I don't either, but I'm willing to give that point for RotatingOrange's tirade. It's not too much of a leap to make that claim. We can't say it for certain, but I can see how and where it comes from and it's not outrageously unfair like the other claims.

Internet trolling does not "just happen."

Okay, this kind of jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst in people? Not helpful.

I'm not seeing where he didn't apologize until it went public. He claims to have been sorry then - right upon being informed and stopping the behavior - and nothing here supports or denies that.

An Asperger suffering friend of mine did some pretty not-okay stalky things once. The woman he was fixated on was pretty clear about not being interested, but until he was explicitly told that his behavior was not just problematic, but actually criminal, he was just incapable of understanding that he was in the wrong.

Challenge accepted.

Ah, the age-old question:

You're right that this can, at most, be applied to one nation. A bit leapy of me to not present more than this, but I'm reasonably confident that there are several other nations we can evaluate similarly.

That extreme, draconian interpretation is closer to the norm than the moderate folks you're talking about, though. Yes, the religion can theoretically be practiced in a way that isn't harmful, but most of the time it isn't. Who we can or should blame for that isn't something I know anything about.

Okay, it might be more technically accurate to say that "Islam as it is practiced today" is bad for women, as evidenced by the article.

I didn't make any comments about other religions. I tend to criticize most religions very, very harshly, so I usually hold back. Since this article was specifically illustrating Islam's negative impact on women, I mentioned it.

Afghanistan's top religious panel defended the local council's bans: "There is no way these shops could have stayed open. Shops are for business, not adultery."

As prudish as we can sometimes be about who goes on TV, I doubt the boobery was the reason she was fired. Other items on that list are significantly more damaging to her station's "journalistic integrity".

All those things increase the likelihood of lung cancer, but none of them are requirements for it.

WHOOSH

What about insects? Would you take some gnats?

Every time I start saying "X should be required for Y" it always ends up going to far and WHOOPS - EUGENICS.

You won't recognize me. My name was Internet and I was the 376-month old technology who was misused at point blank range by millions of idiots who were attempting to feel like victims. A Grand Jury of my peers from around the world determined the idiots who misused me will not face the ostracization penalty...too bad…

I have a shitty idea for the shitty parents out there who refuse on "slut" grounds.

Well... the kid doesn't get this deadly form of cancer from this specific method of getting it. The cancer could still develop on its own at random, same as lung cancer in non-smokers.