>have a nice day.
Prove to me that human rights exist in some objective, perennial state. Oh wait, you can't because the concept of "rights" has no extrajudicial meaning. The only rights you have are socially constructed, everything else is an abstraction.
john locke was a christian. his morals were 100% based on christ's message, it's a system he devised that spelled out the details of being a good christian and maintaining a good christian society.
if you do not believe in christ, you do not believe in john locke. without a religion morals do not have any basis. if you do not hold that divinity exists and has had its say regarding human behavior, i can be however i can force you to tolerate me.
In 2000 we thought technology would set us free. The People would be able to speak their minds and no government could contain it.
Where did it all go so wrong?
People don't want to be free. Society is an implicit agreement to surrender certain freedoms in exchange for security and stability. Your freedom only extends to the point where people feel their security or stability is threatened.
>Muh proof
You should keep using W11 like the moron you are. Everything is backdoored at CPU level fricking dumbass, let alone your script kiddie browser made by the fricking Pentagon.
>No proof.
Figured as much. GlowBlack folk need to die.
2 years ago
Anonymous
even though there is no proof they are in the CPU, they are actually possible https://www.computerworld.com/article/3079417/researchers-built-devious-undetectable-hardware-level-backdoor-in-computer-chips.html
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're a psyop, it's just like a few years back when the feds took down a load of deep web market places, and then in the media strongly implied that they had found a weakness in TOR. The reality (as revealed in court documents) was that they'd just used fairly standard police techniques. It's all an attempt to make you think that it's backdoored so that you don't use it. It's much easier to feed you FUD and discourage you than it is to track you down after using it. On top of that, the fact that they employed Carnegie-Mellon to find vulnerabilities in the tor network, strongly imply that it's NOT backdoored. >they are actually possible
I'm not saying it's impossible. It's just I've seen enough of this glowBlack person FUD to not believe it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> even though there's no proof
stopped reading at the end of no proof.
2 years ago
Anonymous
they are possible, just in CPU reside on the there is no proof
>Tor and Tails are backdoored NSA honeypots. Avoid
hello, pedophile police man. it's amazing the people that screech so loudly with nonsense are the same people that are running child porn sites on tor, while catching ZERO sex offenders. seems like tor works way too well, and all that's left for the child rapists of your local police department is to try and discoruage use. sorry, pedophile. we're not low iq Black folk like you.
>I literally just posted the image from the Snowden leaks about how the NSA has backdoored Tor > posts nothing
[...] > no proof
fricking moronic Black folk, everyone.
Anyone else noticed an increase in the number of posts claiming (with zero proof) that everything is backdoored? Are we really saying this isn't a coordinated psyop to make people believe that "nothing is beyond ~~*their*~~ reach"?
>Tails >Tor
not ironically, using windows and chrome without extensions is equal to or even safer than that herd effect garbage.
Use QubeOS and FireCuck with user.js if you want 'muhh privacy' >Courage >Wikileaks
I see you, snowdengay, your pills. >bitcoin
Cringe.
Everyone knows you use Tor.
If they wanted to crack down on human rights and whatever meme you believe fell for involves Tor, they'd put Tor users in camps.
>wikileaks is russian govt information agency >tor is literal honeypot for feds >tails is pozzed and has fed backdoors >literally who? >bitcoin has been memed into oblivion as feds don't like decentralized currencies
>why would they release russian documents if that would make them non-russian affiliated to the general moron?
None of the documents released have any relevance today, else troonyden would've kept himself safe years ago
wtf is a "human right"? if it can be taken away is it a right? doesn't that make it a privilege? this is rhetorical. I know the answer. Just so you know the only right in this world lies with the people who have the power to take "rights" away.
i dont have a daughter. also you would go to prison. on the other hand politicians rape all the time. ceos rape. they dont face any consequences. see what im getting at? see
wtf is a "human right"? if it can be taken away is it a right? doesn't that make it a privilege? this is rhetorical. I know the answer. Just so you know the only right in this world lies with the people who have the power to take "rights" away.
for further enforcement of that idea. might makes right. your "rights" are forfeit at any time
Are you a king? If you are a king you got the prima nocta right. That's a king's human right.
If you are not a king, my daughter can just shoot you in your dick. Should my daughter shoot your dick off? Is that just rhetorical? A privilege? Maybe you need to grow up and stop thinking it's wrong that women can not only reject you for being an incel, they can kill you for being an incel
You do not have a human right to privacy on other peoples property. If you are using the internet, your data is passing through other peoples systems. By natural rights, as long as those bits are on their physical property, they have a right to inspect them. They have a right to know when you are accessing their systems and where you came from and where you're going. Your rights are not being infringed. "Tracking" on the internet is the moral equivalent of having security cameras at a store. Then you show up at another store and the security guy from the last one called them and told them if you're a shoplifter or not. Have your rights been violated? No, they have a right to know what you did on THEIR PROPERTY and that data is theirs, naturally, not yours. You generated it, but they put in the work to collect it. "Your" data generated on THEIR PROPERTY and collected BY THEM is also THEIR PROPERTY.
If you have a problem with this, don't use networks (other peoples computers).
