[Stulle]

1. Look up what an oxymoron is. If you still got questions please ask again.

2. You don't really read a lot of what I say, do you? Because right after the second sentence you quoted I explained it all to you.

3. My great-grandfather was a doctor. So yeah, he basically helped people on general principal. God knows why the Russians took him and that is all the more troubling because unlike your grand parents he did not get involved with either side. That is what is a lot worse than enduring the fruits of your own actions. He could not say "well, at least I did the right thing in helping Jews or some other minority". But are you truly so low that you want this to be a pissing contest of whose grand-parents suffered most? Also, my grand-parents were exiled for being German. Again, there is nothing wrong with belonging to ANY group, being harassed or exiled for that is plain wrong. Again, they could not dwell in their good deeds, they could not have prevented their nationality, they were born into that. They were victims of the times, victims of the crimes others committed and the retributions that followed those crimes. Can you even see the difference between standing up for what you believe is right and suffer for it and suffer for something you couldn't even change? My point is that whoever willingly oversteps the laws of his time to do what he believes is right will have to face the consequences without whining and shouting for how immoral the laws are.

Also, thank you for introducing Godwin's law into this discussion. I think you showed very clearly where your argumentative skills lie. Coming up with the Nazi-comparison when I clearly stated I do not concern myself with what could have been but only the here and now just shows how pitiful your mindset is. At least have some dignity and acknowledge that you are unwilling to change your mind and you won't change mine. I did that earlier. If I could beat my own pride/ stubbornness and let you have the last word I would look a lot more intelligent myself but I can cope with looking an like utter fool on the internetz.

This post has been edited by Stulle: 08 March 2012 - 10:41 PM

[fox88]

DavidXanatos, on 08 March 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

if he is convicted of multipel folloney his panilty might be to be under 24/h sourvailance for a year or two.

How he could be convicted if he never used violence? Let alone, if you were able to catch him at all. Remember: nothing is logged, no fingerprints database, no traces.

DavidXanatos, on 08 March 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

Where did I wrote that I oppose taxes?

That means you do not understand even the most trivial consequenses of your ideas' implementation.
How many people you know who like to pay taxes? As you might guess, there is no physical violence. Now try to combine these simple things.

DavidXanatos, on 08 March 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

but even wothout taxes the state can just print money and those reulting in a inflation thats would act as a kind of tax as the value of the existing money would be always redistributed to the state,

That's hilarious.
Why someone cannot print a million or two dollars/euros/anything strictly for personal purposes? Again, no violence required.

[DavidXanatos]

fox88, on 08 March 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

How he could be convicted if he never used violence? Let alone, if you were able to catch him at all. Remember: nothing is logged, no fingerprints database, no traces.

There could be whiteness, or he was caught trying to sell stuff provably yours.
People ware caught 30 years ago, and at this time the police head means that i see as justified.
No global databases of innocents, no telephones logging, you needed an real time Call Trace.

There is plenty of oportunity to leave traces behind when you break into someones flat.

So if it worked 30 years ago why shouldn't it worked today?

Quote

That means you do not understand even the most trivial consequenses of your ideas' implementation.
How many people you know who like to pay taxes? As you might guess, there is no physical violence. Now try to combine these simple things.

If they don't pay taxes their banc accoiutn or other posessions will be expounded.
Now about expounding and violence, this can be done without it, you cant guard 24/7 your stuff, the police just need to wait for you to fall asleep.
And when you wake up your car and pint form your Waals is gone.

Quote

Why someone cannot print a million or two dollars/euros/anything strictly for personal purposes? Again, no violence required.

See above.

Quote

1. Look up what an oxymoron is. If you still got questions please ask again.

I know what an oxymoron is i was mrealy pointing oput that an entire state is of the opinion that a dictatorship does not require a single one dictator, it can just as well be a party, etc.

Quote

2. You don't really read a lot of what I say, do you? Because right after the second sentence you quoted I explained it all to you.

