 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
Immovable object = Object that cannot be moved
It's not an argument so much as a question. I am trying to discover if you can reason about abstract concepts or will just repeat platitudes.
You are not thinking correctly or deep enough. Throughout history, there have been many feats that have been deemed impossible--which are now possible. Immovable objects are no different. What was once considered immovable is now movable; what is now considered immovable may soon be movable. If you start with the premise that God is the author of life and the creator of the universe, it does not stand to reason that he cannot move a so called immovable object. But I would like to ask you a question--do you believe in prophecy? |
|
|
|
First off, I don't believe in macro evolution. I find it believable or, more aptly put, plausible. Even better is the phrase more plausible than any alternative theories. Fair enough. You are entitled to your position. Anyway, would you describe "moving an immovable object" as a logical impossibility.
For man, I would say it most probably is. For God, however, no. God is the author of life and the creator of all things, movable or immovable. However, what exactly would you define as an immovable object? And what is the point of your argument? |
|
|
|
Well my original point was that there is always a bible passage that can be taken to support whatever point you want to make. Much like you can watch four historical documentaries about the same subject and get four different versions of history. I don't really think it is productive to argue about it. This can be true with any written book or oral tradition. This proves nothing except that people interpret information differently. However, this does not mean a certain piece of information cannot have one true meaning. The bible is misunderstood by a great deal because they do not peruse it carefully. Your original post about Numbers and abortion cannot be interpreted to mean abortion. The context plainly states it is about marital infidelity. Let me ask you this:
Can God move an immovable object? Nothing is impossible with God--God can do all things. However, I think I know where you are going with this but I will be reticent until you explain your meaning. Either way, we can agree to disagree. You believe in macro evolution and that rights are a social construct; I believe in creation and God given laws. |
|
|
|
Sorry to feed the trolls, but this guy keeps posting the same goddamn thing in every thread. IS != OUGHT, HAWKER. The bible was morally wrong about slavery then and it still is now, regardless of who voted on it and who was in charge at whatever time.
Is it too hard for you to perform ANY moral reasoning on your own? Must local opinion shape every single thing you believe is right and wrong? The Bible has never been wrong on anything, it is 100% accurate. The Bible did not create slavery; the Old Testament must be understood in the light of the cultural practices of the time, like polygamy. You have your opinion and I have mine. I leave it at that. |
|
|
|
The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28 The priests would poison the fetus somehow? Really who knows though. Multiple translations, etc. This passage has nothing to do with abortion. This was a test of marital fidelity...to establish whether a woman committed adultery. I see. How did it work? Look, I see your point. Any modern person reading this passage or in fact, many of the passages in the Old Testament, may think to themselves that they are profoundly illogical and superstitious. The Old Testament sacrificial system of slaughtering animals, human slavery, certain customs (such as the passover), and many other things, at face value, are "illogical" and "stupid." It is in many ways a primitive form of writing by a primitive people...some of the laws are seemingly barbaric and primitive, with weird and often illogical superstitions. However, one must interpret these writings in their societal and historic contexts; and more importantly, they must be viewed in the light of the New Testament. Apart from interpreting the Old Testament via the New Testament, there is little of any sense in the Old Testament at face value. It is the prophecies of the Old Testament, both hidden and public, that reveal to us that it is God breathed. |
|
|
|
The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28 The priests would poison the fetus somehow? Really who knows though. Multiple translations, etc. This passage has nothing to do with abortion. This was a test of marital fidelity...to establish whether a woman committed adultery. |
|
|
|
Now go find a quote from there about abortion... there are a bunch of passages indicating abortion was commonly accepted. In fact, if there was an unwanted pregnancy back then, they would usually just kill the mother as well.
No such passages exist. Your ignorance on this subject is profound. Rachel, the wife of Jacob, died giving birth. Please cite your passages for proof. |
|
|
|
What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?
I'll tell you what changed. Religion obeys the natural law of Darwinian evolution and evolves to survive within the environment which fosters it, which in this case, is human culture. This is an interesting, albeit silly theory. Darwinian evolution is not only a chimeric fancy of the atheists, but an impossibility of nature. Although no one would dispute micro evolution (changes within specifies), to suggest that macro evolution (changes from one specie to another) explains why "natural rights" evolve to survive is pure rubbish. Owning a slave and abortion are not natural rights...they were and are positive laws---in other words, laws established by parliaments. |
|
|
|
1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion a heinous offence. Today abortion is normal and slavery is a heinous offence.
