Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 25.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on October 11, 2011, 04:09:38 PM

Fred says libertarianism means you can torture your dog to death. And repeat this again and again.

I find that repugnant. And I am totally OK with using legal process to stop sadists torturing their dogs.

What about you? Do you think people have some natural right to torture dogs?

Oh, so you're going to put words in my mouth too are you? Nice. Have nothing better to do with your time?

I see you didn't read my post. Here it is again, in case you missed it somehow.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.568807

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on October 11, 2011, 04:20:01 PM

My family.

Is your family is entitled to torture the dogs and cats it bought?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 02:44:21 PM

Quote from: Rassah on October 11, 2011, 01:58:03 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 12:18:57 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 11:54:29 AM

Wrong, owning a sofa is exactly like owning land (except mobility), like owning a dog, like owning a DVD. Making IP laws, dog laws and DVD laws different distorts the meaning and interpretation of property and makes it inconsistent in it's utility and logical construction.

Wrong. Demonstrate how they're the same. As an example, demonstrate how, because you handed Joe ten one hundred dollar bills in exchange for Rover, you are under the belief that such an act accords you the exact same rights as handing Sally ten one hundred dollar bills for her refrigerator.

Wait... that's exactly what we did when we got our new refrigerator, and when we bought our dog (number of hundred dollar bills varied). Actually, when we bought our past 4 dogs and 3 cats (they die of old age after 15+ years). Was there supposed to be something different?

Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?

My family.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 04:07:20 PM

We're not discussing animal ownership here. We're discussing cruelty and torture to animals, and you've admitted that you won't tolerate any such regulations to prevent it. Furthermore, your views really are antiquated. As I've said, John Quincy Adams was more modern than you in his thinking.

Again, I repeat; find me a reference where John Q.A. was referring to animals. I'm not antiquated, just not easily fooled. Nice try.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 03:47:49 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:43:17 PM

Backpedaling, are you? Are you against regulations which would prevent others from keeping slaves on their own property?

Oh, and your earlier comments about animals having no rights is repugnant. Especially in light of how you feel about slavery.

He's not backpedaling. You're just conflating unrelated concepts.

For instance, I don't like DRM, I avoid purchasing software which is encumbered by it. I will never encumber my own software with it. I wouldn't, however, advocate violence against those that provide their software encumbered by DRM.

Do you see the difference?

Fred says libertarianism means you can torture your dog to death. And repeat this again and again.

I find that repugnant. And I am totally OK with using legal process to stop sadists torturing their dogs.

What about you? Do you think people have some natural right to torture dogs?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 04:02:51 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:53:44 PM

Excuse me? Calm down, as it seems you're getting a little hot under the collar. Explain what it is exactly that you require of me in the way of citations so that I may get right on it.

You're intentionally misquoting and misinterpreting me, hence stupid and idiotic. I know your background. Nothing short of eloquent and educated speech. Don't start down the assinine trolling and chumming-for-a-fight path, it will get you nowhere with me. Assuming you even care.

Slavery != Animal ownership.

We're not discussing animal ownership here. We're discussing cruelty and torture to animals, and you've admitted that you won't tolerate any such regulations to prevent it. Furthermore, your views really are antiquated. As I've said, John Quincy Adams was more modern than you in his thinking.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:53:44 PM

Excuse me? Calm down, as it seems you're getting a little hot under the collar. Explain what it is exactly that you require of me in the way of citations so that I may get right on it.

You're intentionally misquoting and misinterpreting me, hence stupid and idiotic. I know your background. Nothing short of eloquent and educated speech. Don't start down the assinine trolling and chumming-for-a-fight path, it will get you nowhere with me. Assuming you even care.

Slavery != Animal ownership.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:51:20 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:49:07 PM

Animals don't have rights.

So you're then an advocate of a system in which your neighbor can torture animals to his heart's content? Dude, you're really inconsistent here, hence the accusation of you backpedaling.

Stupid. What did I say about putting words in my mouth?

I don't advocate torture of any living thing ever. How's that for you?

However and notwithstanding the above comment, I would only consider laws which encompass human acts towards humans, never including animals. Animals are property.

Still not backpedaling.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:50:59 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:46:17 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:42:16 PM

Supply a reference quote.

How funny! You think the truth of the matter does not exist unless I do the research for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams#Anti-Slavery_Petitions

http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm

He was talking about humans not animals. Idiot.

Excuse me? Calm down, as it seems you're getting a little hot under the collar. Explain what it is exactly that you require of me in the way of citations so that I may get right on it.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:49:07 PM

Animals don't have rights.

