Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Yardie

Rank #3050 on Comments
Yardie Avatar Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to Yardie Block Yardie Invite Yardie to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/06/2010
Last Login:12/19/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3050
Highest Content Rank:#19808
Highest Comment Rank:#3061
Content Thumbs: 23 total,  38 ,  15
Comment Thumbs: 2851 total,  3393 ,  542
Content Level Progress: 47.45% (28/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 38% (38/100)
Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:6482
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:931
FJ Points:2492

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

  • Views: 1013
    Thumbs Up 7 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +4
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 12/31/10
    Cup of soup Cup of soup
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

user favorites

latest user's comments

#35 - Well in that case how could you confirm that it terminates wit…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/19/2014 on Through good times 0
#37 - RiflemanFunny (12/19/2014) [-]
There are two variables in the function. With these variables, the function can then compute the answer. If 2 small numbers yield a result, which it can, then it terminates with ALL integers. 1 to 3 on both sides (m,n) are easily computable, but everything past that is impossible for a modern Turning Machine to compute.
#31 - Right but how could having a faster computer possibly help you…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/19/2014 on Through good times 0
User avatar #33 - RiflemanFunny (12/19/2014) [-]
You're not "discovering" an algorithm. You are confirming that the algorithm terminates. Recursively, Ackermann showed that recursion was needed in order for this particular problem inserted into the algorithm would terminate. Now, it will, and it's proven (mathmatically), but it hasn't, and can't be confirmed.
User avatar #35 - Yardie (12/19/2014) [-]
Well in that case how could you confirm that it terminates without infinitely testing numbers? Also I don't think it's been proven like anon said. It just makes sense that it would terminate since the numbers are supposed to always get smaller with each recursion.
#37 - RiflemanFunny (12/19/2014) [-]
There are two variables in the function. With these variables, the function can then compute the answer. If 2 small numbers yield a result, which it can, then it terminates with ALL integers. 1 to 3 on both sides (m,n) are easily computable, but everything past that is impossible for a modern Turning Machine to compute.
#65 - Sorry, can't bring myself to do anything involving killing peo…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/16/2014 on Plastic sign: 2. Cops: 0 0
#68 - theseareletters (12/16/2014) [-]
Unfortunately, peaceful solutions are not always available.

If you disagree with a law in the US, you are free to get it repealed or join government and change it. When you join the military in the US, typically, you'll swear to uphold the laws of the constitution and protect it from enemies foreign and domestic, while obeying all lawful orders.

People who issue unlawful orders are not followed and instead are punished. People who create unlawful or unjust laws are the same. I have no compulsion to follow the illegal acts of those above me, simply because they "tell me so". Instead, I'm directed not to follow them and to stop them, as required.

If I change the people in a system, I change the system. The system is made of people, people are not made of systems. Asking people to be 100% "good" is unreasonable and not a realistic expectation. Claiming that not even 50% of people are good is also not realistic.

Judging by your claim of psychopaths seeking to join the military, I'd say that you're very unaware of how people are tested and monitored in the military. Yes, people prone to violence can make it in. And militaries are plagued with the real struggle of having killers that are also good citizens. But, genuine psychopaths/etc struggle to make it past day one.

Sure, taxes are technically taken by force. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. But, I'd like to see the mental gymnastics for not taxing people of a country and making things happen at the same time. And also, see how you compare the taxes in the US to other countries, with sources. You'll find yourself in a pretty difficult argument before anyone else voices an opinion.
#197 - Alright it seems to me that your argument is that piracy is a … 12/16/2014 on people who pirate games 0
#23 - Look I think the Government is pretty worthless, but it should…  [+] (6 new replies) 12/14/2014 on The Government Can +74
User avatar #71 - scowler (12/14/2014) [-]
Not openly, anyways.
User avatar #37 - nimba (12/14/2014) [-]
they could pay for it
#65 - anonymous (12/14/2014) [-]
Why is this downvoted? Other countries do it and it works out just fine.
User avatar #34 - gatorade (12/14/2014) [-]
You're right, they can't directly control it, but the amount of funding they put into institutions. Back in the 70's UC Berkeley, you could go for free, now it's like $15,000 per year. That's because presidents like Reagan and Bush lowered higher education funding. So the universities raise tuition prices to account for the lowered funding.