I really don't see how in the text part you mean you would answer the question if you would fight the DDR or not.

Unless of cause you are saying you are a billionaires and would play the system andf uck everyone over as long as you have your millions, bit i guess thats not the case.

Quote

Did it ever cross your mind that those billionaires in China or Russia are playing the system and do not oppose it? I see the necessity restrict universal freedom to some extent because people are pretty much all egoistic pricks. That might not be too apparent if they are cosy and comfortable and are in no power to misuse their power but give them the chance and they all will. It's human nature. This is also the reason why there can't be a "perfect state" at this point and you need to quit living in a wonderland. In fact, you show just this egoism by wanting to impose your ideas while bypassing the law and you further show it when justifying yourself by saying that copyright infringement is just spreading culture.

Quote

when I clearly stated I do not concern myself with what could have been but only the here and now

one of tis "what could have" is just happening in France: http://www.heise.de/...en-1466297.html

If you don't concern yourself with what could have, you will some day wake up with your hand in the can, and than it will be to late.


David X.

[fox88]

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

There could be whiteness, or he was caught trying to sell stuff provably yours.

Criminals are not idiots mostly, and you want to leave everything to slim chances.
Though I tell - why.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

People ware caught 30 years ago, and at this time the police head means that i see as justified.

How much you know about the police in the times when you were (most probably) not even born?
30 years ago there was no internet or noticeable cellular network.
Times and things change, ans so should change the society and the police as a part of that society.
That simple idea somehow never could get into your brain.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

No global databases of innocents, no telephones logging

We already know how innocent you are (directly from you): you already should be in the database of petty criminals.
Now we understand better why you want to protect yourself and other criminals.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

you needed an real time Call Trace.

Another great idea. Do you expect someone to use cell phones to boast they are currently robbing bank? Then what good can this system do, except monitoring all the innocent people in real time?

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

you cant guard 24/7 your stuff, the police just need to wait for you to fall asleep.

You can bribe policemen. Or hire guards.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

And when you wake up your car and pint form your Waals is gone.

While the police is waiting for someone to fall asleep, you better do not sleep and watch your own car. Enjoy the anarchy, David.

[DavidXanatos]

fox88, on 09 March 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Times and things change, ans so should change the society and the police as a part of that society.

Yes, but this shouldn't happen towards abolishing civil liberties and towards more and more surveillance and control.

Quote

We already know how innocent you are (directly from you): you already should be in the database of petty criminals.

Spreading of culture is not a criminal offence when done for private purpose it is only a civil offence.

And actually in Austria the most filesharers are acting legal, here we are allowed to download anything as long as we do this for own personal use and not for profit.

The only issue is when one uplaods stuff, but using one click hosters does not luckely does not require the majority of users to do any upload.

So legal problems don't apply to people who act only for thair own benefit, but only to people who waht to spread culture and help others for free.

Quote

You can bribe policemen.

You can bribe policemen, also today.
You can even bribe the judge, today!

Quote

Or hire guards.

Pointless:
Police: we are here to take teh car
guard: no
police: so we will take yours instead and still come back here later
problem solved.

A guard can not guard his own proeprty and the one of his emplay at teh same time.
Also you couldnt use force toguard your stuff,

if 2 police man came with blow torches you are screwd, tahy wil destroy your car without having to excert physical force on ly, you can not protect the car from booth sides at teh same time.

You really leak even rudimentary imagination my friend.


David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 09 March 2012 - 10:20 AM

[fox88]

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Yes, but this shouldn't happen towards abolishing civil liberties and towards more and more surveillance and control.

You do not use your brain to make such a statement, do you? This is relatively new area, and of course any legislation adds "more control" - because there was none.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

not for profit.

That's an important point, though you do not care about the consequences.
Accorging to your logic, getting money for "spreading culture" is not a crime too.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

You can bribe policemen, also today.
You can even bribe the judge, today!

