waps

hace 8 mesesdiscuss

[dead]

hace 8 mesesdiscuss

In Iran the cause of the water shortage is at least 99.9% the current government's policies. If global warming accelerated matters it was by days or weeks probably.

But you have to admit it would be very funny if a theocracy was forced to abandon it's capital by forces of nature.

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

Really ? And what if Amazon loses data ? [1] But all data saved to S3 was safe, right ? No. [2]

The key to decent safety is to 1) have an online backup at a different provider you can switch to quickly 2) have regular offline backups 3) actually reinstall from those offline backups on a regular basis

Amazon falls flat on it's face with (1). If you use Amazon's tools you cannot have that, period. I would argue that securing against amazon financial failure is one of the important objectives of (2), so you cannot use glacier for that.

This means that using just amazon (or even having your primary and online backup on amazon) is a bad idea. Given that you can't really use those amazon products anyway, you may as well save the money and go for hetzner and ovh or something like that. Famous customers like Netflix moved away from Amazon lock in [3] and for anything that you want to last, you should too.

We all know that most people's backup strategy tends to be "X" will never fail. X in the worst case is their hard drive. For larger businesses X usually is something like EMC, and we've all seen it fail (usually, to be fair, not EMC's fault). You are replacing X with "Amazon" and that's it.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com.au/amazon-lost-data-2011-4 [2] http://www.quora.com/Has-Amazon-S3-ever-lost-data-permanentl... [3] http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/19/adrian-cockcroft-public-cl...

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"

Given the context, and the concept of abrogation itself, doesn't the quran pretty much says about itself that it was changed. And this verse itself is inconsistent since it both says it was changed and not changed.

And of course one can easily find examples of changes. And if you want to laugh about the whole thing :

  "Wahadi says that this verse was sent down because the associators said, "Do you not see Muhammad, how he commands
  his people to do something, then forbids them to do it and commands them to do its opposite? Today he says one thing and 
  tomorrow he changes his mind regarding it. The Qur'an is no more than the words of Muhammad, which he utters from 
  himself. It is composed of words which contradict one another." Thus says Wahidi, God sent down verse 101 of al-Nahl
  (Q. 16), and this verse (Wahidi, p. 32: see also Zamakhshari, I. p. 303). Tabari interprets abrogation 
  (naskh) broadly as "what we [that is, God] abrogate regarding the precept of a verse which we change, or for 
  which we substitute another, so that what is lawful may become unlawful and what is unlawful may become lawful; 
  what is permitted may become prohibited and what is prohibited may become permitted. This however, can only be 
  done with regard to commands and prohibitions... but as for reports or narratives, they can neither be abrogated 
  nor can they abrogate" (Tabari, II, pp. 471-472; see also Shawkani, I, pp. 125-126)."

Confused little god you have there, no ?

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

Health care is famous for being one of the primary examples where the structure of the "market" makes competition impossible.

Firstly, when you need healthcare, there is likely to be little warning, and it's a "care NOW or death" situation. Corporations feel that's exactly the time to ask for a million bucks for the "service" and people naturally feel like not paying for it.

I side with people.

The counterargument is essentially malthusian[1] : if we do that, eventually the whole economy will be healthcare (because evolution means the cases of the sick will become more and more expensive until the system fails).

The huge problem with malthusian arguments is simple. Since their invention in 1798, not a single person has died due to a malthusian cause. No state has been devastated because of the effect described.

The malthusian argument itself, however, can be argued to have killed more than 100 million people in the 20th century, and was used as justification for dozens of massacres, genocides and wars. I doubt it was ever the "real reason", but ...

So malthusianism, which is the main reason we can't just decide to guarantee healthcare for everybody, is a theoretical argument that (so far) has proven entirely wrong. Everytime we moved in the direction of a malthusian catastrophy we compensated effectively without disaster. But the theory itself has been used as the justification for a number of catastrophies. It is the poster child for the idea of "the cure is worse than the disease".

And you hear people advocating it directly too : privatising healthcare is much more expensive than just curing everybody (to the extent modern medicine can do so).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

I for one can't edit large programs - period - without IDEs. Refactoring is not optional once a program exceeds a certain size. A lot of problems that people try - usually unsuccessfully - to catch with tests simply don't occur with refactorings.

