Nobody's personal religion is the absolute truth.
So that would include yours. Oh, can't you see the predictable next response? His religion isn't personal, it's universal objective truth!  |
|
|
|
Like I said, go ahead, produce some actual numbers and cite their sources...
A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified.
Globally 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81% of Muslims opposed such violence.
About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified.
26% of Muslims in Bangladesh believe attacks are either somewhat justified or often justified, 18% in Malaysia, 7% in Iraq, 15% in Jordan, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.
Europe:
64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
In mainly Muslim countries:
45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorismSo using your numbers 28% of Muslims in Egypt think that "violence against civilians" could be justified sometimes or often - and 53% think violence against civilians can be justified rarely, sometimes or often. Well now isn't that nice. I wonder what percentage of Americans think "violence against civilians" could be justified sometimes. At first, you might think that the answer would be a very, very small percentage would ever agree that violence against civilians is ever OK, after all, we're the good guys and we just won't stand for that. That's what gives us the moral superiority to judge other nations for having such a barbaric outlook towards civilians. But then you look at our historical attitude towards it, and I bet we're a lot closer to the contemporary 28% of Egypt than you would think at first glance. After all, there was not a big outcry against the firebombing techniques the US used in WWII that killed thousands of civilians in Europe. The ends justified the means; had to get those damn Nazis to surrender. And many Americans still support the decision to drop the atomic bombs, which wiped out tens of thousands of civilians each. But those Japs started it anyway with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, so they got what they deserved! And today, there is not a big backlash against the use of drones by the US military that kills scores of civilians on a continual basis. This is not a great secret, yet most of America is pretty meh about stopping a program that has a horrific track record of civilian deaths over a prolonged period of time. So it seems a large portion of the US population would agree that violence against civilians is sometimes justified. People who live in glass houses, and all that... |
|
|
|
|
Given that the forum was down for a significant portion of this last week, will you waive minimum post requirements this week or roll posts into the next pay period? I'm not even sure if I would qualify this week otherwise, and I'm pretty consistently active every week.
|
|
|
|
This is fascism at its best. I wasn't expecting that from Oregon. A black box in every car to tell the government what every driver is doing with his car. Europe's smarter. In Switzerland, there's a highway tax. It's just a small sticker you put on your windshield. You've got to buy the new one every year to be allowed to drive on the highways, and you'll get a fine if you get on a highway without it, but nobody records anything. That's not needed.
Nobody's concerned about privacy in Oregon? I'm really surprised.
Well right now, it's not a mandatory program. The only people participating are those who volunteered. It would be safe to assume that no, none of them have privacy concerns. Once they try to make this the mandatory program, you can expect the privacy concern argument to take a more prevalent role in the debate. |
|
|
|
Is this really unsurprising? Locked up in a house 24/7 I'd be surprised if he didn't have any. Would really love to know the titles though haha. They should just leak it. Can't see why they care about keeping it hidden as you think it'd be a great annoyance to jihadis.
He was just reading for the articles.  |
|
|
|
Once a man's marriage is over with a feminoid, the state regularly inserts its enormous penis into his colon anyway.
There is a giant cock with each of our names on it waiting somewhere out there over the horizon. It may as well be attached to someone you love.
Hahahaha, this is one of the funniest ways to word this I have ever read. It's almost poetic! |
|
|
|
The thing that most people don't seem to realize is that a religion is really just a belief system, nothing more. Every human rely on some belief system, whether there be a God involved or not. So you could say everyone is religious, the only thing that separates people is numbers. The guy who has his own personal belief system is not considered religious while millions that adhere to the same system are.
There difference between a belief and a religion is that a religion has ritualistic behavior that is oriented around the belief. As in, believe in XYZ, pray in this specific way, etc, otherwise you won't be granted eternal rewards. While this is true for folks that barely think about religion or atheism, but rather just live it without thinking. Yet for those who practice their religion, even atheism if the practice it is a religion. Atheists want some information regarding the beginnings of life and human kind. So they focus on scientific "revelations," thereby making the "revelations" their "bible" and the scientists that proclaim the revelations their "priests." At any rate, those people who don't think much about atheism or other religions, have the personal religion that suggests ignorance about religion. Why? Because they do whatever they do day by day, RELIGIOUSLY.  EDIT: Take a look at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1068356.msg11447618#msg11447618 to see why you might not want to be an atheist any longer. While your attempt to draw an analogy between atheism and religion has been drawn out painfully long and been discredited many times in this thread but just about everyone who bothers to respond to your posts, your propensity to cling to unworthy ideas is consistent to the point of being nearly absolute. |
|
|
|
The thing that most people don't seem to realize is that a religion is really just a belief system, nothing more. Every human rely on some belief system, whether there be a God involved or not. So you could say everyone is religious, the only thing that separates people is numbers. The guy who has his own personal belief system is not considered religious while millions that adhere to the same system are.