Thanks, captain Obvous. It is illegal now, but would not be a crime according to your ideas - there is no violence.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

police: so we will take yours instead and still come back here later

On what grounds? No violence was here.
Why all the time I see you want to use violence yourself, but not against you?

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

problem solved.

There is one problem: your narrow-minded thinking. There are many ways around and many ways to misuse lack of regulations.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

if 2 police man came with blow torches you are screwd

Why I cannot burn police cars, and private cars belonging to the policemen themselves too?
You still think you are smart? No, you are not.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

You really leak even rudimentary imagination my friend.

Take a leak yourself. If you know what that means.

You've got no logic, no knowledge of real world, your imagination sucks. Please stop writing nonsense.

This post has been edited by fox88: 09 March 2012 - 12:36 PM

[DavidXanatos]

fox88, on 09 March 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Accorging to your logic, getting money for "spreading culture" is not a crime too.

Where did I wrote this?

Quote

It is illegal now, but would not be a crime according to your ideas - there is no violence.

You are really very shallow minded, aren't you?
Or aren't you reading my postings?

I never wrote than only violent actions should be illegal.
What I wrote was that the police should be allowed to use violence if the crime itself was violent in nature.

So if you avayd taxes, compeltly non voilent that would still be a crime, but not one for which you could be handled with applicaiton of voilence by the police.
The police and teh state would have to resort to non voilent menas of punishing you, like by taking or destroying your property.

Quote

On what grounds? No violence was here.

On the grounds of aiding and abbeding the prevention of a legal police measure.

Quote

Why I cannot burn police cars, and private cars belonging to the policemen themselves too?

Because this would be illegal and if they catch you you wil losse your own car or other proeprty oyu value, in a completely non voilent way.


David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 09 March 2012 - 01:24 PM

[Stulle]

David, funny you accuse others not to read your posts if you don't like their perfectly sound reasoning when you yourself are incapable to comprehend or read the posts of others. fox88 is a lot better in pressing the points that are painfully inaccurate in your reasoning than me. How come you still can not see that your point of view is more like a room of interchangeable argumentative strategies aimed at proving us wrong and providing justification for yourself?

This post has been edited by Stulle: 09 March 2012 - 08:00 PM

[fox88]

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

Where did I wrote this?

In another topic you wrote about 'abolishing copyright for personal use'. Get a copy and use it to make money for yourself. Let's leave the details of possible tricks out of this forum.
As said, you always fail to see holes in your ideas.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

You are really very shallow minded, aren't you?
Or aren't you reading my postings?

1. Maybe. I'm not sure you can evaluate with the lack of knowledge you showed already. 2. I even quote from your posts.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

I never wrote than only violent actions should be illegal.

You never wrote about many important things.
For example, violent or non-violent is treat of using violence. Or why you do not care much about non-physical violence, while the consequences could be heavyer than a bleeding nose.

DavidXanatos, on 09 March 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

if they catch you you wil

That constant repetition of if is funny. Especially when you want to restrict police's investigation capabilities. Mostly for the purpose to let you to misuse internet in safety, I assume.
Bulletproof VPN was funny too; because watching your encrypted packets is not the only possibility. Of course it's quite safe while you do not mess with serious stuff, like state secrets.

People for centuries developed and improved laws. You are not a lawyer, just a petty law violator. Little knowledge of real life. Problems with basic logic skills. Probably you read some books given to you by your ararchist friends, and memorized a bunch of slogans. What makes you think that you know how to change complex legislation or police procedures?
I suggest to wrap it up.

This post has been edited by fox88: 09 March 2012 - 10:36 PM

[Stulle]

Seconded.

[DavidXanatos]

Quote

How come you still can not see that your point of view is more like a room of interchangeable argumentative strategies aimed at proving us wrong and providing justification for yourself?

Cause thats not corerct.
It is not abour any kind of justification.

