I do not think there is much difference in actual implementation. If I look at what incredible amount of bullshit US voters are willing to accept (in particular on the Trump-side), I might even think that politics is worse.
Hahahahahaha, nice. You could not be much more wrong of course. Assuming the base-state is true in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary is not a logical error and it is not "belief" either. It is just working common sense: If somebody claims something special or extraordinary (such as existence of a "God"), require them to give convincing proof before you accept their claims.
Related: Occam's Razor. (Yes, I know Occam was a monk, but I strongly suspect he was a closet-atheist.)
No security is better than no security combined with a false sense of security. I say we throw it away completely as a historical aberration. A PGP-like web-of-trust (often ridiculed) does a far, far better job in actual reality.
It is. And it is no surprise that it is. No security-model that requires trust in a lot of different instances that are subject to a lot of different attacks and pressure has ever worked well.
Incidentally, when the Internet was still young and the CA system as new, smart people already anticipated this. The bureaucrats wanted it anyways, and post-Snowden, I am very much inclined to believe they wanted a broken system. I trust an official certificate about as far as I can throw it when chiseled into a large rock.
It _is_ rather obvious. But then, recognizing "obvious" requires actual common sense, and that is something unfortunately not common.
You may be right on the greedy (but really stupid) Trump-fans. Many people cannot recognize reality if it punches them in the face. Sure, Hillary is evil, but she does want a future for the US. Trump cares only about Trump, and that makes him much, much more dangerous.
But consider this: All religious people are involved in spreading a big lie about something important, while atheists only do that in other contexts, if at all.
Sure, like any cult, they want to accumulate as many followers as possible. Judge them by what "charity" they do for those that they know will never ever follow them or any other religion and you get their true measure.
Religion is the most vicious killer pathogen family ever. (Yes, it is a pathogen family of the type "malicious meme".) Hence its followers have been long at work to create a "big lie" to gloss over that or to make it seem justified. Of course, any sane, rational person finds out sooner or later that those afflicted with religion are full of it, but sane and rational people are in short supply. Otherwise the human race would have overcome this dangerous and infantile nonsense a long time ago.
Why would I care about what some mentally corrupted person like you thinks what your fantasy father-figure does or does not do? To "hate" "God" would be to acknowledge the existence of "God", and that is something that makes zero sense to anybody that has managed to grow up.
You do understand that "God" does not exist, no matter how hard you wish that to be untrue, right?
"God" (or rather his self-appointed representatives) will take your cash, but delivery of the service you paid for seems a rather far-fetched possibility.
Your claim is accurate. Since Atheism is not a religion, the claim that "Atheism is a religion that blablbalba" is true by default. This is also known as a "Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise" fallacy.
Probably not what you wanted to say though. Those infected with a malicious meme of the religious type are usually weak on logic.
At this time, the Snowden-enemies are just lying directly and lying by omission. It is pretty clear what happened and who the bad guys are. These people are just trying to muddy the waters, as that is the only thing they have left.
Classic fallacy. That is what he said. Since this level of preparedness and insight is consistent with his experience and skill level and makes sense in his situation, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, the only thing you have is an empty statement that "he obviously gave everything to the Russians", which only has propaganda value.
You seem to be dumb. If Snowden did not have access to the documents anymore when he stranded in Russia, then the odds of not giving access to the Russians are 100%. You seem to also have completely missed that he was well aware of the risk of being forced to hand over documents and had taken measures.
To be fair, many people are far too stupid to notice this little problem. They believe the fabrication without ever doing even very basic verification.
That is part of the creation of a "big lie" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie): Do not give specifics, because otherwise people may notice that the claims made are complete fabrications. Just keep repeating it and eventually many people will believe it.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not think there is much difference in actual implementation. If I look at what incredible amount of bullshit US voters are willing to accept (in particular on the Trump-side), I might even think that politics is worse.
Nice user-name!
Indeed. Also known as "Burden of proof" fallacy.
Of course, since theists basically have a mental defect, they cannot see that their model is not the base model.
