DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
And why shouldn't I have the right to advocate for that?
It is one thing to advocate for something legal, another to advocate for something illegal. Advocating something illegal is being an accessory to a crime, which in itself is a crime.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
So he also wouldn't if teh case would be helping slaves to escape in a pre civil war USA.
No sane judge will defy the alws he is obliged to uphold, no Mather if they are right or wrong.
Thats exactly the problem, the state defines legal as good, while in reality this 2 are unrelated.
You still fail to acknowledge this fact and respond to it in any way.
Don't make your cause any bigger than it is. Your cause is not help the unprivileged, your cause is to enable you to infringe copyrights without having to fear any consequences. This is not comparable to freeing slaves. Using the internet to do whatever you want is not a human right unlike the freedom of man.
Also, I do not fail to acknowledge that some laws are utter crap. I have said so in this discussions a number of times. Still, if I want to change the law just ignoring it is not enough. I have to go the democratic way or else there is no need for democracy and any state or rule of law.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
Ach, yess. and George W. Bush is just as a valued historical person as Frankli, i see your mindset.
You don't get my point. My point is that a quote is worth shit. Marget Thatcher is/was called the iron lady because she did what she thought to be right with little regard to how her way would effect others. She just pushed things through. A trait that certainly was not valued by everyone. Any notable person in history has flaws and this makes their word no more important than that of any other man. In the end they all just express their opinions and who could decide which is the right or wrong opinion. Usually the winner does.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
No not at all, is bisonare gone thay are gone fo rever,
On the Internet you can always revert to any desired previous state using a backup.
Wrong. Did you hear about the company Leo Kirch lost partly due to the claims by some former Deutsche Bank CEO? I can't see that the company still exists or was reverted. The internet is a tool for communication and any information transmitted on the internet can affect the real world, which makes the internet part of the real world. Data may remain untouched, the minds of the consuming people may not.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
But advocate to defy the system is still advocating.
For all I care it is being an accessory to crimes, if defying the state equals overstepping the law in your mindset.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
To go back to god wins law, before Hitler Germany was kind a democracy already, while he did not acted completely legla, he also didn't acted in a way seen to the public completely illegal eider.
What makes you believe such a thing couldn't happen again?
The person who formulated the law was called Godwin... it's got nothing to do with god. More on the point, though, I said it could happen again if they acted unlawfully which is exactly my point. If there is no one to enforce the law there might be some very nasty consequences. You should read more careful.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
Thats WRONG!
My whole point is that no Mather whats the law and also no Mather who would won my grand-parents would still have done the right thing!
You really seam to believe that for something to be good you necessarily need state approval, and that is just preposterous!
I mean how do you come up with such a perverter world view?
Even if the Nazis would won and my grandfather would spent the rest of his live in prison he would still have done the right thing.
Do you really don't understand that whats right and whats wrong is not related to wather it is legal or illegal?
The thing is that socially right and wrong is defined by your socialisation and peers. Your personal view might differ but who is wrong, the majority of the people or a single individual? Society penalizes those that stray from the normal path. Hence, if Hitler had won we would have been socialised to believe that the Jews are the root of evil and that people like your grand-parents were terrorists. From our perspective this is plain wrong but look at the children of modern day Nazis. They know little else but the shit they are thought by their parents and their parents peers. This is not about the state, this is about the society we live in. The state is merely an organization to support the integrity of society.
And I do understand that right and wrong is not about legal or illegal. I have already expressed my dislike for several things. However, I also stated numerous times that I need to do the legal thing if I want to change things because if anybody does the illegal thing there is no need for a state. The lack of state is very undesirable if you like some structure in your life. Just look how badly switching governments and state organization effects Egypt.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
Quote
Your bold marked sentence actually implies that if I were to follow the law in order to change it if it's bad I would be need to be considered evil. Now that seems schizophrenic, doesn't it?
No not at all.
You seam to see the law in back and wight as one thing.
But it is not one thing there is no one la their are myriads ow laws, partial even contradicting sometimes.
If you follow a unjust law than you are evil, like what the police did during the TPB raid.
If you follow some other law in the sate legal framework your are howeever not automatically evil, that depends on the particular law you ate following.
So in your example founding a party and moving forwards to legalise filasharing is not evi at all.
Its funny that you calm for you to have sound logic and understanding and dont even grasp such a basic thing.
Well, you are using the sentence to tell me that I am being evil for following the rule of law. That I need to break the law in order to achieve something. That is wrong. If I were to try and change something the only legitimate way is the legal way because otherwise I am just as bad as those corrupting the law. Don't you even grasp such a basic thing?
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
I'm not aware of a case where someone got PTSD form getting bankrupt.