As i wrote i in the same way opose the laws against drugs and find it completly legit if peopel affected by thsi laws break them
While I myself never used or intent to such such substances.

You seem to be obsessed with trying to make my moral an political convictions only about egoistic stuff, while it is not, its a independant form my own position set of principles I believe are right.

fox88, on 09 March 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

In another topic you wrote about 'abolishing copyright for personal use'. Get a copy and use it to make money for yourself. Let's leave the details of possible tricks out of this forum.

If you use a copy in your company its not personal use.

Also a reasonable amount of smaller wholes in laws is not bad at all.

Quote

I even quote from your posts.

And still you insist on me having asserted things I never did.

Quote

For example, violent or non-violent is treat of using violence.

"treat of using violence" would be classified as atempted voilence and thos handled the same I presume.

Quote

Or why you do not care much about non-physical violence, while the consequences could be heavyer than a bleeding nose.

Also a bleeding nose or some broken bones can put one into seriuse psychological problems like PTSD if the circumstances are right.
A financial lost can always be undone to a large extent, physical damages are permanent.

The simple point is that non violent crimes are never really irreversible, even if you loose your entire company you can build a new one.
If you however loose your leg or get brain damage or even only PTSD you are damaged for life.

I would change my stand on this as soon as the medical technology would be far enough to transfer human contentiousness into a new clone buddy if needed, but we are some years form that and for now physical damage (except the most banyan one) is irreversible.

Also:
I find it orderly reprehensible that the state is allowed to put a fair dodger into jail for not paing his fines (again a kind of criminals I'm not, for hygenical reasons i prefer indovidual transportation if possible in any way)
I find it also wrong beyong any reasoning that a non voilent thief can be punished harder than a child rapist, or someone who put someone else in a weal chair.

Quote

Mostly for the purpose to let you to misuse internet in safety, I assume.

You assume wrong.

Quote

Bulletproof VPN was funny too; because watching your encrypted packets is not the only possibility.

Actually it is.

Quote

Of course it's quite safe while you do not mess with serious stuff, like state secrets.

For state secrets I have a anonymously paid for cache UMTS stick that i use only in not camera survailed public places.

Quote

What makes you think that you know how to change complex legislation or police procedures?

I believe I can do anything until proven otherwise. Why wouldn't I.

You know that in any country that has 100% effective police there is nothing to prevent a irevocable dictatorship form arising?

Those any free society needs the proper balance between the powers of police and the possibility of the people to do a revolution (break the law).
The todays atempts on policing everything are those a direct thread to a free society, and my goal is simply to restore the balance lost in the last few decades.



David X.

[Stulle]

Yeah, not taking the substance yourself and yet support it... interchangeable argumentative strategies aimed at proving us wrong. Ironic you ignored that bit again.

Also, You are not important enough to obsess about. Quite the opposite, actually.

Your reasoning on the violence thing is still way off. On the last thing, you failed to answer my question what makes you so special to decide what needs to be done over any skilled professional a couple of posts back. Your answere here is bollocks because it's exactly the attitude you claim to oppose. A dictatorship might work quite well for everybody and you can't prove that to be wrong with proper scientific work practices. Think about it.

Anyway, g2g... I hear I got a life... :-!

[DavidXanatos]

Stulle, on 10 March 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Yeah, not taking the substance yourself and yet support it...

I also support gay marriage without being myself gay,

Don't oyu support anything that does not apply to your self as a pure mather or principle?
Are you so borderline egoistic?

Stulle, on 10 March 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Your reasoning on the violence thing is still way off. On the last thing, you failed to answer my question what makes you so special to decide what needs to be done over any skilled professional a couple of posts back. Your answere here is bollocks because it's exactly the attitude you claim to oppose. A dictatorship might work quite well for everybody and you can't prove that to be wrong with proper scientific work practices.

I don't argue in any way for a dictatorship, where did you read this into my post.

