No, without society I am free to experience and reinterpret my experiences as I see fit. Including copying. Copyrighted works are not a benefit of society. Works in general are not a product of society, but of individuals. If an individual puts a work where I can see it, and I am not a party to any agreement not to copy it, then I can do whatever I like with my experience of it. If the creator didn't want me to do that, they shouldn't have placed the work where I can see it. Barring some agreement to the contrary, no one but me owns my sense impressions or the products of my labor.
No, the slashdot crowd considers it copyright violation is Microsoft includes GPL'ed code, and we consider it copyright violation if someone copies music, movies or software. See how that works? It's a different word, denoting a different action, with different consequences, but it is still wrong.
Using someone else's wifi is stealing, as you are depriving them of a limited resource: their bandwidth. You can make unlimited copies of a digital work without depriving the owner of anything.
You can argue the point all you like, but the law sees it differently than you do. Jaywalking also isn't littering, in case you were confused about that, too.
I already said copyright violation was wrong. I don't personally do it. I don't copy software, or music, or anything that isn't fair use without permission. But it isn't stealing anyway. So how am I a thief?
Meh, I hear aging baby boomers make good burger flippers. I say put the lazy, self centered sods back to work. Even if we don't make any progress on anti-aging. (Only half kidding)
It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything. Copyright is an artificial monopoly provided by the government as an incentive to create and release creative works.
Am I stealing from you if I choose not to buy from you, but from someone else? No? Yet I am depriving you of revenue, isn't that stealing? No? Then depriving you of revenue by copying your product isn't stealing either.
It is copyright violation, which is wrong, but not stealing. It is wrong because it violates the social contract you agree to by continuing to live in our society.
That is important: you wouldn't even have a moral claim against a person who renounced society and all its benefits who then violated copyright. They would not be a party to the social contract, and would have no moral reason not to copy.
Is it that you think government itself is inherently evil, and anyone who would get involved in such a coercive system must be evil? Or is it that the system is inherently corrupting?
If the system is inherently evil, couldn't a reformer try to changed it from within? If it is corrupting, aren't there people who can not be corrupted? Or do you think everyone has their price?
Go read lp.org and tell me how much you love the stated positions of your insane party. If you don't agree with lp.org platform, don't call yourself a libertarian. Individualist Anarchist, I can accept. But libertarians are simply stupid, sheep-like, selfish idiots who want the benefits of positive externalities without paying for them, and who want to take away other people's power to punish them for the negative externalities they produce.
Because you have preconceptions, you aren't even looking. And your preconceptions blind you to the good politicians. Your mind just filters out any evidence that goes against your preconceptions.
If politics were really as bad as you make out, we'd all be slaves by now. Sure, there are problems, but for the most part, politicians of all parties are honestly doing what they think is best for the country.
Do lobbyists manipulate politicians into thinking that what is good for company or cause X is good for the country? Certainly, and that is an issue we need to address.
Is there a higher percentage of sociopaths at the highest level of politics than in the general population? I think so, but the same is true for the business world as well, and will be true in any hierarchical power structure. Is it anywhere near 100%? No.
And you missed the part where nurb unfunnied it with this serious comment: "And to clarify myself: Yes, if you admire ANY politician, regardless of their color, party or orientation, preference, whatever, you have issues."
There are some admirable politicians out there. The fact that you are unwilling to look at their individual behavior, and simply tar them all with the same brush, marks you as intellectually lazy and fundamentally dishonest.
I'm sorry, did I hurt your little feelings? Too bad. I am not required to respect idiots. If someone said the Earth was flat, or we hadn't landed on the moon, I would give them just as much of a hard time, and they would deserve it.
There comes a point where you just have to admit that someone is not going to listen to reason. They have been shown, over and over again, the error of their ways, but they simply refuse to apply logic, common sense, or the scientific method. At that point, what use is reasoned debate? You can't reason with them, as they are incapable of reason, so all you can do is help stop the spread of idiocy by mocking it and showing the world how incredibly stupid it is.
