The End of Firefox

[Lark]

My opinions are much in line with this. Stance on the political issue (which, for reputation's sake might have been best kept private) should have little to no effect on a business executive leading a technical company. He's not a politician - if he were, there'd be more cause for debate and action. But he's not.

He's leading an IT/software company. I fail to see how his opinions on the matter should have an effect on his being hired, or Mozilla's future. Public is trying to punish him for something that should not really be an issue.

That is the point!

Sometimes I think I'm being charitable in saying to people "Do you see what you're doing there?" and trying to highlight that it amounts pretty much to "this is what I think, you should think this too, if you dont I aim to make life hard for you" which is not qualitively that different from the Taliban, even if the content or agenda it serves are poles apart and that getting riled and emoting wont convince anyone of anything.

I'm beginning to think that people actually know exactly what they are doing and are totally unashamed about playing power politics in which freedom means a narrow opportunity to agree or pay the price.

 

[sprinkles]

1. God created free-will.
2. Free will can lead to sin.
3. Conclusion: God created sin.
?????????????????????????????
I think the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

If
"1. God created free will" implies that God created all possibilities for the use of free will, and one of those possibilities happen to be to sin, then yes the conclusion logically follows whether you like it or not.

Unless you intend to imply that sin exists independently of choice and behavior, that sin is actually somehow substantial in its own right.

If you get to claim this then we should also be able to claim upon shooting somebody that "I did not cause this person to die - it was the trauma and blood loss that caused it!"

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

If I were to make a nuclear bomb with the detonator hooked up to 6 billion independent adaptive AI, none of which were explicitly programmed to detonate the bomb, yet it only takes one emergent behavior to detonate it, and the probability of at least one emergent detonating behavior arising is almost certain, am I not culpable for the bombs detonation because I didn't actually tell the AI that it should detonate?

 

[LucyJr]

You can't follow that?

Without free will there would be no sin. Free will is Gods creation, therefore, by creating free will, he created sin.

You say that "sin made them that way". Well, then you have God to thank for that.

Is not that I can't follow that. Logic can't follow that, because its absurd. I chose to follow logic, not absurdities.

So, let's see:
God creates human beings and He gives them free will (which by the way, its the definition of a person, not a robot).
People, because they have free will, which has the potential to chose what is not right, begin to sin. Therefore, God is responsible for sin. Is that your reasoning?
If that is it, I have nothinng to add to it. Just a pleading from honesty on your part.

So its like this:
God which is all powerful, decides to create peole in His image, and gives them free will, the beauty of chosing, of being responsable, of learning how to love. He could've had made some kinds of robots. But no. He decides to risk, to create something beautiful and amazing, a person that can act, think, feel and chose, and be responsible for his actions.
And he creates the man. And man begin to sin.
And after all the sin, after man is confronted with his misery and his evilness, what does he do? He accuse God of sin. "You shouldn't have made me, you shouldn't have create me with free will if You KNEW before that I was going to sin!"

Isn't this, the most degrading, the most pitiful, the most sinful and worthy of contempt, the most wicked out of all wickedness that a man can become? He accuse God, the One who is perfect, the standard of Justice, he accuse God of injustice, he accuse God of the sin that HE the MAN himself is doing!

 

[LucyJr]

Romans 3:3

3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:

“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”[a]

5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)
6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?
7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?”
8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

 

[sprinkles]

Romans 3:3

3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:

“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”[a]

5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)
6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?
7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?”
8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

So you jump from logic to dogma.

 

[Lark]

I think that you should be allow to think that being gay is wrong....because I believe that I should be allowed to think being gay is right. It's difficult to have a discussion around this topic because it can hit home for a lot of people, and bring up a lot of historical hate and discrimination. But you have to be aware of that, and respect it.

Is the best we can hope for a game of new hate and discrimination for old? Is it just a matter of "singing when you're winning" and enjoying the moment you're opinions are ascendent and devil take the other guy?

To be honest I think that categorical dismissals of homosexuality as right or wrong is mistaken, also a false framing of the topic in a dichotomous way, for some people homosexuality is obviously good and for others it is not. Now gradually building up a regime in which those who are not a particular sexuality are expected to validate and celebrate another sexuality I believe is not a worthwhile goal for public policy or politics, it will not benefit anyone, not least because the elephant in the room, why that sort of validation is necessary, goes undiscussed, undisputed and even becomes taboo.

