More #$%& from #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ Re: [ PFIR ] Netanyahu's son removes anti-Semitic meme from Facebook following outcry
juan juan.g71 at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 12:13:41 PDT 2017
[do not] infringe other people's rights
Ack.
the moment you publish them they are not 'yours' anymore. they come from other people.
So ideas are not the property of someone, unless it is a new idea, then it belongs to all those who thought before it, because it's 99.99999999% theirs. Do you even read before you post ?
privilege: a non-right
So we are in agreement.
copyright and patents
The legal terms are what we disagree on. The right to ownership is not. I concede to your argument against my defense of laws to defend things, seeable or not.
And you are accusing me of doing what *you* do? please.
If you think that the right to ownership can only be granted by others, which is what you argue when you say that the right to copy can only be granted as a privilege by some external authority.
at some point the cost of writing a full counterargument to a piece of bullshit is too high.
Budget limits. Request more money for the next fiscal quarter, fbianon.
United States of America was founded in 1776 as a slave society/concentration camp?
The United States is “a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcised Jew bastards". -Bobby Fischer Prove Jews didn't own all the slave ships. Prove Jews didn't own most of the slaves. Prove slavery isn't a semitic tradition. Pro-tip: **You can't.**
national borders
I never argued for "national" borders. I tried to overstand your position on what defines a border and how these "imaginary" lines, physical or not, differ from those drawn in sovereignty of one's body ? You offered nothing but "not valid". Just like your "bullshit" argument; why ?
cheaters
I do not cheat, sir. How dare you. =)
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:09:00PM +0000, Hollow Domer wrote:
juan juan.g71 at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 12:13:41 PDT 2017
[do not] infringe other people's rights
Ack.
the moment you publish them they are not 'yours' anymore. they come from other people.
So ideas are not the property of someone,
Except until that person publicizes the idea. Until then, it's "his" idea. But, when published, those who read the publication, are duplicating the idea into their own brains, therefore now "they" own the idea too. (duplicate modulo capacity to grok of course...)
unless it is a new idea, then it belongs to all those who thought before it,
Come on - we've all heard the principle "I stand on the shoulders of giants". Language itself - that mechanism where concepts in thought are translated into sequences of sounds and/ or caricaters in order to convey the idea to another soul/mind, is a pretty fantastic "invention" or "discovery" or "creation". Let's not get too caught up on pedantry eh?
copyright and patents
The legal terms are what we disagree on. The right to ownership is not. I concede to your argument against my defense of laws to defend things, seeable or not.
Mercantilistic individuals when they "think" that they "have thunked" a "great idea" which they wish to "profit" from, might consider only sharing/communicating that idea "privately" with other humans who sign an onerous odious ogre-ous not-disclosure agreement or something. However most folks these days have become accustomed to things like the Free Software movement, the Wikipedia and the licenses at the foundation of these types of public sharing arrangements, and therefore very few folks these days will ever enter into ("stupid" in my humble opinion) self-sabotaging contracts. It's hard to resist Steve Kinney's observation yesterday though - "it is our moral duty to relieve a fool of his money" - I kid, I kid - for the sake of our collective future we ought (where possible) educate those who cross our path.
And you are accusing me of doing what *you* do? please.
If you think that the right to ownership can only be granted by others, which is what you argue when you say that the right to copy can only be granted as a privilege by some external authority.
That's actually what copyright is. You could personally use something like contract, instead of copyright, in order to "protect" your "original idea", but when you rely on copyright, you are relying on some statute law in some jurisdiction, ∴ created by the govt of that jurisdiction, and that govt says something like "we will allow you to sue/punish those who "violate" your copy'right'. Copyright is in our era something created by govt statute. Contract is what you can, by your own right/capacity, enter into with other humans, and it's a different beast entirely.
United States of America was founded in 1776 as a slave society/concentration camp?
The United States is “a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcised Jew bastards". -Bobby Fischer
Prove Jews didn't own all the slave ships. Prove Jews didn't own most of the slaves. Prove slavery isn't a semitic tradition.
Pro-tip: **You can't.**
national borders
I never argued for "national" borders. I tried to overstand your position on what defines a border and how these "imaginary" lines, physical or not, differ from those drawn in sovereignty of one's body ?
From a purely technical perspective, one could of course argue that the boundaries of ones body are in fact, though physical, only boundaries to the extent that fellow humans respect those boundaries.
