Yahoo! Bans "Allah" in Screen Names 1072
szembek writes "According to The Register it seems that Yahoo! is banning the use of the string "Allah" in all screen names. The issue apparently became apparent when Linda Callahan attempted to use her surname in her screen name. The following link has an interesting list of terms that Yahoo does allow, and ones they don't."
It's a good thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a good thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a good thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a good thing... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's a good thing... (Score:3, Funny)
My new handle should be "skeet skeet skeet" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My new handle should be "skeet skeet skeet" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a good thing... (Score:3, Funny)
But geez, I'm a VILLAIN.
Shouldn't I be REQUIRED to have a name that's somehow offensive?
Re:It's a good thing... (Score:4, Funny)
Mod Parent Down (Score:3, Funny)
Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Make no mistake -- Yahoo is behaving cowardly in this instance. This has nothing to do with respecting other cultures, and all about avoiding undue attention to the corporate entity. Clearly in this case, terrorism has be effective.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:4, Interesting)
A theological perspective [desiringgod.org] on the difference.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorism is effective- and market-based economics IS HIGHLY COWARDLY. The proper response to terrorism isn't self-censorship- it's more and bigger terrorism. You find out what the terrorists care about and you take that away as spectacularly and explosively as possible. Then it's up to them to decide whether they want more terrorism or to take the cowardly stance.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Im not suggesting that this is always the way to go. However I think it would be a more positive step to allow some other hope for people who firmly beleive that their only option to fight back is to wire exoplosives to themselves and walk into crowed cafes or crash airliners into large, occupied skyscrapers. There will always be nutter prepared to do this for their cause... but the nutters need a support network. A support network involves money and people. The IRA got into trouble when their US fundign started drying up. But there were still nutter to blow stuff up. Its because the animosity and hatred become an instituion. Its viewed as a good thing to hate the english/americans/whoever.
I should disclaim that I am half Irish and my mother was born in Belfast. She left when she was 6 but was raised in a firm republican family(my grandmother was buried with the flag of the Republic. Her sister was killed and her brother maimed by a pub bomb. My great grandmother ran a safe house and stored guns for the IRA against the blacks and tans during the civil war). For many years my mother would not become a citizen of Australia as it would involve swearing an oath to the queen. She had no rational reason to hate the english, and she is not a bad person, but she did. It was ingrained that deeply from a distance of thousands of miles from The Troubles. Later in life she realised this... and became a citizen. Ive witnessed levels ranging from dislike to hatred for the other side. Of course its a lot less these days. I wouldnt say that I understand where a young palistinian young is coming from... I obviously can not... but I know something about irrational disputes that get ingrained in people... and in families.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Talks with the IRA were a lot more effective because of the sustained campaign. Bad cop/Good cop works, but you've got to do the Bad Cop routine first otherwise the Good Cop finds out nothing.
Also, the tactics Islamic terrorists use make the IRA (who routeinely warned the police to evacuate before the bomb went off) look like newborn kittens. Sorry to bust your Irish pride.
And the other problem is
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Interesting)
It's entirely possible, but it's not in the best interests of the oligarchy to do away with human-created law just yet, thus the conflict. You see, in Islamic theology, there is only one allowable author of law: Allah, who preaches it through his prophet Mohammed. This law was written a long time ago and no changes to it are pos
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You really are a space cadet (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, that's exactly right- there has been NO need for the UK to control Ireland since the 18th century. ALL of the rest has been human rights violations.
Ireland was never useful as a strategic property, unless you planned to invade the US or something.
Wrong. During the Reformation, when England went Protestant, a very real fear was that the Catholic Spanish Armada would use Catholic Ireland as a steping stone to attack England. To prevent that, Cornwall invaded Ireland, and used Scotish Presbyterian settlers to kick the Irish off their land. ALL of the "troubles" can be traced to that invasion.
And the IRA only fought over the north; the south, and vast majority, is completely free.
You don't think the IRA started in 1921 do you? No, they've been around since the 1700s.