And I notice the same about Go programs that I used to have with python programs. They grow and grow, and beyond a certain size, the basic architecture "freezes" and no more changes are possible because nobody can fully grasp all consequences of edits.

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

2 things play in favor of Go on memory usage though:

1) Go is in honeymoon phase. There aren't any 10 million plus lines of code Go codebases. So "Go is not complex".

That said in java-land there is often not a very good reason for complexity. I just examined a GWT job scheduling tool and for displaying fields in the UI they had 5 interworking classes - just to avoid manually coding the dialog. In java-land people constantly do that - why ? They had recordbuilders and ui-from-record-builder and ...

That said, these days you see people using Go's introspection to create dialogs in javascript - that was a lot more complex still.

So while the length of backtraces in Go's crashes has been steadily going up, it seems to be at around 6-8 levels deep these days. I have to say though, I much prefer panics and exceptions over Go's error handling (or as you will come to see it after seeing what "average" programmers do with the errors - Go's error ignoring)

This honeymoon also means the amount of idiot-written code in Go is much smaller than in Java. Also, a lot of code in java was written to the previous sets of programmer fancies. Half the libraries you use in a particular project are XML configured, because that was the best practice in 2000-2005 (even still visible in things like android apps), another set is using dependency-injection patterns, another set requires POJOs and uses introspection, and the last set has it's own custom configuration language (I hate gradle, and yes this is because just doing things with cli tools is apparently not done in java-land, I don't care).

2) Go has a better memory model than Java. Because you can nil out every java object, every java object has to be a pointer. So initializing an object that contains 5 other objects requires 6 heap allocations and constructor invocations - minimum. After construction the GC has a new tree of 6 objects to walk on every invocation.

This is not the case in Go (uninitialized non-pointer objects aren't nil, you only use pointers where you actually need them), and results in much more compact memory. I see it as a flaw in java these days.

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

But Go's tools suck ...

Debuggers - http://blog.securitymouse.com/2014/10/golang-debugging-turni...

Code analysis tools - aside from "go fmt" ... don't know any. There's certainly nothing compared to the C++ tooling.

Versioning - nonexistent

Editors, IDEs - nonexistent

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

Why do people keep making this point. Design is the supposed solution to everything. It is false, plain and simple. Great APIs, great apps, great games ... do not start with a design. Here is how to write a great app :

1) have an idea. Execute that idea without any IT involved. Become a user of your non-existent app, so that you find the pain points.

2) write a bad app (this may require a "gather your thoughts" informal piece of text, 1st iteration maybe a paragraph, and from the 3rd iteration onwards maybe even a set of conventions and standards. Make sure everyone in the team adds something. Be encouraged to copy large amounts of code from previous iterations)

3) confront your bad app with the world, become a power user in your app, fixing bugs as you go

4) have your app confront a few others (ideally with them invested in it, ideally sell it)

5) think. collect your thoughts. Have a beer. Give it some time.

6) goto 1 (do NOT skip step 1, not even on the 10th iteration)

Repeat. On the 2nd iteration your app is a "reasonable" app. On the 5th iteration your app will be good. It is necessary to redo the task without any IT aid on occasion because that's how you find revolutionary ideas.

And the main antipattern is what I'd call "app management". You become a software engineer who thinks writing a database server is pretty much the same "process" as writing a html5 game. Like lots of managers think managing a software project is pretty much the same as managing a call center. You focus on requirements. You focus on design. "Best practices", preferably dozens of conflicting ones ("agile, yet controlled"). You focus on architecture. The truth is, if you have to gather requirements you have already lost, and you will not write a great app. If you want to write a great app, first you do the apps function yourself, personally, then you automate yourself back out again.

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

I second this. The issue with angular is it's attempt to approach a functional paradigm in the UI : the UI fully mirrors the state of the data and vice-versa.

React, by contrast, doesn't do state change detection and instead counts on the programmer to tell it when the state's changed.

What this article is saying is that if you use the advanced hacks in angular to disable large parts of that state reflection, then angular is (almost) as fast as react. This is true, but it's very misleading : if you don't use angular the way it's designed, the way it's used in every one of their tutorials and start manually updating things ... then it's fast.

That's great, but using frameworks in a way which is working around their core design principles is going to be very unpleasant.

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

Read any forum. There are thousands of answers.

My favorite : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoeira

In essence, whatever anyone can convince them to do. That can even include revolution, it'd still be better.

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

There is Google ...

https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

You failed to explain why the Sana'a manuscripts are different. You see you keep spewing these articles of faith ... but fail to explain known facts. As you know very well, the letters are different in these versions of the quran, and in one case there's a verse missing, and "somehow" your example has the exact same letters.

You utterly failed to explain your faith in early muslims' perfect 120-year long memory. As far as I can tell, you haven't even attempted. This is just rhetoric. Saying anything, anything at all to try to defend your pathetic paedophilic religion's viewpoint :

raping minors is wrong ... except when the prophet did it "because it was common". Needless to say, it is wrong, and the central idea of islam is that your paedophilic prophet is a moral role model for all time. Raping 6 year olds was wrong when the first human walked the earth and will be wrong long after the last human dies. Look at a picture of a girl in a cradle and tell me if raping her is wrong or not. You do not need religion to know the answer to that question, and any religion that even suggests otherwise is immoral and an abomination. Your defense of it makes you a monster.

Massacring is wrong ... except when the prophet "was at war" (not that he ever was at peace), because then it was "self-defence". Self-defence somehow lead to the massacring entire cities on a dozen occasions. Self-defence.

Needless to say, self-defence cannot ever take the form of a massacre for a moral person. To Christians, even just killing, even just hurting someone in self-defence is a crime. THAT is moral (and very hard in some cases). Your way only leads to war, misery and death.

Breaking peace treaties is wrong ... except when the prophet did it ... because "self-defence" (I have read the texts, it was not self-defence). In all cases of course the paedophilic prophet had the chance to walk away ...

Don't you find yourself immoral for defending all these despicable crimes that your paedophilic prophet committed ? Don't you feel dirty, even evil ?

> So they were honorable by explicitly deciding not to follow what they believe God revealed to them? That's some double standard right there. Why did they come to the Prophet,

And here you are defending religious murder. Even attempting to point out to me that I should murder people. Fuckwit.

Here's a basic fact : Christians, believe it or not, follow Christ : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_ad...

> The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’

As you explained, bringing the woman before Christ was a threat. The Torah was the law of the land, and if he knowingly violated it that would be punishable by expulsion minimum, execution at worst. The purpose was not to punish the woman, but to attack and maybe even kill Christ. He was truly moral, so obviously no stoning happened. Not a finger was lifted against anyone. Absolutely zero violence. Absolutely zero violation of the law. Let me tell you that again : they surrounded and tried to threaten him into killing someone. And he resolves the situation by drawing in the sand. This guy was good, in more than one sense of the word. This is just one of the many occasions where Jesus refuses to so much as threaten anyone to protect himself. He scolds one of the apostles for trying to defend him with violence later in the story.

Do you understand now why Christianity will win ? I may be an atheist(technically agnost), but I fully realize that as long as people like you exist, Christianity is the only answer.

But every point you have made you claw back the paragraph below it. When reading the age-old fatwa that muslims aren't allowed to live outside of the caliph's state you say

> But no, that fatwa you're referring to is just one opinion.

and then, to explain the validity one of the early muslim wars (the apostasy wars, which ended in massacre) ...

> Explicitly denying an established part of the faith (in this case, Zakah) constitutes apostasy.

Note that you've claimed just before that that all wars were self-defence. And this you do 2 paragraphs below where you claim that denying fatwas ... is perfectly A-okay in islam. Fatwas are religious judgements, they are an extremely central part of sharia, the very core of how islamic law works. Most of the verses of the quran technically ARE fatwas, in the sense that they are religious judgements. And note that, yes, any fatwa endorsed by any of the caliphs, is as much part of sharia as the verses in the quran. Muslims don't, and can't, follow sharia.

Here's what any sane person knows happened when Abu Bakr decided to kill the "apostates", the way you claim never happens because of denying fatwas ... When the old commander (the paedophile propet) died, his commanders attempted to massacre eachother. Not just 2 of them, but 5 different groups. What you call islam is the opinion of the winner of that fight, that massacre that occured there. In the years after that there would be more massacres for the same reason. If another commander had won, you would have believed completely different things about your paedophile religion. This war, and the massacres following it was the "election" of Abu Bakr.