I REPEAT
YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHEN YOU ARE USING SOMEONE ELSES COMPUTER
the communist ai overlords will assign you to the latest and greatest new mk ultra op where you must take high doses of LSD with dolphins and jerk them off, and later have sex with them as you attempt to imprint upon them an innate desire to learn to communicate with you in English. Think you're up to the task?
>website: by using our service you consent to the use of tracking cookies. you are free to delete them. we reserve the right to keep logs of your access to your service and retain ownership of those logs. >freetards: help im being raped
People don't want to be free. Society is an implicit agreement to surrender certain freedoms in exchange for security and stability. Your freedom only extends to the point where people feel their security or stability is threatened.
Also this
Of course the natural conclusion is to take the Unabomberpill
my machine, i get to do whatever i want on it, including sending you the least amount of information about me as i possibly can, dont care if its your property, its effects are harmful
"Human rights" are determined by upper middle class men European in office buildings. They are a completely arbitrary, malleable concept which cannot be formally and universally codified by virtue of their artificiality.
>all we have are property rights
There are no rights. The only thing we have is a claim which must be enforced via power. "Rights" are only real in the sense that a government will do the enforcement for us and in return we pay taxes.
If hard problems exist, hard problems can be used to digitally enforce property rights. I know that means nothing in the physical sense, but that can eventually become significant if everyone believes it. Ultimately, it matters more that everyone believes something is yours than even you thinking it is yours, which hard problems work perfectly at proving provided the property has some type of digital underpinning.
Human rights assume the belief in a totally made up god that does not exist in any recorded religion. This made up god has given commandments to secret prophet philosophers who stated his words as facts. There is no real world, factual basis for the idea that people have certain rights and no basis for each and every one in scripture. The bible says nothing about free speech, privacy, or the right to bear arms, or... so on and so on. Which religion does?
The only fact is that you are afforded the rights you are willing to fight for if the damage you are willing and able to cause exceeds the cost of allowing you the rights you desire. Ergo, the less physical or political power you have, the fewer rights you have. The first thing you should take if you want to restrict rights is a rifle. Semi-automatic rifles pose a legitimate threat to military and law enforcement targets. You can keep pistols and shotguns though. Those are perfectly adequate for committing mass shootings. The other first thing you take is someone's ability to spread their messages and inspire other people to act like them, and instruct them on the construction of explosives.
> bible says nothing about free speech
and that's why I am atheist. The Human RIghts declaration is an agreement where all important humans agreed in a series of things someone deserves by just "being human (furries not included, they dropped their humanity long ago)". If you want, you can refuse your human right, but most of us still like them.
Your declaration is as much of a bullshit religion as any other. Only weaker, because you have no god. You have no divine truth. You have no prophet or magic or holy book. Everything you believe is an argument, not a fact. If you say furries not included, how's this? A furry makes an argument that they have all the qualities that make humans deserving of rights sans their appearance and ability to interbreed with simians. Many people agree. People who disagree get shot. The remaining people on your side start to think it's not worth it, and they do not have the resolve given by belief in an ultimate truth who has power over the afterlife. All they ever had was "what that guy said sounded like a good idea at the time". That's your faith. It's weak.
In fact, these people giving furries their rights... could very well be christians, and therefore stronger in their resolve and able to refuse all of your conniving "logical" arguments (all logic in morals is invalid because it is never based on a real premise. even a goal is not really necessarily correct or incorrect. you can not rationally argue for the irrational.) on grounds of faith alone. Your best rhetorical and rational tricks defeated, "because god fricking said so".
"Furries aren't people because they fricking aren't. They're not human. That just matters, okay? Because mortal men said so."
"The priests said that anyone who can accept christ has his protection. Because the creator of the universe wills it."
2 years ago
Anonymous
tldr without the belief in at least one god and his word as a fact there is no morality
atheists and "humanists" have no morals. you are intellectually dishonest egoists who have come to a mutual agreement entirely for your self benefit;
2 years ago
Anonymous
proof your god exists then. If you do with PROOF, not any book written 2000 years ago, I will accept that my claims make no sense
2 years ago
Anonymous
>PROOF your god exists
Have faith. That's it. The simple belief that any god exists is stronger than all of secular "morality", as enough socratic questions can completely dismantle your shit and leave you screaming "WELL IT JUST IS BECAUSE IT IS AND IF YOU DONT AGREE THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU BECAUSE ITS JUST THAT WAY BECAUSE I THINK IT IS"
Proof your morals have a real basis? Your system is egoism with a veneer of virtue. Your system is faith that your opinions somehow align with a fact you do not and can not know. There is no higher authority but human force, you simply have opinions and you have come to a mutually beneficial agreement with other egoists. The ultimate statement that defeats your entire "moral" system is "I disagree" and the holy sword that strikes you down is a gun. In death you are never a martyr, in life you are never a priest. You can be an opinionated man with power or you can be a loser. If that's the basis for modern civilization for you secular fricks then modern civilization will collapse the moment enough people just say "i disagree". And the common man, with no god to look up to and believe in, just some moron with an opinion saying "trust the logic", will cowtow. Especially if the one who disagrees comes with a god. A god, or gods, if you choose to see their miracles and see proof of their existence in creation, will always be a stronger basis for morality than anything secular. People would always rather fight for the creators of the universe and a man who says "i know the mind of this or that god and have deduced their will" than men who say "trust me, i'm very smart and I just know better".
