In other words, the hypothetical person with an opinion test. It's great that people are getting arrested based on what certain people think a hypothetical person would think of someone's choice of words!
Except, this isn't really about expressing a view like "I don't believe what you believe,"
It doesn't matter. It caused offense all the same, and apparently causing offense will bring about the end of the world. Your message is highly offensive to me, and you should be arrested under some nonsensical, ambiguous law.
What's next? A law against facial expressions (frowns, angry glares) intended to cause mental distress?
No, a law against disagreeing with the arrests of those who have offended others! What you're doing is highly offensive, and that could bring about the end of the world!
There is *zero* evidence that the universe is in a "loop".
It was just an example. As I keep saying, unknowns do not constitute as evidence.
But if you can interpret unknowns as evidence of god, the same can be said for whatever random theories you can come up with.
However... do not conflate evidence with proof.
I've seen nothing I'd personally call evidence.
Your tenacity to keep responding suggests that your resolution is quite firm, and you are fairly certain of what you believe you know.
I have a certain degree of confidence about it. Of course, if your logic holds, the same must apply to you.
For what it's worth, I've never argued that ignorance is evidence of God.... I've argued that things existing at all can be taken as quite reasonable evidence that there is a God
I certainly wouldn't say it's reasonable to do so, and I was aware that people do take them as evidence. I could interpret the universe existing as meaning that a god doesn't exist and then call that reasonable; it doesn't mean much, in my opinion.
In the end, I see suggesting the notion that there is no God to be much like a character in a story suggesting that the book he is in didn't have an author at all. It's absurd, in fact.
What makes you think we're like characters in a book? Why does the same not apply to this god?
You don't need to be a teacher to home school. Well, in some states in the US, anyway. I've heard that some states are quite strict about homeschooling.
Well, we know from observation that the universe isn't ageless.
Not necessarily ageless, but I'm sure you could come up with similar theories (such as that it's in a "loop" of some sort). Regardless, that wasn't really my point. Unknowns aren't evidence of god. "I don't know how else this could be" != evidence of god.
The universe existing is evidence that it was put here by somebody too.
This is exactly the kind of logic that I was referring to. Unknown != evidence of god. The fact that the only explanation you can think of is "god did it" doesn't mean that that's the answer. That's just an argument from ignorance.
The same cannot necessarily be said for God, so his mere existence does not necessitate a creation.
Special pleading. If the universe can't be ageless, then why can that apply to god?
Not a good comparison... since "flying spaghetti monster" has a known origin
You misunderstood my point; you can replace FSM with any hypothetical god. The point was that you can't simply say that unknowns are evidence of a god's existence (I don't know whether or not that's what he was referring to, either. That person wasn't really clear.).
As for evidence God exists? It's everywhere... *literally*.
Yeah, the flying spaghetti monster exists because... well, how else did my house get here!? See... evidence! I can't think of another answer; therefore, flying spaghetti monster.
half the country has a hissy fit and insists that they should have the right to do anything and everything they please
That sounds like a straw man. I for one don't want another useless drug war that violates everyone's freedoms, and I don't want safety of a different variety than the TSA claims to give us: safety from ourselves.
But safety is all that matters (or at least that's how it seems).
The copyright holders have a right to perform their work without being exploited and/or being forced to seek wealthy patrons as their only source of income.
Only so long as copyright exists. Laws can change.
because as usual there's a HEALTY BALANCE that exists somewhere between absolutism on either side.
Whether or not it's a "healthy balance" is quite subjective.
What gives copyright holders the right to hoard knowledge?
Draconian laws and bribery.
If I borrow a book from the library and read it to my children, when they themselves did not borrow the book, is that not doing the same thing Google is doing?
Probably property rights that have to do with real property and not just artificial monopolies given to people because they can't find a good business model. I don't own this game I bought? Perhaps not legally, but I feel that I definitely own it.
Slashdot Mirror
... then you reject the core of the legal system in the UK, the USA, and most of the Western world.
I reject laws I believe are violations of freedom of speech, yes. I also reject the Patriot Act and the TSA (which currently exist).
Or even just the jury. It's great that offense alone is reason enough to arrest someone.
In other words, the hypothetical person with an opinion test. It's great that people are getting arrested based on what certain people think a hypothetical person would think of someone's choice of words!
Except, this isn't really about expressing a view like "I don't believe what you believe,"
It doesn't matter. It caused offense all the same, and apparently causing offense will bring about the end of the world. Your message is highly offensive to me, and you should be arrested under some nonsensical, ambiguous law.
We don't care if you don't like the imposition of responsibility on someone deciding to exercise free speech.
The Chinese government doesn't either.
What's next? A law against facial expressions (frowns, angry glares) intended to cause mental distress?
