Pakistan Lifts YouTube Ban For 3 Minutes, Finds More Blasphemy 275
On Saturday, Pakistan briefly lifted the months-old ban on YouTube, spurred by the widely distributed U.S.-made video presented as a trailer for a film titled "Innocence of Muslims" and decried in many places around the world as blasphemous toward Islam. "After months of criticism of the ban, the government decided to allow Pakistanis to have access to YouTube again, saying steps had been taken to ensure that offensive content would not be visible. But those efforts apparently failed, and the authorities quickly backtracked," writes the New York Times. "Quickly" is right: access to YouTube was apparently open for just three minutes, which seems about right; it shouldn't take longer than that to discover things on the site to which adherents of any particular religion might take umbrage. What's surprising is that this took lifting the censorship on a wide scale, rather than just taking a smaller peek through tunneling software.
Only 3 minutes!? (Score:5, Funny)
Even Pakistan has better broadband than we do.
[Sigh]
Re:Only 3 minutes!? (Score:4, Funny)
That's because they don't have to deal with the bandwidth of people downloading youtube videos.
Ban the Transistor! (Score:5, Funny)
The darn transistor is the root of all blasphemy. It should be banned from the nation-states of the faithful!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I say the transistor is the will of God. We are now enemies.
Re:Ban the Transistor! (Score:5, Funny)
My (likely--hopefully--erroneous) understanding of Islam is that everything is the will of Allah. If that's the case, then Allah wills blasphemy. Thus, it stands to reason that blasphemy doesn't exist, because (presumably) anything Allah does is holy.
I hope my understanding is wrong, because that's more insanity than I'm comfortable with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My (likely--hopefully--erroneous) understanding of Islam is that everything is the will of Allah. If that's the case, then Allah wills blasphemy. Thus, it stands to reason that blasphemy doesn't exist, because (presumably) anything Allah does is holy.
I hope my understanding is wrong, because that's more insanity than I'm comfortable with.
Nope, you're obviously working from a very unsophisticated theology. The joy of sophisticated theology is that it can take the sentence "I love you and I hate you" and turn it in to something coherent. Anyone thinking that sentence negative is clearly taking it out of context. Anyone thinking the sentence is about love is clearly taking it out of context.
The problem is in men confabulating impossible ideas, and not having the slightest clue as to how they would make the shit work. Imagine a 2nd century ston
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you want to learn anything definite about god/providence/spirit you have to fixate less on the fact that all religions and all 'alternative' religious teachings are mostly nonsense. Yeah I know it's maddening that people would just make all that shit up and call it 'truth', but we can't fix them. In my experience you can find out something for yourself though, if you are patient and work at it.
Re:Ban the Transistor! (Score:5, Insightful)
MOST religions had that as a pillar at some point in the past. Christians are a great example.
The difference isn't so much how the religion started, or what's written, but what really matters is how the followers behave. More specifically, how the "religious authority" handle and guide their flock. Compare a catholic bishop to a muslim (jihadish) cleric and that's your difference. The people are easy to control, it's how the authority figures wield their power and control their faithful. You can't really blame the people, it's human nature. The problem is there are too many power-hungry / nutjob clerics warmongering the members of their religion. Look at what catholic popes did in the past, think Crusades. Catholics, and most other major religions, have outgrown that and are actually more interested in the well-being of their followers than using them as a tool to an agenda now.
It's just islam's turn to grow up and evolve. The problem I think is the basic conditions of the people. Uncivilized control can't easily exist inside a civilized and modern society. The easiest way to "fix" them is to bring them into the 19th if not the 20th century. Then the problem of the nutjob clerics will go away on its own and islam will become a much more positive religion, on the average. Sanctions and isolation are not the solution, instead they prolong the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
He was from East Bumfuck, Arabia, actually--otherwise you're pretty much on the mark.
Re: (Score:2)
I declare jihad! on all lovers of integrated circuitry!
Re: (Score:2)
You dope.
Re: (Score:2)
this resistance *can* be rectified. ...unless you lack the capacity to reach your potential.
Re:Ban the Transistor! (Score:5, Funny)
Taking a Peek (Score:2)
I am sure officials took many a peek, I am sure they had some idea what they were unbanning. But 5 million people browsing for 3 minutes can uncover a lot more than 1 guy browsing for days.
Censorship backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Censorship backfire (Score:5, Funny)
Pakistan: "This content not available in your religion."
