Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

Yes, because it all about defeating me personally. Who cares if any ideas get challenged or examined. It's all about me knowing that I've been vanquished and that you get the last word. That's so important.

You're half correct. It is about defeating you, because of how you believe your ideas can be applied to the real world. But you're incorrect if you don't think it's about ideas. Because it is about ideas - very important ideas, and their need to be addressed and understood, in all their complexities and subtleties.

[1714299386]

1714299386

[1714299386]

1714299386

[NghtRppr]

Yes, because it all about defeating me personally. Who cares if any ideas get challenged or examined. It's all about me knowing that I've been vanquished and that you get the last word. That's so important.

You're half correct. It is about defeating you, because of how you believe your ideas can be applied to the real world. But you're incorrect if you don't think it's about ideas. Because it is about ideas - very important ideas, and their need to be addressed and understood, in all their complexities and subtleties.

I can't be defeated because this isn't a fight. I can only be swayed to your position. Calling me names and speaking in riddles isn't going to work. You should try something else.

[FirstAscent]

I can't be defeated because this isn't a fight. I can only be swayed to your position. Calling me names and speaking in riddles isn't going to work. You should try something else.

Can you be swayed to my position? Is that within the realm of possibility?

[NghtRppr]

I can't be defeated because this isn't a fight. I can only be swayed to your position. Calling me names and speaking in riddles isn't going to work. You should try something else.

Can you be swayed to my position? Is that within the realm of possibility?

Yes. Did you know that I wasn't born a libertarian? In fact, I voted for Obama because I wanted him to give me "free healthcare". I was all for socialized medicine. This whole libertarianism thing is actually kind of new to me. I could be swayed to your position. What's doubtful, however, is that you could sway me to your position. But if you've got some articles or books you'd like to recommend, I'd be happy to read them and I'll give them the same harsh criticism that I gave the libertarian authors, which I ultimately failed to counter and so I begrudgingly joined their ranks.

[FirstAscent]

Yes. Did you know that I wasn't born a libertarian? In fact, I voted for Obama because I wanted him to give me "free healthcare". I was all for socialized medicine. This whole libertarianism thing is actually kind of new to me. I could be swayed to your position. What's doubtful, however, is that you could sway me to your position. But if you've got some articles or books you'd like to recommend, I'd be happy to read them and I'll give them the same harsh criticism that I gave the libertarian authors, which I ultimately failed to counter and so I begrudgingly joined their ranks.

I can come up with plenty of book and article recommendations - probably more than you have time to take in. Look for a post detailing such recommendations in the near future. Here's one I've mentioned several times, and it's definitely worth reading. I cannot recommend it highly enough:

The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson

[NghtRppr]

Yes. Did you know that I wasn't born a libertarian? In fact, I voted for Obama because I wanted him to give me "free healthcare". I was all for socialized medicine. This whole libertarianism thing is actually kind of new to me. I could be swayed to your position. What's doubtful, however, is that you could sway me to your position. But if you've got some articles or books you'd like to recommend, I'd be happy to read them and I'll give them the same harsh criticism that I gave the libertarian authors, which I ultimately failed to counter and so I begrudgingly joined their ranks.

I can come up with plenty of book and article recommendations - probably more than you have time to take in. Look for a post detailing such recommendations in the near future. Here's one I've mentioned several times, and it's definitely worth reading. I cannot recommend it highly enough:

The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson

I'm sure you can come up with more reading than I have time to read so put your best foot forward. I'll let you know when I've read this and you can quiz me on it if you like.

[FirstAscent]

I'm sure you can come up with more reading than I have time to read so put your best foot forward. I'll let you know when I've read this and you can quiz me on it if you like.

Excellent!

[FirstAscent]

I'm sure you can come up with more reading than I have time to read so put your best foot forward. I'll let you know when I've read this and you can quiz me on it if you like.

Here's a short article for starters. I may have linked to it before. It's food for thought. I'll post plenty more. This is just one article - it's the sum of many articles or books taken together that is important.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/starting_over/

[NghtRppr]

I'm sure you can come up with more reading than I have time to read so put your best foot forward. I'll let you know when I've read this and you can quiz me on it if you like.

Here's a short article for starters. I may have linked to it before. It's food for thought. I'll post plenty more. This is just one article - it's the sum of many articles or books taken together that is important.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/starting_over/

Those quotations represent a very different kind of thinking from my own. I'm simply not overly concerned with the perpetuation of our species. It's a nice idea but not too important. I want people currently living to have full and happy lives, happy by their own measure and no one else's. I love humans, not humanity. That's not something that can be argued over because it's deeply emotional. It's based on my experiences and my disposition. If that's what you hope to change, I highly doubt you'll have any success.

[FirstAscent]

Those quotations represent a very different kind of thinking from my own. I'm simply not overly concerned with the perpetuation of our species. It's a nice idea but not too important. I want people currently living to have full and happy lives, happy by their own measure and no one else's. I love humans, not humanity. That's not something that can be argued over because it's deeply emotional. It's based on my experiences and my disposition.

Viewpoints are malleable, and seldom remain static over the course of one's life. The catalyst for changing one's worldview is typically experience, observation and knowledge. To love something, or feel a certain way, is but a reflection of who you are now, which in turn is what you've thus far experienced, and know up until this point.

