Article
I realise NineMSN probably won't be in the running for the best and fairest award amongst news sources...but this article indicates that lots of people are upset that three Christians are going to be executed for killing 200 Muslims?

Is this purely an argument against the death sentence or is it Christians saying it is not OK to execute Christians for killing Muslims, but vice versa is fine?

its because a lot of people are hippocrits.

It was justice.

I think it was an arguement against the death penalty.

3 christians killed 200 muslims? send them to the vatican and pope benedict will make them saints!

"3 Christian militants" HAHAHAHAHA

funny

Two seperate religions have people fighting and killing each other and their churches and people try to protect them and get them off charges?

Wow I am surprised!

It's just yet another case for putting religios people on an island and nuking it for the good of all mankind (I am aware of the irony of this statement).

This clearly will result in one thing and one thing only:

Their funeral will be next week.

http://www.mendelsonarchives.com/Photos/Wavy-Gravy.jpg
HAPPY BIRTHDAY COOCHIE!

Go go s***ty news service - it should read more like "3 dudes were executed for participating in the death of 200 other dudes".

Otherwise ignorant's will just focus on the "Christian" and "Muslim" parts of the article.

but this article indicates that lots of people are upset that three Christians are going to be executed for killing 200 Muslims?

The only people that would be upset about this are:

a) rabid Christian fanatic militants
b) idiots who pick up on the sensationalist nature of mass media reporting and read it as "Christians killed by Muslims"

man, i sure hate indonesia

yeh schapelle was fully innocent ay spook

thanks domino!

i agree with trog and xy

Hundreds of Christians had been praying for the convicted men at Palu's Santa Maria church starting from late Thursday night.

the thing i like about most christians is that they sit around praying, and therefore doing nothing. good on them. and the ones that do something other than pray get executed ... brilliant!

edit: grammar

That's why christians are superior to muslims. 3 christians can kill 200 muslims without having to kill themselves.

That's funny because i'm pretty sure they're dead as a result of their actions, so no they did kill themselves.

assuming that's true, how does that make christians good?

people are people. the headline should read '3 people executed for inciting riots which caused the deaths of 3 people.'

^ good call

the headline should read '3 people executed for inciting riots which caused the deaths of 3 people.'

If race, religion, age or creed held a part in the crime i think it's relevant to report it. Failing to do so breeds ignorance.

i prefer they gave running scores in the news reports, so i can see who's winning between the christians and muslims.

it could be sponsored by bundaberg rum.

If race, religion, age or creed held a part in the crime i think it's relevant to report it. Failing to do so breeds ignorance.

if race, religion, age or creed are reported, then it furthers negative stereotypes, because the truly 'ignorant' in society will treat it as further reason to hate 'groups', when it's actually only a minority doing wrong (terrorism for example).

i think it's probably better to report them as "extremists" ... "three christian extremists kill 200 people (because they were muslims) in religious slaying"

"3 christain extremists"... yeah but who's going to comprehend that? cause if it aint muslim it aint extremist now innit?

cause if it aint muslim it aint extremist now innit?

give em time

if race, religion, age or creed are reported, then it furthers negative stereotypes, because the truly 'ignorant' in society will treat it as further reason to hate 'groups', when it's actually only a minority doing wrong (terrorism for example).

So the headline should read 'Person assaulted' if a 60 year old priest rapes a 12 year old boy alter boy in the back of his parish so as not to incite hate groups? The world is not a playground, people need to take responsibility for their actions, and that requires the facts to be reported, including calling a spade a spade and a murdering christian extremist a christian when their religion is a significant factor in the crime.

