Because you know who you threw out, tells you nothing about who you didn't know about. You can't know it all, and so pointing to knowing something is not evidence of knowing it all.
And in fact, the existence of people you're deporting proves that you don't have control over who is there; if such control existed, those people would not have been present in the first place in order to be deported.
You're now arguing about whether or not politicians or the government have complete, total control over the people present in a country. That's not what I said. That's not what you said. It is completely obvious that that isn't what I was talking about in my response. So you're arguing against a strawman.
Proving the control is not absolute does not actually prove that the control exists. Demonstrating that the control is less than 10% effective certainly doesn't prove the thesis that the Government is in control of that subject. Actually it refutes it.
I'm not gonna go out and murder Muslims, but I will ask them to leave. They don't have to live here, and are free to leave.
You reject freedom of religion, and engage in hate speech, I'm gonna ask you to please leave Western Civilization right now. You don't have to live here, you're free to leave. Bye. Thank you.
Because it is not an article of faith for people with hair to commit those acts.
Islamic Law states these acts are "Right and Just". Islam proclaims it is "Right and Just" to lie to non-believers. So nothing a Muslim says to non-Muslims can be trusted.
It is not an article of faith for people with hair to commit those acts?! What? Are you really claiming that all people with violent articles of faith have no hair?
Or are you claiming that nobody ever explained to you that most Muslims reject the idea that Islam allows murder in the name of God? Sharia isn't claimed to apply in France, BTW. It says right in the Koran where it applies; in the Muslim Nation.
Pretending you didn't know that most Muslims reject violence is just some sort of code-word style hate speech. You did actually know it, but you lied about their views anyways, to promote your hatred.
You are part and parcel of the cycle of irrational hate and murder.
by that logic, there are no christians, only other pagan sects, being that most the stories in the bible were rewrites of pagan stories right???
Nope. Logic fail there. Maybe if I abstract it you can see past the blinding context.
All Blargs are Blorgs. Therefore there are no Blorgs. T/F?
See how easy that one actually is?
Jews, Christians, Muslims all believe in the same God; the God of Abraham. And all three religions link themselves to Abraham by a different lineage. They are indisputably different branches of the same religion.
All three believe in (what the Christians call) the Old Testament, and the prophesy of the "Son of Man" who is implied to also be the Son of God, though never named as such, and who is the "Messiah" and brings about the forgiveness of Original Sin.
Jews believe that Jesus was a Prophet but not the Son of Man and not the Messiah. They're still waiting for the Prophesy to be fulfilled.
Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of Man, the Messiah, and that his death fulfilled the Prophesy. They also believe there have been no new Prophets since before Jesus.
Muslims agree with Christians entirely about Jesus being the Son of Man, the Messiah, and his fulfillment of said Prophesy. They also believe that there had been one additional Prophet since then, Mohamed, the Seal of the Prophets, who was not divine at all but merely a human man who was chosen by God for the job of Prophet, and who was given a large set of rules to complete the teachings. The idea is that humans weren't ready for many teachings yet at the time of the Prophet Moses, who is also highly revered by Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike. Jesus fulfilled the Prophesy, but left precious few new rules for how to live and how to structure a society based on the principles of Scripture. So there was a rules gap, an information dearth. The Seal of the Prophets brought a final teaching, to tie all the disparate teachings from the past into a single, comprehensive, and final set of rules. So to Muslims there can be no new Prophets.
An interesting example of this is the Muslim image of the "end times," which in many ways is similar to mainstream Christians. In it, Jesus goes out in the world to raise the dead and fly through the air blasting demons with lighting bolts. Mohamed can't do that; he's a human man, given the most important job in history, he has no physical capability to commit Miracles or fire lighting bolts, raise the dead, or battle demons. The see Jesus on the Right Hand of God, his True Son, and the one fighting the devil in the flesh; and Mohamed they see on the Left Hand of God, his esteemed General, giving orders to the field solders from Heaven. He can't leave Heaven to fight in the flesh, because he's Human, and dead. He has no Earthly body to inhabit, only his Spirit body in the land of God.
I'm secular and not part of any of these sects, indeed my meta-physics are more logical positivist, but it is worth knowing the major beliefs that people hold in the world around you.
