Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I don't want to discount the threat of fundimentalist religious lunatics(of any stripe), nor would I stand in the way of reasonable efforts to put them down, but lets be real here, and not blame an entire reliegon of 1.2 billion people for a handful of incidents, and fringe groups.
You a mixing a religion with it's followers. I have see no problem in blaming the religion of islam for what happened today, but I wouldn't dream of blaming the 1.2 billion followers of islam for it, as 1.199999999999999.. of them didn't have anything to do with it. The religion itself, however, have deep traditions of violence toward those who critizise or mock it, starting with the founder of the religion who himself ordered the killings of lots of poets writing critical poems about him, as well as others who dared question his legitimacy as god's prophet or in any ways mocked or disrespected him. As the prophet Muhammad is seen as the most perfect human being who ever lived, incapable of doing wrong, and is seen as an example to follow for all muslims(with his actions forming the basis of the Sharia laws), saying that what todays gunmen has nothing to do with islam is either dishonest, delusional or unfathomably naive.
I don't think it's Islam per se that's the problem here.
I do. Killing as a response to mocking is a tradition that was established by the prophet Muhammad himself. He ordered the killings of several poets for doing nothing else than writing negative poems about himself. Anyone who does not see how this is the reason for the killings today, considering that Muhammad is seen within islam as the most perfect human being ever and an example to follow for all muslims, is either delusional or extremely naive.
Turn on a Romba near a cat... they're either attack it or ignore it with imperious contempt.
..Or they might decide to use it as an awesome tool for dominating dogs.
I'm surprised no one caught onto surface tension
Obiously someone caught onto surface tension, or you wouldn't have been able to make that comment.
Is that why you didnt care to read TFA before commenting? This has nothing to do with being ignorant about whats happening around the world. Its about (among other things) what news are relevant to you, and the lacking depth of the news one gets served by most newsmedia.
I think Burpmaster was referring to the fact that in the Qur'an, the earth is said to be flat.
Are you sure about that? The Earth was understood to be round before Islam. I don't know if that understanding was in the Arab world at the time.
And you guys are attacking the Muslims? How about cleaning up your own scum first?
Or how about not asking people to limit themself to thinking just one thought at a time? By the way - there are lot's of muslims being born and living in my country. I considered their fundamentalists just as much a part of "our own scum" as our christian fundamentalists.
Except that a lot of people who keep or don't keep their promises as politicians have to contend with 400 other politicians who also want to keep their promises. And when one politician says "I will cut taxes!" and another promises "I will fund social security!" You can't have both keep their promises.
And this is also something that politicians (hopefully) know. I contend that making promises that you know there is a big chance you won't be able to keep, even though it's because external reasons, is just as bad as making promises you don't intend to keep in the first place.
Now let's first use it on our politicians.
Thats actually not a bad idea, considering that previous research has found support for a link between degree of activity in amugdala and the anterior cingulate cortex, and wether or not people will keep their promises.
Would you see any major issues with limiting private possession of guns (say, limit to hunting/defense needs and otherwise require them to be stored securely at a range/shop, etc?)
From a practical standpoint, no. In principle, yes, because it implies a lack of thrust in me, and in my ability to act civil around other people.
. I also think it's sad. Why? When a gun/rifle is part of your life it becomes an option for everything.
Really? I have three guns, and I only use them for punching holes in paper from extended ranges, which I find relaxing. And truth be told, the only other option I can think of for them, is hunting, which I don't do. But, thanks for telling me how I should behave and think in order to fit your prejudices.
You could, for example, change the rules so that the action doesn't stop every time a point is scored-- make it a bit more like boxing or MMA. (Yes, I know that would change the nature of the sport quite a lot).
You mean, like a Dog Brothers-fight?