If there is a natural law, it appears the natural law been hidden to all who came before us including Moses (a slave owner), Jesus (spoke approvingly of torturing disobedient slaves in the parable of 10000 talents) and Mohammed (a slave owner).
What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?
Interesting reply... 1. There is a difference between "natural law" and "biblical law." Natural law is a law that has been interpreted throughout the ages as a law discernible by the light of reason alone; and that such a law is writ on the hearts of men, though flawed because of sin. 2. Biblical law is "revealed law," wherein the Supreme Legislator reveals to his prophets the laws of God. In this "revealed law," there is a moral and ceremonial law. Although the moral law is applicable to all, the ceremonial law was only applicable to a certain people for a certain time. 3. Old Testament Biblical law was based on a theocratic state. In the New Testament, the Mosaic law (the law of Moses) is understood as a law of compromise, a law establishing the sinfulness of all men, and as a shadow of the coming things. The ceremonial law in particular is seen as a shadow of the coming things...i.e. pictures of Christ. In fact, the Mosaic law is called a "schoolmaster." 4. Jesus' parable of the talents is misrepresented by you. The Greek word "doulos," which means "servant," can also mean "slave." However, the parable of the ten talents (not 10000) does not mention anything about torturing or approving torture of any disobedient slaves. You have to take this parable in context. Two thousand years, there was a system of commerce established where a husbandmen would hire servants to work on his land and be profitable. One of the servants was not profitable. Rather than being rewarded, he was punished by forcing him to relinquish his talents. The story concludes by saying the servant was fired and because of this, he was weeping and gnashing his teeth (out of anger and rejection). Please show all of us on this forum where Jesus approved this man's torture? Slavery in the Old Testament must be looked at in its cultural, historic, and symbolic context. You are mistaken about the natural law being hidden to all who came before us...natural law does not mean that human beings can not err. Human beings are imperfect and often times violate the laws of nature. This does not mean that natural law does not exist...it means that humans beings are sinners and struggle to keep the laws of nature. The temptation of sin is very strong... |
|
|
|
Lets say I grant that your 2 theses are valid for you.
How does that give you the right to determine that there are "natural laws" that bind me? It may be that I have beliefs that clash with your laws. I think it is important to consider two things. 1. It is not the purpose of government to force religion or atheism on its population. People and their rights to free exercise of religion and speech should be protected. Religious expressions have their limits, however. The free exercise of religion cannot be used as a cloak to hurt others. 2. Natural Law, whether moral or scientific, is binding on all people. To go against it, is to bring injury to oneself. I may decide that gravity is not binding on me…but if I jump off a bridge or a mountain without a parachute I will soon discover that gravity is binding whether I acknowledge it or not. My beliefs may clash with gravity but in the end the objective reality of gravity supersedes my subjective belief. The Supreme Legislator created the law we know as gravity…when violated, there are ramifications. Moral natural law is similar. We understand that in a civil society, where natural laws are not binding on everyone, there will be chaos. I may determine that murder and stealing are contrary to my beliefs but if I commit one or the other or both, if caught, I will face the consequences for those actions. Why? Because I have broken the social contract and injured others. The Supreme Legislator created the laws prohibiting murder and stealing…when violated, there are consequences. All religions believe in these notions or in some varieties of these notions. |
|
|
|
it's not irrelevant when your personal opinion about God shine through is a discussion about objectivity and moral. leave god out of it, please.
