Jobs wasn't a Muslim. Banksy is off the reservation.
you read it wrong. Jobs' biological father was muslim, which is why his biological mother wasnt allowed to marry him or keep the kid.
Jobs was not a practicing Muslim. His beliefs were more akin to a self-involved version of Buddhism. By your own logic, Banksy should've painted Jobs' dad, not Steve!
Why yes, Banksy, sperm donors and the countries they immigrated from should take all the credit for the achievements of the children they produced, but had no part in raising. His adopted father had nothing to do with who Steve became or what he achieved. /s
Yeah besides creating him.
So he deserves as much credit as mitochondrial Eve. Let's have Bansky paint her on a wall.
You can't deny that he was born gifted. No upbringing in the world will teach someone to be a genius. He was destined for greatness regardless of who, or how he was bought up.
Why yes, Banksy, sperm donors and the countries they immigrated from should take all the credit for the achievements of the children they produced, but had no part in raising. His adopted father had nothing to do with who Steve became or what he achieved. /s
Yeah besides creating him.
So he deserves as much credit as mitochondrial Eve. Let's have Bansky paint her on a wall.
You can't deny that he was born gifted. No upbringing in the world will teach someone to be a genius. He was destined for greatness regardless of who, or how he was bought up.
He would have been a high achiever, but without him being where he was WHEN he was, there would be no Apple.
Can you imagine how many people around the world would be without a job if that idiot Trump had his way? Apple would even exist. And he claims to be such a brilliant business man. How many times has he declared bankruptcy?
I don't agree with the "your (sic) an idiot" bit, but it should noted here that Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the US during the Iranian hostage crisis in the 70s. Trump's suggestion is not without precedent, nor is it unconstitutional since his comment would apply to non-citizens.
Iranians are citizens of a nation, and nations have diplomatic relations with other nations. "Muslim" is a religion. there is NO precedent on banning people of a certain faith. try again.
There is nothing that prevents non-citizens of any religion from being banned from immigrating to the US. That specific thing would be unprecedented for the US, but it would not be unconstitutional. The US Constitution applies to US citizens.
I don't think Banksy is saying anything about Muslim here, or that Steve Jobs is a muslim. I actually think there are Syrian Christians as well, but many have been already driven from the country.
What's being said here I think, is that while we argue about the value of these lives. Whether we should open our doors to them, we need to remember that you never know which of these people could end up changing our world.
In the case of Steve Jobs, I believe he was the son of a Syrian immigrant, who fled the tyranny of Assad. He made his way to the U.S., and while he put his son up for adoption, nobody could have ever known that the son of that immigrant would found apple.
This is not a statement of what is, but a statement of what could be.
I don't think Banksy is saying anything about Muslim here, or that Steve Jobs is a muslim. I actually think there are Syrian Christians as well, but many have been already driven from the country.
What's being said here I think, is that while we argue about the value of these lives. Whether we should open our doors to them, we need to remember that you never know which of these people could end up changing our world.
In the case of Steve Jobs, I believe he was the son of a Syrian immigrant, who fled the tyranny of Assad. He made his way to the U.S., and while he put his son up for adoption, nobody could have ever known that the son of that immigrant would found apple.
This is not a statement of what is, but a statement of what could be.
What on earth are you talking about? Assad is only 10 years older than Jobs. He was not in power in the 1950's. Steve Jobs biological father didn't flee anything. Assad was 10 years old when Jobs was born.
Why yes, Banksy, sperm donors and the countries they immigrated from should take all the credit for the achievements of the children they produced, but had no part in raising. His adopted father had nothing to do with who Steve became or what he achieved. /s
Yeah besides creating him.
So he deserves as much credit as mitochondrial Eve. Let's have Bansky paint her on a wall.
You can't deny that he was born gifted. No upbringing in the world will teach someone to be a genius. He was destined for greatness regardless of who, or how he was bought up.
He would have been a high achiever, but without him being where he was WHEN he was, there would be no Apple.
Only Californians are capable of creating computers?
Why yes, Banksy, sperm donors and the countries they immigrated from should take all the credit for the achievements of the children they produced, but had no part in raising. His adopted father had nothing to do with who Steve became or what he achieved. /s
Yeah besides creating him.
So he deserves as much credit as mitochondrial Eve. Let's have Bansky paint her on a wall.
You can't deny that he was born gifted. No upbringing in the world will teach someone to be a genius. He was destined for greatness regardless of who, or how he was bought up.
He would have been a high achiever, but without him being where he was WHEN he was, there would be no Apple.
Only Californians are capable of creating computers?
