That's just not a credible concern.

I did. I bolded my answer to it since you missed it.

Now how about you get back on topic and justify all the opinions you're spouting off as fact.

No, clearly "get real" means misconstrue as meaningful historical coincidence, and ignore all historical context so you can attempt to prove a shallow point.

Oh please! The people stood up to 'Obama's fascism' and said 'we won't tolerate your king-like power grabs' by returning to power the other party that was doing this stuff right before Obama? Remember what a 'tyrant' George Bush was? The fact that you consider returning to power the other party of unlimited government a victory for limited government is a sign of how messed up the collective American mindset is. You're celebrating a not-victory, but you're convinced it's very meaningful and symbolic. In reality, nothing has changed, and nothing will change. The two-party system cannot be broken by voting in the two-party system.

Nope, I meant it like I wrote it. The two party system can't be broken because no matter how terribly both parties run the country, they've passed laws making it nearly impossible for any other party to get on the ballot. Then they trick the population into short term thinking and pissing matches between the two parties so that you never consider any other options as viable.

As long as there are only two parties, they don't have to convince you they're a good candidate. They just have to convince you the other candidate is worse. That's why you see so many god damn negative attack ads about the opponent and hardly any positive ads about their own candidate. They're not trying to sell you on themselves, it's easier to sell you against the other guy and then the only guy left to vote for is your guy.

Democratic rhetoric: The Republicans are so terrible, you have to elect us to stop them from destroying this country.
Republican rhetoric: The Democrats are so terrible, you have to elect us to stop them from destroying this country.

Meanwhile, both parties ignore all third parties and exclude them from debates, refuse to participate in any debate where a third party candidate is present, and write laws that make unwieldy signature requirements to get a candidate on the ballot. And once those requirements are met, dems/repubs ALWAYS sue in court to challenge the validity of the signatures to force the small parties to use up their very limited funds defending against the lawsuit, just to stay on the ballot, where the large parties can easily afford the expense of the lawsuit.

No, I very much meant what I said when I said "No wonder the two party system can't be broken." And a large part of that assessment was that we Americans are too stupid to know better, because we're content to have our arguments about which of the two politicians is 'omg, like, rly rly the most terrible! I have to make sure that guy, like, totally doesn't win!'

I'm saying you're ridiculous. FACT.

See, just because you slap "FACT" on something doesn't make it a fact.

For example, you stated an opinion: "Obama has secreted away personal data to an extent unprecedented in the entire US POTUS history."

Justify this "fact" with sources and evidence, or just stop it.

I have no idea whatever the rest of your response was about, it was wholly unrelated to everything else in this thread.

IF that were the case that they're just lazy, let them be lazy. Doesn't justify the law. Don't criminalize charity, it's just needless regulation.

As a final note though, I would like to add that although you remain unconvinced, I appreciate the intelligent discussion. I know what I believe and the reasons I believe it, but having the opportunity to debate it intelligently with someone of the opposite perspective has given me the opportunity to organize my thoughts better on the matter and really drill down into the reasons I have the beliefs I do.   

Corporations and emotions are irrelevant. Again, it's about voluntary exchange and ownership. Someone sold the recording to the corporation, and now they own it. It doesn't matter that it's not an individual, you don't have a right to take it because you don't want to pay the price they're asking.

To be as brief as possible because our other thread is more productive, I've explained how morality is based on volutaryism. In order for it not to be stealing, it has to be based on voluntary exchange. If you don't think something is worth the price they're asking, you don't have to pay it. But just because you say it's less doesn't make it a voluntary exchange. Voluntary means you both agree on the price. If the market as a whole doesn't agree, the artist can lower the price, but if he doesn't, you taking it still doesn't make it voluntary just because the artist is being unreasonable. Voluntary exchange requires meeting of the minds on the value of the exchange, and one side cannot unilaterally decide.

1. Perhaps a different definition. I'm not interested in the dictionary definition necessarily. I'm interested in how we know what is "right" and "wrong." Right and wrong are subjective to the society, as you have pointed out. As it is "wrong" to eat beef in certain cultures, or to drink alcohol in others, but these are social constraints different cultures create that people can choose to accept or not. I'm not concerned with the voluntary and arbitrary additional moral constraints such as these. My concern with morality is what is the most basic, irrefutable moral law? And the centers on causing harm unnecessarily.

