Which is the point of a constitution. It needs to be founded on a basic set of ethics. That of self ownership - I am the owner of me. No one should be able to initiate harm against me and I must not initiate harm against anyone else. In my opinion the very purpose of the state it to ensure people abide by those rules. The problem is that the state actively harms people, and it allows people to vote on what form the harm takes and whether people should be harmed any more.
The state should be protecting us, not harming us.
Unfortunately that's the case. Which is why the constitution should be as small as possible and cover the basic human rights of liberty and property ownership with no wiggle room.
It would mean no taxation. No drug laws. No patents or copyrights. Bring it on I say.
This would only work if there were a constitution that specifically sets out to protect people so that the majority cannot vote in laws that initiate harm against someone else. One man should not be allowed to vote away the freedoms of another.
Might be better to just hire candiddates, assign them to a work group on some Google Labs type of thing, see how they do. Keep the good ones and wash out the ones who prove not up to the task, unable to work with others or have other issues.
Depends on your local laws. Here in NZ you cannot fire someone without three written warnings, and even then it's difficult to do. We've only just passed a law which allows for a 90 day probationary period where no reason needs to be given for firing someone.
This is what boycotts are for. If enough people refuse such services, then either the services will change or the merchants who use those services will change. The trick is to get enough mass appeal for the boycott.
If my personal privacy if important enough to me, then I won't willingly deal with a company that exposes it. If that's inconvenient for me, then so be it.
Either a niche will open for an ethical credit card, or enough people will boycott credit cards to a degree that cause retailers to have to offer an alternative form of payment for online purchases. No state intervention required. Just market forces.
Your argument is like saying that leaving my curtains open is equivalent to giving permission for someone to sneak up and spy through my window. Sorry, but the law in my state disagrees with that kind of excuse.
Leaving curtains open is analogous to leaving ports on your router open, and in that case your analogy is fine. Sending out tracking information to any web server that requests it is more like putting a big pile of your business cards outside your house with a sign saying "take one". Can you then be annoyed if someone actually uses the information on those business cards?
I repeat: if I do not know in advance that someone intends to do something, I do not give my informed consent. It is actually impossible for me to do so.
You have your browser configured to send tracking information out to any site that requests it. If that's not consent then I don't know what is.
Perhaps what's needed is a grass roots campaign to inform people they their software is sending out tracking information. I don't believe legal action is appropriate when Facebook are simply using information that people are (willingly or ignorantly) sending them.
So there's no consent (by you) when your *browser* is communicating with a facebook server through an unrelated website.
You are responsible for the software (in this case a browser) - it's yours, installed on your computer that you are using. You have it configured to send out tracking information. If you don't want it to send out such information, then don't leave it configured to. You choose to use it with those options enabled.
I understand your point, but how does that relate to this law suit? At the end of the day this is not about Facebook taking your private information, it's about you *giving* that information. From a legal point of view that quite a big difference, regardless of how impractical it is to configure your software to stop handing this info to Facebook. There are a few Firefox add-ons that prevent this from happening without disabling cookies altogether.
Configuring your browser so it sends cookies is intentional. You can change it so it doesn't. Being aware of this, and doing nothing shows that you consent (if you didn't consent, you wouldn't let your software send tracking information).
And yet you use software that you know sends this information. Being logged in or not isn't relevant. You've configured your software to send tracking information to any web server you browse to.
This is not like receiving stolen goods. The user (via software they choose to use) is willingly handing Facebook this information. It's a bit odd to willingly hand someone something and then complain later about it. The best option is to stop handing them that information in the first place.
Indeed. The user is intentionally using software that sends tracking information (cookies) to Facebook. It's the browser that is at fault, not Facebook. If you don't want tracking information sent to third parties, then stop using software that sends such information (or configure the software to not send it).
I don't need evidence to say "I don't think there are ants on the moon". I do need evidence if I were to say "There are no ants on the moon". Both are two subtly different positions. The former is not one of faith, the latter is.
I think it's even a bit more nuanced than that. When you say "I don't think there are ants on the moon," you are still not speaking as a scientist and you are asserting a matter of faith.
