"Respects Your Freedom" certification?


ible

professional vim user
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,396
Location
Seattle, WA
Convictions create convicts.
i would say it depends on the conviction. not all convictions are bad. some convictions are desires to help people, explore space, build a Pyra, support free software. you know, the good stuff :).
 
Last edited:

Djoga'Ro

moonstruck
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
1,521
this sounds like the sort of rhetoric you'd hear from a fanatical religious person (just put in e.g. "the great Satan" for "religion"), or someone like Hitler on his quest to eradicate the Jews. anti-religion can become a fanatical "religion", too.
A virus is a chunk of self-serving information processible by a specific kind of host system leading its host to replicate it. I don't see how this doesn't apply to religion.
Now, since I didn't call any human being the problem, why do you read someones call for getting rid of a virus as getting rid of the hosts? By that I meant attacking information with information. And since the virus is to be expected to make its host talk back, you'd have a discussion. Not fine with you? (I know, I just demoted the believers to their beliefs' puppets, but that was just me having fun with the analogy.)
Anti-religion would be applied philosophy, at least in my book. But my definition of what a religion is, might differ from common perception. I'll come to that.

to put it another way, how can you say that all religions are bad, all value systems are wrong, except your own? that's almost worse than most religious positions on other religions (most will say there is at least some truth in others, just not the whole truth).
First I should state that I don't assume any objective definition of good or bad. How could I? I couldn't ground one, neither could I test it. Raping little girls might be a good thing to some. It has positive effects on the rapist, I guess and humbling the victim might be useful, too. But that's not my view, if you need to know.

So, when I call something good or bad, it's based on my values which in turn are based on my preferences/likes and dislikes. And I'm fully aware of that being highly subjective. How my preferences came to be, I'm not fully aware of, but they are still the most real thing I can build my value system upon.
I very much dislike (and thus call bad) values and convictions that have no sound grounding, but demand being the absolute truth. Especially when they allow to lessen the worth of a fellow feeling entity (often fellow humans), thus overcoming/undermining empathy. The latter I deem the most important thing we've got equipped with, when it comes to living together and thriving together, and which I'd like to see strongly involved in the makings of the values of all of us.

What I call religion is a conviction that's grounded in fiction or misinformation or hearsay only and regarded as THE TRUTH by someone. Those things can easily turn bad. @FBnil I don't know of any sound reasoning for seeing dark brown/black folk basicly being of lesser value. I.e. doing so I deem religious -> bad. That definition also applies to NS, capitalism and whatnot.

Ultimately my anti-religion as you call it is just attacking the lack of healthy skepticism. By the way teaching skepticism and rational reasoning should suffice as a remedy to cure the world.

and not letting parents teach their own kids their values sounds pretty bad, too.
Second that and never demanded to do anything like it.

obviously there are some issues with any religion, but don't you see that, when talking this way, you're just as much a part of the problem?
No, I don't see it that way. Being silent about it and letting religions thrive, would make me part of the problem.

@FBnil I think I don't get what you are saying in the first part.

An indoctrinator is spreading nonesense. Even if the tought content would happen to align with truth, teaching something like "Regard as truth what I tell you to be the truth!" alone is spreading nonesense.

What you are describing in the rest is bad shit, yes.
 

Neelix

Insecticidal Maniac
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
3,257
Location
Melbourne, Australia
That would defeat the purpose of having a veggie burger.
Not if the reason he wanted one was because he really liked the taste of the vegetarian burger patties. :)

I've actually been known to order a vegetarian pizza with meat. Why? The vegetarian pizza had the best selection of non-meat toppings, so with that as a base I only had to order one extra topping.

-Neelix
 

Silent-Hunter

Hardcore Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
3,215
Not if the reason he wanted one was because he really liked the taste of the vegetarian burger patties. :)

I've actually been known to order a vegetarian pizza with meat. Why? The vegetarian pizza had the best selection of non-meat toppings, so with that as a base I only had to order one extra topping.

-Neelix
That is a really good point!
 

Klumpen

Run away! Run away!
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
8,565
Location
Uncanny Valley
Not if the reason he wanted one was because he really liked the taste of the vegetarian burger patties. :)
Vegan has mostly replaced vegetarian in my area, so when I say veggie, I usually mean "free of anything from the animal production chain". I don't see a reason for anything vegetarian since it's supporting the same chain, so I've actually got more understanding for omnis since they've just got different ethics and premises, although they aren't consistent either when it comes to certain species of course. I can understand people which eat/drink any milk/eggs/meat/organs regardless of species (outside of their own that is), but the usual meaties and veggies are too inconsistent for me by now. An omni would need to eat dog/cat/horse if he wants to be taken seriously, preferably dogs since I don't get along with those at all. :p
But yeah, I liked the veggie burgers more already when I was omni a looong time ago, just didn't have enough motivation to pay the higher price back then. Ironically by now there are really great (bio)veggie burgers in my area which aren't even more expensive than McToxic.

