Thanks.

If whatever you believe means you feel you have the right to be unkind to people who believe otherwise, it’s problematic. Even if you want to hold onto a different definition of whatever it is you believe, if you use it as an excuse to be unkind it’s still a problem. It’s not the label that’s the problem, it’s the behavior.

If you end up acting just like them, why should anyone believe you’re any different?

Very “it’s not a warcrime if it’s not wartime” energy.

I get that you’re very sure you’re right. But you’re one person. If I was going to choose to believe things based on how many people were very sure they are right, I’d still be Christian.

I left the church because I saw no evidence it made people better. I see no evidence that any other religion or lack of one does either. It just changes the excuses people use to be cruel to each other.

A muscovy duck isn’t a duck. Technically.

But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck’s musbehaviour is “technically not a duck!” you’re not really saying anything of worth.

Vegans

I just don’t think that being right makes you more moral or compassionate. Those are separate vectors, there’s no useful kind/religious axis we can map here.

If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander. Whatever your belief of lack of it, I want to see you respected and treated well.

Almost every religion has a tenant of the rejection of every other religion, and then goes on to persecute the other ones believers.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it might be a duck.

I don’t believe in the magic of Religion to make people moral. I also don’t believe in its opposite. People use religion or tradition to justify what they wanted to do anyway.

It’s not actually the scapegoat’s fault.

I think they’re being disingenuous, because the government has been spying on all of us via end runs around the rules like “five eyes” for decades. If they want to go all CIA on you they just ask an ally to do it, then return the favor and spy on the people of other governments for them. All legal and above board, it’s just “intelligence sharing”.

And the NSA isn’t even barred from monitoring you in the fist place.

I think it’s somewhat naive to assume anything isn’t being spied on by the NSA. They don’t have a history of being picky.

Do you think it shows weakness to be polite to those you disagree with? I think it works better to approach people with respect if I want them to consider what I’m saying. It already feels like an attack when someone says you’re wrong, and I don’t want to harden minds against what I think is right.

I’m not always good at it, and I have spoken to people harshly often. It never produced anything but hard feelings on their part. I think it can be satisfying to be mean, and I was looking for an excuse to act in a way that’s less moral without feeling bad about myself. I think even if I was right, I usually didn’t need to be mean about it.

I think that it’s likely nothing I’m doing on this website is important enough to justify me being unkind about it.

There’s no perfect system. Patches are not perfect and can add security holes. The old code is imperfect too, and if you do not patch those holes will remain. One needs to weigh the risks against each other. It’s an optimization problem.

If and when security is a primary objective, limiting patches to what’s necessary is a good idea. Best of both worlds.

There are enough of us that if we cared to we could solve it. We don’t.

If you ban all other public speech trying to sell me on anything, I might get behind it. Targeting religion specifically is a bit sus.

“Just give up your home, job, and family and likely become a refugee if you don’t agree with the prevailing religion. What’s the big deal?”

Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one. When it’s used to harm non-believers especially it’s really easy to see this.

I wouldn’t give Christians or any other religion a pass on this, so I’m not giving Atheists one either.

No means no, Microsoft.

I mean, they had stopped them. For a long time, there was a deal whereby they had agreed not to make them in exchange for concessions. Then someone flipped the table.

It remains to be seen if they can keep them stopped.

If we’re discussing what’s legal it’s 100% relevant. DMCA makes circumventing a digital lock a crime in the USA.

If we’re discussing what’s moral, then talk less. Nothing about the DMCA was moral.

What Federation is being Federal to you? If it’s the USA, overriding your property rights was the whole purpose of the DMCA.