131–140 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. So I'm not convinced by the argument here. It makes too many unstated assumptions. I support this boycott, and this argument might make good rhetoric, but I wouldn't use it directly to evaluate investors.
> nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. Considering that 95% of the National Academy of Science is atheist, the correlation is still pretty relevant. Clueless people can be successful investors, luck is always a factor, but someone who supports SOPA probably lacks a certain technical background or ethics.
Since the Academy elects its own members there might be some bias lurking in that number.
Wow, surprising to see Visa on that list. Here's a direct link to the list on the techcrunch article. http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Su...
eww... the Graphic Artists' Guild is on the list. That's really disappointing. https://www.graphicartistsguild.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence, which is what faith is; faith forms the basis of religion.
Wrong. In the New Testament, faith means assurance based on a reliable track record. It's the Greek word "pistis" and the two terms - faith and assurance - are used interchangeably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. And there exists Catholic priests who are pedophiles, that doesn't make Catholicism and pedophilia compatible. Nor are science and religion compatible. Those people just have an ability to tolerate or ignore…
> Those people just have an ability to tolerate or ignore their own cognitive dissonance because their religious beliefs are so strong. In other words, one possible answer to the original question is "cognitive dissonance". The point is that it doesn't matter what the answer is; there clearly is an answer.
Certainly. And to quote myself:
"If that is the case, then the organization is ill. Best to stay away from it, in case it happens to be contagious."
I'm virulently anti-SOPA myself, have signed all the petitions, etc. But am I the only one made uncomfortable by a blacklist of people who have expressed certain opinions?
I'm virulently anti-SOPA myself, have signed all the petitions, etc. But am I the only one made uncomfortable by a blacklist of people who have expressed certain opinions?
If you think about it, hunters are rarely invited to wildlife fundraisers, fur clothing manufacturers to PETA meetings, and creationists to NAS meetings -- all because of opinions expressed by each party. Dissent is part of a modern life, and not inviting people to private events is a perfectly legitimate way of voicing that dissent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I glanced at that list quickly even before I was aware of the boycott. Many of those names are just random non-tech related companies, but I couldn't help but think that GoDaddy sticks out like a sore thumb on it. Almost as if they were tricked into joining.
They're not a regular technology company. They're owned by KKR.
Maybe all us angry nerds should OCCUPY something. Something big, related to SOPA. It would be cool to see EFF type concerns channeled into that movement.