shootings are bad? If I take aspirin when I get a headache, would it be ironic for me to say that most drugs are bad?
I wasn't confused about what you were trying to say - I just don't think you've thought this through very well. There's nothing ironic about the situation you're describing.
From the article you reference:
"They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count ... What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control. ... Comment: A more precise name for these zones would be Dar al-Islam, the place where Muslims rule."
From wikipedia:
The sensitive urban zones (ZUS) are infra-urban areas in France defined by the authorities to be a high-priority target for city policy, taking into consideration local circumstances related to the problems which the inhabitants of these areas have.
Even the article you cite - as biased as it is - doesn't make the claim that these are areas "where EMS will no longer go because they'll be attacked", as you initially did. So even your own source doesn't support your claims. The wikipedia article I cited adds further clarification, and this article pretty much decimates your claims. It talks about the initial formation of shanty towns post-WW2, the internment of Algerians in internment camps, the building of low-cost areas in order to alleviate the poverty situation, and the inevitable desertion of these areas by the more affluent white population paralleled by the influx of "visible minorities". It's quite clear that the present difficulties in these ghettos has a starting point many decades in the past, and has little to do with Islam in particular. It's also clear that ingrained French bigotry is exactly the reason why these areas are mainly populated by racial and religious minorities. For instance:
According to the BBC, the unemployment rate for university graduates of French origin is 5%; this can be compared to the unemployment rate of 26.5% for university graduates of North African origin.
If you build a society which discourages integration, you don't get to act shocked when immigrants fail to integrate.
So .... yeah.
On the other hand, I have to give you credit for at least trying to provide some evidence. Most bigots and islampohobes don't bother to support their allegations (in fact, you're honestly the only person who's ever attempted to answer my question on the subject), which leads me to believe that you're probably quite a bit more rational and intelligent than the rest of that crowd. Do some more research on the subject, and I think you'll find that it's a much more complex issue than the anti-islam fanatics are making it out to be.
Oh, and I should probably add as a disclaimer that I certainly do see militant islam as an ongoing problem, and I'm fully aware of the issues that police and EMS personnel (along with other government representatives) face in ghettos around the globe. I just think it's asshole-ish of you to try and create a causative link between the two by misrepresenting and exaggerating the situation in France, while ignoring similar ghettos where muslims are represented in far lower numbers.
Now lets toss the guy in a prison cell because he 'raped' someone.
I'll bet you're a Che Guevara fan, aren't you?
In case you haven't noticed, most revolutions suck. That's why the founders....
...and people say Americans don't understand irony! ;-)
I would have expected Roger Moore to have a better understanding of English. The word "most" isn't that difficult to comprehend.
History doesn't repeat itself, except in the most broad, generic, useless sense (people are born, they do stuff, they die).
People who repeat that phrase generally either have no understanding of history, no understanding of current events, no understanding of human psychology, or some combination of the above. Looking at history through the lens of current events is no different than looking at the clouds and seeing a pirate ship. Your mind is creating patterns based on your past experiences - that doesn't mean the patterns are real.
If the US is complicit in Chinese traffic filtering, then gun manufacturers are complicit in all bank robberies, knife manufacturers are complicit in muggings, and beer manufacturers are complicit in bar-brawls.
Then we can pop over to europe. Those are documented fairly well, including the enclaves in france and norway where EMS will no longer go because they'll be attacked. They're not ethnic enclaves, they're religious enclaves, where they have their own rule of law, inside the rule of law.
I don't suppose you could document these well documented claims? For some reason, in all the times I've asked that question, I've never gotten a real response.
If they're really ugly, it might take longer than that. No one said that they had to be 72 hot virgins.
Eh. They all look the same after a dozen beers.
... wait, what?
.... whattayamean 'no booze' ???
You know who's more annoying than both of them put together? The devout asantaclausians.
It would be cool on Monday. By Wednesday, I'd be reaching for my phaser.
The difference being that Charlie Sheen is actually crazy. Like Tom Cruise, except without the Messiah complex.
Eh. What's an order of magnitude or two between friends.
$3,000 for ten years, huh? Hell, most people pay more than that for basic cable. You're just complaining 'cos you don't like the show.
And yet the multiverse theory and string theory would be allowed in labs, I assume?
As preliminary theories, sure. And if someone comes up with an alternate theory which better explains the universe and is supported by vast amounts of evidence, then string theory and the multiverse would become every bit as laughable as creationism. In the meantime, we'll work towards trying to either verify or disprove the theories which we have.
Intelligent Design is a stupid theory to be sure, but because it has origins in religion, its viewed as evil, as opposed to an equally baseless theory like multiverse or string theory with its basis in a living guys brain and theoretical mathematic systems?
First of all, it's not viewed as "evil", it's viewed as an ignorant, disingenuous attempt to bring creationism back into the political sphere. Second, ID isn't just "stupid", it's completely unsupported by ANY evidence, AND it's not falsifiable. It's a god-of-the-gaps argument dressed up to look like science, in order to fool people who don't understand how science works.
Fine, creationists ought not to be doing research on evolution, but to say you wouldn't want to see them in a lab is pretty narrow-minded, don't you think?
No, I don't. Is it narrow minded to say that I don't want a witch-doctor working at the local hospital? That I don't want a flat-earther working as a cartographer? That I don't want a geocentricist developing navigational programs for NASA?
Can't they just be wrong like countless scientists every day?
I have no problem with them being wrong; the problem is that they're not even wrong.
Because all creationists are churches with tax-exempt status, and research isn't specifically funded by the government with real money in labs and universities across the country.
If you were trying to make a point, I missed it.
Also, thats a fair assumption to make with the tone of his post and the usual Slashdot thinking.
Or you could just be overly defensive. Personally, I think thou dost protest too much.
The words "religious" and "creationist" don't mean the same thing. If you're a religious person who also happens to be curious, interested in science, and capable of using reason, logic, and the scientific method instead of accepting things on blind faith, then I don't have a problem with you. Let's go do some science! On the other hand, if you're a troglodyte who thinks magic-man miracled the world into existence 6,000 years ago, I don't want you anywhere near a lab.
Are you saying we must believe either evolution OR intelligent design with no other theory being possible? I personally believe it's neither so I'm ignorant? Here's a really ignorant belief... "We just don't know and that's OK with me". Just keep on searching and someday the proof will come out.
Yes. If I ask "do you believe that 2+2 equals 4?" and you say "We just don't know and that's OK with me", you are ignorant.
Now, ignorance in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Ignorance is curable, as long as you're willing to learn. However, when you start pulling the "we don't know" card for one of the best supported theories in science, it becomes obvious that you're not just ignorant, you're willfully ignorant. And that, my friend, is a bad thing.
Keep them out? So can the religious get a tax refund proportional to the amount of government money spent on science?
Given that churches aren't taxed, religion already receives more government funding than science. So, I guess the answer is "it will be proportional when they start paying some taxes".
P.S: I love the fact that he said "keep the nut jobs out", and you automatically read that as "keep the religious out".