It is really worth understanding also that the Muslim prohibition on images of Mohamed is not based on perceived insults to him; it is actually based on what Jesus said; "do not call me good; only God is good." Images lead to veneration, and Prophets are not to be venerated; that is the path of idol worship. Not even God's own Son may be praised! All praise must go to God, all veneration must go to God. So the people getting upset a niche group not well supported by the theology whose name they adopt. Also, the strict parts of Sharia explicitly only apply in the perceived Muslim Nation; they do not have their root in commandments for all humans to follow, they are things that community was commanded to follow and implement in their own areas. So it is theologically reasonable for Muslims in Saudi Arabia to impose strict Sharia. But it is theologically not supportable to engage in violence in non-Muslim lands to enforce a prohibition on veneration of Prophets; and indeed, sarcastic and insulting cartoons are poor examples of veneration.
Racists and similar haters always resort to that, "it isn't bigoted because its true, hurrdurr."
The entire content of your statement was anti-Muslim hate speech, and every "common truth" you claim is an easy refuted "common lie by people who hate muslims."
And it is about the intelligence level of blaming "Christians" for the Crusades. I can go to the local Christian churches and ask them about it, they'll all say the same thing; the crusades were about powerful people taking land and money from other people and blaming it on religion, it had nothing to do with Jesus or actual Christianity.
I can go to the local Synagogue and find out that have a lot of respect for Jesus, and don't accept any collective guilt for his execution, and they'll all agree he was a man of God.
And I can go to the local Mosque and ask and find out that
1) Islam, is not a peaceful religion. There is no major Muslim outcry over any of the acts committed by Muslims.
is incorrect, and is hate speech. Indeed, those of us who aren't bigoted hear those outcries all the time. And
2) Islam, does take offense at things that Western Culture deems acceptable for the purposes of liberty, even tasteless crude humor. Muslims in general haven not expressed any desire to curb their rhetoric.
I can find out that this too is ignorant hate speech; both sides of that cultural divide have things that one side is offended the other does. Indeed, Western Culture has invaded many Muslim nations for offending them in various ways. It is not an automatic law of nature that humor is worth offending people over; it is not a Natural Law like prohibitions against murder and theft. Only a minority of cultures have special legal protections for humor. If you actually go and meet some Muslims, you'll find out that the standard teaching is that violence over being offended is an insult to God; God will judge people for their sinful humor on his own. There is no need for them to speak out in support of your own opinion, they already speak out in support of laws against murder.
3) Islam doesn't teach co-existence, it teaches domination.
And while you're at the Mosque, ask them if this is true. They will inform you that it is not. To anybody that knows that, or has listened to a mainstream Muslim for even a couple minutes, it is obvious Hate Speech.
Political choices aren't implicated. It is a false idea that politics could decide who is in a country. That was never the case, not even in the Good Ole Days. Politics can determine who people admit are there, but not who is actually there. It was always thus, back to prehistory.
The ~400,000 people deported from the U.S. for the last several years prove you wrong. The increase in immigration, legal and illegal, in response to incentives placed their by politicians prove you wrong. Obviously politics can have an impact on the people that are present in a country. Claiming otherwise is nonsensical.
False. And, honestly, that is fall-on-your-face-stupid.
Because you know who you threw out, tells you nothing about who you didn't know about. You can't know it all, and so pointing to knowing something is not evidence of knowing it all.
And in fact, the existence of people you're deporting proves that you don't have control over who is there; if such control existed, those people would not have been present in the first place in order to be deported. And surely you know that the class of people who could be deported is many times larger than the number actually deported. You probably even know that the government doesn't have a list of who all those people are. Here in the US about half of them are unknown to the government except as population estimates.
The key thing to understand is that not everybody informs the entire world of their travel plans. That alone precludes knowing who is in a country, and any claim that it is was under control of the Gubermint in some fantasy Golden Age. You seem aware of deportations, so you already actually knew that such attempts at control has always failed to achieve it in actual fact. There is often a push to keep trying, but it has never been achieved.
I was almost 4 years old before the Gubermint knew about me, and I was born here. And guess what, the Gubermint had no control over my arrival.
Mohammed was a murderer, a pedophile, a liar and a rapist. All of these straight from the Koran.
Read the Bible, friend, where you will find similar niceties about prominent fellows in the Jewish/Christian tradition. Genocide on Jahve's orders: look for 'shibbolet'; incest: Lot and his daughters, etc etc. Whether the Prophet was one or the other, who knows? it isn't really relevant. What IS relevant is - do we want to solve the problems, or do we want to see who can produce most insults in the shortest time?
