It’s highlighting hypocrisy. It’s asking: do you take this problem seriously, or are you just complaining?
That's a very black and white way of looking at things.
I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of what you said, but presenting it as a false dichotomy like that undermines your argument about other peoples bad faith approaches to rhetoric.
edit: as do downvotes with no response when called out.
Necessity is relative and contextual, there are legitimately places where eating meat is required because the caloric and nutritional consequences of not eating meat are life threatening.
Lack of access(for various reasons) to sufficient non-meat food is lacking.
These reasons are usually problems that can be solved, so on a long enough timescale (and assuming the right steps are taken to remedy the situation) then this problem goes away, but to disregard this proportion of the population is to leave an opening.
It's not the norm though, AFAIK.
yeah, I think there's also a people who have an adapted eye lens shape to help with underwater acuity, Sherpa’s with oxygen efficiency at high altitude etc.
I wonder if there is a name for the taxonomic distinction here.
Purely scientifically the Wikipedia page suggests a whole bunch of different types of biological taxonomic distinctions that could be applied, but acknowledges that definitions are all over the place and not necessarily agreed upon.
In that sense you'd need to adjust yourself biologically, at the genetic level, to satisfy some of the definitions.
All of that disregards the non-biological connotations of the discussion though, so not super helpful here, just interesting.
Genuine question, isn't there enough genetic differentiation between certain populations that they would be considered a distinct grouping, is there a name for this ?
Like how medically there is enough (genetic) differentiation in certain circumstances to affect diagnosis and/or treatment.
I agree race is a social construct, especially given how it's used, I’m just wondering if there is a name for the groupings (or if they exist at all , i suppose)
edit: Added clarification to the differentiation to make it specifically genetic, because that could also be affected by environmental things.
further edit: now i think about it , genetics can just be a long term accumulation of environmental pressures so it's kinda murky anyway
That's a sound argument, mostly (in the quote, i mean)
If the technical implementation of how they would try and force age verification was the problem people were concerned about, this take would be very useful.
Physical locks on glass doors are easy to bypass, doesn't mean you won't get shafted if someone just so happens to catch you in the act.
If third party age verification is legally mandated the implementation being technically difficult (or easy to bypass) doesn't stop it from being illegal.
Being a condescending prick works better if the position you take is unassailable, you do you though.
You did not, points for effort though.
I'll try to make it simpler.
Ask for proof of claim they have made - YES 👍
Ask for proof to dispute/disprove claim you have made - NO 👎
if you suggest something is a fallacy , that's a claim you have made.
edit : emojis for visual cues
edit : changed no description to be more accurate
Why do people so often invert the burden of proof?
I know, right ?
If someone says “Picking your nose will cause brain-cancer in 40 years.” Then they have the burden to proof that. Nobody has the burden to disprove that.
Absolutely, and if you'd asked for proof of their accusation you'd be correct in this instance.
They made the accusation that this is a step to make this age fields mandatory, and controlled by third-party age verification services, so they have the burden to proof that there is way to do that.
They did and you could ask them to make a case for that, you didn't.
You provided your own accusation:
You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?
And proceeded to tell them that they are required to provide proof to dispute your new accusation.
You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.
Which is what i was addressing specifically when i said:
You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.
I find it highly unlikely, because most people using Linux systems at home have admin privileges. Which makes this whole point moot, since they can fake whatever they like to the software running on top.
It makes the field itself mostly a non issue in the single isolated context of "does this field, on it's own, constitute age verification".
The point most people are trying to make is that it's a part of a larger context.
No, they don't.
You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.
edit: asking for an explanation of their thoughts around the issue is fine, but a requirement it is not.
Ah yes, the two genders, completely sane "piles of guns" owner and raging psychopath.
Nuance doesn't exist, accidents don't happen and a mostly overlooked societal mental health crisis is woke DEI propaganda.
Ah, this is probably my fault.
I'm not the person you were replying to so i wasn't really arguing any of these points, i just a saw the request and knew of an example, so i provided it.
Just in case this was for me specifically I’ll answer:
Yea I have zero issue with the fact that accounts with pictures of children’s genitals on them should be referred to the the authorities.
Pictures of children’s genitals aren’t inherently CSAM, there are plenty of parents and family members with entirely innocent pictures of their kids on their phones.
There are examples of this in the reported cases of false positives leading to bad outcomes, this is easily searchable.
I'm not saying to not do anything, I’m saying blanket reporting is an ineffective brute-force approach.
If people want privacy, host the pictures locally.
In theory yes, in practice, not so much.
on-device scanning exists and is in use/has been in use on phones, examples of this are also easily searchable.
When you’re storing images with a cloud provider. They become responsible for the images that they store. If it’s a photo of a child’s genitals and that’s illegal for them to have those images on their servers and they need to protect themselves.
The need for legal protection is valid, scanning cloud uploaded photo's is a user privacy nightmare, but expected.
End to end encryption (where only the users device can decrypt and see the photo) would probably stand up legally but then they wouldn't be able to use the cloud photo's to make money.
The problem comes with the recognition of illegal and the way it's handled.
Yes, but also it's the 4th result on that page.
Seems like reading 4 entries is a problem so here is a direct link
Claiming that something is a fallacy doesn’t make it any less true. It’s a very lazy way of arguing.
I agree completely, i've seen an example of this recently :
It’s just a stupid “slippery slope” fear mongering.
