If a vegetarian doesn't eat meat because they don't want to assist in the killing of animals, then eating a meal that merely looks and tastes like meat has nothing to do with that reason.
What, you don't like me dumping chemicals into the river and polluting it!? If you don't like pollution, then why do you use the internet!? Therefore, all of your arguments are completely invalid and what I'm doing is a good thing.
Of course one more jab on the animal rights front, many animals alive today would simply not be here if humans didn't eat meat.
I don't see why that matters. You could say the same thing about humans if we also ate them. "What we are doing is good because most of these people wouldn't be alive if we didn't eat them. Therefore, we can do whatever we want to them!"
The companies are using keyword searches because there is too much content to verify manually.
That is simply too bad for them (the copyright holders). Forgive me for not caring about the fact that they might be losing potential profit enough that I would support them randomly issuing takedown orders on things that they don't even hold the copyright to.
Yes. People die. There are likely no perfect solutions. And, in my opinion, the better solution would be to make it all legal. Some people will die (like they do now), sure, but that is something that I am willing to accept.
And I'm sure that even if all of the drugs were legal, they would still have age restrictions (like we do now with alcohol and cigarettes). And I'm also sure that those laws would be broken. In other words, for minors, the situation would probably be almost the exact same as it is now (having to acquire them illegally).
I don't have to live with this, no. I expected such a reply. It essentially boils down to, "If you were in situation X, you'd feel differently!" But what does that prove? In my opinion, nothing. That doesn't mean that what I believe now is 'wrong.'
So you prefer anarchy and bodies hanging from bridges?
Yes. I don't think those are the only two choices, but yes. I'm none too fond of excuses to take away civil liberties. Whether that be "terrorists" or "drug cartels," they're all the same to me.
I would be against legalizing stuff such as cocaine, however - that stuff is too easy to get hooked on, causes severe physiological (and not just psychological) dependency, and can make a man into a complete wreck in a matter of months.
I disagree. People can get hooked on it and die if they want to. I couldn't care less about them. To me, it's a complete waste of time trying to stop them.
it's time to suspend the law and all civil liberties
No thanks. I value civil liberties too much to give them up merely because of excuses or potential threats. The government saying "The drug cartels must be stopped," to me, is no different than replacing "drug cartels" with "terrorists."
The fact that you can't afford something doesn't give you the right to help yourself to it for free, just because you can.
I agree that it doesn't magically change the law, but as I told the other guy, I wasn't even talking about that. I just meant that the fact that someone has a computer and internet does not mean that they have money to spend.
A film is no different in that respect from a car.
Or pretty much any job in existence (when talking about working for free). The only difference is that you can copy data more easily than you can make a car (and, of course, that pirates are paying absolutely nothing for the product).
I didn't say anything about that. All I said was that just because someone has a computer and internet, that does not mean that they have money to spend on every little thing.
Actually, the "average person" has plenty to spend on a computer, smartphone, iPod, iPod dock, digital camera, preposterous "Beats" headphones, internet connection and download allowance (for all those cracks), etc etc.
Which doesn't mean that they have money to spend on every single movie or game that they want. Their money is limited (especially after buying all of that, some of which they may need for work).
Wait... so I was being brainwashed by advertisements all along!? That must be why I instantly forgot about the commercials soon after they appeared and never actually bought anything I saw in the advertisements. What a sneaky plan they have.
Yes. There's no possible way that you could be wrong. You're 100% right.
All pirates are greedy (hasty generalizations are fantastic) and think the exact same thing. Their moral code isn't the exact same as yours; therefore, what they're doing is "bad."
If there were less piracy, studios would be able to take more risks, and could afford to put out more high-concept movies.
Citation needed. Or did you just peer into an alternate reality where there are no pirates?
Slashdot Mirror
If a vegetarian doesn't eat meat because they don't want to assist in the killing of animals, then eating a meal that merely looks and tastes like meat has nothing to do with that reason.
But my moral code is absolute! The magical moral fairy told me so.
I like how it's taken to the absolute extreme.
What, you don't like me dumping chemicals into the river and polluting it!? If you don't like pollution, then why do you use the internet!? Therefore, all of your arguments are completely invalid and what I'm doing is a good thing.
If killing life is wrong then consuming root vegetables would be wrong too.
But only if someone thought that killing life was wrong. It would be different if they merely said "animals." People have preferences, you know.