Don't get me wrong - it is right that Charlie Hebdo have the freedom to produce their satire, even if it seems immature and crass. It can never be right to murder defenceless people whatever your excuse. Islamic terrorists are not Muslems, whatever they declare; they bring shame on Islam and on their parents. If there is a God worth a prayer, then he will surely be filled with loathing at what terrorists do in his name.
But, when all that is said, is it in any way sensible that you go out of your way to stir up the shit? If you go and kick a hornet's nest, is it a surprise that you get stung? It may sound like blaming the victim, but I don't think it is - are you a victim, if you go and look for trouble and find more than you had bargained for? And if you provoke a terrorist attack that gets a lot of innocents killed - are you not partially to blame, for all your freedom of speech?
It is the exact same religion. Every single one of those Prophets are in the Koran, too. A lot of people don't realize this, or won't admit it, but Islam is a Christian sect. A lot of Christians try to deny them because they come down on the "wrong" side (the bible doesn't actually say either) of if the Virgin Mary was pregnant from actual physical God-sperm delivered to her by an angel, or if she became pregnant from a pure Miracle, an act of Divine Creation. The funny part is that if you ask a random Christian on the street, they're most likely to tell you it was a Divine Miracle. Which is the same answer the Muslims give. But the fancy Muslim-hating wanna-be Christians insist that to be a Christian you not only have to believe in the Son of Man as foretold in Scipture, and that he is the Messiah whose sacrifice forgave "original sin," no that is not enough; you have to believe in the (entirely fabricated, non-biblical) claim that Mary was made pregnant by actual physical God-sperm.
Christians on the street will tell total whoppers about Muslims; that they think Jesus was "only a Prophet," which is a blatant lie and would actually be death-sentence level heresy in Sharia countries. They'll also claim that Mohamed is more important to Muslim's than Jesus; absolute heresy. Mohamed, of course, is seen as "the Seal of the Prophets," the last prophet. He isn't of divine body like Jesus, he's just a human who had a human body. Like all prophets, he wasn't divine, he was chosen by God for a task, and all the credit for his work goes to God.
The reason Muslims are forbidden to make pictures of Mohamed is because only God is supposed to be venerated, and making pictures of Mohamed, or other Prophets, is akin to treating them as idols. Like Jesus said, "do not call me good; only God is good." Based on that, it is clearly in error for these extremists to get offended at non-Muslims making images of Mohamed; they're not worshiping him or venerating him, so there is no insult to God's authority as the only one who is Good. These terrorists are just as awful at being Muslims as the Crusaders were awful at being Christians.
Anybody can be a censor, but only governing authorities can violate "freedom of speech." That is true everywhere, though the types of organizations that govern are not always part of the State.
No, really [...] the SJWs are really coming in on the side of the terrorists
As they've always done forever. Excusing and rationalizing terror, usually by attempting to argue equivalence, is standard SJW behavior. Not many people will be as surprised by this as you appear to be...
Yes, insulting your neckbeard has always been terrorism. And some sort of "equivalence," if argued for, becomes... equivalent... to mass murder driven by hate.
Where I am from (the USA) people would say all that, and then if it happens, they'll just run offensive cartoons of their political opponents. You wouldn't see right wing media defending Freedom, that is for sure. When there was a terrorist threat in San Francisco, popular "mainstream" "conservative" media were running the theory that they deserved it.
Rather, if you can't publish a political cartoon without fear of retaliation, then that's not a country any civilized person should desire to live in.
So which country would you like to live in, that has 0% chance of anyone doing anything for a crazy reason? Presumably one which enforces weekly mind-probes, and anyone found to not be thinking civilized enough gets deported...
Are you saying the journalist are cowards? If so I disagree. They are instead considering the fact that their staff (with no decision on content) may not want to risk their lives over this.
Not cowards. Rather, if you can't publish a political cartoon without fear of retaliation, then that's not a country any civilized person should desire to live in.
By that logic, there is no country any civilized person should desire to live in....
True, although the newspapers don't have control over the political choices that have led to a situation where we don't have any idea which people are actually in the nation.
Political choices aren't implicated. It is a false idea that politics could decide who is in a country. That was never the case, not even in the Good Ole Days. Politics can determine who people admit are there, but not who is actually there. It was always thus, back to prehistory.
