6 ms·

I sang in a choir in grade 5 once. Would you consider me a singer?

by lowboy 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
pifflesnort 14y ago
That is some ... facile ... logic. If you murdered someone in 1995, would you be a murderer?
- lowboy 14y ago
  Murder is too loaded of a act to serve as a good example for this discussion, IMO, but just the once? I would describe myself as someone who had murdered, but not a murderer. There's an active/repetitive component to being described as an *-er. As I replied to electic, how would you feel if I described myself as a singer upon meeting someone, having only sang for 3 minutes out of the decades of my life? "Oh, hi, I'm lowboy, and I'm a singer".
  - pifflesnort 14y ago
    > There's an active/repetitive component ... The persistent/active component is in having the personal constitution necessary to engaged in the action in question. The type of person, for instance, who files a false DMCA take-down request -- censoring another person's speech -- without understanding or appreciating the ethical and legal implications of what they are doing. "Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown" -- https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI
    - lowboy 14y ago
      Sure, but has LV engaged in this behaviour previously? If they haven't, then I don't think they could be described as patent trolls. Right now they might be engaged in patent trolling, but as my singing example hopefully illustrates, doing something once doesn't make one an active/repetitive doer of that thing. I'm not a singer, and feel that it would be dishonest of anyone to describe me as such. Same goes for LV with patent trolling.
      - pifflesnort 14y ago
        You seem to have missed my entire point. Since there's nothing I could write here other than a repeat of what I wrote earlier, I will instead simply refer to my above comment.
        lowboy 14y ago
        I read it. LV is engaging in one act of trolling at the moment, and they have the "personal constitution necessary to engage" in said trolling. No arguments there, and I don't condone what they're doing. But having the constitution to do an act doesn't mean one is a repeated doer of that act. Has LV actively trolled, or tried to censor people's speech in the past? If not, they shouldn't be described as patent trolls, merely that they are currently engaged in an act of patent trolling.
        jacalata 14y ago
        And describing someone as an x doesn't always mean they are a repeated doer of the x-act. Eg, dictator: do you think only someone who was a dictator of multiple countries can be legitimately called that? If you say, as you did for murderer, that 'this example is too loaded', then you are recognising that the reaction is different for acts of different impact, and therefore your analogy of 'singer' is irrelevant until you can show that people view 'singing' as something having the same impact of 'sending DMCA takedowns'.
        mattsfrey 14y ago
        Labeling sure is a tricky business. There are certain lines you cross in life though-- you get locked up, you live the rest of your life as an "ex-con" to most of society. Speaking for myself but I think also many others in this community, if you troll, whether you are later considered an "ex-troll" or just a "troll" doesn't matter, you trolled. It's an egregious offense that was foolishly committed and they will always regret it now, as they should.
        lowboy 14y ago
electic 14y ago
Yes, a bad one by professional standards, but yes.
- lowboy 14y ago
  So how would you feel if I described myself as a singer upon meeting someone, having only sang for 3 minutes out of the decades of my life? "Oh, hi, I'm lowboy, and I'm a singer".
  - electic 14y ago
    Here is a description of a patent troll. In this case, we have a DMCA troll. "one or more" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
    - jakelazaroff 14y ago
      "with no intention to manufacture or market the product." So, no.
    - lowboy 14y ago
      That doesn't really speak to the issue. Please answer my question about me describing myself as a singer. Would you feel I was being dishonest as describing myself as such?
      - coldtea 14y ago
        Not at all. It doesn't matter if you sang for 10 minutes or for 100 hours. There is no magic threshold number. If you identify yourself as a singer, you can claim to be one legitimately. You would only be dishonest if you claimed to be a professional singer or a regular singer.
        lowboy 14y ago
        I don't think that claim would have any merit though, much as if someone opened up Chrome dev tools one day, edited an html attribute and solely based on that experience called themselves a web developer. I feel it would be dishonest, or at the very least woefully ignorant of common usage of language when someone is described as an *-er.
coldtea 14y ago
At that point it time I would definitely consider you a choir singer, and rightly so. And at THIS point in time, they DO file the DMCA thing.