Can we just agree that you're a monster ? Not because you're a muslim, but because you agree with death penalty (and even massacres) for "apostasy" and for adultery, because you agree with paedophilic rape. Because you think massacres are justified. Because you defend religiously motivated murder. You have justified almost every single kind of despicable crime I even know about to yourself, right down to the rape of babies, which you clearly feel "was criticized", and that's enough.

To any moral person reading this you have made the case that islam needs to die far stronger than I ever would be able to. That is the problem with islam : it makes otherwise sane people like you defend paedophilia, massacres, stealing and worse. Do you understand now that the effect it has on hormone-filled 17 year olds is to make them COMMIT paedophilia, massacres, stealing and worse ?

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

I wonder, don't you feel all over just how wrong you are. You have, in order to defend islam, defended :

1) raping 6 year old girls (apparently it's okay if "he did not do anything outside the norm of that time")

2) massacring (I guess this was the norm of the time too ?)

3) stoning (funny how the hadith mentions that this actually wasn't the norm at the time ...)

4) forcing other people to stone women

At what point is one absolutely certain islam is disgusting and despicable ? I'd go with 1), why don't you share your opinion.

I also wonder. If there is one thing islam promises more than anything else, it's that the caliph will win any war, any battle. But today, we know that over 4 caliphs were murdered, and the last one died without a successor after being deposed by Kemal Ataturk. Where is the victory, because I see mostly a hell of a lot of defeats. And of course, even in islamic history itself there are reports of the prophet getting his ass kicked in battle. The last islamic state is extinct, and even the pseudo-islamic states only live by the grace of infidels. Where is allah's promise ? Where is the victory ? Why are you so pathetic ?

> it is explicitly talking about the Messengers, Scholars, and Rabbis, who were upholding ...

By the way, I take it you agree on the validity of the fatwa that it is haram for muslims to not live in the state of the caliph ? You focus on supposed disagreement on the punishment sharia demands for denying islam's laws, and you're making ever more idiotic arguments, but you're curiously silent on the issue.

As I recall you were initially trying to defend that muslims always follow sharia, and yet ... Every single muslim on the planet obviously violates this fatwa, as there is no exception for not having a single islamic state lead by a caliph. Why don't you come up with some more moronic arguments about this issue ?

> Again, put your citation as to who are these "highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia", and what exactly they said.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015...

Repeated from article : For example, in 2011, Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”

Which is also why you might want to google "thighing". Your religion is truly ugly and disgusting if it lets this happen. They defend this as moral and just. Raping babies. You must feel proud.

> If you read the incident, it is saying that those two Jews themselves accepted what was mentioned in the Torah. Even today, you will find the same penalty in the Torah.

Why don't you comment on the obvious fact that they were honorable and moral by NOT following that law, and then muhammad forced them to do it ... After which the Jew being executed used his own body simply to try to protect and lessen the pain of his companion while your paedophile prophet was murdering them.

We both know which of them deserves respect and admiration, and it's that Jew.

Note that you skirt around the issue of stoning for even suspected adultery. Do you think that's moral ? If not, why does islam say so ?

> Aishah is one of the highest regarded sources from whom to take Hadith and religion.

I take it you are a sunni then ? Because this is not at all true in general. Shi'a 'hate" her, or perhaps it'd be better to say that they act like she doesn't exist, because of the agreement between Abu Bakr and Muhammad about selling her to the paedophile prophet for "rape and later marriage" (why, btw, does the prophet get to have sex before marriage ? Care to explain ?) in trade for inheriting the islamic empire. This is the root of the sunni-shi'a conflict of course but you're still presenting the moronically stupid argument that he was elected (and then proceeded to immediately to massacre former parts of the muslim army in what is called the "apostasy wars").

Do you seriously believe that ?

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

There are 5 different versions of the quran, with differences in wording and meaning, in wide use today. The number of different versions known to be in print is 20. As an example, buy one in Morocco and one in Egypt ... and they don't match. So while you're reciting one of the paedophiles' prophet articles of faith, muslims have actually not yet resolved to have a single version of the quran TODAY. Whatever date a single version of the quran gets, the year will be 2015 or larger. "During the time of the prophet ?" ... it isn't even cleared up after the THIRD time the line of caliphs died out, and islam as a state was destroyed by the Turks.

But islam clearly states there's only one version. Who is lying ? Reality or your paedophilic religion ?

