Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
You are stealing from people who spent months or years writing books. It's not holier-than-thou to point this out, nor to point out that "smiling" at book stealing is, well, kind of chilling.
|
If you read my post, you will please note that I am smiling at the attitudes of people here - the ones who profess to be horrified (or "chilled"), not at the idea of "book stealing".
Quote:
Interesting rhetorical device though - where you imply that people who *point out* the stealing are worse than the book stealers. Why? Because they point out the theft? Very post-modern. Morally bankrupt, but still.
|
Amazing.
You obviously read what I wrote, yet you twist it to say what you want it to say. Please show me the sentence where I say that where I said or implied that they were "worse"?
You are cherry-picking my comments so that you can apparently ignore the point of them. And again the defense being used is sweeping, condemning generalizations - "morally bankrupt" here, "scum" used in a different post. Is it a wonder that I smile at the negative hyperbole used to try to denigrate those whose opinion differs?
Quote:
Stealing from authors is bad. The fact that other people do other bad things doesn't make it good.
|
No, but it does turn them into hypocrites when they rail against others for it when in their own lives there are most likely other areas where their moral and ethical choices can be held up to censure by others who hold differing opinions.
- Anyone here divorced? Shame on you - you broke your marriage vows.
- Anyone ever call in sick to work when they weren't? Shame on you - you defrauded your employer the value of your services, plus you are a liar.
- Anyone ever sneak into a concert or a club without paying? Shame on you - you stole the value of that entertainment.
- Anyone fudge on their tax returns? Shame on you - you are a criminal.
- Anyone here having sex outside of marriage? Shame on you - you're a fornicator.
See? It's very easy to generalize and apply morally/ethically condemning labels to people without taking into account any other factors. But of course, the countering argument is usually that one thing has nothing to do with the other. But that argument is false, because the response itself reveals that the speaker is not understanding the larger point that is being made.
Quote:
And what understanding of the world allows you to draw a line and claim that stealing from authors is *good?*
|
Again, show me where I said that stealing is "good".
My point, which you apparently also missed, was that we all create parameters of behavior for ourselves based upon our lives and our understanding of the world. In each of our lives there are gray areas in which we say "I think this behavior may be acceptable/unacceptable because..." - whether the behavior relates to personal relationships, personal behavior or to something like ebooks.
Quote:
It's easy to develop a world view that provides a justification or rationalization for anything you want to do, of course. And, obviously, there are grey areas in a lot of matters. But I don't see how stealing from authors falls into a gray area at all.
|
Because you apparently haven't been understanding what people have been saying in the myriad threads on this board about the topic. Your constant use of the catchphrase "stealing from authors" and your dismissal of other opinions as "justification or rationalization" merely indicates your mind is closed regarding this.
No one here is being asked to step over to the Darkside (though they do have cookies

) or to change their behavior. What some of us are able to do, and which we are trying to explain to others, is that we can see both sides of the coin and that both sides have valid points. We are trying to keep an open mind about the whole issue.
But for some of you, everything is seemingly an "either-or" proposition - usually "if you don't think the way I think, then you must be (fill-in-the-blank)". "Keeping an open mind" is automatically equated to condoning or participating, when in reality it might be nothing of the sort.