Strawman. I didn’t say I disagree with it, I just listed some valid reasons for why people might.
Yeah, okay, I get it, you just hate them. That’s allowed of course. I’m just pointing out that hating them for hating you makes you no better than them.
Of course it’s stealing, your justifications don’t change that. Like I said, I don’t think it’s objectionable when it’s done for legitimate reasons (like if the company removes access for something you already bought and paid for), and forgivable if you’re too broke to afford it, but it’s stealing nevertheless.
Do we agree, then, that science should be the foremost authority in decision making, since we seem to agree that there is no better one, and that therefore your previous point was addressing nothing?
I don’t hate them because they hate me. I hate them because they are rooting for a person who calls himself a dictator, and who has a history of making credible threats against the lives and livelihoods of people I care deeply about, to take over the country in which I live. That does not make me a hypocrite.
Only if your science is comfortable with being questioned and doesn’t require banning, unpersoning, or othering people for the sake of achieving consensus.
How many of your loved ones has Trump killed or is directly responsible for? If zero, then how do you know his threats are credible? Politicians make wild promises all the time, especially during election years, and then end up not keeping them. Unless he has personally sent you a letter saying he’ll kill your mom if he gets elected, I’m gonna suggest you’re overreacting just a little bit.
I said that regardless of whether or not legitimate reasons for it may exist in some circumstances, it is still stealing. If that doesn’t look like a counterargument to you, then I don’t know what does.
Well you see, the thing is, Democrats tend to care about people they don’t know personally. It’s this little thing called having empathy and I know it may seem a foreign concept to you. Trump successfully overturned Roe v Wade. Despite not being a woman, or personally knowing any women who need abortions, I care deeply about this issue, and I surmise that if he can overturn the biggest, most untouchable supreme court case we’ve ever had, then whatever he has planned for trans people (a group of which I am also not a part) has a pretty good likelihood of succeeding.
You still have not provided a reason why you think piracy is stealing. It’s not. If I were to set up an inductor under a power line to steal power, I would be depriving the power company of electricity they could have sold to another paying customer without giving them anything in return. When I torrent a TV show, I don’t even put any additional load on Netflix’s servers. Heck, with their current revenue model I don’t even make the show’s producers any less money.
LMAO you serious? Just look at the amount of shit I got for even speaking out in favor of people who question the science.
“Democrats tend to care about people they don’t know personally” – yes, unless they’re Republicans, in which case all empathy goes out the window and blind hatred is allowed to take over. Or if they’re unborn babies in their mother’s wombs, in which case they aren’t even people at all, which means it’s fine to just kill them.
I’m sorry, but that’s stupid. Yes, the producers of the shows that already exist still got paid, but if enough people cancel their subscriptions because they can torrent the content for free, there might not be enough money to produce tomorrow’s shows, and if you enjoy watching their stuff, then you kinda stole from yourself, didn’t you? Not to mention you’re also stealing from the people who ARE paying their subscription because it’s them who helped finance those shows you’re watching. But like I said, if you are literally so broke that every single dollar you have goes to cover food and rent, I can sympathize, because man doesn’t live on bread alone. But if you have the money to spare and you just prefer to spend it on something else, you’re simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Question the science and believe what instead, genius? We are still in 2024 watching 2000 people die every week and all available data say that getting the shot has no adverse effects and reduces both the risk or contracting the disease, and the risk of death if you do, by over 90%. But Joe Rogan told them it had dead babies or microchips or whatever in it and they decide he knows better than big pharma. Even if these people don’t die from the disease they still run the risk of spreading it to someone who wasn’t eligible for the shot who might!
You seriously need to get your memory checked, dude. I’ve told you three times now and given you three different extremely valid reasons why I hate Trump supporters, and you’ve yet to address a single one of them, instead continuing to insist I hate them for no reason. If you’re talking about Democrats and Republicans in general, I’d’ve hoped you of all people would know better than to make sweeping generalizations like that, especially after you told me off for assuming you believed science didn’t work after you provided a list of reasons science didn’t work.