Go, blasphemy, go (Score:3)
Keep that blasphemy going out. The nuttier religions need criticism, ridicule, and opposition. As soon as a religion gets temporal power, like the power to put people in jail, it's in the politics business. Leaders of such religions have to take all the heat politicians do.
If the only way to tame out of control religions is war, that's worse for everybody, including the leaders of the religions. Historically, leaders of militant religions don't do well when they lose a war. See most of European history prior to 1800 or so.
Re:Go, blasphemy, go (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The average Pakistani (Score:2)
The average Pakistani probably has no idea about any blasphemy on youtube, the people who are viewing the most blasphemy on youtube in pakistan are the people looking for it within the government so that they can block it.
Re: (Score:2)
The average Pakistani probably has no idea about any blasphemy on youtube, the people who are viewing the most blasphemy on youtube in pakistan are the people looking for it within the government so that they can block it.
I think so. In America, the internet is for porn [youtube.com]. In Pakistan, it's for blasphemy.
There are bigger concerns than shitty troll videos (Score:3)
"Innocence of muslims" has to be one of the worst pieces of film I've ever watched. It was quite clearly created to insult and enrage muslims.
However I would suggest to the Pakistani authorities that if they REALLY want to stop their sensitive southerners from getting enraged at the west, perhaps they need to have a word to their american friends about those drone bombers. I figure if I was in a targetted village it would be the drones, not some silly infantile troll video, that would be my major beef.
cultural learnings for great justice (Score:2)
So, today we learned that it takes the Internet 3 minutes to offend.
My friends, I am ashamed. Three minutes? We must try harder!
No surprise there... (Score:2)
The lift of the ban for 3 minutes on a global scale followed by a new global ban rather than first peek through the software is no surprise. Of course they took a peek through the firewalls first!
This looks much more a well planed statement as a botched trial.
Re: (Score:2)
This looks much more a well planed statement as a botched trial.
So it's exceptionally flat?
Solution for them (Score:3)
Go live in a cave!
It came to me in a dream; God spoke to me, she said "those that are offended should go live in a cave, ascetic lifestyle, ftw"
"But lord, are you saying they're righteous?" I countered
"Not at all," she replied "this way those who won't do as I wish won't screw it up for the rest of you living in the 21st century."
I know you don't believe me, but may God smite the earth and destroy it, RIGHT NOW, if I am wrong!
See? Nothing happened, therefore I am God's messenger!
Shocked, Shocked I tell you ... (Score:2)
I'm shocked there is blasphemy on this Institution! (Where are my winnings?)
Here's a clever tip; (Score:4, Insightful)
You're welcome!
This proves Allah is real! (Score:2)
Perilous Blasphemy (Score:2)
We were in the nick of time. You were in great blasphemy.
... I Bet you're gay.
I don't think I was.
You were, Sir Galahad, You were in terrible blasphemy.
Look, let me go back in there and face the blasphemy.
It's too blasphemous.
Look, it's my duty as a knight to try and sample as much blasphemy as I can.
No, no, we must find the Grail.
Oh, let me go and have a bit of blasphemy?
No. It's unhealthy.
No, I'm not.
Timothy, Islamophobe, or American Exceptionalist? (Score:2)
Wow, yet another "crazy Mooslims" story. Meanwhile, the United States government has just re-upped warrantless wiretapping and indefinite military detention of Americans. And a recent document release shows the collusion between the banks and the highest levels of government in crushing [newser.com] the Occupy movement.
Meanwhile, both sides of the coin, I mean aisle, are thankful for the media/public fixation on the Sandy Hook shootings. Democrats, because focusing liberal rage on mass shootings distracts from FISA a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's saying we should not throw stones in fucking glass houses until we've taken steps to ensure our own shit does not stink. Stop the fucking shrieking about their molehills from on top your mountain.
I wasn't quite with you, but at least reading with an open mind until I hit this part. Now, for someone who's apparently knowledgeable about civil liberties I'd have assumed you better at common sense logic than this. We shouldn't cite the censorship or other civil rights violations of other countries until the US has become a paragon of justice? So, you're advocating we censor ourselves too, now? I'm sorry. Fuck you. I'll "throw stones" at everyone's glass houses, even if my own is made of sugar.
Striesand effect (I think?) (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Pakistani, I can only find this hilarious, albeit morbidly so.
