Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 91.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 19, 2011, 06:07:10 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 06:03:00 PM

Um - you are being deliberately stupid. All it takes is 1 bomb to wipe out London. And you want to provide that bomb. Stop pretending to be stupid - make a rational argument please.

And that was a sincere "please". I'm sure you can make a sensible argument for whatever you believe in.

And we have thousands of them... What is the point of all of this? Your precious London is still standing.

No we don't.

What is it with you and making stuff up?

Can we agree that everyone has the right to their own opinions but that we have to share facts?

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 06:03:00 PM

Um - you are being deliberately stupid. All it takes is 1 bomb to wipe out London. And you want to provide that bomb. Stop pretending to be stupid - make a rational argument please.

And that was a sincere "please". I'm sure you can make a sensible argument for whatever you believe in.

And we have thousands of them... What is the point of all of this? Your precious London is still standing.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 19, 2011, 05:59:55 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:46:14 PM

Really, think before you post. That is just pathetic.

Do try to work out the probability of the sun being snuffed out. Compare it to the probabity of suicide: 11.3 suicide deaths per 100000 people. Give those suicides nukes and you have 800 nuclear explosions per year in London. That's just London!

You'd also have to assume all of those suicidal individuals must have the wherewithal to purchase one, much less be even given one, despite having loads of money to get it. In addition, they'd have to know how to arm it and then use it. Sounds like the probability is getting smaller if not miniscule.

I'm sure if I were a nuke producer, I'd certainly want to vet the buyer long before I'd even remotely consider selling one to him. You're a scare mongerer.

Um - you are being deliberately stupid. All it takes is 1 bomb to wipe out London. And you want to provide that bomb. Stop pretending to be stupid - make a rational argument please.

And that was a sincere "please". I'm sure you can make a sensible argument for whatever you believe in.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:46:14 PM

Really, think before you post. That is just pathetic.

Do try to work out the probability of the sun being snuffed out. Compare it to the probabity of suicide: 11.3 suicide deaths per 100000 people. Give those suicides nukes and you have 800 nuclear explosions per year in London. That's just London!

You'd also have to assume all of those suicidal individuals must have the wherewithal to purchase one, much less be even given one, despite having loads of money to get it. In addition, they'd have to know how to arm it and then use it. Sounds like the probability is getting smaller if not miniscule.

I'm sure if I were a nuke producer, I'd certainly want to vet the buyer long before I'd even remotely consider selling one to him. You're a scare mongerer.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: AyeYo on September 19, 2011, 05:54:08 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:46:14 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 19, 2011, 05:41:12 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:36:09 PM

Guns are not a serious danger. Nukes are. I don't care if everyone in the world has a gun that he wears 24/7. I do care if anyone upwind of me has a nuke.

Why are you asking me to repeat this? You agree with it don't you? You personally would not choose to live in a city where everyone has the option to kill the entire city by simply pressing a button. Or would you?

As far as I can tell, I already do. Not everybody has a nuke, but then not everybody has a gun either. I'm unconvinced by your scare tactics. Yes, we could all get blown to heck tomorrow. And the sun could get snuffed out and turn into a black hole and suck us all in. I hate all nuclear stuff, too damn dangerous (sarcasm).

Really, think before you post. That is just pathetic.

Do try to work out the probability of the sun being snuffed out. Compare it to the probabity of suicide: 11.3 suicide deaths per 100000 people. Give those suicides nukes and you have 800 nuclear explosions per year in London. That's just London!

But muh rats. I have rats and yous can't dem away frum meh!

This idiotic argument has become circular. You can't argue logic and reason with people that have none. Anyone that wants to equate a nuke to a kitchen knife and treat them the same way is too stupid to bother having a debate with.

There is always the chance that they make a rational argument. Its seeming more and more improbable but I'm not ready to put Fred out there with David Ickes yet.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:46:14 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 19, 2011, 05:41:12 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:36:09 PM

Guns are not a serious danger. Nukes are. I don't care if everyone in the world has a gun that he wears 24/7. I do care if anyone upwind of me has a nuke.

Why are you asking me to repeat this? You agree with it don't you? You personally would not choose to live in a city where everyone has the option to kill the entire city by simply pressing a button. Or would you?

As far as I can tell, I already do. Not everybody has a nuke, but then not everybody has a gun either. I'm unconvinced by your scare tactics. Yes, we could all get blown to heck tomorrow. And the sun could get snuffed out and turn into a black hole and suck us all in. I hate all nuclear stuff, too damn dangerous (sarcasm).

Really, think before you post. That is just pathetic.

Do try to work out the probability of the sun being snuffed out. Compare it to the probabity of suicide: 11.3 suicide deaths per 100000 people. Give those suicides nukes and you have 800 nuclear explosions per year in London. That's just London!

But muh rats. I have rats and yous can't dem away frum meh!