2.1. If republicans cared about reducing the number if abortions, they’d advocate for contraception and comprehensive sex ed – the only things that have ever reliably lowered abortion rates – but those go against their religion, so they prefer to punish women who have sex at all, even in cases of rape, by forcing them to carry to term.
2.2. As for why that’s bad, let’s do a little thought experiment. Suppose there’s a famous classical musician who got in a car crash, and the only way to save him is a new technique has been developed by which if someone is a perfect genetic match, their consciousness can live alongside a “donor” in the same body. This takes a serious toll on the donor’s body to support two lives until the procedure is reversed. Suppose you’re a perfect genetic match to this musician, and since you’re just some guy off the street and this guy is already famous, they saw fit to do this procedure without asking your consent. He’s got a concert coming up next week, and he’ll be going in your body. “Don’t worry,” the doctors say, “he’ll only be there for nine months. That’s when his tour ends, then he’ll be put up for adoption. You can keep him around till then, can’t you?” You’d be pretty pissed, right?
So by not paying for a thing that other people pay for, I am stealing from people who paid to have that thing and now have that thing? Those are some serious mental gymnastics. Also, after cancelling Infinity Train, I’m no longer willing to give Netflix the benefit of the doubt that they will use that money to produce new shows.
If you still think the vaccine issue was only a matter of not believing the science, you are seriously mistaken. People were upset because Democrats were planning to force everyone to get the shot, regardless of risk factors, and despite it having been developed in record time and with a bunch of the usual safety procedures skipped. That’s not science, that’s forced participation in a scientific experiment, which, BTW, is a violation of the Geneva Convention. People were right to be upset about it regardless of whether it actually worked or not.
You’ve given a great illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Republicans because they’re Republicans, and then work their way backwards to rationalize their hatred by coming up with some silly thought experiment like you did. Meanwhile, Republicans don’t hate Democrats because they are Democrats, they hate them for what they do, but still secretly hope that one day they’ll realize the error of their ways. Meanwhile, the only secret hope Democrats have for Republicans is that they’ll all drop dead.
I’m sorry you’re a bit slow on the uptake, but I already explained it, I’m not going to repeat myself.
You’ve given a great illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Republicans because they’re Republicans, and then work their way backwards to rationalize their hatred by coming up with some silly thought experiment like you did. Meanwhile, Republicans don’t hate Democrats because they are Democrats, they hate them for what they do, but still secretly hope that one day they’ll realize the error of their ways.
I didn’t say Republicans. I said Trump supporters. I also gave a laundry list of specific grievances I had with nearly all members of the Republican party, and I thought it was implied that my hatred for them would go away once those grievances did.
Thank you though for this undeniable proof that you are not arguing in good faith. This discussion is over. Good day.
Yeah, sure, not all Republicans support Trump, but I bet you that those who don’t support him are still majority pro-life, so for the sake of this argument, it doesn’t really make a huge difference.
So am I to understand that you would stop hating non-Trump supporting Republicans if they became Democrats, but you still want Trump supporters to drop dead?
It’s fine to disagree with scientific consensus. Even more so when there is not a real consensus.
Going by a recent example where in some cases, it was being mandated for everyone to be vaccinated when possible; later, it was noted that vaccinations weren’t significantly useful for people who had recently had COVID (sorry, too lazy too link. It was just a news anyway and not a res paper). But this pertains to a condition that is currently undergoing change, with new strains coming out every now and then.
An older example. Old enough to get into our school textbooks. “different tastes on different parts of the tongue”. The text used a kind of language that made readers think that given specific tastes can only be detected at those places, whereas the results from actual science were much more nuanced. Furthermore, the textbooks encouraged the students to “verify” this by trying different tasting objects on their corresponding taste locations, while not hinting them to try any of those in places other than those, which would have easily disproven the statement in the way it was written in the text.
