GuzzyBone

While it's true that the illusion of privacy is mostly that, an illusion... this doesn't change that Personal Information (Name, Phone Number, Address, Zip Code) is one of the most highly-traded and valuable commodities right now. When a sweepstakes is giving away a car, you trade your personal information for the value of potentially winning the car. The company running the sweepstakes inevitably ends up making far more money off of your information than the value of the car. So, A. Yes, your information is already out there. B. Not all businesses and government offices have it. C. But, they really want it, and are often willing to pay for it. Junk mail can be staggering and make owning a mailbox quite an awful experience. Targeted advertising can make someone feel violated and watched. The collection of information and assigning of personal attributes to your personal information, is a very large rising industry and we have only begun to consider the ethical implications of this practice. The cheapest way to collect this information is to have people give it to you voluntarily (without them realizing they are essentially handing their info to a government or advertising agency). In other words, using deceit to exploit customers into giving up a valuable commodity for free. The reason Re-Captcha knows the house numbers already is because it is user-fed and it cross checks your answer with other user-input.

Here's an alternative perspective, at least on "downvoting" I am new to this forum, but I always conduct myself with politeness, authenticity, empathy, and with an appeal to reason and evidence. Regardless, almost all of my posts seem to get at least 1 downvote, which I can only assume is due to "controversial" information that contradicts pre-determined viewpoints or consensus within the community. Why would I assume this? Because rather than debate my position or argue from reason and evidence, It seems easier to simply downvote. If you disagree, then state it, and tell me exactly why using reason and evidence. Downvoting is like trying to bully your perceived "opposition" out of sight. When I present a controversial case it's because it's being ignored or overlooked, and something of value can be gained discussing it. I am trying to get people to think, but I think it is easy for people to take a personal defensive position and assume that I have some ulterior motives.

You are absolutely right, except for your belief in a lack of evidence to support the bible. However, before I can even begin to share evidence, I must first dispell the myths. This is especially true because I have already been confronted with these myths as "evidence against" the truth or value of religion several times in this thread already (where folks attempt to use the violence of people, actions of people, and misinterpretations of people to disprove the opening arguments that I've already put forward). If I were simply speaking to myself then sure I could jump right in to the evidence, but part of the argument I've already put forward is that Athiests generally put up a wall of myths or fallacies when confronted with the possibility of profound truth found within religion. I can't really move forward without first chiseling through this wall of myth, when it's being used to block so much of what I've already said. "Would you agree though that statist power and religion go hand in hand" This is what you said to me, and this is essentially the same as saying "violence and religion" go hand in hand, or "catcher in the rye and murder go hand in hand". My answer of course is No. If Religion was out of the equation, Statists would use something else to justify their ethical violations. In the USA this is exactly what the State does. They use Fear, Xenophobia, Revenge, Might = Right, White Man's Burden, etc... instead of Religion.

Well, is begging immoral? No. Is it frowned upon? Only when the begged believes that the begger is being dishonest or pushy. It's hard to say that a webpost is all that pushy, and if you are being honest about your intention and desire for funding then I see little reason to feel remorse or a case of bad conscious. If people feel your cause is deserving, and they genuinely want to help, then they will give. Voluntary giving can only be wrong if the giver is guilted, deceived, or obnoxiously pushed into their decision to give. Voluntary giving is still an equal exchange. It is the exchange of a physical commodity for the gratification or satisfaction of knowing they helped someone or supported a cause.

