Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Fake movie (Score 1) 480

Again, I think this is naive.

I refer again to one of the links I gave. There you can see that even among Muslims in the USA there is a considerably HIGHER - significantly so, in scientific terms - percentage that think it's ok to, for instance, stone women to death which are 'unfaithful'.

The only reason, thus, why the USA doesn't have as many problems (yet) is because of..numbers. It's as simply as that. Germany, last year, got 1 million (!) refugees - in one year, thus. In comparison to it's populace, that would be equivalent of the USA taking in 4 million a year. Everyone with a grain of intelligence will understand that, if the USA did the same, EXACTLY the same problems would occur. (And btw, once they got the nationality, you can't force them to settle anywhere, since as a citizen, they're free to go where they want, so your idea of 'spreading' doesn't help. In fact, after 20-30 years, there is no spreading to be done anymore, because they're in all cities with their own neighbourhoods).

Can you imagine how well the USA would fare, if they took in 4 million people per year for 20 years in a row, where 40% of them think the sharia should be above the constitution, and 12% think it's ok to stone women to death?

I say Islam is bad, because it IS bad - if you follow what is actually described there and you believe the stuff is actually the 'word of god' you have to follow. Other religions may be considered bad too, but those are NOT, or far, far, far less, being interpreted literally anymore, nor are the adepts of those religious so devout anymore, as it is with Islam.

In fact, the problem is NOT being fanatic, at least not on its own. Take the most fanatical Jainist, and that will lead to someone avoiding to trample on insects and who wouldn't even try to hurt bacteria. A fanatical Jainist would be a complete and utter pacifist. So being 'fantical' about your religion, when that religion is inherently peaceful, makes person that is fanatically peaceful. There is no problem with that. So how comes it is with Islam (and, granted, some other religions)? Because there IS bad in there, and it DOES say things that are antithetic to modern thoughts, and the more literally you take this, the more bad it becomes. So it's not just fanaticism that is the problem, it's the sourcematerial as well.

But anyway, the point is, the USA has no problems, not because the Muslims they have are so welcomed by the populace that they don't have any of the antithetical values and wishes anymore ( - as evidenced by the poll, they still have, and still with a far larger percentage than the rest of the populace), but primarily because they have far less than the EU. The percentage of Muslims in the USA make out 0,9% of the populace... in Germany, however, it is more than FIVE TIMES as high. Plus, the USA has far more landmass, so you *can* spread them better, in most EU countries, there is nothing to spread anymore: they're in every city, within there neighbourhoods. Many of which have become no-go zones for the police, btw.

It's all about numbers, thus. The more you have them, the more problems you get, because the more people you get with undemocratic ideas - EVEN if, as correctly noted, not ALL of Muslims share those views. My point is, that that doesn't matter: whether all adher to it or not, it doesn't change the fact that TOO MANY do, and that your society/civilisation is going to buckle under it, if one keeps accepting people where 40% wants to abolish your laws.

And the left has tried for 40 years to claim 'spreading' and 'education' will deal with it, and make them all integrate. Alas, wishful thinking: integration goes extremely slow and is very poor, with Mulims, simply by the fact they don't really want to integrate - especially the 40% that finds their laws should govern the land. In fact, polls have also shown, that even among second and third generation immigrants, it's even worse then with their parents that came in the 60'ies. A recent poll with those youth in immigration-neighbourhoods showed a whopping 90%(!) of them supported ISIS and thought them hero's. So much for integration!

Look, one has to stop being naive. There is a huge problem here, and even with the best of practises and methods, integration is going to be a slow process, and it will get slower the more of the same people (with the same culture and mentality, I mean) come in the country. By the time you integrated 10, there are already 100 more that came in, and after a while, they don't even want to integrate anymore, but expect us to accommodate them, whether it's housing, (Islamic) schools, courts (as they allowed in GB; biggest mistake ever), access to own media, etc. Not wanting to integrate anymore is not a joke, btw, there are actually some high-profile Muslims openly saying that in the media here, publicly. There mantra is that we 'both have to adapt'. No, we don't. Certainly not on base values.

