Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[NghtRppr]

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.

If you say so.

[1714273834]

1714273834

[FirstAscent]

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.

If you say so.

I do. Claiming ownership in such instances is a selfish act. Once again, you fail to differentiate the finer nuances of individual situations.

[Hawker]

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.

The real difference is that you want us to abandon things that prevent people being killed and allow the likes of the Oklahoma bomber to have nukes.  When someone says millions will die, you say you don't care about consequences.  When someone asks where the right you want us to honour comes from your reply is "from inside my head."

Sorry that is not enough to justify allowing ourselves be killed. 

[NghtRppr]

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.

If you say so.

I do. Claiming ownership in such instances is a selfish act. Once again, you fail to differentiate the finer nuances of individual situations.

You're the one that wants to extrapolate from an emergency situation into the rest of society as a whole. That shows a complete obliviousness to context. This is analogous to wandering in the woods starving and breaking into a cabin and taking food to survive. Do you not have to pay for the food because it was an emergency? Of course not. You are still forced to pay for it. Just like you are forced to pay for attacking someone on a lifeboat. It's neither justice to break into a cabin nor restrain someone that's not attacking you. It may be a necessary evil but it's not something you can get away with without paying for it.

Let me ask you this, let's say that you and another person are in the ocean drowning and a plank that can only support a single person floats by but is seized by the other person first. My question now is, do we throw justice out of the window or is it a fight to the death over the plank? If you do kill the person shouldn't you be forced to stand trial for murder?

[AyeYo]

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.

No. Not at all. Do you see that being allowed in current society? I didn't think so. That's because there is a cost to killing random innocent people to save others, and it's a cost society doesn't view as worth it. So your idiotic statements remain idiotic.

[BitterTea]

The real difference is that you want us to abandon things that prevent people being killed and allow the likes of the Oklahoma bomber to have nukes.  When someone says millions will die, you say you don't care about consequences.  When someone asks where the right you want us to honour comes from your reply is "from inside my head."

Sorry that is not enough to justify allowing ourselves be killed. 

Again, not only did government programs create nuclear weapons, but the only entity that has used them in a violent manner is the government of the United States. Twice. Against civilians.

You realize this, yet continue to act as if states are the only thing keeping nuclear weapons from killing people.

If nukes are so bad that you'd use violence against an individual immediately upon them acquiring one, to be consistent you should be using violence against governments, not "asking" them to rid themselves of nukes.

[FirstAscent]

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.

If you say so.

I do. Claiming ownership in such instances is a selfish act. Once again, you fail to differentiate the finer nuances of individual situations.

You're the one that wants to extrapolate from an emergency situation into the rest of society as a whole. That shows a complete obliviousness to context. This is analogous to wandering in the woods starving and breaking into a cabin and taking food to survive. Do you not have to pay for the food because it was an emergency? Of course not. You are still forced to pay for it. Just like you are forced to pay for attacking someone on a lifeboat. It's neither justice to break into a cabin nor restrain someone that's not attacking you. It may be a necessary evil but it's not something you can get away with without paying for it.

Let me ask you this, let's say that you and another person are in the ocean drowning and a plank that can only support a single person floats by but is seized by the other person first. My question now is, do we throw justice out of the window or is it a fight to the death over the plank? If you do kill the person shouldn't you be forced to stand trial for murder?

When the life raft is full to capacity, and maybe a little beyond capacity, there exists the right to deny further boarding. But when the capacity is ten people, and the first aboard claims ownership in the face of a tragedy such as a ship sinking, then that is absurd, but as usual, you usually post absurd ideas.

It's neither justice to break into a cabin nor restrain someone that's not attacking you.

The knife wielding juggler is decidedly not attacking the other individuals aboard the raft. However, he is engaging in foolish behavior at the very least. It is acceptable to restrain him. Absolutely. And knowing his behavior, it would've been acceptable to relieve him of his knives prior to boarding the raft.

But the knives might be useful, if they could be attached to a pole and used as a harpoon while aboard the raft.

