Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 73. (Read 105875 times)

Please respond to the post:

Better yet, I'd like to see him (and you as well) sign up over on Honda-tech, where politics are actually debated intelligently.  He can make a couple threads over there and we'll see what the (fairly representative of the US population, some wacko liberatrians included) crowd has to say about his idea.

http://honda-tech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=76

I would qualify ridicule as more along the lines of saying you're cross eyed, pimply, and have crooked buckteeth. Such statements would be mean and irrelevant. But to say that your arguments and statements are absurd - that isn't ridicule - it's an observation that is relevant to the debate. In conjunction with thousands of words written to explain why your position is absurd, it is perfectly reasonable and justified to succinctly summarize your position by stating that your statements are absurd.

Your "just tellin' it like it is" defense is about as convincing as someone proclaiming "but he really is fat!" Even if it's true, it's childish and has no business as part of a serious discussion. You'll never convince me that you're right with ridicule. It only tells me that you're getting frustrated because you can't cope with the actual arguments so you have to lash out. I'm even less convinced than ever.

If a car is red, it's reasonable for me to state that it is red. If a dog is barking, it's reasonable for me to state that it is barking. If someone continually makes absurd statements, then it's reasonable to state that their statements are absurd.

You can test this. Instead of seeking affirmation of your ideas on a forum where you expect agreement, go float your ideas to people walking out of a store. Or go to a public place and engage in random polls. Feel free to report back the results here - just be honest. Then tell me that my claim that your statements are absurd is false.

This is the level of debate your side brings. It's no wonder that you have trouble understanding mature arguments.

When the life raft is full to capacity, and maybe a little beyond capacity, there exists the right to deny further boarding. But when the capacity is ten people, and the first aboard claims ownership in the face of a tragedy such as a ship sinking, then that is absurd, but as usual, you usually post absurd ideas.


The knife wielding juggler is decidedly not attacking the other individuals aboard the raft. However, he is engaging in foolish behavior at the very least. It is acceptable to restrain him. Absolutely. And knowing his behavior, it would've been acceptable to relieve him of his knives prior to boarding the raft.

But the knives might be useful, if they could be attached to a pole and used as a harpoon while aboard the raft.

Nukes might be useful in the hands of a nation to use as a deterrent against other nations which possess nukes, if the nation does not have the technology to neutralize any and all inbound nukes from an attacking nation. However, their is no reason to allow an individual to have possession of a nuke as a citizen of a nation. We can say that such behavior is foolish at the very least.

Again, not only did government programs create nuclear weapons, but the only entity that has used them in a violent manner is the government of the United States. Twice. Against civilians.

You realize this, yet continue to act as if states are the only thing keeping nuclear weapons from killing people.

If nukes are so bad that you'd use violence against an individual immediately upon them acquiring one, to be consistent you should be using violence against governments, not "asking" them to rid themselves of nukes.

No. Not at all. Do you see that being allowed in current society? I didn't think so. That's because there is a cost to killing random innocent people to save others, and it's a cost society doesn't view as worth it. So your idiotic statements remain idiotic.

You're the one that wants to extrapolate from an emergency situation into the rest of society as a whole. That shows a complete obliviousness to context. This is analogous to wandering in the woods starving and breaking into a cabin and taking food to survive. Do you not have to pay for the food because it was an emergency? Of course not. You are still forced to pay for it. Just like you are forced to pay for attacking someone on a lifeboat. It's neither justice to break into a cabin nor restrain someone that's not attacking you. It may be a necessary evil but it's not something you can get away with without paying for it.

Let me ask you this, let's say that you and another person are in the ocean drowning and a plank that can only support a single person floats by but is seized by the other person first. My question now is, do we throw justice out of the window or is it a fight to the death over the plank? If you do kill the person shouldn't you be forced to stand trial for murder?

The real difference is that you want us to abandon things that prevent people being killed and allow the likes of the Oklahoma bomber to have nukes.  When someone says millions will die, you say you don't care about consequences.  When someone asks where the right you want us to honour comes from your reply is "from inside my head."

Sorry that is not enough to justify allowing ourselves be killed. 

I do. Claiming ownership in such instances is a selfish act. Once again, you fail to differentiate the finer nuances of individual situations.

If you say so.

This is hilarious. The shipping line owns the raft, but that is irrelevant to those on the raft while the ship is 10,000 feet below the surface. It's simply absurd for anyone to claim ownership of the raft.