The point here is that you are free to believe what you may, but when your actions significantly and maybe adversely affect others, you have to be careful about what others believe and whether your belief has any concrete proof. e.g. It’s fine if you don’t want to live in the same room with a vaxxer (just live in some other room, or don’t rent a multi-tenant room in the first place), but that doesn’t give you the license to harass that person or their family.
meh
It’s stealing both ways. Whether it’s legal or moral or not, is another discussion. WB stole from the customer. It was legal (they probably had it somewhere in their EULA) and probably immoral (because they knew most customers would not really read it well and those who did, would still probably give them money because they have no other option if they wanted to watch the exclusive). Pirates then stole from WB (in this case it was illegal), but the moral implications change upon perspective. Neither side of the argument is even close to ideal, but sometimes you can’t really condemn yourself for saying “It is what it is” and picking a side.
To point 1: agreed. Being right does not give anyone license to commit atrocities or force their opinions on others, because people often need a bit of time to come to accept the truth for themselves. As long as there is no danger of imminent greater harm, it’s better to be patient and let them come to terms with it on their own.
To point 3: agreed. Best to just call a spade a spade. That said, if a company promises (even if only by implication) to provide unlimited access to a product or content for a given price, and then goes back on their promise and removes that access, it could certainly also reasonably be considered theft. Doesn’t matter if it’s technically legal, if they created the appearance of ownership, they were stealing by deception.
A good comparison might be home title fraud, where thieves create the appearance of owning a home by faking documents and signatures in order to legally transfer the title of ownership and then borrow against it. When that happens, we still hold the thief responsible and not the clerk who was fooled by a fake signature.
Doesn’t matter if it’s technically legal, if they created the appearance of ownership, they were stealing by deception.
A good comparison might be home title fraud, where thieves create the appearance of owning a home by faking documents and signatures in order to legally transfer the title of ownership and then borrow against it. When that happens, we still hold the thief responsible and not the clerk who was fooled by a fake signature.
If the party offended by WB had good enough lawyers, I’d say we could win a lawsuit somewhere and set a good precedent. The problem is, we are not banding up into a party. And hence, the precedent we get, is that if the company is powerful enough, they can do whatever they want with what we give them and not care about being fair (or anything else that might stop them from getting richer).
Similar precedents are being set in multiple different cases: automobiles, home-security equipment, farming equipment, mobile phones, police and governmental services…
There is one thing we can do though, vote with our money. Make a personal blacklist of offenders according to your own benchmark and whenever you feel the need to buy something from them, do what is in your power to use an alternative.
And start doing this before it’s too late and there’s no company remaining that is not on their bandwagon.
When enough companies realise it is better for their bottom-line to just play nice, they will do so.
If the party offended by WB had good enough lawyers, I’d say we could win a lawsuit somewhere and set a good precedent. The problem is, we are not banding up into a party. And hence, the precedent we get, is that if the company is powerful enough, they can do whatever they want with what we give them and not care about being fair (or anything else that might stop them from getting richer).
Right, and that’s why stealing would be an acceptable response in this case. If the TPTB will not provide justice, it’s up to the individual to take the matter into their own hands.
There is one thing we can do though, vote with our money. Make a personal blacklist of offenders according to your own benchmark and whenever you feel the need to buy something from them, do what is in your power to use an alternative.
Yes, and that is in fact the better, albeit also far more difficult alternative. If you pirate a popular software and use that, you might hurt the company’s bottom line a little, but you still help contribute to their (quasi-) monopoly status. In the long run, it’s better to build alternative solutions that do not artificially and arbitrarily restrict freedom. Pirate Photoshop if you must, but use GIMP if you can (or find another alternative).
It’s basically just the old “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man how to fish and he can feed himself for a lifetime”. If you’re starving, you might need to have a fish first so your empty stomach doesn’t distract you from learning. In the same way, stealing can only be acceptable as a short term solution, but in the long term, you end up robbing yourself of the opportunity to learn and grow.
I used to use 3ds Max as a student. Switched to blender when in college, when I realised that there is no way I can afford to pay them if I’m doing 3D modelling just as a hobby.
For AutoCAD, thankfully I never needed it after Uni. For normal vector art Inkscape suffice for now. But I really miss the ye olde Oracle style type command to draw functionality. Honestly, I thought Autodesk made good software and if they were still providing perpetual licenses, I would definitely ask any company I entered to buy it (and not pirate) if they needed me to use it. But now, if I really need something for engineering drawing, I’ll probably make my own FOSS.
