Re: Re: Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
You don't turn more than a millennium of religious zealotry on the subject into the ideal world in one generation.
Unfortunately, as I commented above, "religious zealotry" isn't the problem. After all many of the current generation of moral zealots are actually, or even officially, atheists (eg the Chinese government).
The actual problem is an innate human tendency to want to have someone to look down on. Sometimes this manifests as racism, sometimes as religious moralising or bigotry - all of which goes against the true teaching of the religion which tells you to ingore the speck in your brother's eye until you have removed the plank from your own.
It is somewhat ironic that the practitioners of that religion who ought to have been leading the charge against this problem for nearly 2000 years have actually spent a lot of the time making it worse.
But then again there are also the verses: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
We've abandoned moral disapproval of so many things that used to be on the "unmentionable list" (sex/pregnancy outside marriage, homosexuality, promiscuity etc) but we just can't do without something to get all high and mighty about - so it is all heaped on the one thing that we can all agree on - paedophilia and child porn.
We are really comfortable doing this because it is the only sin that we aren't tempted by personally. It's really good to complain about other people and not to have to examine ourselves
In my mind this attitude is more destructive than the things it diisapproves of - and this case demonstrates it perfectly - because all the parties here (apart from the daughter and her boyfriend) are guilty of it!
The minute he downloaded the content, he became a contributor of child porn.
On that basis all policemen involved in investigating child porn should be prosecuted for child porn - and investigating real child pornographers would be impossible.
Actually, whilst all traffic deaths are down, they have not gone down as far as airline deaths and motorsport deaths. The big difference is that in these two fields the culture is not to blame the driver/pilot because there will always be mistakes (or in the case of regualr road traffic, idiots) but rather for the authorities to change the things that they can change.
Obvious examples of that are road layout/furniture and vehicle design.
Speed limits and drink drive laws have a role - but their downside is that they encourage a blame culture that can actually get in the way of real improvements.
Take the death of Princess Diana.
People blamed the paparazzi for creating a chase. People blamed the driver for drugs/drink and speeding. People blamed Princess Diana herself for not wearing a seatbelt.
However the authorities could do precisely zero to affect any of these - without serious civil liberties implications.
What the French authorities could have done is to install a crash barrier to prevent a head on collision with one of the pillars.
AFAIK THEY STILL HAVEN'T DONE THIS! yet it would have saved the lives of everyone in the car regardless of their bad behaviour and that of the press.
Actually if they performed proper statistical analysis on their results then they would have found that their methodology generates a large p value and hence any reasonable person would have just chucked the result in the bin!
it will not be just the united states, it is being everywhere, where the US foot print has been is just the beginning, congratulations Kissinger you have brought about the end of the world just in time for you to not care,
W S Gilbert has a quote for you too: The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this and every country but his own.
Chief Justice Brian Quinn’s opinion reflects intellectual honesty. The upshot is that the legal system will still believe any nonsensical lie told by a cop on the stand if the prosecution fleshes it out with enough background fluff to satisfy the demand of creating the appearance of expertise. and again
Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative
Maybe this is because drug smugglers just happen to be human beings and being such, they tend to engage in the same innocuous acts in which law abiding citizens engage.
When a felon's not engaged in his employment Or maturing his felonious little plans His capacity for innocent enjoyment Is just as great as any honest man's Our feelings we with difficulty smother When constabulary duty is to be done Taking one consideration with another A policeman's lot is not a happy one When constabulary duties to be done, to be done A policeman's lot is not a happy one When the enterprising burglar's not a-burgling When the cutthroat isn't occupied in crime He loves to hear the little brook a-gurgling And listen to the merry village chime When the coster's finished jumping on his mother He loves to lie a-basking in the sun Taking one consideration with another A policeman's lot is not a happy one When constabulary duty's to be done, to be done A policeman's lot is not a happy one When the drunkard shows no sign of where the drink went He nobly bids all alchohol farewell When the juvenile delinquent to the clink went He hung his mother's picture in his cell When the cardshark's finished wiping out his brother He buys a rattle for his little son Taking one consideration with another A policeman's lot is not a happy one When constabulary duties to be done, to be done A policeman's lot is not a happy one from elyrics.net
This whole discussion looks bizarre when viewed from this side of the atlantic, where the police have welcomed the introduction and use of cameras on the grounds that it makes suspects less likely to attempt to use force on the police.
