Disqus - Latest Comments for danielrm26

Re: Testing the New Domain

Daniel Miessler — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:32:18 -0000

Test.

Re: Outbound Number Translation Coming to Google Voice Soon

Daniel Miessler — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:13:21 -0000

I think it's going to require a client on the phone, unfortunately.

Re: Music | Mastodon: Crack the Skye

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:57:21 -0000

Matador?

Re: Wireless: WPA2 Enterprise Integration With Active Directory 2008

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:54:15 -0000

No doubt, man. Love the product.

Re: Republicans: The Modern Dixiecrats?

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:51:44 -0000

It's sad that I have to explain this to you, Dale, but hating racists is not morally equivalent to hating black people just because both involve not liking something. That's an extremely amateur argument.

So if Bin Laden hates freedom (and living Americans), and I hate Bin Laden, are we equal?

Re: Considering Using danielmiessler.com Instead of dmiessler.com

Daniel Miessler — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:07:42 -0000

Yes, that's precisely what I've done. The question is how soon, if ever, to actually make the transition. Good idea though. :)

Re: My Favorite Feature of the New iPhone 3GS

Daniel Miessler — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:53:36 -0000

LOL

Re: Religious Moderates Are Those Who Reject God’s Clearly Stated Commands Using Their Own [Human] Morality as Justification

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:38:08 -0000

> If I may quote someone that I assume you trust: "How many Christians actually believe it would be “moral” or “right” to actually kill for these offenses? Very few."

Sounds like some retard with a website.

Re: Religious Moderates Are Those Who Reject God’s Clearly Stated Commands Using Their Own [Human] Morality as Justification

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:31:58 -0000

That's not accurate. God told Moses to literally kill (via stoning) a man for gathering firewood on the Sabbath. They did. They killed him.

This is not some sort of abstract use of the concept of being "put to death".

Re: Religious Moderates Are Those Who Reject God’s Clearly Stated Commands Using Their Own [Human] Morality as Justification

Daniel Miessler — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 08:35:21 -0000

Yes, I'm aware of the New Covenant, but the notion that God when he wrote the OT was WRONG...especially since he already knew he would send his son later to re-write all his stuff...is simply too strange to even entertain--especially when the exact restatements of law are open to interpretation and are hotly contested by Christians themselves.

Re: Religious Moderates Are Those Who Reject God’s Clearly Stated Commands Using Their Own [Human] Morality as Justification

Daniel Miessler — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 08:33:13 -0000

Interpretation? What part of "must" and "death" are in need of interpretation?

Re: When is an Idea Ridiculous?

Daniel Miessler — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:31:48 -0000

Forget about "the entirety of religion". It's easier to be more simple. No belief in things that don't have evidence. Buddhists widely believe in reincarnation, which is not based in science. As such, I reject it. But as for a way of living, or as a philosophy, I think Buddhism has many merits.

The key distinction between Buddhism and Christianity is that Buddhism contains fewer encroachments into the world of science. If you've read any of the Dalai Lama's teachings on the matter you'll see that he's very pro-science. So there's a big difference between that and a religion (Christianity) that has fought science at every single turn, and only surrenders to it when the battle has already been lost in the public's eye due to overwhelming evidence.

Re: When is an Idea Ridiculous?

Daniel Miessler — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:25:52 -0000

> Where you and I seem to differ is in our interpretation of that statement. I take it at face value, and you seem to interpret it as "Anyone making outrageous claims without evidence should be told that their claims are equivalent to someone claiming that they have a leprechaun in their pocket and that their mere holding of these absurd beliefs constitutes a danger to the human race."

I don't think you are taking it at face value. Or, at the very least, you're not honoring the idea. You've defended these absurd beliefs at every turn under the auspices of them being harmless. The dangerousness of a given absurd belief is separate from whether or not it can be dismissed out of hand, and my first claim is that we should be willing to do just that based on the nature of the claim.

You're right that the other portion of the argument (and possibly the more important part) is the very question of the dangerousness of the belief, but again--that's separate.

The real question is why you are not willing to call these beliefs what they are--absurd--in an open fashion. I doubt you'd be so reticent to dismiss a belief in a living Elvis or in the virgin birth of Mithra, so why give special treatment to an equally silly belief?

I believe the answer is that you're answering to political correctness above all else, and that's what I'm objecting to with respect to the "rejecting claims that lack evidence" portion of the discussion.

For the "harm" portion...well, that's a separate discussion that I've thus far been cumbersome with handling. I am working on fixing that soon.

Re: When is an Idea Ridiculous?

Daniel Miessler — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:49:59 -0000

> Attack actions that deserve attack, and attack beliefs (like the set of beliefs that stem from the belief in a young Earth) against which you have direct evidence (not because you find them absurd).

This is where we clearly disagree.

We don't only reject claims that we have direct evidence against. This is because 99.99999% of all absurd claims fall into this category.