What, are you gonna claim that calling a telephone number during the holiday season to ask stupid questions, and instead sitting on hold for an hour... isn't part of using a website?!
The most informative part of the strange person blog post is, "it took me about an hour to figure out that $10 savings and to print labels that I could take to the post office and skip the line -- which, it turned out, looked only about 3 minutes long -- in order to experience what one redditor..."
Short version: Shipping labels are hard for this guy, the USPS still had short lines during the holiday season, printing your own labels using label software is easier than using a website (duh), and this moron mostly reads reddit, not slashdot.
Kindof funny, the man's book is too "dry" for you (it is non-fiction, dry isn't even bad, it means "informative" in that context) yet you imply deep knowledge of his biography, which isn't obviously more interesting or important than his works.
As to "who was paying Adam Smith's bills while he wrote the book," he spent the 10 years prior to publication primarily in the act of writing the book; prior to that, he was a famous tutor. He was mostly living off his wealth from past work while writing the book, but he was also paid to tutor Henry Moyes, a blind Natural Philosopher as well as Smith's friend. There is no scandalous or incriminating accusations of any sort of career of ill repute.
Having only skimmed his works, you have no claim to knowing what they say. So my encouragement stands: I recommend actually reading Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, to find out what it is all about.
Mars had conditions suitable for known life in an earlier period than Earth, that is why. The probabilities just add up better for Mars->Earth seeding, with smaller amounts then going back the other direction.
Slashdot Mirror
The average Christian on the street in many places is not going to be at all impressed by blaming Christians generally for bad Popes, past or present.
Some Blargs are murderers. Therefore, all Blargs are murderers. T/F?
It is a simple IQ test. You come out on the side of hate. It is not only immoral, it is stupid.
It's odd how they spend billions to send probes (Viking wasn't cheap), but then skimp on follow-up Earth-lab science.
It isn't odd at all, building probes advances multi-use engineering, and lab science doesn't. Not in a comparable way, anyhow.
Like in the book Interface by Neal Stephenson and George Jewsbury
Because you know who you threw out, tells you nothing about who you didn't know about. You can't know it all, and so pointing to knowing something is not evidence of knowing it all.
And in fact, the existence of people you're deporting proves that you don't have control over who is there; if such control existed, those people would not have been present in the first place in order to be deported.
You're now arguing about whether or not politicians or the government have complete, total control over the people present in a country. That's not what I said. That's not what you said. It is completely obvious that that isn't what I was talking about in my response. So you're arguing against a strawman.
Proving the control is not absolute does not actually prove that the control exists. Demonstrating that the control is less than 10% effective certainly doesn't prove the thesis that the Government is in control of that subject. Actually it refutes it.
I'm not gonna go out and murder Muslims, but I will ask them to leave. They don't have to live here, and are free to leave.
You reject freedom of religion, and engage in hate speech, I'm gonna ask you to please leave Western Civilization right now. You don't have to live here, you're free to leave. Bye. Thank you.
Because it is not an article of faith for people with hair to commit those acts.
Islamic Law states these acts are "Right and Just". Islam proclaims it is "Right and Just" to lie to non-believers. So nothing a Muslim says to non-Muslims can be trusted.
It is not an article of faith for people with hair to commit those acts?! What? Are you really claiming that all people with violent articles of faith have no hair?
Or are you claiming that nobody ever explained to you that most Muslims reject the idea that Islam allows murder in the name of God? Sharia isn't claimed to apply in France, BTW. It says right in the Koran where it applies; in the Muslim Nation.
Pretending you didn't know that most Muslims reject violence is just some sort of code-word style hate speech. You did actually know it, but you lied about their views anyways, to promote your hatred.
You are part and parcel of the cycle of irrational hate and murder.
by that logic, there are no christians, only other pagan sects, being that most the stories in the bible were rewrites of pagan stories right???
Nope. Logic fail there. Maybe if I abstract it you can see past the blinding context.
All Blargs are Blorgs. Therefore there are no Blorgs. T/F?
See how easy that one actually is?
Jews, Christians, Muslims all believe in the same God; the God of Abraham. And all three religions link themselves to Abraham by a different lineage. They are indisputably different branches of the same religion.
