LOL, actually something like an Ebola breakout is exactly what demands these measures.

Avoiding hubris is good.

But what's worse? 

To believe governments when they say that if you give them your tax dollars and more, and more, they will roll back the oceans?

+1

Wow....200 meters?

Hate to break this bad news, but 200 meters higher would ruin the best surf zones.

In the long run, though, we have an ice age coming.  We know it; we know the cycles; we know the percent of time the Earth has been in ice ages versus the percent of time it is temperate.

So this is the Big Problem.  And as you are aware, ice will make the sea level irrelevant. 

But maybe we are lucky and we have a few thousand years before this cyclical event returns the planet to ice.  So what are you asserting, that during that time period we may see a 200 meter sea level rise, and have societies severely impacted by it?

Logical fail.  First, as a devout socialist economy, Great Britian could easily have a devout leftist in charge of one or another government agency.  Second, I'd expect an ex-intelligence chief to be spouting lies, dis information and mis information in accordance with his objectives.

Not an ounce of truth, all truthiness therein.

I don't know what planet you are on but you are NOT describing the border between Mexico and Texas.

Possession of firearms is not much related to problems of terrorists sneaking across the southern border. 

In Mexico, most firearms are illegal but a most curious thing happens.  The gangsters and drug cartels do not follow the law?

I mean, can you imagine?

It will always return to this with Islam.  If not the 1984 Israeli murders in the Olympics, if not the 1993 attempt to bomb the World Trade Center, if not a copilot of a 747 yelling "Allah Akbar" as he drove that jet into the sea, if not the 2001 atrocities, if not the beheadings, if not a "Soldier of Allah" killing at Ft. Hood, Texas, if not yet another "Muslim convert" beheading a woman in Oklahoma, if not ISIS.....

Over and over and over.  This becomes the theme, the central narrative of Islam.  

I don't HATE Islam, but in the absence of strong and near unanimous FATWAs from the religious leaders against these barbarians in their midst, I cannot respect it one bit.   It is unworthy of respect.  Does not matter if some believe it is good, the best, the word of god, blah blah blah.

Certainly many consider that these minority violent fragments of Islam are quietly and passively tolerated by the greater societies of Islam, and are often funded under the table by many who would not openly admit it.  

Evidence points in that direction.  We know many in Saudi Arabian supported the 911 hijackers, we know Pakistanis celebrated with street parties at 911, we know that ISIS and many other violent groups are supported monetarily by other Muslims.

The historical evidence does not show that the Muslim religion contains sufficient clarity to adequately safeguard against what you call "deviant teachings."  That is I think what others on this thread have been trying to explain to you.  The books themselves can and do support the "deviant teachings".

To adequately comprehend the problem, it is best that a Muslim discuss such a matter with reasonably knowledgeable non-Muslims, whether they be Christian or atheist or something else.  In many cases they will be far less biased than your own mullahs and such and will see things clearly.

Yes.

The people do have the power to put a stop to this nonsense in the next 30 days.

Good point, I guess I was assuming that. 

However, do you agree with my comments about the structure of an "internally consistent belief set?"

It's not a question of "is it right?" but "Is that how it works in Islam?"

We'll see where this heads if, as pollsters say, the Republicans take the Senate next month.  As for what anyone can do about it, it's very simple.

Do something to help them take the Senate.

Does not matter, because the Word of God is to be faithful, to do that one must not read the Book except in the Arabic, which one does cannot read, hence illiteracy rules.  Your words can't be trusted, since you are one who read it not in Arabic.

The belief system is internally self consistent.

No, I am only pointing out the weakness of your argument about the "True and Untrue Language of the Holy Book" is not one that a Muslim would think was valid.

And that because they can't read the book in the language as they only may, functional illiteracy as the the actual content of the book may predominate, being usurped by "Islam as we know it and teach it". 

If that makes sense.

Sort of true, but that's no different than claiming "The King James Bible" is the real one.  Of course it's true if you consider a lineage of men whom "God Spoke Through" literally, then any production ordained and proclaimed as "The Word of God" is internally consistent with the belief system.  So your complain comes from left field, outside the belief system, and can't be considered by one within it.

Me, I'm clearly an infidel and a non-believer, so nothing I said would be considered truthful, or something like that. 

Sure, but you can do this because you read the book.

Isn't it said that Muslims should only read the "Holy Book" in the original language, which most do not know.  They memorize and recite verses that the cannot understand, because they do not know the language.  Since they must not read the book in other languages, the only actual knowledge they would have of it is from the local mullah?

This seems to be an extremely problematic premise for a culture.  It is very reminiscent of the "Latin Mass" of Catholics, now abandoned.

That would make a population very subject to the whim and caprice of a bad mullah.

Did you find any "islamic rulings on bitcoin?"

I am also curious, do you agree or disagree with this assertion? (which is from a linked blog not from anyone in this form)

Islam has to eradicate from its codex all notions of killing as a justified means to an end.

...from the prior post....

“In 2014, what is the gravest threat to civilization right now?” Scarborough asked NBC foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin.

“I would not say any of those. I would not say that radical Islam is the greatest threat to civilization today,” said Mohyeldin.

Scarborough interjected, asking, “What is?”

“Global warming,” said Confessore.




Winter arrives early in Alaska?

SEE?  THAT PROVES IT!

Two things, there's nothing wrong with describing a basic existent human trait, and acknowledging it.  Humans are selfish. 

This is separate from imposing value judgements.  Selfish can be bad, if say in an isolated group of starving people one hoards the food.

Selfish can be good, too.  Usually this is the case.

Unselfish or "altruistic" has been hijacked by politicians and other manipulators who want to see you doing things for free for them. 

My suspicion of attempts to insult selfishness stems from the selfishness of those doing the insulting.

That's accurate.  But that evolutionary advantage is really important.  Yes it would seem it creates action sets both good and bad of many types.  For example, someone may hate certain things that are bad, and strive to improve or correct them.

Things that motivate humans can't be taken lightly or disregarded.

You cannot conflagrate bad ACTIONS based on hate with the human emotion itself.  It is astonishing to think that because we are "modern" we could recreate or "improve" the emotional matrix comprising the human set.

Teaching or suggesting that humans can control their emotions is one thing, but positing that we can or should or might have an "improved human who cannot hate" is a really scary proposition.

Now I know a girl who hates spiders.   And cockroaches.  Probably a reason for that, you know?

LOL...

Bringing all this back to the OP, the version of "hate" that may exist for environmentalists and feminists is, well, about at the level of hatred of spiders and cockroaches....

I have it from a good source that someone is going to go to Reddit on the climate change forum and post that Bitcointalk.org has been making fun of them for a year.

It's an uncomfortable subject, but I do not think a basic trait of human nature could be "outdated", and that was my point.  Misuse of that trait, certainly.

But not the trait itself.