Telling somebody that they're ignorant about a particular topic may potentially (and more often than not) have the underlying connotation that that person should have known better in the first place. Nobody is going to tell Dr. Dawkins that he's ignorant of baseball because that's a useless statement.
They would, if he were discussing baseball with them. Which is why his argument is very solid, because creationists ARE discussing evolution - they are trying to refute it, often with lengthy arguments showing... only their ignorance.
People think he's insulting because he's a total dick when he talks about religion.
He has made it clear many times that he is no longer pulling the punches. Given the way that religious people talk about atheists, that is just quid pro quo, and probably less than that.
You think that's not true? In WW2, the phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" was coined. In a time of war and intense war propaganda, that's a very direct and aggressive insult, much worse than anything Dawkins has ever said about anyone.
And that's mainstream crap. As soon as you go even a little to the fringes, you can find in modern america people who would just love to burn atheists again, if only it were legal. Kids are forced to attend religious ceremonies against their will, until parents and/or lawsuits stop it.
And let's not forget about the massive insults that religious people throw at pretty much everyone else who doesn't fit their world-view. Read current headlines for what the religious right thinks about rape and pregnancy.
I don't find anything Dawkins says even half as insulting or offensive as the crap that regularily falls out of the mouths of the people he opposes.
The world looks to America to set a good example, and America leads by example.
Welcome to the 21st century, I notice you just stepped out of the time capsule from the - what was it? 50s, 60s?
You might read up on recent world history. You'll notice that the US has retained leadership in... uh... wait... something... ah yes, here it is: Military spending. For everything else, the world looks elsewhere for leadership.
Hm, what's the background on this story? Is it a matter of beaurocracy (forgot to file the right papers) or a pissing-contest (my jurisdiction is larger than yours!), because Texas strikes me as an odd place to go for a large-scale vote fraud.
Not that the rest of the world isn't already considering most of the US clinically insane given that there is a serious chance that you'll elect yet another religious nutjob, only this time even nuttier.
Does that remind anyone of the lock-in to the windows platform, which basically everyone uses because all the software is on it and nobody uses it because the OS is superior?
I live in a city with a strong gaming development community. The business models are shifting, but the general trend is up rather then down.
Also, I sell some software. No DRM or anything. It is probably out there on a torrent somewhere. Do I care? Nope. I make money and I realize that most of the people who torrent it very likely would not buy it even if the torrent would't exist.
Copying has been an issue for commercial software development pretty much since the cassette tape. If you look at the world around you, it hasn't exactly killed the software industry.
I don't just value the dignity of the individual, I value other things about it, too. What I am appealing to is not cultural - the conventions and details are, but the base is not. Every culture has a concept of consent for interactions, in no culture I know of is it acceptable to simply do with others as you please.
What makes my view correct is that it is cross-cultural, a human phenomenon and objective reality - it can be measured. Not trivially, but by anthropologist comparisons, for example, we can arrive at a set of shared values that exist independent of culture, religion, etc. amongst all humans. Details vary, but there is a shared humanity.
Like I said, this is going to take some time.
Then we should probably move to mail - tom@lemuria.org
Religious people print and distribute books they consider non-fiction which contain all kinds of statements that would be considered hate-speech in any other context, up to and including explicit calls for murder of people for their beliefs, sexual identities or perfectly legal actions.
If that is your thing, fine with me, free speech and all - but you have NO right to whine about others saying bad things about you if your own track record is quite a bit worse.
One, a sexual encounter is an event between two persons. The requirement of consent for interactions is not unique to sex. Depending on the context, interactions without consent go by various names - harassment, assault, etc.
Two, a unique feature of sex is that it actually occurs within the body of one of partners. We humans have this interesting psychological thing called "boundary violations" - google it, it's very fascinating. A simple example goes like this: Spit into a cup. Now swallow your spit from the cup. Feels icky, just thinking about it, doesn't it? And yet, a few seconds ago, that spit was still in your mouth and didn't feel the least bit icky. Entering someone's body is a major psychological event, due to the boundary violations involved. Requiring consent is the most logical conclusion to draw from that fact.
I'm not sure what you are going for, but there it is.
Sorry, I'm not going to buy a book to win an Internet argument. It only goes that far.
As for the historical accuracy, I'd rather trust historians than a lawyer and journalist. Does that make sense to you? Would you rather trust a bible scholar on bible content than, say, a plumber?
That's a rather simplified view you have there, isn't it?
