Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:28:45 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... 116 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!  (Read 96059 times)
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 01:09:22 AM
 #841

1. Any person may use mortal violence to defend from any perceived mortal threat, or injurious violence from any perceived injurious threat; and any person may carry mortal weapons at any time.

Are you describing libertarianism or the current state here in the USA?

2. You must make irrational economic decisions based on some arbitrary morality which other people may or may not adhere to.

As opposed to non-arbitrary morality? Like what? From God?

3. To enjoy a reasonable level of safety in your own property, your only choice is to pay a security tax to some private police force and hope they keep a watch on fertiliser producers all over the world, making sure they do background checks on all their clients (though they are not obliged to do so), then checking all produce and people travelling near your territory to see if anyone has a bomb.

As opposed to paying tax to the public police force? At least when private security companies allow Oklahoma City style bombings to happen they'll go out of business instead of just going about business as usual.

You could juggle live grenades in the street as long as the street owner didn't think of prohibiting that

How likely is that though? If I owned a street I'd make sure things like that weren't allowed. Don't like it? Build your own street.

5. Any justice, any justice at all, will always be bought.  The enforcement of that justice will be bought as well.  The wealthier (=strongest) members of society will have access to more powerful justice.

It's amazing you can say this without a hint of irony. Do you think O.J. Simpson would have been acquitted without piles of cash? You're describing the statu quo. At least with competing courts we can refuse to do business with corrupt ones.

6. There will be no stability to one's life; when the terms&conditions of neighbouring property changes in such a way as to become intolerable to you, you must sell and move elsewhere.

That's actually not true. If you own a house and an airport builds next to you, that wouldn't be allowed under libertarianism. Also, it's very likely that few people would buy property without some sort of contract with the surrounding areas.

7. There is no guaranteed minimum access to healthcare, other than what an individual can fully pay for.

That's a bad thing?

8. There is no guaranteed level of safety anywhere, other than what the owner of a property is willing to offer.

Right because everyone under the state's protection is perfectly safe at all times in all places. Murder? What's that? That never happens anymore thanks to the magic powers of the state.
1481326125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326125
Reply with quote  #2

1481326125
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 03:00:11 AM
 #842

What seems sensible to you seems absurd to me.

What seems sensible to you seems absurd to most.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
September 24, 2011, 03:30:32 AM
 #843

What seems sensible to you seems absurd to me.

What seems sensible to you seems absurd to most.

That may or may not be so.  Your statement only afirms the general principle that everyone considers himself to be the 'moderate', and assumes that most people believe as he does.  Most people also assume that a popular opinion is evidence for it's validity.  This has often been proven in error in the past.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 03:48:48 AM
 #844

That may or may not be so.  Your statement only afirms the general principle that everyone considers himself to be the 'moderate', and assumes that most people believe as he does.  Most people also assume that a popular opinion is evidence for it's validity.  This has often been proven in error in the past.

I can assure you with a very very high degree of confidence the following two things:

1) Most people would consider what b2c considers sensible to be absurd.
2) Regulating WMDs is better than not regulating WMDs.

Feel free to conduct a public poll. Even here if you want, but that's kind of like asking fans who their favorite baseball team is at a ballpark.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 24, 2011, 06:27:43 AM
 #845

The key thing is that we have to choose.  The ability to make the decision exists and its a question of what appears most sensible.

What seems sensible to you seems absurd to me.

You are the one asking other people to accept being killed by nukes, smallpox and fertiliser based bar bombs.  The onus of proof is on you. 


Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 24, 2011, 06:29:59 AM
 #846


Quote

Then determined bombers will make deals with like-minded farmers, or organize a group of like-minded persons to buy smaller quantites across many vendors and time periods so as to avoid raising the red flags.  It is a fatal conceit to assume that this is the reason that car bombs have reduced in the UK.  It may, or may not, be a contributing factor.  Much more likely is that the effectiveness of UK police in undercover operations has identified those who would pursue such tactics and delt with them already or that the grievences against the UK have either been resolved or overshadowed by the grievences against the US and Israel.  Or just simply that the population of would be bombers still free and alive to do such things has been reduced.  Most likely a combination of all these factors, but corrolation is not causation.

With respect, this is not something we need to debate.  It worked.  Immediately.  The bombers didn't go away and when Libya sent supplies of Semtex they were a nightmare again.  But fertiliser based bombs were dealt with.  

