Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people
"Bullshit. That's a cop-out. All fundamentalists believe "god told them to""
Of course they do. But that wasn't my point. The point is that people like you will try to pretend that all killing done by people of a certain faith are done purely because of that faith, whether they're committed by fundamentalists, political activists, government agents or garden variety psychos. it's a lot more complicated than that - which people like you tend to realise because they also tend to try their hardest to wave away atrocities committed by Christians as being unrelated to their faith. A Muslim kills someone in the name of Allah, you say "that's because of Islam. A Christian kills someone in the name of Jesus, you say "well, that's not because of Christianity". A clear double standard.
"We need blame the people doing the deed, regardless of their choice of victims"
Yes, we do. We need to blame the ACTUAL reasons for doing it, not just say "Muslims bad". Especially since that leads to situations such as refugees getting attacked because of their Muslim faith, even though they're the ones targeted for slaughter at home.
"But that doesn't change the fact that the ones that ARE doing the killing, are doing so in the name of the Muslim faith."
It also doesn't change the facts that the vast majority of Muslims are doing no such thing, nor does it help to demonise the victims of such killings.
I'm talking about reality, but you reject reality as a "cop-out". That's pretty stupid.
"Always good to see you missing the point and piling up the personal insults."
You not only have little point other than your obsession with being a contrarian here, but you started your comment trying to personally insult someone. It's hard to pretend to take the high ground when you started by flinging your shit from the subway. If you don't like being insulted, don't begin your own comments by trying to attack people. At best, it makes you a hypocrite.
"As for "it's a guess", it means that I am expressing an opinion based on the facts"
So, a guess? Even if we go as far as to pretend you have an educated guess (unlikely given your track record), it's still a guess. Yet, here you are pretending that only your opinion matters.
"Portland is populated and metropolitan, but they are not longer pulling the trigger there."
Really? Do you have a citation for them actually cancelling the project, or is that another of your assumptions?
"incumbent ISPs being lazy and fat, we see perhaps that they are smart enough not to throw money down a hole"
Money that, in many cases, was given to them by the taxpayer for the express purpose of building infrastructure, it should be noted. But, you're fine with that being funnelling into private profits, right?
I can't be bothered to go point by point again, but you yet again make a lot of assumptions while trying to pretend that you've got facts to offer. You claim to base things on facts, but you neither cite them nor discuss how you reached your conclusion. Pathetic.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people
"Does it matter where or the situation? If your chopping off someones head, then your chopping off someones head."
Of course it does. Is that person doing that because they believe a god told them to, because it's convenient for a brutal political regime, in revenge for other atrocities or because they're a paranoid schizophrenic? They might have the same result, but there's widely different implications and different solutions.
"A quick google search reveals hundreds of hits of Christians losing their heads in the name of the Muslim faith up to and including this year"
It also shows a lot of Muslims, which was part of my point. There's a lot of peaceful Muslims getting murdered alongside those Christians. So, it seems strange to blame the group that makes up the majority of victims when they're fleeing persecution and violence themselves.
"If they are killing in the name of religion, then the religion is absolutely to blame. "
Cool, so Christianity is to blame for those who kill in the name of Christianity? Got it.
"You think someone is disingenuous to blame the religion for it's violence just because they are "both victim and oppressor" as they share the same religion? WTF is that?"
It means that if a Hindu kills a Hindu, there might be more to blame than Hinduism. If a Hindu kills a Muslim, there might also be more to it, of course, but it's strange to blame religion for telling one person not to akill and another to do so when the religion is shared.
All those situations are fine and understandable. I'm just intrigued by the people who claim they keep in contact with people on social media but never use it to socialise.
As useful as it is to keep in touch with and share information with friends, I can understand why some people don't wish to use something like Facebook and prefer other methods, even if those methods are less reliable and more cumbersome to my mind. I certainly understand not using one service exclusively, which to be honest very few people do. Most people will use a combination of different social media, email, text, phone calls and other communication methods even if they use Facebook 99% of the time.
But, using social media then proudly claiming you don't use it when you want to socialise? That just seems strange.
No don't you get it? Trump would love to put forward a sane workable policy with full details on how he would implement it. But those lefties are just so mean so he throws out laughably insane and impossible proposals instead! It's all *their* fault!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people
"it's been quite a while since I've heard of someone losing their head because they didn't believe in Jesus.. compared to hundreds of people dying, it seems every month"
Have you checked outside of the mainstream US, or are you comparing American Christians with Muslims in active war zones and theocracies? If the latter, you're not exactly comparing apples to apples either.
Oh, and one bonus: most of the people killed by Muslims are also Muslims. It seems disingenuous to blame the religion when both victim and oppressor share the same one (albeit often different sects).
You're a liar because you lied in your post above, and you revelled in false equivalence and oversimplifiction.
You're a victim because you're acting like one. I love the touch of complaining about human rights abuses in the middle east, then immediately whining that "the left" wants you to treat minorities as equal human beings and make you to do likewise, by the way. In between erecting strawmen to criticise, that particular piece of cognitive dissonance was rather amusing.
I'd love an honest debate, but you immediately signalled that you want no such thing. Your excuse for such a bad candidate is that "the left" would immediately criticise any plan he put forward. It's not his fault, nor "the right" or whatever label you want to criticise, he's talking utter shite because the "left" are so mean to him. If only he'd pick a platform that's realistic and not so easily mockable, huh?
