All the stories reference the same screenshot. I don't see any comments confirming this. Is this a real story or a hoax? I would confirm it myself, but who wants to upgrade to Windows 11 until the bugs get worked out first?

If you're going to complain about the bible and the post links to webpages, you probably ought to read them like I have. For example, in you evilbible link, go ahead and read the front page and Judges 21 that it is complaining about, In fact read to the very end (which you obviously didn't) where it says in v25 "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit." Don't attribute to God all the evil that man is fully capable of doing himself. Lazy.

Online harassment is already a crime, just as offline harassment is. What these Attorney Generals are aiming for is to have Facebook and other online entities to sidestep the courts and punish crimes as-defined-by-the-man without legal recourse.

PaleMoon looks like an interesting competitor - and I get to keep my favorite extensions. I'll keep my eye on it. Thank you for the info!

And... now I'm actively looking for a new casual browser.

None of my gaming friends have an 'EA Evil and Steam Good' mentality. The same principle that applies to EA applies to Steam and PS3 games - I don't buy single player games that require an always on connection and I avoid most of the other games that have more permissive DRM.

I don't download games without paying for them. I don't let other people play my games. I just want to play the games I've bought in the way I want. If a game company wants to limit how I play my games, then they better have a fantastic product or my wallet remains closed.

No. We started from a common point (my original post). You laid out your arguments, I put forth my rebuttals. Now that I (IMNSHO) 'won' the argument, you ask me to set aside our whole discussion and look at it from a new angle.

While it is a perfectly reasonable request, I am not willing to spend the time debating the issue further unless there is a point to it. Since you seem unwilling to accept my first rebuttals, I have no reason to believe further rebuttals will make a difference. Therefore: no. Last post on this issue.

As far as I can tell, I did not use anything very old to prove that the earth is young. Can you specifically point out what made you arrive at that conclusion?

By definition, we must start with illogical assumptions because assumptions cannot be proved. To call assumptions irrational is an empty argument - aaand that was partly my point. Because old-earthists believe in a particular set of assumption, doesn't mean that conclusions logically arrived via another set of assumptions is wrong. we must be careful not to mix the belief that the earth is old/new with the facts that those beliefs are derived from.

Logically speaking, there is possibility that magic pixies did create the universe as it is 5 minutes ago. Don't believe me? Prove that magic pixies didn't just now create the universe as-is.

To me, my conclusions are reasonable and logical and old-earthists are the convoluted ones forcing facts to fit their theories. To not accept my assumptions is everyone's privilege, but that doesn't mean they are right. Maybe I am too convoluted. I actually enjoy number theory and programming combined with a healthy dose of epistemology, and that probably is crazy.

Forgot to add the link to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Facts are the fossil record, genetics, the redshift of distant starts, the amount of oil under the ground, erosion rates...

I can use each of those scientific facts to logically 'prove' that the earth is young. Other use those same facts to 'prove' that the earth is old. Other's use those same theories to 'prove' the universe is only a big hologram. The entire debate about young vs. old earth is a debate about assumptions of how the universe works. Let's settle for a concrete example: does red-shift prove a young earth or old earth? answer: neither.

Stepping back to philosphy/mathematics: logically, we can not be 100% which is true until we make an infinite set of assumptions - Godel's Theorem

As a strong believer in my particular brand in young-earth creationism, I don't disagree with the facts and science supporting evolution. I disagree with the popular interpretation of those facts (evolution).

Unfortunately, most proponents of both evolution and creation try to force their theories on other people. Mandating a particular interpretation of facts is anti-science and is not a step forward. I am sorry that any leader in British government would proudly force their intolerance onto other people.