As for the islamic history's version of the quran's collection, read it and you will realize just how absurd it is that it would be even remotely accurate ...

> "...By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran... So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men.[Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:60:201]

This statement obviously means that there were no more than fragments written down 2 years after your prophet died. Supposedly, the first version was written down 25 years later. That's the version of history in the hadith, and very few historians believe it to be accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn...

Note that while there is a "canonical" version of the quran in existence (Ottomans robbed it from Baghdad and it's still in Turkey), "for some reason" nobody's allowed to see it. Fragments of one of the others was found in graves in Yemen (the famous Sana'a manuscripts) and ... surprise ! They don't match. Nobody was surprised of course, but you're still going to deny it, aren't you ? Usually muslim lunatics claim this is a conspiracy against islam, just so you'll have some inspiration ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript

Do note that this is a script from after the canonicalization. So this should have been copied from a written quran, and thus presumably much more accurate than the copies made orally. And yet ... hundreds of differences.

(note that there are internal inconsistencies in the Sana'a manuscripts too. The multiple copies found don't even fully match eachother. Sorry to state the obvious, but clearly early muslims weren't very concerned with exact copies of the quran, in the way that, for instance, Christian monks were for the bible)

Muslims responded with violence and attacks. At the time, people were actually surprised at this.

Also note that, in order to "guarantee nothing got lost", the hadith actually contain alternative versions of ~40% of all verses in the quran. And that number goes above 50% if you take all hadith accepted by any sect of islam (instead of just sunnis). Another conspiracy perhaps ?

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

My opinion doesn't matter. Anyone who is the least bit capitalist would certainly not see it as abandoning them, of course. It is the opinion of those individuals that matters, and they certainly see things this way.

It is not just not providing a marriage, right. No job, no money, no way to be independent, no meaning in life generally ... combined with a contant barrage of commercials detailing what is important in life, and unreachable to them (think cars, what you might call "nightclub women", and the like). The marriage thing factors pretty highly.

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

True, of course, but some texts can't reasonably be interpreted not to be violent. About the quran we can have reasonable arguments about who one is supposed to be violent against, when and under what conditions, but you can't reasonably argue it's not calling to fight.

Compare, if you will http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

With http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

And judge for yourself. Take specific note of the big differences, the first link mostly consisting of calls to violence whereas the second link is mostly reports of violence. Also keep in mind that the bible is easily 3 times longer than the quran.

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason. So was the council that collected these works into the New Testament.

In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

It is funny to see you squirm in your arguments. Again you don't answer the arguments, you beat around the bush. How much more squirming before you admit the truth ?

> You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through.

Hey now you just implied that the prophet did something wrong, despite wurming your way around saying so, and failing miserably. Was the prophet justified in raping a 6 year old ? Do you agree with that act or not ... I would also like to point out that marriage at 6 years, or even 9 was very much not a common occurance. For obvious reasons, most cultures (including islam, when the prophet is not trying to rape a young girl) find that marriage should occur no earlier than 12 (we both know what is meant here, let's just say earlier results in "damages to the body" and leave it at that), and generally happened around 14. Romans generally married later, if they married at all (like in Judaism at the time, marriage was a contract, which implied among other things that it couldn't be entered into before adulthood, and can't be entered into by parents on their children's behalf. A roman contract was between equals, so for it to make sense for a man and a woman to get married, this implied that both had significant assets (like a store, a caravan, for example, something)).

Oh and if you wish to be truly and completely disgusted by islam, google for the word "thighing", which is related to Aisha's wedding according to the highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia (but I'm sure you know more about islam, right ?). Why don't you defend the meaning of that word ? (extremely NSFW, and frankly, just NS). In 1500 years of English there was no need for that word in the language. But now we have muslims speaking English. Feel proud, man, feel very proud.

To be frank, if you find yourself in a situation where you would have to admit Romans responded more moral than you did, you are a very immoral human being indeed. These are the people that lined the road between 2 major cities with crosses and nailed (upper estimates) almost 5000 people to those crosses, and let them die from hunger and thirst, feeding them acid when they asked for water (and if they were lucky enough). Yet those people are far better human beings than your paedophilic massacring prophet.

And if you are a decent human being and find the sale and barter in human beings despicable, never mind "agreements" about having sex with 6 year olds, what does that tell you about islam itself ?

> The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws).