If that's what you hope to change, I highly doubt you'll have any success.

What am I trying to change?

[Hawker]

I'm sure you can come up with more reading than I have time to read so put your best foot forward. I'll let you know when I've read this and you can quiz me on it if you like.

Here's a short article for starters. I may have linked to it before. It's food for thought. I'll post plenty more. This is just one article - it's the sum of many articles or books taken together that is important.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/starting_over/

Those quotations represent a very different kind of thinking from my own. I'm simply not overly concerned with the perpetuation of our species. It's a nice idea but not too important. I want people currently living to have full and happy lives, happy by their own measure and no one else's. I love humans, not humanity. That's not something that can be argued over because it's deeply emotional. It's based on my experiences and my disposition. If that's what you hope to change, I highly doubt you'll have any success.

Be honest; if you have your way and individuals have the right to posses nuclear weapons, there won't be many full or happy lives. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

Here are some pleasant characters from my childhood.  They liked to kidnap Catholics, pull their teeth out with pliers, chop their faces up and then cut their throats.  They killed over 30 innocents before the law caught up with them.  It baffles me that you think all that was wrong with them was that they didn't have nukes. 

[NghtRppr]

Be honest; if you have your way and individuals have the right to posses nuclear weapons, there won't be many full or happy lives. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

Here are some pleasant characters from my childhood.  They liked to kidnap Catholics, pull their teeth out with pliers, chop their faces up and then cut their throats.  They killed over 30 innocents before the law caught up with them.  It baffles me that you think all that was wrong with them was that they didn't have nukes.

If someone says, "Wait until I get a gun, so I can kill you." then that's an argument for not allowing them to have a gun. If someone says, "Wait until I get a gun, so I can defend myself from attackers." then you have no right to stop them. Likewise, you have no right to stop someone from owning nukes if they haven't made any threats. These "Shankill Butchers" obviously wouldn't get to own nukes. The only thing wrong with them was that they weren't given the same treatment after they were caught.

[Hawker]

Be honest; if you have your way and individuals have the right to posses nuclear weapons, there won't be many full or happy lives. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

Here are some pleasant characters from my childhood.  They liked to kidnap Catholics, pull their teeth out with pliers, chop their faces up and then cut their throats.  They killed over 30 innocents before the law caught up with them.  It baffles me that you think all that was wrong with them was that they didn't have nukes.

If someone says, "Wait until I get a gun, so I can kill you." then that's an argument for not allowing them to have a gun. If someone says, "Wait until I get a gun, so I can defend myself from attackers." then you have no right to stop them. Likewise, you have no right to stop someone from owning nukes if they haven't made any threats. These "Shankill Butchers" obviously wouldn't get to own nukes. The only thing wrong with them was that they weren't given the same treatment after they were caught.

The Shankill butchers believed they were defending their community.  Does that belief entitle them to nukes?

[NghtRppr]

Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.

[FirstAscent]

No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat. The particular people they abducted, tortured and killed were not threatening them with physical violence. Therefore, it wasn't self-defense.

Don't you find this all to be a little too philosophical? I mean, you very recently implied that what I hope to change will not likely be achievable, saying "I highly doubt you'll have any success."

I hope you will continue to read the reading recommendations that I will be suggesting. I don't think they're philosophical at all.

[NghtRppr]

I hope you will continue to read the reading recommendations that I will be suggesting.

I just hope they don't all amount to consequentialist arguments i.e. the environment will be spoiled unless we stomp all over property rights. I'll go ahead and grant you that it will be spoiled, for the sake of argument, (even though in all actuality, I doubt it) but it matters not.

[Hawker]

The Shankill butchers believed they were defending their community.  Does that belief entitle them to nukes?

No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat. The particular people they abducted, tortured and killed were not threatening them with physical violence. Therefore, it wasn't self-defense.

So you don't agree they are entitled to nukes.

Phew!

Now tell us who you will put in charge of deciding who is fit to have nukes as they only want to defend themselves and who is not?

[FirstAscent]

I hope you will continue to read the reading recommendations that I will be suggesting.

I just hope they don't all amount to consequentialist arguments i.e. the environment will be spoiled unless we stomp all over property rights. I'll go ahead and grant you that it will be spoiled, for the sake of argument, (even though in all actuality, I doubt it) but it matters not.

Why do you trivialize the sum total of everything we are derived from and depend upon? I think you need to seriously reevaluate the importance of the concept of property rights against everything else that has ever existed. Read what you just wrote. Do you think I'm going to give you a book which goes on about property rights? Seriously. There are bigger things in this world to discuss. Understanding those things, instead of trivializing them.

[AyeYo]

The Shankill butchers believed they were defending their community.  Does that belief entitle them to nukes?

No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.

So using this logic and your past logic, you an "defend" yourself from taxes with nukes.  Seems totally logical.

[NghtRppr]

Why do you trivialize the sum total of everything we are derived from and depend upon? I think you need to seriously reevaluate the importance of the concept of property rights against everything else that has ever existed. Read what you just wrote. Do you think I'm going to give you a book which goes on about property rights? Seriously. There are bigger things in this world to discuss. Understanding those things, instead of trivializing them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c