Leaderboard

My personal thread summary: .

My goodness, I didn't expect my post to be the basis of a new thread about morality objective reality, the right to privacy, dopamine fixes, occult teachings, and sin, but stranger things have happened. You've made up your own 7 deadly sins, which is interesting. In the original lineup, "pride" was on the list, as was "greed." They were probably on there for a good reason. I don't have much to say here. To have all these solid ideas about objective reality and the right way to do things, and for so many people to not acknowledge them with the same importance that you do, must be difficult. I will focus on "getting rich' now, I suppose, though what's considered wealth is very relative indeed. Cheers. p.s. You should consider lifting your personal ban on "exciting music," that's a little cruel to the self.

Hello! Yes, attempts to show that "objective morality" exist are around since the time of Plato (at least) but they have never succeeded. Securing the possibility of objective knowledge in morality has been the dream of several Giants of Philosophy throughout human history, but nobody so far succeeded. Nowadays scientific analysis tend to show the contrary, i.e. that there's no such thing as an objective morality. Then, even if objective morality existed, comes the huge problem to define it and to interpret the definition. Your definition for example is not universally accepted, therefore there are serious doubts that this "objectivity" exists indeed. And even by accepting your definition many actions remain moral for some people and immoral for other people, according to the interpretation of your definition (we will not insult your intelligence to make trivial examples). Anyway, all of your considerations don't change the observation that your statement according to which privacy would be "a form of luxury" for financially wealthy people is false, perhaps even according to your own definition of morality! This can be an honorable and moral behavior indeed, but we don't see how this personal choice should support the idea that privacy is the luxury of wealthy people. Kind regards

Privacy is a fundamental human right enshrined in any charter of fundamental rights, including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and a series of amendments in the US constitution (including but not limited to the 4th Amendment). The right to privacy has been equated to the right to life (for example by the India Supreme Court) and privacy (in the form of anonymity) has been recognized as an essential requisite to freedom of expression, according to a landmark & paramount decision of the US Supreme Court in 1994. It is exactly the opposite in many documented cases. The right to privacy is often perceived as a privilege for the wealthy but it is actually more crucial for financially poor individuals, as you can easily verify through the sources and reports by the UN and by many human rights advocate organizations. As far as it pertains to additional protection of privacy on the Internet through more effective data protection and a layer of anonymity, we contribute also by aiding, technically or financially, networks that are free for everyone, such as Tor, making privacy protection enhancement (small or big) affordable for more persons. While privacy is very precisely defined universally (and coded in law as one of the most important human rights in many countries), morality poses problems even with its definition. Codes of conduct endorsed by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, are multiple, and many of them are mutually incompatible. Large groups of people endorse a "supreme, universal" morality that's totally refused by other groups. Some groups define "morality" as something that it's not even defined as "morality" by another group. Some groups claim that "morality" is something defined by some external, powerful entity, given to us through revelation and the interpretation of this revelation by selected persons, while other groups do not even agree about the existence of such external entity. That's why many of the most famous "educators" you mention, in the course of history have been incensed as heroes of their times by some groups, while other groups have defined them, at the same time or later in history, as bloodthirsty monsters, crazy lunatics or anyway people against morality. Even your invitation to avoid a perfectly legal action in all Western countries shows that your "morality" is incompatible with the "morality" of many other individuals and groups. Kind regards

Hi guys, I had this issue whenever I shutdown my computer without exiting eddie in a regular way and I hated to need to restart the computer to fix it. Solution for me: Kill the "openvpn.exe" task -> Eddie seems released, can be started normally again and no "no socket" issue Kind regards, Vent