My views in this thread very quickly resulted in me being dismissed as a bigot, I dont believe that historical oppression or discrimination excuses that sort of behaviour but its a pretty good illustration of what I'm talking about, it is often closed mindness on the part of precisely those people who would believe themselves and have others believe they are the most open minded. All of this does not make for an atmosphere in which the minority-majority relations, expectations, obligations, due deference, respect and reciprocity involved can be properly considered for the benefit of all.

The idea that dissenting opinion should have the consequence of being boycotted is pretty concerning for me, on this occasion it is opinions on homosexuality, specifically failing to appear as sufficiently approving of it, but it could as easily be something else. In the age of the internet this sort of dumbass knee jerk reaction can be devastating. Its ugly power politics and as insidious as any other groupthink mandated by states or other powerful agencies of the past.

 

[Lark]

I say this with utter kindness and love- I hope you, at some point, realize that while your belief and perspective is valuable and important, there are so many other equally valid and important perspectives and beliefs out there. I think once you realize that humanity is unique, varied, colourful, and loving - you'll be able to grow and embrace the wealth of knowledge that is out there. Accepting value in opposing perspectives is extremely enlightening and enriching- and I think, as you are a scholar who loves to learn, you'll be blown away by how amazing this uniqueness is.

I know it wasnt you who said it but I just dont see how this sort of perspective shapes up with dismissing people who fail to conform to your opinions as bigots and seeking to enlist everyone in boycotts aimed at hurting them.

 

[Lark]

For many people, myself included, civil rights and equal protection under the law issues are deeper than the politics of who gets to have what job in the gov. The abolitionists who worked to end the enslavement of millions of Americans were acting politically but were motivated by a deep sense of morality.

Those who are working against affording homosexuals equal protection under the law are not concerned with the political fall out as much as the moral fallout from affording such rights. They act politically to achieve moral gains.

Those working to achieve equal protection under the law for homosexuals are also acting politically for moral reasons.

Mr. Eich exercised his right to engage in the political process to support a position he agreed with. The position he agrees with i find morally reprehensible. I don't like the idea that such a person have control over what is a media company. I also see the opportunity to demonstrate to the cooperate world that some "political positions" have a negative cost factor, especially those corporations involved in media.

So let me get this right, you see this as a zero sum game, a power struggle in which might will make right?

 

[cvp12gh5]

Is not that I can't follow that. Logic can't follow that, because its absurd. I chose to follow logic, not absurdities.

So, let's see:
God creates human beings and He gives them free will (which by the way, its the definition of a person, not a robot).
People, because they have free will, which has the potential to chose what is not right, begin to sin. Therefore, God is responsible for sin. Is that your reasoning?
If that is it, I have nothinng to add to it. Just a pleading from honesty on your part.

So its like this:
God which is all powerful, decides to create peole in His image, and gives them free will, the beauty of chosing, of being responsable, of learning how to love. He could've had made some kinds of robots. But no. He decides to risk, to create something beautiful and amazing, a person that can act, think, feel and chose, and be responsible for his actions.
And he creates the man. And man begin to sin.
And after all the sin, after man is confronted with his misery and his evilness, what does he do? He accuse God of sin. "You shouldn't have made me, you shouldn't have create me with free will if You KNEW before that I was going to sin!"

Isn't this, the most degrading, the most pitiful, the most sinful and worthy of contempt, the most wicked out of all wickedness that a man can become? He accuse God, the One who is perfect, the standard of Justice, he accuse God of injustice, he accuse God of the sin that HE the MAN himself is doing!

Really? Because I see it as way more logical than some of the arguments you pose in this thread. Please don't take this as me being rude, just pointing out an observation.

I am pretty sure that Jesus' message was LOVE. Love yourself, love others, love your enemy. Love is the answer to everything. I am having a hard time finding that message in some of the things you have written.

Did you ever think that God gave us free will as a test to see if we were really paying attention to his main message? No matter what was written, you were given a mind that let's you make the right decision. And what is right? God says love is right.

 

[say what]

Is the best we can hope for a game of new hate and discrimination for old? Is it just a matter of "singing when you're winning" and enjoying the moment you're opinions are ascendent and devil take the other guy?