I stated in my first post that my argument will rest on empiricism and evidence of my own experience and observations. Empiricism is the theory that knowledge derives from sensory experience and observable phenomenon. What Athiests often overlook is that God and the supernatural can be experienced as an observable relationship to the world of nature and our personal lives. This is evident throughout all of history, contained within the testimony of countless people through history describing first-hand or life-long experiences. When enough people tell you that strawberries taste good, but you've never had a strawberry, there is a strong weight of evidence that Strawberries taste pretty damn good. This is not a majority fallacy, this is witness testimony, which holds weight and value in court of law, our relationships, and discerning truth. Firstly, I'm not trying to prove to anyone that God exists, I am only trying to provide empirical perspective and rational observation to real-life phenomena and testimony. In other words, the weight of evidence should speak for itself, then anyone can form their own judgement of what they think is true. Because God is a personal relationship and guiding influence (were God to be arbitrarily forceful, we would have no free will), no one can force you to see his influence, you can only choose to look for yourself and examine his relationship to nature, your life, and your actions. Remember my argument is that Religion and Spirituality have an inherent truth value to understanding ourselves and our relationship to the universe, outside of merely sociology and interpersonal relationships. The majority of Athiest arguements come from a Statist perspective of one book with strict literal interpretation, one institution, one sect, "what this leader said", "what this group/person is doing", but I argue that God is a personally observable experience, which our understanding of has evolved through time and through culture and is therefore extremely context sensitive. The only real absolutes in regards to spirituality are those universally observed truths that can be found in nearly every major religion, and are often repetitively confirmed by science and nature. No where in the bible does it say "Those who live in 2015 AD are strictly bound to interpret God as a holy trinity of Father/Son/Holy Spirit", but this is a symbolic understanding of the nature of God derived from the teachings. Religion has been an evolution of understanding from the very beginning, which is why the teachings of The Old Testament are superceded by added context of The New Testament. The specific language of religion has always been open to evolution and interpretation, this is why it is described with relate-able allegory, story, fable, and the language of the stars (astrology). This is why it has changed through time, and yet each new development builds off of the last. Because an emotional connection to THE INFINITE is not something that can be easily explained with strict literal linguistic and scientific textbook definition. Like I've said it is something that mostly has to be EXPERIENCED to be fully understood. I can elaborate on any part of this arguement if you wish and provide solid examples. Do not confuse the actions of State and people with GOD, because you are merely taking responsibility off of the people for their actions as if they were not in control. I don't know of any religions that will preach that God makes everything happen with brute force according to his arbitrary whims. Instead, the emphasis is always on CHOICE and Free Will. Just as a rational person doesn't blame a gun for murder, you should never blame a tool for understanding God for the actions of a person or group of people. Religion (definition): A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that RELATE humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that AIM TO EXPLAIN the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe. Religion is a tool for understanding God. Religion is NOT God. Also, I should add that a text or person can be divinely inspired and considered to contain the "Word of God", but it is still always written by a person. People are fallible, subject to sin, manipulation, emotional bias, and the mores of their time (Jesus even admitted to this). When bringing the will of God into text, it is still always going through a person. It doesn't just magically appear on a golden tablet (unless you are a known con artist like Joseph Smith). This is only forgotten with fanaticism, where the true delusion is not belief in God, but a delusion in the infallible perfection of humans. Yes, religious fanaticism can give Religion a bad name and create emotional bias against it, just as people who use violence create emotional bias against Guns. PART 2 of my personal testimony will be coming soon. You can read it yourself and form your own judgement. You will see that my story is much more interesting than whatever you expect. That I went from devout Athiest who believed their was no proof, reason, or evidence of God's existence, and then completely changed is because it was proven to me through empirical experience and critical analysis.

The public display of photographs of private residences to catalog and database private homes without consent, by using customers as your free work force. 4 ethical principles violated, customer exploitation, moral compromise, deceit (as many are largely ignorant of what they are participating in), and personal privacy.

30 years of life, and a basic universal understanding that Sex is in large part, the biological act of Reproduction. I'm sorry, did you think that pointing at your metaphorical "certificate of experience" was actually a counterpoint, contradicting evidence, or some form of debate? It's not. It's just a sad attempt at belittling your perceived "opposition". Aside from the mutilation of your organs, or issues with infertility, you are always running the risk of producing offspring. Shocking as this may be to some, actions have consequence. Shocking as it may be (and oh how people love to deny basic biology and deny observable phenomenon)... producing unwanted children can be potentially destructive for all parties involved when compared to a thriving family structure, and often creates less successful and less healthy people. The creation and raising of new life is not only the most important and world-shaking decision you can ever make, but it is our sole biological purpose for existing (passing genes = survival after death). I must be right, because my experience is bigger than yours. I win! *facepalm* ---- I don't assume to know the motivations of people who make irresponsible decisions. If they believe they are infertile, it is still nothing more than a belief. People seem to think that scientists/doctors aren't defied and contradicted all the time, and that science is an omni-potent diety with all-knowledge. Sex is the act of reproduction and you engage in this act with at least a breif understanding of the weight of the consequences. It took vasts amounts of reprogramming against biology and promotion of "new age" pagan hedonism to get people to become so dangerously sex entitled (especially in regards to the women). Mainstream music culture particularly began it's decent into pornography culture around the time of Elvis, and really exploded into all out blatant depravity around the 90s. Music has always had a profoundly deep impact on children, especially starstruck little girls who used to faint at Beatles concerts. Mainstream American music has been a oligarchical institution since it's decent into regulation... Great for social engineering and rewiring biology! (of course, this is all changing with the advent of the internet)