Photoshop? Tried out the UI, was too hard, went to Paint.NET. Now I’m on GIMP. Definitely better and no need to pirate.
Strawman. I didn’t say I disagree with it, I just listed some valid reasons for why people might.
Yeah, okay, I get it, you just hate them. That’s allowed of course. I’m just pointing out that hating them for hating you makes you no better than them.
Of course it’s stealing, your justifications don’t change that. Like I said, I don’t think it’s objectionable when it’s done for legitimate reasons (like if the company removes access for something you already bought and paid for), and forgivable if you’re too broke to afford it, but it’s stealing nevertheless.
Only if your science is comfortable with being questioned and doesn’t require banning, unpersoning, or othering people for the sake of achieving consensus.
How many of your loved ones has Trump killed or is directly responsible for? If zero, then how do you know his threats are credible? Politicians make wild promises all the time, especially during election years, and then end up not keeping them. Unless he has personally sent you a letter saying he’ll kill your mom if he gets elected, I’m gonna suggest you’re overreacting just a little bit.
I said that regardless of whether or not legitimate reasons for it may exist in some circumstances, it is still stealing. If that doesn’t look like a counterargument to you, then I don’t know what does.
LMAO you serious? Just look at the amount of shit I got for even speaking out in favor of people who question the science.
“Democrats tend to care about people they don’t know personally” – yes, unless they’re Republicans, in which case all empathy goes out the window and blind hatred is allowed to take over. Or if they’re unborn babies in their mother’s wombs, in which case they aren’t even people at all, which means it’s fine to just kill them.
I’m sorry, but that’s stupid. Yes, the producers of the shows that already exist still got paid, but if enough people cancel their subscriptions because they can torrent the content for free, there might not be enough money to produce tomorrow’s shows, and if you enjoy watching their stuff, then you kinda stole from yourself, didn’t you? Not to mention you’re also stealing from the people who ARE paying their subscription because it’s them who helped finance those shows you’re watching. But like I said, if you are literally so broke that every single dollar you have goes to cover food and rent, I can sympathize, because man doesn’t live on bread alone. But if you have the money to spare and you just prefer to spend it on something else, you’re simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Question the science and believe what instead, genius? We are still in 2024 watching 2000 people die every week and all available data say that getting the shot has no adverse effects and reduces both the risk or contracting the disease, and the risk of death if you do, by over 90%. But Joe Rogan told them it had dead babies or microchips or whatever in it and they decide he knows better than big pharma. Even if these people don’t die from the disease they still run the risk of spreading it to someone who wasn’t eligible for the shot who might!
You seriously need to get your memory checked, dude. I’ve told you three times now and given you three different extremely valid reasons why I hate Trump supporters, and you’ve yet to address a single one of them, instead continuing to insist I hate them for no reason. If you’re talking about Democrats and Republicans in general, I’d’ve hoped you of all people would know better than to make sweeping generalizations like that, especially after you told me off for assuming you believed science didn’t work after you provided a list of reasons science didn’t work.
2.1. If republicans cared about reducing the number if abortions, they’d advocate for contraception and comprehensive sex ed – the only things that have ever reliably lowered abortion rates – but those go against their religion, so they prefer to punish women who have sex at all, even in cases of rape, by forcing them to carry to term.
2.2. As for why that’s bad, let’s do a little thought experiment. Suppose there’s a famous classical musician who got in a car crash, and the only way to save him is a new technique has been developed by which if someone is a perfect genetic match, their consciousness can live alongside a “donor” in the same body. This takes a serious toll on the donor’s body to support two lives until the procedure is reversed. Suppose you’re a perfect genetic match to this musician, and since you’re just some guy off the street and this guy is already famous, they saw fit to do this procedure without asking your consent. He’s got a concert coming up next week, and he’ll be going in your body. “Don’t worry,” the doctors say, “he’ll only be there for nine months. That’s when his tour ends, then he’ll be put up for adoption. You can keep him around till then, can’t you?” You’d be pretty pissed, right?