No, you're asserting that you lack a particular belief. I don't need evidence to say "I don't think there are ants on the moon". I do need evidence to say "there are no ants on the moon", but then those two statements have different meanings.
The atheist doesn't state "there is no god", they state they don't believe in one. Atheism is about lack of belief.
If you provide evidence-based reasons for why there are not ants on the moon, you are speaking as a scientist. When you state a belief without evidence, that is faith.
Atheism isn't about having a belief, it's about *lacking* a belief.
The athiest doesn't assert that claims of divinity are false.The athiest asserts that they do not believe such claims are true.
*Emphasis mine.
How is the assertion of an unfounded and untested belief not a statement of faith in a position?
Note: I do not discriminate against negative assertions.
It's not. But then, atheism is not a negative assertion. You could argue that strong atheism is, but atheism per se is not. Not if you consider atheism to be a lack of belief, not a belief of lack.
I don't need evidence to say "I don't think there are ants on the moon".
Of course not, this is a circular statement. You don't believe there are ants on the moon, because you don't believe there are ants on the moon-- but if you want others to understand why you hold this position, you need to be more forthcoming, and explain why. Eg "I don't believe there are ants on the moon because ants require gaseous oxygen and high atmospheric pressures, which are features experimentally verified to not exist there. Any hypothetical moon ants would have to be radically different from earth ants, at which point, why even call them ants at all?" That would be an argument that does not require faith. The former unqualified and circular statement however, does require it.
I do need evidence if I were to say "There are no ants on the moon". Both are two subtly different positions.
Agreed. They are quite different.
The former is not one of faith, the latter is.
I do not believe this is true, because the former relies on self referential conditions that are unfounded/unqualified.
One does not have to qualify their positions of belief in order to hold those positions. I am a-ant-on-the-moon-ist, just as I am a-theist. There are an infinite number of things I do not believe in. The term "atheism" is an odd one because it tells us something we're not (a theist). It conveys no other information. There isn't a special word that means you don't believe in ants on the moon, and there isn't a special word that means that you don't believe in santa. But we do have a word that means you don't believe in a deity. Atheism is the default position (just as a-ant-on-the-moon-ism is the default position).
Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief of lack. In that regards it is not a faith at all.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Agnostic's lack belief--or perhaps that they believe that there is not convincing evidence one way or another. Atheists believe in the absence of deity. Hence the term-- "A"-"theist"
Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. Atheists have no belief in a deity. It's a-theism, not a-theos-ism.
It's the latter definition that's the correct one (in my opinion):
Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
The "A" in front of "atheist" means "not a theist". If a theist is someone with a belief in gods, then a atheist is someone without a belief in gods. Not, as some would claim, someone who believes there are no gods (which is "strong atheism").
Newborn babies are all atheists because they do not believe in any gods (to be sure, they cannot as they wouldn't even be aware of the concept).
From "atheism.about.com":
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
Agnosticism is about knowledge. You can have agnostic theists and you can have agnostic atheists.
Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about belief. A theist is someone who believes in gods, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. It's a common mistake to make - many who say they are agnostic are actually atheist.
The assertion, without demonstration thereof, of the falsehood of claims of divinity is every bit an assertion of faith as is the assertion that such claims of divinity are true, due to the lack of empirical evidence in both positions.
Without such evidence, the opinion becomes one of faith; faith in the assertion itself.
The athiest doesn't assert that claims of divinity are false. The athiest asserts that they do not believe such claims are true. A subtle but important difference. There is a difference between have a belief in a lack, and having a lack of belief. You seem to be referring to what some call the "strong atheist" - someone that does actively claim that there are no gods. Not all atheists hold that position though. If you don't believe in any gods, then you are an atheist. That's not a statement of faith, it's a statement of lacking a particular kind of belief.
