The bottom line is that while the underlined sentence is what you believe, you are so wound up in the first bolded part that the second bolded part is inseparable from it.
Thus, forcing your opinions and beliefs upon others is, albeit indirectly, being ethnocentrist.
Do you ever wonder why there are so few in the middle east who agree exactly with "your standard"?
It's because your standard is based upon the (cultural) standard of the time and place you grew up in, the modern US, which is culturally leagues away from the middle east.
I am against this arrest simply because I don't think book burning qualifies as incitement, unless she was actively attempting to expose the action to as many muslims as possible, a specific muslim, or something like that.
Although I haven't exactly read British law, their precising definition might indeed include this. If it does, while I personally disagree, it's their country.
I agree with both your argument and manner of conduct. Well said.
As I said before, unless we know specifically what happened and what the law says, we are pretty much baselessly speculating and giving trolls food.
People really need to realize that different places in the world have different values and moral systems, and that no one is "right" about anything. I'm not just talking about what happened to the girl, I'm also talking about what she was thinking when she did this and what the trolls should think when they're just spouting of bigoted hatred.
I'm just as much of a dick in real life as I am on here.
Wanna know why people act tough? it's simply because, get this, YOU'RE ON THE INTERNET. Literally, and I mean literally nothing can hurt you.
Look guys, I broke the code.
Given enough motivation, a person more savvy than me can discover a lot about you (not talking about you specifically, but about any person) just over the internet. They can also probably discover your address, name, family. There have been several recent incidents of people seeking out someone who wronged them over the internet and killed them. It's not that anonymous really. It's just that most people aren't savvy enough/can't be bothered.
It's a bad book anyway, Harry Potter is far better.
They blow up a building and all we do is burn a book. (Seems fair)
Oh come on. Comparing the actions of an extremist group who brainwash their followers to an ignorant teenager doesn't really seem fair.
It's not "them vs. us". I know as many Muslims as Christians, and both groups have an equal amount of good/bad people. Why must we judge groups based on a small portion of extreme individuals?
Do you think all Americans are like Sarah Palin?
BTW: Harry Potter is better than the Bible too, IMO.
I believe a boundary is as effective as the moral/physical discouragement attached to it.
Bear with me as I exaggerate:
Stealing is wrong - why?
A) It is a sin -> you will go to hell for it -> do not want
B) It is illegal -> you will go to prison for it -> do not want
C) You hurt someone else -> you will feel bad about it -> do not want
Sex without marriage is wrong - why?
A) It is a sin etc.
B) It is considered to be 'wrong' by societal norms, maybe due to A's effect. -> you feel shamed -> do not want
Eating cookies is wrong - why?
A) Your mom told you not to -> She will get mad at you if you do so -> do not want
B) They were made for your brother -> You don't want to upset him -> do not want
Depending on the discouragement scheme you choose to believe in, the effect of the boundary will be different. If the (perceived) benefit outweighs the (perceived) punishment, then you will do it.
no. Extra calories don't get dumped as "waste". Unless you're sick, and have diarrhea, or have lactose intolerance or whatever, you will not find many usable calories in human ☺☺☺☺.
Whether you eat carb, protein, or fat, 1 excess calorie of each will find itself eventually turned into ATP, then help build a storage calorie.
one "excess" calorie of any substance will put fat on you at the same rate as one calorie from any other source. Our digestive systems are very efficient (far more so than carnivores) so if you eat the calories, you will have to carry whatever you don't use. "Excess" calories you consume in any form get broken down and then stored, simple as that.
in this country, not a huge issue. Nutrient deficiency is far far down the list for most Americans (except maybe Calcium). Too much fat and cholesterol, and certain fats and too much sodium in hypertensives is way bigger issue.
For a person who is already overweight to manage their diet without being aware of calories is like saying the best approach for a person in debt to manage their finances is to "shop more bargains" but don't balance your checkbook or keep a budget. It's ludicrous.
Yes, you can change the types of things you eat in hopes that your own internal satiety meter combined with "healthier" food will result in healthy weight loss, but that is a profoundly flawed approach usually doomed to failure, given an overweight person's internal satiety meter is already a proven failure.
One of the reasons that so many people fail their diets or gain weight back after losing, is because they refuse to acknowledge the bottom line truth of why they got fat in the first place: more calories in than burned.
you have to limit your intake to less than what you burn.
I am totally in favor of eating "healthier" food.
But it's vague and unscientific to not count the calories (in one way or another, you can count "portions", calories, equivalents, exchanges, whatever).
It's not hard to get all the vitamins, minerals, protein, fat, etc. that you need in most diets. Actually, after the number 1 nutritional problem in the USA (obesity, i.e. Too many calories), the number 2 problem is NOT nutritional deficiencies, it is EXCESS (excess cholesterol, excess fat, excess sodium).
