I was referring to using it to "prove" something. The world is flat. Anyone who says otherwise knows in their heart that they're wrong! You could use the same argument with god and pretty much anything, really.
It means absolutely nothing and proves nothing.
I'm kinda bored, and was looking to rob someone for fun...
Why would I give you my address? I may be a moral relativist, but that doesn't mean I don't have my own moral code or wish for myself to be hurt. I don't even see how your comment was relevant to mine.
Well, the key is that if you spend all your time debating whether or not copyright infringement is theft, you never actually have to discuss whether copyright infringement is wrong.
Why can't you do both?
Aside from when you're arguing with people who say things like, "Copyright infringement is theft. Theft is bad. Therefore, copyright infringement is bad." of course.
However, some people could say "yes" but still think that copyright shouldn't exist. They can believe that the GPL will no longer be needed after copyright is gone. This has been explained countless times.
I personally think that without copyright, less content would be produced. However, there would always be people who produced content merely because they loved doing it (or found a way to profit off of it).
Surely his opponents have all changed their minds now? They know in their hearts that they're 100% wrong.
If someone else called "stealing" "murder," I would try to correct them on that, too. If you don't like that, then stop using words that I feel are incorrect.
You can try to help them if you want, but if you fail, I'm sure you know the consequences. It's ultimately their decision unless you wish to lock them up in a bubble.
Their future self isn't anymore objectively important than their current self.
And the way that the current system completely destroys all the fun in learning. Rote memorization and doing well on tests are mostly what matters right now.
Nope. What I meant to imply was that if we don't gain enough from stopping the crime, and if the crime hardly does any damage to begin with, then perhaps we shouldn't spend so much time, effort, and money trying to stop it.
Example: copyright infringement. Almost impossible to stop, little gain (if any) from doing so, little damage (if any) caused by it, and trying to prevent it by taking down entire websites is usually very costly (look how long it took to take down Megaupload) and causes collateral damage.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you suggesting that we don't need dozens of armed policemen and helicopters to arrest the owner of a website that facilitated the copying of copyrighted material!? Are you actually suggesting that murder is worse than 'hacking' a website or infringing upon someone's copyright and that perhaps these expensive investigations aren't necessary!?
On the other hand, if you feel that 'big brother' is silently watching your every move, then you must have a huge ego.
More like the government could be watching your every move. Or someone else's moves. I don't only care about myself, you know.
I care about privacy not only because I and many others enjoy it, but because it helps keep corrupt governments from suddenly creating ridiculous laws to criminalize previously innocent citizens. If they could watch everyone, then it gives them the ability to easily see whether someone is doing something that they recently declared illegal and enables them to silence dissenters far more easily.
But of course, my country's government would never do that! Out of all the corrupt governments throughout history, mine is special and cannot be corrupted!
I know, man. Ever since I began playing those violent video games, I've been murdering people left and right! Clearly, this is all their fault and morality just vanishes because of them.
It still amuses me how the phrase "free speech" has somehow been redefined from its original definition of "freedom to speak out against the government or other public organization without repercussion"
It has? Just the phrase "free speech" says nothing about the government or organizations. It clearly protects other forms of speech, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Stupid religious people and their "morals"
Well, that's just a straw man.
I was referring to using it to "prove" something. The world is flat. Anyone who says otherwise knows in their heart that they're wrong! You could use the same argument with god and pretty much anything, really.
It means absolutely nothing and proves nothing.
I'm kinda bored, and was looking to rob someone for fun...
Why would I give you my address? I may be a moral relativist, but that doesn't mean I don't have my own moral code or wish for myself to be hurt. I don't even see how your comment was relevant to mine.
Yeah, it's true.
Use Gamemaker.
Well, the key is that if you spend all your time debating whether or not copyright infringement is theft, you never actually have to discuss whether copyright infringement is wrong.
Why can't you do both?
Aside from when you're arguing with people who say things like, "Copyright infringement is theft. Theft is bad. Therefore, copyright infringement is bad." of course.