This is the *entire* point of Russell's teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. They are invented to poke fun at the notion that you need direct evidence to disprove the outrageous, when you don't.

"Outrageous claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

This is the very core of our disagreement, and the point (and title) of this post.

Re: The Look of a Proud, Christian, Murderer

Daniel Miessler — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:01:33 -0000

> That is as logically sound as saying some people are crazy sex fanatics who will murder for sex, so all sexually active people are supporting a potentially dangerous system that should stop.

No, it's not the same. There are not tens of thousands of sex churches all over the country teaching that the creator of the universe likes or dislikes some set of behaviors.

That IS happening in real churches.

Re: The Look of a Proud, Christian, Murderer

Daniel Miessler — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:41:09 -0000

The difference is that sex and money do not contain actual directions regarding what the creator of the universe likes and dislikes. In other words, when humans kill for those things it's not because they feel compelled to do so by an ideology.

But with religion, they feel they are being TOLD to do this on account of morality, per the creator of the Universe. There's a big difference between those two. Most importantly, it's easy to spread an ideology and not a random emotion, which is precisely the problem.

As an example, the guy who killed this doctor didn't just randomly come to dislike the guy. No, that would be an act of passion similar to your sex or money example.

But in fact this man learned how to hate IN A CHURCH. He learned there that God thinks it's worth killing people for things he dislikes. And using that belief he attained in church (of which there are tens of thousands more all over the country) he came to take action based on that belief.

No. Religion IS different than sex, money, or food. Religion gives you a book full of MANY potential reasons why it might be absolutely OK (or even heroic) to commit crimes. And that is completely different from an arbitrary reason like hunger or lust.

Re: An Unpopular Thought on Homosexuality

Daniel Miessler — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:30:36 -0000

First off, I apologize if I was offensive to you. I remember you from earlier conversations, and I actually thought of you toward the end of writing this as a possible voice to show an exception to this model.

It sounds, however, like you're not really disagreeing with my overall model, but rather saying it's not *always* accurate. I am totally open to that. My question to you would be: "what percentage of gay relationships do you think is accurately described by this model, vs. the percentage that is not?"

Thanks for the comment; I appreciate the input.

Re: An Unpopular Thought on Homosexuality

Daniel Miessler — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:27:06 -0000

1) I would agree it's not universal. My argument is that it's the norm, however.

2) Yes.

3) I have known *many* gay couples over the years. To Under the Radar's Point, however, I have also likely known many others who were gay and I didn't know it. So I admit to the weakness of this anecdotal evidence.

4) My point here is that there's not a separate type of sexuality, but rather simply a different name for a non-standard type of heterosexuality. But yes, I concede this is not technically true due to the dictionary. It's just an idea.

Finally, I just want to say that this is an idea. A concept. A model. I'm not claiming this to be absolutely correct with nothing able to change my mind. I'm still struggling with how to forcefully put out an idea like this while leaving room for agnosticism.

Re: Google Wave: 21st Century Communication

Daniel Miessler — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:51:38 -0000

Interesting; I didn't catch that part.

Re: Atheism: More Aggressive vs. Group, Less vs. Individuals

Daniel Miessler — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:20:45 -0000

Does this apply to someone who believes Elvis is alive, or that they have leprechauns in their pockets?

Don't say that's different, because it isn't. A belief that the all-powerful creator of the entire universe cares personally about your life, and that you can communicate telepathically with him, is at best the same, and at worst...much worse.

Re: Atheism: More Aggressive vs. Group, Less vs. Individuals

Daniel Miessler — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:18:09 -0000

Very nice.

Re: Atheism: More Aggressive vs. Group, Less vs. Individuals

Daniel Miessler — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:17:25 -0000

Too good. :)

Re: Atheism: More Aggressive vs. Group, Less vs. Individuals

Daniel Miessler — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:17:04 -0000

Who said anything about proving a negative? To take a Harris example, if someone says during a job interview that they believe Elvis to be alive, they get punished. Perhaps not by open ridicule, as that wouldn't be appropriate, but they probably won't be hired.

And if you are out on the street you WOULD get laughed at for saying such things. So we don't have to prove negatives; we just need to treat highly specific, fantasy-based claims about the nature of reality with the respect they deserve--which is none.

Re: What Every American Should Know About the Middle East

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:36:57 -0000

Because the Chinese and the Russians will just steamroll your ass and tell anyone who complains to piss off.

Re: Mancow Waterboarded: Admits Instantly That It’s Torture

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:17:59 -0000

You have two major problems with your comment.

1. Hannity has expressed MANY times that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture. This is widely known and is the entire reason he's been a focal point of the debate.

2. I didn't propose that anyone be actually tortured. I proposed that they go through the DEMO of being tortured. What's the difference, you ask? When it's a demo you can tell them to stop.

Perhaps you'd like another pass at commenting?