Ok, now this thread has extended it's ethical range vastly, maybe I shouldn't have responded but what the heck. :D
 

ible

professional vim user
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,396
Location
Seattle, WA
A virus is a chunk of self-serving information processible by a specific kind of host system leading its host to replicate it. I don't see how this doesn't apply to religion.
Now, since I didn't call any human being the problem, why do you read someones call for getting rid of a virus as getting rid of the hosts? By that I meant attacking information with information. And since the virus is to be expected to make its host talk back, you'd have a discussion. Not fine with you? (I know, I just demoted the believers to their beliefs' puppets, but that was just me having fun with the analogy.)
I don't think we're too far apart on the "we should talk/discuss things, try to reason it out, have a bit of skepticism and ask questions" mindset. But you're pretty negative on religion, so I doubt you'll be able to talk to most religious people without making them upset. But offending someone isn't the same as that person being wrong about something, and you should also keep a healthy skepticism towards your own skepticism -- maybe you're throwing the baby out with the bath water by saying all religion is bad.

Even in a (very hypothetical) world without "religion," there are still going to be things to fight about, even with the most logical of minds discussing stuff. Notwithstanding stupid stuff, there's also things like needs. Not everyone is going to be reasonable when it comes down to protecting/feeding their family, so you're not necessarily going to be able to discuss things without appeals to emotion and other stuff.

Oh, and random thought: from a global warming standpoint, science has done worse than all religions in bringing about an end to the planet as we know it. (At least, if any of the predictions are to be believed.)

(But let the record show I'm not against science or religion.)
 

Klumpen

Run away! Run away!
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
8,565
Location
Uncanny Valley
I don't think we're too far apart on the "we should talk/discuss things, try to reason it out, have a bit of skepticism and ask questions" mindset. But you're pretty negative on religion, so I doubt you'll be able to talk to most religious people without making them upset. But offending someone isn't the same as that person being wrong about something, and you should also keep a healthy skepticism towards your own skepticism -- maybe you're throwing the baby out with the bath water by saying all religion is bad.

Even in a (very hypothetical) world without "religion," there are still going to be things to fight about, even with the most logical of minds discussing stuff. Notwithstanding stupid stuff, there's also things like needs. Not everyone is going to be reasonable when it comes down to protecting/feeding their family, so you're not necessarily going to be able to discuss things without appeals to emotion and other stuff.

Oh, and random thought: from a global warming standpoint, science has done worse than all religions in bringing about an end to the planet as we know it. (At least, if any of the predictions are to be believed.)

(But let the record show I'm not against science or religion.)
Imho the term "religion" needs to be defined prior to discussing it.
The latin word "religare/religere" implies a relation back to old philosophy which doesn't neccessarily involve gods and superheroes.
Every philosophy can be called religion at a certain age and if you take a close look at the original daoism, it's actually pretty much working with our current state of scientific knowledge although it's at least about 2600 years old.
 

FBnil

Waiting to Champion the Pyra to the World...
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
3,397
Location
Yurp
@Djoga'Ro : Thanks for reading it and keeping the discussion going.
The point I was trying to make was: From a fixed reference point things look different.

to their beliefs' puppets
In a sense, the religious construct around the core believe is making the converted move as puppets. And most have a directive to go out and convert more (I find the virus analogy apt). (separate religion from the believe) For example:

You are homeless. The Hare Krishna take you in. You must obey their rituals (no meat, shave, dress) and go out and try to convert others. Suddenly you realize you are in a hierarchically militarized prison with open doors.
You are rich. The mormons take you in, are nice people and bit by bit, they tell you things. Then ask for your bible so they can read it. They actually throw it away, and give you one of their own. By the time you realize, you think God f*cks his zillion wifes all day to make souls. And you lose 10% of your income each month. They come to your door asking why you do not attend anymore, and pester you for their lost income. You need to change neighborhoods as their connections make your life impossible.
You are very poor. You meet somebody that does voodoo. It works! (nocebo effect, the opposite of the placebo effect). You start believing you can actually control demons and dive into dark arts. Then you realize you lost an insane amount of money for buying mashed roots and other "special ingredients".
You go to a tibetian monk for wisdom and spiritual guidance. You like the help, it helps your sanity in this insane world. You start learning and discover a new world. But ultimately, you learn that you need to accept that we are puppets of demon's whims. No good news at all, it leaves you empty from the inside, and rot from the outside.
You are grieving. Go to a catholic church to get a good talk. They take you in. Before you know it, you are working full time (for free) to do the administration and help out to keep the structure up. They have their mass in a graveyard (there are graves in the catacombs of every catholic church), and the sermons are "empty", there is no critical thinking for the non thinking. No deep analysis, no questioning. An archbishop that raises his voice against paedophilia gets removed... Rome's strong hand at work.

