Book 'pirate' goes underground after being named by Terry Goodkind

[hard-boiled pat]

personally if it feels wrong then it is wrong... no amount of justification can change that.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by hard-boiled pat

personally if it feels wrong then it is wrong... no amount of justification can change that.

No argument from me. But what if it doesn't feel wrong?

[plib]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Why would you doubt that anyone on this board would be in the top 10%? To be in the top 10% of income earners, you just need to have a household income of around $150,000. That's easily obtainable by an educated double income family, assuming their education is in a marketable skill. After all, this is an income that 1 out of 10 enjoys; that's a lot of people. Median income for physicians (non-specialists) is comfortably above this number; median income for lawyers is slightly below; I know that there are some of both here.

By contrast, to be in the top 1%, you need an annual income of just over $500,000. Much harder to reach through traditional salaried jobs, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few people on MR made that much.

I'm not sure why you think that what you study has no impact on whether you can join the top 1%; there are no guarantees, of course, but there are ways to increase your chances significantly. Median income for specialist physicians is $360,000, for example.

The important issue isn't earned income, it's wealth. The top 1% would be the highest income earners without raising a finger. In fact a large number of them are. If you're born into a billion dollar trust fund it really doesn't matter what you decide to work at, or whether you decide to work at all. Same concept with the top 10%, being in the top 10% of income earners is a far, far cry from being in the top 10% of wealth owners. If you're interested it might pay you dividends (non-cash and not tax deductible) to read the referenced article.

[plib]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

I have clearly been lacking in my research into life's available choices. How exactly does one "choose their parents"?

Obviously whatever you studied at university it did not include irony.

As for choices having little to do with success, that is possibly among the top half dozen of the most ridiculous claims I have ever heard. You believe that someone who chooses not to obtain a high school education, who chooses not to follow that with a tertiary education, who chooses not to work hard in their chosen career path, who chooses not to save and invest wisely, has the same chance of success as a person makes all of those choices? Nothing in the article that you link to supports this.

It really helps when criticizing someone to actually read what they have written, preferably before putting pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard. If you could point out where exactly I said that choices in life have little to do with success I'd greatly appreciate it. I realize my reading skills may be faulty but this is what I see when I review what I wrote:

For the vast majority the choices you make in life, other than the choice of your parents, actually have very little to do with whether you are part of the 1% or the 99%. Whether you studied a discipline that is still in demand or work in a growing industry may mean that you still have a job, it doesn't really have an effect on whether you can join that one percent.

Please show me the word success in that quote? Please show me anywhere in the post where I talk about success? I specifically mentioned becoming part of the 1%. That is a very different matter from success, as normally defined. Many people have successful careers, not many of those become wealthy enough to be in the top 1%.

Did you form your opinion based on the fleeting status of blue collar lottery winners? I am curious - what do you base this almost comical claim upon? How can you believe that effort is not "usually" rewarded? Why do you feel that a person's life is controlled by nothing but chance? That those who are successful are simply luckier than those who aren't?

I am a little lost as to how to respond to this, particularly as it bears no relationship whatever to anything I said and appears to be the product of an inadequate comprehension of what was actually written combined with an incoherent thought process in compiling the response. So I'll just pass it by and leave it in peace.

My wife and I (I earn well, but she earns more as CEO of her own company) are in the top ten percent of households, but we are not in the US. Being in the top ten percent is not too difficult if you are prepared to plan well and work hard, to delay gratification, to not waste opportunity or resources. If I am to believe you, I might have reached the same status if I had dropped out of university and spent my life surfing and having fun.

Again, the issue is not earnings but wealth. Two very different metrics. I'm very pleased that your hard work and education (apart from the unfortunate omission on the irony front) have benefited you. It's what I would expect and, again, if you actually read what was written and took the time to read the article, I wrote nothing which would conflict with that. If you are in the top 10% of wealth owners in Oz then good for you, if you are in the top 1% then you should get off here and go cruise the South Seas in a 250 foot yacht. If you can't afford a 250 foot yacht then maybe you could have worked harder on that whole parent thing, or studied golf at college. The leap isn't impossible, just very difficult.