What you say, is exactly what the left has been saying for decades thus, but in the meanwhile things have become worse and worse. It's because it is trying to empty the ocean with a thimble. As long as the tap keeps is running and overflowing, it's useless to try to mop the floor. Therefore, I'm a staunch proponent to close the borders so no new ones (or at least far fewer) get in, and THEN *prove* one can actually integrate the ones that are already in here, and see how well that works. The way we're doing it now, it's simply a matter of time until it all breaks down, and the killings, terrorist attacks, demonstrations for the implementation of the sharia, threats to people who they think insultted Islam or their prophet, will only augment. Hack, you already SEE that. It is augmenting, and rapidly so. Since 2004, Islamic terrorism has been the greatest contributor to all terrorist attacks. It has become number one. That doesn't mean all moderate Muslims agree with it, it's just - I repeat - that TOO MANY of the Muslims feel that way, if not in regard to terrorist attacks themselves, than in regard to values that are antithetic to ours.

I mean, it's not rocket science, is it. Look at those countries with large populations of Muslims: they have already serious societal problems with it, including violence and terrorist attacks (but not limited to that). And now look at countries and regions that have practically zero Muslims in their populace, like Iceland or Greenland.... how many Muslim terrorist attacks did they have?


How many cartoonists were killed there because they offended Mohamed?


How many want the sharia law established there?


I mean; for f- sake, the correlation AND causality is clear, no? If you do not have Muslims, you don't have the same troubles with Muslims that you have with countries that DO have large percentages of those. Yes, you still have other problems, and there is no certitude someone else won't do a terrorist attack or want the sharia implemented but FAR LESS, obviously.

Yes, it's a pity for those Muslims that do value our laws and mores, that want to integrate, etc. But: that's life. They're the victims of their brethren they can't seem nor actively try to control, then. I don't see why a society should slowly undermine itself and commit cultural suicide just because anyone knocking on your doorstep, one 'has to' let in. I refute that notion. A very strict immigration-policy - with absolute maxima - coupled with concerted efforts to integrate those already here, is the only way one can still hope to rectify the current mess we're already in. If we fail - and we will if one is not turning the tap close (or to a trickle) first - then in less than a hundred years, our current model of Western democracies following the principles of Enlightenment, is no more.

Comment Re:Fake movie (Score 1) 480

"So given that, I don't really see a reason for singling out Muslims in western society. "

I've given you the reason in my former posts. Whether one wants it or not, in comparison, today, FAR more acts of terrorism are done in the name of their religion by Muslims than by Christians. But, as said, what's even worse is that FAR more Muslims uphold and concur with ideas that are antithetic with democratic, Western values based on the enlightenment. Those are not all terrorists; they just hold extreme views (extreme in regard to our values). If you looked at the links I provided you, you can note that some of those views - which are incompatible with how *we* think about things and go against our basic values - have either a majority, or a very large minority being supportive of it.

If you would take a random sample size and compare Muslims with non-Muslims in regard to women's rights, homosexuality, etc., you would see a HUGE discrepancy in Western countries between the two groups. clearly, the correlation is not by accident, but has a *causal* relation: it's because they are Muslims, such a large part thinks that sharia should be the only law being applied, that women are less worth than men, that homosexuality is abhorred, that they think fre speech does not allow to insult the prophet Mohammed (PUH!), etc.

you wouldn't find these numbers and percentages with atheists, not even with Christians, nor Buddhists, etc. the reason for that is what you said: most people, even claiming to be Christians, aren't all that religious anymore, and Christianity has had a reformation and lost a lot of its sharp teeth anyway.

The Islam has not - or to a far, far lesser extend. Muslims are also to a far higher percentage still devote in the classical sense. You only have to look at the mosques for that: almost always filled, while the churches in Europe are dwindling and largely empty. So, both in religiousness as in the strict applicability of their holy book, Muslims are far more ferocious, percentage-wise, than any other religion these days. That's why you see raving and angry-shouting Muslims trying to get a museum shut down, or making threats - by legal and illegal means - if that museum was posting art that offends their prophet. Do the same with Christians, and the most you get is some bishop saying it's not very proper. That's also why you see people being shot for making a cartoon of Mohamed *by Muslims* - tell me, when was the last time a group of people were shot dead out of religious motives because they offended, say, Jesus?

