I understand his point that exploration stimulates the mind and society - but, circa 1500, if any culture in the world was "NOT" stagnant it was Europe.

You must be really pissed on Christmas Day when all the stores are closed. They don't make you follow their religion. They're closed for holidays.

Don't you have local stores that are closed on weekdays (say Tuesdays cause they need a fuking day off?) Are you pissed at them for not being open at your convenience? Would you never shop there again because they were closed when you wanted to go there?

Oh, and what about those evil restaurants that are closed at 1AM when you want a bite to eat after being at a bar. Are you pissed at them too?

If a store took off for a holiday and you had to shop elsewhere - great. But that's no reason not to go there in the future.

You're eating very poor meat - or simply don't like the taste (nothing wrong with that)

Beef: Salt and butter and perhaps a sprig of some herb (thyme or rosemary) or adding a bit of garlic is all the seasoning one needs.
Lamb: salt, a little butter and garlic and some herbs
Fish: salt, ginger, scallions, butter.
Pork is perfect as is. (unless making a bbq)

Obviously one can add more; just as one can add a hollandaise to asparagus when a vinigrette would be perfect.

No, but given the history of meteroite worship in the Arabian peninsula pre-Islam; and since the Kabba was venerated before Muhammad - it is not a bad hypothesis. But you're correct. It could be agate. Saudi Arabia has not allowed the non-Muslim researchers to examine the Kabba and publish their findings.

Beside Islam not being a race lots of Afghani, Iraqi, Irani, Syrian, Palestinian, Egyptian, Saudi ... people look as white as I do with a Central European background.

And Moslim, to anyone who cares, is not white power speak. It's the way that Muslim is spelt in other European languages. Not to mention:

"The Fotooh al Sham": being an account of the Moslim conquests in ...
https://books.google.com/books...
Muammad b. 'Abdallah al- Azd al-Bar - 1854

SAHIH MOSLIM (THE AUTHENTIC HADITHS OF MUSLIM) 1-4 VOL 2: ...
https://books.google.com/books...
MUSLIM BEN AL-HAJAJ, MUHAMMAD MAHDI AL-SARIF - 2011 - Religion

So, it looks as if the AC was full of sh!t.

Never mind that free markets don't condone fraud. And have mechanisms in place to combat it. The sad thing is you probably believe in your straw man views.

IF you're going to limit your discussion to a left-right dichotomy then you can say the Nazis are on the left.

If Right means limited, small-government and the left means state control of economy and subjects (think monarchy, fascism, socialism) then the Nazi's are on the left.

If the Nazi's are on the Right. And the Socialists are on the Left. Then where do monarchists go? Where do Libertarians go?

The problem is in the ill-defined Left-Right scale.

Yeah. This time Marxism will be proved correct. This eschatological aspect of Marxism has lead to the death of millions.

"Because, Dear Comrades, this time it's true."

And, 50 years from now, the next generation of dolts will be just as convinced.

No. You can't act anyway you want. So you're saying that Twitter can ban whomever they want for whatever reason?

That's happening right now. Respectful people, putting up respectful posts are being deplatformed. And you're applauding it.

Farrakan says that Jews should be exterminated,. CRICKETS
Point out scientific fallacies in the Koran (no the moon did not split in two, and no the sun does not set in a marsh land far to the west) and you're deplatformed. (A campaign of flagging the content maker is instigated, followed through 100s of times and YouTube caves.

You're getting what you perceive to be a short-term gain here. You're coming up to a modern day Niemoller situation. "First they came for ..." Deplatforming speech is not good. Having tech companies being able to restrict speech at whim, not following their TOS is a problem.

And you're happy. For now.

No. It's not the ONLY defense. I've been in fights and have never used a gun.

This is not an either/or scenario. However there are times when a handgun or a rifle is the best tool for the situation at hand.

Why are you so scared of an inanimate object?

I have to question if your real concern is school shootings. It's that you want the population to be disarmed. And the question is why? An armed populace can tell the govt to fuk off. Why is that not a good thing?