Gee, if only I had known.

(Sorry if I seem a little sarcastic, but that is my natural reaction to your very strange claims.)

That's OK. I seem to have learned to make allowances for what you know, and what you're prepared to research.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by plib

Obviously whatever you studied at university it did not include irony.

It really helps when criticizing someone to actually read what they have written, preferably before putting pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard. If you could point out where exactly I said that choices in life have little to do with success I'd greatly appreciate it. I realize my reading skills may be faulty but this is what I see when I review what I wrote:

Please show me the word success in that quote? Please show me anywhere in the post where I talk about success? I specifically mentioned becoming part of the 1%. That is a very different matter from success, as normally defined. Many people have successful careers, not many of those become wealthy enough to be in the top 1%.

I am a little lost as to how to respond to this, particularly as it bears no relationship whatever to anything I said and appears to be the product of an inadequate comprehension of what was actually written combined with an incoherent thought process in compiling the response. So I'll just pass it by and leave it in peace.

Again, the issue is not earnings but wealth. Two very different metrics. I'm very pleased that your hard work and education (apart from the unfortunate omission on the irony front) have benefited you. It's what I would expect and, again, if you actually read what was written and took the time to read the article, I wrote nothing which would conflict with that. If you are in the top 10% of wealth owners in Oz then good for you, if you are in the top 1% then you should get off here and go cruise the South Seas in a 250 foot yacht. If you can't afford a 250 foot yacht then maybe you could have worked harder on that whole parent thing, or studied golf at college. The leap isn't impossible, just very difficult.

That's OK. I seem to have learned to make allowances for what you know, and what you're prepared to research.

"Obviously whatever you studied at university it did not include irony."

You are correct. I did not learn about irony in University. The Universities that I attended assumed that most of those enrolling would have learned something so basic at a much earlier age. I fully undertand irony but apparently you don't. I didn't REALLY think that you were supposing that we choose our parents - my response was ironic. (Possibly a little sarcastic.)

"It really helps when criticizing someone to actually read what they have written, preferably before putting pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard. If you could point out where exactly I said that choices in life have little to do with success I'd greatly appreciate it. I realize my reading skills may be faulty but this is what I see when I review what I wrote:"

I read what you had written very carefully, in fact I found it so difficult to believe that I read it again. You quite clearly stated that the majority of choices have little to do with success.

"For the vast majority the choices you make in life, other than the choice of your parents, actually have very little to do with whether you are part of the 1% or the 99%"

Do you not recall posting this?


"Please show me the word success in that quote"?

Ah, we are going to play semantics are we? That's ok, I don't mind a bit of game playing - I usually do well.

Do you not consider being ranked in the top percentile among wage earners to count as being successful? Success is variously defined by reputable dictionaries (i.e., those that are not Webster's derivations) as: "accomplishing an intended pupose, a state of prosperity or fame, achieving a goal". Now, if a person obtains a job in order to earn an income, and if they do well enough in that position to earn an income that is ranked among the top one percent of incomes, would you not regard that as success? If not, how would you regard it? Blind luck? A failure?

I truly doubt that many who earn an income in the top one percent do so without making a great many very good choices. We are not talking about inheriting wealth or winning a lotery, but earning. You claim that choices make little difference.

BTW, I do (well our family does) have a yacht, a very nice ketch, but it is nowhere near two hundred and fifty feet in length, it is only sixty-two feet. Just the right size to be able to single-hand it if necessary.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Now, if a person obtains a job in order to earn an income, and if they do well enough in that position to earn an income that is ranked among the top one percent of incomes, would you not regard that as success? If not, how would you regard it? Blind luck? A failure?

At the risk of getting dragged into the crossfire, a bibliographical note:
Malcolm Gladwell's OUTLIERS predicates that success is due primarilly to blind luck. Talent is *not* the determining factor, just luck and stubborness.

Quite popular, that book.
Especially with the Terry Malloys of the world.

Anyway, resume the artillery barrages...

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

At the risk of getting dragged into the crossfire, a bibliographical note:
Malcolm Gladwell's OUTLIERS predicates that success is due primarilly to blind luck. Talent is *not* the determining factor, just luck and stubborness.