So the headline should read 'Person assaulted' if a 60 year old priest rapes a 12 year old boy alter boy in the back of his parish so as not to incite hate groups? The world is not a playground, people need to take responsibility for their actions, and that requires the facts to be reported, including calling a spade a spade and a murdering christian extremist a christian when their religion is a significant factor in the crime.

yes, that's what the headline should read, because not all priests rape little boys.

yes people need to take responsibility for their actions, and that requires facts to be reported, but those facts need to be reported responsibily, because they should know that not everyone is a capable and rational thinker, so in order to not inspire further hate and criminal action, they should not report generalisations. not all christians are muslim murderers, in fact, i don't know any murderers, and i have plenty of religious friends.

a spade is a spade in a black and white world, but there's an ace, a two, three, four ---- jack, queen, king of spades, and the colour of the decks, where the decks are used, how they're used are all different. these men have played the crusade card in the game of christian extremists. that is what should be reported, not just "christians kill muslims"

these men have played the crusade card in the game of christian extremists. that is what should be reported, not just "christians kill muslims"

There's billions of muslims and hundreds of millions of christians. Your quote doesn't tarnish all in one headline, just like 'husband kills wife' doesn't tarnish all married men. I'm sorry but to think it does is silly. It establishes a frame for the story. To remove that frame because some morons will misconstrue the rest of the story they aren't even going to read also seems silly to me.

a spade is a spade in a black and white world, but there's an ace, a two, three, four ---- jack, queen, king of spades, and the colour of the decks, where the decks are used, how they're used are all different. these men have played the crusade card in the game of christian extremists. that is what should be reported, not just "christians kill muslims"

and don't forget the vast variety of decorations on the reverse of cards as well

If it was "3 muslims executed over 200 christain deaths" then people would be like:

"f*** yeah those muslim extermists deserved it cause they're a bunch of terrorists" but since it's the other way around now it's like "OH NHOES WITH SUCH A SENSATIONALISING TITLE THEY'RE TRYING TO INCITE HATE AND VIOLENCE AGAINST CHRISTAINS!!!" - which i reckon is true anyway but it's the double standard that really s***s me.

There's billions of muslims and hundreds of millions of christians

er

haha yeah there's definately more christains than muslims in the world, something like 1.5 billion bozlimz to 2.something biilion jesustians but what we lack in quantity we make up in insanity.

i did quick calc in my head and didn't think there was enough people on earth for there to be a billion christians. here's my crap maths:

1.5 billion muslims
1 billion chinese
1 billion indians

which leaves 1.5 billion for christianity and everything else.

Google proves me wrong though: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

heh on the topic of bats*** insane christians get some of this up ya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UWIb4FwHPg

I'm sorry but to think it does is silly. It establishes a frame for the story. To remove that frame because some morons will misconstrue the rest of the story they aren't even going to read also seems silly to me.

i think you are naive if you don't think this fuels the fire. everyone can relate to husband and wife, because we've all been brought up in a society where these are very common. we (most of us) know that our mother and father wouldn't kill each other. however, we haven't all been brought up around muslims, and when it comes to religion, you don't want to mess with any of it, because each and every little detail that can be used against one religion by another WILL BE.

it's called propaganda and it is a very dangerous thing. don't assume for a second that because you can see past the headline that everyone else can. religious wars are the most brutal, because morality is lost when someone is challenging what you believe morality to be, so don't think for a second there aren't thousands (even millions) of ignorant and just plain stupid christians out there that would love to use something like this against all muslims.

we've seen it countless times in the past, it's your way of thought that fails to learn from the past that dooms us to repeat it

1.5 billion muslims
1 billion chinese
1 billion indians

There are Muslim chinese and Indians. Meaning, the 1.5b muslims would also contain some chinese and Indians.

jesus camp :(

i wish all u religous nuts would shut the fark up or wonder off into the ocean and drown yourseleves ffs .leave the rest of us to live in peace plz

mmm... so the motto of the story is - don't kill 200 people?