Jobs father was Syrian, but as far as I know not a refugee. He also abandoned his son and when Jobs located him he would have nothing to do with him. So his father was hardly the poster child for Syrian parenting. It is down to his adopted non-Muslim parents that he turned out as successful as he did.
I don't agree with the "your (sic) an idiot" bit, but it should noted here that Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the US during the Iranian hostage crisis in the 70s. Trump's suggestion is not without precedent, nor is it unconstitutional since his comment would apply to non-citizens.
Iranians are citizens of a nation, and nations have diplomatic relations with other nations. "Muslim" is a religion. there is NO precedent on banning people of a certain faith. try again.
Islam is not a religion, it's a blend of religion and politics. Many Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia law, which is wholly incompatible with America.
Its funny how many on the left scream about "separation of church and state" (not in the Constitution, BTW) but adore a system where "separation of mosque and state" isn't a thing.
Hillary is so weak and she belongs behind bars. People are tired of that lying and incompetent woman.
Trump 2016!
I also think Trump will win. Americans got shafted with the passage of Obamacare, the president looks weak and indecisive (this is the perception, no matter if you are a supporter or not) and Hillary looks like a liar who is tightly tied to Obama's wagon. (Even that horrendous Rahm Emanuel looks like he's about to get recalled in Chicago.)
I don't agree with the "your (sic) an idiot" bit, but it should noted here that Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the US during the Iranian hostage crisis in the 70s. Trump's suggestion is not without precedent, nor is it unconstitutional since his comment would apply to non-citizens.
Iranians are citizens of a nation, and nations have diplomatic relations with other nations. "Muslim" is a religion. there is NO precedent on banning people of a certain faith. try again.
That's merely a small technicality.
We can ban visitors from scores of countries, fully legal, and the effect will be similar.
A few thoughts: 1. One of the purposes of art is to challenge people's thinking. Banksy has certainly done that here! Additionally I like the 3D effect of the Steve Jobs image. 2. Similarly, Trump has engaged with a lot of people. I personally feel that it is long over due that we have his conversation. There are some (notably conservative radio personalities) who believe that Republicans need to field a very conservative / right candidate and they will win imstead of the Romeys and McCains of the party. Having Trump would be the idea candidate for them - let Americans decide and put this theory to the test and then we can move on. 3. Just because Banksy has drawn attention to Steve Job's heritage does not mean that he is on the opposite extreme of Donald Trump as suggested by one poster. 4. Just because Roosevelt imprisoned Japanese / Germans etc. in internment camps and Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from coming to the US does not mean that it is necessarily a good idea as suggested by another poster. We also enslaved African Americans under a line of presidents which doesn't make it a good idea. 5. I think this forum is a great place for this conversation. The forum has really leveled off as there is really only so many times you can say the most profitable company in the world is the best at everything. Even the trolls seem bored. This shakes it up a bit!
Hillary is so weak and she belongs behind bars. People are tired of that lying and incompetent woman.
Trump 2016!
I also think Trump will win. Americans got shafted with the passage of Obamacare, the president looks weak and indecisive (this is the perception, no matter if you are a supporter or not) and Hillary looks like a liar who is tightly tied to Obama's wagon. (Even that horrendous Rahm Emanuel looks like he's about to get recalled in Chicago.)
Trump is obviously no regular Republican. The establishment hates him, from all sides!
Trump has big crossover appeal and I know that many Democrats will be supporting him. He just recently got a big endorsement from a big police union. He also stated that he will push through the Death Penalty for all cop killers! Awesome! A president that is actually on the side of the police instead of against them? Shocking!
The 52 school shootings in America this year were at the hands of Christians. The vast majority of the many thousands of killers in US society every year are Christian. The over a million innocents who were killed in the Middle East since 9/11 are a result of Christian government involvement. Christians kill, Muslims kill. Religion is not the issue. People born of both of these religions kill people. And both holy books of these religions are against it. The issues are control, hate and fear. The good news is the majority of the human race isn't for killing. If the US and the U.K. hadn't blown Iraq to pieces and given weapons to the Syrian opposition which ISIL came from and abandoned all their tanks we wouldn't have refugees flooding the boarders and we wouldn't have ISIL as we do today.
Sorry for the formatting...apparently the new forums suck on Chrome.
It is misleading to suggest 52 shootings were done by "Christians," because Christianity (or a version of it) did not have anything to do with their motivation. Even when a Christian commits a crime supposedly in the name of the faith, it's a far cry from an entire radicalized segment of a major religion, one which seeks to destroy a way of life.
Christians do kill. Muslims do kill. But only one is prone interpretation that creates the aforementioned extremism. As for holy books, that's incorrect. It is much easier to interpret Islam's book to justify violence. It specifically calls for violence in places. Do we really even need to argue that point?
Iraq and refugees: Yes, if we hadn't invaded, those refugees may never have needed to flee. Of course, if the British hadn't divided up the area a hundred years ago, maybe neither Iraq war would been necessary. Maybe Sadam Hussien would have been an employee at Iraqi Wal-Mart. Mayybe he wouldn't have gassed his own people. The point is that going back and saying "we shouldn't have invaded" is pointless. We did. What matters is very recent history and the way forward. By abandoning Iraq in order to fulfill a political promise, Obama helped create ISIS. By stating "Assad must go" and drawing a red line on chemical weapons that he later refused to enforce, he helped create the refugee crisis.
You have the same view he does...that America is responsible for Islamic terror and extremism--that if we just kept our nose out of things, they'd leave us alone. This, especially as evidenced by recent events, is delusional. But, I guess that's why 30% of the country or more still supports this fantastic disaster of a President. I wonder how many more people will have to die at the hands of terrorists before they realize Obama has made the world infinitely more dangerous. Hell, even you anti-gun nuts should be upset. He's responsible for people buying tens of millions more guns than when he took office.
He's responsible for people buying tens of millions more guns than when he took office.
I believe that I read that around 100 million guns have been sold since Obama!
That's awesome! I would like to get a few for myself too!
Liberals can just try and take our guns away. They will find out that they will have a pretty hard time attempting to carry out their un-American activities.
We just had a terrorist attack and what does Obama want to do? Disarm all potential victims, while at the same time he is releasing captured enemies and importing even more mass murderers, so that they can slaughter even more Americans.
In the case of Steve Jobs, I believe he was the son of a Syrian immigrant, who fled the tyranny of Assad. He made his way to the U.S., and while he put his son up for adoption, nobody could have ever known that the son of that immigrant would found apple.
I agree with the spirit of your comment, but Assad wasn't in power back then. His biological father left Syria to pursue a PHD, I think.
Why yes, Banksy, sperm donors and the countries they immigrated from should take all the credit for the achievements of the children they produced, but had no part in raising. His adopted father had nothing to do with who Steve became or what he achieved. /s
Yeah besides creating him.
So he deserves as much credit as mitochondrial Eve. Let's have Bansky paint her on a wall.
You can't deny that he was born gifted. No upbringing in the world will teach someone to be a genius. He was destined for greatness regardless of who, or how he was bought up.
Oh he's "gifted" now? I suppose the naysayers are taking a break from attacking Jobs as the ruthless opportunist who took fame and credit for the work of others (Woz, Xerox PARC). Let's see how long that lasts.
So you're a believer in "genetic destiny." I'm not. Yes, there are genetic traits and they can affect one's life, but what you do with it, and who you become is more powerfully influenced by the people and events in your life.
Consider that Steve said his father--Paul Jobs--(whom Steve refers to as "my dad") taught him the value of craftsmanship, of sweating the details--even the ones nobody will see, of taking pride in good design.
Consider the observation (such as Walter Isaacson), that Steve's feelings of rejection by his birth parents, and his subsequent feelings of being "chosen" by this adopted parents, are the origins of his functional narcissism, a trait that psychologists consider a developmental trait, and not something you're born with.
Or consider the observation by reporters and biographers that Steve's experiences during the "wilderness years" turned him into the successful CEO that helmed Apple after he returned, and that prior to that, his track record was spotty and what successes he had were mostly the result of luck and stubbornness, despite his "genius." I'm not denying Steve is a brilliantly intelligent. I'm saying that doesn't make him Steve Jobs. And I think you're simply giving DNA way too much credit for the person Steve became.
Anyone who thinks I'm wrong is welcome to post a nuanced rebuttal.
Comments
What's being said here I think, is that while we argue about the value of these lives. Whether we should open our doors to them, we need to remember that you never know which of these people could end up changing our world.
In the case of Steve Jobs, I believe he was the son of a Syrian immigrant, who fled the tyranny of Assad. He made his way to the U.S., and while he put his son up for adoption, nobody could have ever known that the son of that immigrant would found apple.
This is not a statement of what is, but a statement of what could be.
Apppe did not invent the computer, FYI.
Its funny how many on the left scream about "separation of church and state" (not in the Constitution, BTW) but adore a system where "separation of mosque and state" isn't a thing.
Hillary is so weak and she belongs behind bars. People are tired of that lying and incompetent woman.
Trump 2016!
We can ban visitors from scores of countries, fully legal, and the effect will be similar.
1. One of the purposes of art is to challenge people's thinking. Banksy has certainly done that here! Additionally I like the 3D effect of the Steve Jobs image.
2. Similarly, Trump has engaged with a lot of people. I personally feel that it is long over due that we have his conversation. There are some (notably conservative radio personalities) who believe that Republicans need to field a very conservative / right candidate and they will win imstead of the Romeys and McCains of the party. Having Trump would be the idea candidate for them - let Americans decide and put this theory to the test and then we can move on.
3. Just because Banksy has drawn attention to Steve Job's heritage does not mean that he is on the opposite extreme of Donald Trump as suggested by one poster.
4. Just because Roosevelt imprisoned Japanese / Germans etc. in internment camps and Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from coming to the US does not mean that it is necessarily a good idea as suggested by another poster. We also enslaved African Americans under a line of presidents which doesn't make it a good idea.
5. I think this forum is a great place for this conversation. The forum has really leveled off as there is really only so many times you can say the most profitable company in the world is the best at everything. Even the trolls seem bored. This shakes it up a bit!
Trump has big crossover appeal and I know that many Democrats will be supporting him. He just recently got a big endorsement from a big police union. He also stated that he will push through the Death Penalty for all cop killers! Awesome! A president that is actually on the side of the police instead of against them? Shocking!
Sorry for the formatting...apparently the new forums suck on Chrome.
It is misleading to suggest 52 shootings were done by "Christians," because Christianity (or a version of it) did not have anything to do with their motivation. Even when a Christian commits a crime supposedly in the name of the faith, it's a far cry from an entire radicalized segment of a major religion, one which seeks to destroy a way of life.
Christians do kill. Muslims do kill. But only one is prone interpretation that creates the aforementioned extremism. As for holy books, that's incorrect. It is much easier to interpret Islam's book to justify violence. It specifically calls for violence in places. Do we really even need to argue that point?
Iraq and refugees: Yes, if we hadn't invaded, those refugees may never have needed to flee. Of course, if the British hadn't divided up the area a hundred years ago, maybe neither Iraq war would been necessary. Maybe Sadam Hussien would have been an employee at Iraqi Wal-Mart. Mayybe he wouldn't have gassed his own people. The point is that going back and saying "we shouldn't have invaded" is pointless. We did. What matters is very recent history and the way forward. By abandoning Iraq in order to fulfill a political promise, Obama helped create ISIS. By stating "Assad must go" and drawing a red line on chemical weapons that he later refused to enforce, he helped create the refugee crisis.
You have the same view he does...that America is responsible for Islamic terror and extremism--that if we just kept our nose out of things, they'd leave us alone. This, especially as evidenced by recent events, is delusional. But, I guess that's why 30% of the country or more still supports this fantastic disaster of a President. I wonder how many more people will have to die at the hands of terrorists before they realize Obama has made the world infinitely more dangerous. Hell, even you anti-gun nuts should be upset. He's responsible for people buying tens of millions more guns than when he took office.
That's awesome! I would like to get a few for myself too!
Liberals can just try and take our guns away. They will find out that they will have a pretty hard time attempting to carry out their un-American activities.
We just had a terrorist attack and what does Obama want to do? Disarm all potential victims, while at the same time he is releasing captured enemies and importing even more mass murderers, so that they can slaughter even more Americans.
So you're a believer in "genetic destiny." I'm not. Yes, there are genetic traits and they can affect one's life, but what you do with it, and who you become is more powerfully influenced by the people and events in your life.
Consider that Steve said his father--Paul Jobs--(whom Steve refers to as "my dad") taught him the value of craftsmanship, of sweating the details--even the ones nobody will see, of taking pride in good design.
Consider the observation (such as Walter Isaacson), that Steve's feelings of rejection by his birth parents, and his subsequent feelings of being "chosen" by this adopted parents, are the origins of his functional narcissism, a trait that psychologists consider a developmental trait, and not something you're born with.
Or consider the observation by reporters and biographers that Steve's experiences during the "wilderness years" turned him into the successful CEO that helmed Apple after he returned, and that prior to that, his track record was spotty and what successes he had were mostly the result of luck and stubbornness, despite his "genius." I'm not denying Steve is a brilliantly intelligent. I'm saying that doesn't make him Steve Jobs. And I think you're simply giving DNA way too much credit for the person Steve became.
Anyone who thinks I'm wrong is welcome to post a nuanced rebuttal.