"What I do care about is those who cite fallacy as proof of their argument. Citing fallacy
results in empty arguments; unless, of course, those who cite fallacy really are ignorant,
and there was a study done over 10 years ago that provided evidence that the ignorant have
no clue that they are, in fact, ignorant."
The flip side to that is, of course, if an argument is weak, or at some point weak, citing
fallacy tends to be the quickest and easiest way to show how weak it is or at least can
be...If I had to guess, that's why these ignorant people you speak of in the study you
didn't cite the source for do so... Isn't that what many agnostics and atheists do to
people of faith anyways?
"Regardless of the power behind the malware, it is the site owner's responsibility to keep
the site clean. It's pretty trivial, you know, especially if you are hosting the site on
your own machine - think free virus/malware scanners. And if the site is hosted on some
third-party server, then it is the responsibility of the site owner to ensure that the
third-party hosting agent keeps their servers clean"
I agree. Not every volunteer as well as some "professionals" don't know or care enough to
do that, however.
". If not, it is still the responsibility of the site owner that malware was placed on the
site by the evil Devil."
I do like humor. However if I remember correctly, christians don't actually think the devil
has a computer himself to load malware onto the internet. They believe malicious intent is
in man, obviously, it's just that the malicious or "evil" intent helps the "devil" in its
own intent or cause.... Just clearing that up because for some, not saying you, can be just
as ignorant on either side of the argument.
"Whether you like it or not, this is casting aspersions on religious sites and putting them
in the ranks of the pirate sites."
This appears to be addressed to a different type of person but I'll reply to it anyways. If
I had to guess on a likely cause for this here's what I'd guess: Pirates don't care for the
malware in fact many support it. Religious websites, which are more than likely run by
volunteers than anything, are simply not as aware. They would not be prosecuted in the same
way that maybe msn.com would be if it started loading malware onto people's computers. I'd
bet money that a good majority of religious websites don't even have the popularity that
would be required for many of the site owners to give a **** anyways. I don't see verisign
shutting them down either.
"A better reason that I think religious cites are full of malware is because the owners
think that the divine would never infect them - besides the owners having little technical
knowledge."
religious sites* Anyways, what do you actually think is more likely? That they believe that
they can just pray for food to cook itself or that they might actually have to cook it? But
now that I've asked that question to not only for you, but myself, I realize you must have
been kidding.
Apologies for the double post. The line spacing got all messed up
/retry
results in empty arguments; unless, of course, those who cite fallacy really are ignorant,
and there was a study done over 10 years ago that provided evidence that the ignorant have
no clue that they are, in fact, ignorant."
The flip side to that is, of course, if an argument is weak, or at some point weak, citing
fallacy tends to be the quickest and easiest way to show how weak it is or at least can
be...If I had to guess, that's why these ignorant people you speak of in the study you
didn't cite the source for do so... Isn't that what many agnostics and atheists do to
people of faith anyways?
"Regardless of the power behind the malware, it is the site owner's responsibility to keep
the site clean. It's pretty trivial, you know, especially if you are hosting the site on
your own machine - think free virus/malware scanners. And if the site is hosted on some
third-party server, then it is the responsibility of the site owner to ensure that the
third-party hosting agent keeps their servers clean"
I agree. Not every volunteer as well as some "professionals" don't know or care enough to
do that, however.
". If not, it is still the responsibility of the site owner that malware was placed on the
site by the evil Devil."
I do like humor. However if I remember correctly, christians don't actually think the devil
has a computer himself to load malware onto the internet. They believe malicious intent is
in man, obviously, it's just that the malicious or "evil" intent helps the "devil" in its
own intent or cause.... Just clearing that up because for some, not saying you, can be just
as ignorant on either side of the argument.
"Whether you like it or not, this is casting aspersions on religious sites and putting them
in the ranks of the pirate sites."
This appears to be addressed to a different type of person but I'll reply to it anyways. If
I had to guess on a likely cause for this here's what I'd guess: Pirates don't care for the
malware in fact many support it. Religious websites, which are more than likely run by
volunteers than anything, are simply not as aware. They would not be prosecuted in the same
way that maybe msn.com would be if it started loading malware onto people's computers. I'd
bet money that a good majority of religious websites don't even have the popularity that
would be required for many of the site owners to give a **** anyways. I don't see verisign
shutting them down either.
"A better reason that I think religious cites are full of malware is because the owners
think that the divine would never infect them - besides the owners having little technical
knowledge."
religious sites* Anyways, what do you actually think is more likely? That they believe that
they can just pray for food to cook itself or that they might actually have to cook it? But
now that I've asked that question to not only for you, but myself, I realize you must have
been kidding.
Apologies for the double post. The line spacing got all messed up
/retry