Crocefisso

To an extent they were more civilised was because they tended to be more tolerant and had preserved more ancient Greek philosophy. However, they also couldn't draw maps for toffee and still held slaves while serfdom was coming to an end across Western Europe. And the rule of law was beginning to take shape in Christendom (starting with Magna Carta in 1215), while they just had sharia law which is totally arbitrary. There wasn't the sort of stark contrast we have today with all the "progressive" things on one side of the fence. As for slaughtering tens of thousands without second thoughts, neither did that much in the middle ages - that was more the conquering dynasties coming in from Asia, first the Mongols, then the Timurids. Genghis Khan and Timur the Lame did much more murdering than any religious ideologue in those times.

Probably it would be about something completely different like plans to conquer the Holy Land.

I think it's generally considered that being 7'1 is the maximum possible height for pretty much everybody. Although the tallest "normal" guy ever (as in, he didn't have a pathological condition or genetic mutation) was a 19th century Scottish man who later emigrated to Canada called Angus MacAskill, who was 2.36m or 7'9.

The comparison with WW2-era Disney cartoons seems premised on the idea that the Muhammad cartoons involve ethnic stereotyping, something which a British journalist attempted to argue not long ago and which she was torn to pieces for. The nature of caricature demands distortion and exaggeration - and Charlie Hebdo have done it for pretty much all of their targets - and, again, the standard is standard for everybody. Nor is it wrong to treat authority figures differently. In France, both the Catholic Church and the Muslim minority have a long history of demanding exclusion and imposing their beliefs on the populace at large, and both are - and should be - ridiculed for it. As for the whole 80-20 thing, here is an article about inbreeding - which many Islamic clerics recommend in their fatwa - and the link with extremism. In short, many Muslims marry first cousins, leading to horrendous genetic defects. Often they end up retarded, which means lacking skills, which means poverty - but in this chicken and egg scenario, it's clear to me which came first. So one cannot simply say religion is some sort of little adjunct, the last push for the otherwise marginalised. Terror begins and ends with the tenets of Islam. And this is not a case of 80-20: the article states that 55% of UK Muslims are inbred. I shudder to think what the figure in, for example, Pakistan is. So, when you've got people like this following a faith with exhortations to murder littered throughout their scripture, are we surprised that they are terrorists? Your attitude to the scripture I've posted - "yes, but all religions" - is irresponsible. This is not a case of a few bad eggs in an otherwise peaceful faith, and the idea that this is a problem with individuals rather than the religion and wider culture they come from has been proven wrong by 9/11, by the Istanbul and Madrid attacks, by 7/7, by the Islamic State, and now by the Hebdo attacks.

I stopped following this since school is keeping me busy, but an idle thought hit me when I read this. It occurs to me that the act of depicting the prophet mohammed could become a symbol of resistance. Part of me really likes the irony if this becomes the case. I'll sympathise with those who would be legitimately offended since such use would almost certainly be gratuitous instead of 'legitimate' (such as in satire), but it could also be quite fitting. I think that within reason, actions conveying the message that the world won't back down are a good thing. I would draw the line however at actions that force a group of people to act in self defence instead of malicious intent. Drawing Muhammad is already a symbol, not of resistance per se, but of the defence of Western values against a vocal, violent minority group which sees itself exempt from (and often in opposition to) the society it lives in. I don't understand the supposed distinction between legitimate and illegitimate satire. And given that Muhammad certainly is an authority figure, he is a prime target, regardless of whether or not French Muslims are a minority. Nobody got irritated when Hebdo drew cartoons involving the Pope and poop, and certainly nobody died. Muslims are not, and cannot be, ring-fenced. Meanwhile, to keep the news flowing, Pakistani clerics have been calling for those who drew the recent Muhammad cartoon to be hung. Which sounds bizarre until you read some of the Islamic scripture I posted above. P.S. Pew is a reputable pollster.

Last summer, on holiday in Boston, I was in a lift with three African American basketball players (don't know if they were pro). They were brothers, the shortest was 2.1m (6'11) and the tallest 2.15m (7'1). They were very friendly, and they called me "little man" or "little guy" or something - which was odd, because I'm 6'1 being spoken to like a child/dwarf. Tallest woman I ever met was in a supermarket here in the UK. She was 2m (6'7) and very broad. Might have been a transsexual, but I didn't want to ask.

Copyright means I can't view that link in the UK, but based on what I think it is, I'll let you start that survey.

^ Did you try and find out who by?

