Muslims have done such great things for the world in the areas of science and math. False association fallacy. That they were Muslim did not lend anything to mathematical or scientific advancement. Application of logic and the scientific method did that. Being Muslim is what they did when they weren't using logic or the scientific method. Theism isn't knowledge. Alan Turing was a math whiz who pretty much single handedly won World War II, by leading the team that broke the crypto codes of the Germans and the Japanese. He largely originated the "turing machine" concept, eg the programmable computer as we know it. Turing was homosexual, and didn't hide it. Maybe people of that era didn't like it - maybe they put up with it until he'd completed his work. Those things can be debated. What is not debatable is that in a Muslim society, he would not have been allowed to do his creative work and would likely have been killed. If Britain had been Muslim, the Germans would have won the war. This is not a "hate Islam" argument but a refutation of your assertion of Great Math and Great Science Advances in Islam. To have these great advances requires tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people (which math wizards are often pretty odd). It requires the 50% of humans known as "women" to be allowed and encouraged to go into science and math. If a culture does not, then it will be retarded. If not for Turing (unless of course his ideas were discovered later by someone else) we would not be conversing on these "computers". There would be no "bitcointalk.org" because there would be no bitcoin because of a lack of crypto in electronic usages. So, Greg. You want to stand by your comments of your post of 6:38? I am curious. I don't think Turing is a good example to show the superiority of the non-muslim culture or to show our "tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people." Unless by being tolerant and appreciative, you mean prosecuting for being different and forcing a war hero into chemical castration. Not the moral, feel good story I think you were going for about how much better our society was than an Islamic one at the time. I beg to differ. Yes it's a sordid story, but the very point is that he wasn't killed off by a crazy religious environment and he was allowed to do his work. This isn't about being nice to people. It's about whether they are allowed to live or die. Your case-in-point about why our culture was superior to an Islamic one was about a guy who, granted, was not murdered for who he was. He was merely threatened with prosecution and jail, or allowed to avoid jail by "voluntary" chemical castration. This does not showcase moral superiority. It shows more in common with the society you criticize than a differentiation of it. First of all, the recent movie does not accurate depict a lot of the story, and some things are blatantly wrong. But the full story is readily available. You entirely miss my point. My point is not at all related to Turing and "human rights", either then or now, or of now viewing then in retrospect. Rather, the point is the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it. Right away that would subtract more than 50%, say 60% by the time you add up all the total oddballs, gays, infidels and such. That's quite obviously going to hold that culture back. Probably way, way, way back. Turing did contribute, and was appreciated greatly for his work. I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed." |
|
|
|
there is no such thing as islamophobia
Do you live under a rock or your country doesn't deliver newspapers? Islamophobia is bad, distateful, spread like a cancer and its full of hate. Its definitely real and you will experience it when you get out of your neighborhood and step into the real world. Um, what are those? Also I notice you have not addressed the rebuttal of your prior comment. She was just an average lady traveling on board. ....
Well, it does not matter if you disagree. This wasn't an "average lady".... Since it clearly needs to be asked, in what sense is she not an "average lady?" You've disputed a term without justifying or explaining what you're talking about, then want to know why your throw away comment wasn't addressed? Because there's no substance to address. Given that Google is everyone's friend these days, is it necessary to spell it all out? It's already been done earlier in this thread. Now I have to admit - someone that thinks of "newspapers" as a primary info source might neither look back in the thread or check google. But that's not you... Making vague statements that could be interpreted any number of ways and then refusing to explain them upon request is to be regarded as an automatic admission you don't have a point. Not if the issue was already clearly handled earlier in the thread. This is called "moving forward." Someone jumps into the conversation mid stream, the record is there for him to get up to speed. Not my job. If you had a valid point, it shouldn't be much trouble to reiterate it. However, having since found the original, I see why you wouldn't want to. |
|
|
|
but you can get sued for refusing to bake a cake glorifying sodomy
The LGBT lobby has taken full control of the Western nations. The political correctness has gone mad there. Anyone can abuse the heterosexuals, and it is perfectly OK, but never abuse any homosexuals. Even the schoolchildren are brainwashed and taught that a heterosexual lifestyle is less preferable when compared to a homosexual one. No one brainwashes children into believing a homosexual lifestyle is preferable to the one they are inclined to lead. Your posts are getting more delusional and paranoid. |
|
|
|
it will lose 80-90 billion but no, that wont crush germany. it is just more debt.