All three believe in (what the Christians call) the Old Testament, and the prophesy of the "Son of Man" who is implied to also be the Son of God, though never named as such, and who is the "Messiah" and brings about the forgiveness of Original Sin.
Jews believe that Jesus was a Prophet but not the Son of Man and not the Messiah. They're still waiting for the Prophesy to be fulfilled.
Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of Man, the Messiah, and that his death fulfilled the Prophesy. They also believe there have been no new Prophets since before Jesus.
Muslims agree with Christians entirely about Jesus being the Son of Man, the Messiah, and his fulfillment of said Prophesy. They also believe that there had been one additional Prophet since then, Mohamed, the Seal of the Prophets, who was not divine at all but merely a human man who was chosen by God for the job of Prophet, and who was given a large set of rules to complete the teachings. The idea is that humans weren't ready for many teachings yet at the time of the Prophet Moses, who is also highly revered by Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike. Jesus fulfilled the Prophesy, but left precious few new rules for how to live and how to structure a society based on the principles of Scripture. So there was a rules gap, an information dearth. The Seal of the Prophets brought a final teaching, to tie all the disparate teachings from the past into a single, comprehensive, and final set of rules. So to Muslims there can be no new Prophets.
An interesting example of this is the Muslim image of the "end times," which in many ways is similar to mainstream Christians. In it, Jesus goes out in the world to raise the dead and fly through the air blasting demons with lighting bolts. Mohamed can't do that; he's a human man, given the most important job in history, he has no physical capability to commit Miracles or fire lighting bolts, raise the dead, or battle demons. The see Jesus on the Right Hand of God, his True Son, and the one fighting the devil in the flesh; and Mohamed they see on the Left Hand of God, his esteemed General, giving orders to the field solders from Heaven. He can't leave Heaven to fight in the flesh, because he's Human, and dead. He has no Earthly body to inhabit, only his Spirit body in the land of God.
I'm secular and not part of any of these sects, indeed my meta-physics are more logical positivist, but it is worth knowing the major beliefs that people hold in the world around you.
It is really worth understanding also that the Muslim prohibition on images of Mohamed is not based on perceived insults to him; it is actually based on what Jesus said; "do not call me good; only God is good." Images lead to veneration, and Prophets are not to be venerated; that is the path of idol worship. Not even God's own Son may be praised! All praise must go to God, all veneration must go to God. So the people getting upset a niche group not well supported by the theology whose name they adopt. Also, the strict parts of Sharia explicitly only apply in the perceived Muslim Nation; they do not have their root in commandments for all humans to follow, they are things that community was commanded to follow and implement in their own areas. So it is theologically reasonable for Muslims in Saudi Arabia to impose strict Sharia. But it is theologically not supportable to engage in violence in non-Muslim lands to enforce a prohibition on veneration of Prophets; and indeed, sarcastic and insulting cartoons are poor examples of veneration.
Racists and similar haters always resort to that, "it isn't bigoted because its true, hurrdurr."
The entire content of your statement was anti-Muslim hate speech, and every "common truth" you claim is an easy refuted "common lie by people who hate muslims."
And it is about the intelligence level of blaming "Christians" for the Crusades. I can go to the local Christian churches and ask them about it, they'll all say the same thing; the crusades were about powerful people taking land and money from other people and blaming it on religion, it had nothing to do with Jesus or actual Christianity.
I can go to the local Synagogue and find out that have a lot of respect for Jesus, and don't accept any collective guilt for his execution, and they'll all agree he was a man of God.
And I can go to the local Mosque and ask and find out that
1) Islam, is not a peaceful religion. There is no major Muslim outcry over any of the acts committed by Muslims.
is incorrect, and is hate speech. Indeed, those of us who aren't bigoted hear those outcries all the time.
And
2) Islam, does take offense at things that Western Culture deems acceptable for the purposes of liberty, even tasteless crude humor. Muslims in general haven not expressed any desire to curb their rhetoric.
I can find out that this too is ignorant hate speech; both sides of that cultural divide have things that one side is offended the other does. Indeed, Western Culture has invaded many Muslim nations for offending them in various ways. It is not an automatic law of nature that humor is worth offending people over; it is not a Natural Law like prohibitions against murder and theft. Only a minority of cultures have special legal protections for humor. If you actually go and meet some Muslims, you'll find out that the standard teaching is that violence over being offended is an insult to God; God will judge people for their sinful humor on his own. There is no need for them to speak out in support of your own opinion, they already speak out in support of laws against murder.
