..and still seem 'moderate'
That is a good point.
parent desperately needs modding up, since you actually have a clue what you are talking about. (or maybe I just mean I agree with you)
I note your admission that there exist "psuedo Muslims".
By which you actually mean, non-fundamentalists who might self identify as Muslim to some extent or other.
Your problem is that people like you will end up mistaking a "pseudo muslim" for a Fundamentalist religious fanatic and you will call for all of their elimination no matter what the facts are.
In fact I actually agree that Islam is a greater threat to what I'll need to call "Western Civilisation" than, for example Christianity.
To give one example, Muslims are not the only ones who complain about their religious artefacts being "desecrated": see PZ Myers and Catholic communion wafers.
BUT they are however vastly more likely to have members who will murder to gain revenge (see Theo van Gogh).
The closest we come in our views seems to be that Fundamentalist Islam is currently more dangerous than Fundamentalist Christianity.
Many others in this forum have pointed to matters such as some Christians prohibiting contraception and use of condoms as being a cause of spreading AIDS in Africa.
You seem to be saying that not all religions are the same, rightly pointing the great many crimes and evils done in the name of Islam,
but insist that all Muslims are the same. Why the selective nuance?
(As is favoured on internet forums, I will flag up your fallacy for you; "True Scotsman")
I presume you are an opponent of burning Qur'ans but recognize the right of Muslims to burn flags, each other, and us for some perceived injustice
You presume wrongly, my foam-flecked friend. I am a proponent of freedom of expression of all kinds, and I oppose special treatment to anyone based on their religion. One of the few libertarian "thin end of the wedge" arguments I actually agree with.
(Actually, anyone who gets their knickers in a twist about flag burning is as stupid as someone who goes on a rampage cos someone burned a book there are millions of copies of.)
Do you think Christian pastors burn non Christian holy books to bolster freedom of expression? Or might it be because it's the wrong kind of holy book?
How much of the AIDS epidemic in Africa is due to the Catholic Church's murderous attitude and bald-faced lies about condoms?
A very great deal of it. And this is good example of why not all Christians are the same.
Most mainstream Protestants (in Britain at least) find Catholic teaching on sexuality to be at least stupid.
The Anglican church in Britain has homosexual ordained vicars and bishops.
Saying that "they are all the same" is at the very least unnuanced, and in my opinion downright dangerous. It is demonising your opponent, one the things that religious people do (Inevitably, since non- or wrong-believers will not be saved).
Some believer in magic is telling us all to educate ourselves.Listen. The burden is on you. It's your religion. You want to improve your religion's image? Then convince other members of the Mohammed cult not to blow people up or cut off infidels heads or to stone people to death.
You are confusing a theological problem with a sociological one.
The issue that concerns you as a non muslim is "Can or should I tar all Muslims with the same brush?"
No you shouldn't, and your actions will actually worsen relations between different groups
FYI I am not a crypto theist of any description, but I can tell when someone is simply being prejudiced
Maybe you need an example closer to your own home:
Are all Christians the same as Westboro Baptist? Is a Quaker or a Unitarian the same as a Fundamentalist Evangelical who uses biblical quotations to argue against homosexuality and "miscegenation"?
Of course they are not, and it would be useful if those who thought they were the same made some effort.
The major problem with understanding Islam for Americans is that your media simply does not allow for the existence of anything extremist fundamentalists.
Imagine a world where you were only told about the most lunatic fringe christians..
There in lies the logical fallacy. It makes it for "fucking normal people" harder to posess
Your own "fallacy" is as follows:
You don't realise that it will take some effort for someone to make contact with the criminal world to get their guns, many spree shooting types would be afraid of doing that.
You think that serious organised criminal gangs are the same as a sad sack guy who got fired and dumped one too many times and snapped.
All laws will be broken at some time or other but this not the only (or even the best) way to judge the utility of a law.
Sad sack losers can have a really dangerous, furious low ebb and then put very little effort into getting the tools needed to go out in blaze of tragedy and death.
Where is your outrage over those deaths? Where is your call to action for those children?
You will find that many people make calls to action regarding public safety issues, especially when the death of a child is involved. There are plenty of initiatives aimed reducing the incidence of distracted driving - from awareness campaigns to changes in the law that some people oppose.
Since alcohol doesn't benefit society
Alcohol is an extremely popular drug that it seems gives net health benefits when consumed in moderation. Its purchase and consumption are regulated because (among other reasons) it can be harmful in itself, and can cause indirect harm due to its effect on your abilities. Banning alcohol has been tried in your country and was not a success, but please note that it remains restricted.
The level of your thinking is best demonstrated by your drawing a parallel between death due to grossly negligent parenting and deaths due to murder.
While the dead are equally as dead, no sensible person believes these acts are equivalent - those responsible are punished in very diffrerent ways.
In an effort to explain to you why you are wrong:
If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns.
is not false, it is (very) incomplete.
The complete statement is:
"If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns
but the guns they can obtain within the law allow them to murder much more quickly and efficiently than otherwise."
How likely is it that the x37b gleaned no information from the space shuttle's development and use?
very unlikely indeed.
How likely is it the x37b is able to take advantage of advances in technology and materials made since the early 80s/late 70s?
How much easier is it to build something not designed to carry humans?
a great deal easier
They got learn from people preceding them, and got to do the job with better tools, and had an easier job to do.
Your unthinking post is there to reinforce your own dogma that government === incompetence.
For two reasons that spring to mind:
Septmebr 2001 attacks depended on the murderers getting control of big planes, and decision makers absolutely don't want the murderers getting the chance to attack rich, powerful people's homes or places of work again.
The queues at airport also fulfil a security theatre purpose in that they do make people "feel" safer than they are being made.
Absolutely right that they could detonate the bomb while waiting at the airport, but they wouldn't be getting to pick and choose a target as they could if they had control of a plane.
You sound equally, or perhaps greater partisan than the idealogue strawmen you try to conjure.
How many deaths did the Ear Trumpet app cause before the knights in shining armor shut them down?
My specific response was to "government staying the hell out of healthcare".
The previous poster set up the man for me, straw or otherwise.
Probably not a great deal of harm being done by an ipad app that does a cheap -n- cheerful hearing assessment. Pretty similar to inexpensive reading glasses, I'd imagine.
But please note, the poster above me calls for total removal of government regulation from healthcare, not from ipad apps that check your hearing.
Healthcare would be a hell of a lot cheaper if the government stayed the hell out of it.
If gubmint stayed out of healthcare costs would go down, and we'd only have a few thousand extra deaths a month from con artists to balance against all that lovely freedom.
You would like the USofA (fuck yeah!) to no-questions-recognise medical qualifications from the commies?
Interesting freeper sentiment...
If you had a science altering discovery it would be published in peer reviewed journals and you could use those as references.
Until they are published somewhere reputable, no-one has a good reason to believe science altering claims
You should be aware of the following:
The BBC has 6 national tv stations,
8 national radio networks and over 20 local radio stations.
ALL of the above are ad-free.
It is not very useful to compare the BBC to a single US television network.
in case you were wondering