Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 29 Jan 2007 10:48 In article <87odoiujjt.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> In article <87ac02wtac.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> >> In article <pan.2007.01.28.13.38.31.131504(a)hell.corn>, >> >> The Demon Prince of Absurdity <absurd_number_of_nicks(a)hell.corn> wrote: >> >> [.....] >> >> >Xians who advocate the killing of gays or abortion doctors are precisely >> >> >as crazy as Muslims who advocate the killing of Westerners, and just as >> >> >dangerous to civilisation. >> >> >> >> No, they are more dangerous. They are more embedded within the >> >> civilisation they are attempting to destroy. >> > >> >I don't know if their intent is to destroy civilisation, but >> >you make a very interesting, and quite deep, point. >> > >> >(I think they probably just want to 'fix' civilisation.) >> >> The muslims also just want to "fix" it to fit their model of what it >> should be. If you crush a car melt it down and make several bicycles out >> of it, I would argue you have destroeyed the car to make bicycles. > >What if you just rip out the engine, and hitch up a couple of horses >or oxen to the front? And remove the materialistic and immoral car >radio, of course! Based on the radio programming around here, removing the engine and the radio may be a fair trade. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 29 Jan 2007 10:58 In article <5763c$45be1781$49ecf2f$15420(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >>>What a terrible burden of guilt this sort of religious belief >>>places on Adam and Eve's shoulders. And the God who made them. >> >> >> Actually it is a moral theory not a religious belief. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion What was your point. Are you suggesting that all moral theory is religion? If so, you are wrong in this. >> I didn't suggest >> anywhere in there that there even was a god. > >I didn't suggest there was an actual Adam and Eve either >though your religion dictates that somewhere there is a >first human who shares responsibility. Science suggestes that there must be a first human, so that certainly needn't be a religious belief. On the other posible meaning you are simply wrong that the moral system is the same as a religious belief. >> That aside, yes God does have a lot to answer for. What a jerk. > >The right guy to blame for this mess then? If we assume that there is such a being then yes. God made the whole mess. Perhaps God is the ultimate evil. >I'm really surprised no one has trotted out the pro/con >free will argument again. That could come in handy right >about here. Well lets dangle the hook out there and see if we catch one. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Jan 2007 05:04 In article <epi945$8qk_003(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ALKdnWeo0YCbsSfYRVnyuAA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epcu03$8qk_001(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45B94793.F24C904C(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> Any longer was rejected by Parliament. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> These people take years to plan their attacks. And you think 30 days >>>>> >> is too long?! >>>>> > >>>>> >It is for someone who's innocent ! >>>>> >>>>> Your laws do assume innocence until proven guilty...right? Thus >>>>> all are innocent. Are you willing to wait until a mess is made >>>>> and then have the law infrastructure deal with these people? >>>> >>>>Are you trying to suggest that there would be suspects who were simply >>> allowed >>>>to continue do their evil deed ? >>> >>> Of course there will be. No law enforcement infrastructure >>> is infallible. If your laws force your police to let someone, >>> go, that person will not be deterred from making a mess. What >>> makes you think that he will stop his plans? >> >>What makes you think your ideas will be more infallible than a legal process >>option? > >Dealing with the problem while it is still small makes success more >likely. Waiting until it's too big to handle (WWII is an example) >means that more money, lives and wealth will have to be used >to prevent the enemy from winning. > >This is a war. Why, just because you and Bush say so? How is it different from the "war on crime" or the "war on inflation"? > What you can't seem to cope with is that you >don't have a single country to deal with. Thus, diplomacy isn't >one of the tools that can be used. You all have been so reliant >on using diplomacy and dealing with countries, you can't seem >to grasp that the rules have changed out from underneath you. > >> >>>>> What if the infrastructure isn't there any more becaues that >>>>> is what was messed up. >>>> >>>>You overestimate what a few ppl can achieve. You're quite obsessed by the >>>>curious idea that our society is so flimsy that it'll fall over if anyone >>>>so >>>>much as huffs and puffs at it. I don't share your fears. >>> >>> A very small huff and puff happened in New Orleans. It's infrastructure >>> is still in shatters. It doesn't seem that anyone knows how to rebuild >>> it without calling in the US Army. >> >>(far from small, > >It was small in square miles affected and length of time. > >>but your sense of scale is as insane as your ideas about >>civilised behaviour) >> >>Did it cause the downfall of western civilisation? > >In that area? Yes. They still do not have a law enforcement >infrastructure and have been calling in the military for that >function. > >> >>Why is calling in the US Army a sign of failure? > >Two years after the mess was made? > >> That means people _do_ know >>how to fix things. > >No. Their governor just made a speech complaining about the >US not giving them enough money. They are corrupt. >> >>It is like saying no one knew how to re-wire the electric in my house >>without calling in an electrician. > >It's worse than that. People don't seem to know how to hammer a nail >and wait for "The Government" to do the work. >> >>> One passenger boat sinking in (I think) the Red Sea caused a riot >>> and shut down a port. >>> >>> I am assuming that all welfare, upper-middle class neighborhoods will >>> be in the same situation. Noone knows how to fix stuff nor cope >>> with stuff that breaks. >> >>Or so you assume. > >I've been watching. It is no longer an assumption. > >/BAH >
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Jan 2007 05:16 In article <epktnf$8qk_006(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <epg0dh$pn5$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <epfj3s$8qk_006(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[.....] >>>You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western >>>civilization are criminals. Under whose law? >> >>Those who acted in the US broke many US laws before 9/11. The ones in the >>UK broke many law of the UK. The ones in Spain broke spanish law. > >Using your logic, when the Germans invaded France, they broke French law. >The Germans didn't care about French law. They intended to enforce >their German law onto all French citizens. And then the plans were >to enforce German law on the rest of Europe; then the rest of the >world. > >We are in a war no matter how mealy mouths try to pretend it's not >there. Calling terrorism a war doesn't make it a war any more than calling a tail a leg makes a dog have 5 legs. > > >> >>> When a military >>>group from another country blows up bridges and trains and kills >>>civilians, I call that a war, not a criminal act. >> >>But that isn't what is happening so why to you bring it up? > >It is happening. Until a few decades ago, the only "nation" Muslims >recognized was the Nation of Islam. > >/BAH
From: Phil Carmody on 29 Jan 2007 12:02
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <87k5z6udu8.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>>You [jmfbahciv] really do not want to live in a representative > democracy > >> do > >> >> you? > >> >> >> > >> >> >>Even a representative democracy needs to have some way to deal > >> >> >>with the people who go after little kids, and make other kinds > >> >> >>of messes. A democracy does not, and never has, meant that > >> >> >>all people can do anything they want without punishment. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >No, but it does mean they have the right to a trial before they're > >> punished. > >> >> > >> >> You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western > >> >> civilization are criminals. Under whose law? > >> > > >> >The relevant law of the land in question. > >> > >> Muslims don't honor any laws other than their own. So now, > >> under whose law? > > > >The law of the land in question. > > > >God you're dense. > > I'm not. Islam doesn't have that concept. Whether it does or not is irrelevant. Why can't you get that through your neanderthal skull? Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. |