Indeed your mention of slavery brings to mind the obvious - the boundaries of the body of a slave are a very appropriate boundary which, in the mind of the slave owner, perfectly delineates his (the slave owner's) possession, and the slave is almost a non-entity, merely like cattle, and for that matter the slave is not even as useful as a bullock since the bullock can pull a laden cart or turn a grain wheel - the slave does have hands and usually a full set of fingers though, so has one up on the bullock in that regard. Frankly, as a good friend said to me years ago - I have freedom within the limits of my capacity, and I have the right to expand those limits (again, within the limits of my capacity, but also within the limits of my conception). And by obvious and logical extension, I have rights and possession over that which: - I can conceive as having rights/possession in regards to - that which I have the capacity to exercise such rights and/ or protect such "possession" To the extent that I have the unilateral capacity to "protect", "act", "do" or otherwise, it can be said that I have "an absolute in right" in regard to that thing or concept or arrangement. And the corollary: to the extent that other humans bring forth their own actions in any way in response to my actions, then it would be wise for me to consider such (re)actions from others, to actions of my own. I know this might sound like tautology - and in a sense it is of course - but it can be useful to carefully and clearly distinguish such foundations of our existence. Good luck,
You offered nothing but "not valid". Just like your "bullshit" argument; why ?
cheaters
I do not cheat, sir. How dare you. =)
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:09:00 +0000 Hollow Domer <shediedfrombeingtoof@redchan.it> wrote:
So ideas are not the property of someone, unless it is a new idea,
not what I said. I don't think ideas are property, full stop. I was just following some false premise of yours to some stupid & false conclusion.
then it belongs to all those who thought before it, because it's 99.99999999% theirs.
Do you even read before you post ?
Maybe my english was worse than usual, but still, that's not what I meant.
privilege: a non-right
So we are in agreement.
I don't know. So you finally learned what privilege and statism entail?
copyright and patents
The legal terms are what we disagree on.
Looks like we disagree on the legal concepts, starting with the legal concept of 'state' from which 'state granted' stuff comes...
The right to ownership is not. I concede to your argument against my defense of laws to defend things, seeable or not.
I'm not sure what you mean with "defense of laws to defend things" but meh...
And you are accusing me of doing what *you* do? please.
If you think that the right to ownership can only be granted by others,
No. As a matter of fact, personal rights don't need to be granted by others. They are inherent to persons. What I am saying is that your goddammed intellectual 'property' is NOT A RIGHT. It's something the state mafia made up, and it's 'technically' called a 'privilege' 'granted' by the 'state'. Just like if some fucking puritan psychos declare that you have to be 21 years old to drink, then 'underage drinking' is a 'crime' only in the minds of fucking puritan psychos, but it is not a real crime. Just like 'intellectual property' is not real property.
which is what you argue when you say that the right to copy can only be granted as a privilege by some external authority.
Not what I said. I either wasn't clear enough or you are misreading me (on purpose).
the right to copy can only be granted as a privilege
the right to copy doesn't belong only to the author. ANYBODY can rightfully copy anything. As long they have enough paper and pencil at least. On the other hand, preventing people from copying whatever the fuck they want to copy, and only allowing some people ('copyright/patent holders') to copy, means granting privileges to 'copyright holders' and violating the rights of the rest of the world. Is that now clear enough?
at some point the cost of writing a full counterargument to a piece of bullshit is too high.
Budget limits. Request more money for the next fiscal quarter, fbianon.
that would be you?
United States of America was founded in 1776 as a slave society/concentration camp?
The United States is “a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcised Jew bastards". -Bobby Fischer
Prove Jews didn't own all the slave ships. Prove Jews didn't own most of the slaves.
I'm sure some did. What about you linking some data?
Prove slavery isn't a semitic tradition.
It is. Why would I want to prove that it isn't? Also, it's not just semitic....
Pro-tip: **You can't.**
pro tip, I never ever said "slavey is not a semitic tradition". What I said is that the american slave society was founded by anglo-european-western pieces of shit. Which is a fact that prolly even american schoolboys know. I of course can add that your fucking slave society honored both your WESTERN slave traditions and the JOO slave traditions. And the jew-kristian 'mixed' slave tradition that westerners love so much.
national borders
I never argued for "national" borders.
You compared legitimate personal 'borders' or boundaries to the borders of nation states. False analogy. Then you added this piece of nonsense "These "imaginary" lines often exist in the form of rivers and oceans." which both John N. and I refuted. So regardless of you admiting that you argued for national borders or not, all you said about them is wrong.
I tried to overstand your position on what defines a border and how these "imaginary" lines, physical or not, differ from those drawn in sovereignty of one's body ?
You offered nothing but "not valid". Just like your "bullshit" argument; why ?
cheaters
I do not cheat, sir. How dare you. =)
participants (3)
-
Hollow Domer -
juan -
Zenaan Harkness