You see, all they have succeeded in making sure that *every* one knows how to use proxies.
You see, as long as people got their damn facebook and youtube, no one gave a flying hoot about anything else. We (including I myself) didn't know there was even a way to access websites banned by the PTA, and since we were *good* boys and girls, we didn't care about *bad* websites being closed, so we didn't bother finding out how we could access them.
Now, they can't access youtube, well guess what, people started asking, how can we access restricted websites? Answer: Proxies etc.
We are not bad people, right? We just want to access youtube to watch University lectures (pakistan's virtual university has a youtube channel with all their lectures online), how to stitch clothes (my mom's favourite, she learnt many a good cloth making designs on youtube) etc...
And while we are doing this to only access youtube now, well, a proxy opens the way to *all* websites.
Now even the websites they would *genuinely* want people to stop visiting (porn etc) are open to all. Guess what, my dear local mullah, you have only succeeded in making sure people now have the tools to visit the same evil websites you wanted to stop.
Yeah, all that, um, *effort*, that 15 year old kid did to find and collate a list of 780,000 porn websites for the govt to ban [tribune.com.pk]? The internet routes around obstructions, b'ch!
Not that the govt cares either way, they are busy making sure the bhutto dynasty can continue on... these are all attention diversion tactics, to hide the fact that I can't find gas for a week (btw, Gas means CNG in local context, Petrol is hardly ever used, though even *that* has run out! yeah our govt is awesome)
And it's not like *anyone* is pretending they are *not* using youtube; for example, TV channels often put their programs on youtube for people to view, and obviously they must be using proxies, since they haven't switched to other websites. They bald-faced-ly give links to the youtube version on their facebook page, for example.
But no one can dare admit that the youtube ban is a farce, or they will be part of the *blasphemous* campaign. Also, apparently, by Pakistan banning youtube, we have brought down Google to it's knees (I have seen actual *statistics* to that effect, don't ask me where they got their figures from), we are winning! We can't give up a step away from victory!
Vive la révolution islamique!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WT?
Blasphemy in whose term ? (Score:5, Insightful)
While the majority of the Pakis are Muslims, the Pakistan population is *NOT* 100% Islamic.
There are Hindus and Christians living in Pakistan.
Just because something is viewed as "blaspheme" to _some_ of the Muslims that doesn't mean it is blasphemic to the Hindus or the Christians.
To ban Internet just because of the "Islamic blaspheme" is to exercise the "Tyranny of the Majority" rule.
Imagine if America set up a law banning open prayer due to "noise pollution" - that would certainly makes the lives of many Muslims that bit tougher, wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to be insulted, you will be, despite lacking any act of maliciousness or proof.
Re:Blasphemy in whose term ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if America set up a law banning open prayer due to "noise pollution" - that would certainly makes the lives of many Muslims that bit tougher, wouldn't it?
Umm, no. Loudspeakers and giant horns is the form of expression while prayer is what's expressed. In this case, the form of expression is banned, not prayer itself. The Pakistanis ban the expression (blasphemy), not the form (youtube). So it's not at all similar - it's in fact the exact opposite.
An expression we DO ban here in the U.S. is child pornography; the form doesn't matter. It can be on youtube, anime, photos, videotron, drawings, etc. This is a better analogy to Pakistan's ban on blasphemy.
Re:Blasphemy in whose term ? (Score:5, Informative)
An expression we DO ban here in the U.S. is child pornography; the form doesn't matter. It can be on youtube, anime, photos, videotron, drawings, etc. This is a better analogy to Pakistan's ban on blasphemy.
I'm tempted to mod you Troll, but then you might not figure out exactly where your logic is (horrifyingly) wrong, so I'll explain instead: Child pornography is banned because it causes harm. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DRAWINGS OR ANIME DEPICTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY in the U.S., because no one is harmed -- or potentially harmed -- in drawings or anime.
Sex with children is bad, mkay?
Re:Blasphemy in whose term ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where your logic is (horrifyingly) wrong, so I'll explain instead: Child pornography is banned because it causes harm. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DRAWINGS OR ANIME DEPICTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY in the U.S., because no one is harmed -- or potentially harmed -- in drawings or anime.
Incidentally, in Canada (for instance) such drawings or renderings are illegal.