Maybe next time, try not playing the victim in your very first sentence if you don't want to be labelled as such. If you want a reasonable discussion, try coming up with a defense of this fool that doesn't amount to "but the left are so *mean* to us!!!" Try not instantly deflecting attention away from the man you so valiantly step into defend - discuss his merits, if he has them.
Do you people ever tire of this kind of thing? I mean, you could participate in an honest debate, maybe even try to explain why the candidate under discussion fails not only at describing any depth to his proposed policies, but fails at proposing plans that would work to begin with.
But, no. We have a litany of whining and deflection. Whining about "the left" as if there's only 2 possible political viewpoints. Whining about imagined slights that stop you from offering any substance to what you propose, even though what has been proposed is both dangerous and unworkable. Trying to pretend that the views of conservatives in the Middle East have anything to do with the views of non-conservative Americans. Trying to pretend that you don't have to do anything to improve the quality of your country because other countries are much worse.
How is that different from any other site? Do you honestly think that the majority of people reading an article on any site will comment, or do you think that the majority of people reading the conversation are active participants? If so, I'm afraid reality might be rather different to what you think it is.
"Would you like it if someone broke into your house and stole something? I can answer that for you: no."
Well, you got the correct answer. Now, can you use you psychic skills to work out how idiotic that comparison is, how in no way are the two analogous and how dumb you look for thinking they are? Go on, you got off to a good start, carry on all the way!
"I took away that he was suggesting using our resources to attack and disable their propaganda and recruiting web sites and perhaps even their funding."
That still opens up the same response - how? How is this done without unacceptable collateral damage, how is this done in any way that actually effective and how is this done without committing actions that inadvertently help the cause you're supposedly fighting? That's even before you get to the question of exactly who he thinks is hosting and funding the sites.
Like his comments on building a wall, dealing with Muslim terrorists, etc., it's not just the piss-poor phrasing that's the problem. It's that there's not any thought to the way these things would actually be done. The realities of doing any of these things is not compatible with the scenarios he thinks he's addressing.
It's superficial soundbite politics at its worst, only this time even the soundbites are garbled.
"But when you open Instagram or Snapchat, Mr. Trump all but disappears"
He's rarely mentioned on my Facebook, however, and I'm sure it's not all just because I'm not personally in the US (I'm friends with numerous Americans and follow many US news sources on there).
People are welcome to use whatever services they like. I just find it strange when people whine about the content they see on Facebook. I personally use a simple strategy - I don't "friend" anyone I don't know in real life, I don't "like" any pages I'm not genuinely interested in. If I notice any person or page regularly posting things that offend me (rare), becoming annoying (especially wrt politics or religion) or spammy, I hide their posts. I don't report or unfriend them except under rare circumstances, I just tell Facebook I don't wish to see what they have to say.
The result? Despite having hundreds of "friends" on Facebook, my wall is generally only full of posts from people I actually care about on subjects I actually care about. Sure, something occasionally gets through but they're noticeable enough that they get the appropriate action where needed. Plus, I do follow numerous news sources there, and there have been many times where I've spotted breaking news there before other sources.
As with other companies that are regularly vilified, there's plenty of reason to dislike Facebook and prefer competitors. But, the state of your personal feed isn't one of them. If you're seeing a lot of crap, you either follow a lot of crap people or haven't worked out how to manage the service correctly.
"To get social ... I go out my front door and meet people face to face."
I always find it fascinating when people say that. My lifestyle must be so different, as not only do many of my closest friends and family not live in the same country, but those who do are active enough that I couldn't depend on just walking out the front door in the hope that I'd see them. Sure, my situation is unusual in that I spend most of my working day in a different country to where I live and my social circle is spread across multiple local towns, but still. Different work shifts, different lifestyles, different family situations, etc., I generally don't like just popping round even where that's physically possible.
In summer especially, I have to use a tool to get people together, certainly if I'm trying to meet up with more than one person. The easiest and most reliable tool for that is generally Facebook, as I'm not going to text/phone everyone or hope that people not on WhatsApp get the invite when virtually everyone I know is on Facebook.
That's not to criticise others' experiences, it's just interesting to me when people literally say they don't use social media to socialise.
An individual publication may have a bias. However, it's both a myth that the entire industry has one specific bias, and a myth that everything is "left" or "right" with nothing outside or in between. The issue isn't bias itself, but deluded souls like Skeeter who feel that everything's one or the other and they're being conspired against by the world.
As for respect for a profession? When journalists do their job badly, they're just copying and pasting or parroting other peoples' words and so barely deserve to be paid. When they do their jobs correctly, they annoy people by asking difficult questions and uncovering uncomfortable truths. It would be suspicious if they were higher on the list.
You answered your own conundrum there. *You* have unlimited data so *you* don't care about the wifi. Others don't, or have maxed out their "unlimited" quotas, etc., so they use wifi. *You* care about the battery drain, others value the wifi data more.
These things tend to be more understandable when you don't assume everyone else has the same needs and resources as you do.
It seems pretty clear to my mind - the other Schlaflys couldn't do anything about a business elsewhere in the country. Plus, while it's small, the chances of the clients/congregation of those people coming across the beer was low.
Then, the brewery applied for a trademark. That indicates 2 things - one, a potential desire to grow and thus increase exposure. The second, is that they suddenly have a way to attack the brewery. They can't stop it making beer, but if they stop it from getting a trademark then maybe they can force a name change, which they couldn't do until the trademark was in play.