I apologize for not being able to find & post the link here
Is it this video?
I apologize for not being able to find & post the link here
Is it this video?
Something tells me we wouldn't find the "smartest, fittest and most handsome men".
I said Jew hatred, not antisemitism. If you were trying to be nice by making it easier for me I thank you for your charity. As I would like to keep defending the more narrow term in this debate I'll keep using it. (The term "antisemitism" is today being used more widely)
In the post you replied to my main focus was on how the actions of a subset of Norwegian globalist leftists, from now on referred to as the "Norwegian leftists", not European culture, carries most of the blame for the "moderate" position moving towards Jew hatred. This could be true even if the motivation of the Norwegian leftists isn't Jew hatred. You are still on topic. I did call them Jew haters even if it wasn't my main point.
My position isn't that any criticism against Israel is Jew hatred. My position is that Jew hatred is an extremely probable cause of the Norwegian leftists' criticism against Israel.
How much energy do the Norwegian leftists use to object when Muslims violate the rights of other Muslims in Syria? (What if "their" side, if the leftist group they belong to have one in Syria, is the rights violator?) How about when Muslim Arabs violate the rights of Christian Arabs? I can't see it. An Israeli Jew shooting a Muslim Palestinian Arab in self defense during combat seem to upset the average Norwegian leftist more than a Muslim Arab decapitating a kidnapped Christian Arab in Syria.
Why? It can't be a love for Palestinian Arabs. Was that the case the Norwegian left would have cared about what was done to the Christian Palestinian Arab community in Bethlehem after the Israeli government let the "Freedom Fighters" occupy it. It can't be a love for Palestinian Arab Muslims. Was that the case they would not have (hero) worshiped Yasser "Martyrs" Arafat. They would also have used energy to protest what Hamas and Fatah is doing to each other and, more importantly, to their own civilians.
Norwegian leftists are furious about Israel having the gall to build the "wall". Most of it is a fence. The wall section are meant to block the view of "Freedom Fighter" snipers. Norwegian leftists names it after the wall part. When I see them protest it they always show pictures of the wall sections.
The Norwegian leftists can claim to not be motivated by hatred against Jews as much as they like. If they wish to be believed they must present a believable alternative explanation. If such an explanation exist they should state it more often. Generations of Norwegian children have been moved towards Jew hatred by watching how some of the Norwegian leftists they trust prioritize their efforts.
a solution will be forced upon israelis and palestinians.
European antisemitism is as endemic and as ingrained in their culture as racism is in America.
There is Jew hatred here in Europe. I assume you are aware how often the media usually keep silent about the harassment of Jews and people that support Israel. Based on that I understand how some may make an honest mistake and blame it on European culture. At least here in Norway the only thing you can reasonably blame on our culture is our stupid trust in government, media, text books and the consensus. The introduction of the Jew hatred is gradual. (Example: In my early teens the average person hadn't experienced hearing someone use the word "Jew" as a derogatory term. Today I'm not surprised when someone use it like that) Slowly, issue by issue, Norway has been changed. Most people don't hate Jews... yet. But over the decades the "moderate" position has moved towards Jew hatred. The biggest source of the changes is globalist leftists (not national socialists) and Muslims. (Note that not all globalist leftists and/or Muslims are Jew haters) The globalist leftists have done a large effort via their journalists, text book authors, teachers, politicians, singers and artists. (Example: I attended a public school as a child. Once it had a cultural arrangement during school hours. A singer performed the song "Et barn er skutt i Betlehem" ("A child is shoot in Bethlehem"). "Et barn er født i Betlehem" ("A child is born i Bethlehem") is a popular Norwegian Christmas carol) Harassment against Jews and people that support Israel usually don't get attention in the media. The globalist leftists journalists usually "don't find it news worthy". (Example: A Jew refused to denounce Israel and was violently attached. The media didn't mention it. A homosexual got violently attacked in the same way. The media talked about it for days) The (comparatively small) contribution from Jew hating Muslims is mostly via personal relations.
There's no moral argument you can make that places the life of an undeveloped fetus over the life and interests of its mother.
You make a claim about all moral arguments. The interests of the mother aren't even relevant for many moral arguments. Example: The undeveloped fetus is human. Humans were made in the image of God. It is therefore wrong to murder a human being. It is true that killing a human being can be justified under some conditions. Those conditions almost never apply to an undeveloped fetus. Killing an undeveloped fetus is therefore murder in almost all cases. It is therefore almost always wrong to kill an undeveloped fetus (no matter what the mothers interests are).
You are expecting that all servers at the NSA have the same admin passwords?
