Is this a pirate site?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Oh there's so much to moan about, in my day no one was strip searched at school or had their at home actions video recorded by school officials, there was at least lip service payed to privacy, no one called me a thief if I made a mix tape, you figured out how to save princess zelda without a guidebook, thieves were people who took your stuff away forever not people who made copies of it, American Idol was called star search and got the crappy ratings it deserved and there was no such thing as fox news, now get off my lawn.

Back on topic another thread suggested the word booklegging, I tend to agree that such a word would be acceptable to anyone who isn't just astroturfing around here.

I LOVE that name. That's a cool and sexy name that will promote file sharing. I will have to make a t-shirt of that forthwith!

Originally Posted by PKFFW

And at some point in the future something that matters to you and that you care about will be trampled under foot as being meaningless and you will be the one complaining.

It's the circle of life.

Cheers,
PKFFW

And that is exactly what I said. This is a generational conflict, and it has happened before and it will happen again. Guess who always loses these things? The ones who die first. ACTA won't stop file sharing, government control won't stop it. To stop it you have to turn off the internet, and that's not going to happen either. Argue theft or not theft, argue pro or against, it's not really important. What is important is to try to understand what's happening and why and in lieu of society becoming an unchanging rock, what you can do to embrace what is happening.

Copyright is all but dead now, there's no point trying to breathe air into a corpse.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And that is exactly what I said.

Yes you did, I only saw your subsequent post after I had posted my reply.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

This is a generational conflict, and it has happened before and it will happen again. Guess who always loses these things? The ones who die first. ACTA won't stop file sharing, government control won't stop it. To stop it you have to turn off the internet, and that's not going to happen either. Argue theft or not theft, argue pro or against, it's not really important. What is important is to try to understand what's happening and why and in lieu of society becoming an unchanging rock, what you can do to embrace what is happening.

Copyright is all but dead now, there's no point trying to breathe air into a corpse.

I didn't argue otherwise.

Your comment in another thread summed up the situation perfectly when you wondered why anyone would pay for any digital media at all.

Some people just want free stuff. In todays world they can get it. That's the reality.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But since you agree that it should be a felony, why putting all this effort into finding a special word for it?

It's a felony because the law says so.
It has a name because the law says so.
It's not theft because the law says so.

I'm not talking ethics, here, just semantics.

To call a girl bad names is a felony, too (at least in my country). But if we call it "rape", or "a different form of rape" it puts it under a completely different perspective, doesn't it?

That's why I think it's worth the effort to chose the right words for things. Because hidden behind words you find often ideologies or by-ends, and I really don't like it. If there is a correct word, let's use it.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

And for anyone who believes DF would really use the word "took" in the heat of the moment

Funnily enough, you're wrong.
Because at least twice I have.

Do you want to show yourself up again by telling me "what I do" some more?

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Are you saying that all concepts of right and wrong are completely arbitrary? If so, I would have to disagree. Certainly many modes of behavior vary from culture to culture, but I believe that there are certain standards that transcend cultures; among these are the proscriptions against murder and stealing from members of your tribe; and as civilization advances, I believe it to be a natural and evolutionary step to become ever more inclusive in terms of those who are included in the tribe. Even among individual tribes certain expectations of behavior exist such that when those expectations are violated, retribution is exacted.

Yes, I think there's no such thing as absolute right or wrong. There are certainly things to do that are beneficial to some society at some time, or harmful to it, and so can be called right and wrong for it, but those aren't absolute, and I don't think people are able to determine what is beneficial or harmful to some society with preciseness and certainty - when applying fixes which are results of such "reasoning", it always turns out society is more complicated, and there are side-effects, or the "fix" makes things worse.

Murder itself can be a way to let natural selection work again on societies that would degenerate without it, and it may well be beneficial to society as a whole when there are more people than living space. Same with stealing, as it may increase survival chances. Besides, there are forms of stealing, practiced by corporations, and murder, practised by various state security forces, which barely anyone calls absolutely immoral.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Whilst I agree there are situations where the concepts of right and wrong are not relevant or necessary or in fact should be put aside for some reason, I find it amazing you would say a man should be expected "stop reasoning with those" simply as a matter of course.