And it still remains in UK hands, so the IRA didn't get what they wanted.
Actually, the UK is negotiating a date to hand it over- and the IRA already got an election out of the deal.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Like not being allowed to see or hear ossama's messages, we know they're out there but no where can you find them subtitled or dubbed or directly translated in any way.
All you get are summaries from the news, holy crap the public doesn't know anything about why he's upset and no one has gotten upset?
They actually got the most recent one on the net and in it he was talking about being denyed the option of peace talks... super.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Interesting)
The IRA hadn't had diametrically opposed point of view to the UK since the 1900s- there was no need left to keep up th
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Funny)
If that white guy was a cop and my cousin, and my entire family are members of the KKK- YES. It's the only way to stop that kind of behavior.
What's that? His actions are nothing to do with you?
If he's a member of my family, and we raised him with a racist faith, and we let him become a cop instead of putting him in a mental institution, it has *everything* to do with us.
But o
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a christian and go to church every Sunday. So I will set the record straight. There are at least a few "Christians" that would threaten the same kind of violence as these Isla
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly this is not true. You can buy T-Shirts with pictures of Jesus on them in all sorts of poses, there are millions of Jesus jokes. South Park (I just heard on the radio) has an episode called 'Bloody Mary' that appears to be parodying his mother. Where are these "Christian" extremists exactly, and whose embassies are they burning?
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape.
[---]
The LRA rebels say they are fighting for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments
Relig
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Informative)
No we can't, because they arent the same and never have been. The Muslim god, Allah, is based off of a member of the local pantheon at the time their prophet. The Christian god is a bastardization of the Hebrew god which is the result of a Monotheistic push from a violence minority starting roughly around the time of the biblical exodus. Some theorise that is was the result of the Egyptian cult of Aton, started by Akhenaton, that drove a murderous sect of Judeism (see Mose's responce to the Hebrews' rejection of his 10 commandments) to become Monotheistic.
So you see, there's good evidence that, although they all hold the same philosophy on rigorism, the various branches of monotheism are only related by their violent means of enforcing believe (whether used internally or externally)
But your milage may vary.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, it's not. Depending on which part of the koran you read, Islam can be sightly polytheistic, and "Allah" came from the name of the "moon god". My first google search yields: this link [biblebelievers.org.au]
Christianity and Islam are not at all compatible.
The LRA is one of the worst horrors of the world. (Score:3, Insightful)
The LRA is truly one of the worst horrors of the modern world, and I think it's a real shame that no one with the milit
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah muslims are poor. They can afford petrol bombs and IED's. Christians on the otherhand, fund companies like lockheed martin and then bomb whole countries into submission with their weapons. Who needs to raze an embassy when you can bomb whole regions and torture the ones that survive?
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're exaggerating here. There is a handful of nut-jobs out there, not 'plenty'. "The Last Temptation" drew a good deal of protest but not *1* incident of violence. The South Parks that someone else mentioned were brutal but again no violence! The fact is 99.999999-% of Christians would not burn down the Saudi Embassy if they published cartoons making fun of Jesus.
It occurs to me, however... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:4, Informative)
You forgot, voting their leader into Presidential office.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Insightful)
I see it a bit differently. If a nut did something violent in the name of Christianity, the vast, vast majority of Christianity would denounce the act and the practitioner. That doesn't seem to be the case with Islam. I'm not sure of the reason. Maybe they agree with the sentiment. Maybe they're scared of being targeted themselves. I'd like to think it's the latter rather than the former.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fundamentalists of any religion are crazy, and poor, desperate fundamentalists of any religion are dangerous.
Poverty is not the root of religiousfundamentalism (Score:4, Insightful)
The wealth of the US and Europe is handed over every day to the Middle East. At about $60 a barrel. Many of your top-brand islamic fundamentalists their pockets with your money. In fact, the GDP per capita of Saudi Arabia is $12900, that is 13 times that of Mali ($1000), a peaceful stable secular democracy. The Malinese are (mostly) moslem, but very nonfundamentalist. If you want a poor Christian country, there is Malawi ($700). Comparably quiet.