Religious people are suffering from the paranoid delusion that there exist a superior being, that will send them to hell if they does not do what he/she/it expects . Therefor they are mentally ill. I think it is important that we learn to respect freedom of speech and to engage in a civil discourse. We may not agree but I respect your right to express yourself. You should afford others the same right. Name calling is counterproductive. Isaac Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientists ever, was a devout believer. He studied astrology, metaphysics, the Bible, and other various occult beliefs. In fact, his biblical writings are more voluminous than his scientific papers. While I may not agree with Sir Isaac Newton's interpretation into some of those things, I would hardly classify him as a retard or mentally ill. Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke, Sir Francis Bacon, and a wide variety of important Enlightenment thinkers believed in an orderly, rational universe. They were not mentally ill or retards. Indeed, the most celebrated thinkers in Western Civilization, before and after Plato and Aristotle, all believed in reason, natural law, and a rational, orderly universe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Part II If we start with the premise that there used to be nothing--and that out of nothing the big bang originated billions of years ago. And that this capricious explosion, without any order or purpose, formed the starts, the planets, the moons, and the various suns of the universe, seems far fetched. And that, after this, so called simple cells, which magically appear, with the perfect proportions of amino acids and DNA, emerged out of the oceans, and over time, through a blind and unguided natural selection, produced over billions of years, all the various species of life on this planet, including vegetation, may make for a good fairy tale, but it is not science. DNA is more complicated than the most complicated supercomputers and computer programs--yet we are to believe that pure blind chance and a row of the dice produced such intelligence that our most sophisticated computers and human minds cannot begin to understand all the mysteries of life and the universe. Perhaps if the human race becomes extinct, a new race of humans will evolve and will draw the conclusion that all the computers, smart phones, airplanes, and other technology was also a product of a blind process--who knows? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part III The natural world clearly evinces design and order. It can be studied and analyzed; it is not capricious. There is a natural order in the universe--the precise distant of the planets, the ratio of the sun and moon to the earth, the laws of astronomy, biology, chemistry, linguistics, physics, and mathematics all suggest that some Supreme Being is the author of life. Do you really believe that wild and blind explosions out of nothing can possibly create rational existence? If so, how? Personally I don't buy it. I don't think that your Creator, the Muslim Allah and the Hindu Krishna are all the same universal deity that espouses the same laws. But if it works for you, that's fine. Like you, I also can't prove a negative Smiley I agree; the Muslim Creator, the Hindu Creator, the Christian Creator, and other religions Creators are not the same being. Clearly, all religions, with some exceptions, contradict each other. It is true that most religions agree on some moral precepts; but theologically speaking, they all have different representations of who God is, his nature, his purpose; heaven and hell; reincarnation; divination; et al. In fact, most religions are polytheistic, with male and female gods and goddesses. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Part IV Two theses 1. The natural world and the cosmos clearly evince a Supreme Being 2. Only Scripture can reveal who this Supreme Being is--his name, his nature, his purpose, our purpose, his salvation plan. |
|
|
|
sure it is, but that doesn't make it less true.
are you religious?
This is your opinion. It is not an objective statement. Moreover, calling people religious retards does not facilitate discourse but negate it. Whether I am "religious" or not, is irrelevant. For the record, however, I am a Christian and would be happy to debate anyone on this forum. |
|
|
|
...snip...
Neither you nor anyone else can prove with objective certainty that eternal laws do not exist. You cannot make absolute statements if there is no absolute.
...snip...
Lets look at your logic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceArgument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa)
Its an error of logic to say that the inability to prove that eternal laws and fairies don't exist proves that eternal laws and fairies do exist. Think it through and make a better post please. You obviously do not understand an appeal to ignorance. You cannot make absolute statements if there are no absolutes. No absolutes means there are no absolutes. To state absolutely there are no absolutes is contrary to reason and to linguistics. This is not as assertion that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false; rather, it is a recognition that two contrary statements are an impossibility in linguistics. The original statement was not that eternal laws exist because you cannot disprove them; rather, you cannot make an absolute statement that absolutes do not exist, since you would be making an absolute statement. We live in a rational universe. Human intellect, via reason, is able to learn of the laws of the universe and of nature; it is not only able to learn them and study them, it is able to use them for the behoof of humanity. The same Legislator that created the universal laws of science and mathematics, also created moral laws. They flow from the same foundation head. |
|
|
|
Man is bound to the Eternal Laws of God, a moral code, which exist everywhere, irrespective of whether they acknowledge it or not.
Don't you just love religious retards who claim to be "objective?" I'm looking at you, luke-jr... In civil society or in a forum, it is important to have good decorum and to act responsibly. Calling people religious retards is inappropriate. |
|
|
|
The Orwell example is sloppy thinking. Ethics are not material items. Laws are not material items. Morality is not a set of eternal laws - it changes from generation to generation. For example, 1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion a heinous offence. Today abortion is normal and slavery is a heinous offence. What's changed? Our idea about morals. Meanwhile, 2 + 2 = 4 has been true for the entire 1000 years and will remain so.
Laws, including the subsection of laws that are called rights, are government made and can be changed and taken away at any time. For example, break the wrong law and they can hang you as your right to life is contingent on obeying that law.