Well, you managed to list one, so it's not as though we're tripping over them here. Osama Bin Laden was a multimillionaire; Ayman al-Zawahiri is a doctor; Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD; Anwar al-Awlaki was a civil engineer by qualification; Abu Yahya al-Libi was, supposedly, an Islamic scholar. Again, in spite of the quibbling, my original point still stands. I fail to see how any of this is relevant. You've listed five people out of the, what, 2 billion Muslims worldwide? The fact that these individuals participated / orchestrated Islamic terrorism is proof that Muslim extremism isn't socioeconomically motivated? Utter nonsense. The status of the leaders has little if anything to do with the motivations of the actual people to do these things. That would be like me raising Huey Newton as an example of an African-American criminal with a PhD, it's clearly not representative of the majority. This is fast becoming a quagmire. It began when you made a false analogy between crime being prevalent among the African-American community and Islamic terrorism. I gave some examples, but you can find more. Most of the 160 British citizens who have gone to fight for Islamic State would be considered middle class. Meanwhile, see scriptural examples below for justifications of murder found in Islam. All muslim extremists are muslims, but I'd suppose you'd tell me religion has nothing to do with it either. Anyhow, I'm failing to see a point in what you're arguing, other than your first post where you wrote that you shouldn't poke an angry bear with a stick. I'd imagine that the point is that, while all Muslim extremists are Muslims, not all Muslims are extremists. Sweeping generalizations based on the actions of extremists only hurt those that aren't, and arguing that religion is the sole cause is both massively prejudiced* and insultingly lazy. Do we need a refresher on the cold war, just to bring up one of the most recent examples...? Saying simply that generalisations are bad is an inanity. Sees_all1 alludes to important points about the fact that Muslims, moderate or otherwise, read a holy book which sanctions violence. To both, I wrote earlier that the Qur'an was peaceful and the hadith violent. I was wrong. Both are violent. Which brings me back to my earlier point, and one which is both politically insensitive and massively important. It is that "moderate" Muslims are effectively selective or partial Muslims, happily choosing to ignore large parts of their own religious canon in order to exist peacefully in Western society. We can't blindly count on their continuing to be - and I heard on a BBC report that since 1989, in France, Muslims have been getting consistently more devout. Examples of scriptural justification of what we in the West would see as barbarism: Quran 2:191-193: And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.). Quran 2:216: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. Quran 3:56: As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help. Quran 8:12: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. & many others - too numerous to list. From various authoritative collections of hadith: Bukhari 52:117: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Bukhari 52:220: Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror.' Abu Dawad 14:2527: The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious. Tabari 9:69: "Killing unbelievers is small matter to us." <-- supposedly spoken by the Prophet Muhammad Ibn Ishaq 992: "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." & many others. ... In short, when we say that not all Muslims are extremists (true, but only so long as they decide to be 'moderate') or decide that a higher household income would solve the problem, we ignore the root cause.

Mitt Romney seems to believe in second third chances. The guy's so malleable I wouldn't be surprised if he ran as Matilda Romney in a desperate bid to clinch the LGBT vote. Also, American Sniper. Clint Eastwood loses my respect by the day. I haven't seen anything by him since the drivel that was Invictus and it seems I'm going to have to continue like that.

Well, it's not too surprising. Here in Europe at least we keep getting taller at a rapid rate each generation, and in the Netherlands the average male height is 1m84 (ie, 6'0) - which includes all generations, including the oldies, so that our generation (~20) will almost certainly have an average height of 6'1 or more. Other tall countries like the Scandis have averages of 5'11, again including old people. The USA, because of the huge numbers of immigrants from short Latino countries, has actually declined in average height over the years (I think it's gone from 5'11 to 5'9 or something).But northern Europe in particular is tall and getting taller, so 6' is really unspectacular these days. Bear in mind, too, that people on TIF are generally young, and average heights include older generations who are generally smaller - so when Sy says the average is 1.77m, that includes our grandparents so long as they're still alive.

The number of people I've seen who have browsed this thread and not even voted is depressing. Don't be shy. <3:

^ Fine, specific if you prefer. The point was that both of mine gave me a height in metres and then go "oh, by the way, it's 6'1" or whatever.

Because since I moved to the UK, the doctors I know have always used imperial and metric, the former mostly out of convention, the latter because it's accurate - and I assumed it was the same elsewhere. Maybe it's different outside of the southeast, however.

