3 ms·
>Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Of course it does. It violates their rights. > This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a
by memefrog 3y ago
>Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder.
Of course it does. It violates their rights.
> This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale.
"Stochastic terrorism" is a nonsense concept anyway.
- jedberg 3y agoYour intellectual inconsistency is amusing. You believe in intellectual property but not stochastic terrorisim, even though both are just created concepts to explain things that people believe exist.
- memefrog 3y agoThat is a truly bizarre thing to say. Do you believe that everything with a name exists? If I say the words "the great replacement" does that mean that it actually exists? If I say "COVID-19 lab leak" does that confirm the truth of that theory too? I tried saying "my enormous wealth" a few times, but I'm still not enormously wealthy. Do you have any tips for how I can learn to make things true just by referring to them? To be more serious: "stochastic terrorism" is nonsensical because it attributes to a person some act that is not his responsibility. It doesn't matter how large your audience is or what you suspect they might do with the information: saying "this hospital performs masectomies on teenage girls" will never be a terrorist act, even if some audience member allegedly called in a bomb threat later. In no way, shape, or form is that act attributable to him. If you say something, and someone reacts by doing something, that is not your fault, and never will be.
- dooglius 3y agoDoes someone have to believe in all concepts or in no concepts whatsoever?