You squirm you way around this don't you ? It specifically mentions that these people are like the Jews. Do tell, if a muslim becomes a Jew, which is what this verse compares knowingly violating sharia compares to, what is to happen to them ?

And if you want, we can go over the story of the group of muslims that "accepted islam", then moved away against the wishes of the prophet. He had them massacred. You know this story, or at least, I've heard too many young muslims say that it was told to them in school. Don't you think someone making a religious judgement might take that sort of story into account ?

I'm behaving like your paedophilic prophet here : http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0...

After all, if religious people avoid killing for their religion, what does your prophet do ? Well he points out they really should kill, and threatens them (unless you call surrounding them with an execution squad of muslims something other than a threat).

I love that story, because it reveals true morality, and the very essence of what is good in the world :

> So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.

Of course it is the sinner, who is put to death, who shows us the true meaning of good. I hope that I am capable of showing such greatness at some point, but to be frank, I doubt I am half as moral as that Jew. Islam's prophet is the one inciting muslims and Jews to kill very moral people, even when they don't want to.

Are you proud of your religion ? It is despicable.

I know of course that islam is not based on rational reasoning like Christianity and to a lesser degree Judaism is, but you're pathetic. You keep defending paedophilic rape, should we next start discussing Khaybar and what happened there perhaps ? How it is "totally" different from massacring, raiding and stealing. How "allah" declared peace treaties invalid, which of course made the massacre A-ok ? Or should we talk about how entire tribes should be massacred over a lover's quarrel ? How islam agrees with all that ?

Or should we simply agree that islam is a despicable, disgusting and immoral ideology ?

> Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on.

http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.311

Why don't you interpret for me what she meant here ? Or should we discuss one of the "it was then that the revelaton X was sent down" verses perhaps ? I remember reading one that mentions laughter went around the muslims when the timing of revelations was mentioned.

Or how about we revisit the whole "allah has 3 daughters" saga ? It'd be funny to hear your response to the timing of the revelation that that verse of the quran was wrong, or the mere fact that quran says about itself that it is wrong, or at least, can and has been improved ... It is only truth as long as the paedophilic prophet feels it convenient according to hadith.

waps

hace 11 añosdiscuss

> You take some ignorant bigot who has distorted a religious text to create something that most adherants to that religion do not recognise.

Not at all. Here's what I claim :

1) these islamic "holy" texts do indeed say to fight and kill, and a whole lot of other immoral despicable behavior. Islam was created in a war, continued in a war, and the early muslims did not stop fighting and massacring for hundreds of years. This is very well reflected in the religion.

2) most muslims do not believe and do not follow this, BUT DO teach these texts to their children

3) when (and if) society abandons them as young adults, and they search comfort in religion, as one does (and I'm sure you have done on occasion, Lord knows I have), islamic clerics then use these texts to support the case that they need to fight and kill for paradise.

4) That this is a growing phenomenon. Well, not really. If you read history you'll see that this was an extremely common practice even in the Ottoman empire. There's simply been a 100 year near-hiatus in this form of recruiting, and it's actually still at a very, very low level compared to what it was in the 19th century.

5) I claim the problem is that those recruiting clerics are right. That islamic texts do indeed say to fight and kill, very clearly, very directly. Stopping this phenomenon can happen in one of two ways. First, society could choose to simply never abandon anyone, ever. Second we could prevent step 2) from happening. Fighting things at the recruiting stage is an exercise in futility.

Am I being an ignorant bigot ? Perhaps.

Submissions

Wall street execs want government compensation for bailouts

Firm to replace 90% of workers with robots. China expects a trend to start here

Google Play introduces price A/B testing for android apps/games

VLC back online in the app store, with new sharing options

How Wal-Mart Made Its Crumbling China Business Look So Good for So Long

San Francisco and Los Angeles warn uber in letter from district attorneys

Phantom FC40 used in military (recon) capacity by ISIS terrorists

Click baiting click bait

Chase plane filming falcon 9 reentry

Again taxi drivers strike and/or block several European cities over uber

Dolphin's surfing filmed by drone cam

Bitcoin investments illegal to sell in Belgium (dutch)

CEO complaints : employee not motivated after being fired

The case for an IAP off button in mobile games

Banks seek breathing room with controversial credit relief trades

Dutch intelligence agency AIVD hacks internet forums

comments