In all these examples (some personal, some from very close), the structure around the doctrine is build like a honeypot to capture and not release (of course, you can, but mentally strong people clash immediately (there is your antivirus), and are not the "target"). In many, the doctrine is perverse and not liberating. In some it is twisted and made foul.

Example: You have heard of the "good news", and that it is freaking awesome (that Christ died for your sins)... but... they do not tell you WHY this is awesome, in what context this is a "good thing" ™ and why YOU should care... or even why he had to die in the first place, being God and all..

On the other hand... I suspect strongly that this world is a simulation, where things that are not perceived are not rendered until they are perceived (uncertainty principle) even if this means that this needs to know and go back into the past to define itself (real double slit experiment). And the pixels/voxels of our world are planck scaled, but not smaller. And there are things that do not compute, as it were. Our physics is a mess, with General Relativity contradicting Quantum Mechanics, and not even being considered in Standard Physics (read, for example, "Electrical Universe"). The fact that mathematics predicts stuff 90 percent degrees rotated to our reality (i, as in square root -1). The fact that just to "be here", requires miracle upon miracle, upon miracle that science does not account for: Universal constants "just right", materia properties "just right", cell creation (membrane), cell-within-cell (mitochondria), from unicelullar to pluricellular organisms, cell specialization (stemcell to other), organ creation (specialization), stable symbiotic relations between organisms (that can not live without eachother), etc.



1.
 
Last edited:

Djoga'Ro

moonstruck
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
1,521
I don't think we're too far apart on the "we should talk/discuss things, try to reason it out, have a bit of skepticism and ask questions" mindset. But you're pretty negative on religion, so I doubt you'll be able to talk to most religious people without making them upset. But offending someone isn't the same as that person being wrong about something, and you should also keep a healthy skepticism towards your own skepticism -- maybe you're throwing the baby out with the bath water by saying all religion is bad.
Yeah, thought so, too.

Yes, I am and doubt that, too. To be fair, even if you very cautiously try to make a point with a lot of "Let's assume for a moment"s or "Hypothetically speaking"s or "What if"s, a lot of them either don't get those phrases or there really is the defense mechanism I suspect and mentioned already in place, and as soon as you as much as slightly rock the table their house of cards stands upon, all hell breaks loose.

I try to be skeptic about myself. If you see an angle to help with that, don't hold back.

Even in a (very hypothetical) world without "religion," there are still going to be things to fight about, even with the most logical of minds discussing stuff. Notwithstanding stupid stuff, there's also things like needs. Not everyone is going to be reasonable when it comes down to protecting/feeding their family, so you're not necessarily going to be able to discuss things without appeals to emotion and other stuff.
Of course there'll be.

Providing everyone with enough nourishment shouldn't be a problem. If we were not too unable to provide for most of us, before industrialization kicked in, we should be golden, shouldn't we. I mean, we've come a looong way productivity-wise since then. Of course, if contraception doesn't become legal in catholic sharia anytime soon, ...
Well, I heard providing clean water might become a critical problem. Cleaning a lot of water should be a focus in development then.

Oh, and random thought: from a global warming standpoint, science has done worse than all religions in bringing about an end to the planet as we know it. (At least, if any of the predictions are to be believed.)

(But let the record show I'm not against science or religion.)
Who found out about that, the local imam?
I'd say science cleared the piste, capitalist society and similar idiots waxed their skies and hopped on it always repeating "Who breaks, loses!". Knowing how to do something is not having to do it. Consider me knowing how to use a knife to end some annoying pricks for a moment. Can you believe, I haven't done it (yet)?
[doublepost=1462037067,1462036229][/doublepost]
Imho the term "religion" needs to be defined prior to discussing it.
Yep, which is why I did define, what at least I mean by religion.
[doublepost=1462037870][/doublepost]
@Djoga'Ro : Thanks for reading it and keeping the discussion going.
Of course.

The point I was trying to make was: From a fixed reference point things look different.