PART I: My personal journey into Religious or Spiritual thought is that, quite personal, but nonetheless I will share aspects in hopes that I will be treated as an equal and with respect, instead of being leveled with assumptions and dismissal. I come from a mostly Athiest background. My mother's side of the family was very strictly Athiest (which today is more like nihilism, "we become dirt", "we are nothing but temporary matter").and my Father's side of the family was devoutly Protestant (My grandfather being a former preacher, and both grandparents being heavily involved in their church and mission work). My mother kind of dominated most aspects of child raising despite being mostly emotionally and physically unavailable. Because of this, Athiesm was the main belief system that was taught in my house, when religion wasn't simply outright ignored that is... It wasn't pushed per se, but Atheism was encouraged, and belief in god was ostracized. I was taught to treat religious beliefs with the utmost respect though, but more from a fragility ("you might offend them") perspective. We prayed before meals and changed certain language around my Christian grandparents, but this was discouraged from continuing beyond their rare visits. Whenever my Christian grandparents would visit, they would read to me from the bible and preach the benefits of the gospel to my young little ears. I was always extremely receptive too it. The stories and teachings seemed intuitive, natural, easy to understand, profound, inspiring, and the only mental blocks that I encountered was the programmed Atheist guilt that my Mother would not approve. Regardless of my Mother's Athiest leanings, my parents did instill a set of core empathetic values, but after my Grandparents would leave, I would be discouraged from continuing my interest. My mother's work-before-family comprising sacrificial attitude meant that I would be tossed into a lot of camps, public schools, daycare, etc... and one time they let me join my Grandparents at a Christian Summer Camp for a week. The whole experience was very transformative and influential for me. At first I felt left out, like I was missing something due to my strongly programmed Atheist beliefs and lifestyle. I was in crisis mode and felt extremely uncomfortable despite nothing but inclusive interactions. I sat down and had not a few personal equal-level critical talks with a Pastor about my apprehension and feelings. He provided relate-able, reason and evidence based discussion about God's role in my life, and Christianity as whole. It really spoke to profound foundational ethical truths that I had simply been ignoring in pursuit of hedonistic and self-centric philosophies. These talks very much influenced a conversion in my life to the Christian teachings, but as soon as camp was over I was discouraged from prayer and my mother made clear that my beliefs would be ostracized. As I went into my teens I became a hateful, vengeful, resentful, sneaky, and rebellious person towards society as a whole. This occurred mostly as a response to the severe trauma of public school on an inquisitive and creative personality, and the largely irrational surrounding culture of institutions, schools, and camps, social groupings, etc... I become very hedonistic, selfish, and had the typical teen notion of invincibility to consequence, and lust for structuring life as purely pleasure. My resentment simply made me vengeful, intellectually biased, and uncaring about an uncaring world, despite still having enormous empathetic feelings towards injustice in general. I blamed institutions like organized religion for the problems of the world of course, as I fell into that whole leftist paradigm surface-layer blame-fest. I became devoutly Athiest and angry. I became extremely focused on my hatred and blame of religion for all the world's problems and injustice done to me. I won't even get into detail about the horrible thoughts I had towards religion as basically the "great enemy of our time". As I went on through life eventually I had another profoundly transformative experience. Taking LSD for the first time. This demonized drug and the natural, fascinating, and friendly environment surrounding the trip itself was akin to cracking me out of an egg in one blow. The puzzling pieces of life all started to fit together in the micro and macrocosmic scale. I understood my spiritual relationship with the universe, the paradoxical nature of it all, and my insignificance/infinite potential. The psycho-active effects literally merely enhanced all experience and input, so I was literally seeing more, hearing more, feeling more, taking in more (sensory overload, but with the ability to process it all), and clearly seeing the thin lines where all these senses bleed together and interact. No single event in my life has been more profoundly transformative and positive than this experience, and what I learned will stay with me for the rest of my life. It was abundantly clear why this thing was illegal, because it is detrimental to all slave subjugation and power structures who wish to continue their evil. This experience fit all the core pieces of reality into an easy-to-under core basic math equation where all things stem from. "ad infinitum Everything = Nothing = Everything = Nothing ad infinitum". While this may seem like crazy talk to you. It is the a basic breakdown of the concept of infinity. If everything exists, then nothing at all exists. If all possibilities exist at the exact same time, then nothing exists at all (because it is a 100% complete unmoving picture). This connection to and understanding of the infinite rendered the foundational truth that allowed (and continues to allow) me to understand any of the complex seemingly-irrational relationships and elements of life, in it's relation to the macro-cosmic and micro-cosmic scale. You may call it crazy, but it's been the most productive, enlightening, and empowering experience in my life. My passion for this understanding led me to try psychedelics of different varieties a few more times and not all experiences were positive (some were downright traumatizing, and I know why!), but all were educational.and helped me to see the evidence of underlying truths that are oft ignored. END OF PART I of my journey to Christianity and how I can know the existence of God. Please feel free to comment so far... I am happy to elaborate on the subjects I've brushed on. Sorry for so much text but I'm trying to help people understand that Christians are not coming from some brainwashed irrational world of unprovable superstition as I am sure most of you believe. Hopefully this will help open your minds a little bit to the idea that things are not always what they seem (and what trendy media would have you believe).

