Apparently you have a different definition of "absolutely wrong" than me. "Oh, I said 'the crown is personally in charge of everything' but what I really meant was 'they subtly influence behind the scenes.'" Whiplash much?

Even Britain itself doesn't really have to ask the monarch's permission for stuff anymore. Technically the king/queen can refuse to sign any bill they want, but none of them have since 1708. And since the Brits are a bit weird with their unwritten rules it's debatable whether the monarch actually still has the power. I dunno.

In fact, you could argue that terrorists who are poor engineers are more likely to last if they make their suicide bombs wrong.

The obvious loophole being how you define "innocent." Doesn't Mohammed have a lot to say about how anyone who won't become a Muslim is an enemy of Islam and must be destroyed or something?

It's in reference to Judgment Day, not any call to action on humans' part. "Picked up, thrown into the fire and burned" is referring to being thrown into hell, which is doctrinally something God does and humans have no control over (the physical punishment part, that is).

The entire story is about how he is pointing out that the Pharisees are hypocrites, as noted in the other comment. There's a recurring thread in the Gospels about how the Pharisees were always trying to trip up Jesus by coming up with ways where he would technically be violating the ceremonial law. In context here, Jesus is basically telling them to STFU.

Again, talking about God causing the flood. Not a call to any sort of action on our part.

Okay, you actually managed to find one argument that wasn't totally uninformed. Yes, in the Old Testament, there was a lot of razing of cities that resisted the Israelites or were labelled "obstinate" or what-have-you, which is rather hard to justify. I'll just say, sidestepping that issue somewhat, that this falls under "Christians say not to do that anymore...Muslim imams are currently endorsing this very thing so they should grow up like we did."

I find it a bit funny that the first 3 links are all to a facebook image. But go figure.

I don't think cannibalism usually happens just for shits and giggles. Presumably you're talking about a siege where those besieged ran out of all food?

Not that I disagree with any of the rest of your points.

Calling for the extermination of the group that has already been calling for our own extermination for decades? Yeah, that's crazy talk.

I mean, Islam is a religion of peace. It's just a few bad eggs spoiling it for everybody else.

The West goes in and stirs up shit over there, everybody hates them. They don't, then this happens (ISIS). Or I suppose the argument can be made that this was actually caused by the shit-stirring, huh?

Back before the Politically Correct Brigade flooded into everything, you might recall that we used to use male conjugations to refer to ambiguous gender entities in English.

You're citing Minecraft as a positive example of monolithic design?

So we just have to wait for him to encounter another instance of systemd violently shitting the bed, apparently, to witness his flamethrower attack.

"Those who do not learn UNIX are doomed to reimplement it, poorly."

Wow, a whole week ago and it's already definitely a bad idea? Please tell us more about your psychic powers.

(not that I actually disagree)

Exactly. AC keeps claiming "Sun licensed it as BSD" as a reason why "BSD is The Way"...which could be true philosophically, but it's not factual as it's CDDL.

Sorry, I tried to continue our original argument and you decided to throw some demand for evidence in my face. Claiming objective humor is an extraordinary claim so I would expect you to provide extraordinary evidence.

I'm making no claim what his reasons were for posting it, but it seems pretty clear. The conclusion is right there -- within easy jumping distance. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, Occam's Razor demands that we consider that it might actually be an elephant.

Stating "funny jokes are funny" implies some objective metric of humor. I reject that premise.

We can say "he was just joking" all we want but when he goes and acts in a suspiciously similar mindset during his professional duties, the laughter stops. Or at least, it should.

People have been picking up on this already and noting that the word of the guy responsible for deciding what "affiliated" means is of questionable impartiality.