I'm not a good example because I don't get subsidized internet... are you paying attention to the thread at all? Forget what we're talking about?
If people want to goof off on the internet when they've paid the cost, that's called entertainment and it's perfectly fine.
The government is the actor that governs, and governance is the act of governing. They are complementary words to describe what goes on when one group establishes rules and laws that they impose on others (and themselves sometimes). At least that's what I meant.
If my poor neighbor's kids are educated, they're less likely to become criminals.
If my poor neighbor's kids have high speed internet, what does that buy society? Nothing. Look at Trayvon Martin as a notable example that we're all familiar with... what did he do with internet access? Post pictures of himself in thug poses. Awesome.
Perhaps it would make sense to have subsidized internet that is restricted to certain educational and harmless activities, but I wonder how many people would use it?
The reason a person from Islamic State is different than a run of the mill murderer or crazy person is that they are a large organized group with military grade weapons, rule over a sizable area of land, and revenue streams derived from the population they control.
Ignoring them and hoping the problem goes away is just ludicrous. We tried it with the Taliban, and they harbored and supported al Qaeda.
Looking through some of the comments you've linked, it seems the issue boils down to your interpretation of "scientific processes" as meaning the scientific method. But that doesn't make sense because learning about the scientific method is indeed part of scientific knowledge, which the law wants them to focus on.
The only reasonable interpretation is that "scientific processes" refers to actually doing science, like experiments and stuff, and "scientific knowledge" refers to learning facts about science, including stuff like "what is the scientific method."
If they wanted to ban the teaching of science, then the proposed bill would not talk about teaching science and having higher standards than international peers etc.
If you can equate Republicans with ISIS in your head then you are not being very scientific in your analysis either. Hypothesis: Republicans are like ISIS. Prediction: Republicans will go around beheading people they don't like. Observation: Republicans aren't doing that, oops, I was completely hyperbolic.
Everything you said has happened. You are describing "Manifest Destiny" -- look it up. We did take over and occupy as much of their land as we wanted. We said we have a right to expand all the way to the other side of the continent and we did it. If there are parts we didn't take, it's because we didn't want them.
What happened over the past 150 years, though, is that Mexico accepted their submissive position on the continent, and stopped fighting. If Palestine submitted, Israel would stop fighting them as well. The only reason ports are controlled is because terrorists in Palestine use them to smuggle in weapons... and btw, controlling the ports is not a blockade, check your facts. Ships can come in, ships can go out, fishing is done, etc... it's just monitored and controlled.
The Taliban is still alive and well in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghanistan and Pakistan are constantly having "talks" with them. They still control large regions in both countries.
The Taliban's success in controlling territory let them establish revenue sources such as the opium trade, and provide cover and training camps for small groups like al Qaeda.
ISIS will be lucky to accomplish as much as the Taliban, but I guess it's possible. And now that Americans understand Islam and Islamic rule and Muslims living under Islamic rule a little better (i.e. the whole "winning hearts and minds" thing is utter bullshit, they aren't going to like us when we "liberate" them), it's unlikely that we'll be returning to occupy the territory and help them build up again.
I agree with you except for your Somalia reference. You don't know what you're talking about. If you think Somalia is "government free" (obviously the paradise bit was sarcastic), then I suggest you go over there and start a church distributing free Bibles.
See how long before the local warlord hears about you and shuts you down and murders you.
Yeah that's right, Somalia's problem is actually too much government, and too many competing governments... not lack of governance. It is very closely governed.
Many Muslims in the Middle East are proud of their history in math because they have been fed lies about the Islamic Golden Age.
The funny thing is, if you read about the political tensions in places like Egypt, you'll find that these Muslims have upset stomachs about glorifying pre-Islamic cultures by promoting them as tourist attractions.
They don't realize that the vast majority of the math they are deluded into thinking they invented was invented by pre-Islamic cultures.
It has to be more than that. They also hate America because we support Israel. If we stop supporting Israel, they'll still hate us because of our valuation of freedom of speech as greater than religion protection, thus we have youtube videos of people burning the Koran and using it as toilet paper. If we ban free speech, they'll still hate us because of our "cultural imperialism" -- you know, stuff like McDonalds and Coke. If we ban American exports, they'll still hate us because we're infidels... but they might leave us alone at that point because we'll be a worthless shithole.
Personally I'd rather just keep bombing them and carrying on our normal lives back here.
They want to de-emphasize "scientific processes" (whatever that means) in favor of "scientific knowledge" and to you that means they want to ban the teaching of science like ISIS?
Quite an exaggeration there, don't you think?
Every country has border controls. Your argument makes as much sense as calling Mexico a "walled-in open-air jail" because they aren't allowed to freely come to the US.
Israel has a right to control its border, especially when its neighbors harbor and support terrorist groups.
You know that when Scotland was offered union and accepted it, it was bankrupt.
I did not know that, but having looked into it just now that's interesting. I had no idea Scotland ever tried to establish a colony, and it's remarkable that a country could come together enough to put 20% of their entire currency into one business venture.
It got wealthy as part of the union. So perhaps Scotland should pay large sums of money to the UK when it leaves for the privilege of being saved from poverty all those centuries ago?
See now that makes no sense. We were talking about assets and debts, and now you're talking about charging Scotland for the ability to become wealthier. How do you put a price on that that makes sense? If you're going there, you'd have to also charge to England the cost of the privilege of ruling them for so long. I think that's stupid and it makes more sense to focus on things that can be priced reasonably.
I don't see why talking about actual physical assets like oil and gas is "one of the most absurd set of arguments" you've seen, though if you conflated those easily quantifiable things with garbage like "the privilege of being saved from poverty" then I actually understand your confusion and frustration.
To whom? Foreigners who don't have the right to vote any more?
I'm sure you can explain if I'm wrong.. but yes... surely if you earn a pension in England and then leave you don't give up your pension? That's incredibly uncivilized. My mom is from Germany and worked there for a time before coming to America, but she gets her small stipend still. My grandmother lives with her and she receives her retirement income. Are you being serious right now?
OK, then I guess the English will just seize the funds and put them back into a general pot to help offset the shared debt that wasn't taken on board by those same foreigners.
Wow. Do you not understand that the national debt is not a shared debt for some random guy whose pension you want to steal? If I leave America today and move to Switzerland and give up my citizenship, guess what, I do not have to pay off my "share" of the American national debt!
Are you seriously this mixed up that you are confusing national debt with an obligation by individual citizens?
Talk about an absurd set of arguments.
No I don't think we need to reinvade Iraq, I think we need to help the Kurds who have shown themselves to be the most moderate and practical force in the north of the country. The Kurds helped us in the 1st Gulf War, and we abandoned them. They were killed by the thousands by a vengeful Saddam. Now they're helping again against ISIS and are the most effective force in the region. And we're like.... ohh geee we don't know about giving them weapons, let's focus on helping the central government, because this artificial state with warring Muslim sects made so much sense on paper when it was drawn up by the British, let's keep it going!
To solve the ISIS problem, what I would do is give automatic weapons to every Christian, Yazidi, Kurd, and other members of religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq. And a few tanks and heavy machine guns to each of their villages. And set up a drone program in those areas. Then let them fight for themselves, with help at a distance from us (airstrikes, etc).
What you're not considering is that where you and I see sects, ISIS sees false Muslims and illegitimate rule. The area is not ruled by good Muslims, thus they are establishing a caliphate.
I'm not making this up, that is their stated aim. That's why I said "That's the stage ISIS sees themselves at" -- not because I see it that way.
Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.