FYI, originally, the philosophies that secular moralgays draw on assumed the existence of the christian god and his will. Egoism is the end point should you lack a god.
2 years ago
Anonymous
yep
it is because an all powerful being who clearly exists says so > it is because its obvious that it should be >*god is not real* >People should act this way. This is how it should be. Trust science. >should be according to who >what makes them special >do they have their own plans in mind? what about my plans? >what's this greater good and why should i care about everyone else? >does this benefit some people more than others? why are they more important? >why are more numerous people more important? >okay but isn't the purpose of life to spread its own genes? my genes are more important than theirs then right? aren't you trying to prevent my genes from spreading to make room for yours? >shut uuuuup!!!
2 years ago
Anonymous
faith is proof of shit. my point still stands, try harder next time.
> Proof your morals have a real basis
Sure. my morals are that everything i think is fair shoud be applied to everyone (they align almost perfectly with the Human Rights) that considers himself human and also agrees with those morals, since why sould i respect someone on a way that they themselves don't respect
So you could say that the basis of my morals are: don't others what they dont like if you don't what others doing to yourself what you dont want, except if the other deserves it (something that will be decided by you, and evaluated by others (judges) ) or the other is a homosexual that doesn't respect those morals, applied usually by people such as the police, and proven due of the subject's actions (such as killing without reason)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Faith is proof of shit
Faith is the belief that what you see in creation is proof that there must be the gods you believe in.
What you describe is egoism with a veneer of virtue. Again. I can simply say "i disagree" to any of your points and they are invalidated. I disagree that someone must consider themselves human, because sufficiently intelligent nonhumans can contribute to our society in the same capacity as humans. I disagree that someone must be able to consider themselves at all because non-sapients are pleasant, useful, and still have thoughts and feelings that anyone with a functioning sense of empathy will respect. Why? Because I disagree. That's it. Or let's be evil. I believe that regardless of species some individuals are inferior to others and must be forcibly removed from this earth for the benefit of more cooperative individuals. The more people that agree with me, or are paid to do what I say, or the more powerful my weapons, the more right I am. Or the weaker your will the more right I am. That works too.
>So you could say that the basis of my morals are...
Your opinions hopefully being shared by others. But when push comes to shove comes to a well sharpened shovel, your faith is weak, your morals have no basis. A man who psychotically believes in all powerful men living in warp space deciding the fates of humans real selves will have stronger, more immovable morals than you and humans have a natural tendency to prefer that mode of thought because it codifies survival strategies in a way that foreign subversives can not damage the culture and reduce its fitness.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the basis of my morals are people agreeing with my morals because they also think they are a good idea >in comes a charismatic man who says he spoke to the creator of the universe and de-facto owner of mankind >if you believe him his morals have a strong basis >otherwise your morals are a union of egoists
religion fricks secular society sideways every time
2 years ago
Anonymous
> religion fricks secular society sideways every time
i was raised as a christian, so there was no way of avoiding that
2 years ago
Anonymous
which means most of your morals are most likely ultimately based on the teachings of christ, and when it comes down to it you will sooner side with a gentle, forgiving sect of christians who took turn the other cheek and cast not the first stone literally from the english translation rather than believing the harsh words of the original greek, than side with modern secular "egoists in everything but name" who can quickly turn against you just because more of them (or the more powerful of them) decide it's a good idea at the time...
2 years ago
Anonymous
no, only that some of my morals are derived from christianism. I will never be part of some cult-like religion, such as Jehova Witnesses. In fact, I am part of the politheist religion waifuism, where I worship my godess of choice Utsuho as one of the many goddesses there are out there, end every season more and more are added
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lord, may the king have this demon worshipping heathen exiled before he tries to nuke something
2 years ago
Anonymous
YOU CANNOT STOP ME FROM COMMITING ARSON
2 years ago
Anonymous
>atheists and heathens: gee why do religious fricktards execute and banish people who don't share their faith its so unfair >also atheists and heathens:
2 years ago
Anonymous
ok should had put a disclaimer, my bad.
For obvious reasons, this shit is a joke, I am not willing or thinking about commiting arson. That might shock a high percentage of the residents of IQfy, and for that I am sorry. If you want to file a complaint, do so on here: [email protected]
>The Human RIghts declaration is an agreement where all important humans agreed
The Human Rights declaration is an agreement where all important corporations, called states, agreed on standard ways to exploit human resources available on territories these corporations occupy.
>If you want, you can refuse your human right, but most of us still like them.
Can coal deposit refuse to be mined and processed? Can a sheep refuse to be shaved or slaughtered?
You are here to be exploited. Human rights is a psyop (one of many) to convince you to conform and abstain from violence - but for completely false reasons.
Every single one is a CIA project made with a single purpose to allow people living in "hostile" states leak critical information to the U.S government.
Human rights do not exist. If that was the other way around then Julian Assange would be free.
