News Stories

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

You seem to say that only terrorists are fair targets for criticism, and that care should be taken not to hurt the widdle feelings of non-terrorist Muslims. I say Muslims aren't special and everyone's feelings are fair game.

And I say that is stereotyping. And that's your answer why I would need an AK when I think something should be illegal. Well, whatever floats your boat I guess.

[Anh_Minh]

I have no idea what you're even trying to argue anymore...


PS: rereading my original AK-47 post - what I meant wasn't that anyone thinking something should be illegal needs an AK-47. I meant it's not necessary to be an AK-47 wielding terrorist to be too self-centered and therefore needing a reminder their feelings are nothing special.

[erneiz_hyde]

I suppose it's not 'necessary'. Still means it's baseless and unwarranted.

[ganbaru]

Why Islamic State’s brand of horror works so well
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...eath-instinct/

Boehner ready to let funding lapse for Homeland Security agency
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0LJ0P520150215

Yemen's last Jews eye exodus after Islamist militia takeover
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0LJ0QB20150215

[RRW]

PALO ALTO, Calif. — In late 2013, an A.T.M. in Kiev started dispensing cash at seemingly random times of day. No one had put in a card or touched a button. Cameras showed that the piles of money had been swept up by customers who appeared lucky to be there at the right moment.

But when a Russian cybersecurity firm, Kaspersky Lab, was called to Ukraine to investigate, it discovered that the errant machine was the least of the bank’s problems.

The bank’s internal computers, used by employees who process daily transfers and conduct bookkeeping, had been penetrated by malware that allowed cybercriminals to record their every move. The malicious software lurked for months, sending back video feeds and images that told a criminal group — including Russians, Chinese and Europeans — how the bank conducted its daily routines, according to the investigators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/wo...ware.html?_r=2

Images

infographic

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[MrTerrorist]

Italy's richest man, Nutella billionaire Ferrero dies

RIP good sir. Your company's range of chocolate like Ferrero Rocher and Nutella are delicious.

[monster]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Like?

There are multiple means of communications, like newspaper/magazine/internet articles, formal public debates, etc. Choose a method that doesn't rely on knowingly offending people.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by monster

There are multiple means of communications, like newspaper/magazine/internet articles, formal public debates, etc. Choose a method that doesn't rely on knowingly offending people.

Nah, at this point I'd say offensive is fine as long as there is a legitimate base for it.

[Fizix]

Just seen this posted on another forum, not the nicest topic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sed-early.html

The mother of "baby p", she and her partner abused and murdered their child, was released after a ridiculously short prison term and has been sent back to prison for flogging naked pictures of herself. How she received such a short term in the first place is beyond me.

This discussion explains how/why she may have broke the terms of her release and discusses her partners early release and recall as well:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2052407

I personally find this whole affair shocking, the things they did to that child and both were free within a couple of years of their crimes.

[monster]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Nah, at this point I'd say offensive is fine as long as there is a legitimate base for it.

Well, we were talking about creating discussions. Offending people is not a legitimate way to create discussions.

[Ithekro]

Satire, especially in cartoon form, is an old tradition now in Europe and the Americas. Political satire especially.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Nah, at this point I'd say offensive is fine as long as there is a legitimate base for it.

Actually having a base or not doesn't matter. Every culture seems to have their own concept of evil. What matters most is still to get a good laugh over it whether you are the victim or the offending party.

If you want a really offensive form of satire, here is one.

[erneiz_hyde]

Well, I suppose everyone needs a good brain dead laugh once in a while, just don't confuse that with intellectual discussions or debate.

All I am asking ultimately though is to treat people as people in your daily activities, and judge them on their individual actions, no matter their race, religion, nationality, political background etc. Stereotyping is a gate to all other can of worms.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Well, I suppose everyone needs a good brain dead laugh once in a while, just don't confuse that with intellectual discussions or debate.

All I am asking ultimately though is to treat people as people in your daily activities, and judge them on their individual actions, no matter their race, religion, nationality, political background etc. Stereotyping is a gate to all other can of worms.

Then behave as everyone else would. Work when everyone us working, eat what everyone else eats, and go drink, gamble and party as everyone else would.

Being born with life crippling ailments that makes the above impossible is forgivable. Personal practices are not nature given handicaps, they can be chucked aside when it comes to social interactions.

If not get ready to be ostracised. Freedom works both ways.

[erneiz_hyde]

I'd like to ask, does anyone else shares SH's brand of freedom?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

I'd like to ask, does anyone else shares SH's brand of freedom?

Ad populum.

Shouldn't you stop moving with fallacies and personal attacks and do a reality check.

[erneiz_hyde]

I am doing that. If the reality is that "tyranny of the majority" is justice, then I would shut up about the matter,

[monster]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Then behave as everyone else would. Work when everyone us working, eat what everyone else eats, and go drink, gamble and party as everyone else would.

Being born with life crippling ailments that makes the above impossible is forgivable. Personal practices are not nature given handicaps, they can be chucked aside when it comes to social interactions.

If not get ready to be ostracised. Freedom works both ways.

You're promoting conformity, not freedom.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

I am doing that. If the reality is that "tyranny of the majority" is justice, then I would shut up about the matter,

That is pulling a quote off the air. The result is a cliche.

There isn't a tyranny of majority, the problem is with the narrow restrictions that make the rest of society difficult to accept a particular faith into their fold.

All the more it makes the quick condemnations difficult to refute. Stop giving them ammo to shoot you back.

Originally Posted by monster

You're promoting conformity, not freedom.

That IS freedom. Why should the rest be restricted by the whims of one who has strict personal practices s/he has to adhere to?

A barbecue shouldn't be spoiled by one who can't eat anything contaminated by swine, wine or meat. That person has to go home unless s/he makes an exception for that event.

Buddhists already do because there is one deity that has shown that it is okay. Religion is a concept for goodness; all those prayers and fasting are banal if the believer does not embody the idea of ad hoc kindness.

It is about the people around you. Concessions can be made, i.e religious festivals, Prayer of the Week; but unless the majority of the country practice such, it is the majority that sets the norm. And incidentally, the majority have that freedom of maneuver in their practices.

There is an economy to be run, productivity to be driven, work to be done, and a future to be built. It is a cohesive effort, so isn't it time to amend those time-consuming practices to fit with the modern world and its members rather than insisting that rights be given all the time to practice a faith?

[monster]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That IS freedom. Why should the rest be restricted by the whims of one who has strict personal practices s/he has to adhere to?

A barbecue shouldn't be spoiled by one who can't eat anything contaminated by swine, wine or meat. That person has to go home unless s/he makes an exception for that event.

Buddhists already do because there is one deity that has shown that it is okay. Religion is a concept for goodness; all those prayers and fasting are banal if the believer does not embody the idea of ad hoc kindness.

It is about the people around you. Concessions can be made, i.e religious festivals, Prayer of the Week; but unless the majority of the country practice such, it is the majority that sets the norm. And incidentally, the majority have that freedom of maneuver in their practices.

There is an economy to be run, productivity to be driven, work to be done, and a future to be built. It is a cohesive effort, so isn't it time to amend those time-consuming practices to fit with the modern world and its members rather than insisting that rights be given all the time to practice a faith?

As you said, the majority has the freedom in their practices. So any personal practice of the minority can never restrict that of the rest. So there is no need to further amend/restrict such practices beyond some of the restrictions already in place in some societies, such as outlawing human sacrifice.

That said, each practice should be evaluated individually. Nonetheless, the point remains that what you want is no longer about freedom, but conformity.