WTF News stories

[radionausea]

Might be because I'm outside the US?

[bhu]

Maybe its an incoming zombie apocalypse

http://news.yahoo.com/why-does-social-security-174-000-bullets-070710918.html

[bhu]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/04/mom-sentenced-for-sex-with-baby.html

to be filed under reasons i so hate living in ohio...

[Nanshork]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/04/mom-sentenced-for-sex-with-baby.html

to be filed under reasons i so hate living in ohio...

What the?  I don't even...

[bhu]

Rumor has it she was pissed at the boyfriend and did this to get revenge. 

You know when I'm angry at people I usually just slap the shit out of them...

[radionausea]

Rumor has it she was pissed at the boyfriend and did this to get revenge. 

She was angry with her boyfriend... so she raped her own.... child... for revenge? I was horrified, queasy  and angry beforehand now I can add completely dumbfounded to the list of emotions.  That story takes the prize for being the absolute most WTF this thread has had thus far. Hopefully nothing comes out worse than that or, fuck, humanity is doomed.

[bhu]

I vaguely  remember a story a few years back of a woman microwaving her own kid or burning them somehow for the same reasons.  It's the easy availability of bad drugs in Ohio.

[veekie]

Apparently Apple can get whacked right back with the copyright bat elsewhere

Equally nonsensical but hilarious karma.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Does that mean that Austin will separate from the rest of Texas since we have a different political ideology?   

Cain't Texas separate into 4 more states?  It don't matter how big they are.  "Texas" proper still has to be bigger than the rest of 'em.

[veekie]

There goes another bit of my faith in humanity

The guidelines(not listed fully), include V-neck shirts and tight clothes.
EDIT:

For boys, they included muscular bodies and the tendency to show them off in tight-fitting clothes and V-neck or sleeveless tops, the reports said.

Light-coloured clothes and the carrying of handbags by boys were also deemed worthy of suspicion.

"Symptoms" of lesbianism, meanwhile, included a tendency to accompany, eat meals and sleep in the same bed as other women.

Ladies, you can just give up on the hunks now.

[Jackinthegreen]

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/al-azhar-sheikh-demands-new-international-law-criminalizing-defamation-religion

[RobbyPants]

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/al-azhar-sheikh-demands-new-international-law-criminalizing-defamation-religion

I demand that people get thicker skin.

There. It's settled.

[dman11235]

The problem is that the Christian right in this country is condemning them for being so thin-skinned, but if you did the same thing to Christianity, they'd react the same way, more or less (though they aren't oppressed anywhere, so they don't need to resort to more base reactions, ut the burning of the Koran has happened).  It's hate speech, and that's never a good thing.  This whole thing, all of it, is just the same as the 60s-90s targeting African-Americans, only instead of race, it's a creed.  Robby, what's one thing you hold wholly sacred?  Now imagine someone mocks that?  You'd be angry, right?  You'd not want to let the people who said that get away with it, right?

Basically, I really don't see why it's wrong that he is requesting this law.  It's a legitimate argument, against a legitimate problem in this world.  Do also note: a reason the American flag is burned in protest is that the Arabic world see the US as a Christian nation, where as we see ourselves as a secular nation.  Well, most of us do anyways.  So they associate "Christian" with "America" and vice verse.  So when a Christian does something, it's like an American doing that thing.

[Jackinthegreen]

I'm not so sure it can be called "legitimate" given the basis for it is people letting shit talk go to their heads.  The law probably wouldn't do much anyway given the sentiments about various religions.  Two of my favorite quotes are "If you are pained by an external thing, it is not the thing that pains you, but your own judgment about it" and "Judge not lest ye be judged."  I leave it at that for people to contemplate.

[dman11235]

While I agree with your sentiment, I understand that not everyone in the world does, and what is most offensive to you may be easier to stomach than what is most offensive to others.  Here in America, we don't have many things that are on that level of offensiveness, at least as a country.  However, go to a church and start burning a Bible.  See what the reaction is.  Or create a piece of "art" that is a crucifix in a jar of urine.  Be white and call a black person the N word.  Go to the RNC and burn an American flag.  Go to the DNC and call someone a fag.  And yes, I'm intentionally using stereotypes, but hopefully it gets my point across.  We may not think it's a big deal to use media as an insult, but to them, it's as offensive or more so than burning a Bible in front of a devote Christian.

So yes, it is a legitimate argument.  It causes problems, so why not try to fix it?