[quote/]i think you are naive if you don't think this fuels the fire. everyone can relate to husband and wife, because we've all been brought up in a society where these are very common. we (most of us) know that our mother and father wouldn't kill each other. however, we haven't all been brought up around muslims, and when it comes to religion, you don't want to mess with any of it, because each and every little detail that can be used against one religion by another WILL BE. [/quote]

You do have a point, however a frame of reference does need to be established, and in any case when 3 people go ahead and kill 200 other people, unless it is gross negligence, there is going to be some motive behind it. Even if that were the case, then people would be interested why, and the headline would indicate that to some extent.

eg. inattentive rail staff crash train full of people.

If it were some school shooting, it would read "3 students kill 200 in school shooting spree". etc etc..

The headline does need to have some sort of context, otherwise it becomes meaningless, and this one seems to be religiously motivated and the pope was involved.

It is a shame people do such stupid things in the name of religion, but people also need to be held responsible for their actions, and that of the community they represent. What were they thinking at the time? Perhaps they did want to raise some religious hatred.

As the saying goes, a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

And as far as the media goes, of course they are going to sensationalise the headlines, otherwise how else are they going to grab your attention? So long as you are aware of it, then you will know how to view anything from the media, else? more fool you I guess.

Now if only there were some way I could take advantage of all these naive reactionary people and make them do my bidding! Oh wait, people do that already...

What were they thinking at the time? Perhaps they did want to raise some religious hatred.

that's precisely what they were doing, and they'd love it if they could make that statement for the whole of their religion i'm sure.

As the saying goes, a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

that saying is ignorant, i suggest you forget it or understand it for what it is. i've worked in fruit and veg, and one or two bad apples don't bother the rest, just give them a good wash off from the bad ones and they're fine.

same goes for people ... just because some christians want to and actually go out and kill people of other religions doesn't mean ALL christians want to do that. in fact, i'd say about 80% at least wouldn't be like that, and 97% of australian christian groups wouldn't be like that.


all i wanted to say here was that they should label these killers as "Christian Extremists", so as to not make people fear one another or provoke any further religious hate. the responsibility here is on the media, they need to make sure they are very clear in what they are saying, because there are many, many idiots out there that can take things the wrong way. 97% of christians in australia might not be violent, but if you push them the wrong way enough, that percentage will lower to probably 70%. in other words, if we keep getting stories of this nature, and they slowly build a hate base that becomes part of the "general view" (which is like how things become politically correct -- very similar to stereotyping as well ... like "females can't drive" ... say it enough, it becomes what we all sort of believe deep donw), then we're going to be in a religious uproar before we have time to counter it.

same goes for the lebanese story a while back down in syd ... everyone kept saying "lebs", which eventually made the yob mob target innocent lebanese. this is the problem with low-degree labelling ... it's not specific to the actual problem parties. they should have said "lebanese gangs", not "lebanese".

you should spread this advice as far as possible, and if you ever catch a reporter furthering the hate ... explain to them what they're being a part of, and if they still do it, then i suggest more extreme measures to be taken against all media so that they know we won't tolerate any notion of propaganda. without our money, they have nothing. simple

As the saying goes, a few bad apples spoil the bunch.


that saying is ignorant, i suggest you forget it or understand it for what it is. i've worked in fruit and veg, and one or two bad apples don't bother the rest, just give them a good wash off from the bad ones and they're fine.

So can I go wash away the extremists? ;)

What you have just indicated is that action was necessary and without said action, who knows a customer may walk in see a bad apple at the top of the pile and may not be intereted in buying apples from your store :P

I don't think the saying is ignorant, so should I be forgetting or understanding?

no you wash off the good apples, you throw the bad apples away. i have no problem with seeing bad apples thrown away. as for humans, some re-education through calm debate would be the best ... i'm confident i could find common ground with them, providing they're not insane (actually belonging in the mental institution, which i don't think they are)

either way, the saying is greatly flawed for the reasons i mentioned, so i'd suggest not using it. the reason is, people are aware of sayings, so the idiots are more likely to just accept them as truth because they've been said so many times before. we have to stop allowing ignorance to run so freely in our society. speak up, stand strong, but get it right.

That Jesus Camp movie looks f***ing disdurbing.