No, a law against disagreeing with the arrests of those who have offended others! What you're doing is highly offensive, and that could bring about the end of the world!
the matter definitely comes under the pervue of the obscene publications act
That act sounds incredibly ambiguous and, in my opinion, obscene.
Making a callous joke directly to the people who have lost a child whose fate is as yet undetermined is *not* a case of free speech.
It's not free speech because I personally disapprove of it!
Your comment isn't free speech, by the way...
There is *zero* evidence that the universe is in a "loop".
It was just an example. As I keep saying, unknowns do not constitute as evidence.
But if you can interpret unknowns as evidence of god, the same can be said for whatever random theories you can come up with.
However... do not conflate evidence with proof.
I've seen nothing I'd personally call evidence.
Your tenacity to keep responding suggests that your resolution is quite firm, and you are fairly certain of what you believe you know.
I have a certain degree of confidence about it. Of course, if your logic holds, the same must apply to you.
For what it's worth, I've never argued that ignorance is evidence of God.... I've argued that things existing at all can be taken as quite reasonable evidence that there is a God
I certainly wouldn't say it's reasonable to do so, and I was aware that people do take them as evidence. I could interpret the universe existing as meaning that a god doesn't exist and then call that reasonable; it doesn't mean much, in my opinion.
In the end, I see suggesting the notion that there is no God to be much like a character in a story suggesting that the book he is in didn't have an author at all. It's absurd, in fact.
What makes you think we're like characters in a book? Why does the same not apply to this god?
Slashdot, and the rest of the interwebz
It's not just the Internet...
You don't need to be a teacher to home school. Well, in some states in the US, anyway. I've heard that some states are quite strict about homeschooling.
Well, we know from observation that the universe isn't ageless.
Not necessarily ageless, but I'm sure you could come up with similar theories (such as that it's in a "loop" of some sort). Regardless, that wasn't really my point. Unknowns aren't evidence of god. "I don't know how else this could be" != evidence of god.
The universe existing is evidence that it was put here by somebody too.
This is exactly the kind of logic that I was referring to. Unknown != evidence of god. The fact that the only explanation you can think of is "god did it" doesn't mean that that's the answer. That's just an argument from ignorance.
The same cannot necessarily be said for God, so his mere existence does not necessitate a creation.
Special pleading. If the universe can't be ageless, then why can that apply to god?
Not a good comparison... since "flying spaghetti monster" has a known origin
You misunderstood my point; you can replace FSM with any hypothetical god. The point was that you can't simply say that unknowns are evidence of a god's existence (I don't know whether or not that's what he was referring to, either. That person wasn't really clear.).
As for evidence God exists? It's everywhere... *literally*.
Yeah, the flying spaghetti monster exists because... well, how else did my house get here!? See... evidence! I can't think of another answer; therefore, flying spaghetti monster.
You could certainly make it a combination of technical and legal.
Yes, ban them for everyone. Just like the TSA, it's for your own good! Everyone must be punished because of the actions of certain people!
well we can start with two to four charges of assault and go on to three hundred cases of attempted first degree murder.
Yes, that's great. We have to appear Tough On Crime. That always works.
Safety is all that is important. That's how we ended up with the TSA!
Why pedophilia? Or were you trying to refer to child molestation?
half the country has a hissy fit and insists that they should have the right to do anything and everything they please
That sounds like a straw man. I for one don't want another useless drug war that violates everyone's freedoms, and I don't want safety of a different variety than the TSA claims to give us: safety from ourselves.
But safety is all that matters (or at least that's how it seems).
As an atheist, even I think that everyone has imperfections and improvements to strive for.
The thing is, though, that what constitutes an "imperfection" or an "improvement" is completely subjective.
So, I'm just a bit hesitant on retracting or unilaterally altering those bargains, because of where and how else that principle could be applied.
Copyright really doesn't seem like any other right. If it was like other rights, it wouldn't be temporary (technically, it is temporary even now).
The copyright holders have a right to perform their work without being exploited and/or being forced to seek wealthy patrons as their only source of income.
Only so long as copyright exists. Laws can change.
because as usual there's a HEALTY BALANCE that exists somewhere between absolutism on either side.
Whether or not it's a "healthy balance" is quite subjective.
What gives copyright holders the right to hoard knowledge?
Draconian laws and bribery.
If I borrow a book from the library and read it to my children, when they themselves did not borrow the book, is that not doing the same thing Google is doing?
It's on an entirely different scale.
Probably property rights that have to do with real property and not just artificial monopolies given to people because they can't find a good business model. I don't own this game I bought? Perhaps not legally, but I feel that I definitely own it.
The vast majority will not pay for content.
I don't know anyone who pays for music any longer - they just grab what they want for free.
Do you know a vast majority of the population, or am I missing something?