But then of course the major difference is we have the sense not to allow the population to arm themselves to the teeth and we therefore don't need to arm the police either.
You are of a different (and to us very strange) planet in the US.
And by the way, when the usual idiots come out with the response that more guns=less crime - and put up links that purport to prove that point - I shan't bother to read them for the same reason that I don't read articles that also come from your country that purport to show that the earth was created 6000 years ago in 7 days, the moon landings were faked etc etc etc.
This isn't surprising as the heroes of films and police dramas on TV do this kind of thing all the time and although they sometimes get punished (a useul plot device) they almost always get exonerated in the end because they "Get Results".
It is only to be expected that real life police officers do the same thing.
y would he need to be convicted in the UK to be sent to the US? It beats me how someone who has never visited the US can be guilty of a crome under US law. It looks like the US wants to impose its laws on everyone else in the world.
Since people in th UK don't have a say in US laws this would seem to be one step worse than the complaint that started the AMerican revolution.
They want to make sure they have more control then those commie bastards!
Which Commie bastards would that be. The Soviet Bloc was finished 25 years ago - and the Chinese stopped most actual communist policies even longer ago than that - turning itself into a big version of Singapore.
Oh I certainly can accuse it of commanding violence. But you would be wrong!
The words of Jesus demand that the OT be interpreted as consistent with "Love your neighbor as yourself." That should be enough for any reasonable person.
Readings in our church refer to the old testament as "the parables" - so it is not meant to be taken as literally as the New. Plus there is much good in the OT too.
1. Jesus cast out devils by casting them INTO pigs, which then threw themselves off of a cliff and died (Jesus Vick) Well he "allowed" the demons to do that - but what happened after that was not his particular responsibility - except for the general "why does God allow evil?" question. If you want to understand THAT one then i suggest you study the sporotuality of St Isaac the Syrian - it is most enlightening. (see below) It doesn't amount to a command to his followers to drown pigs.
Jesus says that cities that will not admit the disciples shall suffer worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.... this is talking about the last judgement - not something that Christians are commanded to implement. Again - go study St Isaac. 3. Jesus quite plainly says that he has come to split families that will fight over his religion.
Prediction does not amount to responsibility - otherwise weather forecasters would be toast! 4. Jesus quite often talks about how many people his angels will cast down into hell-fire.
Last judgement again - see above.
5. Peter quite literally says that those who do not follow Christ must be killed.
Citation needed - I'm gueessing you've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere - but you need to tell me where you got that from. 6. Romans and Leviticus both recommend putting homosexuals to death, which qualifies as recommending horrible acts Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery - which is a similar punishment in Leviticus. I'm not sure which bit of Romans you're reading BUT my recollection is that - at most it simply says that such will not inherit the Kingdom - again we're talking last judgement and you need to read about St Isaac.
7. Romans also deems blood sacrifices a good way to absolve sin....
Again I'll need a specific reference to answer that one.
You may have missed it but the bible is chock full of 'God's chosen people' being punished by god for screwing up in one fashion or another,
Or rather they believed that their misfortunes were the result of their sins - but please bear in mind that the bible isn't supposed to be the literal word of God (like the Koran) but rather the writing of men inspired by God.
On the other hand God himself - as reported by Christ - has a rather different line.
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
I could easily point to a good number of passages in your holy book that actually are 'should' passages that command some really horrible acts, so be careful before throwing those stones.
No you can't - at least not from a purely Christian (as opposed to old testament) point of view.
Matthew 22 37 “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’e 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’f 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”
and 1 john 4: 20
. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
You can accuse Christianity of inconsistency if you believe that the old testament commands violence whilst Jesus (whose words surely trump anything in the old testament) says differently but you cannot reasonably accuse it of commanding violence.
As for the whole 'Darwinism' line below about how Darwinism somehow supports actions like his,
Of course scientific theories should never be dragooned into supporting particular philosophical, religious or political opinions. But lots of people do ( mostly not quite in the Hitler category - eg Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc). Once that happens then other people can legitimately (if rather sloppily) complain about (say) "Darwinism" as a shorthand for "a particular political theory that claims to be based on Darwin's theory". That doesn't necessarily imply rejection of the scientific theory.
