Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
"I would absolutely change my views if presented with real facts, not theories, that disproved the bible. But nobody has come up with that yet."
Uh, yes they most certainly have. There are no facts that have disproven the existence of God, but disproving the biblical stories upon which the premise of Christ is built is trivially easy. Take the story of Exodus, for instance. That story has been disproven through Israeli archaeology.
Fun thing about Christ is that he tied the legitimacy of his claims to the Old Testament. If the Exodus story is a lie, Christ's claims are as well. And that should be the end of it.
Right? This might be the worst post Mike Masnick has ever written. If he would just pay as much attention to detail as you do, friend, this blog would be a much better place. Instead, we get articles like this, which Mike Masnick wrote.
"I already refused to watch Episode VII because of Disney nuking the Expanded Universe."
You know, I won't boycott it, but this was an issue for me too, particularly because there was no reason to simply ignore a great character like GA Thrawn. It's not like they had to do Zahn's trilogy as the next trilogy, but incorporating characters in wouldn't have been so hard...
Yes, I'm an idiot who can't do trademark 101 because I side with a filing by a company, undoubtedly drafted by a lawyer who DID take trademark 101, arguing specifically that "diamond" is generic for the purposes of the baseball industry.
"Would you say North Korea's blustering and testing of nukes is religious terrorism? Does Russia or China's territorial ambitions have a religious basis? If not, do we place less importance on them?"
While I would caution against conflating normal geopolitical chicanery with terrorism, as they aren't remotely the same thing, North Korea is probably the most religious state I've ever seen. That said, the government itself is not motivated by religion, which is why keeping them in check is so easy. Pyongyang is a whole lot of talk and no action. They're chiefly a threat to their own people and not much else.
"So this is a binary choice? We can't do (or try) both?"
This. Put more simply, we CAN talk about terrorism in the context of global body count and simply decide to save lives unrelated to the threat of terrorism where we can, add up the plus/minus and declare victory, if we want. But what very silly people we would be if we did.
I appreciate any time someone points out the relatively small threat that terrorism presents in our daily lives compared with all the other ways one might figure out how to die in the West. This, again, misses the point entirely, as it takes the question of intention out of the equation and focuses strictly on body counts. And intentions matter. Nobody intends to cause death by having a drink, and nobody intends to cause danger by driving 10mph over the speed limit. But the terrorist SPECIFICALLY intends to wreak death and harm with their actions, which leads to the important question: will any of these numbers make sense any longer if/when terrorist groups suddenly become capable of racking up larger body counts?
No, they won't. I don't mean to suggest that ISIS is on the verge of getting its hands on a nuclear weapon; I have no reason to think that they are. But I'm confident I know what ISIS would do if they did get their hands on such a weapon, and I know that all of the math above in the post goes sideways if that happens.
This isn't to suggest that we curtail liberty and there is certainly nothing wrong with preventing death where we can, as the post advocates. But who is arguing AGAINST this? Anyone? Contextualizing saving these lives while discussing terrorism is nice for feeling better, but it takes the eye off the ball: global terrorism, particularly from religious motivations, is a problem best dealt with when the body counts are small rather than once they become truly horrifying...
"They'll just say it's because he's not a professional politician and isn't trying to trick us with all that slick talking."
I love this line of thought and enjoy trying to apply it to basically any other profession on Earth.
"How come our financial planner referred to our 'account thingy' rather than the Roth IRA we set up, and referred to our beneficiaries as 'money-getters'?"
"Well, dear, it's because he's not an actual professional wealth management professional and he's not trying to fool us with all of that slick financial language and whatnot. Let's just give him all the money, okay?"
You appear to be confused, which doesn't particularly surprise me. I asked YOU to offer a rebuttal, not to invite me to rebut an entire website, your insistence for which you appear to think is some kind of point in your favor.
So, I'll ask again, care to put forth a cogent thought, or can you not formulate even that much for us?
No, we've argued that someone w/a trademark can be selective on defending it when there is an actual chance for customer confusion and/or competition within the same marketplace. In this case, there was no confusion or chance because the mark holder wasn't in the industry until it bought in at a later date. I'm not sure why this is confusing?