To be honest I think that categorical dismissals of homosexuality as right or wrong is mistaken, also a false framing of the topic in a dichotomous way, for some people homosexuality is obviously good and for others it is not. Now gradually building up a regime in which those who are not a particular sexuality are expected to validate and celebrate another sexuality I believe is not a worthwhile goal for public policy or politics, it will not benefit anyone, not least because the elephant in the room, why that sort of validation is necessary, goes undiscussed, undisputed and even becomes taboo.

My views in this thread very quickly resulted in me being dismissed as a bigot, I dont believe that historical oppression or discrimination excuses that sort of behaviour but its a pretty good illustration of what I'm talking about, it is often closed mindness on the part of precisely those people who would believe themselves and have others believe they are the most open minded. All of this does not make for an atmosphere in which the minority-majority relations, expectations, obligations, due deference, respect and reciprocity involved can be properly considered for the benefit of all.

The idea that dissenting opinion should have the consequence of being boycotted is pretty concerning for me, on this occasion it is opinions on homosexuality, specifically failing to appear as sufficiently approving of it, but it could as easily be something else. In the age of the internet this sort of dumbass knee jerk reaction can be devastating. Its ugly power politics and as insidious as any other groupthink mandated by states or other powerful agencies of the past.

I'm sorry- I'm not seeing how your responses links to my quote. I'm missing something

 

[Lark]

I'm sorry- I'm not seeing how your responses links to my quote. I'm missing something

I read what you had posted and wrote a reply. I know you were addressing that to someone else though. Its alright.

 

[Matt3737]

Logic can't follow that, because its absurd. I chose to follow logic, not absurdities.

No offense, but you are not educated in the field of Logic and know not what you speak about.

Kurt Friedrich Gödel (/ˈkɜrt ɡɜrdəl/; German: [ˈkʊʁt ˈɡøːdəl] ( listen); April 28, 1906 – January 14, 1978) was an Austrian, and later American, logician, mathematician, and philosopher. Considered with Aristotle and Gottlob Frege to be one of the most significant logicians in history, Gödel made an immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th century, a time when others such as Bertrand Russell, A. N. Whitehead, and David Hilbert were pioneering the use of logic and set theory to understand the foundations of mathematics.

Gödel published his two incompleteness theorems in 1931 when he was 25 years old, one year after finishing his doctorate at the University of Vienna. The first incompleteness theorem states that for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (for example Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms. To prove this theorem, Gödel developed a technique now known as Gödel numbering, which codes formal expressions as natural numbers.

He also showed that neither the axiom of choice nor the continuum hypothesis can be disproved from the accepted axioms of set theory, assuming these axioms are consistent. The former result opened the door for mathematicians to assume the axiom of choice in their proofs. He also made important contributions to proof theory by clarifying the connections between classical logic, intuitionistic logic, and modal logic.

In 1931 and while still in Vienna, Gödel published his incompleteness theorems in Ãœber formal unentscheidbare Sätze der "Principia Mathematica" und verwandter Systeme (called in English "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of "Principia Mathematica" and Related Systems"). In that article, he proved for any computable axiomatic system that is powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (e.g. the Peano axioms or Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice), that:

1.If the system is consistent, it cannot be complete.
2.The consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system.

These theorems ended a half-century of attempts, beginning with the work of Frege and culminating in Principia Mathematica and Hilbert's formalism, to find a set of axioms sufficient for all mathematics.

In hindsight, the basic idea at the heart of the incompleteness theorem is rather simple. Gödel essentially constructed a formula that claims that it is unprovable in a given formal system. If it were provable, it would be false, which contradicts the idea that in a consistent system, provable statements are always true. Thus there will always be at least one true but unprovable statement. That is, for any computably enumerable set of axioms for arithmetic (that is, a set that can in principle be printed out by an idealized computer with unlimited resources), there is a formula that obtains in arithmetic, but which is not provable in that system. To make this precise, however, Gödel needed to produce a method to encode statements, proofs, and the concept of provability as natural numbers. He did this using a process known as Gödel numbering.

In his two-page paper Zum intuitionistischen Aussagenkalkül (1932) Gödel refuted the finite-valuedness of intuitionistic logic. In the proof he implicitly used what has later become known as Gödel–Dummett intermediate logic (or Gödel fuzzy logic).

Gödel proved that mathematical logic was capable of contradicting itself if it were complete.

Also to demonstrate that I'm not trying to discredit your beliefs:

Gödel was a convinced theist. He held the notion that God was personal, which differed from the religious views of his friend Albert Einstein.