It demeans your logic when you try to ignore facts.  Just saying....

Present your facts, or they didn't happen.

If I do prove to you that regulating the sale of fertiliser has saved lives, do you then accept that it makes sense to regulate it?

AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 12:37:30 PM
 #847


Regrettably I'm going to have to bow out of this debate for a while - it's taking up too much of my time.  It's great fun and I'd love to continue, but I'm satisfied that, at least as b2c and Fred present it, libertarianism is fundamentally flawed.  For example, in liberty-land:

1. Any person may use mortal violence to defend from any perceived mortal threat, or injurious violence from any perceived injurious threat; and any person may carry mortal weapons at any time.  One person's right gives another the right to kill him.  You might be doing something perfectly legitimate, and yet another can legitimately kill you for doing it.

2. You must make irrational economic decisions based on some arbitrary morality which other people may or may not adhere to.

3. To enjoy a reasonable level of safety in your own property, your only choice is to pay a security tax to some private police force and hope they keep a watch on fertiliser producers all over the world, making sure they do background checks on all their clients (though they are not obliged to do so), then checking all produce and people travelling near your territory to see if anyone has a bomb.  And if they *do* have a bomb, well, whaddyaknow, they are free to do so, so the security team has to follow them day and night and just wait until they stop merely *holding* the bomb and actually start "threatening" with it - whatever that might mean, bearing in mind that the interval between starting to threaten and actually detonating could be far far far far far less than the reaction time of the security company.

4. There is no limit to permissible behaviour - anything arbitrarily dangerous is permitted, as long as there is no intentional menace to others.  Competence, mental stability, physical ability, are of no consequence as long as the buyer can convince the seller that he intends no harm.  You could juggle live grenades in the street as long as the street owner didn't think of prohibiting that and, of course, as long as you don't intend to *deliberately* drop any.  You could randomly shoot your gun while blindfolded in the street with impunity as long as you don't deliberately intend to hit anyone.

5. Any justice, any justice at all, will always be bought.  The enforcement of that justice will be bought as well.  The wealthier (=strongest) members of society will have access to more powerful justice.  Poorer members can only hope that the wealthy do not use abuse their greater power to subjugate them.

6. There will be no stability to one's life; when the terms&conditions of neighbouring property changes in such a way as to become intolerable to you, you must sell and move elsewhere.

7. There is no guaranteed minimum access to healthcare, other than what an individual can fully pay for.  You could join a 'healthcare cooperative' of some kind, and hope that it honours its contract with you.  If not, paid justice will prevail.

8. There is no guaranteed level of safety anywhere, other than what the owner of a property is willing to offer.  Even then, there is no way to be certain that he will follow the code.  Even in cases where he proclaims membership of some paid private-standards group, it is not known if he actually follows the stated code or even if he actually is a member of the standards group at all.





Great post.  Right on the money.  Sums up all the issues that these guys will never directly address.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 03:42:51 PM
 #848


Regrettably I'm going to have to bow out of this debate for a while - it's taking up too much of my time.  It's great fun and I'd love to continue, but I'm satisfied that, at least as b2c and Fred present it, libertarianism is fundamentally flawed.  For example, in liberty-land:

1. Any person may use mortal violence to defend from any perceived mortal threat, or injurious violence from any perceived injurious threat; and any person may carry mortal weapons at any time.  One person's right gives another the right to kill him.  You might be doing something perfectly legitimate, and yet another can legitimately kill you for doing it.

2. You must make irrational economic decisions based on some arbitrary morality which other people may or may not adhere to.

3. To enjoy a reasonable level of safety in your own property, your only choice is to pay a security tax to some private police force and hope they keep a watch on fertiliser producers all over the world, making sure they do background checks on all their clients (though they are not obliged to do so), then checking all produce and people travelling near your territory to see if anyone has a bomb.  And if they *do* have a bomb, well, whaddyaknow, they are free to do so, so the security team has to follow them day and night and just wait until they stop merely *holding* the bomb and actually start "threatening" with it - whatever that might mean, bearing in mind that the interval between starting to threaten and actually detonating could be far far far far far less than the reaction time of the security company.