3) Islam doesn't teach co-existence, it teaches domination.
And while you're at the Mosque, ask them if this is true. They will inform you that it is not. To anybody that knows that, or has listened to a mainstream Muslim for even a couple minutes, it is obvious Hate Speech.
Political choices aren't implicated. It is a false idea that politics could decide who is in a country. That was never the case, not even in the Good Ole Days. Politics can determine who people admit are there, but not who is actually there. It was always thus, back to prehistory.
The ~400,000 people deported from the U.S. for the last several years prove you wrong. The increase in immigration, legal and illegal, in response to incentives placed their by politicians prove you wrong. Obviously politics can have an impact on the people that are present in a country. Claiming otherwise is nonsensical.
False. And, honestly, that is fall-on-your-face-stupid.
Because you know who you threw out, tells you nothing about who you didn't know about. You can't know it all, and so pointing to knowing something is not evidence of knowing it all.
And in fact, the existence of people you're deporting proves that you don't have control over who is there; if such control existed, those people would not have been present in the first place in order to be deported. And surely you know that the class of people who could be deported is many times larger than the number actually deported. You probably even know that the government doesn't have a list of who all those people are. Here in the US about half of them are unknown to the government except as population estimates.
The key thing to understand is that not everybody informs the entire world of their travel plans. That alone precludes knowing who is in a country, and any claim that it is was under control of the Gubermint in some fantasy Golden Age. You seem aware of deportations, so you already actually knew that such attempts at control has always failed to achieve it in actual fact. There is often a push to keep trying, but it has never been achieved.
I was almost 4 years old before the Gubermint knew about me, and I was born here. And guess what, the Gubermint had no control over my arrival.
We should not attack them in retaliation
Huh? Self-defense is not 'retaliation'; neither is bringing those responsible for the commission of heinous crimes to justice.
Self defense is not an attack; neither is an arrest.
All of those same crimes have been committed by people with hair. Why are you only singling out Muslims, and not other people with hair?
Not saying it was a good move or a bad one, and I can't say for certain how effective it was, but you can't argue with the results.
If you can't say how effective it was, you can't really argue for any results.
Mohammed was a murderer, a pedophile, a liar and a rapist. All of these straight from the Koran.
Read the Bible, friend, where you will find similar niceties about prominent fellows in the Jewish/Christian tradition. Genocide on Jahve's orders: look for 'shibbolet'; incest: Lot and his daughters, etc etc. Whether the Prophet was one or the other, who knows? it isn't really relevant. What IS relevant is - do we want to solve the problems, or do we want to see who can produce most insults in the shortest time?
Don't get me wrong - it is right that Charlie Hebdo have the freedom to produce their satire, even if it seems immature and crass. It can never be right to murder defenceless people whatever your excuse. Islamic terrorists are not Muslems, whatever they declare; they bring shame on Islam and on their parents. If there is a God worth a prayer, then he will surely be filled with loathing at what terrorists do in his name.
But, when all that is said, is it in any way sensible that you go out of your way to stir up the shit? If you go and kick a hornet's nest, is it a surprise that you get stung? It may sound like blaming the victim, but I don't think it is - are you a victim, if you go and look for trouble and find more than you had bargained for? And if you provoke a terrorist attack that gets a lot of innocents killed - are you not partially to blame, for all your freedom of speech?
It is the exact same religion. Every single one of those Prophets are in the Koran, too. A lot of people don't realize this, or won't admit it, but Islam is a Christian sect. A lot of Christians try to deny them because they come down on the "wrong" side (the bible doesn't actually say either) of if the Virgin Mary was pregnant from actual physical God-sperm delivered to her by an angel, or if she became pregnant from a pure Miracle, an act of Divine Creation. The funny part is that if you ask a random Christian on the street, they're most likely to tell you it was a Divine Miracle. Which is the same answer the Muslims give. But the fancy Muslim-hating wanna-be Christians insist that to be a Christian you not only have to believe in the Son of Man as foretold in Scipture, and that he is the Messiah whose sacrifice forgave "original sin," no that is not enough; you have to believe in the (entirely fabricated, non-biblical) claim that Mary was made pregnant by actual physical God-sperm.