Though many colleges don't need a fuck ton of money they get, but still.
#124 - finntastic (12/14/2014) [-]
Here at UC Davis they're raising our tuition to over $15,000 by 2019 and planning on bringing 5000 more out-of-state students and 2000 more in-state. Why? For the extra tution money. Why not just invite 2000 more out-of-state students instead of considering Californians, you say? Well, I'm thinking that it has to do with Davis' image. They can't not have any in-state, or it's a blatant money grab. By adding in the California residents, they look like they're offering a blanket opening to a bunch of students.

I don't know if any of you have been here, but we can't fucking fit any more people in our lecture halls. That's some bullshit. If you get to class 10 minutes early, you're sitting on the floor because all of the other seats are taken. So, you're telling me I'm going to pay $15,000 a year for a seat on the (bare) carpet? Fuck that. It's pretty insulting.
User avatar #39 - durkadurka (12/14/2014) [-]
It has more to do with guaranteed loans and an artificially inflated demand.
#65 - On a side note: I hope you aren't arguing that there are simpl…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/14/2014 on people who pirate games 0
User avatar #100 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
No and I never gave the impression that's what I was arguing. However, you brought up the concept of "true theft" a vague and useless term. Theft is applicable in many variations and different situations, so yes "bad" and "good" (not my preferred terminology) do vary in theft as an overarching term.

The main problem is your 3 levels that you commented before, with the first one not even being applicable since that service is given out for free, and the second and third ones should be combined since not paying for a service is doing so with the distributors/creators consent.

I'm not arguing there is a black and white version of theft, simply that piracy IS theft. Certain forms of theft can be worse than piracy and piracy can be worse than others as well.

User avatar #197 - Yardie (12/16/2014) [-]
Alright it seems to me that your argument is that piracy is a form of theft, and if that's the case then we're just arguing semantics.

My argument is that piracy is not as bad as theft because the product is infinitely replicable. I'm putting physical stealing of an object in the definition of theft while piracy is excluded from that definition. I think that's important because the fact that piracy involves something infinitely replicable, it is not as bad as stealing something that is not infinitely replicable, which is not as bad as stealing something not replicable at all.

I don't want to say piracy isn't wrong, because it clearly is. However, it should not be grouped in with theft, just like kidnapping is separated from theft. The vast fundamental difference is that the game is infinitely replicable, and the quality of the product does not decrease the more it is used. Maybe the quality of future products will be lowered, but that's not provable and then we just move into "What if" and probability.

And my reason to say rape is objectively worse than theft is because when something is stolen, it is replicable, while when somebody is raped, that damage cannot be undone period. It's an irredeemable offense.

In the same way we can say intentionally destroying somebody's prized family heirloom is worse than intentionally destroying an object they bought at a yard sale for the same price. They're both wrong, but one deserves more outrage than the other.

I think that's fairly objective. Of course there is a subjectivity to it and it does effect people differently, but I wouldn't say stealing any subjective amount of anything would be worse than any subjective rape. Rape cannot be taken back, objects can be paid for or even given back to their rightful owner, and reparations can be paid for any economic value that they lost due to the theft. The damage dealt to the psyche of a person after being raped is impossible to fix. At least with current technology.
#97 - noblexfenrir has deleted their comment.
#62 - Law means nothing. It's just a piece of paper with a gun behin…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/14/2014 on people who pirate games +1
User avatar #94 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
"Law means nothing. It's just a piece of paper with a gun behind it. "
Yes, and for good reason. I'm a libertarian and understand there is a need for a means by which to enforce rights through a law/court system. So it's good you're talking about morality because the law is generally in place because theft is immoral. Which piracy is.

"so arguing on that basis is totally meaningless. "
Not really since moral subjectivity exists (regardless of what Molyneux likes to spout.) and if a system is meaningless because it can vary from differing environments, then even your moral standard is meaningless.

"That's why it's not as bad."
It is a sub-set of theft, not something completely different.

" that is why rape is objectively worse than theft."
Not really. Seriously, objectively worse? They are both invasions of private property rights and can affect different individuals in varying ways.

"the fundamental difference between an infinitely replaceable string of data and an actual product or service is vastly different as well"
Four basic questions:
-Did someones labour and money have to go into producing X? (x being the game in question.)
-Do they own X?
-Are they allowing people to download and play this for free or do they require the contract of purchasing it before you can obtain it?
-If someone pirates the game, are they not receiving all the benefits and experiences of X, without accepting this contract?'