No, being the haves or have nots doesn't seem to be the explanation. Try again.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the whole, muslims don't, either.
Some fanatics, yes. But right-wing born-again christians also not only threaten but on a few occasions have actually killed abortion doctors or activists and others they dislike.
Jews, Christains, Atheists...there's lots of wackos amongst those groups, but in the last few decades radical islam wins hands down for self-righteous violence and terror.
Depends on
a) how much you believe the mainstream press is reporting truth and how much you think they report whatever will make more sales
b) how many of the people who use religion as their cover you actually consider to be religious fanatics
c) Whether or not you take into account the prejudice and hatred against all muslims, because prejudice doesn't run through a "are you a radical?" checklist first.
Christian nutters do death threats also... (Score:3, Insightful)
Christians don't threaten death to company executives or members of the press if they disagree with their opinions.
You don't know anything about US abortion clinics do you?
There is no middle ground between freedom and life (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think there is a continuum then you do not understand the question. It is wrong to kill babies. It is wrong to deprive women of freedom of choice over their own bodies and subject them to a painful pregnancy for any reason but the welfare of others. Thus, taking the middle ground is to acknowledge that one or both of these injustices are happening.
There are people who are willing to stand by to see these injustices happen, but those are cynical, apathetic people who are of a lower moral character than abortion doctors and those who murder abortion doctors because both these groups are doing what is right in their own reasoning. Don't you see? abortion is the greatest debate in history because to a religious person, or a secular humanist or anyone else, life is sacred. You cannot say that there is part of a life in a woman's womb, you cannot redefine life though existential debate for that is denying your own existence and your own right to life.
To allow abortion in certain cases and deny it in others is to acknowledge abortion as the slaughter of the innocent and as a woman's right. Thus in the cases where it is denied, you are forcing a woman into having her life changed by an unwanted child for no reason but your bossy authoritarian and when abortion is granted you are killing a human that has done nothing to deserve it.
In the US today, abortion is legal, yet when you accidentally terminate a wanted pregnancy through negligent driving it is considered manslaughter. This inconsistency leads to only one conclusion: a fetus is human if and only if its mother wants it. If this is about the beginnings of humanity, how can we not extrapolate this nihilist world view into our own lives? Am I only human because my mother and others continue to love me?
There is no middle ground when talking about what is life, it didn't work for Plato, Descartes or Wittgenstein who are all people smarter than you that have tried to define humanity and it won't work for me. The abortion debate should be thought through by each one of us, because it goes beyond choice or killing babies, it cuts to the very core of each one of our existences. The politically correct middle ground might be the safest option, but most great questions, the middle ground between two extremes is the only one that can be conclusively proved to be wrong.
Re:There is no middle ground between freedom and l (Score:4, Insightful)
I like most of your post.
But it seems to me that the extremes are easier to prove conclusively wrong.
i.e.
Abortion is illegal under ANY circumstances.
Okay the mother AND the child will die when she is about 7 months pregnant.
Abortion is legal under ANY circumstances.
Okay we are killing an 8 month old baby that could survive outside the womb.
So the middle ground must be where the correct answer lies or there may be -no- correct answer. Heads you lose, Tails you lose.
If you get down to it, even if you use birth control prevent the union of sperm and egg that would have occured- you just prevented a human life. Maybe not violently but just as surely as if you had aborted it at 8 months.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:4, Insightful)
-nB
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hamas' election victory is due to two main factors:
So why doesn't the "silent" majority stand up? (Score:3, Insightful)
And as a whole Muslims don't threaten death either, its just a very voacal MINORITY of them that do.