I just present here my political ideas and if theer are enough supports (pirate party) this will become democratically law.
Even if it means to allow a bit more petty criminality in the system in exchange for much more freedom.
And for the time being i practice my right to civil disobedience and advocate for all victims of the system to do the same.

theer is a quote form Benjamin Franklin i like very much: If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Thats kind of exactly my point the state can never be allowed to become to powerful even if its for a seamingly legal cause because this will sooner or later lead to a totalitarian system.

Everyone is qualified to advocate for changing the worlds as he sees fit, and has every right to do so.


You trying to put the competence of advocating for law changes only into the hands of a small self declared elite are the one advocating for a dictatorship.
and you seam not even to notice it, thats how brainwashed your already are by the system.


PS:

Quote

But are you truly so low that you want this to be a pissing contest of whose grand-parents suffered most?

No I was nearly pointing out that one can act right but nevertheless illegal and that this acts while illegal are nevertheless righteous.
You don't even get such a simple point.

Your grand-parents are irrelevant cause they did not suffered for doing something righteous against the law.

If an act is right or wrong does not have anything to do with water it is legal or not.

You can act legal bust still very wrong, just as well as you can act illegal but profoundly right.

Quote

There’s a big difference in how activists and bureaucrats view the world. In the view of bureaucrats, anything lawful is right by definition. In contrast, activists don’t care whether something is lawful, they care whether it’s good and just. Bureaucrats generally do not understand the difference. This distinction, and the lack of awareness of it, has caused much confusion and antagonization. It is perfectly possible to be totally in accordance with the law, and yet utterly evil. If you are a civil servant on the inside of the system, you would typically mistake “according to law” with “just”. This is simply not the case.

Us nerds who played Dungeons & Dragons in our teens remember that there was a game mechanic called alignment — more or less a person’s attitude towards law and karma. You had to place yourself on two distinct and orthogonal scales — whether you respected the law, and whether you would strive to do good or evil things. These were unrelated.

In a land where the law is evil, the people who serve the law blindly are equally evil. Lawfully evil. ....

[...]

http://falkvinge.net...-lawfully-evil/


David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 10 March 2012 - 09:47 AM

[fox88]

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Cause thats not corerct.

Wake up: it happens already.

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Also a reasonable amount of smaller wholes in laws is not bad at all.

All big criminals started as minor ones. Evidently you're not an expert in criminology.

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

A financial lost can always be undone to a large extent, physical damages are permanent.

Wrong generalization; and you use it as a basis for your theory.
All your posts read as a mix of incompetense and bad logic.

Quote

Us nerds who played Dungeons & Dragons in our teens

That sums up what you are.

[DavidXanatos]

fox88, on 10 March 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Cause thats not corerct.

Wake up: it happens already.

No its not.
You are welcome to google my name or reed the old pirate party board.
My line of argumentation is consistent and not related to my justifying anything.

Quote

All big criminals started as minor ones.

Sure, but not all minor ones became big criminals.
By your flawed logic any fair doger or wrong parker is a bad criminal and destent to become a big criminal, thats bullshit.
Evidently you're not an expert in criminology.

Quote

Wrong generalization; and you use it as a basis for your theory.

So how do you undo a broken neck?
All your posts read as a mix of incompetense and bad logic.

David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 10 March 2012 - 10:09 AM

[fox88]

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

No its not.

Illegal copies of films and games are sold right now. What else you wanted to learn about real life?

[Stulle]

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Stulle, on 10 March 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Yeah, not taking the substance yourself and yet support it...

I also support gay marriage without being myself gay,

Don't oyu support anything that does not apply to your self as a pure mather or principle?
Are you so borderline egoistic?

This particular quote you took was just taking up the point you made in order to show that the point I made earlier is valid. The "..." shows you that it's more of a thought than a finished argument. My point is not that you support something that does not apply to yourself, my point is that you have not one POV but that you just use whatever argumentative strategy you can imagine in order to either prove us wrong or justify your unlawful activities. These strategies, however, are conflicting in logic. Something fox88 pointed out to you a couple of times now.

