3 ms·

"the only thing preventing you..." Wtf? No! I am allowed to lie. But I don't. What is preventing me? What is preventing you from lying. The law is n the onl

"the only thing preventing you..." Wtf? No! I am allowed to lie. But I don't. What is preventing me? What is preventing you from lying. The law is n the only force guiding human actions.... You can be a liar and a fraud even without doing illegal things. This isn't controversial, is it?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Retric 3y ago
That’s a massive reading comprehension fail on your part. The context of a statement is critical in understanding it’s meaning. It’s obvious both from the statement and the preceding ones that what’s being argued is the legality of specific actions. Quoting a tiny fragment of text and reacting in isolation to those words is reacting at imaginary ideas disconnected from what was actually said. Also, the idea of a law preventing some type of action is a rather silly premise, people constantly break laws. Laws moderate behavior so they at best prevent specific incidents instead of totally eliminating specific behaviors.
- simbolit 3y ago
  Alphanullmeric said "ip shouldn't be a thing". Then CZL asked about the situation where "authorship is in doubt". To which I answered: You don't need no copyright to be a liar and a fraud. To which you answered: copyright is "the only thing preventing you" To which I then answered: No, there are other forces guiding humans as well. that was the "obvious" context. But I doubt this will lead anywhere, tbh. Have a good evening/morning (wherever you are located)
  - Retric 3y ago
    Alphanullmeric is taking about IP in a legal context. They want the laws to change, rather than say killing off humanity which would also eventually eliminate IP. Legality is thus the basis for the discussion. Also, changing the text when you quote someone is dishonest and disrespectful. Swapping in ‘ip’ for ‘Intellectual property’ may seem meaningless to you, but they typed it out for a reason.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Retric 3y ago

That’s a massive reading comprehension fail on your part. The context of a statement is critical in understanding it’s meaning. It’s obvious both from the statement and the preceding ones that what’s being argued is the legality of specific actions. Quoting a tiny fragment of text and reacting in isolation to those words is reacting at imaginary ideas disconnected from what was actually said. Also, the idea of a law preventing some type of action is a rather silly premise, people constantly break laws. Laws moderate behavior so they at best prevent specific incidents instead of totally eliminating specific behaviors.

simbolit 3y ago
Alphanullmeric said "ip shouldn't be a thing". Then CZL asked about the situation where "authorship is in doubt". To which I answered: You don't need no copyright to be a liar and a fraud. To which you answered: copyright is "the only thing preventing you" To which I then answered: No, there are other forces guiding humans as well. that was the "obvious" context. But I doubt this will lead anywhere, tbh. Have a good evening/morning (wherever you are located)
- Retric 3y ago
  Alphanullmeric is taking about IP in a legal context. They want the laws to change, rather than say killing off humanity which would also eventually eliminate IP. Legality is thus the basis for the discussion. Also, changing the text when you quote someone is dishonest and disrespectful. Swapping in ‘ip’ for ‘Intellectual property’ may seem meaningless to you, but they typed it out for a reason.