Nukes might be useful in the hands of a nation to use as a deterrent against other nations which possess nukes, if the nation does not have the technology to neutralize any and all inbound nukes from an attacking nation. However, their is no reason to allow an individual to have possession of a nuke as a citizen of a nation. We can say that such behavior is foolish at the very least.

[NghtRppr]

So your idiotic statements remain idiotic.

but as usual, you usually post absurd ideas

This is the level of debate your side brings. It's no wonder that you have trouble understanding mature arguments.

[FirstAscent]

So your idiotic statements remain idiotic.

but as usual, you usually post absurd ideas

This is the level of debate your side brings. It's no wonder that you have trouble understanding mature arguments.

If a car is red, it's reasonable for me to state that it is red. If a dog is barking, it's reasonable for me to state that it is barking. If someone continually makes absurd statements, then it's reasonable to state that their statements are absurd.

You can test this. Instead of seeking affirmation of your ideas on a forum where you expect agreement, go float your ideas to people walking out of a store. Or go to a public place and engage in random polls. Feel free to report back the results here - just be honest. Then tell me that my claim that your statements are absurd is false.

[NghtRppr]

So your idiotic statements remain idiotic.

but as usual, you usually post absurd ideas

This is the level of debate your side brings. It's no wonder that you have trouble understanding mature arguments.

If a car is red, it's reasonable for me to state that it is red. If a dog is barking, it's reasonable for me to state that it is barking. If someone continually makes absurd statements, then it's reasonable to state that their statements are absurd.

You can test this. Instead of seeking affirmation of your ideas on a forum where you expect agreement, go float your ideas to people walking out of a store. Or go to a public place and engage in random polls. Feel free to report back the results here - just be honest. Then tell me that my claim that your statements are absurd is false.

Your "just tellin' it like it is" defense is about as convincing as someone proclaiming "but he really is fat!" Even if it's true, it's childish and has no business as part of a serious discussion. You'll never convince me that you're right with ridicule. It only tells me that you're getting frustrated because you can't cope with the actual arguments so you have to lash out. I'm even less convinced than ever.

[FirstAscent]

So your idiotic statements remain idiotic.

but as usual, you usually post absurd ideas

This is the level of debate your side brings. It's no wonder that you have trouble understanding mature arguments.

If a car is red, it's reasonable for me to state that it is red. If a dog is barking, it's reasonable for me to state that it is barking. If someone continually makes absurd statements, then it's reasonable to state that their statements are absurd.

You can test this. Instead of seeking affirmation of your ideas on a forum where you expect agreement, go float your ideas to people walking out of a store. Or go to a public place and engage in random polls. Feel free to report back the results here - just be honest. Then tell me that my claim that your statements are absurd is false.

Your "just tellin' it like it is" defense is about as convincing as someone proclaiming "but he really is fat!" Even if it's true, it's childish and has no business as part of a serious discussion. You'll never convince me that you're right with ridicule. It only tells me that you're getting frustrated because you can't cope with the actual arguments so you have to lash out. I'm even less convinced than ever.

I would qualify ridicule as more along the lines of saying you're cross eyed, pimply, and have crooked buckteeth. Such statements would be mean and irrelevant. But to say that your arguments and statements are absurd - that isn't ridicule - it's an observation that is relevant to the debate. In conjunction with thousands of words written to explain why your position is absurd, it is perfectly reasonable and justified to succinctly summarize your position by stating that your statements are absurd.

[AyeYo]

You can test this. Instead of seeking affirmation of your ideas on a forum where you expect agreement, go float your ideas to people walking out of a store. Or go to a public place and engage in random polls. Feel free to report back the results here - just be honest. Then tell me that my claim that your statements are absurd is false.

Better yet, I'd like to see him (and you as well) sign up over on Honda-tech, where politics are actually debated intelligently.  He can make a couple threads over there and we'll see what the (fairly representative of the US population, some wacko liberatrians included) crowd has to say about his idea.

http://honda-tech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=76

[AyeYo]

So your idiotic statements remain idiotic.

but as usual, you usually post absurd ideas

This is the level of debate your side brings. It's no wonder that you have trouble understanding mature arguments.