If you ignore my music and I go out of business, that's not harming me through fault of your own. That's you not valuing what I create, and if I'm smart, I'll adapt my music to what people want to hear or find another way to make a living. But I can't force you to like my music. If I'm creating music that is not enjoyable, forcing people to listen to would not be right. You are correct, you aren't morally obligated to buy it, but you're not morally excused for stealing it. If I'm playing it on a corner, there's an implicit understanding that if you stop to listen to it, a voluntary exchange has occurred. If I did not want to provide it to you for free, I would not play it in public. If I recorded it and offered to let you listen to it for a price, you could choose to pay for it or not. But you cannot choose to not pay for it and then listen to it anyway. That's not voluntary.

2. The whole argument that "that's not how it was done before" has no significance to the question of morality. There's a lot of things that were done a certain way for a long time that stopped when we thought better of it: human sacrifice, slaves, burning witches, etc. These practices enjoyed a long existence as being proper or necessary before we decided they weren't. The length of time something was the way it was has no significance once it's no longer that way. Further, taking our cues from the a time when civilization was markedly less civilized is not a convincing argument.

And lastly, and most importantly, the main difference between the "old" days you're referring to and now is recording technology. In the 1800s, if you wanted to see an opera or symphony, you had to purchase a ticket. If you didn't didn't, you weren't allowed in. Contrary to your assertion, they knew it was wrong to attempt to attend a performance without a ticket LONG before there was a Big Music industry. Now, artists have the technology available to them to disseminate their performances more easily, but that does not negate the expectation to be paid for it if you want to hear them perform it.

You keep coming back to the examples that include patents on ideas, like the wheel in your most recent response. Again, I think on the concept of patenting ideas, we have similar views. I do not support patents on concepts. If you invent the wheel, that is now in the public domain. People can't take the wheel you created, but you can't stop them from building wheels also. We agree there, but where we differ is, specifically, on digital goods and P2P networks. These are not protections on ideas, but on a specific item: the recording of a song or movie. You're not paying for the song, you're paying to hear that artist sing it. If you purchase a CD and make copies of it, I don't think you're breaking the law. It's what you do with the copies that determine whether or not you are though.

3. The recipe for a loaf of bread and the specific arrangement of 1s & 0s that make the audio sound you hear are not analogous. I can give you a printout of the 1s and 0s and it's worthless to you. We both know you're not interested in the 1s and 0s, you want the sound of the artist. You're being disingenuous by trying to frame the question that way, and the reason you have to try so hard is to justify something that's not justifiable. If it is a question of which 1s or 0s are arranged in a specific order, then I do accept 'patents' for music, the same as for books. Under your system, books could not be copyrighted because all the words exist in the public domain, and at any time could be arranged in any order to create a story. Someone who does it first would have no claim to copyright and books could be reproduced without legal consequence. I would not accept that circumstance as acceptable either.

What's your point here? Accept the lesser evil because you have no choice, but feel good about how marginally less bad your guys is over Obama? I agree with the other guy, stop voting for evil. You know why the country is so messed up? Because both republicans and democrats know you don't have a choice. You get pissed at the asshats running the country, then you vote the lesser asshat into office. Then when he screws up, you put the first idiot back in charge. Then you play stupid games like "my idiot is less dumb than your idiot." And you feel good about that? That's your victory?

No wonder the two party system can't be broken. You're too busy celebrating your small "victories" rather than demanding better options.

Interesting. Someone willing to put money behind a prediction. Seems if he doesn't take you up on it, he doesn't really believe it. I wouldn't call it a reckless prediction, just not a likely one.

Sorry, I've already debunked this claim. See above responses. Stealing is still immoral. Taking something without permission is still stealing. No matter how much you don't want to pay for the stuff you torrent, it will never be right.

