St. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian, and therefore believed God was responsible for natural law. His four cardinal virtues, rooted in natural law were: prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude.
Call me crazy, but surely a man of God can see that women do in fact have the right NOT to be raped when they are in company of differing opinions.
I for one take the Kantian approach (with a splash of Spinoza). We can absolutely know that moral imperatives exist (i.e. genocide is ALWAYS wrong), however when getting into existential terms, nothing really does matter, only to the extent we place value on things. That being said, humans inherently place value in certain rights, as they should.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
I'm trying to drive the point home that I think the argument can be made for rights being meaningless without the willingness and ability to enforce them."
I'd like to see you tell the thousands and thousands of children who are shipped into the sex trafficking business each week that their rights are meaningless because they don't have the ability to enforce them. Don't worry, you won't look like the most uncompassionate person alive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
"In my view, the men in your scenario are terrible people that deserve death. But that doesn't grant the woman any rights."
Thanks, you've answered my question. Your view of morality/rights does not lend itself to be inherent. You'd rather have other people determine for you what your rights are, instead of having the ability to reason for yourself regarding what should and shouldn't be granted. Understood!
Wow. I would never want to be on a stranded island with you, but at least I could murder you without violating any of your rights, correct? Just wow.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
"The only reason the rights exist is because of the collective agreement that they did...Without the collective agreement to enforce them, I'm not sure those rights exist as a matter of principle."
Obviously I'm not making my point clear enough for you.
Let's say there's a deserted island, with no government or any type of law and order. Let's now say a shipwreck strands four men and one woman, while all the other shipmates were not as fortunate.
Now let's say four of the men decide they want to take advantage of the woman in the worst way possible.
Are you claiming that because the majority of the men (all of them) don't agree/enforce the right NOT to rape the woman, she does not have the inalienable right NOT to be raped? In this particular scenario, please defend your statement. Since what I described is not that unrealistic (i.e. Somalia), this is very a practical example.
Every living thing is born with inherent rights, they are not chosen at a convention by a select few, they are granted at birth. Whether your socioeconomic worldview grants these liberties is irrelevant.
Moreover, just given our rhetoric on the topic ("if one infringes on a right, does it exist?") - the mere fact that we are claiming a right has been infringed, denotes that it in fact exists.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
"If the police choose to violate your rights, and the courts don't slap them down, then did you ever truly have the right to begin with?"
Again, are you serious? We have inalienable rights as human beings (i.e. the fucking Declaration of Independence). If other parties infringe on them, that doesn't mean they never existed. Holy shit I can't believe you actually believe your own bullshit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
"And using your example, you've proven he's correct in that sense. If you get knocked off of your soap box, your right to free speech is meaningless prior to an outside enforcer. Did the students at Kent State have the right to free speech? They were supposed to....then they got shot by the Nat'l Guard, so it turns out they never had it at all in practice. If they'd had enough manpower and/or weapons to fight back, then they would have retained their rights, but they didn't, so they didn't."
So, what you're saying is that the non-violent activists should pick up weapons and fight back? That would kind of negate the purpose of the entire movement of the 60's and 70's. I highly suggest you check your historical accuracy before making such naive and completely off-base comments.
Everyone throw your hands up and get pissed off. Is there anything in that article you didn't expect? You're either naive or have nothing else to write about.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
"The value of the Mona Lisa is not in its scarcity, it's in its beauty.
I could paint a painting tomorrow. It would be the only one in existence. Does that mean it is as valuable as the Mona Lisa? No. I'm not that good a painter."
No, I completely agree, your painting would most likely not be as valuable, but this is getting into the philosophy of beauty which Kant writes extensively on, I suggest you check some of it out; there are really some good reads.
However, wouldn't you at least agree that if there were a "magical copy machine" that could exactly replicate the Mona Lisa, and all of a sudden there were 1,000's of them in museums all over the world - that this would somehow, even in the slightest way, take away from that certain something the Mona Lisa (used to) provide when you see her in the Louvre, that singular moment of awe that arises when you see something so beautiful - and so scarce - that it is almost sublime? Scarcity often equals value. There is not a lot of moon dust on planet earth, but I bet a gram of it is not cheap.
> Oh, that entirely invalidates your point above. I doubt anyone would trouble further with the rest of what you say.
