French ‘Loi Hadopi’ anti-filesharing law passed

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

That person has completely disqualified himself from this discussion by even questioning the unacceptability of torture.

Please go back and read the thread. It was Zelda who brought torture into the discussion. All that I have said about torture is that I am not able to state whether or not there might be any conceivable circumstances in which its use might not be morally justifyable. If you can make such a categorical assertion, then good for you. I can't.

[Donnageddon]

All that I have said about torture is that I am not able to state whether or not there might be any conceivable circumstances in which its use might not be morally justifyable. If you can make such a categorical assertion, then good for you. I can't.

I can. It isn't morally, ethically, or strategically justifiable.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Oh, and then there's this bit:

The ultimate decision rests with the Haute Autorité, which may cut off subscribers - but does not have to. This is because the government does not wish to see businesses and institutions placed in a position where a national enterprise could suddenly find itself deprived of internet access because of the illegal activities of one or two of its managers.

Yes, which clearly conflicts with your assertion that users will "automatically" be cut off, does it not? There will be a judicial body which will make that decision. Perhaps you don't wish to call it a court, but it is a legal process, in which the user will have the right to present evidence, etc.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

I can. It isn't morally, ethically, or strategically justifiable.

That's your viewpoint. There are plenty of people throughout history who would have disagreed with you. As I say, I can't answer the question one way or the other.

[Donnageddon]

Harry, I apologize. I should have said "The person who attempted to defend the use of torture, or pass moral ambiguity upon torture..."

I regret any misunderstanding you may have had.

[Donnageddon]

That's your viewpoint. There are plenty of people throughout history who would have disagreed with you.

Quite true. History is filled with people like that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Quite true. History is filled with people like that.

It is indeed, which tells us what? That moral questions are not "black and white"? That's a fairly self-evident fact, is it not? If moral questions were "easy", we wouldn't have philosophers. I am not a philosopher, so I can't answer such questions.

[Donnageddon]

It is indeed, which tells us what? That moral questions are not "black and white"? That's a fairly self-evident fact, is it not? If moral questions were "easy", we wouldn't have philosophers.

Experience is a great teacher, but rarely easy. But there are those who continue to use the "old ways" even when experience teaches that it is not worth spit.

Torture is like that.

[Abelturd]

You're a real puzzle. In some things you admit to being a moral relativist (torture), while in others you show remarkable rigidity (copyrights, willingness to give up personal freedom on behalf of some restrictive and bullying piece of legislature). I didn't say you brought torture into the discussion,but you're the one who questioned its condemnability.
And YES, I can make such a categorical assertion. I would never torture a sentient being, nor would I allow anyone else to do so, if it was in my direct power.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Experience is a great teacher, but rarely easy. But there are those who continue to use the "old ways" even when experience teaches that it is not worth spit.

Torture is like that.

Donnageddon. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not "condoning" the use of torture. All I am saying is that I cannot absolutely rule out that there is any conceivable circumstance in which it may be morally justified. You clearly feel otherwise; that's fine with me, but please don't criticize me for not being able to see it in absolutely "black and white" terms as you do.

[Donnageddon]

I agree to your terms, Harry. And I have always, and do now, find you to be a good person. I am again sorry if this became too personal, that was not my intention.

It is just obvious we have a disagreement on the moral ambiguity of torture. Such things do happen.

And I treasure your Harry Harrison ebook uploads.

Peace.

Donn

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

It is just obvious we have a disagreement on the moral ambiguity of torture. Such things do happen.

Absolutely, and I don't have any problem with the fact that you hold a different viewpoint. That's fine with me.

As you say, peace.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Absolutely, and I don't have any problem with the fact that you hold a different viewpoint. That's fine with me.

Yes, you (or we) still have that luxury of thinking that "differing viewpoints can coexist".. Although I would live in constant fear of the state that "lives" by your rule set (in favor of corporate gain).. It makes me wonder if you disapprove(d) of the lack of regulation that existed towards the financial sector in the UK, which was also heavily slanted towards protecting the happy few, rather than protecting the masses who invested their money with them, or whose investments were influenced by their behavior.. The lack of regulation there in favor of corporations is directly comparable to the currently created law that gives those same corporations the role of police & judge, with a neat exception for "companies who should not have to suffer if its employees behave badly".
As you quote:
This is because the government does not wish to see businesses and institutions placed in a position where a national enterprise could suddenly find itself deprived of internet access because of the illegal activities of one or two of its managers.
Where is the analogous exception for "families who should not have to suffer if a visitor/uneducated child does something dumb"? Why are the caveats always for "corporations"?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

It makes me wonder if you disapprove(d) of the lack of regulation that existed towards the financial sector in the UK, which was also heavily slanted towards protecting the happy few, rather than protecting the masses who invested their money with them, or whose investments were influenced by their behavior..

The UK actually has some of the most stringent financial regulations in the world - certainly far tougher than that of the US - but yes, I totally agree with you that it needs to be toughened still further, and that there should be more "transparency" in the sector.

[mjh215]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is indeed, which tells us what? That moral questions are not "black and white"? That's a fairly self-evident fact, is it not? If moral questions were "easy", we wouldn't have philosophers. I am not a philosopher, so I can't answer such questions.

And yet in nearly every copyright/DRM thread you make sweeping judgements on everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint? Referring repeatedly to them as morally devoid, which I find -highly- insulting (as do others). And even though you are very careful to direct these attacks at those who think different on the topic (And not necessarily those that think filesharing is 'right') and not to specific parties I doubt anyone is fooled by who you think is lacking a proper education. I don't believe -any- other user or moderator could get away with your tactics in these discussions without at least receiving a warning from the other moderators.

-MJ