Your heart is in the right place, but in your wishful thinking, you seem to want to remove accountability from the equation. Fat is about 9 calories/gram, protein and carbs are about 4.5, give or take. Eat slower (to trigger satiety), try to eat lower calorie/gram foods, even go on a gimmick diet (becaus it may help the you eat less), but still ultimately, less calories have to go in, or more have to get burned. Counting the calories is simply like balancing a checkbook ( though many people prefer to take their entire diet like it was a series of impulse purchases, without regard to budget or price).
You seem quite knowledgeable, so don't take it to mean that I doubt you when I say this, I am just curious and want to learn: What are your sources?
I'm too surprised by this absurd limitation on freedom; the U.K. government clearly doesn't value free speech, or even basic freedoms for that manner.
Well here in the US the First Amendment has clauses that can be limiting on free speech, depending on what you define freedom as. Reporters without borders state that the UK is tied with the USA in terms in press freedom, and they are both 20th place in the world. SO apparently the US also disrespects freedom more than 19 other countries?
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the U.K. did enact laws that forbid people from even mentioning hateful speech. The U.K. is practically a dictatorship in that respect, to the point were they oppress their own citizens for disliking a stupid and barbaric religion.
If only there were laws against trolling. The internet would be a much better place, without people like you. Also, how much do you know about Islam? It's pretty much as 'stupid and barbaric' as Christianity. I'm not saying this to insult either, I'm saying this to imply that they are both similar.
I really hate it when people say crap like this. Yeah, of course hating another culture and denouncing it as cruel and evil is just ethnocentrism, lets not ever judge the actions of other nations, cause that might hurt peoples feelings. We should always blindly respect the actions of other culture regardless of who they hurt or kill, cause you know, morality is totally relative.
Actually, yes, morality is totally relative. For example I believe trolling and internet hate speech is immoral, while you clearly don't.
That was then, this is now. And while there are those in the U.S. who do unfairly judge and oppress other (such as those who deny gays their right to marry), I hate them as much as the idiots who arrested this 15 year old girl. Some cultures are wrong in their actions, other are right, the important factor to consider is which one is which, and as far as I'm concerned these fools locking up a 15 year old girl for insulting a pathetic and nonsenical religion are wrong.
This is here, that is there. What has happened to the girl might be unjust, but we do not have enough details about the situation. By the way, it's all relative, really. Other countries consider some laws of the US to be totally insane and unjust. Just because you believe something is right doesn't mean it should be.
By the way, why do you consider Islam to be pathetic and nonsensical? I really have no idea since as an Agnostic it all looks the same to me, but I was born and raised in an Islamic country so Christians seem weirder to me. But that's just me, and I acknowledge that. There are good and bad people in both sides, it's all relative.
Of course, my opinions are offensive, so it must be bigoted trolling /sarcasm.
Definition of bigot by Wikipedia: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs"
Let's say my opponent casts Volition Reins on my Lux Cannon, which has 3+ counters on it.. I don't want my opponent to have my cannon. The obvious answer is activate the cannon in response to my opponent casting the reins, choose the cannon itself as the target, thus my opponent doesn't get a cannon.
Now here's my question: I'm not totally sure about how Auras work. Does the Reins come into play attached to the Cannon, or does it come into play, everyone gets priority, then it attaches to the cannon? i.e. can I target the Reins with my cannon after the reins comes into play before my opponent gains control of the cannon? Sounds like it shouldn't work but wanted to make sure.
The philosophy of applying or not applying a fix does not generally take into account whether doing so is more advantageous to one player or another. From the IPG: "These procedures do not, and should not, take into account the game being played, the current situation that the
game is in, or who will benefit strategically from the procedure associated with a penalty."
Then can't I intentionally shuffle my hand to my library to gain advantage?
What if having the cards in his library was, in some weird way, to his advantage? For example Panglacial Wurm? Would he still be allowed to keep those cards in his library? Or if he's playing Polymorph? What if you're playing mill and he got 5 more cards in his library, delaying his loss by one turn?
Idea is keep casting treasure hunt, and you will have less than 20 in your library, then Shelldock into Emrakul for the win. You can use Halimar to set up Shelldock. If you feel like you can't win, just discard Emrakul and start over again.
Possible idea:
Rune Jace2, and also Selective Memory, and just play a control deck until you remove all nonlands except 2 Emrakul; cast treasure hunt to get one Emrakul, put it back on top with Jace then hideway to win.
How does this deck even hope to beat control? They will always have more counters and card advantage, and there is no way you can win unless you resolve a MP? Memoricide hurts too...
Looks like colorless control deck to me. Add 4 Eldrazi Temples and an Eye to fetch your beats and for early all is dusts. I think the Colorless Control deck was posted on Twitter VIA @top8games I do believe.
I've been testing something similar to this for 3 weeks now, it's quite good but I can't seem to arrive to a final list, there's just so many cards to include and so little space!