It's this sort of blindness that annoys me the most. Yes, there has been brutality in the past by all monotheistic religions. Yes, you have nutcases here in the West too, who commit terrorist attacks or who want to impose their religious laws on others. Yes, you have homo-haters in the indigenous populace also. Yes, you have people thinking women are inferior to men as well. But *comparatively* you have FAR more of them within the Muslim community than in every other religious or non-religious community. This is a fact; see the links I gave you, and compare those numbers with the average you get asking the same questions of natives in Europe. The scale and level is considerably higher than with the local communities, and even with any other group who is or has settled themselves in Europe, and their integration is one of the lowest.

Your halal-example shows the same sort of naivety, imho. Ok, so you like halal meat more. Good for you. Now, say I want to eat non-halal food. Do you know it has become increasingly difficult, with the exception of pork, to find *any* non-halal meat anymore in my country? Even when it's not explicitly mentioned, it's still made in a halal way, because that's more convenient for slaughterhouses, even if they technically break the law with it (since they are obliged by law to sedate animals before killing them). Alas, we made the mistake of allowing an exception for religious reasons, and now it's done with all and every animal/meat, whether you are religious and not, or want halal or not. And all that in only 15 years time... There has been attempts to get rid of the exception, but - again - Muslims were vehemently opposed to it. So who's imposing on whom, here? Why do *I* have to adapt, while it's THEY that come live here? If you're invited in someone's house, do you begin to set the rules there and tell the owner what he should or shouldn't do? 'When in Rome do as the Romans do." isn't just a fancy sounding soundbite, it is *essential* if you want to limit the tensions occurring in a society.

And while I agree with you the West shouldn't try to change societies in the Middle-East (in the mistaken belief we can somehow induce democracy by external intervention), this goes both ways. And it's exactly this what is a cause for concern: year after year we get a large influx of people of which a large percentage has ideas and want laws, rules and a mode of living that are antithetic to our base values. One might appease oneself with saying "it's not all of them", but that does NOT change the problematic nature of having large numbers of people that are in essence against the very nature of a democracy and Western ideas. You still introduce a factor whereby you undermine your own society in a dangerous way, and anyone thinking you actually need to have a majority of the total populace before you get serious problems is dreaming. Any large enough minority can already cause enormous societal tensions, and exert influence whether legally or illegally (including violence). When such a group adheres and promotes values that are antithetical to those of your society, it's a given that conflict will arise. And when it keeps going on for years (as is now the case), sooner or later, the civilisation/society itself that let them in will either succumb or have civil war.

Comment Re:Fake movie (Score 1) 480

I would claim it rather being the Qu'ran and Islam, instead of the bible and Christianity. That said, buddhism has even less violence done in its name than either of those. Jainism even far less, if not outright 'none'. But regardless, that sort of discussion is endless and leads to nowhere. I would agree that all religions have blood on their hands, and while one might dispute who has 'the most blood', it changes nothing to all the rest I pointed out.

All monotheistic religions believe in a nonsensical book that is rife with contradictions, but that said, the most dangerous religion nowadays, is clearly Islam.

I also note that you did not address the main point I made, namely that a large percentage of Muslims want the sharia and have ideas that are not compatible with Western concepts (such as respect for free speech, EVEN if it's directly insulting the prophet Mohemedd (PUH!)), and that the sharia is at odds with our Western democratic values. Hence, as it currently stands, it is antithetic and therefore a danger to Western democratic values and its society as a whole, which is based on those values of the Enlightenment.

Comment Re:Nothing to do with Hollywood (Score 1) 480

Well, to each his own, I guess.

I can understand what you're getting at, but subjectively speaking, I wouldn't have wasted (as what I perceive it) so much time to a pedantic troll. Yes, it may, or may not lead to some moderate enlightenment for others to read, but even then I doubt it's worth the effort (or you should have addressed it more generally, and not in a one-by-one step as a rsponse to the troll, if your goal is edacutaion of the reading populace). IMHO, of course.