Care to explain why this will not crush the German economy? The German GDP is worth some €3 trillion, and the debts by Greee account for almost 3% of it. If Greece refuses to pay the debt to Germany, then 3% of the German GDP will vanish, in a matter of seconds. And considering the fact that the German GDP growth was just 1.6% in 2014, don't you think that this will start a recession in Germany? Those debt numbers don't figure into GDP because GDP is just an aggregate value of transactions. If the money owed to Germany vanishes, it doesn't have anything to do with GDP, because that figure wasn't part of GDP in the first place. However, the consequences of a default could affect GDP if people stop spending out of fear and uncertainty. But that's not the same thing. The answer is that the debt default doesn't automatically translate into less GDP. |
|
|
|
|
The question is does it matter? If they're only adopting bitcoin to get their money out of the country while the banks are closed, this is meaningless, as they'll convert to a more stable fiat elsewhere.
If, however, they are adopting bitcoin to use in place of fiat, that will be big news. I'll be interested to see if there is a large influx into bitcoin in Greece that persists, but my guess is people are taking the path of least resistance out atm, and also not doing so in substantially consequential numbers.
|
|
|
|
Does anyone think a Wal-Mart employee would recognize the ISIS flag if they baked it on a cake? I bet you could get them to unwittingly bake a cake with a lot of objectionable symbols or writing on it if they didn't understand what it was. I guarantee you most Wal-Mart employees wouldn't be able to differentiate between the ISIS flag and the Saudi Arabian flag.   |
|
|
|
but you can get sued for refusing to bake a cake glorifying sodomy
You can get sued for anything. That statement is meaningless. |
|
|
|
Oh boo fucking hoo.
Seeing some of you guys go batshit insane over this is incredibly funny, same sex marriage has been legalised, the world hasn't ended, in the same way that the Fins taxing the church hasn't meant that the world is going to end. Stop being such a bunch of intolerent little shits and get over it, who gives a fuck if same sex couples wants to get married? Oh wait, nevermind, only you lot.
The way you lot are acting over the whole same sex marriage thing is the equivalent of spoilt children. I'm somebody who goes toe to toe with the left over issues like mens rights but seriously? Why the fuck is it any of your business what two consenting adults do in their bedroom? Oh wait, that's right, it's none of your fucking business. You're so quick to yell at the government for telling you what to do with your bodies when it comes to abortion or what people do in the bedroom and so on but one mention of gay marriage and you all go apeshit telling them exactly that they need to interfere with how grown adults handle their relationships.
Gay Marriage won, the world hasn't ended and never will, now get the fuck over it you fucking brainwashed medieval peasants, I'm not suprised some intolerent fucks on Bitcointalk came out of the woodwork after these announcements.
B-b-b-but the LGBT agenda is coming for all our man rights! Not a single man right is safe! We have to stop them before they pass laws forcing us to like penises! In most of the Western nations, heterosexuals are now facing reverse discrimination from the pro-LGBT lobby. In a few more years, things will get even worse. Imagine what would happen if Pinoccibitch is elected as the POTUS in 2016. She herself is bisexual, and will enact all sorts of laws and regulations against the heterosexual people.