So you're then an advocate of a system in which your neighbor can torture animals to his heart's content? Dude, you're really inconsistent here, hence the accusation of you backpedaling.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:46:17 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:42:16 PM

Supply a reference quote.

How funny! You think the truth of the matter does not exist unless I do the research for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams#Anti-Slavery_Petitions

http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm

He was talking about humans not animals. Idiot.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:43:17 PM

Backpedaling, are you? Are you against regulations which would prevent others from keeping slaves on their own property?

Oh, and your earlier comments about animals having no rights is repugnant. Especially in light of how you feel about slavery.

I haven't backpedaled once since I started posting in this forum. I dare you to find one instance of it. I might even consider a bitcoin bounty just to make my point.

There is no absolutely zero similarity with ownership of animals and slavery. None. Animals don't have rights.

Slavery applies to humans, period. Keeping slaves is not a regulatory issue as it already falls under the NAP.

Don't twist my words. Don't put words in my mouth either.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:43:17 PM

Backpedaling, are you? Are you against regulations which would prevent others from keeping slaves on their own property?

Oh, and your earlier comments about animals having no rights is repugnant. Especially in light of how you feel about slavery.

He's not backpedaling. You're just conflating unrelated concepts.

For instance, I don't like DRM, I avoid purchasing software which is encumbered by it. I will never encumber my own software with it. I wouldn't, however, advocate violence against those that provide their software encumbered by DRM.

Do you see the difference?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:42:16 PM

Supply a reference quote.

How funny! You think the truth of the matter does not exist unless I do the research for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams#Anti-Slavery_Petitions

http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:39:15 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 11, 2011, 03:29:38 PM

You don't have the right to tell people what they "should" do. Torture of animals is repugnant - if that's what you are doing then you forfeit your right to have an animal.

Exactly my point: you don't have a right to tell people what the should do with their person or things.

Torture of animals is repugnant. Duh. I wouldn't do it. If I were to sell a dog to another individual, I would sell the dog with the caveat that they not torture it; and if they broke contract, they must pay a fine and return the animal.

Backpedaling, are you? Are you against regulations which would prevent others from keeping slaves on their own property?

Oh, and your earlier comments about animals having no rights is repugnant. Especially in light of how you feel about slavery.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:37:31 PM

You're really behind the times. Even in the 18th century, forward thinkers would be in disagreement with you.

Quote from: FB

You mean the same ones that believed and practiced slavery?

Quote

Actually, no. I refer to John Quincy Adams.

Supply a reference quote.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on October 11, 2011, 03:29:38 PM

You don't have the right to tell people what they "should" do. Torture of animals is repugnant - if that's what you are doing then you forfeit your right to have an animal.

Exactly my point: you don't have a right to tell people what the should do with their person or things.

Torture of animals is repugnant. Duh. I wouldn't do it. If I were to sell a dog to another individual, I would sell the dog with the caveat that they not torture it; and if they broke contract, they must pay a fine and return the animal.

Idiot... Think it thru. Use your imagination, trust me, it's refreshing. Try it sometime. I promise it won't hurt.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:31:07 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:26:53 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:23:58 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 11, 2011, 03:18:55 PM

Why bother? There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.

Why should parliament care about what I do with my dog anymore than they do with my kitchen table?

Remember it's just an animal, it's not human. Big difference.

You're really behind the times. Even in the 18th century, forward thinkers would be in disagreement with you.

You mean the same ones that believed and practiced slavery?

Actually, no. I refer to John Quincy Adams.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on October 11, 2011, 03:27:49 PM

But you are human and you don't have the right to torture dogs. Your right to own a dog was given to you by society subject to your not torturing it. Parliament is the voice of the people and people do care about cruelty to animals so parliament will either care or its members will be sacked.

“Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another… It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.” --Thomas Paine

I could care less about the voice of the people or parliament. I care about the principles, concepts and logic of law, specifically those originating with the NAP and expounding from there. Break those laws and I'm not listening to you.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:31:07 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on October 11, 2011, 03:26:53 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on October 11, 2011, 03:23:58 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 11, 2011, 03:18:55 PM

Why bother? There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.

Why should parliament care about what I do with my dog anymore than they do with my kitchen table?

Remember it's just an animal, it's not human. Big difference.

You're really behind the times. Even in the 18th century, forward thinkers would be in disagreement with you.

You mean the same ones that believed and practiced slavery?

TImes change and morals change too. Unless you believe moral laws are written in the stars, its best keep up to date.

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 25. (Read 105893 times)