Yeah. The other way is called poison. But you know what? Lots of people do not want to spread poison on land that they're growing food on. And, this poison affects all animals, not just the pests. And the pests - groundhogs, raccoons, can get into the 100s, if not 1000s in a hurry.

The only two choices are shooting them (very humane) or poison (not as humane and very unhealthy for everyone). Trapping is not a solution. It's useful for a raccoon or two, not 100s of groundhogs

AFAIK, we're not allowed anything larger than a 50 BMG so I hope that'll do the trick.

In 1964 we, as a country, came to the conclusion that if you have opened up your door to the general public that you must provide services to the general public. We are fine tuning that definition now with the bakers cases being brought to the Supreme Court.

Those refinements uphold the standard that stores / companies must serve the public as a whole. The baker must sell the cake. It's saying that the baker is not required to do particular art work for e very customer. A band, for instance, cannot stop Nazi's from buying their music but they can refuse to play at a gathering.

Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc... are public companies and they are restricting access by whim. They don't follow their TOS (See Farrakan) but terminate users for using memes they don't like "Learn to Code." This is contrary to the expectations raised in corporate / individual interactions as a result of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

It's ironic to see many, who are opposed to libertarian ideals of free speech and who have a great dislike for corporations now pushing for trans-national mega corporations to be able to censor people at whim. This is a very short-term approach to the world.

50 years ago the Tuskegee Experiments were going strong. Would you have liked "conspiracy mongers" talking about it being deplatformed. (If that was a thing back then?) If deplatforming was a thing back then the MLK and Malcolm X would have been deplatformed.

A central case for freedom of the press took place in the 1930s. Could Communists publish and distribute information? The answer was yes. That unpopular speech was not to be suppressed.

But you say, Twitter and Google are private companies. Would the company who made the press used by those communists (In Seattle I think) have been within their legal and moral rights to prevent their equipment from being used by these evil communists? Would you support that. How about the credit card companies refusing access to these same communists (of course there weren't credit card companies back then - but the point stands.)

It's funny, sin't it, that you're taking such an extreme libertarian idea - that companies can do what ever they want. And, not only that, but you're defending them for their abuses. Nice.

So, a crazy person does something bad with an object. Now, that object needs to be removed.

I guess he couldn't use gasoline and styrofoam and make a home-made napalm, or a truck to kill people. (That's never been done).

There are 120 million gun owners. There are 400 million plus guns in the country. If gun owners were as violent as you irrationally fear they are this place would be a war zone. And, except for a few gang ridden areas the US is peaceful.

But no, because of some people, glorified by the press (in that they become KNOWN, become famous) because this happens once in a while (way too often) you want to ban guns. And, you conveniently forget that there were guns 60 years ago and less shootings.

Why do you ignore the obvious - that the problem is not in guns?

They are free to do so. Isn't interesting how you bring in libertarian economic philosophy when it pleases you but reject it when it doesn't. If Twitter doesn't have to accommodate me then Woolworths doesn't need to accommodate black people.

The concept - post 1964 - is that if you're open to the public you're open to all the public. So you think that Microsoft, or Dell, could prevent you from writing or reading things that they - as corporate entities - consider inappropriate? Yeah right.

That's what you're arguing - that corporations like Microsoft, AT&T , Bic (for pens), Kimberley Clark (paper) can edit and censor your work because it suits them. And your response is - make your own paper. Make your own computer. Maker your own Twitter.

Besides the fact that you wouldn't like that; besides the fact that the only reason you're supporting this is because you perceive it as a short-term gain - the real problem is a complete disrespect being shown to the free and open dissemination of ideas.

And, more disgusting is the double standard. Farrakan calling for the elimination of jews fine. Imans calling for the elimination of atheists, gays and jews - fine. But Laura Loomer video taping sections of English and Australian towns where she is being asked to leave because what she's wearing doesn't conform to Islamic standards. - Well now, that we need to ban.