I run 8 counters mainboard and 4 preordains though, that might be a problem. Also, isn't Deprive kind of bad here? The tempo loss seems to be critical in the control matchup.
I agree with both your argument and manner of conduct. Well said.
As I said before, unless we know specifically what happened and what the law says, we are pretty much baselessly speculating and giving trolls food.
People really need to realize that different places in the world have different values and moral systems, and that no one is "right" about anything. I'm not just talking about what happened to the girl, I'm also talking about what she was thinking when she did this and what the trolls should think when they're just spouting of bigoted hatred.
Given enough motivation, a person more savvy than me can discover a lot about you (not talking about you specifically, but about any person) just over the internet. They can also probably discover your address, name, family. There have been several recent incidents of people seeking out someone who wronged them over the internet and killed them. It's not that anonymous really. It's just that most people aren't savvy enough/can't be bothered.
Oh come on. Comparing the actions of an extremist group who brainwash their followers to an ignorant teenager doesn't really seem fair.
It's not "them vs. us". I know as many Muslims as Christians, and both groups have an equal amount of good/bad people. Why must we judge groups based on a small portion of extreme individuals?
Do you think all Americans are like Sarah Palin?
BTW: Harry Potter is better than the Bible too, IMO.
Hit the nail on the head. This is who people really are, without any inhibition/punishment.
Bear with me as I exaggerate:
Stealing is wrong - why?
A) It is a sin -> you will go to hell for it -> do not want
B) It is illegal -> you will go to prison for it -> do not want
C) You hurt someone else -> you will feel bad about it -> do not want
Sex without marriage is wrong - why?
A) It is a sin etc.
B) It is considered to be 'wrong' by societal norms, maybe due to A's effect. -> you feel shamed -> do not want
Eating cookies is wrong - why?
A) Your mom told you not to -> She will get mad at you if you do so -> do not want
B) They were made for your brother -> You don't want to upset him -> do not want
Depending on the discouragement scheme you choose to believe in, the effect of the boundary will be different. If the (perceived) benefit outweighs the (perceived) punishment, then you will do it.
You seem quite knowledgeable, so don't take it to mean that I doubt you when I say this, I am just curious and want to learn: What are your sources?
Well here in the US the First Amendment has clauses that can be limiting on free speech, depending on what you define freedom as. Reporters without borders state that the UK is tied with the USA in terms in press freedom, and they are both 20th place in the world. SO apparently the US also disrespects freedom more than 19 other countries?
If only there were laws against trolling. The internet would be a much better place, without people like you. Also, how much do you know about Islam? It's pretty much as 'stupid and barbaric' as Christianity. I'm not saying this to insult either, I'm saying this to imply that they are both similar.
Actually, yes, morality is totally relative. For example I believe trolling and internet hate speech is immoral, while you clearly don't.
This is here, that is there. What has happened to the girl might be unjust, but we do not have enough details about the situation. By the way, it's all relative, really. Other countries consider some laws of the US to be totally insane and unjust. Just because you believe something is right doesn't mean it should be.
By the way, why do you consider Islam to be pathetic and nonsensical? I really have no idea since as an Agnostic it all looks the same to me, but I was born and raised in an Islamic country so Christians seem weirder to me. But that's just me, and I acknowledge that. There are good and bad people in both sides, it's all relative.
Definition of bigot by Wikipedia: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs"
Yep, seems to apply.
Now here's my question: I'm not totally sure about how Auras work. Does the Reins come into play attached to the Cannon, or does it come into play, everyone gets priority, then it attaches to the cannon? i.e. can I target the Reins with my cannon after the reins comes into play before my opponent gains control of the cannon? Sounds like it shouldn't work but wanted to make sure.
Then can't I intentionally shuffle my hand to my library to gain advantage?
4 Halimar Depths
4x Treasure Hunt
4x Emrakul, The Aeons Torn
44x Island
Idea is keep casting treasure hunt, and you will have less than 20 in your library, then Shelldock into Emrakul for the win. You can use Halimar to set up Shelldock. If you feel like you can't win, just discard Emrakul and start over again.
Possible idea:
Rune Jace2, and also Selective Memory, and just play a control deck until you remove all nonlands except 2 Emrakul; cast treasure hunt to get one Emrakul, put it back on top with Jace then hideway to win.
4 Halimar Depths
4x Treasure Hunt
4x Emrakul, The Aeons Torn
4x Jace, the Mind Sculptor
4x Preordain
4x Ponder
4x See Beyond
4x Mana Leak
4x Cryptic Command
4x Selective Memory
16x Island
Perhaps you're referring to my articles?
http://iwantmymtg.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/spreading-cheese-misings-yes-i-like-metal/
http://iwantmymtg.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/spreading-cheese-%E2%80%93-showing-your-true-colors-or-lack%C2%A0thereof/
I run 8 counters mainboard and 4 preordains though, that might be a problem. Also, isn't Deprive kind of bad here? The tempo loss seems to be critical in the control matchup.