More to-the-point, it is the view of religious exclusionist-extremists that blasphemy is harmful to the soul which is seen as a much more serious problem. Damage to the body can heal. Damage to the mind lasts a lifetime at worst. Damage to the soul is forever. The position of (extremist) religion is that one's relationship with God is more important than anything else. Which is to say... sensible regimes ban child pornography (which involves actual harm) while non-sensible regimes ban "blasphemy".
Re: (Score:3)
" The position of (extremist) religion is that one's relationship with God is more important than anything else."
You can say that all you like, and the religious nutjobs love to say it too, but it isn't true in an effective sense. If it were the most important to them, then they would back off and let individuals handle that relationship between two entities to the two entities. That's not what happens though. The religious nutjobs go stomping on anything they themselves do not like.
And as far as Muslim nut
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, I guess someone forgot to tell them that souls do not exist. Someone should get on that ASAP. That is, unless someone has actually discovered some sort of evidence for one (not redefined to be identical to the mind).
See, while I personally agree with your assertion, the disdain and intolerance you exhibit certainly won't help you communicate with religious extremists. Their world-view is very important to them and being so casually dismissive won't allow for mutual understanding. Basically, understanding someone's viewpoint and at least acting as if it were valid is the first step in dialogue... dialogue that might one day make the other person less extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
An expression we DO ban here in the U.S. is child pornography; the form doesn't matter. It can be on youtube, anime, photos, videotron, drawings, etc. This is a better analogy to Pakistan's ban on blasphemy.
I'm tempted to mod you Troll, but then you might not figure out exactly where your logic is (horrifyingly) wrong, so I'll explain instead: Child pornography is banned because it causes harm. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DRAWINGS OR ANIME DEPICTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY in the U.S., because no one is harmed -- or potentially harmed -- in drawings or anime. Sex with children is bad, mkay?
If you paste a guy getting a blowjob over a picture of a child, this is illegal, even in the United States.In fact, a lawyer recently did this to prove a point and was arrested and charged. Cartoons, however, are legal.
Re:Blasphemy in whose term ? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Cartoon child pornography *is* illegal in the US, but it is under a law passed with such routine that it didn't even get a catchy acronym for the media.
---
18 USC 1466A extract:
Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
(b) Additional Offenses.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.— It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
---
And yes, this is enforced at times: http://classic.tcj.com/tag/title-18-u-s-c-1466a/ [tcj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DRAWINGS OR ANIME DEPICTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY in the U.S., because no one is harmed -- or potentially harmed -- in drawings or anime.
There might not be a explicit law against it, but don't worry -- we'll bend one into shape.
... for possessing "drawings of children being sexually abused": Plea agreement draft [wired.com] and primary [bullpenbul...odcast.com], secondary [newsarama.com], and tertiary [io9.com] background.
... ordered a set of [7] manga volumes ... seized by Post Office workers in 2006. They were (see link.) Each of these volumes featured drawings ... that is not illegal in Japan. Following this, ... home was raided ... further volumes fitting the category of th
Guilty
Synopsis:
Re:Blasphemy in whose term ? (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I loathe our own brand of fundies, they are orders of magnintude better than their paki equivilants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are millions of people in these countries that support this. You will have to change their minds first.
Re: (Score:2)
So you want to what? Invade and install puppet governments? Yeah, that really embodies the ideals of freedom and self-determination, doesn't it?
The governments in these countries exist because they have popular support. Very few governments exist without popular support from their people; usually, the only ones that don't are ones which have military and/or financial support from outside powers. For those without outside nations propping them up (like the Shah in Iran), they usually don't last very long
Re: (Score:2)
The governments in these countries exist because they have popular support
Popular support is overrated. It does not make it ok for a government to deny citizens the rights that in my humble opinion and in the opinion of the signatories of the UN charter are universal. If 51% votes that the other 49% should be enslaved (as in the case of women in Islamic countries) or killed (as in the case of gays or Jews), that does not make it right or legal. Yes perhaps we (the civilized world) should in that ca
Re: (Score:2)
The "civilized world" has far fewer people than the rest of the world. Are you saying that your opinion on things is more valid than everyone else's? Who made you god? If the "civilized world" decided to invade every country where some minority was being oppressed (even if that means all females in that country), they'd end up having to kill most of humanity. How else are you going to enforce your new minority-protecting laws anyway? You'd have to have a policeman for every two people out there; that's
Re:Something needs to be done about these Governme (Score:5, Insightful)
Several things are wrong with your post but let me just point out three things:
1) you do not have to be perfect in order to pass judgment on evil (otherwise evil will always get a free pass)
2) we may not be perfect but we don't have laws requiring a raped woman to provide 4 male witnesses or else whip her for adultery and we do not hang gay people off cranes in public squares, so there are degrees of perfection you may wish to explore
3) Not being able to right every wrong does not mean you should not right at least some wrongs
Re: (Score:2)
You still haven't answered how you're going to enforce these laws. In a country where the laws require a raped woman to have 4 male witnesses, how do you think you're going to enforce your new Western laws? The locals will not stand for it, and will not help you. We have similar problems here in our inner cities where the minorities will never talk to the cops; it's basically anarchy in those places as a result. You can't have effective policing without help from the community unless you erect a totalit
Re:Something needs to be done about these Governme (Score:4, Insightful)
The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you don't seem to understand that things are like this in those countries because the people in those countries like it that way.
The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you don't seem to understand that not ALL the people in those countries like it that way. And no, I am not one of the morons who through Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators but I am one of the morons who thinks that Iraqis will be much better off in the long run as a result of the invasion and that other countries in the region will be better off as well as a knock off effects of the invasion, already visible in the "Arab spring" and protests in Iran. Yes "those people" are really just like us, they like freedom too. People act in accordance with cultural memes of the their time and place not by rational thinking. 500 years ego in Europe you would have probably said that people like the iron rule of the Church and burning of witches and if you had a poll they would have probably voted that way too, and yet that was changed. And no I do not support invading country after country, but I do support rejection of the prevailing chickenshit cultural relativism in the Western countries and for standing up for better and more human ways of organizing a society. Islamic countries are a black hole in the modern world when it comes to basic human rights and we are not doing them any favors by saying that that's ok.
Re: (Score:2)
The only part of your "they like freedom too" idea is that if you look, the governments these people have set up after Arab Spring are largely even more fundamentalist and anti-equal rights than the ones they replaced. So no, they don't like freedom, at least not for everyone. They simply set up governments which more accurately reflected the cultural mores of their people.
500 years ago in Europe, people did like the iron rule of the Church and the burning of witches. That was changed because the attitud
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're really naive if you believe that shit.
For one thing, many women do like it this way. They're taught this shit from the time they're born, so a lot of them believe it. It's sorta like Stockholm Syndrome, except worse when you're taught that you're good for nothing besides making babies from the time you're old enough to talk.
And of those who are smart enough to realize it's all bullshit, what are they going to do? Women are smaller and weaker than men. If they refuse to let their men have sex with
Re: (Score:2)
Iran during the Shah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfOY-gSMnm8 [youtube.com]
I think you might be confused, during the Shah the Iranian people and woman more importantly had many more rights than they do these days. Albeit the secret tortures going on in the background were not good. But you are wearing fucking blinders if you think the woman are more happy in that society today, if they could tear off those headscarves and wear short dresses they would rip the burka right off.
Once again go ahead and watch some Youtube vi
Re: (Score:3)
That wasn't a case of
Re: (Score:2)
Saying something like that would likely get her beaten and maybe even maimed/killed. It's hard for a woman to assert power in a culture where she is little more then property of her husband. I guess she could kill him while he slept, but unless she managed to coordinate her actions with all the other women in the village/city, that would still get her killed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that all those other people believe the exact same thing about their own opinions. Nearly everyone thinks their opinions are more valid than everyone else's.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, it was the USA that came up with something as profound as "the right to
Re: (Score:3)
As a free man, I derive enormous satisfaction from living with a free woman who stays with me because she chooses to do so.
By labelling a woman as "property" rather than "partner", you condemn yourself to never knowing such satisfaction. I wish I could say, "Your loss, asshole"--except it's your women who do the suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Something needs to be done about these Governments. It seems that these religiously motivated governments are rampaging badly out of control. There needs to be a way to prevent this, and undermine the legitimacy of these governments. I don't know what to do, but this can't go on. The Internet is about the free exchange of ideas. Islamic governments around the world are like this.
Surely you aren't suggesting that Islam is the only religion that exerts an undesirable influence on government? Surely you grasp the fact that invoking any religion as the authority in law and government is, well..., stupid. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm surprised it was up for a full 3 minutes."
Don't mention the war.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm surprised it was up for a full 3 minutes.
Must... resist...
That's what SHE said!
Sorry, had to.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
But if we did that it would cut off the world largest market for goat sex pornography: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=goat%20sex&cmpt=geo [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
What an insane idea. The greatest benefits of the internet are bringing people together, undermining the control information, uncovering the lies and releasing the truth. Want to free people from the religious dark ages, you do not cut them off from information you flood them with it. Not only are the religious dark ages being tackled but also the capitalist dark ages of the last thirty years.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
If you're a US Citizen, "we" is the correct term, like it or not. The US Citizens elect the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, if everyone who felt the way you did actually voted out these corrupt Republicrats, maybe something would change?
Nah, much easier to be a lazy ass and let others determine the future of the nation. Then you can smugly point a finger at everyone else while being ignorant that [b]you[/b] are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So how would you tax corporations giving loans to their owners, then 'forgetting' to demand repayment? Or just charging 0.1% interest for 100 years.
There are plenty of ways to move money from a corporation into private hands, and most of them are not easily taxable. There is also the problem of the location of owners. Suddenly every major stockholder will be a citizen of the cayman islands, paying no taxes (aside from a small bribe to the local government). So corporations will be free to exploit US infrast
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey! I voted for Ron Paul!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not really. It depends on which state he was in. If he was in a Red state, he effectively voted for Obama; in a Blue state, he effectively voted for Romney. In either state, if it wasn't close to being a swing state, it really didn't matter, his vote wouldn't have affected the results anyway.
Regardless, it's the fault of US Citizens that this ridiculous election scheme persists.
Re: (Score:2)
> Regardless, it's the fault of US Citizens that this ridiculous election scheme persists.
Democracy?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In case you weren't paying attention, no, I'm referring to the election scheme where voters in any given US state only elect the Electors who elect the President, and worse, it's a simple majority, so that if Obama wins California by 51%, for instance, he gets all the Electoral votes for that whole state, rather than a proportion of them. Even better would be to just eliminate the Electoral College altogether, so that any US Citizens' vote counts the same as any other, rather than people from Rhode Island
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What lie? There's no lie there, that's exactly how the Electoral College system works (in conjunction with first-past-the-post or Plurality voting systems).
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad math doesn't work that way. A vote for X is a vote for X, not a vote for Y. Anything else is just whining from partisan purists upset that their candidate didn't earn enough votes.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's bullshit. Only the people that voted for Romney voted for Romney. People who voted for Ron Paul voted for Ron Paul. Don't try to lay the guilt trip on those who didn't vote for your favorite candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
That's bullshit. Only the people that voted for Romney voted for Romney. People who voted for Ron Paul voted for Ron Paul. Don't try to lay the guilt trip on those who didn't vote for your favorite candidate.
To believe this is to ignore reality, that reality being that Ron Paul never had a chance at being elected. You may honestly say that, on principle, you deliberately threw away your vote, but you may not ignore the fact that such an act didn't have at least the potential to affect the outcome between the two viable candidates.
WHOOSH (Score:2)
Too bad then that he never said his candidate was Ron Paul or that he had a chance of being elected.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if you vote or not; you're a Citizen, so the government is your responsibility, just like Arab countries' governments are those citizens' responsibilities, and when they got sick enough of them, they rose up and overthrew them. If you don't like your government, it's your responsibility to overthrow it.
Re: (Score:2)
BS. The Citizens are perfectly happy with that menu, and will happily argue the virtues of the candidates offered, with very few people (who tend to congregate on places like Slashdot) actually complaining about the lack of choices.
Not just Pakistan (Score:2)
Many Muslim nations have a similar ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, India just has to worry about the rape-murdering savages.
Re:Boo hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no the sensibilities of your god that worries me. It's the sensibilities of the primates that have appointed themselves as his/her/it's guardians and spokesmen.
