Libertus

My point is, I'm asking a question. What right is being violated? Yes, but 'acting against someone's wishes' is not a crime, nor is it immoral. There has to be a rights violation. If it were 'stealing' you could easily answer my question and point to the right that is being violated: the owner's property right. However, copying is not stealing, so if there is a rights violation, show me which one. If it's not a rights violation, then it's not immoral. If it IS a rights violation, show me which one.

That's absolutely not true. Whenever you write something, the state gives you copyright, whether you want it or not. Again, you're switching from copyright to contract. No person in their right mind would sign a contract with a rental store, when there is another one right next door that does not require you to sign such a contract. They "copy-as-much-as-you-like" stores would own the market. I would like to know, which right do you think is being violated? Is it property, is it a contract, is there a 'right to copy', is it trademark? It's easy to become confused.

So then, what right is being violated? There is no right to 'get what you wish for', you know.

You do realize you're on a philosophy forum, right? Your fallacy is the appeal to worse problems Dismissing an argument due to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world Arguing that expressing concern about a (relatively) small problem means that the person doesn't care about any larger problems. A type of Strawman, this fallacy takes the opponent's claim and appends to it the following additional claim: Also called The "Children Are Starving In Africa!" Argument. Appeal to Shame Appeal to Guilt And don't give me that "but Stef does it all the time" line, because that is just another fallacy. Appeal to authority and two wrongs don't make a right. So, where were we?

Get rid of goverment worldwide and you don't need to 'solve world hunger' - people are perfectly able to feed themselves and each other. Let's at least try this, once

Is the person knowingly and willingly buying an unauthorized copy of a film somehow guilty of a crime? Our respective criminal systems say, yes! But is it immoral? It's an excellent question. However, the contractual argument has a hole in it. We are not really talking about a real contract here. The state dictates, what kind of contracts are legal. If black market type video "make as many copies as you'd like" rental stores were allowed to exist, they would OWN the market, because nobody in their right mind would rather sign a contract that makes them risk serious jail time and millions of dollars of penalties. So it's not a valid contract (meeting of the minds) to begin with. So what is the nature of the crime?

I am also not saying "philosophy is a written discipline". I feel your pain, Joseito. Rejecting a proposition is not the same as accepting the opposite.

I'm an atheist, that means, I don't believe in god. That's that. What on earth are you talking about? Seems like an obivous attempt to lump non-believers into a group, give the group a label and then badmouth the whole group, associate attributes with its members, when all we have in common is, we don't believe in god. Collectivism at it's finest, and I'm surprised about the positive response this post gets from some people on this forum. Do you want me to come to your church and talk about them being christian cult members? Or would that be trolling?

1. OK, let's say a starving person tries to steal from you, and you stop him from doing so, with force. Are you now not justified in defending yourself and your property? if you're justified in defending yourself and protecting yourself from the attempt, then the attempt itself can not be justified as well, can it? 2. How about this: "Murder isn't immoral if you really need this person gone." or this: "Rape isn't immoral if you really really need to have sex" or this: "It's OK to beat somebody up if you have a good reason or had a bad childhood."

When you say "prefer", aren't you forgetting something? 'Prefer' makes sense only in comparison to something, as in, I prefer X over Y. I think if you just say it like "I prefer X" you might be using the wrong word, so to speak. "I prefer vanilla icecream" doesn't make much sense, unless you also say against what you're measuring it. Chocolate icecream? Dog food? And couldn't someone for example claim, "I prefer being raped to being killed"? Or, better rape me than hurt my children, if someone puts them in such a position? It's not a voluntary choice either way, btw. but you could still prefer one thing over another, no? I'm guessing your answer will be, sure, what you mean is, nobody can prefer being raped to not being raped. Is that the implication here? Then you're not really talking about preferring one thing over another, but non-action over action, or something and not something. You can say "I prefer vanilla ice to no vanilla ice" comparing it to nothing, but does that make sense? What is the thing you're preferring vanilla icecream over?

How does one "usurp" a title just by looking like a formal title holder? Did he solicit business under the name Karel Wojtila, or John Paul II? Did he sign contracts, hand out business cards? Even if that was the case, it's a former title holder, not a current one. The arresting officer should be thrown in jail for kidnapping, official oppression, professional misconduct and breach of oath.

Outrageous, and absolutely not surprising.

He's going to be on schiffradio.com today!

Simple, because taxes are, by definition, never voluntary, if they were, they would be called donations.

A very similar conversation took place just the other day, between Stephan Kinsella and a person named Alexander, who has a very similar argument. For anyone who is interested.. KOL 040 | Discussion with a Pro-Intellectual Property Libertarian

But he is a slave. He's also the tax payer who foots the bill if something goes wrong. Liability shield means, someone else pays for damages. That is - Joe.

This is very remotely related.

Yes... and the Austrian Economists can already foretell what the next step of escalation would be: control of capital flow, basically it will be forbidden to get your money the hell out of the eurozone.

You conveniently forgot that I quoted the exact sentence I was referring to. So here it is AGAIN. This sentence has exactly the same structure as saying "unicorns have horseshoes", that is: "Halucination / concept A has property x". So don't tell me that is not what you were doing. Non-sense. Non-sense. "All that is" is nothing but a bunch of stuff. You're not making statements about the outside world by giving it the name "God", but describing your inside world. This is about YOUR state of mind and nothing else. You're basically saying "help! I'm going insane!" There is no way any of us can 'win the conversation', whatever that means, because you're not making a falsifiable statement. You're rambling. That means, I can't win anything, and neither can you. This is not about my beliefs, you're right about that. That's why I have uttered no belief of mine, you're the one spouting things he 'believes'. I was trying to explain to you the obvious logical fallacy you were committing: applying the principles of quantum theory in a context outside of quantum theory. That is what you were doing, and you don't seem to understand why that even is considered a fallacy. It is a VERY common error in religious and theist reasoning, and it has been pointed out since quantum theory has first been published. Yet people still fall for it, including you. You can choose to keep arguing the points I am making, or not. Your call. But don't forget, it was you who posted a question, I answered it to the best of my knowledge and ability. You basically begged me to rebut this post (headline: 'please'). Never forget that. I'm here on your call.

It was your choice to debate this, you could have said "OK, thanks" and I would not have argued. Since you kept arguing the point, it was you and not me who derailed the subject. Oh, and don't tell me what to do. Not cool.

Not trying to further distract from your message, but do you really think 99% of website makers have this wrong? Apple, Microsoft, they all have usability experts that they pay to tell them that black on white is better. They do soften the contrast just little bit, more like very dark color on a lightish background, and they put some darker colors around their content window so only the text area is highlighted, but dark on light is the consensus for the content. Why light text on dark background is a bad idea When to Use White Text on a Dark Background If you want to stick with light on dark, maybe try soften the contrast a little bit.

it's actually a sans-serif font, but, yes. Black on white is not as bad.

There's just no way I'm going to read white serif font on black background.

That doesn't make any sense to me, as I don't believe in a god. It's like saying, "Unicorns have horseshoes, right?" How / why / what are you talking about? Everything that you were saying after that is meaningless to me, too. They are unfalsifiable claims about concepts, ideas in your head. You're basically just rambling, halucinating, like a man in a delirium. There is no tree. I don't believe Young's experiment is in any way related to these ramblings. I'm by no means a scientist, but I have searched the Wikipedia page for words like "conscious" and "aware" and found nothing. So I highly suspect that this is another case of fallacy from quantum physics:

"Interfering with a citizen's recording' should be a crime, similar to "interfering with a 911 call". But then again, there already is a law against assault, and police ignores that, too.