Perhaps I voiced my opinion too strongly; I meant that if one does reason with such, the results of reasoning will be flawed, and usually untrue. People make many such small choices every day, based on incomplete or possibly false information, to get results which are good enough for them. For such practical results it's fine. Still, reasoning in such a way when making decisions influencing whole course of life, or other people's lives, is very foolish in my opinion.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Without getting into a debate about what is right and wrong, cultural differences and "lesser of two evil" type situations, surely in any matter where the concepts of right and wrong matter it is the mark of a reasonable person to do what is right if at all possible.(at the very least as "right" is defined for that person)

Definitely. If a person has a strong feeling of what is right, such person will do it no matter if it makes sense - suicides are plenty, to point out the obvious.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I do not think there should ever come a time when a person should be expected to "stop reasoning" with those ideas. George W Bush and his ilk are perfect examples of people who have no regard for right and wrong, preferring instead to reason by what is best for them and their wallets.

Actually, they're at least predictable. While I don't think there's any system of government that can manage self-interested, egoistical people, those are manageable. It's those who have their own concepts of "right" and "wrong" and live by them that I'm afraid of. One day one of those altruistic idealists will launch the nuclear missiles for the good of mankind - it would never happen with simple egoists.

That reminds me of a movie - "2012". In there, we have President's Chief of Staff who is a realist and makes really informed decisions that assure the survival of maximal number of people, a geologist with concepts of right and wrong who feels those can't be the very best decisions because some people will die, and doesn't show even traces of logical thinking, and a science fiction novelist, similarly encumbered. I was amazed through the whole movie watching how those two people living in the land of pink unicorns are portrayed as good ones, and the practical, reasoning specialist as a bad person - to the point where at the end they make him make a completely idiotical decision just to be able to show that those two were for once "right" with their feelings. I don't understand where this world is going, when people think it's better to be completely wacko, not understand reality one bit, but show humane feelings than to be a competent specialist, a person in the right place, making informed choices, having to choose lesser evils all the time, and being good at it and not broken by responsibility.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I LOVE that name. That's a cool and sexy name that will promote file sharing. I will have to make a t-shirt of that forthwith!



And that is exactly what I said. This is a generational conflict, and it has happened before and it will happen again. Guess who always loses these things? The ones who die first. ACTA won't stop file sharing, government control won't stop it. To stop it you have to turn off the internet, and that's not going to happen either. Argue theft or not theft, argue pro or against, it's not really important. What is important is to try to understand what's happening and why and in lieu of society becoming an unchanging rock, what you can do to embrace what is happening.

Copyright is all but dead now, there's no point trying to breathe air into a corpse.

Moejoe, the term "booklegger" was used in A Canticle for Lebnowictz (sorry I can't spell) by Walter M Miller.. It's worth reading for the "booklegger monk" initiation oath.....

So applicable for today....

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Whilst I agree there are situations where the concepts of right and wrong are not relevant or necessary or in fact should be put aside for some reason, I find it amazing you would say a man should be expected "stop reasoning with those" simply as a matter of course.

The point was that you should stop to reason using the simplistic concepts of right and wrong and use a more advanced set of concepts and a "better" moral theory. Sp I totally agree that it is expected that you should stop using the simplistic and over simplified concepts of right and wrong.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Yes, I think there's no such thing as absolute right or wrong. There are certainly things to do that are beneficial to some society at some time, or harmful to it, and so can be called right and wrong for it, but those aren't absolute, and I don't think people are able to determine what is beneficial or harmful to some society with preciseness and certainty - when applying fixes which are results of such "reasoning", it always turns out society is more complicated, and there are side-effects, or the "fix" makes things worse.

I totally agree. And this is probably the fundamental thing that if people do not agree with this it will lead to totally opposite opinions on a higher level. And there is not point in discussing the higher level positions since theyy are based on low level fundamental differences.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Funnily enough, you're wrong.
Because at least twice I have.

Do you want to show yourself up again by telling me "what I do" some more?

Since you are so fond of asking for proof and links and such I'd be obliged if you could provide some proof or a link or something?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[TGS]

Phew! There was a gap of just over eight hours between postings on this thread and I thought for a horrible moment that the argument had been flogged to death and there was nothing more to say about it. How relieved I am to see that that's not the case.

[Elfwreck]

Never fear; this necrohippoflagellation has no end!

In fact, I kinda think it's moved beyond "dead horse" and into "zombie horse," because if it was just dead, you'd expect it to *stay put*, and not move to wherever the newest conversation is taking place.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Perhaps I voiced my opinion too strongly; I meant that if one does reason with such, the results of reasoning will be flawed, and usually untrue. People make many such small choices every day, based on incomplete or possibly false information, to get results which are good enough for them. For such practical results it's fine. Still, reasoning in such a way when making decisions influencing whole course of life, or other people's lives, is very foolish in my opinion.

Sorry but you seem to contradict yourself here.

Firstly, you assume that the "reasoning will be flawed, and usually untrue" without providing any sort of proof of such. Your assumption is based purely on whether or not you personally believe the outcomes are the best that could be achieved and then further assume that an outcome based on reasoning of right and wrong could not possibly come up with that outcome.

Secondly, basically you are saying that people should reason based on a set of principles and values that you think are appropriate. Or to put it another way the set of principles and values that you think are "right". Whilst this reasoning may not be based on your concept of "right and wrong" it certainly takes right and wrong into account by suggesting that your way of reasoning is the right way.

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Definitely. If a person has a strong feeling of what is right, such person will do it no matter if it makes sense - suicides are plenty, to point out the obvious.

I don't see the point in using a mentally unhinged person as an example really. Of course there are always going to mentially ill people, psychopaths etc that make decisions that are questionable based on what they think are right. Arguing that no one should make decisions based on what they think is right or wrong because of it seems rather inane to me.

I can point out many real world examples of people making decsions based purely on greed, hatred, revenge, a sense of obligation and even what would seem to be pure logic at the time but end up completely screwing a situation up that would support my position. However, I see that those examples are extreme and not indicative of the norm so I wont bother.

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Actually, they're at least predictable. While I don't think there's any system of government that can manage self-interested, egoistical people, those are manageable. It's those who have their own concepts of "right" and "wrong" and live by them that I'm afraid of. One day one of those altruistic idealists will launch the nuclear missiles for the good of mankind - it would never happen with simple egoists.

Well I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's that are now dead because Georgie boy needed to bolster his oil mates bottom line are very glad he was predictable and didn't use nukes!

And btw, Georgie boy has gone on record and stated that the USA would use any and all means, including nuclear strikes, to protec the USA so I wouldn't be so sure that all those self interested egotists are predictable and would never launch nuclear weapons. For that matter it was one of those supposedly predictable people who made a very logical decision to drop 2 atomic weapons in the past. Based purely on the numbers of US lives that would be saved of course and had nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to see which design would work better! There was of course a logical and absolute need to drop 2, even though Japan had already sent overtures of peace.

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

That reminds me of a movie - "2012". In there, we have President's Chief of Staff who is a realist and makes really informed decisions that assure the survival of maximal number of people, a geologist with concepts of right and wrong who feels those can't be the very best decisions because some people will die, and doesn't show even traces of logical thinking, and a science fiction novelist, similarly encumbered. I was amazed through the whole movie watching how those two people living in the land of pink unicorns are portrayed as good ones, and the practical, reasoning specialist as a bad person - to the point where at the end they make him make a completely idiotical decision just to be able to show that those two were for once "right" with their feelings. I don't understand where this world is going, when people think it's better to be completely wacko, not understand reality one bit, but show humane feelings than to be a competent specialist, a person in the right place, making informed choices, having to choose lesser evils all the time, and being good at it and not broken by responsibility.

Yes well for every movie example of little worth you can come up with I could come up with one of a psycho making purely logical decisions. I could probably even come up with a relevant real world example too.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

The point was that you should stop to reason using the simplistic concepts of right and wrong and use a more advanced set of concepts and a "better" moral theory. Sp I totally agree that it is expected that you should stop using the simplistic and over simplified concepts of right and wrong.

No the point was one should use a set of concepts that you and Krystian Galaj believe are the "right" set of concepts for decision making.

Of course for that to happen one must first define what are the "right" set of principles and what are the "wrong" set of principles.

So really you and Krystian Galaj are actually using "right and wrong" to first decide how you are going to go about your decision making and then you are working from there.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

No the point was one should use a set of concepts that you and Krystian Galaj believe are the "right" set of concepts for decision making.

No, it was not. You are really missing the point. Read a basic book on moral philosophy to get more insight.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, it was not. You are really missing the point. Read a basic book on moral philosophy to get more insight.

I have read quite extensively on the subject.

Just because I disagree with you and your basic premise does not mean I misunderstand it.

I believe in putting things as simply as possible. Einstein once said something along the lines of(not sure if he was quoting or not) "if you can't explain it on the back of a postage stamp you don't understand it".

You believe using "right and wrong" as the basis of making decisions is "wrong".(though I'm sure you will term it something else, the end result is the same regardless of the word you choose) You believe using a "more advanced set of concepts and a "better" moral theory" as the basis of making decisions is "right".(again, I'm sure you will term it something else, the end result is the same regardless of the word you choose)

What's to not understand?

Cheers,
PKFFW