Technology is the ultimate devil, the biggest threat to humanity that ever existed. The advent of technology has led to the rise of a new priest class, software engineers/IT professionals that spearhead our world into a dangerous post tech dystopian void with their nonsensical developments that overcomplicate, overengineer and ultimately hamper humanity as a species, making us dependant on soulless machines and turning us into weak worthless flesh puppets whose existences revolves around the magical network that governs every aspect of our fricking lives.
Think about it, what real world contribution does a software engineer really have? What is it they do that justifies their ridiculously inflated wages? Make fancy buttons and push around meaningless packets of 1s and 0s from one endpoint to another endpoint? Was there really a need for an invention like Facebook or Twitter when simple chatrooms and forums and myspace worked just fine? Why do we need smartphones, don't fliphones essentially serve the same function?
This is the satanic black magic influence of t*chnology, every invention/development renders a worthless dependancy that never needed to be made, but provides artificial convenience just the same which gets people hooked on them like crack. Our ancestors lived simple and spend their days working the land yet today most zoomers can't fathom spending an hour without their smartphones and fancy snapchats.
These are non functions, essentially functionality that serves no purpose but provides an artificial delusion of convenience that slowly fosters dependancies in the minds of its consumers till they cannot fathom how they survived without it. This satanic frickery warps our humanity and turns us into techno dependant zombies that lose essential functions of day to day survival cause they are abstracted away. How many zooms can find their way around unfamiliar neighbourhoods without g*ogle maps? How many can remember a phone number?
Give you the ability to post this schizo drivel that translates to "i hate technology because people who work with it are wealthier than me and it makes it easy for the government to make me pay taxes"
Well it also makes it harder for the government to get away with sending a pair of knights to chop your head off for being a dissenting peasant.
>language is cancer >people can not figure things out >people can not even find their way around the village without asking "where was the hay last placed?" >grug hate talking.
Didn't know they gave convicts internet access in maximum security federal holdings, good for you Ted!
>Was there really a need for an invention like Facebook or Twitter when simple chatrooms and forums and myspace worked just fine
myspace is shit, but IRC/imageboards were enough, gotta gree with that
> This is the satanic black magic influence of t*chnology
the meds
> what real world contribution does a software engineer really have?
most of Software Engineers don't contribute shit, but some do actual shit, things like MATH being easier, or facilitating the perfect conditions for the druglab^TM of your choice .
Name 1 essential contribution made by software Black person monkeys that has made any actual meaningful noticable impact in the real world and improved humanity as a whole.
> software Black person monkeys
it's a trap question. code monkeys just do js shit. i am talking about real engineers. people that actually made a difference. people like Linus Torvalds, Richard Stevens, Richard Stallman, Phil Zimmermann. That kind of people made an actual difference. Obviously they are not the only ones, but they are the few I was able to come to mind
I worked at an automation firm, we were building automatons to do blue collar jobs (mostly focusing on steal manufacturing). I've since left but we showed some good progress at the time: >Wagies are no longer needed >Leads to cheaper steal >More efficient than your average wagie >No unions to get in the way >All of the above means that it's probably going to be cheaper to manufacture steal in the US than China
We were planning IPO exit in a couple of years, so I'm looking forward to living a cushy life with my fat stacks.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That proves his point though. You are automating away livelihoods just to squeeze out some profits, not only does it not benefit humans but actualy harms their prospects of getting a job. Plus bringing the manufacturing home means nothing if it doesn't create jobs, and I'm pretty sure you're still going to need manpower to maintain these machines which will always be cheaper in China or Vietnam or fricking India when compared to a western country. Factories aren't coming back to the west for a long long time, not unless there's a radical shift from profit oriented operation to a more nationalist approach.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>manpower to maintain these machines which will always be cheaper in China or Vietnam
Yes and no, Automated factories will be more expensive in the west but it can be cost saving vs transportation and risk of transportation over seas along with funding China (illegitimate terrorist government)
>language is cancer >people can not figure things out >people can not even find their way around the village without asking "where was the hay last placed?" >grug hate talking.
>Was there really a need for an invention like Facebook or Twitter when simple chatrooms and forums and myspace worked just fine
myspace is shit, but IRC/imageboards were enough, gotta gree with that
> This is the satanic black magic influence of t*chnology
the meds
> what real world contribution does a software engineer really have?
most of Software Engineers don't contribute shit, but some do actual shit, things like MATH being easier, or facilitating the perfect conditions for the druglab^TM of your choice .
You don't have a human right to people not knowing what you're doing on their network. No reasonable expectation of privacy.
Complain about rights when your activities off their network are being spied on.
Otherwise yes technology helps people disseminate news about human rights abuses over so many channels that no government could ever completely control.
Everything in that image is a glowie controlled op
Yes. A gun is better tho.
>t, glowie
Reminder: glowies constantly try and demoralize you and make sure you don't use things that CAN protect your rights.
have a nice day.
t. Glowie trying to convince us to use glowie services
not falling for it agent
>have a nice day.
Prove to me that human rights exist in some objective, perennial state. Oh wait, you can't because the concept of "rights" has no extrajudicial meaning. The only rights you have are socially constructed, everything else is an abstraction.