I don't need evidence to say "I don't think there are ants on the moon". I do need evidence if I were to say "There are no ants on the moon". Both are two subtly different positions. The former is not one of faith, the latter is.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is the point of a constitution. It needs to be founded on a basic set of ethics. That of self ownership - I am the owner of me. No one should be able to initiate harm against me and I must not initiate harm against anyone else. In my opinion the very purpose of the state it to ensure people abide by those rules.
The problem is that the state actively harms people, and it allows people to vote on what form the harm takes and whether people should be harmed any more.
The state should be protecting us, not harming us.
Unfortunately that's the case. Which is why the constitution should be as small as possible and cover the basic human rights of liberty and property ownership with no wiggle room.
It would mean no taxation. No drug laws. No patents or copyrights. Bring it on I say.
This would only work if there were a constitution that specifically sets out to protect people so that the majority cannot vote in laws that initiate harm against someone else. One man should not be allowed to vote away the freedoms of another.
Might be better to just hire candiddates, assign them to a work group on some Google Labs type of thing, see how they do. Keep the good ones and wash out the ones who prove not up to the task, unable to work with others or have other issues.
Depends on your local laws. Here in NZ you cannot fire someone without three written warnings, and even then it's difficult to do. We've only just passed a law which allows for a 90 day probationary period where no reason needs to be given for firing someone.
This is what boycotts are for. If enough people refuse such services, then either the services will change or the merchants who use those services will change. The trick is to get enough mass appeal for the boycott.
If my personal privacy if important enough to me, then I won't willingly deal with a company that exposes it. If that's inconvenient for me, then so be it.
Either a niche will open for an ethical credit card, or enough people will boycott credit cards to a degree that cause retailers to have to offer an alternative form of payment for online purchases. No state intervention required. Just market forces.
Indeed. I don't need the government making my decisions for me. If I don't like what Visa are doing, then I'll stop using them.
Your argument is like saying that leaving my curtains open is equivalent to giving permission for someone to sneak up and spy through my window. Sorry, but the law in my state disagrees with that kind of excuse.
Leaving curtains open is analogous to leaving ports on your router open, and in that case your analogy is fine. Sending out tracking information to any web server that requests it is more like putting a big pile of your business cards outside your house with a sign saying "take one". Can you then be annoyed if someone actually uses the information on those business cards?
I repeat: if I do not know in advance that someone intends to do something, I do not give my informed consent. It is actually impossible for me to do so.
You have your browser configured to send tracking information out to any site that requests it. If that's not consent then I don't know what is.
Perhaps what's needed is a grass roots campaign to inform people they their software is sending out tracking information. I don't believe legal action is appropriate when Facebook are simply using information that people are (willingly or ignorantly) sending them.
So there's no consent (by you) when your *browser* is communicating with a facebook server through an unrelated website.
You are responsible for the software (in this case a browser) - it's yours, installed on your computer that you are using. You have it configured to send out tracking information. If you don't want it to send out such information, then don't leave it configured to. You choose to use it with those options enabled.
I understand your point, but how does that relate to this law suit? At the end of the day this is not about Facebook taking your private information, it's about you *giving* that information. From a legal point of view that quite a big difference, regardless of how impractical it is to configure your software to stop handing this info to Facebook. There are a few Firefox add-ons that prevent this from happening without disabling cookies altogether.
That does not fit the definition of "intentional"
Configuring your browser so it sends cookies is intentional. You can change it so it doesn't. Being aware of this, and doing nothing shows that you consent (if you didn't consent, you wouldn't let your software send tracking information).
And yet you use software that you know sends this information. Being logged in or not isn't relevant. You've configured your software to send tracking information to any web server you browse to.
This is not like receiving stolen goods. The user (via software they choose to use) is willingly handing Facebook this information. It's a bit odd to willingly hand someone something and then complain later about it. The best option is to stop handing them that information in the first place.
Indeed. The user is intentionally using software that sends tracking information (cookies) to Facebook. It's the browser that is at fault, not Facebook. If you don't want tracking information sent to third parties, then stop using software that sends such information (or configure the software to not send it).
I think it's even a bit more nuanced than that. When you say "I don't think there are ants on the moon," you are still not speaking as a scientist and you are asserting a matter of faith.