Quite popular, that book.
Especially with the Terry Malloys of the world.

Anyway, resume the artillery barrages...

I will go along with stubbornness as that can translate as determination. Few attain any sort of success without a degree of determination. Take ambition, add determination - stubbornness if you will - and you are on the path to success. Luck has some influence on all our lives, but I will not agree that it is a primary element in human success. I have had luck, both good and bad, but if I was to allow luck more latitude in what has determined my own life, I would suggest that a lack of bad luck is a bigger factor than simply having good luck.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

At the risk of getting dragged into the crossfire, a bibliographical note:
Malcolm Gladwell's OUTLIERS predicates that success is due primarilly to blind luck. Talent is *not* the determining factor, just luck and stubborness.

Quite popular, that book.
Especially with the Terry Malloys of the world.

Anyway, resume the artillery barrages...

BTW, do you honestly feel that if Malcolm Gladwell was to walk into the boardrooms of the top 500 companies and check credentials, that he would find many there who were unqualified in a tertiary sense, board members who arrived at their position purely by "being lucky"? I truly doubt it. The recent dot.com phenomena is about the only real exception, several of the more successful among their CEOs dropped out of university, but in almost all cases they were recognised as autodidacts of exceptional tenacity and ability.

[Mujokan]

I think Goodkind is thinking more about the principle of the thing, rather than the money he might be losing from piracy. And from the quote above, I would say he has a rules-based emotional system of morality. I don't think he's made a totally rational assessment of benefits and harms, I get the impression he is taking a stand, making a point, etc.

This can lead to overreaction, but then many people find the reprisal emotionally satisfying, so it has that going for it. As for what is most effective in the fight against piracy, I would say a good way to go is getting people emotionally committed to you so that they actively want to give money. Some video game companies are good at this, Apple I would say is pretty good at this. Causing a big stink is probably not the best way to go.

Pirates will feel personally attacked by this and just take more pleasure in making sure every book is cracked and uploaded. I doubt it would make anyone "turn over a new leaf". It might make them smart enough not to broadcast their identity on the internet.

Edit: I read some of his fantasy. I would sum it up as saying it was badly written and quite disturbing in some parts. But I did read maybe three books, though I didn't pay for them (borrowed).

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Mujokan

I think Goodkind is thinking more about the principle of the thing, rather than the money he might be losing from piracy. And from the quote above, I would say he has a rules-based emotional system of morality. I don't think he's made a totally rational assessment of benefits and harms, I get the impression he is taking a stand, making a point, etc.

This can lead to overreaction, but then many people find the reprisal emotionally satisfying, so it has that going for it. As for what is most effective in the fight against piracy, I would say a good way to go is getting people emotionally committed to you so that they actively want to give money. Some video game companies are good at this, Apple I would say is pretty good at this. Causing a big stink is probably not the best way to go.

Pirates will feel personally attacked by this and just take more pleasure in making sure every book is cracked and uploaded. I doubt it would make anyone "turn over a new leaf". It might make them smart enough not to broadcast their identity on the internet.

Edit: I read some of his fantasy. I would sum it up as saying it was badly written and quite disturbing in some parts. But I did read maybe three books, though I didn't pay for them (borrowed).

I agree that it was an emotional response based on a primal instinct to protect ones property. I think this is pretty normal myself, as when we acquire things wheter through creation or simply saving up and buying a car or a home or a large screen TV etc. we wish to keep them. We can resort to the law of course, and generally I do not support vigilanty actions, although I might take back my large screen TV or even my clock radiofrom some one stealing it and and had the means to take it back as he/she carrying it out the door. And if I heard the them bragging about it on the corner and legal actions were fruitless, I would be mighty tempted to take it back although I would probably lack the jam, but if I had a witness or two to the bragging I would definitely publicize it and I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept.

I do not think that in this case it is vigilantyism(sp?) The person publicicized their actions themselves, Goodkind just added to the publicity.

As to making the pirates angy and causing them to get more pleasure. IMO they would more likely be attacking the pirate in question for making pirates look like morons and detracting from their reputations.