There difference between a belief and a religion is that a religion has ritualistic behavior that is oriented around the belief. As in, believe in XYZ, pray in this specific way, etc, otherwise you won't be granted eternal rewards. |
|
|
|
Because believing in something without evidence is idiotic.
All religions are nothing more than scams preying on stupid people.
Same applies to atheists who believe that all the wrong done in this world is because of religion and their belief in God. For them, evil people are evil because of religion. They say that because they get abused by people who are theists (although it's wrong that those people abuse them and they are bad people) but that doesn't mean that those bad people do the same because of their belief. They are just plain bad/evil. It's not that theists 'do evil' that leads people to believe religion is the problem, but that the theists who 'do evil' seek to use religion as a justification or excuse that leads to that conclusion. I agree that theists who do bad things don't do so because of their religion, unless they tell you this to be the case by trying to cite the bible or religious tradition as a justification for their actions. In those cases, I'd say the conclusion is quite warranted. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, public safety signs are such a tyranny! Viva la revolution!
|
|
|
|
|
Quite remarkable, and worth mentioning the strong Catholic ties Ireland has historically held that they overcame in order to vote for equality. Savvy move by the government too for a national referendum to prove this is supported by the nation.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this will negatively affect the economy in ways that it won't be apparent in such a small sample size of this pilot program, but will become apparent if rolled out state-wide. Driving creates a lot of economic activity, especially for recreation. A gas tax is a hidden tax on driving, so people don't associate having a tax on how much they drive currently because the price is baked into the price at the pump, and I bet people don't even know how much of the gas price is state, federal, and local taxes currently. The price of gas is just the cost of driving, and taxes are known but not really a consideration. When you explicitly tie a specific rate of tax for each mile driven, that will cause the amount of miles driven to decrease, and those miles will come from discretionary driving- that is driving places people don't have to (like work) but choose to (like recreation). Suddenly, that extra trip to a local business or to sight see or road trips, all things that create economic activity, are decreased because of the overt extra tax associated with them, which depresses economic activity.
My own personal opinion is that states should pay for the things they need to pay for, but be up front about what the costs are, stop borrowing to balance bungets, and have a single tax rate on income or a VAT that represents all income the state receives. Enough of all these little hidden taxes everywhere.
The answer to taxes is simplification, because when people see how much government really costs and the state has to pay for things as it goes instead of borrowing, they will demand government be more efficient.
|
|
|
|
I hear that Texas is the only State that, right in its enabling act when it was formed, as part of the contract to be a State between itself and the United States, has the right to secede, no questions asked, any time it wants. Since this is by contract, the U.S. has no right to even attempt to stop it. You heard wrong. |
|
|
|
I have interspersed my comments directly to your response and changed the font color to red to differentiate my text from yours. I'm very troubled by the implications of living in a society such as the one you propose. I admire the people who have spoken out openly and honestly in spite of the danger. Those at Charlie Hebdo did, and were executed to avenge the "prophet." I hope the one surviving artist has a safe long (well-deserved) retirement, but you're right that he'll be a target the rest of his life. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spoken out openly and honestly and she is on a hit list as well. Who is standing by her? Everyone who stands for law and justice. If any harm comes to anyone, I expect the perpetrators to be pursued to the fullest extent of the law, just like every other crime. The conclusion of implying that 'no one is standing by her' is that anyone could harm her without consequence, or society as a whole has cast her out. Neither of these is true. I'm reminded of Brandeis University who "disinvited" her to speak. Don't the people at Brandeis University who made that decision deserve to be on the Hebdonymous List? No, an institution is welcome to have opinions that differ from individuals the same as you are, and their name no more than your name deserves to be on an intimidation list because you hold an opinion other people disagree with. Do there names deserve some kind of respect? Many others have spoken out, including Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc. Their lives are in danger from jihadists and their names are cursed as "racist Islamophobes" by the collaborators, the traitors, the people who well deserve their names being added to the Hebdonymous List.
