Id like to think if I met anyone that bitter in real life, that I would commit to their on their grave.
Yeah waiting on tables is hard work, often with very little positive feedback or money but shit, they make it sound like slugging through he damn fields of Normandy on dday.
No I'm sorry, but just fucking no.
It's a shit paying job, you get abused, it's looked down upon - which I think is a crime, it's a difficult job! - but it's not that bad as the author makes out.
So you conclude that Islam encourages terrorism because, when you accuse someone of being a terrorist, they don't respond openly and enthusiastically? You've decided that a religion is guilty and want individuals to show proof of innocence?
> Muslims often say: "Stop calling all of us terrorists and stop saying Islam encourages terrorism because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your understanding of terrorism is flawed."
So this is the context I am responding to, the hypothetical situation of a Muslim claiming the above.
> because, when you accuse someone of being a terrorist
No, I'm responding specifically to the "stop saying Islam encourages terrorism" part. When I say "Any time I've seen a Muslim actually talk about the issue, and explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism", I don't mean in the context of responding to an accusation of being a terrorist.
> You've decided that a religion is guilty and want individuals to show proof of innocence?
What have I decided about the religion? I implied that if it's true that Muslims are saying "you are missing the real underlying issues", then I've yet to see one attempt to explain.
Also, If I had decided that a religion is guilty, who else but individuals could demonstrate otherwise? Religion has no life of it's own, it exists only in the medium of the individuals who decide to carry it.
I didn't think that you personally were accusing people. I hope I didn't give that impression. I probably could have written "we" instead of "you."
Someone trying to explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism is on the defensive. The accusation has already been made. But the accusation doesn't make sense if the religion has no life of its own and exists only in the medium of individuals.
It's tough to defend against an accusation that doesn't make sense. If we can't point out what is bad, what is there to defend? The whole thing has a guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling to it. If the prosecutor can't make a sound case, there should be no need for a defense in the first place.
Anecdotally, the people I know who claim that Islam encourages terrorism don't know much about it. What they do know is shallow and cherry-picked, and any decent explanation immediately goes into the "it's different, so it's bad" bucket. It must be very difficult to demonstrate anything to these people.
First, inanimate objects can still be influential. Comics books, for instance, where one claimed to encourage violence, anti-social behaviour.
Second, The religion lives in those other individuals, much like any thought, meme, or ideology. Even the inanimate influences are often created by such individuals.
In the case of Islam, there are some fairly authoritative objects and people.
Are you suggesting there is no such thing as religion? Islam seems to be pretty serious about standardisation.
> The whole thing has a guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling to it
Not to me.
> Anecdotally..
In context, I can't really see these anecdotes as in good faith...
Suppose that I live in an apartment with a wood stove, second-hand smoke from a room mate, and radon. If I get lung cancer, which one is to blame? How do you know?
We use an iPad based SASS POS, and editing the menu is a pain. Every time I start to edit something, I have to wait 60 seconds while it pulls in the list of every item on the menu. If I want to edit five specific menu items, I don't want to wait for the entire list of items to load five times. Updating prices or costs on our menu literally takes three of us an entire day to pull off. We've been meaning to clean out some discontinued items from the menu, but... that would take three of us an entire day to do.
We do retail alcohol in addition to restaurant food, so we have a lot of items on our menu. I don't like how the menu is organized, but it would be too slow and painful to reorganize at this point.
I would kill for an API so that I could make mass numbers of menu edits by script. I would require some sort of a testing environment for that, though.
> When it comes to reintroducing wolves, everyone agrees the risk to humans is low.
The contention is between wildlife activists and ranchers. Wolves tend to feed on livestock. You can imagine how upset a rancher gets when his assets disappear in the middle of the night.
"A Boise hunter sustained minor wounds when a black bear grabbed him by the head while he was sleeping in the open along the Middle Fork of the Salmon River last week."
"He said that before the men went to sleep on the night of the attack, they had stowed all their food in a box on their raft."
"Jon Rachael, state wildlife manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, said unprovoked attacks by black bears are rare, and it’s impossible to say what motivated this one. He guessed that either the bear had become conditioned to people by finding food around them or perhaps was just curious, and grabbed Vouch’s head to see what it was."
I dunno, put yourself in the bear's place. I think the wildlife manager might be right: the bear was wondering what the heck it was, or maybe even "I wonder if I can eat this". Most humans Mr. or Mrs. Bear encounters are up and moving, probably making noise, maybe even spraying stuff at them (be it bear spray or bullets). This one is just lying there on the ground, presenting a fine opportunity for investigation. Or maybe I'm anthropomophising the bear too much. I'm with you: I do wish I could spend ten seconds inside his little bear brain to see what was motivating him.
One thing I do know is that, despite not giving bear attacks much consideration when I'm out and about, I would never, ever, ever sleep in the open if there might be bears about, especially next to something called the Salmon River. Sure, a tent ain't going to do crap to keep a motivated bear out. But a little "out of sight, out of mind" can go a long way.
Because you need more people to violate those laws with greater regularity for such a situation to occur. It is easier to get one person to break ten laws than to get ten people to break one. Regulating the sale and distribution of firearms mitigates such risks.
> I immediately exclude discussion of company, title, and salary, because these are the things people think they want but can't really affect my decision.
> So by stating that these three things, company, title, and salary, are already taken care of, it frees candidates to think about what really matters to them.
Salary matters in that it allows you to pick jobs that aren't ordinarily practical.
Most people have something else they would be doing if salary weren't a constraint. So the honest answer isn't likely to be a job like the one the candidate is interviewing for, but most people will be dishonest and say that the job they are applying for is their dream job because that's what they think the interviewer wants.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc144096(VS.85).asp...