In fact, I thought 'it begs the question' also meant 'it raises the question'. I've always seen, it used like that, en though I'm not a native English-speaker, I'm quite fluent - even if I say so myself. ;-)

But I'm not sure this whole things has convinced me to change my opinion or usage of the term. Ok, granted, I've learned the technical correct side of it. I'll take note of it. But it doesn't change much de facto, because, however one turns it, the usage is SO common these days in regard to the meaning 'it raises the question', that it seems to me - and apparent the majority of people - to have surpassed the original meaning and intent.

As with all things, language is a 'living' thing. Myriads of words before and after us and our lifetime, will change, warp, drift and get other meanings. Even a lot of words today don't mean exactly the same what they meant 200 years ago, but no-one today is still complaining about that, isn't there? A language that doesn't change anymore, is dead.

After all is said and done, the meaning of a word is derived from it's usage, period. It can be annoying during a time, for instance, when people misuse 'literally' when they, in fact, mean the opposite; 'allegorically' - but even there, if the usage becomes really common and the norm, I guess I'll accept it. Don't get me wrong: I think the semantics and the real meaning of words - as defined by the dictionaries - is of paramount importance, if you want to communicate sensible with someone else.

I'm just saying, sometimes, the meaning of a word changes, and that change even gets into a dictionary as well.

Well, anyway, I'm digressing.

Comment Re:Fake movie (Score 1) 480

I'm afraid you have an overly optimistic view of Islamic conquest. Let me give you a link to help you open your eyes a bit:

One sees there a plethora of massacres, genocides and mass killings done by Muslims. Where they alone in that? No, Christians did their share (Buddhists far less, if one is honest), however, far LESS than Muslim conquest has done.And mostly, in regard to the crusades and other fights against Muslims, it was *in response* to the conquest of Christian grounds and land. Meaning, if the Muslims hadn't INVADED and CONQUERED Christian lands and countries, they wouldn't have had such a reaction neither. I couldn't find any specifics on the conquest of Spain to demonstrate unambigiously that the killings done by Muslims there is 'less' than those of Christians, but in any case it seems rather overly naive to think Muslims didn't kill off civilians and innocents at all, when they clearly had no problem doing it everywhere else.

But, regardless, I'm willing to gleen over all that, since it's in the far history, and during those times violence was rampant everywhere. It's of little use trying to convince whomever was 'the bloodiest' hundreds of years ago. Of far more concern is, how Muslims react NOW, in current times. And in this respect, it does not bode well.

As one can see, a majority of Muslims in Muslim-countries, and even a significant large proportion of Muslims in Western countries have ideas and beliefs that are antithetic with the mores, rules, and values of Western democracies. We're not talking about terrorists here, we're talking about *radical views* hold *by* Muslims, which is much broader then straight out terrorism, but still - even more so, I would claim - a danger to the continuation of Western democracies with their values derived from the Enlightenment.

It is THAT which is *really* worrying, though less visible and less openly violent than beheadings of ISIS. Unless there is a drastic reformation of Islam, such as has happened to Christianity, I claim the following: Islam is unreconcilable with, and a danger to, Western, democratic values based on the enlightenment, and, if we do not (re)act against this, it will - in the long term - mean the end of our era. It's clear as daylight, you can not have or maintain our Western system if Muslims continue to flood in (or breed and propagate faster and more in the Western countries than the original populace) while remaining as insensitive to integration and incorporation of our values as they are today (and ever have been).

Note that I'm not talking about race. Race is not the problem. I'm also no racist. Raise Blacks, Berbers, whatever, up from infancy in ones' own culture, and they ARE and BEHAVE like one of us. I'm saying it's the culture and mentality that is the problem. 40% of British Muslims want the Sharia to be the supreme law, trumping any other laws. 40%!! That's HUGE. That's like, a thousand times more and higher than when you would ask an original, born-and-raised Brit. I find it peculiar that the danger of this is not more than apparent to the left. If you take in a million refugees, as German did, and 40% of them wants to introduce sharia-law, one has to be blind and stupid not to see how this will create tensions and huge societal problems for your own civilisation and society. Yet, the West turns a blind eye. It's incomprehensible. It's like cultural suicide, and we're doing it to ourselves, like a bunch of lemmings.