In a free society where people are free to speak their minds, different beliefs can be debated. You're not proposing debate, you're proposing attributing false rhetoric to people who don't subscribe to it for the purpose of having them deal with consequences you created. There's nothing protected about that action in law or morality. False statements can be identified because they are subject to criticism. True statements are left standing (in addition to being made clearer) after being subjected to criticism. This kind of open debate is the vital lifeblood of a free society. We did not choose to live in a world in which criticizing Islam leads one huge group of people will label you a "racist Islamophobe hate speaker" There is nothing wrong with someone holding this opinion of another, after all it is an opinion and another huge group of people to kill you. but there is something wrong with an intent to harm. And anyone causing harm will face the same consequences under the law as anyone else, despite how reprehensible their personal opinions might be. But this is the society that has been forced on us. I read a news story that the British police collected the names of the people who bought the first Charlie Hebdo issue after the massacre. We are not safe.
In this environment it's not surprising that world leaders regularly tell the nothing-to-do-with-Islam lie and that Islam is a religion of peace. It's the only politically correct position to hold on Islam.
Suppose Hebdonymous were successful and that some of these liars and apologists had their name associated with anti-Islamic speech online. Then imagine your next conversation with that coworker or in-law or Facebook friend of a friend, you know the one: the Islam-is-peace and the real problem comes from those crazy Islamophobes. You could tell the son-of-a-bitch: If I ever hear you say this bullshit again, you may find your name nominated to be on the Hebdonymous List. This is the perfect summation of everything wrong with your point of view. I don't agree with your opinion of things, so I'm going to falsely attribute things I actually believe to you so that you have to face the consequences for it. That makes you a coward for having a clear point of view but no willingness to stand behind it. Your entire premise is based on a subjective opinion that you are right, but you seek to intimidate and harm (or cause to have harmed) those who hold counter-opinions. The actions you perscribe are not at all in keeping with the "free and open society" you pretend to care about, and the irony is that in perscribing to intimidate those who hold a different opinion of you in the manner you have just described, you are doing the same thing ISIS is doing in their campaign of intimidation.
In an optimal world, both those who are pro-Islam and those who are anti-Islam could express their views openly. You have freedom of expression. No government is censoring or stopping you. If you feel intimidated by the muderers in ISIS, that's a problem with a group of people, not a government. Our society will not tolerate their threats against you for your opinions or their violations of your rights, and if god forbid they attempt to harm you for expressing your opinion, we will see to their prosecution to the fullest extent possible, because that's the way a free and just society should work. This is what we expect of all crimes in a just society, there is no exception in practice because Islam is involved. The current world in which only the pro-Islam view can be safely expressed is extremely dangerous. I agree, and the fact that we are even having this discussion is proof that reality doesn't exist. Hyperbole aside, we're not about to become that society either. We are marching into a new dark ages of blasphemy laws with horrific punishments. <--(Hyperbole) If both sides cannot express their views openly without danger, it is preferable to me that neither side can express their views openly without danger. This sentiment makes you an enemy of freedom, not a defender of it. Those making excuses for Islam need to know: you can become the target of jihadis too -- and we'll make goddamn sure of it. And this sentiment makes you a despicable person.
Everything below this is interprative and not based on objective, established facts. Debating any of those circumstances is not the purpose of my response, so I am addressing nothing further. My response is only meant to address the motivation of inflicting repercussions on people you disagree with by dishonest means under the guise of building 'an open society,' because as I've demonstrated, you're not interested in that at all.
Is this dishonest? Yes, it is. That's a legitimate criticism of the strategy. But it's also dishonest when Obama goes before the U.N. and calls "Innocence of Muslims" a "slander against the prophet of Islam." That short youtube video was based on facts about the life of Muhammed, as anyone who's studied this history of Islam knows. It wasn't slander. It was true. That's why they demonized the filmmaker. The last thing people like Obama (and almost all other world leaders) want is for ordinary people to learn the truth about Islam and Muhammed. So, the Western Islamophiles are already using a dishonest strategy. In addition, Muslims lie, lie and lie about their religion. Just look at the post history of Muhammed Zakir on this forum. Now, many people on this forum have done a good job of exposing his lies, but this forum also has the advantage of a certain level of anonymity. I would not encourage anyone to point out the lies of Muslims without this protection. You'll be needlessly risking your life.