He's right. See positive/natural rights.
> wikileaks
owner had to hide for 4 years because h=glowies wanted him.
> tor
even though built by the marines, many of its nodes are independently owned by users
> bitcoin
bitcoin is shit, use monero kek
Human rights do not exist.
Based. John Locke was a homosexual
john locke was a christian. his morals were 100% based on christ's message, it's a system he devised that spelled out the details of being a good christian and maintaining a good christian society.
if you do not believe in christ, you do not believe in john locke. without a religion morals do not have any basis. if you do not hold that divinity exists and has had its say regarding human behavior, i can be however i can force you to tolerate me.
In 2000 we thought technology would set us free. The People would be able to speak their minds and no government could contain it.
Where did it all go so wrong?
>Where did it all go so wrong?
normies
Normies started using it
People don't want to be free. Society is an implicit agreement to surrender certain freedoms in exchange for security and stability. Your freedom only extends to the point where people feel their security or stability is threatened.
Tor and Tails are backdoored NSA honeypots. Avoid
>GlowBlack person psyop
Has there been any proof (other than the occasional bug) that Tor has been "backdoored"?
>Muh proof
You should keep using W11 like the moron you are. Everything is backdoored at CPU level fricking dumbass, let alone your script kiddie browser made by the fricking Pentagon.
>No proof.
Figured as much. GlowBlack folk need to die.
even though there is no proof they are in the CPU, they are actually possible https://www.computerworld.com/article/3079417/researchers-built-devious-undetectable-hardware-level-backdoor-in-computer-chips.html
You're a psyop, it's just like a few years back when the feds took down a load of deep web market places, and then in the media strongly implied that they had found a weakness in TOR. The reality (as revealed in court documents) was that they'd just used fairly standard police techniques. It's all an attempt to make you think that it's backdoored so that you don't use it. It's much easier to feed you FUD and discourage you than it is to track you down after using it. On top of that, the fact that they employed Carnegie-Mellon to find vulnerabilities in the tor network, strongly imply that it's NOT backdoored.
>they are actually possible
I'm not saying it's impossible. It's just I've seen enough of this glowBlack person FUD to not believe it.
> even though there's no proof
stopped reading at the end of no proof.
they are possible, just in CPU reside on the there is no proof
I literally just posted the image from the Snowden leaks about how the NSA has backdoored Tor
ITT? Point it out to me, I can't find it.
>I literally just posted the image from the Snowden leaks about how the NSA has backdoored Tor
> posts nothing
> no proof
fricking moronic Black folk, everyone.
>Tor and Tails are backdoored NSA honeypots. Avoid
hello, pedophile police man. it's amazing the people that screech so loudly with nonsense are the same people that are running child porn sites on tor, while catching ZERO sex offenders. seems like tor works way too well, and all that's left for the child rapists of your local police department is to try and discoruage use. sorry, pedophile. we're not low iq Black folk like you.
Anyone else noticed an increase in the number of posts claiming (with zero proof) that everything is backdoored? Are we really saying this isn't a coordinated psyop to make people believe that "nothing is beyond ~~*their*~~ reach"?
Bitcoin is glowies wet dream, you have to be an absolute mongoloid to think thats the future of human rights instead of monero.
>Tails
>Tor
not ironically, using windows and chrome without extensions is equal to or even safer than that herd effect garbage.
Use QubeOS and FireCuck with user.js if you want 'muhh privacy'
>Courage
>Wikileaks
I see you, snowdengay, your pills.
>bitcoin
Cringe.
Everyone knows you use Tor.
If they wanted to crack down on human rights and whatever meme you believe fell for involves Tor, they'd put Tor users in camps.
>wikileaks is russian govt information agency
>tor is literal honeypot for feds
>tails is pozzed and has fed backdoors
>literally who?
>bitcoin has been memed into oblivion as feds don't like decentralized currencies
If Wikileaks works for Russia why have they released hundreds of thousands of Russian documents?
>why would they release russian documents if that would make them non-russian affiliated to the general moron?
None of the documents released have any relevance today, else troonyden would've kept himself safe years ago
wtf is a "human right"? if it can be taken away is it a right? doesn't that make it a privilege? this is rhetorical. I know the answer. Just so you know the only right in this world lies with the people who have the power to take "rights" away.
Why shouldn't I rape your daughter? Is that just rhetorical? A privilege? Maybe she needs to grow up and stop thinking it's wrong I rape her.
i dont have a daughter. also you would go to prison. on the other hand politicians rape all the time. ceos rape. they dont face any consequences. see what im getting at? see
for further enforcement of that idea. might makes right. your "rights" are forfeit at any time
Are you a king? If you are a king you got the prima nocta right. That's a king's human right.