I could care less about the condition of the actual product, whether or not it's digital. The base concept of theft still applies.

Also please explain these "vastly different" fundamental differences.

"so you can't just say "A is X therefore B is X as well.""
I could but that isn't what I was saying. I said, A exhibits these attributes that make is X, B while have small differences in other areas, exhibits these same attributes that also make it X.
#58 - Well there's a fundamental difference, right? Nobody is being …  [+] (7 new replies) 12/14/2014 on people who pirate games 0
User avatar #61 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
Actually if we're going by the legal definition of theft you get what I'm really trying to say:

"A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent"

There is no difference, piracy is a form of theft and is not somehow made less of a crime because it's only a copy and not the original.

"and no damage is done"
I disagree. If I owned a product and someone was utilizing this product without my permission, regardless of the inherent state of the item (digital or physical), I would consider that an aggression against my and my property.

" then I have only taken advantage of a service where the value of said service is already in the market. If I steal something, I am taking the value away from said service, meaning nobody else is able to enjoy that same service simultaneously. "
You're arguing the inherent difference of a physical copy versus a digital copy. The two cannot be compared on the same field because they have completely different processes by which they distribute content. However as I said, the underlying theme "Utilizing a product/service without the distributors/creators expressed consent" is still applicable.

User avatar #65 - Yardie (12/14/2014) [-]
On a side note: I hope you aren't arguing that there are simply bad and good things and no varying degrees of evil or good. That's incredibly dangerous for various reasons that would take more time to explain than I'm willing to give on this, and if that's the case then I simply just can't do this conversation. All I'll say to that proposition is that Common Law has developed over thousands of years to the point where it shouldn't need to be argued.
User avatar #100 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
No and I never gave the impression that's what I was arguing. However, you brought up the concept of "true theft" a vague and useless term. Theft is applicable in many variations and different situations, so yes "bad" and "good" (not my preferred terminology) do vary in theft as an overarching term.

The main problem is your 3 levels that you commented before, with the first one not even being applicable since that service is given out for free, and the second and third ones should be combined since not paying for a service is doing so with the distributors/creators consent.

I'm not arguing there is a black and white version of theft, simply that piracy IS theft. Certain forms of theft can be worse than piracy and piracy can be worse than others as well.

User avatar #197 - Yardie (12/16/2014) [-]
Alright it seems to me that your argument is that piracy is a form of theft, and if that's the case then we're just arguing semantics.

My argument is that piracy is not as bad as theft because the product is infinitely replicable. I'm putting physical stealing of an object in the definition of theft while piracy is excluded from that definition. I think that's important because the fact that piracy involves something infinitely replicable, it is not as bad as stealing something that is not infinitely replicable, which is not as bad as stealing something not replicable at all.

I don't want to say piracy isn't wrong, because it clearly is. However, it should not be grouped in with theft, just like kidnapping is separated from theft. The vast fundamental difference is that the game is infinitely replicable, and the quality of the product does not decrease the more it is used. Maybe the quality of future products will be lowered, but that's not provable and then we just move into "What if" and probability.

And my reason to say rape is objectively worse than theft is because when something is stolen, it is replicable, while when somebody is raped, that damage cannot be undone period. It's an irredeemable offense.

In the same way we can say intentionally destroying somebody's prized family heirloom is worse than intentionally destroying an object they bought at a yard sale for the same price. They're both wrong, but one deserves more outrage than the other.

I think that's fairly objective. Of course there is a subjectivity to it and it does effect people differently, but I wouldn't say stealing any subjective amount of anything would be worse than any subjective rape. Rape cannot be taken back, objects can be paid for or even given back to their rightful owner, and reparations can be paid for any economic value that they lost due to the theft. The damage dealt to the psyche of a person after being raped is impossible to fix. At least with current technology.
#97 - noblexfenrir has deleted their comment.
User avatar #62 - Yardie (12/14/2014) [-]
Law means nothing. It's just a piece of paper with a gun behind it. I'm talking morality, which is supposed to be the justification for said laws. Laws vary from country to country and do not go through the painstaking process of moral justification, so arguing on that basis is totally meaningless.

And of course there is a fundamental difference between the products. That's why it's not as bad. There's a fundamental difference between the human body and a regular product, that is why rape is objectively worse than theft. The underlying theme there is consistent. What is a product? A piece of matter that is owned by another piece of matter. What is a person? A self-aware piece of matter, or in other words a piece of matter owned by that same piece of matter. There is only a very small fundamental difference, and the fundamental difference between an infinitely replaceable string of data and an actual product or service is vastly different as well, so you can't just say "A is X therefore B is X as well." It doesn't logically follow. Just as with rape, you need to start from the bottom up when dealing with infinite data as opposed to physical matter.
User avatar #94 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
"Law means nothing. It's just a piece of paper with a gun behind it. "
Yes, and for good reason. I'm a libertarian and understand there is a need for a means by which to enforce rights through a law/court system. So it's good you're talking about morality because the law is generally in place because theft is immoral. Which piracy is.

"so arguing on that basis is totally meaningless. "
Not really since moral subjectivity exists (regardless of what Molyneux likes to spout.) and if a system is meaningless because it can vary from differing environments, then even your moral standard is meaningless.

"That's why it's not as bad."
It is a sub-set of theft, not something completely different.

" that is why rape is objectively worse than theft."
Not really. Seriously, objectively worse? They are both invasions of private property rights and can affect different individuals in varying ways.

"the fundamental difference between an infinitely replaceable string of data and an actual product or service is vastly different as well"
Four basic questions:
-Did someones labour and money have to go into producing X? (x being the game in question.)
-Do they own X?
-Are they allowing people to download and play this for free or do they require the contract of purchasing it before you can obtain it?
-If someone pirates the game, are they not receiving all the benefits and experiences of X, without accepting this contract?'

I could care less about the condition of the actual product, whether or not it's digital. The base concept of theft still applies.

Also please explain these "vastly different" fundamental differences.

"so you can't just say "A is X therefore B is X as well.""
I could but that isn't what I was saying. I said, A exhibits these attributes that make is X, B while have small differences in other areas, exhibits these same attributes that also make it X.
#55 - I agree that piracy is still fundamentally wrong, but it's jus…  [+] (9 new replies) 12/14/2014 on people who pirate games 0
User avatar #57 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
I would probably put piracy in the same vein as "preform service without their consent" since you are utilizing a product of their labour without paying for it in a scenario which they want only people who pay for the work put into the product to experience said product.

Even more so with games that have any kind of multiplayer since unless they employ some form of DRM you are utilizing other tangible services.
User avatar #58 - Yardie (12/14/2014) [-]
Well there's a fundamental difference, right? Nobody is being forced to do anything, or having anything forced away from them. Theft is defined as something being taken through force or coercion. There is no force or coercion when it comes to piracy, and no damage is done. Sure there is an opportunity cost to it, but the opportunity cost is very slim when compared to the cost of theft. If I pirate something, then I have only taken advantage of a service where the value of said service is already in the market. If I steal something, I am taking the value away from said service, meaning nobody else is able to enjoy that same service simultaneously.

I hope that is enough to objectively say theft is worse than piracy.
User avatar #61 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
Actually if we're going by the legal definition of theft you get what I'm really trying to say:

"A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent"

There is no difference, piracy is a form of theft and is not somehow made less of a crime because it's only a copy and not the original.

"and no damage is done"
I disagree. If I owned a product and someone was utilizing this product without my permission, regardless of the inherent state of the item (digital or physical), I would consider that an aggression against my and my property.

" then I have only taken advantage of a service where the value of said service is already in the market. If I steal something, I am taking the value away from said service, meaning nobody else is able to enjoy that same service simultaneously. "
You're arguing the inherent difference of a physical copy versus a digital copy. The two cannot be compared on the same field because they have completely different processes by which they distribute content. However as I said, the underlying theme "Utilizing a product/service without the distributors/creators expressed consent" is still applicable.

User avatar #65 - Yardie (12/14/2014) [-]
On a side note: I hope you aren't arguing that there are simply bad and good things and no varying degrees of evil or good. That's incredibly dangerous for various reasons that would take more time to explain than I'm willing to give on this, and if that's the case then I simply just can't do this conversation. All I'll say to that proposition is that Common Law has developed over thousands of years to the point where it shouldn't need to be argued.
User avatar #100 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
No and I never gave the impression that's what I was arguing. However, you brought up the concept of "true theft" a vague and useless term. Theft is applicable in many variations and different situations, so yes "bad" and "good" (not my preferred terminology) do vary in theft as an overarching term.

The main problem is your 3 levels that you commented before, with the first one not even being applicable since that service is given out for free, and the second and third ones should be combined since not paying for a service is doing so with the distributors/creators consent.

I'm not arguing there is a black and white version of theft, simply that piracy IS theft. Certain forms of theft can be worse than piracy and piracy can be worse than others as well.

User avatar #197 - Yardie (12/16/2014) [-]
Alright it seems to me that your argument is that piracy is a form of theft, and if that's the case then we're just arguing semantics.

My argument is that piracy is not as bad as theft because the product is infinitely replicable. I'm putting physical stealing of an object in the definition of theft while piracy is excluded from that definition. I think that's important because the fact that piracy involves something infinitely replicable, it is not as bad as stealing something that is not infinitely replicable, which is not as bad as stealing something not replicable at all.

I don't want to say piracy isn't wrong, because it clearly is. However, it should not be grouped in with theft, just like kidnapping is separated from theft. The vast fundamental difference is that the game is infinitely replicable, and the quality of the product does not decrease the more it is used. Maybe the quality of future products will be lowered, but that's not provable and then we just move into "What if" and probability.

And my reason to say rape is objectively worse than theft is because when something is stolen, it is replicable, while when somebody is raped, that damage cannot be undone period. It's an irredeemable offense.

In the same way we can say intentionally destroying somebody's prized family heirloom is worse than intentionally destroying an object they bought at a yard sale for the same price. They're both wrong, but one deserves more outrage than the other.

I think that's fairly objective. Of course there is a subjectivity to it and it does effect people differently, but I wouldn't say stealing any subjective amount of anything would be worse than any subjective rape. Rape cannot be taken back, objects can be paid for or even given back to their rightful owner, and reparations can be paid for any economic value that they lost due to the theft. The damage dealt to the psyche of a person after being raped is impossible to fix. At least with current technology.
#97 - noblexfenrir has deleted their comment.
User avatar #62 - Yardie (12/14/2014) [-]
Law means nothing. It's just a piece of paper with a gun behind it. I'm talking morality, which is supposed to be the justification for said laws. Laws vary from country to country and do not go through the painstaking process of moral justification, so arguing on that basis is totally meaningless.

And of course there is a fundamental difference between the products. That's why it's not as bad. There's a fundamental difference between the human body and a regular product, that is why rape is objectively worse than theft. The underlying theme there is consistent. What is a product? A piece of matter that is owned by another piece of matter. What is a person? A self-aware piece of matter, or in other words a piece of matter owned by that same piece of matter. There is only a very small fundamental difference, and the fundamental difference between an infinitely replaceable string of data and an actual product or service is vastly different as well, so you can't just say "A is X therefore B is X as well." It doesn't logically follow. Just as with rape, you need to start from the bottom up when dealing with infinite data as opposed to physical matter.
User avatar #94 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
"Law means nothing. It's just a piece of paper with a gun behind it. "
Yes, and for good reason. I'm a libertarian and understand there is a need for a means by which to enforce rights through a law/court system. So it's good you're talking about morality because the law is generally in place because theft is immoral. Which piracy is.

"so arguing on that basis is totally meaningless. "
Not really since moral subjectivity exists (regardless of what Molyneux likes to spout.) and if a system is meaningless because it can vary from differing environments, then even your moral standard is meaningless.

"That's why it's not as bad."
It is a sub-set of theft, not something completely different.

" that is why rape is objectively worse than theft."
Not really. Seriously, objectively worse? They are both invasions of private property rights and can affect different individuals in varying ways.

"the fundamental difference between an infinitely replaceable string of data and an actual product or service is vastly different as well"
Four basic questions:
-Did someones labour and money have to go into producing X? (x being the game in question.)
-Do they own X?
-Are they allowing people to download and play this for free or do they require the contract of purchasing it before you can obtain it?
-If someone pirates the game, are they not receiving all the benefits and experiences of X, without accepting this contract?'

I could care less about the condition of the actual product, whether or not it's digital. The base concept of theft still applies.

Also please explain these "vastly different" fundamental differences.

"so you can't just say "A is X therefore B is X as well.""
I could but that isn't what I was saying. I said, A exhibits these attributes that make is X, B while have small differences in other areas, exhibits these same attributes that also make it X.
#45 - The difference between Robin Hood and literally every single o…  [+] (13 new replies) 12/14/2014 on people who pirate games +11
User avatar #78 - dramakid (12/14/2014) [-]
Vigilante isn't supposed to kill people to punish them. That also kind of takes away the whole idea of punishment.
#53 - anonymous (12/14/2014) [-]
tax system weren't exactly the fairest back in the day
User avatar #51 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
It's probably the proliferation of the phrase "steal from the rich give to the poor" that people forget who he was actually taking from.

Although I have to disagree with piracy not being theft. It's not theft in the sense of taking an original copy from the entity who owns it, but it certainly is when we consider one is being sold and you are taking and using that product as a consumer without paying for it. I don't agree with companies explaining every pirated copy as a lost sale since that's a non-sequitur, but if people want to protest high game prices/bad company policies, just don't play the game at all.
User avatar #55 - Yardie (12/14/2014) [-]
I agree that piracy is still fundamentally wrong, but it's just not on the same degree of true theft. It's different.

There's a few levels of this that I see. There's consuming a service while refusing to give resources to the person providing the service as thanks. This would be for example watching a streamer on Twitch without subscribing and turning on Adblock.

Then there's consuming a service for free while refusing to give resources AND ignoring licencing, pleas to not play the game without paying, etc. This would be piracy.

Then there's straight up taking something from somebody, or forcing them to perform a service without their consent. This would be things like theft and rape, and of course this has varying degrees of "What the fuck man" depending on the value of the thing stolen.
User avatar #57 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
I would probably put piracy in the same vein as "preform service without their consent" since you are utilizing a product of their labour without paying for it in a scenario which they want only people who pay for the work put into the product to experience said product.

Even more so with games that have any kind of multiplayer since unless they employ some form of DRM you are utilizing other tangible services.
User avatar #58 - Yardie (12/14/2014) [-]
Well there's a fundamental difference, right? Nobody is being forced to do anything, or having anything forced away from them. Theft is defined as something being taken through force or coercion. There is no force or coercion when it comes to piracy, and no damage is done. Sure there is an opportunity cost to it, but the opportunity cost is very slim when compared to the cost of theft. If I pirate something, then I have only taken advantage of a service where the value of said service is already in the market. If I steal something, I am taking the value away from said service, meaning nobody else is able to enjoy that same service simultaneously.

I hope that is enough to objectively say theft is worse than piracy.
User avatar #61 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
Actually if we're going by the legal definition of theft you get what I'm really trying to say:

"A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent"

There is no difference, piracy is a form of theft and is not somehow made less of a crime because it's only a copy and not the original.

"and no damage is done"
I disagree. If I owned a product and someone was utilizing this product without my permission, regardless of the inherent state of the item (digital or physical), I would consider that an aggression against my and my property.

" then I have only taken advantage of a service where the value of said service is already in the market. If I steal something, I am taking the value away from said service, meaning nobody else is able to enjoy that same service simultaneously. "
You're arguing the inherent difference of a physical copy versus a digital copy. The two cannot be compared on the same field because they have completely different processes by which they distribute content. However as I said, the underlying theme "Utilizing a product/service without the distributors/creators expressed consent" is still applicable.

User avatar #65 - Yardie (12/14/2014) [-]
On a side note: I hope you aren't arguing that there are simply bad and good things and no varying degrees of evil or good. That's incredibly dangerous for various reasons that would take more time to explain than I'm willing to give on this, and if that's the case then I simply just can't do this conversation. All I'll say to that proposition is that Common Law has developed over thousands of years to the point where it shouldn't need to be argued.
User avatar #100 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
No and I never gave the impression that's what I was arguing. However, you brought up the concept of "true theft" a vague and useless term. Theft is applicable in many variations and different situations, so yes "bad" and "good" (not my preferred terminology) do vary in theft as an overarching term.

The main problem is your 3 levels that you commented before, with the first one not even being applicable since that service is given out for free, and the second and third ones should be combined since not paying for a service is doing so with the distributors/creators consent.