No, you're asserting that you lack a particular belief. I don't need evidence to say "I don't think there are ants on the moon". I do need evidence to say "there are no ants on the moon", but then those two statements have different meanings.
The atheist doesn't state "there is no god", they state they don't believe in one. Atheism is about lack of belief.
Atheism isn't about having a belief, it's about *lacking* a belief.
The athiest doesn't assert that claims of divinity are false.The athiest asserts that they do not believe such claims are true.
*Emphasis mine.
How is the assertion of an unfounded and untested belief not a statement of faith in a position?
Note: I do not discriminate against negative assertions.
It's not. But then, atheism is not a negative assertion. You could argue that strong atheism is, but atheism per se is not. Not if you consider atheism to be a lack of belief, not a belief of lack.
I don't need evidence to say "I don't think there are ants on the moon".
Of course not, this is a circular statement. You don't believe there are ants on the moon, because you don't believe there are ants on the moon-- but if you want others to understand why you hold this position, you need to be more forthcoming, and explain why. Eg "I don't believe there are ants on the moon because ants require gaseous oxygen and high atmospheric pressures, which are features experimentally verified to not exist there. Any hypothetical moon ants would have to be radically different from earth ants, at which point, why even call them ants at all?" That would be an argument that does not require faith. The former unqualified and circular statement however, does require it.
I do need evidence if I were to say "There are no ants on the moon". Both are two subtly different positions.
Agreed. They are quite different.
The former is not one of faith, the latter is.
I do not believe this is true, because the former relies on self referential conditions that are unfounded/unqualified.
One does not have to qualify their positions of belief in order to hold those positions. I am a-ant-on-the-moon-ist, just as I am a-theist. There are an infinite number of things I do not believe in. The term "atheism" is an odd one because it tells us something we're not (a theist). It conveys no other information. There isn't a special word that means you don't believe in ants on the moon, and there isn't a special word that means that you don't believe in santa. But we do have a word that means you don't believe in a deity. Atheism is the default position (just as a-ant-on-the-moon-ism is the default position).
Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief of lack. In that regards it is not a faith at all.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Agnostic's lack belief--or perhaps that they believe that there is not convincing evidence one way or another. Atheists believe in the absence of deity. Hence the term-- "A"-"theist"
Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. Atheists have no belief in a deity. It's a-theism, not a-theos-ism.
It's the latter definition that's the correct one (in my opinion):
The "A" in front of "atheist" means "not a theist". If a theist is someone with a belief in gods, then a atheist is someone without a belief in gods. Not, as some would claim, someone who believes there are no gods (which is "strong atheism").
Newborn babies are all atheists because they do not believe in any gods (to be sure, they cannot as they wouldn't even be aware of the concept).
From "atheism.about.com":
Agnosticism is about knowledge. You can have agnostic theists and you can have agnostic atheists.
Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about belief. A theist is someone who believes in gods, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. It's a common mistake to make - many who say they are agnostic are actually atheist.
The assertion, without demonstration thereof, of the falsehood of claims of divinity is every bit an assertion of faith as is the assertion that such claims of divinity are true, due to the lack of empirical evidence in both positions.
Without such evidence, the opinion becomes one of faith; faith in the assertion itself.
The athiest doesn't assert that claims of divinity are false. The athiest asserts that they do not believe such claims are true. A subtle but important difference. There is a difference between have a belief in a lack, and having a lack of belief. You seem to be referring to what some call the "strong atheist" - someone that does actively claim that there are no gods. Not all atheists hold that position though. If you don't believe in any gods, then you are an atheist. That's not a statement of faith, it's a statement of lacking a particular kind of belief.
I don't need evidence to say "I don't think there are ants on the moon". I do need evidence if I were to say "There are no ants on the moon". Both are two subtly different positions. The former is not one of faith, the latter is.
Ah, my only gripe really is that atheism is neither the obvious solution, nor a scientific one. It's just another (minimised) system of faith.
Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief of lack. In that regards it is not a faith at all.
He would have turned it into bathwine.