In a sense, the religious construct around the core believe is making the converted move as puppets. And most have a directive to go out and convert more (I find the virus analogy apt). (separate religion from the believe)
Plus one on that separation. I may find a lot of believes plain silly, but if they stay aware of them being believes one cannot be certain about, let them have. Silly though. :)
Declaring it truth for themselves and then for others, and communicating it as truth instead of beliefs, that's what I won't condone.

For example:

... {Examples} ...

In all these examples (some personal, some from very close), the structure around the doctrine is build like a honeypot to capture and not release (of course, you can, but mentally strong people clash immediately (there is your antivirus), and are not the "target"). In many, the doctrine is perverse and not liberating. In some it is twisted and made foul.

Example: You have heard of the "good news", and that it is freaking awesome (that Christ died for your sins)... but... they do not tell you WHY this is awesome, in what context this is a "good thing" ™ and why YOU should care... or even why he had to die in the first place, being God and all..
Much more than that I miss some compelling reasoning about why I would assume it really happened.

On the other hand... I suspect strongly that this world is a simulation, where things that are not perceived are not rendered until they are perceived (uncertainty principle) even if this means that this needs to know and go back into the past to define itself. And the pixels/voxels of our world are planck scaled, but not smaller. And there are things that do not compute, as it were. Our physics is a mess, with General Relativity contradicting Quantum Mechanics, and not even being considered in Standard Physics (read, for example, "Electrical Universe"). The fact that mathematics predicts stuff 90 percent rotated to our reality (i, as in square root -1). The fact that just to "be here", it requires miracle upon miracle, upon miracle that science does not account for: Universal constants "just right", materia properties "just right", cell creation, cell-within-cell (mitochondria), from unicelullar to pluricellular organisms, cell specialization (stemcell to other), organ creation, stable symbiotic relations between organisms, etc.
I feel a presumption, we were meant to be. ? With that in mind, yes, it would be very unlikely that we came about just by accident. But why presume, we were meant to be?
 

rygD

Nihilistic Mystic
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Messages
7,464
Location
Everywhere
i would say it depends on the conviction. not all convictions are bad. some convictions are desires to help people, explore space, build a Pyra, support free software. you know, the good stuff :).
I think you missed the meaning. What you believe imprisons you. It is not meant to be a statement of "good" or "bad" or even utility, merely a statement that you sometimes can't see beyond what you believe. This is true of everyone. It is just something to keep in mind. Some people absolutely refuse to accept that their beliefs could be inaccurate or incomplete, and that could be a problem for them and those they encounter.

That would defeat the purpose of having a veggie burger.
No it wouldn't, unless your reason for eating a veggie burger is to not eat animals. I don't want to spend much time on this, but many vegan things have a negative impact on animals, wildlife, and nature. Although I prefer more ethical treatment of non-humans I still use many animal-based products. When I eat a veggie burger it is because I like the taste and texture. If you are trying to eat something that isn't harmful to animals, why are you dressing it up as a burger?

My stance on religion? I'll find out when I die; until then I don't care. :D
What if, as you die, your brain shuts down, and that is the end of it? You won't have learned anything, and merely ceased to exist after death except as a pile of decomposing flesh and bones.
 

Caine

Hardcore Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
4,138
Location
Netherlands
What if, as you die, your brain shuts down, and that is the end of it? You won't have learned anything, and merely ceased to exist after death except as a pile of decomposing flesh and bones.
I don't see the problem. You have to be alive in order to be able to care. It is impossible to regret being dead.
 

Klumpen

Run away! Run away!
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
8,565
Location
Uncanny Valley
I don't see the problem. You have to be alive in order to be able to care. It is impossible to regret being dead.
Not if some religious and esoteric people are right, so I hope they are not. ;)

BTW: Daoism as I understood it just says, that everything is connected and there isn't a big difference between matter and energy, pretty much the conclusions our science is reaching slowly, yes?

I don't believe in a soul being independend of the body in any way. It's a massive flow of information that is part of the body and therefore always changing and dying with it, so when I die, I become part of many other organisms again, nothing more but also nothing less, as long as my body isn't shot out into space to get rid of my material influence on earth for good. :D Some people may actually consider this.
 
Last edited:

rygD

Nihilistic Mystic
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Messages
7,464
Location
Everywhere
I don't see the problem. You have to be alive in order to be able to care. It is impossible to regret being dead.
Yes, but waiting to learn what happens when you die will be completely useless if you can't learn, because you are dead. What I was saying had nothing to do with regretting anything, merely the flaw in the logic of the argument I quoted.