If you are not a king, my daughter can just shoot you in your dick. Should my daughter shoot your dick off? Is that just rhetorical? A privilege? Maybe you need to grow up and stop thinking it's wrong that women can not only reject you for being an incel, they can kill you for being an incel
> tails
> courage
> bitcoin
honeypot, glow harder
You do not have a human right to privacy on other peoples property. If you are using the internet, your data is passing through other peoples systems. By natural rights, as long as those bits are on their physical property, they have a right to inspect them. They have a right to know when you are accessing their systems and where you came from and where you're going. Your rights are not being infringed. "Tracking" on the internet is the moral equivalent of having security cameras at a store. Then you show up at another store and the security guy from the last one called them and told them if you're a shoplifter or not. Have your rights been violated? No, they have a right to know what you did on THEIR PROPERTY and that data is theirs, naturally, not yours. You generated it, but they put in the work to collect it. "Your" data generated on THEIR PROPERTY and collected BY THEM is also THEIR PROPERTY.
If you have a problem with this, don't use networks (other peoples computers).
I REPEAT
YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHEN YOU ARE USING SOMEONE ELSES COMPUTER
but what if faceberg tells my employer i was looking at dolphin pussy again
the communist ai overlords will assign you to the latest and greatest new mk ultra op where you must take high doses of LSD with dolphins and jerk them off, and later have sex with them as you attempt to imprint upon them an innate desire to learn to communicate with you in English. Think you're up to the task?
nah they'll congratulate you for deciding not to reproduce
>website: by using our service you consent to the use of tracking cookies. you are free to delete them. we reserve the right to keep logs of your access to your service and retain ownership of those logs.
>freetards: help im being raped
This is true
Also this
Of course the natural conclusion is to take the Unabomberpill
my machine, i get to do whatever i want on it, including sending you the least amount of information about me as i possibly can, dont care if its your property, its effects are harmful
"Human rights" are determined by upper middle class men European in office buildings. They are a completely arbitrary, malleable concept which cannot be formally and universally codified by virtue of their artificiality.
yeah, all we have are property rights. if we don't have property, they'll eventually infringe on our bodily property and precious fluids.
>all we have are property rights
There are no rights. The only thing we have is a claim which must be enforced via power. "Rights" are only real in the sense that a government will do the enforcement for us and in return we pay taxes.
If hard problems exist, hard problems can be used to digitally enforce property rights. I know that means nothing in the physical sense, but that can eventually become significant if everyone believes it. Ultimately, it matters more that everyone believes something is yours than even you thinking it is yours, which hard problems work perfectly at proving provided the property has some type of digital underpinning.
Human rights assume the belief in a totally made up god that does not exist in any recorded religion. This made up god has given commandments to secret prophet philosophers who stated his words as facts. There is no real world, factual basis for the idea that people have certain rights and no basis for each and every one in scripture. The bible says nothing about free speech, privacy, or the right to bear arms, or... so on and so on. Which religion does?
The only fact is that you are afforded the rights you are willing to fight for if the damage you are willing and able to cause exceeds the cost of allowing you the rights you desire. Ergo, the less physical or political power you have, the fewer rights you have. The first thing you should take if you want to restrict rights is a rifle. Semi-automatic rifles pose a legitimate threat to military and law enforcement targets. You can keep pistols and shotguns though. Those are perfectly adequate for committing mass shootings. The other first thing you take is someone's ability to spread their messages and inspire other people to act like them, and instruct them on the construction of explosives.
> bible says nothing about free speech
and that's why I am atheist. The Human RIghts declaration is an agreement where all important humans agreed in a series of things someone deserves by just "being human (furries not included, they dropped their humanity long ago)". If you want, you can refuse your human right, but most of us still like them.
In what, a future with fox people?
Your declaration is as much of a bullshit religion as any other. Only weaker, because you have no god. You have no divine truth. You have no prophet or magic or holy book. Everything you believe is an argument, not a fact. If you say furries not included, how's this? A furry makes an argument that they have all the qualities that make humans deserving of rights sans their appearance and ability to interbreed with simians. Many people agree. People who disagree get shot. The remaining people on your side start to think it's not worth it, and they do not have the resolve given by belief in an ultimate truth who has power over the afterlife. All they ever had was "what that guy said sounded like a good idea at the time". That's your faith. It's weak.
In fact, these people giving furries their rights... could very well be christians, and therefore stronger in their resolve and able to refuse all of your conniving "logical" arguments (all logic in morals is invalid because it is never based on a real premise. even a goal is not really necessarily correct or incorrect. you can not rationally argue for the irrational.) on grounds of faith alone. Your best rhetorical and rational tricks defeated, "because god fricking said so".
"Furries aren't people because they fricking aren't. They're not human. That just matters, okay? Because mortal men said so."
