Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Oct 2006 15:19 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> Here is a religious extremism whose stated goal is to destroy > >> >> Western civilization. > >> > > >> >Cite ? > >> > > >> >> The compensation for those who die > >> >> while doing this work for them is only addressed to males. > >> >> The idealism puts all women out of society (cover and > >> >> no transport out of the house). This is not getting back > >> >> to the old ways of Muslim living (from I've read). > >> > > >> >So you reckon that all Muslim women would happily say OK to this ? > >> > >> The women did in Iran. They got the old ways back. Then they > >> were sorry. > > > >You're hugely mistaken. > > > >70% of Iranian university graduates are women. Doesn't sound much like > >being under the yoke to me. > > > >Graham > > But this sort of thing still lurks just below the surface... > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412697&in_page_id=1770 > Actually, you're mistaken there. Those views are typically those of the 'tribal regions' such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran sees itself as much more modern, which is yet another reason Bush is mad to go after them when we should really be encouraging them to modernise more. I'll refer you to how Al Jazeera covered the story...... http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A3E129BF-80D0-4966-AF26-09682E50B810.htm Including........ " Sherene Hassan, the Islamic Council of Victoria spokeswoman, said Hilaly's comments were "absolutely repulsive", while Iktimal Hage-Ali, a former government adviser on Muslim issues, said the cleric should be sacked from his position. " It's interesting to note that the western press I've seen gave no mention to the Muslim community's criticism of his speech. Not even the supposedly pro-Islamic biased BBC ! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6086374.stm Graham
From: T Wake on 26 Oct 2006 15:38 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:ol02k21dp9ebqg0mqk2lf877i4av86kmvi(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:53:06 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> Here is a religious extremism whose stated goal is to destroy >>> >> Western civilization. >>> > >>> >Cite ? >>> > >>> > >>> >> The compensation for those who die >>> >> while doing this work for them is only addressed to males. >>> >> The idealism puts all women out of society (cover and >>> >> no transport out of the house). This is not getting back >>> >> to the old ways of Muslim living (from I've read). >>> > >>> >So you reckon that all Muslim women would happily say OK to this ? >>> >>> The women did in Iran. They got the old ways back. Then they >>> were sorry. >> >>You're hugely mistaken. >> >>70% of Iranian university graduates are women. Doesn't sound much like >>being under the yoke to me. >> >>Graham > > > But this sort of thing still lurks just below the surface... > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412697&in_page_id=1770 > Australia is not Iran. The words on one are not the words of many. (read the comments others have made for example - Now some of the cleric's fellow Muslims, including the Islamic Council of New South Wales, are calling his comments comparing immodestly dressed women to "uncovered meat" as "unIslamic, unAustralian and unacceptable." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6088664.stm). This is the same as taking a sermon by a Catholic priest as indicative of the mindset of all those who live in Christian countries.
From: T Wake on 26 Oct 2006 15:39 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45410721.54D559A0(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > MooseFET wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > Do you have any evidence that human societies were a herd-style >> >> > where only one male was allowed to remain in the pack? >> >> >> >> It is not needed. Take a look at many of the apes or wolves. Only >> >> the >> >> high status members get to breed. In wolves it applies to both sexes. >> >> In apes it is mostly males. The bonobo is very much an exception to >> >> this. >> > >> > The bonobos are apparently our closest cousins. >> >> Genetically. This doesn't always imply any societal similarities. > > There are some quite intruiging ones though. Well, yes.... And if we were going to have a societal role model in another species of primate the bonobo would be the most... entertaining.
From: T Wake on 26 Oct 2006 15:41 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:dj02k2d23ajq2bp4rr92nif0l6n5g3imle(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:45:15 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>> Cool, it's perfect when it's perfect; otherwise, it's not. >>> >>> Got it. >> >>Yep :-) That pretty much sums it up. > > Hehe. That sums up anything and everything and nothing, too. Great isn't it. :)
From: mmeron on 26 Oct 2006 15:46
In article <ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >In article <iLOdnYf2fLhzz6LYRVnyuw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehndut$8qk_001(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>>>> >>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the >>>>>>best >>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>>> >>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some >>>>one >>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >>>>because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything in the >>>>scientific method. >>> >>> No. No matter how the concept is refined, the lab method worked. >>> I can then use that method to predict similar setups. That's >>> how science works. >> >>I know how science works. >> >>We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what >>happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your >>understanding of what you are observing. >> >>A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new >>(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that happens we >>[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*. >> >>That is how science works. > >I know. What you seem to omit is that the old method will still >continue to work within the range of the old measurements. > >I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. Crude? For nearly all macroscopic situations we encounter Newtonian physics is good to 7-8 decimal places or better, far more accurate than the input parameters typically are. Not so crude:-) >I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use >because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. It is even worse than bad form, under most circumstances it is pompous twittery. You know, you've the kind of people who enjoy saying "all you know is wrong, I know better, nah nah nananah...". You would think they should grow out of this by the end of adolescence but some people never do. Sure, Newtonian physics is not exact. It is an approximation, and a damn good one over a broad range of physical parameters. Calling it "wrong" is stupid. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |