So you basically ignored everything I said in favor of rhetoric. Talk about protips!
So to recap:
God is a thought experiment (despite what you claim)
The Zokooloo is a thought experiment
Both get the same treatment. If you claim otherwise, you have to prove that god is somehow different from a Zokooloo. There is no strawman here. This is the heart of the question.
I'm willing to bet that Google will drop all patent lawsuits if Apple promises to do the same. Will Apple take the same deal? No? Then you have your answer as to who's the guilty party here.
Telling your children that Zokooloo's categorically don't exist is lying to them...Riiiight.
Your caricature of deities as zookoloos and teapots is amusing, but not any more convincing
Why? What is the difference? Would you care to share why a Zokooloo cannot be god? All I have is your assertion but no proof of the same.
Keep in mind that despite your assertion to the contrary, god is a thought experiment. Some time in the past, someone just made up the idea to explain stuff that they couldn't otherwise explain. Like lighting, wind and fire. They made it up. Just like I postulated the Zokooloo.
It's up to you show me why your god is more of a realistic concept than my Zokooloo.
If a deity (or deities) exist, then they do so outside of and independently of our thought exercises.
Wait, what? Just because I thought of the Zokooloo doesn't rule out the possibility that it ALSO exists independent of my thought experiments. Just like god! In fact, I propose that the Zokooloo IS god. Hey, it's a strange universe right?:D
Basically you'd tell your kids to entertain the idea that there's a teapot between mars and jupiter. Or in fact there might be an entire GALAXY of teapots living somewhere. Hey, it's a strange universe right?
You're mistaken that this is a proof by induction. It's a proof by reductio ad absurdum. Take your logic to the extreme and see the stupid consequences that ensue. Much like the technique commonly used in math to prove that root 2 is irrational.
Whether or not I made up the Zokooloo as a thought experiment is irrelevant because it might coincidentally also exist! Who are you to rule out the existence of my Zokooloo without proof to the contrary?
Ergo, when your child asks you if Zokooloo's exist, you will have to tell her "Well, it's unlikely. But hey it's a strange universe! There might be a zokooloo in your bedroom right now that will be completely undetectable once you try and observe it.".
Well, yes. You made up the Zokooloo for the purposes of a thought experiment. This implies strongly that it does not exist.
But you have no evidence that Zookoolo's don't exist. If your kid were to ask you, would you say "Probably not" or a simple "No"?
Incidentally, the notion of god is a thought experiment as well.
The teapot idea can be proved/disproved after a thorough search. That could take thousands of years given the void and the size of the object. Will you wait a thousand years for conclusive evidence before you say "No", or will you just say "No" because it makes no sense even though you have no proof that a Teapot doesn't exist?
Again - if your kid asks you about the teapot, what will you say?
I can define a unicorn any way I like. And I define my unicorn to be a horse that instantly vanishes when anyone tries to observe it. If you don't like this definition, then I give my creation my own name - the Zokooloo. You don't believe in Zookoloo's do you? Why not? Any evidence that they DON'T exist?
You haven't answered my question. If your toddler asks you whether there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Mars and Jupiter, will you say "No", or will you say "We don't have evidence that one doesn't exist...". Remember that a teapot is orbiting the sun is something we'll never find with our current technology even if one DOES exist given it's size and the vast void of space.
Nope - I can posit a magical toothfairy that leaves no trail. And magical unicorns. And flying teapots (a la Russel). The fact is that if your child asks you a serious question about unicorns that don't leave empirical traces or orbiting teapots, your answer will be "No. They don't exist". Not "Well, we don't have evidence that there's NO teapot so..."
Agnostics are pussies who don't apply the basic thinking that they use everywhere else to religion.
Everyone is an atheist when it comes to Zeus, Odin and the tooth fairy. But you have no PROOF they don't exist right? Puhleese. There are something that are negative by default and require proof to make them positive.
I code on Android for fun and not for profit. My apps are free and have no ads on them. Sorry, but I can't afford to do that with iOS. I gotta buy a mac first and then $100 a year? No...way.
Those restrictions are imposed by the city not by the water company. Like child porn is illegal because the government says so not because the ISPs say so. Net neutrality is about preventing the ISPs from deciding what we can and cannot do with our bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
So you basically ignored everything I said in favor of rhetoric. Talk about protips!
So to recap:
God is a thought experiment (despite what you claim)
The Zokooloo is a thought experiment
Both get the same treatment. If you claim otherwise, you have to prove that god is somehow different from a Zokooloo. There is no strawman here. This is the heart of the question.
Unless he threatened specific kids and was on an imminent killing spree, his comments are protected by free speech.
But Apple's being sued by Motorola, HTC and Samsung. That means they copied too. All even right?
Tell you what - Google, Motorola and Samsung will drop all their patent cases against Apple if Apple promises to do the same. Deal? If not, why not?