But why doesn't the silent majority in Islam stand up and vocally reject the extremists? When Pat Robertson made comments about "taking out" Hugo Chavez, the White House publicly repudiated him. When he made comments about God having forsaken the people of Dover, PA for their ditching of Intelligent Design, other theologians went on TV and vocally announced that Pat Robertson does not speak for Christian
Re:So why doesn't the "silent" majority stand up? (Score:3, Interesting)
THREE
To that I say WTF? If you don't want people thinking you tacitly support terrorisim, then at least take advantage of the oppourtunities to speak out against it. If e
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Informative)
Probably not, but at the same time, not all Nazi's were prone to run their own little concentration camps in their own basement. It's called division of labour (and probably a Gausian distribution for support of the actions in questions). "Put another way," what percentage of the Muslim world has expressed support for freedom of speech at the expense of their compatriots? (This is not a retorical question, I'm interested in an answer).
Adolf Hitler was a Christian
Hardly.
Here [paradise.net.nz] are some quotes by Hitler, most from "Hitler's Table Talk" (published 1953):
"National Socialism [Nazism] and religion cannot exist together.... "
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity"
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease."
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics."
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:4, Funny)
Muhammed is said to be unimpressed with the maturity level of the average Slashdotter.
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it is. Haven't you noticed it's perfectly Ok to insult or discriminate against Christians it's muslims who seems to feel they have some right not to be made fun of and justify going on a killing spree over a cartoon or probably a screen name eventually.
Some Christians do talk about killing abortion doctors but very rarely actually do it. How many people were killed or injured by muslim fanatics in just the last few months? How many by christian fanat
Why Allah? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is sad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dumb filters are annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still not as bad as Blizzard's, filtering out words like "basement".
Ignoring the whole political issue of it, if they are going to filter a string, they should at least allow common legit strings that it is a substring of.
Re:Dumb filters are annoying (Score:3, Informative)
And there's no excuse for it. I had to write filters for domain names and while it induces some complications, the proper use of regex's and lookahead assertions made it a lot easier. If you take into account that a particular string may appear within another common string, you can tease it out and compare it to the string as a whole. You have to have a
Re:Dumb filters are annoying (Score:3, Interesting)
Another time, I got really frustrated with the language filters on a forum I used to run, and set a filter to "censor" various letters of the alphabet and replace them with others. I wouldn't recommend trying this one, as it meant that all posts on the forum were complete g
Re:Dumb filters are annoying (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately I can't find a good link to the article I originally read, but it's listed as #96 of the 101 dumbest moments in business (2005) [cnn.com].
Re:Dumb filters are annoying (Score:3, Funny)
Global demonstrations against Yahoo! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Global demonstrations against Yahoo! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that won't really help. You know, since unhappiness over cartoons from Denmark somehow translated into burning down a KFC in Pakistan [go.com]. You know, that famous Danish outfit, "Kentucky Fried Chicken."
Re:Global demonstrations against Yahoo! (Score:5, Funny)
Cue the Islamophobic comments and Allah-bashing (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's look at the article
I guess Yahoo is trying to avoid the trolls and hatemongers. You can't have a screenname "I<3Osama," but you can have a name with Jesus in it. I suppose that makes sense from a certain standpoint, Jesus is a popular hispanic name (but so is Osama and Usama as a male name in the Arabic world).
I could have iHeartJesus, but not iLoveAllah?
As a gay atheist, it's reasonable to fear Islam (Score:3, Insightful)
And so will all the dhimmis [wikipedia.org].
I am a gay man and an atheist who has no intention of following any superstitious belief, Islam included.
The penalty for homosexuality under Shari'a (Islamic law) is death. I learned this from a discussion I had with a muslim from whyislam.org.
I am also an adoptive parent. Shari'a does not recognize adoptive parents. I learned this from the same discussion.
It is permittable for a Muslim to lie to a
Re:Cue the Islamophobic comments and Allah-bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of expression very often involves ideas which many may find "offensive". That's just part of the game. To try to filter out that which is "hate" is a pathetically useless exercise, and inherently against liberty.
Yahoo!, if not the entire Western world, must make a decision soon. Either they will have to fully support freedom of expression, or fully disregard it. Of course, disregarding it would basically mean an end to what has allowed Western civilization to progress over the past few centuries.