With respect, I feel like my words are blowing in the wind. This is the wall of bias and shutdown that I experience far too often when attempting to discuss religion with self-proclaimed Athiests. It's as if they picture a sheep braying at them and they simply pat them on the head and say "i know, i know, that's nice little lamb, but you're just hungry". This kind of smugness and bias creates subjective and unproductive viewpoints that twists surface observations and ignorance into some mock parody of "evidence". For example, the claim that "Religion is responsible for violence". Which completely ignores that all religious violence through all history has unilaterally come from specific State Institutions or State-funded Groups. - The Inquisition was STATE. - The Crusades were STATE. - The Catholic Church was STATE. - The Conquest of Israel was STATE. - Islamic Extremists are state-funded, state-created, and state-instigated. These are all examples of STATE VIOLENCE exploiting and corrupting Religious teachings as the shield to morally and ethically justify their actions. If Religion wasn't the tool, they would simply use some other ethos like "common good"/marxism. "Saying that Religion can produce violence therefore has no truth or value" is like saying "A gun can be used to kill someone, therefore guns have no utility or value." State will use any ideology to justify their actions and persuade the tax cows, whether it's religion or not. Notice that "Fear", "Xenophobia", "Science", "Patriotism", "Liberation" has simply replaced the religious shield in the west as the current tool for justifying mass slaughter and the creation of suffering. Using Religion as the scapegoat for State Violence completely ignores the observable fact that the vast majority of Religious people are the most peaceful, giving, empathetic, caring, and ethically-centric people throughout the world. They tend to have the strongest and healthiest family units and as a group will critically analyze their own actions against a set of ethical principles. Anyone who has not observed this has not spent very much time around many Protestant communities or other Religious groups (individual Cults maybe, but not something representative of the many religious adherents). State involvement in Church has resulted in enormous corruption, as State has always been violent force and pure ethical hypocrisy. State is still consistently involved in the corruption of the Church and Religious Practice, for example: using tax-exemptions as a form of bribe to force Statist ideologies into something that is about introspection and is personal at it's core. Transforming the teachings of the bible (a mix of history, evolution of ethical philosophy, and astro-theological allegory) into a harsh strictly-literal viewpoint and punishment system through repetitive propaganda. Where the bible teaches that immoral actions condemn your consciousness to a hellish future through abstract symbolism to describe something profound and universally agreed upon (That violence and immoral deeds create a corrupting and lasting "Hell on Earth" for everyone)... State-influenced Hierarchies teach that you will literally burn in fire, in a literal prison with no chance of redemption, but this only happens in the next life.... despite the bible's entire foundation being about survival together in THIS life. This is an example of the typical state mutilation and transfiguration of Religious teachings, that is used as a assumptive basis to argue against. Thus I say that Athiests do not argue against the teachings, they argue against the practice, specific factions, groups, etc... Humanity is not going to live buy a book describing some faraway intangible life. More likely they are going to value a book that provides a mutually beneficial survival code for THIS life. Furthermore, the bible is all about context. It is meant to be read as a whole (at first from cover to cover). It is a mostly chronological evolution of religious thought from various authors that were said to have been divinely inspired and describing powerful events that transformed human thought and morality. New ethics replaced old ethics, but of course Athiests almost always turn to the original archaic writings of the Old Testament as some kind of proof of hypocrisy despite it being mostly superceded. Also, the original arguments I put forth were not arguments towards proving the value of religion. Merely that it should be assessed objectively and with respect to it's appeal to so many, the lauded testimonial benefits, the personal testimonies of so many, etc. Do witnesses hold know value to you? Are you so distrustful of the word of your fellow man that personal testimony means nothing to you? A person's word used to be held to a higher standard. Oaths were taken with higher regard, and a person's word was often considered their contractual bond. It is a rather new phenomenon for the forked tongues to be on such a large scale. Personal testimony (witness) was considered one of the strongest weights of evidence for much of human culture. Lastly for now, I will say this... You can use Violence to condemn or dismiss religion, but I could just as easily turn around and point to the rise of Science/Atheism and the righteous slaughter, immeasurable corruption, rampant spread of hedonism, promiscuity, broken homes, disease, poverty, and suffering that has followed in it's wake. I COULD do that, but we all know that those are symptoms of STATE, not Science OR Religion.

Can you get pregnant with this "friend" who you clearly have not decided is worthy of raising your children? Yes. Does any amount of "protection" change this basic fundamental truth? Nope. Aside from mutilating your organs in the pursuit of hedonist pleasures... Nope! Is this kind of irresponsible sex unhealthy? This goes without saying. I don't think this question really required such elaborate examination. Sex is not an itch that needs to be scratched. It is a decision that should be made with consideration and regard to the very powerful and extremely real life-changing potential consequences. The Statist propaganda machine has done a wonderful job at promoting Free Love and irresponsible impulse-sex, which creates dysfunctional state-dependant families (lucky for them, who would have thunk!?). At what point do we stop and think... Maybe this "no sex before marriage" is part of WHY we are still alive as a species today. It's a pretty old and long-lasting concept that helped humanity survive through the years. It's as relevant today as it ever was. No benefit has ever been proven or demonstrated of Free Love or Promiscuity, and these ideas have been mostly universally historically shamed until recently. Regardless, sex amplifies intimacy by it's very nature. Whether it's the man or the woman, eventually it will become an issue. Good luck having a long lasting casual sexual relationship without one party getting ideas. I would argue this doesn't exist, unless you are both sociopaths.

Calculators function flawless because their systems are so basic and single tasked that they were never really subject to as many variables as you might imagine. Early NES and SNES games were so basic and single purposed (though seemingly advanced at the time) that they functioned rather flawless though glitches began to surface. The modern heavily-regulated (ESRB, magazine) mess of a video-game Oligarchy industry has recently been producing some of the most inexcusable glitch-fests the world has ever seen. The more advanced these video games become, the more variables they become subject too, and the more glitches and freezes and crashes that occur, as processing power is now multi-tasked to many areas, instead of focused on a single purpose. Much like the idiot savant who can do computer-like mathematical calculations, but can't seem to perform basic functions, the processing power is all condensed into a single area. The more advanced a computer becomes, the more prone to error. The more advanced decryption becomes, the more advanced encryption becomes. The two will evolve, and likely with encryption always being one step ahead. Regardless, the attempts at decryption are what fuels the encryption to get better and better.

Do those "side effects" exist as a result of religious morals, or in fact explicitly violate and contradict those morals. When you see such moral hypocrisy it is entirely possible that their is an opposing corrupting influence. I would argue that it is observable and evident that this corrupting influence has been State from the very get go. Religion has never started a War. State, people, and groups have exploited Religion to justify War and misdeeds. It is the value and weight of the morality contained within certain religious teachings (particularly Abrahamic) that appeals to State and Sociopaths to use as a tool to morally sanction and justify the immoral and unjustifiable. Then State turns around and has you blame Religion, so that you never look at the gun-in-the-room and the true "Opiate of the Masses".