On the post: Stepdad Goes To Police With Stepdaughter's Sexts, Asks Them To Intervene, Is Prosecuted For Child Porn
Re: Re: Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
Unfortunately, as I commented above, "religious zealotry" isn't the problem. After all many of the current generation of moral zealots are actually, or even officially, atheists (eg the Chinese government).
The actual problem is an innate human tendency to want to have someone to look down on. Sometimes this manifests as racism, sometimes as religious moralising or bigotry - all of which goes against the true teaching of the religion which tells you to ingore the speck in your brother's eye until you have removed the plank from your own.
It is somewhat ironic that the practitioners of that religion who ought to have been leading the charge against this problem for nearly 2000 years have actually spent a lot of the time making it worse.
But then again there are also the verses:
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
On the post: Stepdad Goes To Police With Stepdaughter's Sexts, Asks Them To Intervene, Is Prosecuted For Child Porn
Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
We've abandoned moral disapproval of so many things that used to be on the "unmentionable list" (sex/pregnancy outside marriage, homosexuality, promiscuity etc) but we just can't do without something to get all high and mighty about - so it is all heaped on the one thing that we can all agree on - paedophilia and child porn.
We are really comfortable doing this because it is the only sin that we aren't tempted by personally. It's really good to complain about other people and not to have to examine ourselves
In my mind this attitude is more destructive than the things it diisapproves of - and this case demonstrates it perfectly - because all the parties here (apart from the daughter and her boyfriend) are guilty of it!
On the post: Stepdad Goes To Police With Stepdaughter's Sexts, Asks Them To Intervene, Is Prosecuted For Child Porn
Re:
On that basis all policemen involved in investigating child porn should be prosecuted for child porn - and investigating real child pornographers would be impossible.
Get a brain!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comment
Obvious examples of that are road layout/furniture and vehicle design.
Speed limits and drink drive laws have a role - but their downside is that they encourage a blame culture that can actually get in the way of real improvements.
Take the death of Princess Diana.
People blamed the paparazzi for creating a chase.
People blamed the driver for drugs/drink and speeding.
People blamed Princess Diana herself for not wearing a seatbelt.
However the authorities could do precisely zero to affect any of these - without serious civil liberties implications.
What the French authorities could have done is to install a crash barrier to prevent a head on collision with one of the pillars.
AFAIK THEY STILL HAVEN'T DONE THIS! yet it would have saved the lives of everyone in the car regardless of their bad behaviour and that of the press.
On the post: Prosecutors Changing Charges Against Reporter To 'Rioting' Because Her Coverage Was Sympathetic To Protestors
Re: Re: Re: Can't wait to see Erickson in prison for kidnapping...
On the post: How One Young Black Man Supporting Trump Massively Skews The LA Times Presidential Poll
Re: How Could This Get Any Better?
On the post: Judge Tears Apart Law Enforcement's Ridiculous Assertions About 'Suspicious' Behavior
Re: This will not matter
W S Gilbert has a quote for you too:
The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this and every country but his own.
On the post: Judge Tears Apart Law Enforcement's Ridiculous Assertions About 'Suspicious' Behavior
Re: WS Gilbert said it well over 100 years ago
and again
On the post: Judge Tears Apart Law Enforcement's Ridiculous Assertions About 'Suspicious' Behavior
WS Gilbert said it well over 100 years ago
On the post: Bangladesh Brings In Nationwide Digital Identity Cards Linking Biometrics To Mobile Phone Numbers
Two words they should have been aware of:
On the post: Study Says Body Cameras Can Reduce Force Usage... But Only If Officers Turn Them On
Strange
But then of course the major difference is we have the sense not to allow the population to arm themselves to the teeth and we therefore don't need to arm the police either.
You are of a different (and to us very strange) planet in the US.
And by the way, when the usual idiots come out with the response that more guns=less crime - and put up links that purport to prove that point - I shan't bother to read them for the same reason that I don't read articles that also come from your country that purport to show that the earth was created 6000 years ago in 7 days, the moon landings were faked etc etc etc.
On the post: Yes, Police Are Snooping Through Criminal Databases For Personal Reasons All The Time
Not surprising
It is only to be expected that real life police officers do the same thing.