"The priests said that anyone who can accept christ has his protection. Because the creator of the universe wills it."
tldr without the belief in at least one god and his word as a fact there is no morality
atheists and "humanists" have no morals. you are intellectually dishonest egoists who have come to a mutual agreement entirely for your self benefit;
proof your god exists then. If you do with PROOF, not any book written 2000 years ago, I will accept that my claims make no sense
>PROOF your god exists
Have faith. That's it. The simple belief that any god exists is stronger than all of secular "morality", as enough socratic questions can completely dismantle your shit and leave you screaming "WELL IT JUST IS BECAUSE IT IS AND IF YOU DONT AGREE THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU BECAUSE ITS JUST THAT WAY BECAUSE I THINK IT IS"
Proof your morals have a real basis? Your system is egoism with a veneer of virtue. Your system is faith that your opinions somehow align with a fact you do not and can not know. There is no higher authority but human force, you simply have opinions and you have come to a mutually beneficial agreement with other egoists. The ultimate statement that defeats your entire "moral" system is "I disagree" and the holy sword that strikes you down is a gun. In death you are never a martyr, in life you are never a priest. You can be an opinionated man with power or you can be a loser. If that's the basis for modern civilization for you secular fricks then modern civilization will collapse the moment enough people just say "i disagree". And the common man, with no god to look up to and believe in, just some moron with an opinion saying "trust the logic", will cowtow. Especially if the one who disagrees comes with a god. A god, or gods, if you choose to see their miracles and see proof of their existence in creation, will always be a stronger basis for morality than anything secular. People would always rather fight for the creators of the universe and a man who says "i know the mind of this or that god and have deduced their will" than men who say "trust me, i'm very smart and I just know better".
FYI, originally, the philosophies that secular moralgays draw on assumed the existence of the christian god and his will. Egoism is the end point should you lack a god.
yep
it is because an all powerful being who clearly exists says so > it is because its obvious that it should be
>*god is not real*
>People should act this way. This is how it should be. Trust science.
>should be according to who
>what makes them special
>do they have their own plans in mind? what about my plans?
>what's this greater good and why should i care about everyone else?
>does this benefit some people more than others? why are they more important?
>why are more numerous people more important?
>okay but isn't the purpose of life to spread its own genes? my genes are more important than theirs then right? aren't you trying to prevent my genes from spreading to make room for yours?
>shut uuuuup!!!
faith is proof of shit. my point still stands, try harder next time.
> Proof your morals have a real basis
Sure. my morals are that everything i think is fair shoud be applied to everyone (they align almost perfectly with the Human Rights) that considers himself human and also agrees with those morals, since why sould i respect someone on a way that they themselves don't respect
So you could say that the basis of my morals are: don't others what they dont like if you don't what others doing to yourself what you dont want, except if the other deserves it (something that will be decided by you, and evaluated by others (judges) ) or the other is a homosexual that doesn't respect those morals, applied usually by people such as the police, and proven due of the subject's actions (such as killing without reason)
>Faith is proof of shit
Faith is the belief that what you see in creation is proof that there must be the gods you believe in.
What you describe is egoism with a veneer of virtue. Again. I can simply say "i disagree" to any of your points and they are invalidated. I disagree that someone must consider themselves human, because sufficiently intelligent nonhumans can contribute to our society in the same capacity as humans. I disagree that someone must be able to consider themselves at all because non-sapients are pleasant, useful, and still have thoughts and feelings that anyone with a functioning sense of empathy will respect. Why? Because I disagree. That's it. Or let's be evil. I believe that regardless of species some individuals are inferior to others and must be forcibly removed from this earth for the benefit of more cooperative individuals. The more people that agree with me, or are paid to do what I say, or the more powerful my weapons, the more right I am. Or the weaker your will the more right I am. That works too.
>So you could say that the basis of my morals are...
Your opinions hopefully being shared by others. But when push comes to shove comes to a well sharpened shovel, your faith is weak, your morals have no basis. A man who psychotically believes in all powerful men living in warp space deciding the fates of humans real selves will have stronger, more immovable morals than you and humans have a natural tendency to prefer that mode of thought because it codifies survival strategies in a way that foreign subversives can not damage the culture and reduce its fitness.
>the basis of my morals are people agreeing with my morals because they also think they are a good idea
>in comes a charismatic man who says he spoke to the creator of the universe and de-facto owner of mankind
>if you believe him his morals have a strong basis
>otherwise your morals are a union of egoists
religion fricks secular society sideways every time
> religion fricks secular society sideways every time
i was raised as a christian, so there was no way of avoiding that
which means most of your morals are most likely ultimately based on the teachings of christ, and when it comes down to it you will sooner side with a gentle, forgiving sect of christians who took turn the other cheek and cast not the first stone literally from the english translation rather than believing the harsh words of the original greek, than side with modern secular "egoists in everything but name" who can quickly turn against you just because more of them (or the more powerful of them) decide it's a good idea at the time...
no, only that some of my morals are derived from christianism. I will never be part of some cult-like religion, such as Jehova Witnesses. In fact, I am part of the politheist religion waifuism, where I worship my godess of choice Utsuho as one of the many goddesses there are out there, end every season more and more are added
Lord, may the king have this demon worshipping heathen exiled before he tries to nuke something
YOU CANNOT STOP ME FROM COMMITING ARSON
>atheists and heathens: gee why do religious fricktards execute and banish people who don't share their faith its so unfair
>also atheists and heathens:
ok should had put a disclaimer, my bad.
For obvious reasons, this shit is a joke, I am not willing or thinking about commiting arson. That might shock a high percentage of the residents of IQfy, and for that I am sorry. If you want to file a complaint, do so on here: [email protected]
>The Human RIghts declaration is an agreement where all important humans agreed
The Human Rights declaration is an agreement where all important corporations, called states, agreed on standard ways to exploit human resources available on territories these corporations occupy.
