Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanthe
Nice duck of the question regarding how law-abiding the people here who are taking others to task, are in their own lives regarding laws that are commonly broken. 
You see, the error you keep making is that you see my explanation and those of others as "rationalizations" because they don't agree with your particular POV regarding ethics and the law. So they must be a "rationalization" for lawbreaking because they are not part of the ethics of the particular group you surround yourself with.
I would posit that an argument could just as easily be made against what you post by saying that your statements are just a "rationalization" of why you do not question rules and regulations that are seemingly not made, and are not being used, for the benefit of the greater good - and are instead implying "it is a law and it must be obeyed otherwise the social fabric of the nation will disintegrate". If one's primary POV is "question authority", then just because a law has been passed doesn't mean that it is a good law or that it should even be obeyed. And a law about copyright violations should not even be compared to rape, murder, house-breaking, whatever; to do so is just making a facile argument.
If there is one thing I've learned in life, is that not everyone shares the same set of ethics. We like to think that they do, but they don't. Each person's set is created by their lives and influences. The acceptability of one particular set over the other depends upon what group of people one is in. It is only when we are among others who don't think the way "we" do are our own values called into question. When that happens, some people try to understand the other POV, while others just condemn it for being different from theirs.  |
What duck? It simply doesn't matter if the accusers aren't perfect. If something is wrong, it is wrong. By your reasoning, a person arrested for murder could get off because the arresting officer cheated on his income taxes. Trying to fob off the guilt to someone else because they aren't perfect isn't going to cut it.
Your arguments are classic textbook rationalization. When you live in a society, you have to live by the rules of society whether you like it or not and whether you think the rule is right, wrong or too insignificant to matter. To do anything else will lead to anarchy. If you can't accept the rules of the society, then either expect to have to pay the consequences for breaking the rules or leave.