Well, you managed to list one, so it's not as though we're tripping over them here. Osama Bin Laden was a multimillionaire; Ayman al-Zawahiri is a doctor; Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD; Anwar al-Awlaki was a civil engineer by qualification; Abu Yahya al-Libi was, supposedly, an Islamic scholar. Again, in spite of the quibbling, my original point still stands. In other news, Charlie Hebdo have confirmed that their next issue - the first since the incident - will feature the Prophet Muhammad on the cover. I for one am delighted.

You can't just write it - vote, man, vote. I want my distribution curve ASAP. ... That's better. My numerical craving is sated.

So I was flitting through profiles and saw how SaqPrets had mangled metric to imperial conversions on his bio about his height, and, being bored and working on the laptop early in the morning, I decided to start a poll topic about human height (the Estonian is very tall), partly to complement the gallery thread for getting people to know you etc etc, and partly because I like numerical things. And if enough people respond, I'll do a distribution curve - and if the mean is like 1m95, either you're freaks or you're liars. Because the poll is in bands, you can post your specific height as well if it pleases you. Also if you want to add caveats, that too. So if you're a guy who's 1,75, it's worth noting if e.g. you're of Japanese origin. Or if you're wheelchair bound or something. For Americans who use mainly the imperial system, To start it off, I am 1m87, which is 6'1 apparently.

Drove the mamma to and from root canal surgery. During my 2+ hours in the waiting room, the receptionist started making dinner arrangements with her computer. It took me a while to realize she was on Skype.

Fine, it is a primarily socio-economic phenomenon. It doesn't detract from the fact that positing it in contrast with Islamic extremism is an entirely false analogy. The cultural determinant is far stronger in the latter case. Unless many African American thieves hold advanced medical qualifications. @ obfuscator: I assumed you meant wars with negligible civilian losses. Asking for examples of wars with no military casualties is like asking for a pie without pastry, which is maybe what you intended to demonstrate, although I think most of us already knew that war is bad. Though there have been some such wars (e.g. the Pig War).

^ That's a strawman. Crime in the African-American community is a socio-economic phenomenon. Islamic extremism has theological roots - some jihadists may be poor, others aren't. Bin Laden came from a multimillionaire family. Ayman al-Zawahiri is a qualified doctor. @ obfuscator: on a side note, the European wars of the 18th century were quite orderly and gentlemanly, e.g. the War of the Austrian Succession. At the Battle of Fontenoy, for example, the opposing generals met up to toss a coin (I think) to decide which side would fire first.

It's easy to get a job here in the UK, but not a career. Unless you want to be an assistant caterer all your life.

It's the best goat physics game I know. Meanwhile, the next game I'll buy will probably be Mighty No 9 when it comes out on Steam in April.

I think it must be pointed out that all religious groups commit or have committed atrocities. Today, the most notable Christian group is Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army in Africa. In Burma at the past few years, Buddhists of the Rakhine ethnicity have killed many Rohingya Muslims. Irreligious authorities can also play a role: in China, the atheistic government persecutes Muslims and Christians alike. But going on about religious groups only really distracts from the fact that, in Europe, one religious group is difficult, and that's Muslims. I also don't think that it's fair to blame the media for persecuting Muslims. When I first moved to the UK from Italy we lived in a very ethnically diverse area where white people were a minority, and my mother was a teacher at a primary school. A lot of the stuff Muslims did and do in Britain goes unreported in the press or is passingly mentioned, though it's completely illegal or else plain stupid. E.g. a) imposing sharia law at a local level, although by every western standard it's repressive and backward. b) polygamy, though you'd never know because all the wives were fully veiled. c) totally failing to integrate; 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims in the UK often speak very little English. By contrast, 2nd and 3rd generation Hindus often have white British partners. d) inbreeding: the number of children at my mother's school with special needs who were Muslim was huge, mainly because their parents were first cousins. e) refusing to interact with white native Brits because they aren't Muslims. Now, not all Muslims are like this, but across Europe there is an enormous problem with far, far bigger numbers of Muslims failing to integrate than any other minority group. Sometimes they turn to violence at a perceived affront, even though, as I've said, drawing the Prophet Muhammad is a legitimate act of satire and it doesn't go against any of the values of the western societies in which they have voluntarily chosen to live. Similarly, when people say "Islam is peaceful" what they mean is that the Qur'an is peaceful. But the hadith, which have no Christian equivalent in that they carry almost the theological authority of the Qur'an, are often violent and intolerant. To be a violent Christian or Buddhist is to turn a blind eye to one's own scripture; to be a peaceful Muslim is to turn a blind eye to one's own scripture. That is the fundamental problem, and no amount of gloss about the media or how supposedly gratuitous the cartoon was can change it.

Honest to God, Goat Simulator. Sorry.