I didn't say all religious people want to pass laws to restrict things they don't support. Though I did say that a large part of the republican base is made up of people like this. If you need evidence, see all the anti-gay marriage laws written in the southern "republican" states that the courts are finally overturning as unconstitutional. It's easiest to see it with gay marriage, so I won't bother with less easily-identifiable examples.

Alt-currencies would be interesting! I know Doge would be popular, but I'm sure there are quite a few this could become a popular game for.

I'm gonna cut out some of the early responses to try to keep the quoting from being super long, but also retain the relevancy of the responses that preceded this.


1. It is wrong because we have empathy. If I punch you in the face, I know that causes you physical harm because I can empathize with or reasonably project what being punched in the face feels like. Because I know it causes physical harm, choosing to do so makes it wrong. All moral questions boil down to one thing: does it hurt someone else? If yes, it's morally wrong. If not, it is not morally wrong.

Does smoking marijuana harm anyone else? No, then it is not wrong. Does taking someone's money without their permission harm anyone else? Yes, then it is morally wrong. And all questions of financial harm have to do with voluntary exchange. If I give you permission to watch the movie I created without paying me for it, it's not wrong. If I did not give you that permission, you're taking it and it's not voluntary, and that makes it wrong.

2. Using absolutes like "no where, anywhere, did anyone ever regard it as stealing" almost automatically render your assertion false. I guarantee that in the course of human civilization (before music became a multi-billion dollar industry), someone copied a song someone else wrote and the author considered it stealing. That's human nature to want credit for what you create, even if the "currency" is only the acknowledgement that you created it. And again, I'm not talking about you performing the song. I'm talking about you taking something someone has not given you permission to take and disseminated it without compensation, like the specific recording an artist makes. It doesn't matter if music being a vocation is a recent development in the course of all human history. There is now the implicit (and explicit) understanding that musicians create music as their economic contribution to society, and they do so with the expectation to be economically compensated as part of a voluntary exchange. The person who builds something, owns it. The person who creates something, owns it. You don't get to just say, "Well this thing you created sure is nice, and I don't need your permission to take it because that's the way it's always been." That's wrong. That's stealing.

Like your bread analogy, knowing how to bake bread and knowing how to play a song someone else wrote are knowledges that cannot be owned. But the specific loaf you baked, or the specific recording of the song you wrote, you DO own. Someone using that loaf of bread or that recording of the song you wrote without your permission is wrong. It's stealing.

3. They don't provide the same "services." They provide stolen goods. The electronic version of the song is a unique item they did not create and do not have permission to provide to anyone else. Because their exchange is not voluntary, it is stealing.

Not providing a substitute, providing the thing you created. Arguing this with name-brand vs. generic drugs is one thing. Arguing it with digital content is another. On digital content, you have nothing to stand on.

It defies logic that a currency could lose 50% of it's value but have the same purchasing power as before. If the currency loses 50% of it's value, it loses 50% of its purchasing power. Value and purchasing power are the same thing. Further, your assertion that a currency could lose 50% of it's value relative another currency, yet people who use it would not feel the price change defies economics. This could only be possible if Japan's economy created everything their population consumed itself and had no imports, but it doesn't. With a weaker currency, everything Japan imports is more expensive. If you could somehow have a weaker currency vs. the USD that could somehow still purchase the same amount as before in Japan, you could make huge profits by converting USD to Yen and buying items in Japan to export out. Even net the shipping expenses. This doesn't happen because the situation you're describing doesn't exist.

Japan is also an interesting case because Japan has been undergoing price deflation as their economy has been stagnated over the last 10 years and their population continues to decline. I'm not sure it's a relevant analogy to bitcoin anyway because there are far more complex economic issues at play than just the value of the currency.

I'm taking that all fine. There are inherent risks in what is unquestionably a dangerous endeavor. My point though was that if safety protocols are not being followed, then the risk is being made to be greater than it has to be, and if safety protocols are not being followed, it seems like this is a liability problem. Being involved in a risky endeavor doesn't eliminate your duty to undertake the proper procedures to ensure safety for as many things as you have control over.

But I also don't know they're ignoring the protocols. I'm just basing that off something someone else said.