Of course one more jab on the animal rights front, many animals alive today would simply not be here if humans didn't eat meat.
I don't see why that matters. You could say the same thing about humans if we also ate them. "What we are doing is good because most of these people wouldn't be alive if we didn't eat them. Therefore, we can do whatever we want to them!"
The fact that he can't come up with a better system doesn't mean he can't criticize the current one.
I don't know what the effect will be unless they try. And I still don't think that giving the government that much power is a good idea.
I don't think that's true. I essentially agree with this guy.
In any case, I have never thought that giving the government that much power is a good idea.
The companies are using keyword searches because there is too much content to verify manually.
That is simply too bad for them (the copyright holders). Forgive me for not caring about the fact that they might be losing potential profit enough that I would support them randomly issuing takedown orders on things that they don't even hold the copyright to.
Yes. People die. There are likely no perfect solutions. And, in my opinion, the better solution would be to make it all legal. Some people will die (like they do now), sure, but that is something that I am willing to accept.
And I'm sure that even if all of the drugs were legal, they would still have age restrictions (like we do now with alcohol and cigarettes). And I'm also sure that those laws would be broken. In other words, for minors, the situation would probably be almost the exact same as it is now (having to acquire them illegally).
I don't have to live with this, no. I expected such a reply. It essentially boils down to, "If you were in situation X, you'd feel differently!" But what does that prove? In my opinion, nothing. That doesn't mean that what I believe now is 'wrong.'
So you prefer anarchy and bodies hanging from bridges?
Yes. I don't think those are the only two choices, but yes. I'm none too fond of excuses to take away civil liberties. Whether that be "terrorists" or "drug cartels," they're all the same to me.
I would be against legalizing stuff such as cocaine, however - that stuff is too easy to get hooked on, causes severe physiological (and not just psychological) dependency, and can make a man into a complete wreck in a matter of months.
I disagree. People can get hooked on it and die if they want to. I couldn't care less about them. To me, it's a complete waste of time trying to stop them.
it's time to suspend the law and all civil liberties
No thanks. I value civil liberties too much to give them up merely because of excuses or potential threats. The government saying "The drug cartels must be stopped," to me, is no different than replacing "drug cartels" with "terrorists."
A person is smart.
In my opinion, that is highly unlikely to be true.
Or they could just... not do any of that.
I don't see why you'd have to do it for Steam, though (especially for a game you've already bought).
Analogies don't exist, I guess.
The fact that you can't afford something doesn't give you the right to help yourself to it for free, just because you can.
I agree that it doesn't magically change the law, but as I told the other guy, I wasn't even talking about that. I just meant that the fact that someone has a computer and internet does not mean that they have money to spend.
A film is no different in that respect from a car.
Or pretty much any job in existence (when talking about working for free). The only difference is that you can copy data more easily than you can make a car (and, of course, that pirates are paying absolutely nothing for the product).
that's up to you, but you're a fucking imbecile if you do.
I guess that's your opinion, but I've seen no convincing evidence that proves that there is a 'correct' set of morals.
I didn't say anything about that. All I said was that just because someone has a computer and internet, that does not mean that they have money to spend on every little thing.
Actually, the "average person" has plenty to spend on a computer, smartphone, iPod, iPod dock, digital camera, preposterous "Beats" headphones, internet connection and download allowance (for all those cracks), etc etc.
Which doesn't mean that they have money to spend on every single movie or game that they want. Their money is limited (especially after buying all of that, some of which they may need for work).
Wait... so I was being brainwashed by advertisements all along!? That must be why I instantly forgot about the commercials soon after they appeared and never actually bought anything I saw in the advertisements. What a sneaky plan they have.
The problem being that we tend to stop sliding down the slope as soon as the illegal activities run out.
So corruption doesn't exist?
Which means everything after hate speech
Not hate speech itself, though? Good. I was almost afraid that someone would say something mean to me! Better ban that!
Yes. There's no possible way that you could be wrong. You're 100% right.
All pirates are greedy (hasty generalizations are fantastic) and think the exact same thing. Their moral code isn't the exact same as yours; therefore, what they're doing is "bad."
If there were less piracy, studios would be able to take more risks, and could afford to put out more high-concept movies.
Citation needed. Or did you just peer into an alternate reality where there are no pirates?