Hahahahahaha, nice. You could not be much more wrong of course. Assuming the base-state is true in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary is not a logical error and it is not "belief" either. It is just working common sense: If somebody claims something special or extraordinary (such as existence of a "God"), require them to give convincing proof before you accept their claims.
Related: Occam's Razor. (Yes, I know Occam was a monk, but I strongly suspect he was a closet-atheist.)
No security is better than no security combined with a false sense of security. I say we throw it away completely as a historical aberration. A PGP-like web-of-trust (often ridiculed) does a far, far better job in actual reality.
It is. And it is no surprise that it is. No security-model that requires trust in a lot of different instances that are subject to a lot of different attacks and pressure has ever worked well.
Incidentally, when the Internet was still young and the CA system as new, smart people already anticipated this. The bureaucrats wanted it anyways, and post-Snowden, I am very much inclined to believe they wanted a broken system. I trust an official certificate about as far as I can throw it when chiseled into a large rock.
Poster is stupid? Check.
Seriously, if you must troll, at least but some minimal thought into it. That is if you are capable.
It _is_ rather obvious. But then, recognizing "obvious" requires actual common sense, and that is something unfortunately not common.
You may be right on the greedy (but really stupid) Trump-fans. Many people cannot recognize reality if it punches them in the face. Sure, Hillary is evil, but she does want a future for the US. Trump cares only about Trump, and that makes him much, much more dangerous.
No example is ever "valid". Your reasoning is flawed. This is about explaining an idea, not about giving proof.
Indeed. Usually it takes a pretty nasty crisis though, but methinks the US establishment is hard at work to engineer that.
Where there are easy victims, there always is somebody with low enough ethical standards to exploit them.
Obvious troll is obvious.
But consider this: All religious people are involved in spreading a big lie about something important, while atheists only do that in other contexts, if at all.
Sure, like any cult, they want to accumulate as many followers as possible. Judge them by what "charity" they do for those that they know will never ever follow them or any other religion and you get their true measure.
Religion is the most vicious killer pathogen family ever. (Yes, it is a pathogen family of the type "malicious meme".) Hence its followers have been long at work to create a "big lie" to gloss over that or to make it seem justified. Of course, any sane, rational person finds out sooner or later that those afflicted with religion are full of it, but sane and rational people are in short supply. Otherwise the human race would have overcome this dangerous and infantile nonsense a long time ago.
Probably just masochism. Some people yearn to be dominated.
Why would I care about what some mentally corrupted person like you thinks what your fantasy father-figure does or does not do? To "hate" "God" would be to acknowledge the existence of "God", and that is something that makes zero sense to anybody that has managed to grow up.
You do understand that "God" does not exist, no matter how hard you wish that to be untrue, right?
Running a government. About as unethical too.
That would be "mentally potentially problematic, but not part of a large pressure-group, hence probably harmless". Far cheaper to society in any case.
"God" (or rather his self-appointed representatives) will take your cash, but delivery of the service you paid for seems a rather far-fetched possibility.
Your claim is accurate. Since Atheism is not a religion, the claim that "Atheism is a religion that blablbalba" is true by default. This is also known as a "Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise" fallacy.
Probably not what you wanted to say though. Those infected with a malicious meme of the religious type are usually weak on logic.
At this time, the Snowden-enemies are just lying directly and lying by omission. It is pretty clear what happened and who the bad guys are. These people are just trying to muddy the waters, as that is the only thing they have left.
Classic fallacy. That is what he said. Since this level of preparedness and insight is consistent with his experience and skill level and makes sense in his situation, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, the only thing you have is an empty statement that "he obviously gave everything to the Russians", which only has propaganda value.
You seem to be dumb. If Snowden did not have access to the documents anymore when he stranded in Russia, then the odds of not giving access to the Russians are 100%. You seem to also have completely missed that he was well aware of the risk of being forced to hand over documents and had taken measures.
To be fair, many people are far too stupid to notice this little problem. They believe the fabrication without ever doing even very basic verification.
That is part of the creation of a "big lie" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie): Do not give specifics, because otherwise people may notice that the claims made are complete fabrications. Just keep repeating it and eventually many people will believe it.