The REIGN OF TERROR is over! RIAA no longer suing downloaders!
Dec 20, 2008 at 11:01 PM Post #46 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No, but you did claim that it invalidates mine.


No, I did not -- don't be silly -- I claimed that I was frightened by the sheep who use such poor logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I never said that it did. I used the analogy of stealing to give another example of a case where using the "circular" argument of "it's illegal" would be the only recourse one would have to claim that another's actions are wrong.

My point was that saying that something is wrong because it's illegal does not make the argument useless, even thought it may be circular.


Please, tell me you're trolling? "The only recourse"?! So, apart from the fact that robbery is illegal, you see no problem with it?! You don't have any better argument for robbery than it being immoral? Saying something is wrong because it's illegal without stating why it's illegal is clearly irrelevant, wrong, bollocks etc. It's sheep rhetoric.
 
Dec 20, 2008 at 11:08 PM Post #47 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by mape00 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No, I did not -- don't be silly -- I claimed that I was frightened by the sheep who use such poor logic.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mape00 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That's not an argument. It's just circular and sheepish.


...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mape00 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Please, tell me you're trolling? "The only recourse"?! So, apart from the fact that robbery is illegal, you see no problem with it?! You don't have any better argument for robbery than it being immoral? Saying something is wrong because it's illegal without stating why it's illegal is clearly irrelevant, wrong, bollocks etc. It's sheep rhetoric.


No, I'm not trolling. And of course, I see many problems with robbery other than the fact that it's illegal. Don't you be silly, either.

I have my reasons for believing that propagating the pirating of music is wrong, and it just so happens that one of those reasons is that it's illegal. And I don't believe that this is a bad reason.
 
Dec 20, 2008 at 11:25 PM Post #48 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by melomaniac /img/forum/go_quote.gif
as long as the Obama team solves the "net neutrality" debate at last, as promised on the campaign trail, this ought to be solved as well: see


Net neutrality is about as "neutral" as a vat of hydrochloric acid.

"Government regulation" doesn't ever equal fairness. It almost universally equals "favorable to whomever has the most money, the most lawyers, the most lobbyists and the most determination to twist the regulation in their favor."

If you need examples, just look to internet access available in China. That's the kind of power net neutrality gives the gubment.
 
Dec 20, 2008 at 11:28 PM Post #49 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif
And since everything's relativistic nowadays, you can't say that I'm wrong to do so. I think it's right because it makes me feel good and gives me things that I want, and you can't tell me otherwise, or I'll cry "Relative truth! Relative truth! There are no absolutes!"

Relativity has become the new ruler of our age...


How true.
frown.gif
 
Dec 21, 2008 at 3:24 AM Post #50 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Net neutrality is about as "neutral" as a vat of hydrochloric acid.

"Government regulation" doesn't ever equal fairness. It almost universally equals "favorable to whomever has the most money, the most lawyers, the most lobbyists and the most determination to twist the regulation in their favor."

If you need examples, just look to internet access available in China. That's the kind of power net neutrality gives the gubment.


no - you misrepresent the argument woefully. it's not an easy issue, but it's certainly not about regulation versus deregulation (much as some businesses that oppose net neutrality would like to cast it that way). but I posted some links so people can make up their own minds about it. many more links are easily found.
 
Dec 21, 2008 at 4:07 AM Post #51 of 83
Something that frightens me every time i read threads about the law is how people treat the law as if it's some kind of higher God, ie: "It's against the law, so it's bad!".
 
Dec 21, 2008 at 5:34 AM Post #52 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Something that frightens me every time i read threads about the law is how people treat the law as if it's some kind of higher God, ie: "It's against the law, so it's bad!".


You are above the law? Can I join you?
 
Dec 21, 2008 at 6:22 AM Post #53 of 83
Laws are supposed to restrict people from doing harm to others. We all well known that they are often abused by a minority for selfish reasons, ultimately entrapping the majority.
 
Dec 21, 2008 at 5:29 PM Post #54 of 83
Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif
...


Did you do that on purpose? Those two quotes were not related. The argument is bollocks, unless you simply want to rely on authority, in which case your brain is prestty much useless. But that doesn't necessarily make your position wrong per se. My main concern was not that your position is invalid or whatever, but that people who use such arguments are scary fools.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No, I'm not trolling. And of course, I see many problems with robbery other than the fact that it's illegal. Don't you be silly, either.


O RLY? I don't want to get in a religious debate, but yesterday there was a radio show where people argued that you should be good because if you're not (by their subjective standards) then you won't go to heaven when you die. Lots of people seem to base their morals on fear (for the law, or a supernatural entity) so I wasn't trying to be silly. I am glad your morality core is well-behaved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I have my reasons for believing that propagating the pirating of music is wrong, and it just so happens that one of those reasons is that it's illegal. And I don't believe that this is a bad reason.


So now we're kind of back on topic. I don't believe that fear of being punished by the law (or any other entity) is a good way of teaching moral values. I hope you don't use the same principles to raise your children, i.e. tell them do behave in certain ways, because you will punish them if you don't. Of course punishment can be a good thing, but it's not an argument unless we're dealing with psychopaths who don't have a well-behaved morality core and can't really tell right from wrong in any other way.
 
Dec 21, 2008 at 7:33 PM Post #55 of 83
Maybe if the Music industry and broadcasters addressed the issue where "ONE" good song is produced and then the rest of the album is filled with fluff, then all the law suits and bandwidth throttling would be unecessary. To compound this problem the radio stations only broadcast the single good song for each album untill the selling cycle is nearly dead or not at all. No buying for me unless I can preview all the songs first. Maybe if the tremendous desire to have "ONLY ONE SONG ON EACH ALBUM" was reduced to a level achieved in the past 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. then people would be more apt to buy a GD album instead of getting a free copy of the single song from the internet. This would also boost album sales in that people would be more willing to download (iTunes and the like) entire albums and this would mean more 10 dollar sales and less .99 cent sales. I have no sorrow or empathy for the music industry, they want the biggest amout of money possible for the least amout of talent and they know what they are doing. Next thing you know they will be asking Bush to bail them out. Screw them. How do you feel when you buy an album and it is clearly obvious that one song was well produced and the rest is crap? Makes me feel like I was ripped off and when people feel like that then they will find a way to circumnavigate the problem, just download the one song that is good!
 
Dec 21, 2008 at 10:27 PM Post #58 of 83
Right and wrong is a subjective human construct- not determined by mother nature but influenced by religion, government, community, family, friends, and ourselves. The majority usually decides what is right/wrong or 'social acceptable', but it can up for debate. And sometimes "wrong" is enforced by a governing body, making it difficult for the minority to express what they believe to be right. But just because someone believes something is wrong, doesn't mean it isn't right to someone else's point-of-view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top