This idiotic argument has become circular. You can't argue logic and reason with people that have none. Anyone that wants to equate a nuke to a kitchen knife and treat them the same way is too stupid to bother having a debate with.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 19, 2011, 05:41:12 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:36:09 PM

Guns are not a serious danger. Nukes are. I don't care if everyone in the world has a gun that he wears 24/7. I do care if anyone upwind of me has a nuke.

Why are you asking me to repeat this? You agree with it don't you? You personally would not choose to live in a city where everyone has the option to kill the entire city by simply pressing a button. Or would you?

As far as I can tell, I already do. Not everybody has a nuke, but then not everybody has a gun either. I'm unconvinced by your scare tactics. Yes, we could all get blown to heck tomorrow. And the sun could get snuffed out and turn into a black hole and suck us all in. I hate all nuclear stuff, too damn dangerous (sarcasm).

Really, think before you post. That is just pathetic.

Do try to work out the probability of the sun being snuffed out. Compare it to the probabity of suicide: 11.3 suicide deaths per 100000 people. Give those suicides nukes and you have 800 nuclear explosions per year in London. That's just London!

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:36:09 PM

Guns are not a serious danger. Nukes are. I don't care if everyone in the world has a gun that he wears 24/7. I do care if anyone upwind of me has a nuke.

Why are you asking me to repeat this? You agree with it don't you? You personally would not choose to live in a city where everyone has the option to kill the entire city by simply pressing a button. Or would you?

As far as I can tell, I already do. Not everybody has a nuke, but then not everybody has a gun either. I'm unconvinced by your scare tactics. Yes, we could all get blown to heck tomorrow. And the sun could get snuffed out and turn into a black hole and suck us all in. I hate all nuclear stuff, too damn dangerous (sarcasm).

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 19, 2011, 05:34:42 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:23:21 PM

I am not going to take the chance. If you have it, you can use it. If you use it, I die. So I have to stop ou. You may say that I should wait for you to phone me and tell me that life is horrible, that you have to end it all. But I don't need to wait. You can kill me and I have to stop you before you do kill me.

Its worth remembering who I grew up with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers I have no reason to kid myself that life is fair and that good people don't die screaming for mercy.

Right... so we should just start killing people we think might remotely threaten us, just in case. Stalin was one such character. I don't even think some of his family were able to avoid his butchery. Look it up. It was called the 'Great Purge'.

Yes. If I were in Russia, Stalin would have been a danger to me and I would have killed him. Sadly, he would have the same point of view and more likely he would have killed me.

The important thing is that you now understand human nature. You can't sit at home hoping for the best if there is someone out there that you fear may kill you.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 05:30:35 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:23:21 PM

I am not going to take the chance.

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:23:21 PM

You can kill me and I have to stop you before you do kill me.

Then why allow me to have a gun? Charles Whitman didn't phone up anyone either. You're not being logically consistent.

Guns are not a serious danger. Nukes are. I don't care if everyone in the world has a gun that he wears 24/7. I do care if anyone upwind of me has a nuke.

Why are you asking me to repeat this? You agree with it don't you? You personally would not choose to live in a city where everyone has the option to kill the entire city by simply pressing a button. Or would you?

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:23:21 PM

I am not going to take the chance. If you have it, you can use it. If you use it, I die. So I have to stop ou. You may say that I should wait for you to phone me and tell me that life is horrible, that you have to end it all. But I don't need to wait. You can kill me and I have to stop you before you do kill me.

Its worth remembering who I grew up with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers I have no reason to kid myself that life is fair and that good people don't die screaming for mercy.

Right... so we should just start killing people we think might remotely threaten us, just in case. Stalin was one such character. I don't even think some of his family were able to avoid his butchery. Look it up. It was called the 'Great Purge'.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:23:21 PM

I am not going to take the chance.

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:23:21 PM

You can kill me and I have to stop you before you do kill me.

Then why allow me to have a gun? Charles Whitman didn't phone up anyone either. You're not being logically consistent.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 19, 2011, 05:21:25 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:05:16 PM

If you have a nuke, I to protect myself and my family from the risk it will detonate. I have to kill you and disarm it. It does not matter whether or not you intend to use it today. You bought it. You will use it if I let you live. I have to stop you. I don't have a choice.

If the situation is reversed, you will kill me without a moment's hesitation. That is the nature of weapons of mass destruction. If you don't protect yourself, you are at the mercy of the guy who does have it.

So, I do have the right to stop you. Even if I don't have the right, I MUST stop you because if I don't, I die.

There are a lot of people you've just asked to take a position in front of your firing squad. Most of your politicians, nuclear engineers, chemical engineers, and explosives experts, etc. are about to get a bullet to the head, it seems. Sounds awful threatening.

Yes! You get it!! Right now the US President and the Russian President can start a war of oblivion without consulting anyone. That really bothers me. Now you know why I don't want Joe the Homeless Drunk to have his own nuke.

I'm glad you finally see the reality of nuclear weapons.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 05:13:20 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:05:16 PM

You bought it. You will use it if I let you live.

If that were the case I'd agree with you but just because I buy something doesn't mean I'm going to use it. Maybe I bought it because I collect weapons? Maybe I'm going to sell it? Maybe I'm storing it for someone else? Maybe I'm going to attach it to a rocket and fire it into the sun?