4. There is no limit to permissible behaviour - anything arbitrarily dangerous is permitted, as long as there is no intentional menace to others.  Competence, mental stability, physical ability, are of no consequence as long as the buyer can convince the seller that he intends no harm.  You could juggle live grenades in the street as long as the street owner didn't think of prohibiting that and, of course, as long as you don't intend to *deliberately* drop any.  You could randomly shoot your gun while blindfolded in the street with impunity as long as you don't deliberately intend to hit anyone.

5. Any justice, any justice at all, will always be bought.  The enforcement of that justice will be bought as well.  The wealthier (=strongest) members of society will have access to more powerful justice.  Poorer members can only hope that the wealthy do not use abuse their greater power to subjugate them.

6. There will be no stability to one's life; when the terms&conditions of neighbouring property changes in such a way as to become intolerable to you, you must sell and move elsewhere.

7. There is no guaranteed minimum access to healthcare, other than what an individual can fully pay for.  You could join a 'healthcare cooperative' of some kind, and hope that it honours its contract with you.  If not, paid justice will prevail.

8. There is no guaranteed level of safety anywhere, other than what the owner of a property is willing to offer.  Even then, there is no way to be certain that he will follow the code.  Even in cases where he proclaims membership of some paid private-standards group, it is not known if he actually follows the stated code or even if he actually is a member of the standards group at all.

Great post.  Right on the money.  Sums up all the issues that these guys will never directly address.

Look at point number 4. Recall the knife wielding juggler on the inflatable raft that we were all stuck on months ago. It just goes to demonstrate how they will (after months of arguing) still continue to defend the most absurd concepts. Are they all missing the common sense gene?
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 04:08:25 PM
 #849

Look at point number 4. Recall the knife wielding juggler on the inflatable raft that we were all stuck on months ago. It just goes to demonstrate how they will (after months of arguing) still continue to defend the most absurd concepts. Are they all missing the common sense gene?


That's right.  I don't think Hawker and ferg were here for that, so they don't understand how truly circular and idiotic their arguments are.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 04:54:30 PM
 #850

What seems sensible to you seems absurd to me.

What seems sensible to you seems absurd to most.

It's a good thing that morality is a popularity contest.

Look at point number 4. Recall the knife wielding juggler on the inflatable raft that we were all stuck on months ago. It just goes to demonstrate how they will (after months of arguing) still continue to defend the most absurd concepts. Are they all missing the common sense gene?

There's nothing absurd about not allowing "risky behavior" to be basis for acting with violence. What you are so keen to leave out is how I pointed out that if we start following that logic that we might arrest all teenage males because they are at a greater risk for committing crimes. That's just as absurd to me. The difference between us is not that both of our views can lead to things the other considers absurd but rather that when I am faced with what you claim is absurd, I don't abandon my principles. You do. Which leaves your world looking very arbitrary and ad hoc. Juggling knives isn't ok but other risky behavior is, where you draw the line is just based on some subjective gut feeling. I don't need to insult you either because I know your argument is weak without being forced to ridicule it.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 05:02:32 PM
 #851

Juggling knives isn't ok but other risky behavior is, where you draw the line is just based on some subjective gut feeling.

...based on well-reasoned cost/benefit analysis using actual research and arrived at through mass debate and discussion.


As opposed to your liberland, where you just pull "rights" out of your ass and then kill everyone that doesn't agree with them.



Allowing everyone and their mentally unstable mothers to own nukes offers no real benefit, but has tremendous costs of millions of lives or potentially all life... therefore we don't do it.

Allowing a crazy guy to juggle knives on a life raft offers no benefit other than his own entertainment, but could potentially cost the lives of everyone on the raft... therefore we don't do it.

Allowing the open purchase of guns results in a relatively insignificant number of extra firearms related deaths per year, but it allows law-abiding folks to defend themselves on the order of millions of times annually... therefore we allow it.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 05:48:25 PM
 #852

Juggling knives isn't ok but other risky behavior is, where you draw the line is just based on some subjective gut feeling.

...based on well-reasoned cost/benefit analysis using actual research and arrived at through mass debate and discussion.


As opposed to your liberland, where you just pull "rights" out of your ass and then kill everyone that doesn't agree with them.



Allowing everyone and their mentally unstable mothers to own nukes offers no real benefit, but has tremendous costs of millions of lives or potentially all life... therefore we don't do it.