...just pick a random european country
As an European I disagree. Try to home school in Germany. Try to run a Church the government don't like (say a Baptist church) in France. Try to (legally) buy a gun in Romania. Try to run a political organization the government really hates in Spain. Banning a political party isn't an alien idea to The Council of Europe.
A pregnant asylum seeker I knew here in Norway asked the Norwegian Child Welfare Services (Barnevernet) for help. She foolishly assumed they at least would try to help her before taking her child. They came to the hospital when she gave birth and took it. Other cases have reached the international media.
I'm not claiming that the USA is Heaven. I'm not claiming Europe is Hell. Here in Norway I can (within some limits) home school, run an unpopular church, buy a gun and run an organization the government don't like. While crime speech is illegal our courts have usually chosen an interpretation that bans less speech then what is possible using other interpretations. Claiming that a random European country have more liberty than the USA is still horribly wrong.
I assume you use the term "technical" in a way that exclude buying up a lot of Bitcoins and then dumping them to create a crash so people stop taking it seriously. I also assume that using enormous amounts of computing power to sabotage the network became to expensive when the ASIC miners appeared.
Again, no technical explanation of how the government will shut down Bitcoin, just a general statement that the government is very powerful.
They could ban running a Bitcoin client, ban the use of bitcoins, ban using Tor and other proxies, ban ISPs that don't monitor their users, add fake Bitcoin peers to catch Bitcoin users and try to trace transactions in the block chain to real identities. Heavy restrictions on raw materials and know how that can be used to create an ISP would help prevent underground ISPs. High rewards for tips leading to the arrest of Bitcoin users and rouge ISP operators could also be added.
This would be tyrannical. It could still be done. Disarming the population, purging from the armed branches of the government those likely to not follow the new orders and, if needed, stop having elections is one way to do it. Arranging for Bitcoin to kill at least one child each week* to convince the population that Bitcoin must be stopped is another. If they are willing to pay a price like that to stop Bitcoin and are competent enough they have a chance.
* One week the media could talk about an overdose a child took after paying for the drugs in bitcoins. The next week they could talk about how a guy used bitcoins to buy guns and ammo before shooting up a school. The week after that a girl that committed suicide after someone published the nude pictures she sold for bitcoins would be in the news.
I runz the Linux!
I runz the Coreboot! ftfy
So, being treated as an equal does not make sense in the context.
The wider context include The Law of Moses and the context it was spoken in. 'An eye for an eye...' is a statement on how the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. The Law also require other things like a fair trial and a burden of evidence before the suspect can be judged guilty. Sometimes you know the guilty won't get what he deserves. It is hard to trust God to avenge you. Ignoring the rest of The Law and taking the matter into your own hands seems like a great idea. You even have a Bible verse on your side! Jesus lived in roman occupied Israel. It is therefore reasonable to conclude He was reminding people that ignoring parts of The Law by avenging them self (and trying to justify it by quoting another part of The Law) was a sin.
It remains a sin today. Say that you are husband and someone have raped your wife. You know all he risk is a few years in a nice, comfortable Norwegian prison cell. Killing him to get justice is still a sin. Say you are the father of an aborted child and you have tracked down the guilty abortionist. Abortion is legal. Killing him to get justice is still a sin. While I assume that it must be extremely hard in cases like those I just mentioned the proper thing for a Christian to do is to leave the vengeance to God in stead of killing the guilty. As Paul said in Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
At that point, it almost sounds like kidnapping for ransom...
Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
(Augustine of Hippo in "City of God" book IV Chapter 4)
Of course governments can censor speech and cut off Internet access, that's their prerogative.
Just to be 100% sure here: You are arguing that governments have a right to to censor speech and cut off Internet access (like I have a right to shoot a robber that breaks into my house during night and attacks me), not that are able to censor speech and cut off Internet access (like a gang of robbers can kill you and steal your stuff)? Your talk about sovereign governments and prerogative makes me suspect you view it as a right. If I understand you correctly: What is it, in your view, that give a government (or organization of governments like the UN for that matter) that right?
Neither is going from 6-7 children/woman to 2-3 children/woman as many countries have done in a generation or two.
There could still be genes that directly or indirectly cause someone to resist the cultural pressure to only have 2-3 children. A gene that make you want many children is an example of the first. A gene that make you more likely to become a quiverfull Christian is an example of the last. At the same time other genes may cause one to follow the trend or go beyond it. Examples may be genes that makes you conform to your surrounding culture, genes that causes you to view children as a burden (that, because of medical advances and the current legal system, can be aborted with little risk for anyone involved except the fetus) or genes that makes you not care if the children you pay for are your own or belong to someone else. The culture of having few or no children is, to the genes of the population that adopt it, like any other disaster: it selects for those that have many children (that again will have many children) in it over those that won't (/can't).
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson