WendyTheWillow

10 ms·

91.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
No. Someone violating the social contract doesn't give you permission to violate it yourself. And I didn't say it was always immoral, I said it was generally immoral. One should assume "generally" rather than &quot
92.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
I did and sorry, it honestly seems like you've never considered any of this before whenever you wrote what you did, and generally have zero clue what you're talking about.
93.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
You want evidence for a rational argument? That's absurd. What I'm writing are conclusions, not claims.
94.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
No, that's not an interesting point because the obvious answer is yes , more art is generally better than less art. Either way, it's not up to you to decide utility arbitrarily. Besides, if the art is bad, why are you pirating i
95.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
No. You haven't earned that.
96.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
So yes? Or no? Clarify.
97.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
You first.
98.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
No. The social contract need not be in a "concrete form" to apply here. This isn't some preference for a perfect world; it's an observation that acting in one specific way is not conducive to an operating societal set
99.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
No, that is not the attitude; a pirate is guilty because they've committed an immoral act.
100.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
The word "story" has a meaning that does not apply here. You are using the word incorrectly.
101.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
It's not meaningful to compare its invention to all of human history, so the fact that its hundreds of years old is what matters. As for why that matters addresses your other argument; it's not that the Hobbes is "smarter&
102.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
...what? This isn't related to anything either you or I have said in this thread.
103.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
So to be clear, your argument in favor of vigilantism being moral (which you call violence despite it not being so) is that it's effective?
104.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
I have in a dozen other places, forgive me if I don't trust you enough to repeat myself yet again.
105.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
> The content of the social contract is whatever the members of the society accept. No. The content of the social contract is whatever benefits those who adhere to the social contract. It's not a popular vote, what is good isn&#
106.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Your argument is effectively an ad populum, so I tried to address the parts that could be salvaged. What people do doesn't define what is right or wrong, nor is that how the social contract operates. Besides, the fact that piracy is r
107.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
No. That's a non sequitur from what you replied to.
108.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Your prior comments make it abundantly clear you've never heard of social contract theory before, or indeed the study of ethics. Maybe start reading a few books about it, or take a class? You're trying to argue that ethics litera
109.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
I didn't say I can't be wrong, I would say I'm not wrong. Big difference. Also I didn't say I'm not wrong in the comment you replied to. So what are are you talking about?
110.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Sorry but you're completely wrong. Social contract theory is many hundreds of years older than I am, and is extremely well argued by people many times smarter than I. None of this is my idea; your problem is with the strength of the a
111.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
It's a common tactic used to diminish the value of a person's argument to equate it to their feelings or opinions, rather than accept the argument as strong. Further, he's asking a question that's easily answered by a
112.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Probably? It's not really scalable for me to answer every person's individual questions about how copyright infringement works.
113.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Ah but you gave away the game just now; either they agree with you and I was right to argue as I have, or you had one specific point , one nobody else has made in the second thread. Looks like the argument really was about what I said it w
114.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Nope, it could not be part of Meta's ToS, and consent is not hard to guarantee, when you have a specific moment of transaction. And you can claim I've "lost", but you have no justification for it.
115.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
None of this is relevant to the morality of piracy. It's immoral to make a promise to not do something (what you do when you license a copy of a work) and then turn around and do that very thing.
116.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
You don't, social contract theory isn't an opinion.
117.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
You most certainly did not have permission from the owner of the work to freely distribute the work you paid for.
118.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
I don't enjoy your tone; it's not what I feel that matters. What matters is what is or isn't the case.
119.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Lots and yes.
120.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Good thing that's not what's happening!

More ›