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Stulle, on 10 March 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Your reasoning on the violence thing is still way off. On the last thing, you failed to answer my question what makes you so special to decide what needs to be done over any skilled professional a couple of posts back. Your answere here is bollocks because it's exactly the attitude you claim to oppose. A dictatorship might work quite well for everybody and you can't prove that to be wrong with proper scientific work practices.

I don't argue in any way for a dictatorship, where did you read this into my post.

I never said you did. That is exactly the problem. I do not know if it's the language barrier or if you are simply incapable to comprehend what I say but I did say you can not prove that a dictatorship can not be very rewarding for all involved parties. The thesis "All dictatorships are all immoral/ bad/ violating human rights/ ..." can not be verified, it can only be falsified. This is very simple scientific theory, I was under the impression you knew about that. What I was getting at is that your claims are too generalized and black-and-white to be considered a convincing argument. In fact, your defiance of the political, judicial and law enforcement establishment on the basis that you know better without having undergone any training in either field is exactly the kind of behaviour I expect of an dictator: "I am right and nobody else is."

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

I just present here my political ideas and if theer are enough supports (pirate party) this will become democratically law.
Even if it means to allow a bit more petty criminality in the system in exchange for much more freedom.
And for the time being i practice my right to civil disobedience and advocate for all victims of the system to do the same.

No, you are not just presenting ideas. You are advocating defying the state for all the wrong reasons. No sane judge will acknowledge your copyright infringements to be an act of civil disobedience. Again, you are merely justifying yourself in this particular point of discussion.

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

theer is a quote form Benjamin Franklin i like very much: If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Thats kind of exactly my point the state can never be allowed to become to powerful even if its for a seamingly legal cause because this will sooner or later lead to a totalitarian system.

Do you want me to search for quotes from George W. Bush that contradict your Franklin quote? I could do that, if you really want me to. Your claim is not founded on any reliable proof and your quote is interchangeable and can be contradicted with a huge number of other quotes, you are making no point.

Also, did it ever cross your mind that restricting the freedom might be very necessary in some way? The internet grew mostly without any restrictions from the law systems around the world. Basically just as lawlessly as newly colonized Northern America. Hadn't it been for the newly established governments and their ability to enforce new laws we would no longer see free Bison roam the great prairies. They would all have been shot down for fun by the colonizers. The internet is due to some more rules because many people just behaved like there are no moral rules or laws around. If this kind of modi operandi persists we might see some very nasty stuff happening. Just like the extinction of the bison in Northern America. Can you truly not see the logic in this?

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Everyone is qualified to advocate for changing the worlds as he sees fit, and has every right to do so.

Everyone is qualified to advocate. Defying a system supported by a majority is not advocating. Defying the law that allows others to live safely through unlawful activities is not advocating.

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

You trying to put the competence of advocating for law changes only into the hands of a small self declared elite are the one advocating for a dictatorship.
and you seam not even to notice it, thats how brainwashed your already are by the system.

The small self declared elite in the government is actually voted by the majority of the people. If they are stupid enough to allow these people to rise to power it is them you need to change. Also, I am not trying to do anything like you claim. I am just saying that in a just and lawful state everybody has to play by the rules or we end up with chaos. Something you do not acknowledge because you think that if you believe to know better it is your moral right and obligation to overrule courts and elected representative. Ignoring the restrictions of the law is the only thing that can get a dictator into power nowadays.

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

PS:

Quote

But are you truly so low that you want this to be a pissing contest of whose grand-parents suffered most?

No I was nearly pointing out that one can act right but nevertheless illegal and that this acts while illegal are nevertheless righteous.
You don't even get such a simple point.

Your grand-parents are irrelevant cause they did not suffered for doing something righteous against the law.

If an act is right or wrong does not have anything to do with water it is legal or not.