Even the 'moderate Muslim' should be worried, in fact. At least those who wanted to escape from sharia law and the oppression of their home countries. If this keeps up, I foresee the end of our current Western model by the end of the 21ste century, if not sooner. This is not Islamophobia, it's just an observation and logically deduced analysis.

Comment Re:Fake movie (Score 1) 480

I largely agree with you, with the caveat the actions done are also done *in the name* of that religion, to be considered 'religious'. Otherwise, one could call the first and second war in Iraq a 'holy War' perpetrated by Christianity onto Muslims. But those wars weren't religious wars. And even though, statistically speaking, I think it's true most of the soldiers of the West were Christians, that wouldn't make it a 'religious/Christian' war.

In contrast, however, it's true that doing something 'in name of (ones') God', clearly validates the nominator that it's religious in nature, EVEN - as you say - some others of the same or similar faith may disagree, and claim it's not about their religion. This is especially true in the case of Islam, since they have no central authority (Like the Pope in Rome For Catholic Christianity) who determines what is the 'right interpretation'.

There is NO right interpretation in Islam, and no-one with absolute authority to claim so. This in turn means, that ALL interpretations can be considered correct - even though warring factions will never agree what interpretation is the correct one, and think 'theirs' is correct - ad infinitum.

The truth is, all interpretations have equal worth within Islam, from an objective stance. Even ISIS is not 'wrong' based on their interpretation; we merely find their interpretation (certainly as Westerners) despicable and vile. And, it must be said, also by a lot of other Muslims. But they're not *wrong* when claiming the Koran says the kill unbelievers. It's in there, all right. And, in their view, they're only adhering to what the Prophet asked - and they're right there too. Because, as with any 'Holy' book, it's full of contradictions, and thus you can choose and cherry-pick whatever you want. But it's ALL there, so one can't say (moderate) Muslims saying that the Koran says Allah is merciful are wrong. BUT, and here is what is controversial for the multicultural left; neither are radical Muslims saying the Koran says killing the unbelievers (and many other things that are murderous and vile, like with enslaving women as warbooty).

So it does the Islam good or bad? Neither and both, but looking at the recent developments of the last ten years, it's clear without a doubt that it's pretty dangerous, especially to democratic Western societies. That's because, apart from the terrorist attacks, a *significant* and large part of the Muslim-community still have ideas that are antithetic to Western, democratic values, even if they don't use outright violence like the 1-2% of extreme radicals of their religious community.

Comment Re:Fake movie (Score 1) 480


Right after the massacres the Muslims did starting with the prophet Mohammed (PUH!) and continuing with the Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, who launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

But back to Spain. How come the Muslims where there in the first place? Spain has always been Christian, at least since 349 D.

Ah, that's right! Because they INVADED Spain in the first place. Who would have thought!?

You clearly didn't.

Comment Re:Nothing to do with Hollywood (Score 1) 480

As a non-native English speaker, I always thought the latter WAS what the sentence meant. Isn't begging a way of asking for something (as a beggar)? Asking for a question, thus, would logically be more close to 'raising a question', rather than 'assuming the conclusion' to the question. I would have thought. So I can't really find it a disturbing usage.

In contrast, however, I find it mildly annoying that a lot of people (on youtube, for instance) use 'literally', when they mean the exact OPPOSITE of it. They mean it 'allegorically' yet use 'literally'.

Maybe that's because the 'new' meaning isn't as ingrained as yet, or maybe because there is a very close equivalent in my own language which still means what it normally means, but regardless: sometimes, misuse of words CAN be annoying, and this misuse of 'literally' I find more grating than something that begs the question.

Now, this is subjective, of course. But. The above AC however, clearly was being pedantic and wanted to troll.