I can certainly blame the player if they choose to play.
I'm willing to bet that Google will drop all patent lawsuits if Apple promises to do the same. Will Apple take the same deal? No? Then you have your answer as to who's the guilty party here.
And I restate - some things are negative by default until proof is given of their existence. You know, that whole burden of evidence thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
To quote: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim"
In the absence of evidence of god (or Zokooloos), neither exists. Implicitly that is the starting position.
Your caricature of deities as zookoloos and teapots is amusing, but not any more convincing
Why? What is the difference? Would you care to share why a Zokooloo cannot be god? All I have is your assertion but no proof of the same.
Keep in mind that despite your assertion to the contrary, god is a thought experiment. Some time in the past, someone just made up the idea to explain stuff that they couldn't otherwise explain. Like lighting, wind and fire. They made it up. Just like I postulated the Zokooloo.
It's up to you show me why your god is more of a realistic concept than my Zokooloo.
If a deity (or deities) exist, then they do so outside of and independently of our thought exercises.
Wait, what? Just because I thought of the Zokooloo doesn't rule out the possibility that it ALSO exists independent of my thought experiments. Just like god! In fact, I propose that the Zokooloo IS god. Hey, it's a strange universe right? :D
Basically you'd tell your kids to entertain the idea that there's a teapot between mars and jupiter. Or in fact there might be an entire GALAXY of teapots living somewhere. Hey, it's a strange universe right?
You're mistaken that this is a proof by induction. It's a proof by reductio ad absurdum. Take your logic to the extreme and see the stupid consequences that ensue. Much like the technique commonly used in math to prove that root 2 is irrational.
Whether or not I made up the Zokooloo as a thought experiment is irrelevant because it might coincidentally also exist! Who are you to rule out the existence of my Zokooloo without proof to the contrary?
Ergo, when your child asks you if Zokooloo's exist, you will have to tell her "Well, it's unlikely. But hey it's a strange universe! There might be a zokooloo in your bedroom right now that will be completely undetectable once you try and observe it.".
Nice parenting.
Well, yes. You made up the Zokooloo for the purposes of a thought experiment. This implies strongly that it does not exist.
But you have no evidence that Zookoolo's don't exist. If your kid were to ask you, would you say "Probably not" or a simple "No"?
Incidentally, the notion of god is a thought experiment as well.
The teapot idea can be proved/disproved after a thorough search. That could take thousands of years given the void and the size of the object. Will you wait a thousand years for conclusive evidence before you say "No", or will you just say "No" because it makes no sense even though you have no proof that a Teapot doesn't exist?
Again - if your kid asks you about the teapot, what will you say?
I can define a unicorn any way I like. And I define my unicorn to be a horse that instantly vanishes when anyone tries to observe it. If you don't like this definition, then I give my creation my own name - the Zokooloo. You don't believe in Zookoloo's do you? Why not? Any evidence that they DON'T exist?
You haven't answered my question. If your toddler asks you whether there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Mars and Jupiter, will you say "No", or will you say "We don't have evidence that one doesn't exist...". Remember that a teapot is orbiting the sun is something we'll never find with our current technology even if one DOES exist given it's size and the vast void of space.
So what would you tell your child? Be honest.
Nope - I can posit a magical toothfairy that leaves no trail. And magical unicorns. And flying teapots (a la Russel). The fact is that if your child asks you a serious question about unicorns that don't leave empirical traces or orbiting teapots, your answer will be "No. They don't exist". Not "Well, we don't have evidence that there's NO teapot so..."
Agnostics are pussies who don't apply the basic thinking that they use everywhere else to religion.
Everyone is an atheist when it comes to Zeus, Odin and the tooth fairy. But you have no PROOF they don't exist right? Puhleese. There are something that are negative by default and require proof to make them positive.
I code on Android for fun and not for profit. My apps are free and have no ads on them. Sorry, but I can't afford to do that with iOS. I gotta buy a mac first and then $100 a year? No...way.
"Only" $100 a year? Android is free. And $100 is too expensive for me.
Install an app that locks your phone down for you.
Uh huh. So you agree the bounce patent was stupid right? Because that's what they sued over. Not the "well working user interface".
The jury squandered a valuable chance to invalidate the silly patents. Of course, with a patent holder as the foreman...
If you'd spent years developing the hardware and software
Right...I'm sure apple spent YEARS developing bouncing screens. All those billions in R&D!
Pride goeth...
Trying to "design around" rounded rectangles isn't a constraint anyone should be subjected to.
You're saying it's unreasonable for me to demand ethical behavior from a company?
Again - the driving factor is scarcity. Net neutrality for the ISPs prevents discrimination for reasons other than that.
Those restrictions are imposed by the city not by the water company. Like child porn is illegal because the government says so not because the ISPs say so. Net neutrality is about preventing the ISPs from deciding what we can and cannot do with our bandwidth.