Please respond to the post:

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.

No. Not at all. Do you see that being allowed in current society? I didn't think so. That's because there is a cost to killing random innocent people to save others, and it's a cost society doesn't view as worth it. So your idiotic statements remain idiotic.

[FirstAscent]

So your idiotic statements remain idiotic.

but as usual, you usually post absurd ideas

This is the level of debate your side brings. It's no wonder that you have trouble understanding mature arguments.

By what metric do you qualify your arguments as mature (as you claim above)? Because many of us here do not feel your arguments are mature.

[NghtRppr]

where politics are actually debated intelligently

I'm glad you at least realize that what you and FirstAscent are doing is anything but.

[FirstAscent]

You can test this. Instead of seeking affirmation of your ideas on a forum where you expect agreement, go float your ideas to people walking out of a store. Or go to a public place and engage in random polls. Feel free to report back the results here - just be honest. Then tell me that my claim that your statements are absurd is false.

Better yet, I'd like to see him (and you as well) sign up over on Honda-tech, where politics are actually debated intelligently.  He can make a couple threads over there and we'll see what the (fairly representative of the US population, some wacko liberatrians included) crowd has to say about his idea.

http://honda-tech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=76

bitcoin2cash,

Join the above politics forum, and I will join it as well. Feel free to invite others who have participated in this thread. Hopefully, AyeYo will join in as well. You will then have the opportunity to show how immature AyeYo and I are to others.

[AyeYo]

where politics are actually debated intelligently

I'm glad you at least realize that what you and FirstAscent are doing is anything but.

Obviously it was directed at responses like this one, which boils down to the childish, "I know you are, but what am I!"

[NghtRppr]

where politics are actually debated intelligently

I'm glad you at least realize that what you and FirstAscent are doing is anything but.

Obviously it was directed at responses like this one, which boils down to the childish, "I know you are, but what am I!"

That's a riot coming from you. You really have no sense of irony.

You can test this. Instead of seeking affirmation of your ideas on a forum where you expect agreement, go float your ideas to people walking out of a store. Or go to a public place and engage in random polls. Feel free to report back the results here - just be honest. Then tell me that my claim that your statements are absurd is false.

Better yet, I'd like to see him (and you as well) sign up over on Honda-tech, where politics are actually debated intelligently.  He can make a couple threads over there and we'll see what the (fairly representative of the US population, some wacko liberatrians included) crowd has to say about his idea.

http://honda-tech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=76

bitcoin2cash,

Join the above politics forum, and I will join it as well. Feel free to invite others who have participated in this thread. Hopefully, AyeYo will join in as well. You will then have the opportunity to show how immature AyeYo and I are to others.

We could just follow the same rules they follow. Why do we need to join a different forum just for you to stop engaging in personal attacks?

[FirstAscent]

You can test this. Instead of seeking affirmation of your ideas on a forum where you expect agreement, go float your ideas to people walking out of a store. Or go to a public place and engage in random polls. Feel free to report back the results here - just be honest. Then tell me that my claim that your statements are absurd is false.

Better yet, I'd like to see him (and you as well) sign up over on Honda-tech, where politics are actually debated intelligently.  He can make a couple threads over there and we'll see what the (fairly representative of the US population, some wacko liberatrians included) crowd has to say about his idea.

http://honda-tech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=76

bitcoin2cash,

Join the above politics forum, and I will join it as well. Feel free to invite others who have participated in this thread. Hopefully, AyeYo will join in as well. You will then have the opportunity to show how immature AyeYo and I are to others.

We could just follow the same rules they follow. Why do we need to join a different forum just for you to stop engaging in personal attacks?

As I stated above, I'm not engaging in personal attacks. I will take your hesitancy to join the honda-tech forum as an indication that you are afraid to float your ideas in any environment other than here.

[FirstAscent]

It seems that you would actually want to spread your ideas, no? Don't you want to move beyond the limited audience of this forum?