Allowing a crazy guy to juggle knives on a life raft offers no benefit other than his own entertainment, but could potentially cost the lives of everyone on the raft... therefore we don't do it.

Allowing the open purchase of guns results in a relatively insignificant number of extra firearms related deaths per year, but it allows law-abiding folks to defend themselves on the order of millions of times annually... therefore we allow it.

The problem with cost/benefit is there's no mention of justice. If you can save billions by killing millions, you'll do it. If one guy dying can give his organs to save 10 different people, on the chopping block he goes.
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
September 24, 2011, 05:52:02 PM
 #853

All of this bickering can boil down to one central difference between us. You build your system of ethics up from utilitarian principles, while we build ours from deontological ones. Unless one side can find some way to convince the other that their base is fundamentally flawed, all of this is just hand wringing.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 06:11:10 PM
 #854

The problem with cost/benefit is there's no mention of justice. If you can save billions by killing millions, you'll do it. If one guy dying can give his organs to save 10 different people, on the chopping block he goes.

You're putting words in our mouths. None of us wished the juggler dead. We only refused to let him juggle while on the raft. If necessary, we would restrain him for the duration of our time on the raft. Same goes for WMDs. The goal is to simply not allow the key components of WMDs to be available.

Consider:

Your solution to the juggler: you declared it was our fault to even have gotten on the raft with him. Does that mean, that while the ship was sinking and we had only minutes to hop in a life raft, we were supposed to engage in a search of all other people in the raft, and search all proceeding to get in the raft, and furthermore, search all people getting in the raft after we're already in the raft. That seems like a violation of rights right there. Furthermore, if the juggler is getting on the raft after us, after searching all of his pockets, we then need to understand what the knives are for: "Why all the knives?" The juggler replies: "I'm part of a circus act - see, here's my credentials." We buy his statement, which in fact, is true, but we neglected to imagine that he would actually practice juggling the knives while on the raft. Ahh, but you claim we should know all things and be prepared, or have a traveling entourage of security personnel who can divine all these things. And finally, the ultimate insult, if we actually suspect that he would juggle on the raft, we must remove ourselves from the raft and find another, and if there are no others, than we should have been intelligent enough to never have chosen to book passage on the ship in the first place.

Our solution to the juggler: He pulls out the knives out of his pocket and everybody's eyebrows rise, wondering what this clown is up to. The instinctive intelligent people on the raft, who couldn't give a rat's ass about NAP, hopefully restrain him before the raft is pierced or anyone is injured.

Oddly, your solution and our solution to WMDs is almost diametrically opposite that of the juggler (in certain ways). That's what makes your position so utterly strange - not only is it nonsense on end of the spectrum, but nonsense on the other end of the spectrum.

You see, in the case of the juggler, you expect us to anticipate and plan for the unlikely and absurd when we have no time to do so, but in the case of WMDs, you claim we should let all things be, when we have the opportunity to prevent to the best of our ability the existence of such weapons. It's mind boggling.

But in either case, you insist that we must allow for nonproductive and and life threatening behavior that is desired by only a few.

What we desire is to allow for both productive and nonproductive behavior to everyone that is not life threatening to people.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
 #855

All of this bickering can boil down to one central difference between us. You build your system of ethics up from utilitarian principles, while we build ours from deontological ones. Unless one side can find some way to convince the other that their base is fundamentally flawed, all of this is just hand wringing.

One side has already convinced the other. Want proof: your society does not exist as a successful or respected society anywhere in the world. Ours does many times over.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 06:15:57 PM
 #856

Furthermore, if the juggler is getting on the boat after us, after searching all of his pockets, we then need to understand what the knives are for: "Why all the knives?" The juggler replies: "I'm part of a circus act - see, here's my credentials." We buy his statement, which in fact, is true, but we neglected to imagine that he would actually practice on the boat.

If he gets on the boat after you do, then it's not his boat and you can kick him off if you want or make him follow whatever rules you set forth. If he's on the boat by himself then it's his boat and by getting on there you can't tell him what to do. Who owns the boat? That's the key issue.

All of this bickering can boil down to one central difference between us. You build your system of ethics up from utilitarian principles, while we build ours from deontological ones. Unless one side can find some way to convince the other that their base is fundamentally flawed, all of this is just hand wringing.

One side has already convinced the other. Want proof: your society does not exist as a successful or respected society anywhere in the world. Ours does many times over.