I think the sloppiness of thinking is on your side... Morality is not a set of eternal laws This is your opinion. Neither you nor anyone else can prove with objective certainty that eternal laws do not exist. You cannot make absolute statements if there is no absolute. it changes from generation to generation . Yes and no. But you are missing the whole point. Eternal laws--whether moral, scientific, or mathematics-- do not depend on man recognizing them or abiding by them. They exist independent of man knowing them or not knowing them. For example, 1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion a heinous offence. Today abortion is normal and slavery is a heinous offence. What's changed? Our idea about morals. Your argument is very childish. No one disputes such things. But this does not mean there is no absolute laws or objective rights. The absolute exists irrespective of man or society knowing them or not knowing them. I see order in the cosmos--kosmos, a Greek word, which means "order, beauty." There is a perfect law in mathematics and the sciences--these laws existed before man and are not dependent on man recognizing them or knowing them. They are there. It is up to man to study and to learn and understand that there is order and absolutes in the universe. It is not logical to assume that man is in a world, in the cosmos, where universal laws exist, yet he himself exists outside of those things. Man is bound to the Eternal Laws of God, a moral code, which exist everywhere, irrespective of whether they acknowledge it or not. |
|
|
|
An author's opinion or your opinion that objective rights do not exist is subjective. There are two ways of really looking at the world and the cosmos--man is a product of chance and natural selection or man was made in the image of God. If you believe rights are a legal construct only, then rights are government given and can be government taken, at any time. If you believe in Natural Law or unalienable rights, then governments are established to safeguard those rights. Many classical writers and even some of the Enlightenment saw objective rights no different than the laws of the universe, mathematics, and other laws that exist whether man recognizes them or not. I may be ignorant of gravity but it is there; I may not want 2+2 to equal 4 but it is so...universally. In Orwell's 1984 the state may have convinced the populace that 2+2 can equal 6 but it does little in the way of truth. Think about it. |
|
|
|
Agreed. It smells like a scam of some sort. It's standard practice to make a chapter or two available for free as well as the TOC/Intro, he's trying to hide something.
Also, notice how he is posting "related" articles, like he is trying to make it seem like its a sample from his book. For the record, the "related" articles are not in any way part of the eBook. They are independent articles with links to real websites that have nothing to do with the author or the eBook. They're are mere expressions of the importance of the need for privacy. |
|
|
|
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/10-reasons-why-nothing-you-do-on-the-internet-will-ever-be-private-again
10 Reasons Why Nothing You Do On The Internet Will EVER Be Private Again
The American Dream
March 24, 2012
The Internet is rapidly being transformed into a Big Brother control grid where privacy rights are being systematically strangled to death. The control freaks that run things have become absolutely obsessed with watching, tracking, monitoring and recording virtually everything that you do on the Internet. One thing that you can count on is that nothing you do on the Internet will ever be private again. In fact, if you are obsessed with privacy then the last place you want to be is on the Internet. Most Americans have absolutely no idea how far Internet surveillance has advanced in the past few years. At this point, it would be hard to imagine any place less private than the Internet. Do not ever put anything on the Internet that you would not want the authorities or your employer to hold you accountable for. Basically, the Internet is creating a permanent dossier on each one of us, and we contribute to this process by freely posting gigantic volumes of information about ourselves on social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter. The Internet is the greatest tool for mass communication that the world has perhaps ever seen, and it gives average citizens the ability to communicate with each other like never before, but there is also a downside to using the Internet. Everything that we do on the Internet is being watched, monitored and recorded and there is no longer any such thing as Internet privacy. If you think that you still have any privacy on the Internet, then you are either ignorant of what is going on or you are being delusional.
The following are 10 reasons why nothing you do on the Internet will ever be private again….
#1 The Federal Government Can Now Retain Your Internet Activity For Five Years – Even If You Have No Links To Terrorism
In the past, the National Counterterrorism Center could only retain information about you for 180 days if you did not have any links to terrorism.
Well, that has now completely changed.
Attorney General Eric Holder has signed new guidelines which will now allow the National Counterterrorism Center to hold on to your private information (including your Internet activity) for five years.
But an extra four and a half extra years is no big deal, right?
#2 Potential Employers Are Demanding To See Your Internet Activity
In the past, potential employers would pull up the social media profiles of job candidates in order to get a better idea of who they might be hiring.
But now, many potential employers are actually demanding the passwords to the Facebook accounts of job applicants.