Is abusing the GPL wrong?
I'd say no.
However, some people could say "yes" but still think that copyright shouldn't exist. They can believe that the GPL will no longer be needed after copyright is gone. This has been explained countless times.
I personally think that without copyright, less content would be produced. However, there would always be people who produced content merely because they loved doing it (or found a way to profit off of it).
People just want new stuff. Always. And for free.
Perhaps some of them do. So?
but sharing with unlimited strangers is simply wrong
Wrong how? Wrong according to who?
and y'all know it is.
Oh, I see. The "you know in your heart that you're wrong" argument that religious types seem to love to use.
You know in your heart that you're wrong, celtic_hackr.
He called it "BS."
Surely his opponents have all changed their minds now? They know in their hearts that they're 100% wrong.
If someone else called "stealing" "murder," I would try to correct them on that, too. If you don't like that, then stop using words that I feel are incorrect.
Just look at all the Youtube intellectuals in video comments. Logical fallacies and personal attacks everywhere.
You can try to help them if you want, but if you fail, I'm sure you know the consequences. It's ultimately their decision unless you wish to lock them up in a bubble.
Their future self isn't anymore objectively important than their current self.
But I thought quantity was more important than quality!
And the way that the current system completely destroys all the fun in learning. Rote memorization and doing well on tests are mostly what matters right now.
Yeah. You should never make decisions because your future self might disagree with your past self!
Nope. What I meant to imply was that if we don't gain enough from stopping the crime, and if the crime hardly does any damage to begin with, then perhaps we shouldn't spend so much time, effort, and money trying to stop it.
Example: copyright infringement. Almost impossible to stop, little gain (if any) from doing so, little damage (if any) caused by it, and trying to prevent it by taking down entire websites is usually very costly (look how long it took to take down Megaupload) and causes collateral damage.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you suggesting that we don't need dozens of armed policemen and helicopters to arrest the owner of a website that facilitated the copying of copyrighted material!? Are you actually suggesting that murder is worse than 'hacking' a website or infringing upon someone's copyright and that perhaps these expensive investigations aren't necessary!?
How dare you!
I think he's looking for actual evidence and not just someone saying that they think it's true.
That wouldn't explain the high percentage of the US population in jail.
The "war on drugs," or more accurately, "prosecuting people for victimless crimes," is probably a pretty good explanation...
I wonder if it would help if our (at least in the US) public school system wasn't such a piece of garbage...
You should be walking to your destinations, you lazy sack of garbage! I don't care if they're miles away, you should walk!
The issue is not the privacy of the surveyed
I think that's a big problem.
On the other hand, if you feel that 'big brother' is silently watching your every move, then you must have a huge ego.
More like the government could be watching your every move. Or someone else's moves. I don't only care about myself, you know.
I care about privacy not only because I and many others enjoy it, but because it helps keep corrupt governments from suddenly creating ridiculous laws to criminalize previously innocent citizens. If they could watch everyone, then it gives them the ability to easily see whether someone is doing something that they recently declared illegal and enables them to silence dissenters far more easily.
But of course, my country's government would never do that! Out of all the corrupt governments throughout history, mine is special and cannot be corrupted!
Da gubmint's out to get us
I'd say that's pretty likely. Or at the very least, they're corrupt.
I know, man. Ever since I began playing those violent video games, I've been murdering people left and right! Clearly, this is all their fault and morality just vanishes because of them.
Depends on the child.
Depends on the person.
Even if that was true, they don't care about that. They pretty much just do whatever they want (as long as they get money, of course).
They're bribed so much that they make going after people who are equivalent to jaywalkers (People are copying movies! The horror!) their top priority.
It still amuses me how the phrase "free speech" has somehow been redefined from its original definition of "freedom to speak out against the government or other public organization without repercussion"
It has? Just the phrase "free speech" says nothing about the government or organizations. It clearly protects other forms of speech, too.