Go on, add me to half a dozen gay groups. Nobody I know would consider that an outing. Add me to an Islamist group and a vegan one. People would wonder. None of them would believe I converted. There must be more information in the system for these new pieces of data to be considered reliable.
Don't give information you want to keep secret to a public social networking site. There, problem solved. You don't need "privacy controls" if you stop telling every friggin' site on the Internet the most intimate details of your life.
Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. They don't say that for nothing. If you give your secrets to someone else, they are not within your control anymore, period.
Police believe such publication has a deterrent effect on future incidents of the kind.
Police should not base their actions on belief, but on evidence. There are studies in almost everything, I'm sure there are studies on this. If not, it's time one was made. I'm not at all convinced it has much of an effect, but convince me otherwise.
Until then, I think we can leave the pillory in the dark ages. I thought we had.
Unrepentant sin should be removed from the Church so the work of the Church will not be hindered.
And when has the church ever acted that way? Definitely not anytime within the past 1000 years, probably not for at least 1500, 1600 years.
So, you seem to be confusing the civil / criminal justice system and the responsibility of the Church to police itself so it may effectively minister to the community.
No, I am referring to specific commands in the bible calling for specific punishment for specific actions. And while you can point out that the NT allegedly supercedes all that, it is very light on details, basically the Jesus statement regarding completion instead of replacement is all to go by. The 10 commandments, for example, are still considered to be in effect, aren't they? So there is another instance of pick & choose.
I consider as axiomatic two articles of faith:-
As axioms, these are quite acceptable. I won't attack them because that takes us deep into philosophy and more specifically into areas that are hard to prove or disprove.
But then you skip a step. You claim that there is "a sound chain of logic". But you don't point it out. Would you not have to list that as an article of faith as well? Would your faith not unravel just the same if the chain were disproven?
For example, you claim that contradictions are not mistakes in the bible. Apparently, the bible knows more about insects, rabbits or bats than modern-day biologists then, because it gets basic facts about them wrong (e.g. listing the bat as a bird). There are textual errors (multiple references to the book Jasher, which is lost to time) as well as quotes in one part of the bible quoting another part of the bible - but with mistakes in the quote.
But, I'm going to dodge the whole bible issue because it doesn't matter. You jump to conclusion way before that, claiming that from your two articles of faith the rest would follow. I can disprove that, simply by creating a different chain of logic that does not require a god. Reductio ad absurdum is generally considered valid in philosophy. Are you willing to accept it?
i.e. my approach is to negate your statement and then disprove it. Namely your statement being "from these article articles there is a sound chain of logic that leads to my faith" the inverse would be "from these articles, there can be no chain of logic not leading to my faith". Disproving the inverse would prove that your faith does not necessarily follow from the axioms.
Perhaps this is old news around here, even though Panetta is requesting new legislation from Congress.
I hope by that she means laws funding more and better security (actual security, not security theatre) and not laws making it illegal for foreign powers to attack US networks.
I'm not opposed to the DNT flag at all - I have it set - and I think it's a good idea to be able to set up a digital "No Trespassing" sign. I'm still locking my door though.
Couldn't agree more. Even with DNT and even if DNT were mandatory, I would still leave AdBlock enabled.
The do-not-call list works because there are legal repercussions for disobeying its mandate. Companies that called people on the list and were not exempt were liable for hefty fines.Obeying the strictures of these regulations was mandatory, by force of law. It was not optional.
Agreed.
The obvious next step for DNT is to make it mandatory. The fact that the ad companies are running amok over it shows that a) we're on the right track and b) it needs to be mandatory or they'll ignore it.
But it can only be in this order. You can't pass a law without the DNT flag, because advertisers would whine that some people really want to be tracked.
Even the links you provide don't support your own position. At best, it is uncertain whether or not Hitler was privately a devout believer or not. However, just like Stalin with the orthodox church, Hitler extensively dealt with the church and even gave it additional privileges that it did not have before.
They were mass murderers who did not ascribe to any religion
Yes, and they also had noses. Two of them had a beard. They wore socks. You still fail to establish even the flimsiest excuse for a causal connection. And you still think that an individual can change world history all on his own. Every historian I know would cringe at the thought, because you are ignoring the entire context that made people like these possible. Hitler born in a different time or a different place wouldn't have gone anywhere. He is not the sole or even primary causation of WW2 or the related events, he is just a convenient focus point, one participant in a vast network.
If Mao had been a follower of a religion, I imagine you would pin that on his religion.
That is another assumption with no evidence whatsoever.