@Klumpen there is more than just the circle of life thing. Eventually the planet will be destroyed by our star, or by some other destructive force, and what was once part of our bodies will go on to be something else, even if it isn't organic. I want to be a part of a black hole. Too bad I won't be able to experience it with my current senses.
 

diligentcircle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,594
Age
27
Location
Milky Way galaxy
Website
onpon4.github.io
Purism is a company which I don't trust because of their history with the "Librem" laptops, which were marketed as if they could be given RYF certification when they simply couldn't due to the Intel ME. It's a well-documented case.

And what they are offering is not even close to RYF-certified. It's not even close to certifiable. If you read the fine print, very little is actually being promised; they have a general idea of what to do and say stuff about commitments to freedom, failing to mention that it by law has to have at least some required proprietary software and that the very nature of the cellular network means you do not have privacy even if it were the case that all components were 100% libre. They also distract from this real issue by focusing on the fact that it's a GNU/Linux phone rather than an Android phone, when this makes no difference from the perspective of freedom (Replicant is a thing). I don't trust it, and there's no way I would support it, for that reason. I also suspect the Pyra will be worlds more freedom-respecting than the Librem 5.

As far as what it shows about the popularity of libre software, I don't even trust that. I find that most people I know in the libre software community don't trust Purism, either. Those people are all completely new to the idea of libre software, it seems, and if that is the case, they wouldn't be swayed by any FSF endorsement. It's Purism's own advertising that's doing it.

For the record, I am planning on getting a Pyra when it comes out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hns

comradekingu

Glowing ember
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
5,061
Website
portfolio.anotheragency.no
10 years ago you could get a trolltech phone if you joined the company in some aspect, it was possible. For such reasons, and others, it was not a huge seller.
Also it cost ~1300 dollars, back then.

RYF certification alone does not carry anything. While it is true they messed up with that, and coreboot support promises, they are also the only Linux laptop company that makes any hardware changes.

Where is non-free firmware not allowed if it doesn't impact security? I know the GTA04 is not certified, but it really does a lot of things different, first and foremost how hard it is to part with your money for it, and it shows.

They have done as much as possible in the past, and as research has shown, freescale/NXP is where you would go if your primary goal was freedom and no NDAs.
GNU/Linux makes a whooole lot of difference, since android sucks. Additionally it isnt slow like android is.
Been running Android since 2009, and Replicant since the HTC magic days. The day Replicant is as useful as regular Android, and Gnu/Linux, is the day Replicant will do a little bit better than the current RYF-certified laptops. See point 1.

Sure, if you want reality and actual results, now, for your money, the Pyra is it, but a sleek phone it isn't. Some people want utility, other people want simplicity.

Matthew Garret is on the advisory board, hardly a newcomer to the idea of libre software. If you mean the userbase, it is partly #aftermarketos, and maybe even perfectly regular users. It takes more to win over crypto and FSF people, but it really has a foot in the door with Matrix and activity on mailinglists. Think i remember the FSFe one recommending it even.

The whole point being, if you want a bigger audience, make what applies to the core community available to a broader audience. Purism is reaching fairphone-levels of success with communication.

Even if it was all marketing, and it isn't, it shows a lot of people care about good ideas.
We spent a good amount of time discussing whether that was futile, and this proves it isn't.

It is evident that if you make the message simple enough, it works. Whether it tapers off at any point, who cares. The more the better.
 

diligentcircle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,594
Age
27
Location
Milky Way galaxy
Website
onpon4.github.io
You do realize that the FSF never has even mentioned Purism, right? Well, there were two crowdfunding projects for hardware which was on its way to RYF endorsement, both of which the FSF explicitly endorsed and linked to. Those being the TALOS, which failed miserably, and EOMA68, which barely succeeded:

https://www.crowdsupply.com/raptor-computing-systems/talos-secure-workstation
https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop

These are the actual indicator of how popular freedom-respecting hardware is. Interest exists, but it's really not that massive.

Purism did not do "as much as possible" with the laptops they produced. If they were serious about producing freedom-respecting hardware, they could easily have gone with an ARM SoC, put Debian on it, and not ship the inevitable firmware blobs for wireless and GPU hardware acceleration. They didn't do that. In fact, their original offering featured an Nvidia card which was simply never going to work without proprietary software. All they did was make a shiny laptop, no better than what Think Penguin had been offering for years, and then promote the hell out of it as if it were something amazing and new and privacy-respecting like never before.

Matthew Garret is on the advisory board, hardly a newcomer to the idea of libre software.
I don't know much about Matthew Garret. I remember him as some SJW who whined about the way Linux is developed, and I guess he did something with Secure Boot that he got an award for. In any case, he's not the audience of Purism, which is what I was talking about.
 
Last edited:
Top