The following comes from a recent CBS News report….
The bad news is that employers are increasingly asking job seekers for their Facebook and other social-media passwords as part of the process of vetting them.
While it’s unclear how widespread that practice is, there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that it is happening with increasing frequency, as CBS MoneyWatch’s Suzanne Lucas details. You can, of course, refuse to give a job interviewer your passwords. But expect your employment application to hit the round file, or the trash, if you don’t cooperate.
#3 Law Enforcement Is Watching You
Do you remember the father that posted that “Facebook Parenting for the troubled teen” video that went wildly viral all over the Internet earlier this year?
That video was watched more than 31 million times, but it also resulted in both the police and Child Protective Services officials visiting his home.
So be careful what you post on YouTube. If you post something that they don’t like, law enforcement personnel may come knocking on your door.
#4 Government Agencies Are Watching You
The FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. military and the Federal Reserve have all announced plans to systematically monitor social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter.
These agencies have lists of “keywords” that they use to search for posts that they want to look at.
For example, the words “attack”, “exercise” and “epidemic” are just three of the keywords that the Department of Homeland Security is known to use.
So keep that in mind the next time you post something on Facebook or Twitter.
The following is from a recent Salon article….
In 2010, the DHS National Operations Center established a Media Monitoring Capability (MMC). According to an internal agency document, MMC is tasked with “leveraging news stories, media reports and postings on social media sites… for operationally relevant data, information, analysis, and imagery.” The definition of operationally relevant data includes “media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities,” “partisan or agenda-driven sites,” and a final category ambiguously labeled “research/studies, etc.”
#5 Barack Obama Is Watching You
The Obama campaign has launched “truth teams” which will be scouring the Internet for any rumors that are “not true” about Barack Obama during the 2012 presidential campaign.
So if you post something on the Internet about Barack Obama that the Obama campaign does not consider to be truthful, there is a good chance that a “truth team” will be examining what you have written.
#6 They Are Monitoring And Recording All Talk Radio (Including Internet Talk Radio)
As I have written about previously, the FBI has hired a company in Virginia to systematically record talk radio programs (including Internet talk radio programs) all over the United States. The goal of this effort is to collect “potential evidence”, whatever that means. The following comes from an article by Mark Weaver of WMAL.com….
If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.
The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.
The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.
#7 Foreign Governments Are Watching You
It isn’t just the U.S. government that is watching you on the Internet. The truth is that governments all over the world could be monitoring your Internet activity and you may never even know it.
In fact, the level of Internet surveillance in some countries is arguably even greater than it is in the United States.
For example, a new bill that has been introduced in Canada would give government authorities unprecedented power to monitor the Internet activities of Canadians….
The so-called “lawful access” legislation, tabled in the House of Commons Tuesday, will require Internet service providers and cellphone companies to hand over basic customer information — including name, address, phone number, email address, and ISP addresses — to authorities when requested, without the need for a warrant.
Dubbed “online spying” by critics, the bill is also expected to require ISPs and phone companies to install equipment for real-time surveillance and create new police powers designed to obtain access to the surveillance data.
The UK government is going even farther than that. A recent UK government report calls for ISPs to remove “extremist material” from the Internet. The following is an excerpt from that report….
The Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit does limited but valuable work in challenging internet service providers to remove violent extremist material where it contravenes the law. We suggest that the Government work with internet service providers in the UK to develop a Code of Conduct committing them to removing violent extremist material, as defined for the purposes of section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006. Many relevant websites are hosted abroad: the Government should also therefore strive towards greater international cooperation to tackle this issue.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is taking things even farther than that. He recently stated that anyone in France that is caught regularly visiting websites “preaching hatred” will be prosecuted.
So what constitutes “extremist material” and what constitutes “preaching hatred”?
Unfortunately, almost every government on earth has different definitions for those things.
#8 We Are All Being Encouraged To Spy On One Another On The Internet
For the U.S. government, it isn’t enough just to have bureaucrats and spooks spying on you. Now they want us to spy on one another.
The Department of Homeland Security has been heavily promoting the “See Something, Say Something” campaign. The idea is that if you see something “suspicious” that you should report it to the authorities.
Unfortunately, the definition of “suspicious activity” has expanded so dramatically in recent years that it could include just about anything.
The paranoia among our leaders has gotten completely out of control. For example, a while back U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman requested that Google install a “terrorist button” on all Blogger.com blogs so that readers could easily flag “terrorist content” for authorities.
