Your analogy is wrong - just like a book, you can skip sections in a movie you find objectionable...fast forward, leave the room, etc. A better analogy would be to have books re-printed with "objectionable" material removed, which is not happening and not legal.
the dreamcast...even if you don't think the dreamcast was better (alot do, including me), then you can't say what the ps2 accomplished was very remarkable, because the dreamcast was out long before and it was at the very worst close to the same quality.
"The PS2 has delivered quite a bit. Compare what it's been capable of over the past few years to what was available at the time (PS1, N64)"
a painting and music are two different beasts. just because they were both created by "artists" doesn't mean they are the same.
so while it makes sense to be able to listen to one song rather than a whole album, it doesn't make sense to try to apply that idea to paintings.
or you could say that a painter had painted 10 paintings, but you only liked one and only bought that one. that's a closer analogy, but again, not perfect.
between breaking the law for profit and breaking the law to try to bring about social change, when the laws are perceived to be unjust. mobsters for profit, protesters for social change. i think your analogy would be more fitting if you called business executives like those at enron "mobsters".
one fine point is a matter of degree, as in, how severely are they "breaking the law" and affecting others? a terrorist severly does this by killing others, a mobster does this also. i would hestitate to lump people who form human chains into these categories.
your blanket categorizations show that you view the world in black and white. if this is acceptable to you, i guess we don't have any more to talk about.
now you're equating peaceful protestors to organized crime!?!?!? in your view, is everyone who knowingly breaks the law a terrorist and / or a mobster? "better slow down there, little monkey"
seriously, i think you bring up a good point. this was a test of a human's chess skills versus a human's (or more than one) programming skills. nothing more. the computer did nothing but make decisions based on what it had been told to do by the humans.
The original poster never said he wasn't willing to face the legal consequences. He was making a distinction between legal and moral values. To him, file-sharing might be illegal but it's not immoral, and so gave his reasons why he didn't think it's immoral.
No, i never compared file sharing with killing in self-defense. I gave examples of breaking the law with moral justifications to show that it does happen. I don't like comparing things to other things in arguments, or using metaphors or whatnot, because almost always the things being compared/metaphored are different enough to make comparison/metaphoring useless. case in point, your slippery slope argument.
sure, we shouldn't encourage the breaking of laws, but this is a very complicated matter, and an absolutest point of view isn't very helpful. There have been many laws in the past that were wrong that were broken by the population, and it turned out to be a "good thing"(TM)
i've been a lurker on slashdot for many years, but this post made me sign up and reply.
1) Of course there is moral justification for breaking laws. a few examples are murder in self defense, speeding to get your wife to the hospital...to think there can never be moral justification for breaking laws is just stupid.
2) That's one of the biggest slippery slope fallacies i've ever seen. you're going from downloading music to killing someone? i suggest you take a logic class or 3 and then spend some time in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy is wrong - just like a book, you can skip sections in a movie you find objectionable...fast forward, leave the room, etc. A better analogy would be to have books re-printed with "objectionable" material removed, which is not happening and not legal.
the dreamcast...even if you don't think the dreamcast was better (alot do, including me), then you can't say what the ps2 accomplished was very remarkable, because the dreamcast was out long before and it was at the very worst close to the same quality.
"The PS2 has delivered quite a bit. Compare what it's been capable of over the past few years to what was available at the time (PS1, N64)"
what you talked about is in the soon-to-be-released (hopefully) Guild Wars
Caring, Loving Individuals Trying to Take Over Rocks In Space
only downside is the acronym...
(idea stolen from Red Dwarf)
"see the turtle of enormous girth
upon his back he holds the earth"
and for the record, i'm not trying to offend but your analogy was really bad.
so while it makes sense to be able to listen to one song rather than a whole album, it doesn't make sense to try to apply that idea to paintings.
or you could say that a painter had painted 10 paintings, but you only liked one and only bought that one. that's a closer analogy, but again, not perfect.
great work sam, see how long you can keep this sucker going and how angry he'll get.
one fine point is a matter of degree, as in, how severely are they "breaking the law" and affecting others? a terrorist severly does this by killing others, a mobster does this also. i would hestitate to lump people who form human chains into these categories.
your blanket categorizations show that you view the world in black and white. if this is acceptable to you, i guess we don't have any more to talk about.
now you're equating peaceful protestors to organized crime!?!?!? in your view, is everyone who knowingly breaks the law a terrorist and / or a mobster? "better slow down there, little monkey"
seriously, i think you bring up a good point. this was a test of a human's chess skills versus a human's (or more than one) programming skills. nothing more. the computer did nothing but make decisions based on what it had been told to do by the humans.
how's that for legal?
Supreme Court decision
i don't like the FNC myself, but just to point out, you're being awfully black and white yourself...
No, i never compared file sharing with killing in self-defense. I gave examples of breaking the law with moral justifications to show that it does happen. I don't like comparing things to other things in arguments, or using metaphors or whatnot, because almost always the things being compared/metaphored are different enough to make comparison/metaphoring useless. case in point, your slippery slope argument.
sure, we shouldn't encourage the breaking of laws, but this is a very complicated matter, and an absolutest point of view isn't very helpful. There have been many laws in the past that were wrong that were broken by the population, and it turned out to be a "good thing"(TM)
1) Of course there is moral justification for breaking laws. a few examples are murder in self defense, speeding to get your wife to the hospital...to think there can never be moral justification for breaking laws is just stupid.
2) That's one of the biggest slippery slope fallacies i've ever seen. you're going from downloading music to killing someone? i suggest you take a logic class or 3 and then spend some time in the real world.