You're absolutely right, the value of a painting would not diminish if there were 10,000 exquisite replicas. They would be so unique and wanted for their obscure, esoteric nature...wait that's not right. If you had any sense of high art, you'd know that the less of an item there is, the more valuable it becomes - the price also increases - but the two are distinct, but often correlated.
Take for instance, the original Dead Sea scrolls; these are understandably very valuable, and most would argue priceless. They give a glimpse into the religious past, a beautiful thing for some people (not myself). However, if there were a machine or a process that could replicate these indefinitely, the value would be diminished. It is simply supply vs demand - basic economics. If you flood the market with a previously scarce good (be it artificially created (mp3s) or real (dead sea srolls)) the value lessens.
> It must be only a matter of time before copyright is dead. In that light it is interesting and amusing to watch the corporate interests struggle, cynically, robotically, hopelessly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
"'Because air is not a commodity or physical good.'
Oh WoW do you Fail..
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity
'A commodity is some good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. It is fungible, i.e. the same no matter who produces it.'"
Now which marketplace does air fall into again? Last I checked AIR wasn't a NYSE symbol, and being openly traded.
"Is the painting any less colorful when there are thousands of copies? any less well composed? No, obviously not, because it doesn't change."
Are you serious? So instead of having the real Mona Lisa on display in the Louvre - it would be just as VALUABLE to art-lovers to go see a printed reproduction in Boston, or in any museum for that matter?
Forget having the real version with the inherent intricacies of oil relief painting, when you can just get a glossy reproduction?
Technology folks shouldn't act like they know art, you just look foolish.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
"Trust me"
Unfortunately, your appeal to confidence does not convince me of anything. And if you weren't aware, there have been major cutbacks and changes to the auto industry as a result of the bailout. As a result, it came out a cleaner, more efficient model of itself.
As for this:
"We he had a cancerous tumor in our arm and we decided to give the patient painkillers instead of cutting off the arm."
You clearly do not have an understanding of how important the auto industry is to America. It may be outdated, it may be old, but we need it. All this tech-savvy, "learn to adapt", "don't prop up old business models" falls by the wayside when our nation is in a severe economic crisis. Sitting back and doing nothing while several major, backbone corporations go bankrupt is bad for the business of America. Same with the bank bailout - nothing is going to be perfect, and all you guys can sit around and hypothesize about what should ideally happen, or with a shit-eating-grin talk about how illogical the moves they are making are.
I agree the auto industry was crap for a while, and that they severely lacked the foresight that Japanese automakers did. However, in your view, we should trash the whole operation and basically give up any market share we had? Being a good hard-working American, I'd rather not give up on something as you would - cause that's the easy thing to do. We should rather re-work it, pump a little love into it ($), and try for something better - which is what we did as a nation, and we are better because of it.
In the video, when the character steals the bike from his buddy, it rhymes he now must "take the bus". So, when he copies the bike for himself and his buddy, they both no longer have to take the bus.
So by copying the bike, they cheated their local transportation authority out of bus fair (also known as a lost sale).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
Oh, I shan't give up my dear friends.
In the video, when the character steals the bike from his buddy, it rhymes he now must "take the bus". So, when he copies the bike for himself and his buddy, they both no longer have to take the bus.
So by copying the bike, they cheated their local transportation authority out of bus fair (also known as a lost sale).
Count it, and goodnight. If that's not enough proof for you, I'm sure nothing will be.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Ethics is FUN!
Call me crazy, but surely a man of God can see that women do in fact have the right NOT to be raped when they are in company of differing opinions.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Ethics is FUN!
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
I'd like to see you tell the thousands and thousands of children who are shipped into the sex trafficking business each week that their rights are meaningless because they don't have the ability to enforce them. Don't worry, you won't look like the most uncompassionate person alive.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
Thanks, you've answered my question. Your view of morality/rights does not lend itself to be inherent. You'd rather have other people determine for you what your rights are, instead of having the ability to reason for yourself regarding what should and shouldn't be granted. Understood!
Wow. I would never want to be on a stranded island with you, but at least I could murder you without violating any of your rights, correct? Just wow.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
Obviously I'm not making my point clear enough for you.
Let's say there's a deserted island, with no government or any type of law and order. Let's now say a shipwreck strands four men and one woman, while all the other shipmates were not as fortunate.
Now let's say four of the men decide they want to take advantage of the woman in the worst way possible.