There isn't an emoji that rolls its eyes hard enough to convey the level of ridicule this position deserves, so this will have to do.  |
|
|
|
Muslims have done such great things for the world in the areas of science and math. False association fallacy. That they were Muslim did not lend anything to mathematical or scientific advancement. Application of logic and the scientific method did that. Being Muslim is what they did when they weren't using logic or the scientific method. Theism isn't knowledge. Alan Turing was a math whiz who pretty much single handedly won World War II, by leading the team that broke the crypto codes of the Germans and the Japanese. He largely originated the "turing machine" concept, eg the programmable computer as we know it. Turing was homosexual, and didn't hide it. Maybe people of that era didn't like it - maybe they put up with it until he'd completed his work. Those things can be debated. What is not debatable is that in a Muslim society, he would not have been allowed to do his creative work and would likely have been killed. If Britain had been Muslim, the Germans would have won the war. This is not a "hate Islam" argument but a refutation of your assertion of Great Math and Great Science Advances in Islam. To have these great advances requires tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people (which math wizards are often pretty odd). It requires the 50% of humans known as "women" to be allowed and encouraged to go into science and math. If a culture does not, then it will be retarded. If not for Turing (unless of course his ideas were discovered later by someone else) we would not be conversing on these "computers". There would be no "bitcointalk.org" because there would be no bitcoin because of a lack of crypto in electronic usages. So, Greg. You want to stand by your comments of your post of 6:38? I am curious. I don't think Turing is a good example to show the superiority of the non-muslim culture or to show our "tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people." Unless by being tolerant and appreciative, you mean prosecuting for being different and forcing a war hero into chemical castration. Not the moral, feel good story I think you were going for about how much better our society was than an Islamic one at the time. I beg to differ. Yes it's a sordid story, but the very point is that he wasn't killed off by a crazy religious environment and he was allowed to do his work. This isn't about being nice to people. It's about whether they are allowed to live or die. Your case-in-point about why our culture was superior to an Islamic one was about a guy who, granted, was not murdered for who he was. He was merely threatened with prosecution and jail, or allowed to avoid jail by "voluntary" chemical castration. This does not showcase moral superiority. It shows more in common with the society you criticize than a differentiation of it. |
|
|
|
Muslims have done such great things for the world in the areas of science and math. False association fallacy. That they were Muslim did not lend anything to mathematical or scientific advancement. Application of logic and the scientific method did that. Being Muslim is what they did when they weren't using logic or the scientific method. Theism isn't knowledge. Alan Turing was a math whiz who pretty much single handedly won World War II, by leading the team that broke the crypto codes of the Germans and the Japanese. He largely originated the "turing machine" concept, eg the programmable computer as we know it. Turing was homosexual, and didn't hide it. Maybe people of that era didn't like it - maybe they put up with it until he'd completed his work. Those things can be debated. What is not debatable is that in a Muslim society, he would not have been allowed to do his creative work and would likely have been killed. If Britain had been Muslim, the Germans would have won the war. This is not a "hate Islam" argument but a refutation of your assertion of Great Math and Great Science Advances in Islam. To have these great advances requires tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people (which math wizards are often pretty odd). It requires the 50% of humans known as "women" to be allowed and encouraged to go into science and math. If a culture does not, then it will be retarded. If not for Turing (unless of course his ideas were discovered later by someone else) we would not be conversing on these "computers". There would be no "bitcointalk.org" because there would be no bitcoin because of a lack of crypto in electronic usages. So, Greg. You want to stand by your comments of your post of 6:38? I am curious. I don't think Turing is a good example to show the superiority of the non-muslim culture or to show our "tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people." Unless by being tolerant and appreciative, you mean prosecuting for being different and forcing a war hero into chemical castration. Not the moral, feel good story I think you were going for about how much better our society was than an Islamic one at the time. He did help win a war before the chemical castration. If a sharia laws based society fighting for its survival was attacked and needed a solution to win, turing would have never been solicited in that context, nor even still be alive if openly gay. What a fine way to reward a war hero. 'Hey, at least we didn't kill you!' |
|
|
|
Sounds like religious conservatives need to learn the difference between civil and religious marriage.
Not that simple. Most of the religious nuts oppose faggot marriage just because it is against their religion. But there are people like myself, who oppose it as my tax payer money will be used for the promotion of sodomy and the spread of HIV. If homo marriage is legalized, then they will be eligible for child benefits and tax cuts, which are now available only for the heterosexual couples. Well those are some of the dumbest and least informed reasons yet enumerated on the topic. |
|
|
|
I also predict 0 states, named Texas or otherwise, will try to secede over the issue of gay marriage, because I live in a world where a small percentage of people complaining about gay marriage doesn't equal a secession attempt.