I also have a list of examples of things that are not fallacies, just poor debate skills:
If i had to pick one though i'd probably go with the Invincible ignorance fallacy
The real problem is that some countries are actively trying to de-anonymize internet users. Not all countries accused of it are actually doing it, not all laws that people say will do it actually have this goal and not every technology that makes it possible will for sure be used with this purpose.
100% agree that this is a big problem, it's not the only one, but a big one.
I'm expecting it to work on a multiplicative curve, exponential ? geometric?
All of the bits from various places will add up and continue to accumulate momentum towards the goal.
Going on wild chases after some silly PRs in systemd or digital IDs is not helping anyone. It just serves as a distraction and makes fighting the real threats more difficult.
Which is again, not the point and also incorrect.
Highlighting this as another example of the continuous creep towards end goal while explaining the increasing encroachment is incredibly useful for getting more eyes on the bigger picture.
because.....the issue isn't the PR , but the intent behind it.
If it was just about the PR itself in isolation, i'd agree with you.
If anything, you trying to shut down the discussion around this "silly" PR is doing more to harm the general increase in awareness.
i'm also on slrpnk.net (same username) though i'm much more a lurker over there.
I'm all for the "everything is political" position, at least where animals are concerned (people are also animals).
I wasn't asking that question in seriousness but your points are interesting.
I'd think all the examples you provided are people politics , with a grass subject.
I think what i meant was "is physical grass inherently political" but i haven't thought this all the way through tbh.
I get that grass as a concept can be (and is) a political subject, but the physical grass itself ?
Like, can physical objects be inherently political if you take them outside of external political influences (people stuff)?
Hmm, i shall have to think about this one.
TL;DR;
Let’s say the answer is “Guaranteed”, in 5 years age verification on OS level will be mandated by law in US. Will it become mandatory on all Linux installations? Of course not.
If the law mandates OS level age verification, then, yes, it will become mandatory on all linux installations, in the situations where the law applies. there is no "of course not" about it.
Will everybody adhere to this? almost certainly not, will it be illegal to not adhere to this yes it will.
Anyone willing will just download Linux distro for any other country and use it.
Agreed, still illegal though.
Let’s say age verification will become mandatory in the whole fucking world and all official Linux distros will adopt it. Anyone willing will download “illegal” Linux distro and use it.
Also agreed.
The source code is there, making a version of Linux without age verification is and always will be easy.
Easy is a leap, i'll agree to possible. Still illegal in the proposed scenario.
The changes done by systemd are meaningless because they do no bring us any closer to real enforcement.
I'm not disputing that the actual change itself is of much use in a verification sense, which i've said repeatedly.
Technically , by definition, the addition of code that facilitates checks, no matter how small, is bringing us closer, but i know what you mean and I’ve already stated that i agree.
The issue being raised is not the PR itself, but the intention behind it (and the intentions behind the law that started it) , as has been stated multiple times.
Police knocking on people’s doors and checking their computers will bring real enforcement and what systemd does or doesn’t do has nothing to do with it.
Also not true, that example doesn't really hold up , but to answer it directly :
To be clear I’m not saying this to claim a position of "field is bad on it's own", i'm saying your example doesn't hold up.
Getting mad at systemd for adding this field only shows people don’t understand what the real danger is.
As i have said multiple times, most people aren't arguing against the field itself.
You continuing to pretend they are mad at systemd for the field itself is telling.
You’re conflating political issues with completely irrelevant technical changes.
No, I’ve been clear that they are separate and that most aren't complaining about the technical change in isolation.
I'll quote myself:
This field is not age verification on it’s own.
Nobody is pushing this single field change in isolation is a full age verification system, to pretend they are is disingenuous and reeks of bad faith.
If you want to continue to pretend conflation so you don't have to actually address the concern being presented that says a lot.
This is very simple. I really don’t know how people are confused by it. It’s like you are trying to distract us from the real problems on purpose.
So, incorrect usage of a fallacy, moving goalposts, feigned ignorance , and now projection.
Is there some sort of bingo card you're working from ?
Anyway, I’ll assume bad faith at this point, as it's unlikely you hit that many checkboxes accidentally.
On the offchance I’ll get a genuine answer, what is it that you think is the "real problem" here ?
Dude, we’re talking about systemd. It being open source is the single most important factor here.
Says who? I'd argue that the perceived pre-capitulation is the most important part.
Moving goalposts to align with your notion of the most important part doesn't mean the goalposts weren't moved.
If you don’t understand this you have no idea what is being discussed.
Says someone who's whole argument relies on claiming that people think a single db field is full age verification.
The person you are replying to mentioned 3d printers as well as privacy in general , if you want to move the goalposts that's on you.
Bringing up age verification in UK is like saying iptables supports internet censorship because great firewall of China exists.
My stated position was that escalation happens and the UK is an example, at no point did i equate the single field here to the measures in the uk.
If you want to go with false equivalence try and be a bit more subtle about it at least.
I'll make it easy, respond to the following statement without moving any goalposts.
Of the following options, how likely do you think it is that the current US government or some part thereof will try and pass a law or add legislation to mandate OS level age verification in some form greater than the current Californian proposal.
OK, so i really need to preface this with the fact that this is a genuine question, my knowledge of political ideologies and their naming schemes is basically "things i heard in passing on the internet".
Also apologies if it's a joke that i've /whooshed on.
What is the difference between the type of democratic socialist you are and a social democrat.
Is it a Peoples Front Of Judea type of thing ? or is there a legitimate difference?
The reason i ask is that the only other social democrat (or democratic socialist, assuming there isn't a difference) political ideology I’ve heard of was the precursor to the nazi's.
It's really not a dig, i'm interested in the answer.