Are you claiming that because the majority of the men (all of them) don't agree/enforce the right NOT to rape the woman, she does not have the inalienable right NOT to be raped? In this particular scenario, please defend your statement. Since what I described is not that unrealistic (i.e. Somalia), this is very a practical example.
Every living thing is born with inherent rights, they are not chosen at a convention by a select few, they are granted at birth. Whether your socioeconomic worldview grants these liberties is irrelevant.
Moreover, just given our rhetoric on the topic ("if one infringes on a right, does it exist?") - the mere fact that we are claiming a right has been infringed, denotes that it in fact exists.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
Again, are you serious? We have inalienable rights as human beings (i.e. the fucking Declaration of Independence). If other parties infringe on them, that doesn't mean they never existed. Holy shit I can't believe you actually believe your own bullshit.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
So, what you're saying is that the non-violent activists should pick up weapons and fight back? That would kind of negate the purpose of the entire movement of the 60's and 70's. I highly suggest you check your historical accuracy before making such naive and completely off-base comments.
On the post: Catcher In The Rye Sequel Fight Could Lead To Forced Licensing Rather Than Injunctions In Some Copyright Suits
Oh and here's the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/9185869546/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd _s=center-1&pf_rd_r=1CHARCD0NFM6WA3DARDV&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=46829 4
On the post: Washington Post Fails To Ask NBC's Rick Cotton Any Tough Questions
On the post: Hans Pandeya Demands Apology From Us; Says He's Now Put Pirate Bay Acquisition On Hold
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
I could paint a painting tomorrow. It would be the only one in existence. Does that mean it is as valuable as the Mona Lisa? No. I'm not that good a painter."
No, I completely agree, your painting would most likely not be as valuable, but this is getting into the philosophy of beauty which Kant writes extensively on, I suggest you check some of it out; there are really some good reads.
However, wouldn't you at least agree that if there were a "magical copy machine" that could exactly replicate the Mona Lisa, and all of a sudden there were 1,000's of them in museums all over the world - that this would somehow, even in the slightest way, take away from that certain something the Mona Lisa (used to) provide when you see her in the Louvre, that singular moment of awe that arises when you see something so beautiful - and so scarce - that it is almost sublime? Scarcity often equals value. There is not a lot of moon dust on planet earth, but I bet a gram of it is not cheap.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
> Oh, that entirely invalidates your point above. I doubt anyone would trouble further with the rest of what you say.
You're absolutely right, the value of a painting would not diminish if there were 10,000 exquisite replicas. They would be so unique and wanted for their obscure, esoteric nature...wait that's not right. If you had any sense of high art, you'd know that the less of an item there is, the more valuable it becomes - the price also increases - but the two are distinct, but often correlated.
Take for instance, the original Dead Sea scrolls; these are understandably very valuable, and most would argue priceless. They give a glimpse into the religious past, a beautiful thing for some people (not myself). However, if there were a machine or a process that could replicate these indefinitely, the value would be diminished. It is simply supply vs demand - basic economics. If you flood the market with a previously scarce good (be it artificially created (mp3s) or real (dead sea srolls)) the value lessens.
> It must be only a matter of time before copyright is dead. In that light it is interesting and amusing to watch the corporate interests struggle, cynically, robotically, hopelessly
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
Oh WoW do you Fail..
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity 'A commodity is some good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. It is fungible, i.e. the same no matter who produces it.'"
Now which marketplace does air fall into again? Last I checked AIR wasn't a NYSE symbol, and being openly traded.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
Are you serious? So instead of having the real Mona Lisa on display in the Louvre - it would be just as VALUABLE to art-lovers to go see a printed reproduction in Boston, or in any museum for that matter?
Forget having the real version with the inherent intricacies of oil relief painting, when you can just get a glossy reproduction?
Technology folks shouldn't act like they know art, you just look foolish.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: I dont agree with this one
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Explain to me this
So by copying the bike, they cheated their local transportation authority out of bus fair (also known as a lost sale).
Count it, and goodnight. Feel free to rebut.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
In the video, when the character steals the bike from his buddy, it rhymes he now must "take the bus". So, when he copies the bike for himself and his buddy, they both no longer have to take the bus.
So by copying the bike, they cheated their local transportation authority out of bus fair (also known as a lost sale).
Count it, and goodnight. If that's not enough proof for you, I'm sure nothing will be.
Next >>