The OP made the claim that Christianity has killed hundreds of millions of people, and then failed to back up those numbers. I got him started by listing about 150,019 deaths. I am waiting for citations for the remaining 99+ million.
That's an argument you have with the OP. Your argument with me is your claim that atheism is responsible for millions of deaths, and you have no provided even a shred of evidence.
If you attribute every death that occured in the widest possible sense in relation to the three names you mentioned to atheism, then you need to accept the same kind of argument for the counterpoint, meaning every death that occured in the remote vicinity of a ruler with a christian belief can be attributed to the christian faith. In that case, you will find hundreds of millions an understatement.
So, you are refusing a claim made by the OP, but then turn around and use an even weaker line of reasoning for your own agenda. That is the point that I am not willing to accept.
It's not a matter of picking and choosing; it's putting things into their proper context and perspective.
Oh please. That's just weasel-words for the same thing.
He took upon Himself the punishment of the sins we have committed so the eternal separation from God we deserve will not come to pass for those who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior.
Which is why ever since christians don't have to worry about sin anymore... oh wait... not quite...
The most practical is who is to going to judge which of Gods Words are no longer applicable?
So, should I still stone my neighbours to death because they are having sex without being married? Should I suffer the witch at the local occult store to live or not? Tricky decisions indeed...
From that perspective, there is every reason to keep that content in so we know the context into which Jesus came and how He fulfilled the Law.
I dig the bible as a horribly sourced history book, roughly on par with other legends or folk tales from the same time period. Also, historical research does not support the account in the bible. Not a surprise, given that it was written during a time where nobody really cared much about writing down truth and written accounts were routinely exaggerated or simply invented.
And yes, to answer your other question, while I am not a historian, I do some more research than just remembering what a drunken friend mentioned over a beer last weekend. I could cite sources for what I claim, but frankly I'm not bothering anymore because christians in general tend to ignore it. I've been here before, done that before and I'm not wasting my time anymore on people who aren't going to accept the sources anyways.
No, instead of playing bait and switch with me, you will have to state your conditions up front. What does it take to change your mind? Tell me what evidence you need to say "oh damn, I was wrong" and I'll see if I have it. You don't get to decide afterwards, because so far, every single christian who told me to provide evidence and got it then turned around and said that the evidence doesn't really matter.
I have ABP, Ghostery and BetterPrivacy installed, and the EFF's little toy can still identify me uniquely.
NoScript isn't really an option for anyone who doesn't live in a bubble, because tons of sites use JS for completely benign purposes these days. And lots of sites that are really useful do both need JS and track you - try using Google maps without javascript. And no, I don't plan on spending half my waking hours on fine-tuning exactly which scripts are allowed to run and which aren't.
So, yes, you can keep your privacy. If you work for it. And it gets harder over time, because the ad industry pours tons of money into improving tracking and identification. A DNT flag, while technically ineffecient, changes the game.
You don't need to understand why it does, and I can't explain it very well, need to structure my thoughts some more on that. But even if you don't understand at all, the fact that the ad industry is going in a rampage against DNT should be a very, very strong clue that something is so right about the approach that it has them frightened.
Are you really this retarded you primitive chauvinist(*) asshole?
My free speech is not protected by the US, it is protected by the constitution of my country. That attitude is exactly the kind of crap that the world has come to expect of you, and apparently rightfully so. For all I care, you could be swallowed up by Yosemite tomorrow, and my free speech would still be under the very same protection as it is today.
This arrogance is sickening to me, and I live in a western country that actually does have a reason to thank the US for a couple things. Now imagine how sickening it must be to someone living in a country where the US is responsible for bombing the shit out of the civilian population and little else. If you can't understand why they hate you - I can. If instead of liberating my country back in WW2 you had been killing a bunch of my friends and family for the past years, I definitely would, too.
(*) in the original sense, before feminism abducted the word
You get much better chances with AdBlock/URL filter/hosts file/whatever than with DNT.
Yeah, because spam filters have put an end to spam. Uh... wait... why is 80%+ of e-mail traffic spam if filtering and blocking work so well? Oh yes, because they don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Telling somebody that they're ignorant about a particular topic may potentially (and more often than not) have the underlying connotation that that person should have known better in the first place. Nobody is going to tell Dr. Dawkins that he's ignorant of baseball because that's a useless statement.
They would, if he were discussing baseball with them. Which is why his argument is very solid, because creationists ARE discussing evolution - they are trying to refute it, often with lengthy arguments showing... only their ignorance.