Thankfully nothing like that has been implemented yet, but that is the direction that we are heading as a nation.
#9 Your ISP Is Watching You
Most Americans have not even heard about this yet, but the truth is that starting later on this year your ISP will be spying on you to make sure that you are not downloading any copyrighted material.
SOPA and PIPA may have failed for now, but the Obama administration has brokered a deal between the entertainment industry and the major Internet providers that is absolutely unprecedented. This deal will go into effect on July 12th. The following is from a recent Raw Story article….
If you download potentially copyrighted software, videos or music, your Internet service provider (ISP) has been watching, and they’re coming for you.
Specifically, they’re coming for you on Thursday, July 12.
That’s the date when the nation’s largest ISPs will all voluntarily implement a new anti-piracy plan that will engage network operators in the largest digital spying scheme in history, and see some users’ bandwidth completely cut off until they sign an agreement saying they will not download copyrighted materials.
Word of the start date has been largely kept secret since ISPs announced their plans last June. The deal was brokered by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and coordinated by the Obama Administration.
So be careful what you download on the Internet.
Your ISP will be watching.
#10 The NSA Is Watching Everyone And Everything
It is safe to assume that any digital communication that you ever make will be intercepted and monitored by the NSA.
Of course this has been an open secret for years, but now the NSA is taking things to a whole new level.
The NSA has been constructing the largest spy center in the history of the world out in the Utah desert. The following is howa recent Wired article described this new facility….
Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”
So please do not assume that anything you do on the Internet will ever be private again.
The online world has now become a world where there is absolutely no privacy.
Some are responding to this new reality by running away from the Internet, but I think that is the wrong approach.
The Internet has broken the monopoly that the elite had on mass communication. It has given average people the ability to communicate with one another like never before. A YouTube video or a blog post that you put up today could be seen by tens of millions of people. Information is power, and the Internet has put a tremendous amount of power into the hands of the general population.
Yes, there will be people watching every single thing you do on the Internet. So it is important to be very careful.
But the Internet also gives us an opportunity to impact the world that is unlike anything previous generations have ever had. Something that you post on the Internet today could end up completely changing a life on the other side of the globe tomorrow. Those in power have begun to recognize how powerful the Internet is, and so they have begun to crack down on it.
It is also important to keep in mind that the Internet allows us to watch them as well. The Internet is an incredible tool for exposing evil and corruption, and over the past decade we have seen many instances when average people on the Internet have broken major news stories that the mainstream media would not dare touch initially.
In the final analysis, the ability to wake people up and to literally change the world outweighs the risks of being watched. If the world eventually descends into deep tyranny, you aren’t going to have anywhere to hide even if you are not on the Internet.
Don’t be afraid to stand up for the truth. It is better to do what is right and to be persecuted for it than to stand aside and do nothing.
The Internet is an awesome tool. It can be used for great good or for great evil.
If we sit on our hands, we will accomplish nothing.
But if we try, we might just end up changing the world.
|
|
|
|
You realize e-gold is in receivership, right?
Are any of those others immune to the same demise?
Please see my original quote: Note: I do not approve of all or even most of them but they are available I'm well aware of e-gold and its problems. I do not recommend it. In fact, I do not recommend many of the others I listed as well. They are mere references. e-gold was the first digital gold business and it made quite a few mistakes; hence, it has had the problems it has had. There are a few gems out there, which would be nigh impossible to explain on this forum. Ultimately, who better to trust than your own judgment? Read some books and articles; do some research. But the overall point is--Bitcoin is neither the first nor the only safe non-reversible option for merchants. |
|
|
|
In fact, there are plenty of non-reversible digital currencies on the market that are as safe or safer than Bitcoins.
Um, like what? Let me clarify something. In my original post, when I stated it is not "the only way" but "a way," I was referring to non-reversible currencies. I understood the author was not stating that Bitcoins was the only way to receive payments, since there are literally scores of different ways, but that Bitcoins were the only way to receive safe, non-reversible, payments. I disputed this claim by saying it is "a way." Here are some non-reversible currencies currently used: Note: I do not approve of all or even most of them but they are available: www.perfectmoney.comwww.c-gold.comwww.libertyreserve.comwww.e-gold.comwww.hd-money.comwww.eurogoldcash.cometc, etc, etc. If you are interested, you should ready my eBook. |
|
|
|
|