Opposition to homo marriage tops 50% in many of the Southern states. The ruling by the SCOTUS will be seen by the religious conservatives as an attempt by the court to weaken their religion. That said, I don't think that suddenly everyone living there will take up arms and create a secession movement. But for sure, extremist groups will be witnessing a steep rise in their membership. Sounds like religious conservatives need to learn the difference between civil and religious marriage. |
|
|
|
Jaysabi, I know you weren't calling me an idiot. Celestio is actually the one who used that term. I was simply addressing both of you in my post because I felt there was no need for two posts. Anyway, I really don't know of any other way to address the point. I honestly have no problem with gay marriage. However, this is still the United STATES of America. We have elected officials in each state whose purpose is to represent the constituents of that state. The power to decide who can get married has now been taken away from the state and given to the federal government. Some see that as a good thing, others see it as a bad thing. Just look at the graphic posted by Beliathon and it shows the progression of states which have overturned gay marriage bans. The number was steadily increasing. Politicians are flip flops by nature and even the most conservative of governors and state legislators would eventually have had no choice but to heed the call of the people to overturn the bans. I know, it wasn't happening fast enough. But it was happening. For me, this ruling has little to do with gay marriage. The federal government is absorbing too much power. If you think the Executive branch has the best interest of the people in mind, you are wrong. Barack Obama did not support gay marriage until he figured out he could use it to his advantage to be reelected. Hillary Clinton is the same way. She is just another politician who will say anything to get elected. She doesn't care about gays or gay rights, and neither does Obama. They are all the same, they worship power at the expense of the little people. I'm glad gays have the right to get married now. But a huge door just got flung wide open. What's next?
Your point is taken, I understand the local autonomy argument. But the fact still remains, there are rights that can't be voted away, and where some states would choose to do that (e.g. where the majority in a state vote in representatives who restrict the rights of the minority), the federal government's job is to protect the rights of the minority. That's really where the debate ends in my book because there is no counter to that. The primary role of government is to protect rights, and where some states won't protect rights of certain individuals, they need to be forced to. That's not the federal government absorbing more power, that's it using the power it already possessed to force state's that are violating their primary function to recognize an individual's rights they had been unduly restricting. |
|
|
|
To force mosques to have same sex marriages or be forced to loose all tax exemptions? I don't believe the marriage-equality issue is about forcing religious organisations to conduct marriages which are counter to their inherent bigotry. AFAIK marriage-equality deals solely with the issue of ensuring that all US States have to conduct and recognise marriages between two people, irrespective of their gender. It is a legal issue of ensuring gay couples can have the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples. The law does not concern forcing religious organisations to conduct gay marriages. Unless you know otherwise. No, this is a correct interpretation as far as anyone can honestly represent. The government can't discriminate because it is the role of government to protect an individual's rights. Religious institutions are free to continue discriminating because they have no onus concerning rights, and it's a mutually voluntary association by the organization and the individual. Not just churches or mosques but universities with a catholic affiliation for example... Wasn't polygamy the norm back in the old days... I mean the old old days. Social evolution seems to tell us polygamy went out, based on structural reason, just like the dinosaurs... ------------------------------------------------------------------- Discrimination is discrimination. I believe we will see more and more cases like this one in the future. The New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) has ruled that the Roman Catholic owners of an Albany-area farm violated the civil rights of a lesbian couple when they declined to host the couple’s same-sex “marriage” ceremony in 2012. Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who own and operate Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, were ordered by DHR Judge Migdalia Pares and Commissioner Helen Diane Foster to pay $10,000 in fines to the state and an additional $3,000 in damages to the lesbian couple, Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin for “mental pain and suffering.” Additionally, the Giffords must provide sensitivity training to their staff, and prominently display a poster highlighting state anti-discrimination laws. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-couple-fined-13000-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-at-theirI don't know that it's a violation of the law, why would it be? First, I don't think any religious organization should have a tax exempt status, but nonetheless, I don't know how this has a bearing on the relevant circumstances of the situation. Taking a tax deduction doesn't make you an agent of the government. The protection of rights is by the government, not individual organizations. I support gay marriage, but I don't support forcing any religious organization to perform a religious ceremony (and I, as an atheist, have no pony in that race. What religious organizations do privately affects me in no way.) Religious marriage and civil marriage are not the same, and this law should only be binding on civil marriage, and governments are the only institution involved in civil marriage. |
|
|
|
|
I predict that before 2050, SCOTUS will not make marriage between humans and animals legal because that slope isn't nearly as slippery as a tenuous grip on reality would lead you to believe. I also predict 0 states, named Texas or otherwise, will try to secede over the issue of gay marriage, because I live in a world where a small percentage of people complaining about gay marriage doesn't equal a secession attempt.