This mixing of some freedom of expression here and there, if you say the "right" things, but none for people saying the "wrong" things, will only lead to strife.
Anyone who truly supports such ideals as freedom of expression and freedom of speech must be willing to accept that there will be people who speak out against Islam. There will be people who speak out against Christianity. There will be people who speak out against fish and chips. And if you really do appreciate freedom, then you will not only accept the right of such people to make their points known, no matter how much you disagree with them, but you will actively encourage them to express themselves. That is true freedom, my friend. Self-sustaining freedom.
why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or do Yahoo fear losing revenue from Muslim countries...or do they fear a bomb?
Allah's not ok, but turning in journalists is (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad, really (Score:5, Insightful)
Dammit Callahan, (Score:5, Funny)
This (Score:3, Interesting)
Life was simpler when street crooks and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. were the bad guys, and our heroes always won.
Terorrism works... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terorrism works... (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliant point.
People do cry about the religious right, but if they had the power people
Re:Terrorism works... (Score:3, Interesting)
If Yahoo were to ban the use of "Jesus" in screen names then you'd see some outrage from those "kooky right wing christians". (It's a war on Jesus! We're all being persecuted!) People like you would blame
missing the point... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you are missing the point. Yahoo! is making a business decision based on a perceived risk that if they do not capitulate to the whims of fundamentalist Muslims, they will invite threats to their bu
It's just lucky... (Score:4, Funny)
Reminds me of AOL... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like the guy who created/designed the username filter for Yahoo was hired right out of college with little or no real-world experience, or at least no imagination whatsoever...
Re:Nobody can imagine how puerile it can get (Score:3, Informative)
It takes a hell of a lot of more imagination for filter writers to ensure their filters don't cause any collateral damage, as both the Allah & breast cancer examples demonstrate. It reminds me of the late '90s when I was working for a search technology startup. One of the first projects I worked on was a porn filter. We found
sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:War on Terror (Score:4, Insightful)
Well put it this way...
WWII: 1941-1945
War On Terror: 2001-2006(+)
If we can defeat two of the most powerful nations on earth in 4 years, but can't beat a handful of men in 5 years, then we are doing pretty badly as a nation.
If I hear the words "War On Terror" in 2011 out of a politicians mouth, I'm going to very pissed.
Re:War on Terror (Score:3, Informative)
"War on Drugs" [wikipedia.org] now working on it's 35th year, with no end in sight.
Sera
Re:sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
Porn
Booze
Foreskins
Pork Rinds
etc...
The current paint in the ass inconveniances are petty compared to the stoning of gays and beheading of adulterers and rape victims, which will be de rigur when sharia law is imposed.
TheoCrapitocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-word boundary pattern matching sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
When you ban the word "Allah", it means you can't say "Fuck Allah".
*blinks*
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More nonsense from Yahoo (Score:3, Insightful)
Much as I might think the original post was logically flawed and offensive (and it was), your rebuttal isn't much better on the logic front. How does being married prevent someone from being bisexual? I could see the logic if he were being accused of homosexuality, but there's nothing to stop a bisexual getting half their fun within wedlock. :)
Re:More nonsense from Yahoo (Score:3, Interesting)
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. til
Re:ban Islam founder name too? (Score:3, Informative)
Time for the English and Welsh to learn a real life lesson about exponential functions.
Re:ban Islam founder name too? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even in modern times, in Saudi Arabia the homeland of Islam, the common word for "black" is "Abd"
Re:Sheesh (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all against trials of writers and so-called revisionnists, because I don't believe in state imposed truth : a truth you can't debate is a myth in the full, dictionary, sense of the word. Those morons desserve to be laughed at, not sent to jail.
This said, your comparison is fallacious, because you're mixing two completely different things :
Therefore, by siding religious feelings and historical facts, you're fuelling the arguments or religious zealots willing to enforce their own myth as a state-held truth, and / or justifying racism toward those holding beliefs we don't share because they're holding a supposed "truth" we don't believe in. Both moves being equally dangerous.