I don't think people who think differently than me are ignorant hicks. I think that people who don't think are ignorant hicks. People who espouse ID or creationism at this point in the debate have proven themselves incapable of understanding, there is no point in trying to change their minds.
Your rebuttal makes little sense. I feel dumber for having read that. And I'm no socialist, I'm an anarchist. Don't they teach you libertarians anything?
"No health insurance?" No problem, we'll just raise everyone else' health costs to cover for you.
This is exactly the solution that your much vaunted free market has come up with, dipshit. And don't try the moronic, "But it's not really a free market" argument that you libertarians like to use anytime your precious God Of Money fails you. Even you have to see how stupid that would be.
The problem with ID and creationism is that they don't even rise to the level of a lie. A lie can be disproved. ID and creationism make no useful predictions about the universe. They can not be falsified. They aren't even incorrect science: they aren't science at all.
It isn't about proving they are incorrect, which is impossible. It is about proving they are useless. They are proven useless by the very fact that they can't be proven incorrect.
ID is not science. It can not be falsified. It makes no useful predictions about the real world. It ignores all of the beneficial medicines and therapies whose discovery depends on our understanding of evolution and natural selection.
Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact that has been witnessed in the laboratory. Natural selection is the theory that best explains the observed facts.
Intelligent Design is like teaching alchemy in place of chemistry. If you admit that you would support teaching alchemy in place of chemistry, then you have a point. Otherwise, just admit that you don't understand the first thing about science, shut up, and let the educated people talk you ignorant hick.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry you don't understand the laws you live under. Buying stolen property is not theft, it is a different crime, and only if you do it knowingly.
Why do people have to try to simplify the issue? Fraud isn't theft either, but we still know it is wrong.
No, without society I am free to experience and reinterpret my experiences as I see fit. Including copying. Copyrighted works are not a benefit of society. Works in general are not a product of society, but of individuals. If an individual puts a work where I can see it, and I am not a party to any agreement not to copy it, then I can do whatever I like with my experience of it. If the creator didn't want me to do that, they shouldn't have placed the work where I can see it. Barring some agreement to the contrary, no one but me owns my sense impressions or the products of my labor.
Not according to US law (yet). You can argue all you want about the way things should be, but the way things ARE, copyright violation is not stealing.
Well, it's true. The poor thing just can't handle my needle dick.
No, the slashdot crowd considers it copyright violation is Microsoft includes GPL'ed code, and we consider it copyright violation if someone copies music, movies or software. See how that works? It's a different word, denoting a different action, with different consequences, but it is still wrong.
Using someone else's wifi is stealing, as you are depriving them of a limited resource: their bandwidth. You can make unlimited copies of a digital work without depriving the owner of anything.
You can argue the point all you like, but the law sees it differently than you do. Jaywalking also isn't littering, in case you were confused about that, too.
I already said copyright violation was wrong. I don't personally do it. I don't copy software, or music, or anything that isn't fair use without permission. But it isn't stealing anyway. So how am I a thief?
Bad analogy. We're polyamorous. Kinda like the open-source of sexuality. We have a cc-by-nc-sa marriage license. ;-)
Meh, I hear aging baby boomers make good burger flippers. I say put the lazy, self centered sods back to work. Even if we don't make any progress on anti-aging. (Only half kidding)
Yup, I agree with him. And he is just one example.
It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything. Copyright is an artificial monopoly provided by the government as an incentive to create and release creative works.
Am I stealing from you if I choose not to buy from you, but from someone else? No? Yet I am depriving you of revenue, isn't that stealing? No? Then depriving you of revenue by copying your product isn't stealing either.
It is copyright violation, which is wrong, but not stealing. It is wrong because it violates the social contract you agree to by continuing to live in our society.
That is important: you wouldn't even have a moral claim against a person who renounced society and all its benefits who then violated copyright. They would not be a party to the social contract, and would have no moral reason not to copy.
I have, twice. But for you, here's the list again: Dennis Kucinich. Paul Wellstone. Jimmy Carter. Nelson Mandela. Kim Campbell.
Tar away.