Review it yourself. I'm pretty sure I know what my stance is. It hasn't changed. The third option is if someone that isn't on the boat owns it. In that case you have no right to regulate what happens on it. In any case, you've been offered a response and all you can say is that it's "disgusting". That's quite a knockdown argument.

Contradicting yourself again? That is not what you said before. Review the original thread. Furthermore, your alternate and different proposed solution here is just as disgusting.

I'm pretty sure in "Liberland", having a discussion about personal liberties is not going to result in somebody getting killed. That's not proportional retribution or an appropriate self-defense mechanism, at least if you believe in libertarianism, that is.

I also don't think it's likely that a mentally unstable mother would be able to acquire a nuke, much less know how to operate one, and even less certain is if she could even deliver it. They are pretty heavy, unless your talking about the more "suitcase-sized" ones. And then there is the case that she probably won't have the wherewithal to pay for one, and on top of all that, it's entirely likely that the seller would vet her in consideration of her mental capacity. Not saying it couldn't happen, just that it's not likely.

NO law should consider cost/benefit analysis. That's for the individual to decide. And besides, if you use cost/benefit analysis for decisions regarding law, you automatically skew the free market, and then your cost/benefit analysis becomes less relevant the more you intervene. In addition to that, the more universal the law, the more manipulative it becomes.

It's a one way trip to complete regulation of all things, and then ultimately and finally, tyranny. It's what some call the new NEO-'socialist/communist/marxist' movement. The previous attempt was to be outright blatant about it. That is, the original method was to just claim all lands and resources as state owned, and the individual was to be directed in all things from cradle to grave. The new way is to regulate your way there. It basically achieves the same end-game.

If he gets on the boat after you do, then it's not his boat and you can kick him off if you want or make him follow whatever rules you set forth. If he's on the boat by himself then it's his boat and by getting on there you can't tell him what to do. Who owns the boat? That's the key issue.


Uh huh, and slavery existed therefore while it was ongoing then slavery won. Until it lost. The point is, things change.

One side has already convinced the other. Want proof: your society does not exist as a successful or respected society anywhere in the world. Ours does many times over.

You're putting words in our mouths. None of us wished the juggler dead. We only refused to let him juggle while on the raft. If necessary, we would restrain him for the duration of our time on the raft. Same goes for WMDs. The goal is to simply not allow the key components of WMDs to be available.

Consider:

Your solution to the juggler: you declared it was our fault to even have gotten on the raft with him. Does that mean, that while the ship was sinking and we had only minutes to hop in a life raft, we were supposed to engage in a search of all other people in the raft, and search all proceeding to get in the raft, and furthermore, search all people getting in the raft after we're already in the raft. That seems like a violation of rights right there. Furthermore, if the juggler is getting on the raft after us, after searching all of his pockets, we then need to understand what the knives are for: "Why all the knives?" The juggler replies: "I'm part of a circus act - see, here's my credentials." We buy his statement, which in fact, is true, but we neglected to imagine that he would actually practice juggling the knives while on the raft. Ahh, but you claim we should know all things and be prepared, or have a traveling entourage of security personnel who can divine all these things. And finally, the ultimate insult, if we actually suspect that he would juggle on the raft, we must remove ourselves from the raft and find another, and if there are no others, than we should have been intelligent enough to never have chosen to book passage on the ship in the first place.

Our solution to the juggler: He pulls out the knives out of his pocket and everybody's eyebrows rise, wondering what this clown is up to. The instinctive intelligent people on the raft, who couldn't give a rat's ass about NAP, hopefully restrain him before the raft is pierced or anyone is injured.

Oddly, your solution and our solution to WMDs is almost diametrically opposite that of the juggler (in certain ways). That's what makes your position so utterly strange - not only is it nonsense on end of the spectrum, but nonsense on the other end of the spectrum.

You see, in the case of the juggler, you expect us to anticipate and plan for the unlikely and absurd when we have no time to do so, but in the case of WMDs, you claim we should let all things be, when we have the opportunity to prevent to the best of our ability the existence of such weapons. It's mind boggling.

But in either case, you insist that we must allow for nonproductive and and life threatening behavior that is desired by only a few.

What we desire is to allow for both productive and nonproductive behavior to everyone that is not life threatening to people.