Re:Sheesh (Score:3)
Guantanamo (Score:3, Interesting)
How about the protesters arrested in NYC during the Republican convention - held in jail and mostly released with no charges?
I agree that from my (insular american) standpoint the Islamic fundamentalists seem pretty bad, but there are fundamentalists of other religions who are pretty nasty too. For example there is the well known Westboro Baptist Church, who are now said to be protesting funerals o
Re:Guantanamo (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of them are probably innocent, and some of them most likely aren't. The question is how to determine that, which is a difficult decision in a time of war. But they certainly weren't put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts. They were believed, rightly or wrongly, to be involved in terrorism.
How about the protesters arrested in NYC during the Republican convention - held in jail and mostly r
Re:Guantanamo (Score:4, Insightful)
4 words: Innocent until proven guilty.
Peaceful assembly and demonstration is a key and integral part of a democracy. When the guv removes people who oppose their views we have arrived at a police state.
Regardless of what you think of Bush and regardless of what you think of them protestors we must all protect the rights of the protestors to have their say: The famous quote often attributed to Voltaire, that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems as relevant now as it ever did.
Re:Sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)
You might find a few native Americans who disagree with you on that.
Re:Trends! (Score:5, Funny)
My very own Mohammed cartoon [imageshack.us]
Make one of your own. Share with your friend. C'mon, folks, the time is now to be juvenile!
Like the old saying goes: "The Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it." Well, dammit, that might be true, but I'm tired of people damaging the Internet! Let's do what we can to make them unhappy.
Re:Trends! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's change the entire way we live for Muslims (Score:4, Interesting)
I consider it a completely irony that Islam is supposed to be a religon of peace and tolerance. Someone decides to write a dumb cartoon and the Muslim world gets upset.
I consider it sad that even on a self proclaimed site for "nerds" some people insist on describing the actions of a few people as "the muslim world."
Muslims are always getting upset about something. Threatening death, riots, bombings, etc...
And then they insist on making prejudicial remarks, about what "muslims" are always doing. You might as well say, "christians are always bombing foreign cities. We should ban the religion."
Christianity, people may get upset but the world doesn't do a damn thing. What's wrong with this picture?
Your ignorance. When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual? I seem to recall a mass murder a few weeks ago. How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?
Muslims want the world to change for them but refuses to adapt in any way shape or form.
Yeah, that is why they keep invading countries half a world away... oh wait, that was a predominantly christian country wasn't it?
The problems with your "ideas" are multiple and fundamental. First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion. Second, all your information about those actions is what you have seen promoted by mass media, who has a vested interest in sensationalism over truth. Third, you are failing to account for the fear and anger of a people who is being invaded and conquered by a nation composed primarily of another religion and who has repeatedly openly scorned their religion, as you are doing now.
The christians I know would act no better, and probably worse given a similar situation. After a united middle east had just finished conquering the US, the mexicans and the refugees from the US who escaped the bombs would be less then kindly disposed towards and muslims. When they start making excuses to invade mexico, who has little hope of defending itself, and after seeing on TV the sexual abuse of captive Americans, if some other muslim nation were to print sacrilegious pictures of Jesus being raped by a dog, while also including in these cartoons some of the lies used to justify the invasion of the US, well there would be plenty of riots and lynching of muslims in Mexico. And I have no doubt there would be christian priests trying to stop the violence, just as there were muslim priests throwing themselves between the mob and the danish embassy. And I have no doubt ignorant muslims would make comments similar to those you are making about how the uncivilized christians need to grow thicker skins.
Re:Let's change the entire way we live for Muslims (Score:3, Insightful)
How many millions of people need to attack freedom of speech before you understand that it's not just a few bad apples but a fundamental conflict between their beliefs and the right to freedom of speech. They blame all of Denmark for the actions of one newspaper, and expect laws passed to restrict freedom of speech because they don't like dissent from thei
Re:Secondary filters? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Secondary filters? (Score:5, Funny)
The classic real-world example of that being when the Italian company Powergen created a website with the perfectly obvious name of "PowergenItalia".