He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: "Of course this supposes that there are many relationships which today's science and received wisdom haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this [the afterlife], independently of any theology." It is "possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning" that it "is entirely consistent with known facts." "If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing [as an afterlife]."

In an unmailed answer to a questionnaire, Gödel described his religion as "baptized Lutheran (but not member of any religious congregation). My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza." Describing religion(s) in general, Gödel said: "Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not". He said about Islam: "I like Islam, it is consistent [or consequential] idea of religion and open-minded".

 

[Eventhorizon]

Im going to stick my neck out and say that I see both sides of this. Well see how people respond to my view on it. I may end up damaging my image but...whatever.

First taking a stance against gay marriage has nothing to do with hate. It is an opinion. A person should not be broken down because of an opinion. I look poorly on anyone who would willingly tear someone apart because of an opinion they hold. Second the second marriage became a government institution and not a religious one, you had to know this was going to happen at some point. Third no one has the right to dictate who can or cannot get married when it relates to consenting adults. Either remove marriage from the government eye altogether or step aside.

 

[sprinkles]

Im going to stick my neck out and say that I see both sides of this. Well see how people respond to my view on it. I may end up damaging my image but...whatever.

First taking a stance against gay marriage has nothing to do with hate. It is an opinion. A person should not be broken down because of an opinion. I look poorly on anyone who would willingly tear someone apart because of an opinion they hold. Second the second marriage became a government institution and not a religious one, you had to know this was going to happen at some point. Third no one has the right to dictate who can or cannot get married when it relates to consenting adults. Either remove marriage from the government eye altogether or step aside.

Well I'll say that taking a stance is different from donating money to a campaign. When money gets involved people have the ability to put unequal momentum behind their opinions.

It's not that he just voted on the ballot. He paid to help get the ballot to be a thing in the first place which is not something that everyone has the privilege to do. I find that to be an abuse regardless of what the opinion in question is.

 

[LucyJr]

So you jump from logic to dogma.

Logic goes hand in hand with truth, not with dogma.

 

[LucyJr]

No offense, but you are not educated in the field of Logic and know not what you speak about.





Gödel proved that mathematical logic was capable of contradicting itself if it were complete.

Also to demonstrate that I'm not trying to discredit your beliefs:

I studied some logic, just basic stuffs. I'm not trained in mathematics, but I know there is serious and important difference in mathematical logical propositions and logical propositions.

Can you show me, in lay man terms, how Godel's theory can contradict the illogical statement that God is the author of evil?
Please, I want to hear the argumentation. Or you just thought you would post something smart, huh? I'm wainting...

 

[sprinkles]

Logic goes hand in hand with truth, not with dogma.

Then you didn't need to rely on what is written and could have formulated a proposition to illustrate it instead. Yet you apparently abandoned the logical angle to post something that was written.

Abandoning logic to depend on what is authoritatively written is dogmatic, unless what is written somehow self illustrates the truth.

You stopped formulating arguments and just posted something that it authoritative and in no way self evident or self explaining. It just claims that 'this is so'.

 

[LucyJr]

Really? Because I see it as way more logical than some of the arguments you pose in this thread. Please don't take this as me being rude, just pointing out an observation.

Ok. I'm so happy you telling me this now.

I am pretty sure that Jesus' message was LOVE. Love yourself, love others, love your enemy. Love is the answer to everything. I am having a hard time finding that message in some of the things you have written.

Yes, Jesus meassage was love, but not only that. He also preached repenting of sins before God, believing in Jeus Christ as the only way we can be free from our sins, humility, self-denying and many other tings, Jesus's message wasn't one sided, like Hollywood makes it.

Finding love in my message? Can you show me where did I proclaimed hate or contemption over gay people?

If I would reverse the love accusation, its like I would say to you: "I'm having a hard time seeing love in your posts. You are so harsh with me. You never show me love and affection in your posts." Does this sound like a good argument to you against love?
Its a good argument for love as childrens understand it.

 

[CogentPursuit]

Logic goes hand in hand with truth, not with dogma.

A good novel is coherent and logical within its boundaries. It is not necessarily true. Logic is simply a line drawn between two ideas or facts. It does not care if those ideas are true only that those ideas relate and can coexist.

Reason defines what you believe to be logical and true. Reason does not always desire a logical line of connection. It is reasonable to love your child. It is nothing to do with logic but instead an emotional understanding. Reason is subjective.