[RobbyPants]

The problem is that the Christian right in this country is condemning them for being so thin-skinned, but if you did the same thing to Christianity, they'd react the same way, more or less (though they aren't oppressed anywhere, so they don't need to resort to more base reactions, ut the burning of the Koran has happened).  It's hate speech, and that's never a good thing.  This whole thing, all of it, is just the same as the 60s-90s targeting African-Americans, only instead of race, it's a creed.  Robby, what's one thing you hold wholly sacred?  Now imagine someone mocks that?  You'd be angry, right?  You'd not want to let the people who said that get away with it, right?

I didn't watch the video, so I don't know if it's hate speech or not, so I won't comment on that part. Regarding mocking, I'm not saying I wouldn't get mad if someone went out of their way to offend me, but I don't think my feelings trump their rights to free speech.

Also, the law in the post above my last would likely be unenforceable, as simply stating one's own religious belief would be implicit or even explicit blasphemy against other religions (a lot of them are mutually exclusive). And depending on how it's set up, I, as an atheist, might find myself unable to legally voice my own opinions on the matter for fear of blasphemy.

Free speech is the way to go, here.

[RobbyPants]

While I agree with your sentiment, I understand that not everyone in the world does, and what is most offensive to you may be easier to stomach than what is most offensive to others.  Here in America, we don't have many things that are on that level of offensiveness, at least as a country.  However, go to a church and start burning a Bible.  See what the reaction is.  Or create a piece of "art" that is a crucifix in a jar of urine.  Be white and call a black person the N word.  Go to the RNC and burn an American flag.  Go to the DNC and call someone a fag.  And yes, I'm intentionally using stereotypes, but hopefully it gets my point across.  We may not think it's a big deal to use media as an insult, but to them, it's as offensive or more so than burning a Bible in front of a devote Christian.

So yes, it is a legitimate argument.  It causes problems, so why not try to fix it?

Now, the pragmatic part of me does agree with you here. The guy was trying to piss people off, and a lot of them did exactly what we expected (hell, an ambassador got killed over it). In the end of the day, a lot of suffering was had for no good reason. As for trying to insult Christians, that sort of thing has happened. An atheist desecrated a communion wafer and became the target of a hate campaign (Note the double standard that he couldn't maintain his beliefs that it's still just a wafer). So you're right that pretty much everyone freaks out if someone tries to piss them off.

In the end, the world would be a better place if both:

1) People didn't try to offend other people just for the sake of doing so*, and

2) People learned not to react so viscerally to people with differing opinions. Especially regarding things they can't prove.


* I'm not saying never to offend people, and that there are certainly good reasons to do so. Many would have considered the civil rights movement offensive. Basically, I'm saying no trolling just to troll.

[oslecamo]

I'm not so sure it can be called "legitimate" given the basis for it is people letting shit talk go to their heads.  The law probably wouldn't do much anyway given the sentiments about various religions.  Two of my favorite quotes are "If you are pained by an external thing, it is not the thing that pains you, but your own judgment about it" and "Judge not lest ye be judged."  I leave it at that for people to contemplate.

I stab you with a knife. Obviously it's not the metal piece stuck in your flesh hurting you, no sir.

And you can't call the police or take me to court because that would demand judging me.

This is, why are we wasting all that money on courts and law systems again?

* I'm not saying never to offend people, and that there are certainly good reasons to do so. Many would have considered the civil rights movement offensive. Basically, I'm saying no trolling just to troll.

Alas, trolling just for the saking of trolling is a cheap and effective way of getting attention, and even earning a living and perhaps reputation and social status if you're really good at it.

[dman11235]

@Robby: I agree with you.  I should have been more clear in my statement though: I think it's a legitimate argument, but I don't think the law would be a good idea.

2) People learned not to react so viscerally to people with differing opinions. Especially regarding things they can't prove.

However, do note that to the religious, belief is proof, and that goes for atheists(!)* as well as theists.  So while the first half of that sentence is fine, I take issue with the second half.

*Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Also, while it's not easy to prove the existence of a deity, it's impossible to prove that one does not exist.  There is a belief even for those who do not believe a deity exists.  There is a belief involved in even the most accepted science.

[oslecamo]

  There is a belief involved in even the most accepted science.

Religious BS. Science is based on experimentation. If you can't show evidence of something, then it's a theory at best, not "most accepted".

As for proving that a deity can't exist, it's redudant. If you can't show any proof your god is out there (or at least something observeable that can't be explained in a simpler manner by science), then it's the same as said god not existing.