See and that makes you unfit to be a good advocate for your cause. Japanese managers frequently commit Harakiri (ceremonial suicide) if they fail in their management position or the company suffers. Struggling in a job and working eighty hours weeks causes burnout disorders and depressions. I could go on but the gist is that if lies spread through whatever media device damages your company or the company you work for or your job position you might cause severe psychological problems.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
Be reasonable, no such non physical thing is really beyond repair. Its up to you to change your definition of your self or rebuild you company.
It does not necessarily means that you will repair yourself but you definitely have always a realistic chance on repairign yourself completely.
Being out in a weal chair or infected with some deadly STD is however irreversible.
No Mather you or the state can ever do will undo the harm done.
I am being very reasonable. Ever heard of the term "manic depression?" Being indebted with banks, family and friends leaves you little opportunity to rebuild anything because to build you need money. Having lost anything can leave you lethargic and without any confidence to attempt anything new. There is a chance to regenerate but there is also a chance that the victim might just commit suicide or live a miserable lonely life until the end of his days. It is easy for us younger people to find something new but it gets ever harder to change and find a new job opportunity if you are older. I know second hand.
Irreversibility is not an argument in itself. Everything that can happen along the way needs to be taken into consideration.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
I put a ensurence system in place, if needed state founded to repay a damage if proven to have been cause by a criminal, for example.
Sounds like a good plan, Hanibal. However, there is financial loss and their is emotional loss. Losing the bakery your great-great-grand-father incorporated can not be recompensed. Just like the fragile memorabilia you were so afraid about when police searches your flat. This is actually one of the points where you contradict yourself. If it's about yourself you are very afraid indeed about any kind of damage, when it gets more general you don't care as long as it's not strictly physical against the human body.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
This two are optional, no mater what thing some one do to you on the Internet this result is not inevitable.
If he however does something to you in the real world the outcome is inevitable.
if you call someone a name hi might ignore it or commit suicide. He in fact have the choice.
Instead of stressing himself to death he can go puff a joint or pop some pils form his doctor.
if you howeever insert a knife into someone he doe snot have tha chise wather it wounds him or not, hw also does nto have the choice in any way wather he bleads to death or ignores it and remains unharmed.
That is a competently different quality of harm being done to a person.
What do you even mean by "optional?" I think you don't grasp the extent of the possible consequences. Every human reacts differently, I know that. Some have a disposition to get this or that and others don't. The point is that actions on the internet can effect real world people quite severely and especially given the intrinsic feeling of anonymity on the internet won't allow any one person to guess how another person will react.
Just like shooting at someone might get him killed or leave him utterly unharmed, depending on your targeting skills. However, you take anything into account when you shoot and that in itself is a crime worth being persecuted. So is taking into account that harassing somebody might cause the other person harm.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
Well, but do you assert that by for example making it easy to break copyright laws and drug laws, will not only make people escalate in this areas but also escalate to law areas that did not experienced any change in law?
I would assert this would eb a wrong assertion.
I am not asserting anything here. I am saying that there is a need for copyright and drug laws. Copyrights allow people and organizations to profit from their inventiveness which is the basic idea of the market. Drug laws are made to protect people from making poor choices. Like taking Krokodil which has a nasty mortality rate. Like taking LSD which can cause psychological disorders that leave the users in a state they need to be taken care by society (which is paid by society, too). Like taking crack which leaves the user with an almost instant physical addiction and a constant need for more drugs which they sometimes pay by involving themselves in other illegal endeavours.
Making such laws is not harmful and enforcing them is not harmful either. It is the abuse of laws to support minorities and fail the principal of equality that are harmful.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
Riiiight, arguments doe snot mather but how well someone can pronounce and how clear he can formulate them.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.... NOT.
Did you even understand what I was trying to tell you? That no one can claim someone is incompetent in a discussion and least of all you. Do you even fail to grasp this simple point? Should I resort to a less fanciful way of writing so you can understand what I am saying? Just tell me, I can also do this in Kindergarten English if this is the only thing you comprehend.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
If you belive that to be true, please use 2 of my quotes to prove such a calmed contradiction.
And since you already noticed that I'm not that great with words, find one that is not just you misunderstanding something.
See above. Police damaging your invaluable memorabilia during a house search is unacceptable to you, ruining the company/ life of another person via the internet is. There is more but if you truly fail to recall what you said in this discussion I want to ask you why you even still participate.
DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:
Quote
No need to say any more about your bad logic, either. I did that plentiful in this post.
And ware wrong abotu that, like in teh grandpa argument.
How can I be wrong in having said a lot about where I think your logic is flawed? I did point out numerous flaws in your arguments in my last post and even if you did not agree with those assertions I still said something about them. Think before writing. Words have a definite meaning and you can only ever properly use them if you understand them. This is quite moronic, to say the least...
Edit: Also thank you for totally ignoring the passage on verifying and falsifying a claim regarding dictatorships entirely in your last post. Again something you have no good answer to?
This post has been edited by Stulle: 11 March 2012 - 11:19 AM