|
|
|
|
To force mosques to have same sex marriages or be forced to loose all tax exemptions? I don't believe the marriage-equality issue is about forcing religious organisations to conduct marriages which are counter to their inherent bigotry. AFAIK marriage-equality deals solely with the issue of ensuring that all US States have to conduct and recognise marriages between two people, irrespective of their gender. It is a legal issue of ensuring gay couples can have the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples. The law does not concern forcing religious organisations to conduct gay marriages. Unless you know otherwise. No, this is a correct interpretation as far as anyone can honestly represent. The government can't discriminate because it is the role of government to protect an individual's rights. Religious institutions are free to continue discriminating because they have no onus concerning rights, and it's a mutually voluntary association by the organization and the individual. |
|
|
|
Celestio and jaysabi, it would appear you both grossly misinterpreted what I wrote. The fact is that several states had already begun to allow gay marriage. And many more were in line to do so. It would have been only a matter of time before all 50 states got on board and allowed it. This move by the SCOTUS was nothing more than a power grab. Interpret that how you will. Call me an idiot if you want. I won't lose sleep over it.
I'm not calling you an idiot mate, I'm just trying to understand your argument is all. You said this was a case of state's rights, and I explained my view of why it isn't. That's not misinterpreting what you wrote, it's directly responding to it. But you didn't address my points (if that's because they didn't address your points, fair enough, but explain how since it appears to me I directly addressed what you wrote). Regardless, I haven't seen a good explanation yet of why this was such a terrible court decision or what state's rights were taken away. It being a matter of time isn't a justification for allowing states to take their sweet time recognizing individual rights. In time, integration might have been embraced too, and eventually slavery might have been abolished in the south on its own. "Eventually we'll get there" doesn't excuse the infringement of rights taking place right now. This isn't a question about state's rights, because you can't democratically elect to strip a group of people of their rights. So there is no prerogative of the states here that is being infringed. |
|
|
|
This is interesting. I wonder if Vancouver's proximity to Washington state, which already had legal pot, had anything to do with their decision to legalize and regulate it rather than try to fight the illegal stores operating there. With legal pot so close just over the border, it's probably easier and better for the local economy (and government) to legalize it rather than continue cracking down and watching dollars flow over the border to buy legal weed in Washington.
Weed legalization in Washington and Colorado must have played a part in this decision. Also, Vancouver is the most liberal of the major Canadian cities, and it is the Bitcoin capital of North America. I just hope that the weed sellers in Vancouver might become interested in accepting BTC as a mode of payment, as so many Bitcoin ventures are coming up in the city and the surroundings. What makes Vancouver the 'bitcoin capital of North America?' Number of businesses that accept? |
|
|
|
 Vancouver becomes first Canadian city to regulate growing marijuana markethttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/24/vancouver-regulate-illegal-marijuana-stores-canada<< Vancouver has approved new rules to license and regulate illegal marijuana stores, making it the first city in Canada to attempt to control the burgeoning market – and setting it on a collision course with the country's federal government. After four days of public hearings, the city council approved regulations that will set zoning controls and hefty licence fees for Vancouver's many pot shops: the city of 600,000 is thought to have more marijuana stores than its 109 Starbucks locations. >> This is interesting. I wonder if Vancouver's proximity to Washington state, which already had legal pot, had anything to do with their decision to legalize and regulate it rather than try to fight the illegal stores operating there. With legal pot so close just over the border, it's probably easier and better for the local economy (and government) to legalize it rather than continue cracking down and watching dollars flow over the border to buy legal weed in Washington. |
|
|
|
But anyway, another day, and another state's right taken away. No big deal. Let's just sit back in awe as the federal government absorbs more power. Let's continue arguing about some silly flag while the TPP gets shoved down our throats just like the ACA did. But hey, at least the gays can get married now.
What state right are you seeking to preserve here, the right to define marriage in a way to exclude gay people? How is that different from 'preserving' a state's right to to exclude certain races from education (i.e. segregation)? The one thing that is constant in our history is that an individual's rights always trump the state's rights. That's why the south was forced to integrate, because the individual's right to equal education trumped the state's right to educate the different races in the way they preferred ("separate but equal"), which the court ruled was inherently unequal. The point of the federal government here is to protect individual's rights where states refuse to. The "state's rights" argument holds no merit where states trample individual rights, and as long as state governments are going to grant marriages, declining marriages to gay couples is not just and is not defensible; not for religious reasons, not for state's rights reasons, not for any reasons. That's what this case got right in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