So by not paying for a thing that other people pay for, I am stealing from people who paid to have that thing and now have that thing? Those are some serious mental gymnastics. Also, after cancelling Infinity Train, I’m no longer willing to give Netflix the benefit of the doubt that they will use that money to produce new shows.
If you still think the vaccine issue was only a matter of not believing the science, you are seriously mistaken. People were upset because Democrats were planning to force everyone to get the shot, regardless of risk factors, and despite it having been developed in record time and with a bunch of the usual safety procedures skipped. That’s not science, that’s forced participation in a scientific experiment, which, BTW, is a violation of the Geneva Convention. People were right to be upset about it regardless of whether it actually worked or not.
You’ve given a great illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Republicans because they’re Republicans, and then work their way backwards to rationalize their hatred by coming up with some silly thought experiment like you did. Meanwhile, Republicans don’t hate Democrats because they are Democrats, they hate them for what they do, but still secretly hope that one day they’ll realize the error of their ways. Meanwhile, the only secret hope Democrats have for Republicans is that they’ll all drop dead.
I’m sorry you’re a bit slow on the uptake, but I already explained it, I’m not going to repeat myself.
I didn’t say Republicans. I said Trump supporters. I also gave a laundry list of specific grievances I had with nearly all members of the Republican party, and I thought it was implied that my hatred for them would go away once those grievances did.
Thank you though for this undeniable proof that you are not arguing in good faith. This discussion is over. Good day.
Yeah, sure, not all Republicans support Trump, but I bet you that those who don’t support him are still majority pro-life, so for the sake of this argument, it doesn’t really make a huge difference.
So am I to understand that you would stop hating non-Trump supporting Republicans if they became Democrats, but you still want Trump supporters to drop dead?
And to you as well!
Lookie here! This thread has 8 parallel lines.
Thanks for your response.
To point 1: agreed. Being right does not give anyone license to commit atrocities or force their opinions on others, because people often need a bit of time to come to accept the truth for themselves. As long as there is no danger of imminent greater harm, it’s better to be patient and let them come to terms with it on their own.
To point 3: agreed. Best to just call a spade a spade. That said, if a company promises (even if only by implication) to provide unlimited access to a product or content for a given price, and then goes back on their promise and removes that access, it could certainly also reasonably be considered theft. Doesn’t matter if it’s technically legal, if they created the appearance of ownership, they were stealing by deception.
A good comparison might be home title fraud, where thieves create the appearance of owning a home by faking documents and signatures in order to legally transfer the title of ownership and then borrow against it. When that happens, we still hold the thief responsible and not the clerk who was fooled by a fake signature.
If the party offended by WB had good enough lawyers, I’d say we could win a lawsuit somewhere and set a good precedent. The problem is, we are not banding up into a party. And hence, the precedent we get, is that if the company is powerful enough, they can do whatever they want with what we give them and not care about being fair (or anything else that might stop them from getting richer).
Similar precedents are being set in multiple different cases: automobiles, home-security equipment, farming equipment, mobile phones, police and governmental services…
There is one thing we can do though, vote with our money. Make a personal blacklist of offenders according to your own benchmark and whenever you feel the need to buy something from them, do what is in your power to use an alternative. And start doing this before it’s too late and there’s no company remaining that is not on their bandwagon. When enough companies realise it is better for their bottom-line to just play nice, they will do so.
Right, and that’s why stealing would be an acceptable response in this case. If the TPTB will not provide justice, it’s up to the individual to take the matter into their own hands.
Yes, and that is in fact the better, albeit also far more difficult alternative. If you pirate a popular software and use that, you might hurt the company’s bottom line a little, but you still help contribute to their (quasi-) monopoly status. In the long run, it’s better to build alternative solutions that do not artificially and arbitrarily restrict freedom. Pirate Photoshop if you must, but use GIMP if you can (or find another alternative).
It’s basically just the old “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man how to fish and he can feed himself for a lifetime”. If you’re starving, you might need to have a fish first so your empty stomach doesn’t distract you from learning. In the same way, stealing can only be acceptable as a short term solution, but in the long term, you end up robbing yourself of the opportunity to learn and grow.