>If you want, you can refuse your human right, but most of us still like them.
Can coal deposit refuse to be mined and processed? Can a sheep refuse to be shaved or slaughtered?
You are here to be exploited. Human rights is a psyop (one of many) to convince you to conform and abstain from violence - but for completely false reasons.
Every single one is a CIA project made with a single purpose to allow people living in "hostile" states leak critical information to the U.S government.
Human rights do not exist. If that was the other way around then Julian Assange would be free.
Technology is the ultimate devil, the biggest threat to humanity that ever existed. The advent of technology has led to the rise of a new priest class, software engineers/IT professionals that spearhead our world into a dangerous post tech dystopian void with their nonsensical developments that overcomplicate, overengineer and ultimately hamper humanity as a species, making us dependant on soulless machines and turning us into weak worthless flesh puppets whose existences revolves around the magical network that governs every aspect of our fricking lives.
Think about it, what real world contribution does a software engineer really have? What is it they do that justifies their ridiculously inflated wages? Make fancy buttons and push around meaningless packets of 1s and 0s from one endpoint to another endpoint? Was there really a need for an invention like Facebook or Twitter when simple chatrooms and forums and myspace worked just fine? Why do we need smartphones, don't fliphones essentially serve the same function?
This is the satanic black magic influence of t*chnology, every invention/development renders a worthless dependancy that never needed to be made, but provides artificial convenience just the same which gets people hooked on them like crack. Our ancestors lived simple and spend their days working the land yet today most zoomers can't fathom spending an hour without their smartphones and fancy snapchats.
These are non functions, essentially functionality that serves no purpose but provides an artificial delusion of convenience that slowly fosters dependancies in the minds of its consumers till they cannot fathom how they survived without it. This satanic frickery warps our humanity and turns us into techno dependant zombies that lose essential functions of day to day survival cause they are abstracted away. How many zooms can find their way around unfamiliar neighbourhoods without g*ogle maps? How many can remember a phone number?
Give you the ability to post this schizo drivel that translates to "i hate technology because people who work with it are wealthier than me and it makes it easy for the government to make me pay taxes"
Well it also makes it harder for the government to get away with sending a pair of knights to chop your head off for being a dissenting peasant.
Name 1 essential contribution made by software Black person monkeys that has made any actual meaningful noticable impact in the real world and improved humanity as a whole.
Post 2005, which is where evolution of tech should've stopped
> software Black person monkeys
it's a trap question. code monkeys just do js shit. i am talking about real engineers. people that actually made a difference. people like Linus Torvalds, Richard Stevens, Richard Stallman, Phil Zimmermann. That kind of people made an actual difference. Obviously they are not the only ones, but they are the few I was able to come to mind
I worked at an automation firm, we were building automatons to do blue collar jobs (mostly focusing on steal manufacturing). I've since left but we showed some good progress at the time:
>Wagies are no longer needed
>Leads to cheaper steal
>More efficient than your average wagie
>No unions to get in the way
>All of the above means that it's probably going to be cheaper to manufacture steal in the US than China
We were planning IPO exit in a couple of years, so I'm looking forward to living a cushy life with my fat stacks.
That proves his point though. You are automating away livelihoods just to squeeze out some profits, not only does it not benefit humans but actualy harms their prospects of getting a job. Plus bringing the manufacturing home means nothing if it doesn't create jobs, and I'm pretty sure you're still going to need manpower to maintain these machines which will always be cheaper in China or Vietnam or fricking India when compared to a western country. Factories aren't coming back to the west for a long long time, not unless there's a radical shift from profit oriented operation to a more nationalist approach.
>manpower to maintain these machines which will always be cheaper in China or Vietnam
Yes and no, Automated factories will be more expensive in the west but it can be cost saving vs transportation and risk of transportation over seas along with funding China (illegitimate terrorist government)
>language is cancer
>people can not figure things out
>people can not even find their way around the village without asking "where was the hay last placed?"
>grug hate talking.
Didn't know they gave convicts internet access in maximum security federal holdings, good for you Ted!
>Was there really a need for an invention like Facebook or Twitter when simple chatrooms and forums and myspace worked just fine
myspace is shit, but IRC/imageboards were enough, gotta gree with that
> This is the satanic black magic influence of t*chnology
the meds
> what real world contribution does a software engineer really have?
most of Software Engineers don't contribute shit, but some do actual shit, things like MATH being easier, or facilitating the perfect conditions for the druglab^TM of your choice .
Hahaha no
no in fact it does a lot more to curtail them than anything else
You don't have a human right to people not knowing what you're doing on their network. No reasonable expectation of privacy.
Complain about rights when your activities off their network are being spied on.
Otherwise yes technology helps people disseminate news about human rights abuses over so many channels that no government could ever completely control.
Throughout history, technology has been more involved in doing the opposite.
It can erode them
>booties swarm the thread to deep throat Putin and fascists/communists
>t. capitalist
>human rights
lmao
ITS TIME FOR THE PILL
Technologies, yes
The technologies in your pic, no
Can technology suck my big fat wiener?
It can help.
Soon.
>Can technology save human rights?
Technology is for suppressing human rights