I sang in a choir in grade 5 once. Would you consider me a singer?

by lowboy 14y ago

I sang in a choir in grade 5 once. Would you consider me a singer?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

pifflesnort 14y ago

That is some ... facile ... logic. If you murdered someone in 1995, would you be a murderer?

lowboy 14y ago
Murder is too loaded of a act to serve as a good example for this discussion, IMO, but just the once? I would describe myself as someone who had murdered, but not a murderer. There's an active/repetitive component to being described as an *-er. As I replied to electic, how would you feel if I described myself as a singer upon meeting someone, having only sang for 3 minutes out of the decades of my life? "Oh, hi, I'm lowboy, and I'm a singer".
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  > There's an active/repetitive component ... The persistent/active component is in having the personal constitution necessary to engaged in the action in question. The type of person, for instance, who files a false DMCA take-down request -- censoring another person's speech -- without understanding or appreciating the ethical and legal implications of what they are doing. "Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown" -- https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI
  - lowboy 14y ago
    Sure, but has LV engaged in this behaviour previously? If they haven't, then I don't think they could be described as patent trolls. Right now they might be engaged in patent trolling, but as my singing example hopefully illustrates, doing something once doesn't make one an active/repetitive doer of that thing. I'm not a singer, and feel that it would be dishonest of anyone to describe me as such. Same goes for LV with patent trolling.
    - pifflesnort 14y ago
      You seem to have missed my entire point. Since there's nothing I could write here other than a repeat of what I wrote earlier, I will instead simply refer to my above comment.
      - lowboy 14y ago
        I read it. LV is engaging in one act of trolling at the moment, and they have the "personal constitution necessary to engage" in said trolling. No arguments there, and I don't condone what they're doing. But having the constitution to do an act doesn't mean one is a repeated doer of that act. Has LV actively trolled, or tried to censor people's speech in the past? If not, they shouldn't be described as patent trolls, merely that they are currently engaged in an act of patent trolling.
        jacalata 14y ago
        And describing someone as an x doesn't always mean they are a repeated doer of the x-act. Eg, dictator: do you think only someone who was a dictator of multiple countries can be legitimately called that? If you say, as you did for murderer, that 'this example is too loaded', then you are recognising that the reaction is different for acts of different impact, and therefore your analogy of 'singer' is irrelevant until you can show that people view 'singing' as something having the same impact of 'sending DMCA takedowns'.
        mattsfrey 14y ago
        Labeling sure is a tricky business. There are certain lines you cross in life though-- you get locked up, you live the rest of your life as an "ex-con" to most of society. Speaking for myself but I think also many others in this community, if you troll, whether you are later considered an "ex-troll" or just a "troll" doesn't matter, you trolled. It's an egregious offense that was foolishly committed and they will always regret it now, as they should.
        lowboy 14y ago

electic 14y ago

Yes, a bad one by professional standards, but yes.

lowboy 14y ago
So how would you feel if I described myself as a singer upon meeting someone, having only sang for 3 minutes out of the decades of my life? "Oh, hi, I'm lowboy, and I'm a singer".
- electic 14y ago
  Here is a description of a patent troll. In this case, we have a DMCA troll. "one or more" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
  - jakelazaroff 14y ago
    "with no intention to manufacture or market the product." So, no.
  - lowboy 14y ago
    That doesn't really speak to the issue. Please answer my question about me describing myself as a singer. Would you feel I was being dishonest as describing myself as such?
    - coldtea 14y ago
      Not at all. It doesn't matter if you sang for 10 minutes or for 100 hours. There is no magic threshold number. If you identify yourself as a singer, you can claim to be one legitimately. You would only be dishonest if you claimed to be a professional singer or a regular singer.
      - lowboy 14y ago
        I don't think that claim would have any merit though, much as if someone opened up Chrome dev tools one day, edited an html attribute and solely based on that experience called themselves a web developer. I feel it would be dishonest, or at the very least woefully ignorant of common usage of language when someone is described as an *-er.

coldtea 14y ago

At that point it time I would definitely consider you a choir singer, and rightly so. And at THIS point in time, they DO file the DMCA thing.