I'm open to suggestion about how to do something like Hebdonymous, but there's one thing I want to make clear:
Hebdo is not fini.
I hope to see the day that Muslims and their "multi-kulti" allies in the West will curse the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. I want it to give birth to something that hurts them far worse than a little harmless mocking of Muhammed. Muslims may have avenged their prophet for one day, but they fucked up. Big time.
I just want to add that I don't mean to make it personal, if my tone makes it seem like I do. That's not my intent, I run a little hot sometimes when responding in the moment. I'll just add that I understand your frustration and your desire to "fix" it. But I think the actions you have perscribed are the antithesis of what you say you are defending. In reality, you're asking to create an atmosphere of intimidation to bully those you don't agree with. Just as that's not acceptable for ISIS, it's not acceptable for anyone else. The answer to how to have a free and open society isn't intimidate everyone into compliance; it's fight like hell to have a free society. But you have to actually have the free society, the appearance of a free society where everyone has been bullied into silence is worth nothing. |
|
|
|
I have interspersed my comments directly to your response and changed the font color to red to differentiate my text from yours. I'm very troubled by the implications of living in a society such as the one you propose. I admire the people who have spoken out openly and honestly in spite of the danger. Those at Charlie Hebdo did, and were executed to avenge the "prophet." I hope the one surviving artist has a safe long (well-deserved) retirement, but you're right that he'll be a target the rest of his life. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spoken out openly and honestly and she is on a hit list as well. Who is standing by her? Everyone who stands for law and justice. If any harm comes to anyone, I expect the perpetrators to be pursued to the fullest extent of the law, just like every other crime. The conclusion of implying that 'no one is standing by her' is that anyone could harm her without consequence, or society as a whole has cast her out. Neither of these is true. I'm reminded of Brandeis University who "disinvited" her to speak. Don't the people at Brandeis University who made that decision deserve to be on the Hebdonymous List? No, an institution is welcome to have opinions that differ from individuals the same as you are, and their name no more than your name deserves to be on an intimidation list because you hold an opinion other people disagree with. Do there names deserve some kind of respect? Many others have spoken out, including Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc. Their lives are in danger from jihadists and their names are cursed as "racist Islamophobes" by the collaborators, the traitors, the people who well deserve their names being added to the Hebdonymous List.
In a free society where people are free to speak their minds, different beliefs can be debated. You're not proposing debate, you're proposing attributing false rhetoric to people who don't subscribe to it for the purpose of having them deal with consequences you created. There's nothing protected about that action in law or morality. False statements can be identified because they are subject to criticism. True statements are left standing (in addition to being made clearer) after being subjected to criticism. This kind of open debate is the vital lifeblood of a free society. We did not choose to live in a world in which criticizing Islam leads one huge group of people will label you a "racist Islamophobe hate speaker" There is nothing wrong with someone holding this opinion of another, after all it is an opinion and another huge group of people to kill you. but there is something wrong with an intent to harm. And anyone causing harm will face the same consequences under the law as anyone else, despite how reprehensible their personal opinions might be. But this is the society that has been forced on us. I read a news story that the British police collected the names of the people who bought the first Charlie Hebdo issue after the massacre. We are not safe.
In this environment it's not surprising that world leaders regularly tell the nothing-to-do-with-Islam lie and that Islam is a religion of peace. It's the only politically correct position to hold on Islam.
Suppose Hebdonymous were successful and that some of these liars and apologists had their name associated with anti-Islamic speech online. Then imagine your next conversation with that coworker or in-law or Facebook friend of a friend, you know the one: the Islam-is-peace and the real problem comes from those crazy Islamophobes. You could tell the son-of-a-bitch: If I ever hear you say this bullshit again, you may find your name nominated to be on the Hebdonymous List. This is the perfect summation of everything wrong with your point of view. I don't agree with your opinion of things, so I'm going to falsely attribute things I actually believe to you so that you have to face the consequences for it. That makes you a coward for having a clear point of view but no willingness to stand behind it. Your entire premise is based on a subjective opinion that you are right, but you seek to intimidate and harm (or cause to have harmed) those who hold counter-opinions. The actions you perscribe are not at all in keeping with the "free and open society" you pretend to care about, and the irony is that in perscribing to intimidate those who hold a different opinion of you in the manner you have just described, you are doing the same thing ISIS is doing in their campaign of intimidation.