People think he's insulting because he's a total dick when he talks about religion.
He has made it clear many times that he is no longer pulling the punches. Given the way that religious people talk about atheists, that is just quid pro quo, and probably less than that.
You think that's not true? In WW2, the phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" was coined. In a time of war and intense war propaganda, that's a very direct and aggressive insult, much worse than anything Dawkins has ever said about anyone.
And that's mainstream crap. As soon as you go even a little to the fringes, you can find in modern america people who would just love to burn atheists again, if only it were legal. Kids are forced to attend religious ceremonies against their will, until parents and/or lawsuits stop it.
And let's not forget about the massive insults that religious people throw at pretty much everyone else who doesn't fit their world-view. Read current headlines for what the religious right thinks about rape and pregnancy.
I don't find anything Dawkins says even half as insulting or offensive as the crap that regularily falls out of the mouths of the people he opposes.
The myriad hardware types out there with myriad sets of less-than-optimal drivers might present myriad problems
So you're saying the PC/Windows platform is a bitch. But what do you think about Linux?
In a presentation at Ubuntu Developer Summit currently going on in Denmark,
Wake me when he says the same things at a Windows conference. Until then, I'll file it under "saying what your audience wants to hear".
The world looks to America to set a good example, and America leads by example.
Welcome to the 21st century, I notice you just stepped out of the time capsule from the - what was it? 50s, 60s?
You might read up on recent world history. You'll notice that the US has retained leadership in... uh... wait... something... ah yes, here it is: Military spending. For everything else, the world looks elsewhere for leadership.
Hm, what's the background on this story? Is it a matter of beaurocracy (forgot to file the right papers) or a pissing-contest (my jurisdiction is larger than yours!), because Texas strikes me as an odd place to go for a large-scale vote fraud.
Not that the rest of the world isn't already considering most of the US clinically insane given that there is a serious chance that you'll elect yet another religious nutjob, only this time even nuttier.
Does that remind anyone of the lock-in to the windows platform, which basically everyone uses because all the software is on it and nobody uses it because the OS is superior?
Sure does.
Here, MS, take a sip of your own medicine.
I kind of fail to feel sorry for them.
I live in a city with a strong gaming development community. The business models are shifting, but the general trend is up rather then down.
Also, I sell some software. No DRM or anything. It is probably out there on a torrent somewhere. Do I care? Nope. I make money and I realize that most of the people who torrent it very likely would not buy it even if the torrent would't exist.
Copying has been an issue for commercial software development pretty much since the cassette tape. If you look at the world around you, it hasn't exactly killed the software industry.
I don't just value the dignity of the individual, I value other things about it, too. What I am appealing to is not cultural - the conventions and details are, but the base is not. Every culture has a concept of consent for interactions, in no culture I know of is it acceptable to simply do with others as you please.
What makes my view correct is that it is cross-cultural, a human phenomenon and objective reality - it can be measured. Not trivially, but by anthropologist comparisons, for example, we can arrive at a set of shared values that exist independent of culture, religion, etc. amongst all humans. Details vary, but there is a shared humanity.
Like I said, this is going to take some time.
Then we should probably move to mail - tom@lemuria.org
Has everyone swallowed crazy pills again?
Religious people print and distribute books they consider non-fiction which contain all kinds of statements that would be considered hate-speech in any other context, up to and including explicit calls for murder of people for their beliefs, sexual identities or perfectly legal actions.
If that is your thing, fine with me, free speech and all - but you have NO right to whine about others saying bad things about you if your own track record is quite a bit worse.
Two things do.
One, a sexual encounter is an event between two persons. The requirement of consent for interactions is not unique to sex. Depending on the context, interactions without consent go by various names - harassment, assault, etc.
Two, a unique feature of sex is that it actually occurs within the body of one of partners. We humans have this interesting psychological thing called "boundary violations" - google it, it's very fascinating. A simple example goes like this: Spit into a cup. Now swallow your spit from the cup. Feels icky, just thinking about it, doesn't it? And yet, a few seconds ago, that spit was still in your mouth and didn't feel the least bit icky.
Entering someone's body is a major psychological event, due to the boundary violations involved. Requiring consent is the most logical conclusion to draw from that fact.
I'm not sure what you are going for, but there it is.
Sorry, I'm not going to buy a book to win an Internet argument. It only goes that far.
As for the historical accuracy, I'd rather trust historians than a lawyer and journalist. Does that make sense to you? Would you rather trust a bible scholar on bible content than, say, a plumber?