My suicide bomber joke is this thread's only redeeming factor.

Ah, now Booyah gets it. :P

My suicide bomber joke is this thread's only redeeming factor.

this is a pretty serious issue, are you sure you want to degrade it by saying your joke was the only good thing about it?

there's nothing wrong with the few bad apples saying
you can't wash mould out of apples, and even if you could, it would generally require additional intervention

conclusion: you sucked at your fruit job

i didn't say you could wash the bad apples (the mouldy ones), i said you could wash the ones they were touching and just get rid of the bad apples (but didn't apply that part to humans, i said you could probably fix the humans)

conclusion: as always, you're still trying way too hard to thwart me.

the mould spores are transferred from one apple to another

nobody's trying to thwart you - you just suck at knowing why someone invented that phrase in the first place

but if the mould is transferred to the next apple, then it becomes a bad apple too, and therefore cannot be cleaned

it is not i that sucks here

hi
thus the saying 'a few bad apples spoil the barrel'

knew you'd say that

not all apples will be spoilt, probably just those in the immediate vacinity to begin with. and if they are left, then of course they're all going to go bad, but in order for all those apples to be affected, they'd probably be on their way to decomposing anyway, so in reality, a few bad apples aren't going to spoil the rest, just a few

you knew I'd say that (cos it makes sense) yet you still failed to provide an adequate argument to substantiate the claim that the saying is ignorant. it's just your silly interpretation of it that's ignorant though

not all apples will be spoilt, probably just those in the immediate vacinity to begin with.

thus the saying 'a few bad apples spoil the barrel' and not 'a few bad apples spoils all apples, not just the ones in the immediate vicinity'

and if they are left, then of course they're all going to go bad

hi, and welcome

ok one more time jim, here we go


i've encountered many bad apples in big cardboard boxes that contained 500+ apples. of course there were many bad ones in there, however, they only had an effect on the apples in the immediate vacinity (often not too bad) and when the apples were affected more so, it was only on one side.

in every case i've had, a few bad apples HAVE NOT spoilt the entire lot, or the 'barrel'.

what exactly are you basing your knowledge on? nothing? i've worked with fruit and veg 3 times in my life and even been brought up with a gardener around and thus even had apples growing on my property. i know a thing or two about fruit.

the saying is flawed. it does not make sense. why don't you go grab 12 apples, and then put a bad one in the middle. go on, do some research, then you'll actually have something to confront me with.

when i said "the apples will go bad if left" i meant for a heck of a long time, because mould doesn't transfer that quickly, and when it does, it's only on one side, therefore it'd take a long time for all the others to go bad.

haha you crack me up

for all your waffling, you still admit that a few bad apples spoil the bunch, yet claim the saying is flawed. there's nothing wrong with it though

what exactly are you basing your knowledge on? nothing? i've worked with fruit and veg 3 times in my life and even been brought up with a gardener around and thus even had apples growing on my property. i know a thing or two about fruit.

lol dice. i think your a rad dude (q2ctfrprsnt!) but its a saying, a figure of speech, not a literal interpratation.

also arguing on the internet: there are no winners.

what? i said a few bad apples will spoil a couple more, but not all ...

domino, yeah it's not meant to be taken literally, but fundamentally it's wrong, so even the principle can't be applied ... which is why i'm saying it's flawed and therefore useless, and should not be used because it could change the opinions of stupid people who believe anything they hear ;)

d0mino the phrase 'arguing on the internet: there are no winners' is flawed, you should learn exactly what it means before you use it. I've worked with the internet 3 times in my life and have computers growing on my property. I know a thing or two about the internet.

yes but have you won the internet yet? i doubt it if you hang out on qgl with bad players, you would have been spoilt by them

Ok smarty pants Jim...answer me this then..."Will the apples get airborne?"

If you put a bad apple on a treadmill... does the treadmill go bad?

psycho how goes the geetah

Psycho! gets to the "core" of the arguement

:P