I'm not arguing there is a black and white version of theft, simply that piracy IS theft. Certain forms of theft can be worse than piracy and piracy can be worse than others as well.

User avatar #197 - Yardie (12/16/2014) [-]
Alright it seems to me that your argument is that piracy is a form of theft, and if that's the case then we're just arguing semantics.

My argument is that piracy is not as bad as theft because the product is infinitely replicable. I'm putting physical stealing of an object in the definition of theft while piracy is excluded from that definition. I think that's important because the fact that piracy involves something infinitely replicable, it is not as bad as stealing something that is not infinitely replicable, which is not as bad as stealing something not replicable at all.

I don't want to say piracy isn't wrong, because it clearly is. However, it should not be grouped in with theft, just like kidnapping is separated from theft. The vast fundamental difference is that the game is infinitely replicable, and the quality of the product does not decrease the more it is used. Maybe the quality of future products will be lowered, but that's not provable and then we just move into "What if" and probability.

And my reason to say rape is objectively worse than theft is because when something is stolen, it is replicable, while when somebody is raped, that damage cannot be undone period. It's an irredeemable offense.

In the same way we can say intentionally destroying somebody's prized family heirloom is worse than intentionally destroying an object they bought at a yard sale for the same price. They're both wrong, but one deserves more outrage than the other.

I think that's fairly objective. Of course there is a subjectivity to it and it does effect people differently, but I wouldn't say stealing any subjective amount of anything would be worse than any subjective rape. Rape cannot be taken back, objects can be paid for or even given back to their rightful owner, and reparations can be paid for any economic value that they lost due to the theft. The damage dealt to the psyche of a person after being raped is impossible to fix. At least with current technology.
#97 - noblexfenrir has deleted their comment.
User avatar #62 - Yardie (12/14/2014) [-]
Law means nothing. It's just a piece of paper with a gun behind it. I'm talking morality, which is supposed to be the justification for said laws. Laws vary from country to country and do not go through the painstaking process of moral justification, so arguing on that basis is totally meaningless.

And of course there is a fundamental difference between the products. That's why it's not as bad. There's a fundamental difference between the human body and a regular product, that is why rape is objectively worse than theft. The underlying theme there is consistent. What is a product? A piece of matter that is owned by another piece of matter. What is a person? A self-aware piece of matter, or in other words a piece of matter owned by that same piece of matter. There is only a very small fundamental difference, and the fundamental difference between an infinitely replaceable string of data and an actual product or service is vastly different as well, so you can't just say "A is X therefore B is X as well." It doesn't logically follow. Just as with rape, you need to start from the bottom up when dealing with infinite data as opposed to physical matter.
User avatar #94 - noblexfenrir (12/14/2014) [-]
"Law means nothing. It's just a piece of paper with a gun behind it. "
Yes, and for good reason. I'm a libertarian and understand there is a need for a means by which to enforce rights through a law/court system. So it's good you're talking about morality because the law is generally in place because theft is immoral. Which piracy is.

"so arguing on that basis is totally meaningless. "
Not really since moral subjectivity exists (regardless of what Molyneux likes to spout.) and if a system is meaningless because it can vary from differing environments, then even your moral standard is meaningless.

"That's why it's not as bad."
It is a sub-set of theft, not something completely different.

" that is why rape is objectively worse than theft."
Not really. Seriously, objectively worse? They are both invasions of private property rights and can affect different individuals in varying ways.

"the fundamental difference between an infinitely replaceable string of data and an actual product or service is vastly different as well"
Four basic questions:
-Did someones labour and money have to go into producing X? (x being the game in question.)
-Do they own X?
-Are they allowing people to download and play this for free or do they require the contract of purchasing it before you can obtain it?
-If someone pirates the game, are they not receiving all the benefits and experiences of X, without accepting this contract?'

I could care less about the condition of the actual product, whether or not it's digital. The base concept of theft still applies.

Also please explain these "vastly different" fundamental differences.

"so you can't just say "A is X therefore B is X as well.""
I could but that isn't what I was saying. I said, A exhibits these attributes that make is X, B while have small differences in other areas, exhibits these same attributes that also make it X.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 251 / Total items point value: 2381

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - emmerich (06/25/2014) [-]
Hello!
 Friends (0)