That's a rather simplified view you have there, isn't it?
Go on, add me to half a dozen gay groups. Nobody I know would consider that an outing. Add me to an Islamist group and a vegan one. People would wonder. None of them would believe I converted. There must be more information in the system for these new pieces of data to be considered reliable.
Don't give information you want to keep secret to a public social networking site. There, problem solved. You don't need "privacy controls" if you stop telling every friggin' site on the Internet the most intimate details of your life.
Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. They don't say that for nothing. If you give your secrets to someone else, they are not within your control anymore, period.
Police believe such publication has a deterrent effect on future incidents of the kind.
Police should not base their actions on belief, but on evidence. There are studies in almost everything, I'm sure there are studies on this. If not, it's time one was made. I'm not at all convinced it has much of an effect, but convince me otherwise.
Until then, I think we can leave the pillory in the dark ages. I thought we had.
Unrepentant sin should be removed from the Church so the work of the Church will not be hindered.
And when has the church ever acted that way? Definitely not anytime within the past 1000 years, probably not for at least 1500, 1600 years.
So, you seem to be confusing the civil / criminal justice system and the responsibility of the Church to police itself so it may effectively minister to the community.
No, I am referring to specific commands in the bible calling for specific punishment for specific actions. And while you can point out that the NT allegedly supercedes all that, it is very light on details, basically the Jesus statement regarding completion instead of replacement is all to go by. The 10 commandments, for example, are still considered to be in effect, aren't they? So there is another instance of pick & choose.
I consider as axiomatic two articles of faith:-
As axioms, these are quite acceptable. I won't attack them because that takes us deep into philosophy and more specifically into areas that are hard to prove or disprove.
But then you skip a step. You claim that there is "a sound chain of logic". But you don't point it out. Would you not have to list that as an article of faith as well? Would your faith not unravel just the same if the chain were disproven?
For example, you claim that contradictions are not mistakes in the bible. Apparently, the bible knows more about insects, rabbits or bats than modern-day biologists then, because it gets basic facts about them wrong (e.g. listing the bat as a bird). There are textual errors (multiple references to the book Jasher, which is lost to time) as well as quotes in one part of the bible quoting another part of the bible - but with mistakes in the quote.
But, I'm going to dodge the whole bible issue because it doesn't matter. You jump to conclusion way before that, claiming that from your two articles of faith the rest would follow. I can disprove that, simply by creating a different chain of logic that does not require a god. Reductio ad absurdum is generally considered valid in philosophy. Are you willing to accept it?
i.e. my approach is to negate your statement and then disprove it. Namely your statement being "from these article articles there is a sound chain of logic that leads to my faith" the inverse would be "from these articles, there can be no chain of logic not leading to my faith". Disproving the inverse would prove that your faith does not necessarily follow from the axioms.
Perhaps this is old news around here, even though Panetta is requesting new legislation from Congress.
I hope by that she means laws funding more and better security (actual security, not security theatre) and not laws making it illegal for foreign powers to attack US networks.
If you need that explained, shoot yourself.
I'm not opposed to the DNT flag at all - I have it set - and I think it's a good idea to be able to set up a digital "No Trespassing" sign. I'm still locking my door though.
Couldn't agree more. Even with DNT and even if DNT were mandatory, I would still leave AdBlock enabled.
The do-not-call list works because there are legal repercussions for disobeying its mandate. Companies that called people on the list and were not exempt were liable for hefty fines.Obeying the strictures of these regulations was mandatory, by force of law. It was not optional.
Agreed.
The obvious next step for DNT is to make it mandatory. The fact that the ad companies are running amok over it shows that a) we're on the right track and b) it needs to be mandatory or they'll ignore it.
But it can only be in this order. You can't pass a law without the DNT flag, because advertisers would whine that some people really want to be tracked.
Even the links you provide don't support your own position. At best, it is uncertain whether or not Hitler was privately a devout believer or not. However, just like Stalin with the orthodox church, Hitler extensively dealt with the church and even gave it additional privileges that it did not have before.
They were mass murderers who did not ascribe to any religion
Yes, and they also had noses. Two of them had a beard. They wore socks. You still fail to establish even the flimsiest excuse for a causal connection. And you still think that an individual can change world history all on his own. Every historian I know would cringe at the thought, because you are ignoring the entire context that made people like these possible. Hitler born in a different time or a different place wouldn't have gone anywhere. He is not the sole or even primary causation of WW2 or the related events, he is just a convenient focus point, one participant in a vast network.