Christians on the street will tell total whoppers about Muslims; that they think Jesus was "only a Prophet," which is a blatant lie and would actually be death-sentence level heresy in Sharia countries. They'll also claim that Mohamed is more important to Muslim's than Jesus; absolute heresy. Mohamed, of course, is seen as "the Seal of the Prophets," the last prophet. He isn't of divine body like Jesus, he's just a human who had a human body. Like all prophets, he wasn't divine, he was chosen by God for a task, and all the credit for his work goes to God.
The reason Muslims are forbidden to make pictures of Mohamed is because only God is supposed to be venerated, and making pictures of Mohamed, or other Prophets, is akin to treating them as idols. Like Jesus said, "do not call me good; only God is good." Based on that, it is clearly in error for these extremists to get offended at non-Muslims making images of Mohamed; they're not worshiping him or venerating him, so there is no insult to God's authority as the only one who is Good. These terrorists are just as awful at being Muslims as the Crusaders were awful at being Christians.
Anybody can be a censor, but only governing authorities can violate "freedom of speech." That is true everywhere, though the types of organizations that govern are not always part of the State.
No, really [...] the SJWs are really coming in on the side of the terrorists
As they've always done forever. Excusing and rationalizing terror, usually by attempting to argue equivalence, is standard SJW behavior. Not many people will be as surprised by this as you appear to be...
Yes, insulting your neckbeard has always been terrorism. And some sort of "equivalence," if argued for, becomes... equivalent... to mass murder driven by hate.
You can't make up this kind of stupid.
You and your hate speech do not speak for "Western cultures." Don't tell us what we want or need, you aren't us and you don't know.
There is, however, a popular consensus in Western culture that we have, had, will have, and value religious freedom.
Where I am from (the USA) people would say all that, and then if it happens, they'll just run offensive cartoons of their political opponents. You wouldn't see right wing media defending Freedom, that is for sure. When there was a terrorist threat in San Francisco, popular "mainstream" "conservative" media were running the theory that they deserved it.
Rather, if you can't publish a political cartoon without fear of retaliation, then that's not a country any civilized person should desire to live in.
So which country would you like to live in, that has 0% chance of anyone doing anything for a crazy reason? Presumably one which enforces weekly mind-probes, and anyone found to not be thinking civilized enough gets deported...
*** BEEP BEEP BEEP danger detected! harmful thoughts! excessive negative thoughts towards terrorists, potential vigilante, DEPORT DEPORT DEPORT ***
Not cowards. Rather, if you can't publish a political cartoon without fear of retaliation, then that's not a country any civilized person should desire to live in.
By that logic, there is no country any civilized person should desire to live in. ...
And there never was!
True, although the newspapers don't have control over the political choices that have led to a situation where we don't have any idea which people are actually in the nation.
Political choices aren't implicated. It is a false idea that politics could decide who is in a country. That was never the case, not even in the Good Ole Days. Politics can determine who people admit are there, but not who is actually there. It was always thus, back to prehistory.
What, are you gonna claim that calling a telephone number during the holiday season to ask stupid questions, and instead sitting on hold for an hour... isn't part of using a website?!
The most informative part of the strange person blog post is, "it took me about an hour to figure out that $10 savings and to print labels that I could take to the post office and skip the line -- which, it turned out, looked only about 3 minutes long -- in order to experience what one redditor..."
Short version: Shipping labels are hard for this guy, the USPS still had short lines during the holiday season, printing your own labels using label software is easier than using a website (duh), and this moron mostly reads reddit, not slashdot.
Kindof funny, the man's book is too "dry" for you (it is non-fiction, dry isn't even bad, it means "informative" in that context) yet you imply deep knowledge of his biography, which isn't obviously more interesting or important than his works.
As to "who was paying Adam Smith's bills while he wrote the book," he spent the 10 years prior to publication primarily in the act of writing the book; prior to that, he was a famous tutor. He was mostly living off his wealth from past work while writing the book, but he was also paid to tutor Henry Moyes, a blind Natural Philosopher as well as Smith's friend. There is no scandalous or incriminating accusations of any sort of career of ill repute.
Having only skimmed his works, you have no claim to knowing what they say. So my encouragement stands: I recommend actually reading Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, to find out what it is all about.
I recommend actually reading Adam Smith.
Mars had conditions suitable for known life in an earlier period than Earth, that is why. The probabilities just add up better for Mars->Earth seeding, with smaller amounts then going back the other direction.