You can act legal bust still very wrong, just as well as you can act illegal but profoundly right.

Thank you for calling my grand-parents irrelevant, that makes me feel terrific! Your whole argumentation here is off because guess what, if Hitler had won the war your grand-parents would be the bad. Just like the GDR is the bad now that the west won.

You fail to acknowledge that if you overstep the boundaries state and society have live with the consequences one way or another. However, when you overstep them to do what you think is right you should also be prepared to face the consequences this can have for you. Your grand-parents possibly did that. You, however, advocate a mindset that allows you to defy and go unpunished. Infringing copyrights, harassing and scamming on the internet should be untraceable according to your mind. Defying the - certainly questionable - copyright laws by infringing copyrights without wanting to face the consequences is not comparable to anything your grand-parents did.

Also, did you get my reference to Godwin's law? Because playing the Hitler card just shows how desperate you are to prove us wrong.

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Quote

There’s a big difference in how activists and bureaucrats view the world. In the view of bureaucrats, anything lawful is right by definition. In contrast, activists don’t care whether something is lawful, they care whether it’s good and just. Bureaucrats generally do not understand the difference. This distinction, and the lack of awareness of it, has caused much confusion and antagonization. It is perfectly possible to be totally in accordance with the law, and yet utterly evil. If you are a civil servant on the inside of the system, you would typically mistake “according to law” with “just”. This is simply not the case.

Us nerds who played Dungeons & Dragons in our teens remember that there was a game mechanic called alignment — more or less a person’s attitude towards law and karma. You had to place yourself on two distinct and orthogonal scales — whether you respected the law, and whether you would strive to do good or evil things. These were unrelated.

In a land where the law is evil, the people who serve the law blindly are equally evil. Lawfully evil. ....

[...]

http://falkvinge.net...-lawfully-evil/


David X.

I told you I do not care for any kind of biased propaganda scripture by whoever thought of it. This article you reiterate every couple of posts is nothing but propaganda. I don't expect it to be of any use in an open minded discussion. Also, being critical about laws and trying to defy the law without having to face consequences is both not following the law blindly. However, doing the wrong thing to do the right thing is still the wrong thing. 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?

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

fox88, on 10 March 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Cause thats not corerct.

Wake up: it happens already.

No its not.
You are welcome to google my name or reed the old pirate party board.
My line of argumentation is consistent and not related to my justifying anything.

It is clearly not consistent. You pronounce anything physical to be beyond redemption but you fail to acknowledge that non-physical harm can be just as bad. In fact, you go as far as saying that you might get psychological problems from physical violence but do now acknowledge that you might get just as severe problems from being hurt financially. You might not care a lot for money (certainly not about that of copyright holders) but for others it might be the thing they define themselves by. Loosing their money, their social status, their job means loosing their life, their order, their prospects, their structure. A nose bleed might leave you physically scarred, losing what you define yourself as an individual by might leave you broken beyond repair.

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Quote

All big criminals started as minor ones.

Sure, but not all minor ones became big criminals.
By your flawed logic any fair doger or wrong parker is a bad criminal and destent to become a big criminal, thats bullshit.
Evidently you're not an expert in criminology.

Wrong conclusion. fox88 tried to point out that if you give people the chance to exploit the law they are a lot more likely to expand their extent of exploitation. The severity of their crimes might go from being a peeping Tom to being a rapist. From dodging a couple of taxes to dodging millions in tax money. From copying an mp3 over copying your Ph.D. thesis to copying the product of a competitor leaving his start-up-company bankrupt with him and his family stuck in debts they will be paying for twenty or thirty years, leaving them to live at less than any bum gets from the state here.

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

So how do you undo a broken neck?

How do you undo bankrupting a company it took years to build? How do you undo a paranoid disorder caused by cyber stalking? How do you undo a fatal heart failure caused by excessive psychological stress?

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

All your posts read as a mix of incompetense and bad logic.

