Saturday, June 30, 2007

Do not Fear the Gods

In my research on Epicurus, I found this
The Epicurean Blog: This same double-standard operates when Dawkins links creed and behavior. If religion in practice fueled the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the sectarian wars of the 15th and 16th centuries would not atheism in practice be responsible for the 20th Century European charnel houses created by Hitler and Stalin? Orr criticizes the distinctions that Dawkins cites to avoid that conclusion, differences that Dawkins will not allow when considering religion.
I responded:
Dawkins does not link Hitler's and Stalin's atrocities to atheism because his premise is that atheism is not a false belief. We should not believe Christianity because it is false, and we should not be respectfully deferential to it because it is dangerous.

If we assume that a person with no false beliefs would commit no such atrocities, and that atheism is true, then we must attribute atrocious actions of atheists to other, false beliefs they hold. I don't know what distinctions Orr criticized, but truth is the one that matters.

That an idea is dangerous is not an argument that it is false, but that a idea is dangerous and false is an argument that it should be confronted.

He didn't write a book about the tooth fairy because belief in the tooth fairy hasn't shown itself to be very dangerous.

-A new fan of Epicurus

Saturday, June 23, 2007

This is How Network Neutrality Should Be Framed

The Register: "'That's absolutely what you are asking for!' he shouted to counter-shots of 'no!' and 'there is no market place!', referring to the fact a handful of phone and cable companies control the lion share of broadband internet access and service in the US."

At every step, present the telecom carriers with the dictate: As long as you are getting access to the public space to run your lines, we as citizens have a right to those lines under reasonable terms.

This pushes the debate into an area that they dare not risk, their special government privileges. I would be happy to allow packet shaping if it meant I could run my own fiber down the street, but that's not going to happen.

They are not part of a market, and cannot possibly be in a true market, as long as we are giving them special permission to exist. Neither the telephone or cable companies would survive long if we didn't give them their monopolies on the infrastructure. Never let them forget that they owe us.

If you can, hint at it in every paragraph. They will fold.