Comment Re:Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

I'm more inclined to agree with Tyson: while the rover(s) were great news and certainly generated exitment, if a manned landing had been done at the same time, *no-one* of the large public would have even noticed. That is to say: manned missions will *always* generate more excitement than robotic missions.

But, don't get me wrong, I'm all for going to Mars too, and I think purely as a PR stunt (though gathering enthusiasm of/from the public is worthwhile) it's not worth its money, unless you open it up to the private sector and get the economical factor playing. But I just wanted to say that the public, politics, economics, etc. and, indeed, science, all play a part in any decision NASA takes.

It's never going to be one sole thing. Some people - scientists included - will think one thing is a pity, while others think another things is wasted money. For instance, as one can see, some scientists are against manned spacetravel, because it cuts in the available budget and thus it means less science for them. Purely from the premise and viewpoint that NASA is there for them to get scientific data, I can understand their complaints. But I think they're mistaken, when taking a more global approach. I think taking steps to actually colonize other planets and become a multi-planetary species is important too. But everyone has his opinion on it, I guess. Politicians see NASA as a means to have and keep jobs and employment in their region, for instance. That's not a worthwhile or useful goal in my book, but I guess politicians see it differently. Etc.

Anyway, I wish they wrote into the constitution that NASA gets a minimum of 1% of the GNP. :-) That way, things would become less cut-throat, and NASA would be assured of stable finances, allowing to plan long-term.

Comment Re:Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

I'm not a real proponent to waste much time and money on a moonbase, certainly not if it's to be intended as complete moon-infrastructure to make and refuel rockets for Mars. I could mayhaps see some use if it's a kept as a testbed for a colony to Mars. But I don't think it's really necessary.

However, I was making a general point. NASA, and it's goals, have never been, and will never be, solely and purely about science and scientific return. It could be as simple as PR; making the public at large interested in spacetravel again, for instance (public = politics). That succeeds better with manned flights than unmanned, and rather with moonlandings then with a station in LEO.

Of course, Mars would achive that too, but not in the same timeframe and with the same cost. It's still more cheaper and less far off to have a moonbase, then a Mars-base.

And, let's face it, it's been such a huge-ass time... if they were going to land on the moon again, I would take leave from my work and watch it live if I had too. ;-) 'Done before' (40 years ago) or not.

Though, personally, if it's that or a Mars-landing during my life-time, I'd rather have the latter.

Comment Re:Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

True. However, as said, NASA *never* had as sole and ultimate goal only science and scientific return. So it really is strange to take the premise as if it was and is. I understand that (most) scientists would *want* that, because that's their bred and butter, and what they like most, but that doesn't make it correct. The public support - and thus political support - is far easier and better gained by manned spaceflight, than robotic flight, for instance. Colonization is, ultimately, a manned endeavor - colonizing with robotic landings doesn't make the human race multi-planetary.

That's not to say the science isn't interesting: it certainly is. But it was never NASA's sole purpose to begin with. It would be like scientists saying: if they would put all the money they waste on wars and the military, into science, we could achieve far more!

Certainly. No doubt. But that's not the point nor the goal of the military.

Comment Re:Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

Let's take this one step further. I'd rather they spend all that money on me, so I could have a luxurious life without any financial worries.


It all depends on ones' priorities. NASA's priorities is not ONLY scientific return. NASA conducts its work in four principal organizations, called mission directorates:

Aeronautics: manages research focused on meeting global demand for air mobility in ways that are more environmentally friendly and sustainable, while also embracing revolutionary technology from outside aviation.
Human Exploration and Operations: focuses on International Space Station operations, development of commercial spaceflight capabilities and human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.
Science: explores the Earth, solar system and universe beyond; charts the best route of discovery; and reaps the benefits of Earth and space exploration for society.
Space Technology: rapidly develops, innovates, demonstrates, and infuses revolutionary, high-payoff technologies that enable NASA's future missions while providing economic benefit to the nation.

Note that scientific return is not the only goal for NASA, nor was it ever meant to be. You're starting from a wrong premise, thus. It's the fault of those scientists that they think NASA only exists to serve their purposes. It doesn't.

Slashdot Top Deals

Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings