He doesn't say the killings were okay. He just says that people shouldn't mock other's religion. Which, first of all, makes sense since he is the fucking pope and secondly it may be good for his P.R. with the muslem community. If the other church leaders/imams/whatever are denouncing the satirical cartoons, what impression would Francis give by saying "oh well, no problem for me because I am far more forgiving than the Muslems". Sometimes one has to side a bit with the "competition" in order not to piss them off.
The elephant in the room is that Islam is fundamentally and irreconcilably offensive to Christians because they say Jesus was not the son of God. There is nothing more blasphemous than denying this fundamental tenant of Christianity.
No, the elephant in the room is that some muslems have a greater tendency than other religions to impose their beliefs onto others and telling them how to behave. Buddhist don't care what you do. Hindus only care about what other Hindus do. Jews aren't interested in the rest of the world because they are the "chosen people". Chinese -whatever religion they adhere to- typically also don't care too much for other people's behaviour. Some -and I am not saying this is a majority- muslems interfere with other people's business. This is significantly more annoying than their ideas about Jesus. Besides: why would Christians care about what Muslems think? According to that logic, they should be furious at the Jews, because those were the ones who crucified Jesus in the first place, yet no-one seems to care.
Without a sense of self preservation it won't 'feel' a need to defend itself.
I cannot agree with that, Dave.
I have a feeling that the politcos have a secret pact with the terrorists, or whoever is/are behind the terrorist movement, just so that they can get a terrorist or two carrying out a really despicable terrorist act, in the middle of a major Western city, something that generates MAXIMUM IMPACT, and the sheeples be of course be scared shitless
Occam would disagree. It is far more likely that some egomaniac fuck wants to immortalise himself by attacking a cartoon magazine, on his own. Your conspiracy theory, while not impossible, seems much less likely and unneeded. At least, if I was "in control", I would prefer other, more reliable methods. Or just wait. Terrorist attacks have been happening regularly, so why stage on of your own?
When I am laying on my death bed and someone says "you did all these useless things -- you could have directed your talent towards really useful stuff and made lots of money", I will honestly be able to say "They were not useless; they made me happy. And that is what gave my life meaning."
That is indeed the most important and hope I will be able to say the same (though probalbly I'll have regrets). Everyone should do as they please, and usefullness in itself is not a good measure of activity. That being said, I somewhat understand the original poster who was modded troll: why not do something -possibly equally useless- in the real world instead of this minecraft thing? Instead of simulating the Tour de France on a home-trainer, why not go out and cycle? Both are equally useful or useless, but one has more appeal than the other.
Back in the day, floppies were amazing [...] they basically worked and retained data very reliably.
Not by today's standards they didn't. Anything remotely important, I would put on at least two floppies. I still need to experience the first USB stick failure.
(Okay, okay, USB sticks may fail too, I know, but not nearly as often as floppies).
Nevertheless, I would expect that the chances of fucking up vinyl are lower, just because the intended audience is different than for CDs. Is that a valid assumption?
1) if you appreciate a creative work, why not pay for it? Buy the DVD, buy the CD, buy whatever medium and you can view or listen as many times as you want. If you don't want to pay, you don't get to see the result of the creative process. If you don't want to pay, why would the creator of Pulp fiction let you to see the movie? What obligation does he have in the world to allow you to see it? I never understood, and most likely never will understand this typical
2) Why should an author's heirs not be entitled to the fruits of the labour of their ancestors? Why should they be entitled to his house, savings, but not future profits? Why would it be that, because coincidentally, someone dies, you get to see the movie for free? Why would you rank higher than the creator's children? Let's hope Stephen King dies just after writing a masterpiece, because now we are entitled to read it for free. What sense does that make???
WARNING TO ALL PERSONNEL: Firings will continue until morale improves.