I am not going to take the chance. If you have it, you can use it. If you use it, I die. So I have to stop you. You may say that I should wait for you to phone me and tell me that life is horrible, that you have to end it all. But I don't need to wait. You can kill me and I have to stop you before you do kill me.

Its worth remembering who I grew up with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers I have no reason to kid myself that life is fair and that good people don't die screaming for mercy.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:05:16 PM

If you have a nuke, I to protect myself and my family from the risk it will detonate. I have to kill you and disarm it. It does not matter whether or not you intend to use it today. You bought it. You will use it if I let you live. I have to stop you. I don't have a choice.

If the situation is reversed, you will kill me without a moment's hesitation. That is the nature of weapons of mass destruction. If you don't protect yourself, you are at the mercy of the guy who does have it.

So, I do have the right to stop you. Even if I don't have the right, I MUST stop you because if I don't, I die.

There are a lot of people you've just asked to take a position in front of your firing squad. Most of your politicians, nuclear engineers, chemical engineers, and explosives experts, etc. are about to get a bullet to the head, it seems. Sounds awful threatening.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 05:05:16 PM

You bought it. You will use it if I let you live.

If that were the case I'd agree with you but just because I buy something doesn't mean I'm going to use it. Maybe I bought it because I collect weapons? Maybe I'm going to sell it? Maybe I'm storing it for someone else? Maybe I'm going to attach it to a rocket and fire it into the sun?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 04:55:16 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 04:48:03 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 04:44:32 PM

You apparently wish to claim that merely possessing a nuclear bomb is an overt threat while possessing a gun is not. Yet, for every argument you give regarding nuclear bombs, the same applies to guns. If I shoot someone with a shotgun and you are in close proximity, you could be killed as well. Yet, simply possessing a gun isn't an overt threat. If I am putting you in immediate danger then you have the right to stop me. Simply possessing a nuclear bomb does not do so. Yes, if I were going to use it and you were in close enough proximity, you would have the right to stop me, regardless if you were the intended target or not. However, until I show some intent to use it, you have no right to do anything.

You know the answer. You know that you personally would not allow your family to die. Why are you asking such silly questions?

Answer to what? There was no question in the post you quoted. Did you even read it?

If you have a nuke, I to protect myself and my family from the risk it will detonate. I have to kill you and disarm it. It does not matter whether or not you intend to use it today. You bought it. You will use it if I let you live. I have to stop you. I don't have a choice.

If the situation is reversed, you will kill me without a moment's hesitation. That is the nature of weapons of mass destruction. If you don't protect yourself, you are at the mercy of the guy who does have it.

So, I do have the right to stop you. Even if I don't have the right, I MUST stop you because if I don't, I die.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: fergalish on August 25, 2011, 04:12:03 AM

You just shot yourself in the foot. By your argument, since you can't prove that the abrogation of all IP laws would be helpful, then there are no grounds to propose any such an abrogation.

Not really. Let me just quote Against Intellectual Property, though I recommend reading the entire thing.

Quote from: fergalish on August 25, 2011, 04:12:03 AM

Comparing IP law to religious dogma seems a bit fallacious to me. IP law serves a specific purpose and has very evident and measurable effects on what it aims to govern. Religion does not.

Religious individuals would beg to differ with your assertion just as you beg to differ with ours. You've got no monopoly on objective reality, pal.

edit... Wow, this thread is a lot longer than I thought.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: Hawker on September 19, 2011, 04:48:03 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 04:44:32 PM

You apparently wish to claim that merely possessing a nuclear bomb is an overt threat while possessing a gun is not. Yet, for every argument you give regarding nuclear bombs, the same applies to guns. If I shoot someone with a shotgun and you are in close proximity, you could be killed as well. Yet, simply possessing a gun isn't an overt threat. If I am putting you in immediate danger then you have the right to stop me. Simply possessing a nuclear bomb does not do so. Yes, if I were going to use it and you were in close enough proximity, you would have the right to stop me, regardless if you were the intended target or not. However, until I show some intent to use it, you have no right to do anything.

You know the answer. You know that you personally would not allow your family to die. Why are you asking such silly questions?

Answer to what? There was no question in the post you quoted. Did you even read it?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 19, 2011, 04:44:32 PM

You apparently wish to claim that merely possessing a nuclear bomb is an overt threat while possessing a gun is not. Yet, for every argument you give regarding nuclear bombs, the same applies to guns. If I shoot someone with a shotgun and you are in close proximity, you could be killed as well. Yet, simply possessing a gun isn't an overt threat. If I am putting you in immediate danger then you have the right to stop me. Simply possessing a nuclear bomb does not do so. Yes, if I were going to use it and you were in close enough proximity, you would have the right to stop me, regardless if you were the intended target or not. However, until I show some intent to use it, you have no right to do anything.

You know the answer. You know that you personally would not allow your family to die. Why are you asking such silly questions?

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 91. (Read 105875 times)