Look up the meaning of competence. Again wikipedia:

Quote

Competence (or competency) is the ability of an individual to perform a job properly.

So please tell me how someone can be incompetent when having an argument? fox88 is a lot more accomplished in English than you are. He is capable to pronounce his ideas so everyone can understand it without having to guess any implications, again unlike you. So far I have not even seen contradicting arguments in his posts, unlike yours. If anybody would need to be claimed incompetent in a discussion it would be you but then I think you can't even do such a thing. No need to say any more about your bad logic, either. I did that plentiful in this post.

This post has been edited by Stulle: 10 March 2012 - 04:34 PM

[DavidXanatos]

Stulle, on 10 March 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

No, you are not just presenting ideas. You are advocating defying the state for all the wrong reasons.

And why shouldn't I have the right to advocate for that?

Quote

No sane judge will acknowledge your copyright infringements to be an act of civil disobedience.

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.

Quote

Do you want me to search for quotes from George W. Bush that contradict your Franklin quote?

Ach, yess. and George W. Bush is just as a valued historical person as Frankli, i see your mindset.

Quote

Also, did it ever cross your mind that restricting the freedom might be very necessary in some way? The internet grew mostly without any restrictions from the law systems around the world. Basically just as lawlessly as newly colonized Northern America. Hadn't it been for the newly established governments and their ability to enforce new laws we would no longer see free Bison roam the great prairies. They would all have been shot down for fun by the colonizers. The internet is due to some more rules because many people just behaved like there are no moral rules or laws around. If this kind of modi operandi persists we might see some very nasty stuff happening. Just like the extinction of the bison in Northern America. Can you truly not see the logic in this?

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.

Quote

Everyone is qualified to advocate. Defying a system supported by a majority is not advocating. Defying the law that allows others to live safely through unlawful activities is not advocating.

But advocate to defy the system is still advocating.

Quote

Ignoring the restrictions of the law is the only thing that can get a dictator into power nowadays.

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?

Quote

Thank you for calling my grand-parents irrelevant, that makes me feel terrific! Your whole argumentation here is off because guess what, if Hitler had won the war your grand-parents would be the bad. Just like the GDR is the bad now that the west won.

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?

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.

Quote

In fact, you go as far as saying that you might get psychological problems from physical violence but do now acknowledge that you might get just as severe problems from being hurt financially.

I'm not aware of a case where someone got PTSD form getting bankrupt.

Quote

losing what you define yourself as an individual by might leave you broken beyond repair.

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.

Quote

How do you undo bankrupting a company it took years to build?

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.

Quote

How do you undo a paranoid disorder caused by cyber stalking? How do you undo a fatal heart failure caused by excessive psychological stress?

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.

Quote

Wrong conclusion. fox88 tried to point out that if you give people the chance to exploit the law they are a lot more likely to expand their extent of exploitation. The severity of their crimes might go from being a peeping Tom to being a rapist. From dodging a couple of taxes to dodging millions in tax money.

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.

Quote

fox88 is a lot more accomplished in English than you are. He is capable to pronounce his ideas so everyone can understand it without having to guess any implications, again unlike you.

Riiiight, arguments doe snot mather but how well someone can pronounce and how clear he can formulate them.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.... NOT.

Quote

So far I have not even seen contradicting arguments in his posts, unlike yours.

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.

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.

David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 11 March 2012 - 07:54 AM

[DavidXanatos]

fox88, on 10 March 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

fox88, on 10 March 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

DavidXanatos, on 10 March 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Quote

How come you still can not see that your point of view is more like a room of interchangeable argumentative strategies aimed at proving us wrong and providing justification for yourself?

Cause thats not corerct.

Wake up: it happens already.

No its not.

Illegal copies of films and games are sold right now. What else you wanted to learn about real life?

Might you explaining to us how your answer is logical?
What has what you imply to by my motivation has to do with someone selling unlicensed copys?

Logical your are not.

David X.

[Stulle]

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