Opinions

Please Note: The TotalFreedom Forum has now been put into a read-only mode. Total Freedom has now closed down and will not be returning in any way, shape or form. It has been a pleasure to lead this community and I wish you all the best for your futures.
    Quote

    ↩ @'billy7oblos' You simply cannot “disagree with science” because science is not a person. Science is just our observation of things around us.

    Disagreeing with a consenus from people much smarter than you makes you a moron, not a "skeptic" lol

    Guys, seriously, dont turn this into a thread like that LGBTQ+ Rights thread.
    By guys i mean
    @"Miwojedk"#64 and @"billy7oblos"#267
    I can see it happening again

    Endermatter Cat-Person with wings and Magic who follows the Cat Religion.

    "Never Surrender."

    Quote

    ↩  Miwojedk makes you a moron

    ↩  Zarcana state opinion with safety

    bruh
    Anyone can be wrong at any time, and many people can be wrong in the same way, so calling someone a moron for disagreeing with a consensus of people (although it's really not a consensus, there are a ton of creationist/intelligent design physicists/scientists) who may be smarter is actually pretty, well, moronic.

    The Ancient Greeks firmly believed in the existence of deities that they used to explain natural events. However, as natural philosophy rose, one man came along, Socrates, that threatened that worldview. Of course, everyone knew that the Greek gods were real, and Socrates was being ridiculous to not agree that the gods were the sole cause of everything that happened in nature. Socrates was then forced to drink poison for spreading disbelief in the gods.
    Today, everyone firmly believes in science as the absolute answer to explain natural events, and the universe at large. However, some people have disagreed with some of science's theories. Of course, everyone knows that science is always right, and that people are morons for disagreeing with science. Those few people are then mocked, ridiculed, and called idiots or morons.

    I wonder how many people today that admire Einstein and talk about all his great discoveries would have mocked him for "disagreeing with science" if he had told them he disagreed with Newton's theory of gravity. The theory that was science that had been accepted, by consensus of thousands of scientists, for over 200 years. Rejecting and mocking any opposing viewpoints against current popular theories sounds pretty unscientific to me.

    2021-09-26_17.01.50.png

    im not gonna start a huge debate (in this thread atleast lmao) BUT

    Quote

    ↩  Miwojedk Disagreeing with a consenus from people much smarter than you makes you a moron, not a “skeptic” lol

    A. you called it a skeptic
    B. there is no such thing as smartness, you can say IQ or experience (if its iq you can call most people from the older generation morons, but if its experience the older generations can call you morons)
    C. the only moron is the person who thinks we can keep doing unnatural things to human bodies, and never once run into any unexpected side effects (especially with complex tech such as vaccines)

    I actually highly dislike zarcana bc of the shit he talks about, search "ender matter/endermatter" in the TF discord.

    its just... why?

    The idea that "everything should be FOSS (Free and Open Source)" is extremely flawed and will never be the case. It's not how the world works, as people expect to get paid for their work. If everything was free and open source, I would argue that the quality of software would actually decline because then nobody would be motivated to actually give it their best effort.

    Also, Linux will never replace Windows in a desktop environment.

    image.png

    ↩  videogamesm12 Uh, it may be flawed just not for them reasons, if everything was open source then you'd still need people to apply that knowledge to other things, alot of science is "open source" per say but there are still scientists and engineers to apply that knowledge to make new things. I think security is the biggest reason against open source. Its easy to get information out of something you know all the ins and outs of, but not something that you don't know what it is that you're facing.

    Quote

    ↩  Tozzit I think security is the biggest reason against open source. Its easy to get information out of something you know all the ins and outs of, but not something that you don’t know what it is that you’re facing.

    This view is known as "security by obscurity" and is widely rejected by security experts. The most popular secure algorithms are considered secure because they have been scrutinized by thousands of experts and none of them have managed to break them.

    ↩  characterslimits You are correct, but what the article doesn't discuss is the willingness to pay when the software can also be obtained gratis. No one has ever gotten rich selling libre software.