If there really is a wise and loving god, he must surely be sitting there wondering firstly, why the fuck people are dying over cartoons and silly videos, and secondly, why he doesn't do something to stop it? It'd save use some hassle if he could ditch this vague communication through personally revealed and contradictory revelation to some yahoo in a cave. I remember back in the old days when, if God was pissed, he'd be personally smiting your arse. None of this vague tossing of tornadoes in to areas already known for naturally occurring tornadoes - with churches and brothels alike being smashed. Of course personal appearances would fuck with free will, while tornadoes and allowing nut jobs to run wild is free will for the poor victims. I'm not even sure how free will is any different whether the information is provided via divinely revealed texts, or a simple one-one-one communication with every single person? Either way, free will is impacted by external interference. I'm not even convinced that free will is necessary, if the angels who rebelled lived in Heaven and still had the free will to rebel. Fuck it. Tell us the deal and let us decided. Unless that happens, we'll continue to live on a ball of rock infested with people who hurt and confuse people by claiming to speak on behalf of a god that no-one seems to understand.
Re:Boo hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they could stop claiming to speak on behalf of a God that they do not actually speak for.
God told us to kill the infidels! God told us homosexuality is evil! Bullshit. You decided that on your own, and you're sticking divinity on it for the power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If so, he could hardly blame us for not believing in him, as he hasn't exactly left an abundance of evidence proving that he exists. Free will still exists, I frequently disobey almost everything I'm told, sometimes for no reason at all. I'm fairly sure if God proved himself and said "thou shalt sex for procreation only", I, and quite a lot of others, would go straight to hell.
Re:Boo hoo (Score:4, Interesting)
Is God the only supernatural force capable of slinging tornadoes around?
Sometimes I wonder how many people believe in God without believing in the devil.
Re: (Score:2)
From experience (mostly Catholic and CoE) most would believe the devil exists. From that point it gets muddy because scripturally the devil is kind of vaguely described, and he makes no sense.
The notion that "the adversary" could challenge God is to imagine that Chevy Chase could in unarmed combat defeat and kill the entire US Marine Corps. Satan is a really strange character, with his role in Christianity being pretty inconsistent with the Jewish understanding. Although popular depictions aren't hard theol
Re:Boo hoo (Score:4, Interesting)
Ohhh - I just HATE that blue eyed white guy picture of Jesus. Granted that many slashdotters think that anyone who believes in God is a fool, I'll go one step further on the "fool" bit.
Jesus Christ was born a Jew. The Jews were a rather dark skinned people, with kinda wooly hair, dark eyes. They are related to Arabs. Both of those groups are a blend of African people, and Persians. You don't find blonde, blue eyed, pasty white people in abundance among any of those groups.
Any "Christian" who reads his Bible can find a description of Jesus in the Revelations.
Reading that description, you can almost see the late Colonel Omar Khadafy.
Anyone wanting a picture of Jesus can just hang a picture of the Colonel over their altar. All those drawings and paintings done by middle ages Englishmen and Frenchmen and Germans can be thrown in the garbage.
Of course, very few people apply even the least bit of logic to their religion.
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus is the Son of God.
God is perfection.
Thus God is white, Jesus was half-white, and had a long reddish-blond mane, bright blue eyes, and freckles!
Don't trust the Jewish description of him. They had him killed. Likely were jealous of the hair.
Re:Boo hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Free will is generally used to explain why God doesn't protect children from rapists, not why He keeps His presence a secret. That is what faith is for. Faith is believing when there is no (or at least not sufficient) evidence. Of course, there is nothing inherently virtuous about faith...if someone chooses to believe (on faith) every con artist out to get his money, we don't consider that person virtuous. So why does God value faith so highly? That is where the "mysterious ways" justification comes in.
The bottom line is simple: a priest cannot give you compelling reasons to believe, nor can a priest explain why a divine and powerful being would abide such evil. So the priest must rely on these concepts to explain away the lack of compelling warrant for belief. But, any hypothesis that justifies its own lack of evidence remains a hypotheses with no evidence, and any model that explains why it makes no sense remains a model that makes no sense.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about that. I think having faith in someone you love is a virtuous thing. Even showing trust in a complete stranger is an admirable trait in my opinion. I am not a wealthy man by any means, but I think karma has been good to me. Life is a cold and ugly place for the cynical.
Trust should be based on the probability of claim(s) being valid and the risks associated with showing trust. I meet a guy in a bar, and he tells me that his wife is from Galway. I trust him, even though I've nothing to go on beyond his word on the matter. His claim is not extraordinary, and there's no obvious risk in accept it. Continuing our discussion, the stranger tells me that his wife is a rich princess, and that he needs plane fare to get back home. Of course he'll wire the money to me when he gets h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your statements regarding Jesus (al-Masih) run counter to what is written in the Quran.
I therefore name you liar, blasphemer, troll.