Is it that you think government itself is inherently evil, and anyone who would get involved in such a coercive system must be evil? Or is it that the system is inherently corrupting?
If the system is inherently evil, couldn't a reformer try to changed it from within? If it is corrupting, aren't there people who can not be corrupted? Or do you think everyone has their price?
Dennis Kucinich. Paul Wellstone. Jimmy Carter. Nelson Mandela. Kim Campbell.
Go read lp.org and tell me how much you love the stated positions of your insane party. If you don't agree with lp.org platform, don't call yourself a libertarian. Individualist Anarchist, I can accept. But libertarians are simply stupid, sheep-like, selfish idiots who want the benefits of positive externalities without paying for them, and who want to take away other people's power to punish them for the negative externalities they produce.
Libertarians are worse parasites than communists.
Dennis Kucinich. Paul Wellstone. Jimmy Carter. Nelson Mandela. Kim Campbell. There's five I can think off of the top of my head.
Because you have preconceptions, you aren't even looking. And your preconceptions blind you to the good politicians. Your mind just filters out any evidence that goes against your preconceptions.
If politics were really as bad as you make out, we'd all be slaves by now. Sure, there are problems, but for the most part, politicians of all parties are honestly doing what they think is best for the country.
Do lobbyists manipulate politicians into thinking that what is good for company or cause X is good for the country? Certainly, and that is an issue we need to address.
Is there a higher percentage of sociopaths at the highest level of politics than in the general population? I think so, but the same is true for the business world as well, and will be true in any hierarchical power structure. Is it anywhere near 100%? No.
And you missed the part where nurb unfunnied it with this serious comment: "And to clarify myself: Yes, if you admire ANY politician, regardless of their color, party or orientation, preference, whatever, you have issues."
There are some admirable politicians out there. The fact that you are unwilling to look at their individual behavior, and simply tar them all with the same brush, marks you as intellectually lazy and fundamentally dishonest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_a_spade_a_spade
I'm sorry, did I hurt your little feelings? Too bad. I am not required to respect idiots. If someone said the Earth was flat, or we hadn't landed on the moon, I would give them just as much of a hard time, and they would deserve it.
There comes a point where you just have to admit that someone is not going to listen to reason. They have been shown, over and over again, the error of their ways, but they simply refuse to apply logic, common sense, or the scientific method. At that point, what use is reasoned debate? You can't reason with them, as they are incapable of reason, so all you can do is help stop the spread of idiocy by mocking it and showing the world how incredibly stupid it is.
I don't think people who think differently than me are ignorant hicks. I think that people who don't think are ignorant hicks. People who espouse ID or creationism at this point in the debate have proven themselves incapable of understanding, there is no point in trying to change their minds.
Your rebuttal makes little sense. I feel dumber for having read that. And I'm no socialist, I'm an anarchist. Don't they teach you libertarians anything?
"No health insurance?" No problem, we'll just raise everyone else' health costs to cover for you.
This is exactly the solution that your much vaunted free market has come up with, dipshit. And don't try the moronic, "But it's not really a free market" argument that you libertarians like to use anytime your precious God Of Money fails you. Even you have to see how stupid that would be.
And what does steam do, science boy? Does it stay up in the sky forever?
The problem with ID and creationism is that they don't even rise to the level of a lie. A lie can be disproved. ID and creationism make no useful predictions about the universe. They can not be falsified. They aren't even incorrect science: they aren't science at all.
It isn't about proving they are incorrect, which is impossible. It is about proving they are useless. They are proven useless by the very fact that they can't be proven incorrect.
ID is not science. It can not be falsified. It makes no useful predictions about the real world. It ignores all of the beneficial medicines and therapies whose discovery depends on our understanding of evolution and natural selection.
Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact that has been witnessed in the laboratory. Natural selection is the theory that best explains the observed facts.
Intelligent Design is like teaching alchemy in place of chemistry. If you admit that you would support teaching alchemy in place of chemistry, then you have a point. Otherwise, just admit that you don't understand the first thing about science, shut up, and let the educated people talk you ignorant hick.