My personal journey to becoming passionately invested in the study and application of Anarchism, Anarcho-Capitalism, True Free Market (whatever you prefer to call it) started before I found FreeDomainRadio and Stefan Molyneux's discussions, and naturally evolved from seeing the futility and underlying hypocrisy in Libertarianism (which I once loudly proclaimed to hold truth). I was only recently recommended to this website and since have been avidly reading all of the free books, listening to podcasts, and watching the videos with enthusiasm. I truly admire Molyneux's dedication to the search of empirical truth and attempt to use critical thought as honestly, openly, and objectively as possible. Though one thing that always strikes me is the strong bent towards proclaiming religion, spirituality, and the "supernatural", as mere hocus-pocus irrational superstition with no inherent value what-so-ever. A few arguments against this strong absolute dismissal come to mind, and I thought I would share these mixed with my own personal experiences, of course using reason, evidence, and critical analysis where possible. 1. Why do so many people believe in these things? It is easy to dismiss this and come up with psychological and sociological explanations for the phenomenon of human consensus towards religious or spiritual belief patterns, but an objective approach requires at least attempting to "walk a mile in the shoes" of one so involved in this culture, rather than merely trying to psycho-analyze them to fit whatever label or mold we wish to place groups of individuals into. ["They believe in God because they are crazy, and they are crazy because of this, this, and this... I can prove that delusion exists, and they can't prove to ME that God exists, therefore they must be delusional!]) None of this accounts for the personal first-hand experience, sharing of personal testimony, nor bothers to even attempt to legitimately consider the possibility of a pattern that has been proven to them through consistency of evidence. Rather, most discussions of Religion from an Athiest or critical perspective seem to come from an entirely OUTSIDE point of view where proof is dismissed as personal, therefore not credible or admissible, or merely worthless. 2. Why are people so passionate about these things? It is again easy to dismiss this as group enthusiasm, social control mechanisms, modern cult-like ostracism pressures, etc... but this is a purely outside view that doesn't take into consideration the possibility that these belief systems may have been proven (to the believer) to have a lasting profoundly positive impact on their lives. 3. Why has it lasted for so long? Current real world and historical examples are often used and considered admissible in a debate or critical analysis, despite historical texts being subject to all sorts of variables of bias, perspective, conquest, culture and propaganda... but when it comes to religion or spirituality, then historical testimony, documents and belief is dismissed as outright inadmissible or disregarded as being absolutely "archaic" propaganda, superstition, or mechanisms of social control. This biased viewpoint completely ignores the weight of historical documentation and the value in reviewing the past with some level of objective respect to our forebearers who developed methods of survival that have allowed us to live, breathe and walk the earth. 4. Why is it found universally in nearly every culture and with common threads? The prevalence of near-identical patterns of thought, cultural metaphors, and spiritual symbolism in cultures that are disconnected by geography and genealogy can not be underestimated or dismissed so easily. God, deities, divine intervention, other so-called "superstitions" have been an integral part of humanities systems of survival, regardless of what landmass they sprouted on. It is hard to imagine this would be merely a mass hysteria, delusion, or mechanism of social control by small minorities. While the expansion and spread of government ideologies can be traced through history, the universally acknowledged properties of spirituality appear to have no original source and seem to be intrinsically linked with the rise of thinking man. This is a general overview of my problems with the Athiest echo chamber or the personally-offended biased "blame game" of vitriol that I witness all too often. I will happily elaborate and provide evidence specifically relating to my own personal experiences with religious, spiritual, supernatural belief systems. If personal testimony, observation, and experiences do not qualify as having any value of evidence to you, then the word of your fellow man should hold no weight in any argument and you may as well move on. I personally identify myself with the teachings of Christianity, and I will elaborate further very soon. but so far I've typed a lot. I believe a large portion of Athiest criticism is directed at the inconsistency and exploits of people who identify with these teachings/beliefs rather than the actual teachings, beliefs, messages as whole.

Hello everyone. I am new here and this is my first post so please forgive me for making it a criticism, but before I post anything else I thought I should get this out of the way and at the very least bring it to the attention of the webmaster of the FreeDomainRadio message board. I registered on this site to engage in critical discussion and analysis of various philosophical, social, and other subjects like the kinds discussed on FreeDomainRadio, but as I was registering I felt I had to morally compromise my values and sacrifice an ethical principle to gain access to participating in the conversation of this message board. Specifically what I am talking about is ReCaptcha, which is a little box that is used by various online services to determine whether the subscriber is a human or merely an AdBot. However ReCaptcha is specifically using photos of street address numbers taken from people's private residences (like on their mailbox or by their front door) and then using user-fed content to database and determine the address numbers of these residences. In other words, they make US build their spy grid database for them, without having to pay anyone at all. Not only do I find this unethical, but also an extremely disturbing trend that is followed with little resistance or questioning. My understanding is that this is being done by Google, using Google Streetview images. Can I prove my accusation? No. But I think the pictures of people's houses speak for themselves. I have tried to fool these things numerous times by plugging in a wrong number, so that I can bypass compromising my values, but I have had little luck doing this (it only worked once). This is likely because it determines the correct number based on the majority of other user-fed answers to the ReCaptcha. I really hope FDR sees the ill intent of this system of bot-catching and changes to something that doesn't involve enabling such a breach of privacy and exploitation of general ignorance to what people are getting involved with.