On the post: UK Court Says Lauri Love Can Be Extradited To Face Hacking Charges In The US
Re: Re: Re: Say what?
It beats me how someone who has never visited the US can be guilty of a crome under US law. It looks like the US wants to impose its laws on everyone else in the world.
Since people in th UK don't have a say in US laws this would seem to be one step worse than the complaint that started the AMerican revolution.
On the post: If Someone Is Testing Ways To Take Down The Internet, Perhaps It's Time To Build A Stronger Internet
Re: NSA?
Which Commie bastards would that be. The Soviet Bloc was finished 25 years ago - and the Chinese stopped most actual communist policies even longer ago than that - turning itself into a big version of Singapore.
Are Cuba and North Korea a serious threat?
On the post: Inspector General Finds NYPD's Surveillance Of Muslims Routinely Violated Consent Decree Guidelines
Re: Re:
Citation needed. I can find reference to celebration only in Palestine, and even there the circumstances are a bit dubious.
You need to be more patient - they haven't got around to it yet. They are still too busy celebrating the sack of Constantinople in 1453
On the post: Literal Fashion Police Arrest Hundreds Of WhatsApp And Instagram Users In Iran
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion
Oh I certainly can accuse it of commanding violence.
But you would be wrong!
The words of Jesus demand that the OT be interpreted as consistent with "Love your neighbor as yourself." That should be enough for any reasonable person.
Readings in our church refer to the old testament as "the parables" - so it is not meant to be taken as literally as the New. Plus there is much good in the OT too.
On the post: Literal Fashion Police Arrest Hundreds Of WhatsApp And Instagram Users In Iran
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion
Well he "allowed" the demons to do that - but what happened after that was not his particular responsibility - except for the general "why does God allow evil?" question. If you want to understand THAT one then i suggest you study the sporotuality of St Isaac the Syrian - it is most enlightening. (see below) It doesn't amount to a command to his followers to drown pigs.
Jesus says that cities that will not admit the disciples shall suffer worse than Sodom and Gomorrah....
this is talking about the last judgement - not something that Christians are commanded to implement.
Again - go study St Isaac.
3. Jesus quite plainly says that he has come to split families that will fight over his religion.
Prediction does not amount to responsibility - otherwise weather forecasters would be toast!
4. Jesus quite often talks about how many people his angels will cast down into hell-fire.
Last judgement again - see above.
5. Peter quite literally says that those who do not follow Christ must be killed.
Citation needed - I'm gueessing you've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere - but you need to tell me where you got that from.
6. Romans and Leviticus both recommend putting homosexuals to death, which qualifies as recommending horrible acts
Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery - which is a similar punishment in Leviticus. I'm not sure which bit of Romans you're reading BUT my recollection is that - at most it simply says that such will not inherit the Kingdom - again we're talking last judgement and you need to read about St Isaac.
7. Romans also deems blood sacrifices a good way to absolve sin....
Again I'll need a specific reference to answer that one.
On the post: Literal Fashion Police Arrest Hundreds Of WhatsApp And Instagram Users In Iran
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion
Or rather they believed that their misfortunes were the result of their sins - but please bear in mind that the bible isn't supposed to be the literal word of God (like the Koran) but rather the writing of men inspired by God.
On the other hand God himself - as reported by Christ - has a rather different line.
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
On the post: Literal Fashion Police Arrest Hundreds Of WhatsApp And Instagram Users In Iran
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion
No you can't - at least not from a purely Christian (as opposed to old testament) point of view.
Matthew 22
37 “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’e 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’f 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”
and 1 john 4: 20
. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does
not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
You can accuse Christianity of inconsistency if you believe that the old testament commands violence whilst Jesus (whose words surely trump anything in the old testament) says differently but you cannot reasonably accuse it of commanding violence.
On the post: Literal Fashion Police Arrest Hundreds Of WhatsApp And Instagram Users In Iran
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion
Of course scientific theories should never be dragooned into supporting particular philosophical, religious or political opinions. But lots of people do ( mostly not quite in the Hitler category - eg Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc). Once that happens then other people can legitimately (if rather sloppily) complain about (say) "Darwinism" as a shorthand for "a particular political theory that claims to be based on Darwin's theory". That doesn't necessarily imply rejection of the scientific theory.
Next >>