Uh huh, and slavery existed therefore while it was ongoing then slavery won. Until it lost. The point is, things change.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 06:17:06 PM
 #857

...based on well-reasoned cost/benefit analysis using actual research and arrived at through mass debate and discussion.


As opposed to your liberland, where you just pull "rights" out of your ass and then kill everyone that doesn't agree with them.



Allowing everyone and their mentally unstable mothers to own nukes offers no real benefit, but has tremendous costs of millions of lives or potentially all life... therefore we don't do it.

Allowing a crazy guy to juggle knives on a life raft offers no benefit other than his own entertainment, but could potentially cost the lives of everyone on the raft... therefore we don't do it.

Allowing the open purchase of guns results in a relatively insignificant number of extra firearms related deaths per year, but it allows law-abiding folks to defend themselves on the order of millions of times annually... therefore we allow it.

I'm pretty sure in "Liberland", having a discussion about personal liberties is not going to result in somebody getting killed. That's not proportional retribution or an appropriate self-defense mechanism, at least if you believe in libertarianism, that is.

I also don't think it's likely that a mentally unstable mother would be able to acquire a nuke, much less know how to operate one, and even less certain is if she could even deliver it. They are pretty heavy, unless your talking about the more "suitcase-sized" ones. And then there is the case that she probably won't have the wherewithal to pay for one, and on top of all that, it's entirely likely that the seller would vet her in consideration of her mental capacity. Not saying it couldn't happen, just that it's not likely.

NO law should consider cost/benefit analysis. That's for the individual to decide. And besides, if you use cost/benefit analysis for decisions regarding law, you automatically skew the free market, and then your cost/benefit analysis becomes less relevant the more you intervene. In addition to that, the more universal the law, the more manipulative it becomes.

It's a one way trip to complete regulation of all things, and then ultimately and finally, tyranny. It's what some call the new NEO-'socialist/communist/marxist' movement. The previous attempt was to be outright blatant about it. That is, the original method was to just claim all lands and resources as state owned, and the individual was to be directed in all things from cradle to grave. The new way is to regulate your way there. It basically achieves the same end-game.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 06:21:42 PM
 #858

Furthermore, if the juggler is getting on the boat after us, after searching all of his pockets, we then need to understand what the knives are for: "Why all the knives?" The juggler replies: "I'm part of a circus act - see, here's my credentials." We buy his statement, which in fact, is true, but we neglected to imagine that he would actually practice on the boat.

If he gets on the boat after you do, then it's not his boat and you can kick him off if you want or make him follow whatever rules you set forth. If he's on the boat by himself then it's his boat and by getting on there you can't tell him what to do. Who owns the boat? That's the key issue.

Contradicting yourself again? That is not what you said before. Review the original thread. Furthermore, your alternate and different proposed solution here is just as disgusting.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 06:25:37 PM
 #859

Furthermore, if the juggler is getting on the boat after us, after searching all of his pockets, we then need to understand what the knives are for: "Why all the knives?" The juggler replies: "I'm part of a circus act - see, here's my credentials." We buy his statement, which in fact, is true, but we neglected to imagine that he would actually practice on the boat.

If he gets on the boat after you do, then it's not his boat and you can kick him off if you want or make him follow whatever rules you set forth. If he's on the boat by himself then it's his boat and by getting on there you can't tell him what to do. Who owns the boat? That's the key issue.

Contradicting yourself again? That is not what you said before. Review the original thread. Furthermore, your alternate and different proposed solution here is just as disgusting.

Review it yourself. I'm pretty sure I know what my stance is. It hasn't changed. The third option is if someone that isn't on the boat owns it. In that case you have no right to regulate what happens on it. In any case, you've been offered a response and all you can say is that it's "disgusting". That's quite a knockdown argument.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 06:32:11 PM
 #860

Review it yourself. I'm pretty sure I know what my stance is. It hasn't changed. The third option is if someone that isn't on the boat owns it. In that case you have no right to regulate what happens on it. In any case, you've been offered a response and all you can say is that it's "disgusting". That's quite a knockdown argument.

This is hilarious. The shipping line owns the raft, but that is irrelevant to those on the raft while the ship is 10,000 feet below the surface. It's simply absurd for anyone to claim ownership of the raft.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... 116 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!