In an optimal world, both those who are pro-Islam and those who are anti-Islam could express their views openly. You have freedom of expression. No government is censoring or stopping you. If you feel intimidated by the muderers in ISIS, that's a problem with a group of people, not a government. Our society will not tolerate their threats against you for your opinions or their violations of your rights, and if god forbid they attempt to harm you for expressing your opinion, we will see to their prosecution to the fullest extent possible, because that's the way a free and just society should work. This is what we expect of all crimes in a just society, there is no exception in practice because Islam is involved. The current world in which only the pro-Islam view can be safely expressed is extremely dangerous. I agree, and the fact that we are even having this discussion is proof that reality doesn't exist. Hyperbole aside, we're not about to become that society either. We are marching into a new dark ages of blasphemy laws with horrific punishments. <--(Hyperbole) If both sides cannot express their views openly without danger, it is preferable to me that neither side can express their views openly without danger. This sentiment makes you an enemy of freedom, not a defender of it. Those making excuses for Islam need to know: you can become the target of jihadis too -- and we'll make goddamn sure of it. And this sentiment makes you a despicable person.
Everything below this is interprative and not based on objective, established facts. Debating any of those circumstances is not the purpose of my response, so I am addressing nothing further. My response is only meant to address the motivation of inflicting repercussions on people you disagree with by dishonest means under the guise of building 'an open society,' because as I've demonstrated, you're not interested in that at all.
Is this dishonest? Yes, it is. That's a legitimate criticism of the strategy. But it's also dishonest when Obama goes before the U.N. and calls "Innocence of Muslims" a "slander against the prophet of Islam." That short youtube video was based on facts about the life of Muhammed, as anyone who's studied this history of Islam knows. It wasn't slander. It was true. That's why they demonized the filmmaker. The last thing people like Obama (and almost all other world leaders) want is for ordinary people to learn the truth about Islam and Muhammed. So, the Western Islamophiles are already using a dishonest strategy. In addition, Muslims lie, lie and lie about their religion. Just look at the post history of Muhammed Zakir on this forum. Now, many people on this forum have done a good job of exposing his lies, but this forum also has the advantage of a certain level of anonymity. I would not encourage anyone to point out the lies of Muslims without this protection. You'll be needlessly risking your life.
I'm open to suggestion about how to do something like Hebdonymous, but there's one thing I want to make clear:
Hebdo is not fini.
I hope to see the day that Muslims and their "multi-kulti" allies in the West will curse the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. I want it to give birth to something that hurts them far worse than a little harmless mocking of Muhammed. Muslims may have avenged their prophet for one day, but they fucked up. Big time.