Do you think your opinion on the book, (you possibly have a lot of time to waste if you read the second and third) is relevant to the issue? Is it ok to steal bad food or ugly clothing? I am missing the point perhaps?

Helen

[hard-boiled pat]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No argument from me. But what if it doesn't feel wrong?

i guess thats for each person to dicover for themselves... in my mind piracy is theft, no matter what others choose to call it.

[speakingtohe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hard-boiled pat
personally if it feels wrong then it is wrong... no amount of justification can change that.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No argument from me. But what if it doesn't feel wrong?

If it doesn't feel wrong you have no need to justify it

Helen

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

BTW, do you honestly feel that if Malcolm Gladwell was to walk into the boardrooms of the top 500 companies and check credentials, that he would find many there who were unqualified in a tertiary sense, board members who arrived at their position purely by "being lucky"? I truly doubt it. The recent dot.com phenomena is about the only real exception, several of the more successful among their CEOs dropped out of university, but in almost all cases they were recognised as autodidacts of exceptional tenacity and ability.

Me? Goodness, I disagree with Gladwell across the board!

When I quoted his position as "luck and stubborness" I was being polite. His actual position is more like "luck and rote repetition" and implies that talent or lack thereof is irrelevant. Just sticking with it and racking up 10,000 hours worth of practice. As if that were sufficient unto itself to ensure success.

He does quote Gates and a few others as saying they were lucky and then takes that as gospel instead of (real or fake) modesty. Right, like somebody that visible is going to say "Oh, I'm successful because I'm smarter than 99.999% of the people that ever lived!" or something like that. (That's for doped-addled rockstars!)

It's just another example of the old statistical bugaboo: confusing correlation with causation.
He got a "bestseller" out of it, though.
(shrug)

Sometimes its not whether you're right or wrong but whether you can find enough people willing to "buy" what you're dishing. (As L. Ron Hubbard famously discovered.)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Quote:


If it doesn't feel wrong you have no need to justify it

Helen

No need to justify it, just do it, huh?
Okay. But...
There's a guy named Charles Manson who surrounded himself with people who fully subscribed to that idea. (Just sayin'.)

It does make life... simpler...
...though it can take you to unexpected places.
Like the subject of this thread.
(I wonder if he now wishes he'd thought it over a bit before uploading or at least bragging.)

Me, I'd say that things that feel right are the ones that need the most pondering and justification. Just me, mind you...

[speakingtohe]

I did not imply that if it felt right to do it, just that you would probably not feel an urge to justify.

IMO (based only on reading so it is only an opinion) sociopaths/pschopaths do not generally justify unless they are caught and often not then. They just go about their business, committing attrocities which they generally see no wrong or right in doing. Total lack of empathy and seeing people/animals etc. as other than objects one reads)

Some committers of attrocities do write letters to newspapers etc. Son of Sam? not necessarily justifying and in some cases bragging, but in many cases it can been seen as a plea for help, "Stop me before I kill again" kind of thing.

Perhaps if there had been a corresponding forum, Charles Manson and others such as Jeffrey Dahmer, Karla Homulka would have been posting justifying their actions and encouraging others to follow in their footsteps. I doubt it, as (again according to what I have read), don't care what others think and generally have a pretty good sense of self-preservation.

Myself, I stole a toy at 4 years old, never addmitted it, never gave it back, and still feel residual guilt. Even at four I couldn't justify it despite the fact it was the only way I could get it. I could not play with it even in total privacy. I have done other things since that I thought were right when I did them, but knew they weren't after the fact. In some cases I admitted them and some not. But I never justified them. That is adding insult to injury.

I agree that many atrocities are committed by people who believe they are right, the children's crusade, witch burning, wartime atrocities such as the Albanian and the Rwanda genocides, ignored by most of the world, and I know card carrying Nazi's who justify the atrocities committed by the Nazi's to this day, as well as similiar attrocites going on in the present.

I do respect your right to feel that the majority of people, intelligent or otherwise, who do cause harm to others in a big or small way, feel deep down that they are right. I merely disagree. I find it impossible that, with the exception of pschyopaths and fanatics, that they truly believe they are right.

Just saying

Helen