All societies have some rules about behaviour, often coupled to religion or custom. Even when dealing with members of one's own culture we sometimes struggle to avoid offence and conflicts but even more so if we live in a multicultural society.
In some countries, blasphemy is illegal, in others not. In the latter case, laws against blasphemy are substituted by laws against "hateful speech" or "incitement". But those laws merely transpose the underlying dilemma because such terms as "hateful speech" or "incitement" are themselves culture-driven, and vary, even from person to person, let alone between, say, different religions or countries.
We can avoid all these "problems" by avoiding communication with everyone, but that's not a viable solution so we have invented this concept of Free Speech and hope the problem will go away.
So are there limits? How do we recognise them?
I recognize no limit to free speech. If my gov't tries to limit free speech, I'll take their arses to court, post-haste.
We have several countries represented here, each with its own approach to this matter, so there should be lots of views on it. Maybe you agree with the approach in your country or maybe you don't.
The question is;
When can a Death Sentence be appropriate punishment?
I favor the death penalty in only one kind of case; any kind of sexual abuse of children. In those types of instances, hang the bastard/line up the firing squad, and end his/her life, no exceptions.
Today's "You know what really grinds my gears?" segment focuses on the UK's PM, David Cameron.
Per my interest in the UK politics (having studied them at Liverpool Hope), I note that the afore-mentioned jackarse is royally mucking-up the Scottish Independence query. He's a walking advert for Independence for Scotland. Best think he could do for continued unity is to shut his damned mouth.
It is really of no concern of mine, not being a citizen of the UK, but I'd hate to see the split-up of a union that has worked well for decades.
Although SF already knows my answer to the OP question, I do have to point out to him that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean anything at all to anyone outside of the US, as their laws on guns vary widely. (Probably already knows that, but I am pointing it out regardless)
Problem is, I've only just met/known this relative for two weeks. She said the problem was health-related, and she did prove to me that she does in fact have a serious health issue.
Not sure if I will get that $120 back as promised, or if I will have to eat the loss.
45 Tabs.......no problem......If you have a copy of FireFox to run, try this extension [glow=black,2,300] Session Manager [/glow] It can hold a single entry of say 45 or more URLs or tabs if you wish, & reopen them at any time with a single mouse click.
Hell, as far as I know there isn't a limitation on either how many URLs or how many groups of tabs you can create.
I could also easily do this with a single editable button, where you can add/modify/delete any tab entry at your pleasure.
Here is the code (for a FireFox Custom Button) I'd use, & all it would take is to repeatedly copy & paste the code within the button inserting the url(s) of choice.
Each line opens a separate background tab.
Add as many as you wish.
This code example, if used in a Firefox Custom Button, would open 3 background tabs. It also contains a template line. Duplicate the line of code as many times as you need, & in each line use your URL of choice --- as seen in the example below.
gBrowser.addTab("https://www.dropbox.com/login?lhs_type=anywhere"); gBrowser.addTab("http://drive.google.com"); gBrowser.addTab("https://uploadingit.com/login"); //gBrowser.addTab("ADD YOUR URL HERE");
Once again, thank ya Sir!
I actually downloaded the newest version of FF around lunch, per your recommendation a while back. Been having to work on a relative's browser as well. (Poor thing thought that IE was the only browser there was, lol.)
(Leaning heavily Chrome since my Opera break, though I am still using an old version of Opera, owing to the 45 or so tabs I have that I can't be arsed to part with.
As @String has mentioned, I also have found Buddhism to be nice in some aspects, but it rubs be the wrong way when discussing it with so-called "teachers".
For instance, in SE Asia, Buddhists and Muslims constantly clash. From the perspective of the Buddhism I looked into, Buddhism and clash should never be in the same sentence.
Then again, a man created this most interesting philosophy, and if man has proven nothing else, it's that he can find a way to eventually corrupt it too.
As we are the only two known gun owners, I figured that we should have our own thread to discuss what all guns we have.
As an American you'd doubtless scoff at a mere air rifle, but my father owns quite a nice spring-piston rifle. We've had some fun shooting at targets (including e.g. a bottle or two). Make no mistake; you wouldn't want to be hit by one of those.
For the other type of gun, you'd need to be a member of a shooting club, prove you have a proper safe in which to store guns and ammo, and such. It doesn't really seem worth the trouble.
Nah, I wouldn't scoff at all.
They are dead useful. I use them to shoot unwanted animals away from the house all the time.
Anyway, My Old Faithful is my 30-30, backed up by my .357mag. Between the two if something needs shootin' it'll get done proper. I have a favorite shotgun and several others of the hand-me-down type but mostly show pieces.
Ah!! My bad @ensbb3. I forgot you had made the transition over here.
As we are the only two known gun owners, I figured that we should have our own thread to discuss what all guns we have. My Grandfather was nearly life-long member of the NRA, and my Dad inherited his impressive collection. (As such, I have access to any pistol, shotgun, etc, I need/want at any time.)
So, to start off, which gun do you use for hunting?
Adoption laws throughout the US. How the actual hell can state's prevent an adoptee from seeing their original birth certificate in what is termed an "open" adoption?
Don't know much about adoption or American laws to be honest, but isn't that against their human rights? If not it should be.
I agree. Don't think it violates our human rights, but it is damningly ridiculous, that's for sure.