|
|
|
|
Freedom of speech is currently dead. The Charlie Hebdo massacre clearly demonstrates that there is an effective death penalty for criticism of Islam. If we cannot freely discuss Islam, there is no free society. We are not living in a free society. To make things worse, many people in the "mainstream" will blame those who are killed for their deaths. They feel more comfortable insulting the dead than insulting their murderers. I've struggled for months thinking about an appropriate strategy for counteracting this. Obviously we can't deal with the main problem (jihadists who have no concept of freedom in general or freedom of speech in particular) until we deal with their protectors. Their protectors include many people who blamed Benghazi on that youtube video, people who blame Charlie Hebdo, people who are afraid to even show the cartoons not to mention defend the cartoonists. Some examples of these people are Will Saletan, the AP reporters who blamed Pamela Geller for the attack in Texas, the news readers at networks who refuse to even show the cartoons. These cowards, these co-conspirators, these must be our real targets if we are ever to reclaim the freedom required to have a modern civilized liberal society. A good strategy would lead to these co-conspirators having the same fear of defending jihadis as the obvious fear they have of defending freedom of speech. The problem, obviously, is that we are reasonable people. We are not going to go around randomly killing journalists, and to be very clear: I'm not advocating that. But we should keep in mind that we do have access to a very powerful weapon: the ignorance of jihadis. We need a movement of people willing to draw Mohammed cartoons and criticize Islam. But instead of doing it under our own names, we should have a list of "targets." These would be the people who have proven they do not value freedom of speech, those like Will Saletan ( /archives/332844.php]ace.m[Suspicious link removed]/archives/332844.php) who refused to stand with the maker of the youtube video Innocence of Muslims, those who condemn Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders for what they say instead of the jihadis for trying to kill them. We should use the names of those "protectors" when we draw Muhammed, when we point out the inherent violence in Islam, in the Quran and in the life of Muhammed. We should make our targets their targets. This would at least muddy the waters. I propose "Hebdonymous" as the name for this movement. It would be very important that the identities of the people actually creating the artwork or writing the prose remain hidden. The best guide I ever read for remaining anonymous on the internet was the "Jolly Roger's Security Guide for Beginners." With Tor, bittorrent, and bitcoin (or altcoins) we could strike back against those protecting Islam in a very effective manner. We would need a method of identifying and distrubting the names of those who make excuses for jihadis and a way of distributing the content we create using their names. Comments? So your answer is to cowardly attribute things to people you don't like in their name? Maybe try standing on principle and have the courage to know when you're right. Right message, wrong means. |
|
|
|
He is free to draw anything or not not draw it.
I would lose intrest too if it was the only think I kept drawing for years.
I think I will make a drawing in paint and see the reactions on here tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2mcRb_WXhYRelatedly, I found this explanation interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/living/islam-prophet-images/index.htmlThe prohibition again (sic) illustrating the Prophet Mohammed began as a (sic) attempt to ward off idol worship, which was widespread in Islam's Arabian birthplace. But in recent years, that prohibition has taken on a deadly edge.
A central tenet of Islam is that Mohammed was a man, not God, and that portraying him could lead to revering him in lieu of Allah.
"It's all rooted in the notion of idol worship," Akbar Ahmed, who chairs the Islamic Studies department at American University told CNN. "In Islam, the notion of God versus any depiction of God or any sacred figure is very strong."
In some ways, Islam was a reaction against Christianity, which early Muslims believed had been led astray by conceiving of Christ, not as a man but as a God. They didn't want the same thing to happen to Mohammed.
"The prophet himself was aware that if people saw his face portrayed by people, they would soon start worshiping him," Ahmed told CNN. "So he himself spoke against such images, saying 'I'm just a man.' "
In a bitter irony, the sometimes violent attacks against portrayals of the prophet are kind of reverse idol-worship, revering -- and killing for -- the absence of an image, said Hussein Rashid, a professor of Islamic studies at Hofstra University in New York.
|
|
|
|
He is free to draw anything or not not draw it.
I would lose intrest too if it was the only think I kept drawing for years.
I think I will make a drawing in paint and see the reactions on here tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2mcRb_WXhYHahaha, that's a really funny sketch! And the irony is it's only funny because of the power the extremists give the joke. |
|
|
|
|
Digging into the bill a bit, this does not appear to be true, as stated in the second letter: "House Bill 289 would allow Coinbase to operate in North Carolina free from competition." The letter represents this to be the case because Coinbase is the only bitcoin business in NC licensed as a money transmitter currently. Nothing in the bill would prevent any other business from registering as a money transmitter (in fact, the bill would require it), but it's something Coinbase has already done, not something they are exempted from. In fact, Coinbase would still be subject to every other requirement of the bill as well, it's not a case of them being exempt.
If you accept that money transmitters should be regulated, they should all be regulated, and bitcoin businesses that operate as a point of exchange between fiat and crypto should not be exempt. If you believe no money transmitters should be regulated period, then you should fight to lift those regulations, not carve out a special exemption for bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Result: Shift in employable skills. Think of all the engineers and lawyers that will be needed to clean up after these things..  The first question is is the type of people who would be displaced by this technology the same type who could shift to being lawyers and engineers? (My guess is the overlap of would-be truck drivers who could also be engineers or lawyers is very small.) The second question, taking for granted that the answer to number one is that truck drivers and highly educated/trained professionals are very interchangeable, is at what point are there too many engineers and lawyers for them to be productively creating value for the economy? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