If Mao had been a follower of a religion, I imagine you would pin that on his religion.
That is another assumption with no evidence whatsoever.
The OP made the claim that Christianity has killed hundreds of millions of people, and then failed to back up those numbers. I got him started by listing about 150,019 deaths. I am waiting for citations for the remaining 99+ million.
That's an argument you have with the OP. Your argument with me is your claim that atheism is responsible for millions of deaths, and you have no provided even a shred of evidence.
If you attribute every death that occured in the widest possible sense in relation to the three names you mentioned to atheism, then you need to accept the same kind of argument for the counterpoint, meaning every death that occured in the remote vicinity of a ruler with a christian belief can be attributed to the christian faith. In that case, you will find hundreds of millions an understatement.
So, you are refusing a claim made by the OP, but then turn around and use an even weaker line of reasoning for your own agenda. That is the point that I am not willing to accept.
It's not a matter of picking and choosing; it's putting things into their proper context and perspective.
Oh please. That's just weasel-words for the same thing.
He took upon Himself the punishment of the sins we have committed so the eternal separation from God we deserve will not come to pass for those who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior.
Which is why ever since christians don't have to worry about sin anymore... oh wait... not quite...
The most practical is who is to going to judge which of Gods Words are no longer applicable?
So, should I still stone my neighbours to death because they are having sex without being married? Should I suffer the witch at the local occult store to live or not? Tricky decisions indeed...
From that perspective, there is every reason to keep that content in so we know the context into which Jesus came and how He fulfilled the Law.
I dig the bible as a horribly sourced history book, roughly on par with other legends or folk tales from the same time period. Also, historical research does not support the account in the bible. Not a surprise, given that it was written during a time where nobody really cared much about writing down truth and written accounts were routinely exaggerated or simply invented.
And yes, to answer your other question, while I am not a historian, I do some more research than just remembering what a drunken friend mentioned over a beer last weekend. I could cite sources for what I claim, but frankly I'm not bothering anymore because christians in general tend to ignore it. I've been here before, done that before and I'm not wasting my time anymore on people who aren't going to accept the sources anyways.
No, instead of playing bait and switch with me, you will have to state your conditions up front. What does it take to change your mind? Tell me what evidence you need to say "oh damn, I was wrong" and I'll see if I have it. You don't get to decide afterwards, because so far, every single christian who told me to provide evidence and got it then turned around and said that the evidence doesn't really matter.
I have ABP, Ghostery and BetterPrivacy installed, and the EFF's little toy can still identify me uniquely.
NoScript isn't really an option for anyone who doesn't live in a bubble, because tons of sites use JS for completely benign purposes these days. And lots of sites that are really useful do both need JS and track you - try using Google maps without javascript. And no, I don't plan on spending half my waking hours on fine-tuning exactly which scripts are allowed to run and which aren't.
So, yes, you can keep your privacy. If you work for it. And it gets harder over time, because the ad industry pours tons of money into improving tracking and identification. A DNT flag, while technically ineffecient, changes the game.
You don't need to understand why it does, and I can't explain it very well, need to structure my thoughts some more on that. But even if you don't understand at all, the fact that the ad industry is going in a rampage against DNT should be a very, very strong clue that something is so right about the approach that it has them frightened.
Are you really this retarded you primitive chauvinist(*) asshole?
My free speech is not protected by the US, it is protected by the constitution of my country. That attitude is exactly the kind of crap that the world has come to expect of you, and apparently rightfully so. For all I care, you could be swallowed up by Yosemite tomorrow, and my free speech would still be under the very same protection as it is today.
This arrogance is sickening to me, and I live in a western country that actually does have a reason to thank the US for a couple things. Now imagine how sickening it must be to someone living in a country where the US is responsible for bombing the shit out of the civilian population and little else. If you can't understand why they hate you - I can. If instead of liberating my country back in WW2 you had been killing a bunch of my friends and family for the past years, I definitely would, too.
(*) in the original sense, before feminism abducted the word
It's unenforceable and unverifiable.
I agree it's not that easy.
You get much better chances with AdBlock/URL filter/hosts file/whatever than with DNT.
Yeah, because spam filters have put an end to spam. Uh... wait... why is 80%+ of e-mail traffic spam if filtering and blocking work so well? Oh yes, because they don't.
The solution(s) where I explicitly take control over what goes from my browser to 100% of sites?
really ?