Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:As a former muslim (Score 1) 880

I'm saying that the surrounding culture shapes how people interpret religious scriptures.

You can have the most heinous religious scripture in the world but if that text is being interpreted and used in a peaceful culture, then most people will ignore the "bad" parts of the text.

Look at what The Lord's Resistance Army does with the bible.

Comment Re:The battle of extremes. (Score 1) 176

That's very true. I mean, for one thing, you can do abortions much later in the USA than you can do in Sweden (later as in "late term abortions"). I guess even people who are supportive of abortion (but not supportive of late term abortions) will defend late term abortions simply because they fear that making them illegal will affect conventional abortions.

Comment Re:It happened (Score 2, Insightful) 117

>> Seriously. For 10 million dollars he could of raised an army and taken over a small country. All he would have to do then is pass a law forbidding an extradition to America and he would of been set. 10 million dollars could have bought any number of extra-legal solutions to his problems.

Is that some kind of slang?

Comment Re:Two things. (Score 2) 330

Immigration is a hotter topic in europe specifically because we have better social security.

The US has this attitude of letting everybody in and just have them take care of themselves, while many european countries actually take care of their own people.

This creates a situation when we get people into the country who were not born there but who will get social security, free health care and everything like that.

Comment Re: Moral Imperialism (Score 2) 475

Actually... No.

Well to be perfectly honest... I'm not that familiar with the american arguments on this subject, but I'm familiar with an argument by european proponents of this type of legislation... And that argument has nothing to do with the harm of the material itself, and this is specifically why their argument simply cannot be defeated.


Because they don't argue that the material itself causes harm. They argue that the material itself IS THE HARM. (sorry for the capitals, no \emph here)

When they look at it from that perspective, there's simply nothing that can change their mind because it doesn't matter what effects the material itself has. It doesn't matter whatever studies you show these people. Their argument is simply that the material itself is the actual damage done, and it must be forbidden.

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.