Legal backups?

[Limewater]

It does work. It's true that you would have stabbed me. It's not true that you should have.

Under what basis do you say that it is not true that I should not have stabbed you? It would have been true and factual that I stabbed you.

I disagree. I didn't just restate it. I provided the argument in the first part you quoted.

I'm assuming that this is the "first part."

Something is wrong when it is not in conformity with fact or truth. If that is so, there are sensible, rational, arguments against it, otherwise it would be right.

I already mentioned that this does not seem to cover morality, so I would appreciate it if you clarify that.

But why do you say that if something is not in conformity with fact or truth then there will necessarily be a sensible, rational argument against it? How do you reach this conclusion? Again, you're essentially restating what FlamePanther did, just by inserting some new definition of "wrong" in there.

[Inazuma]

BTW, I'm really not gonna get into my own feelings on this or whatever, because we've had so many similar threads. But this comment is in all of them:

I've said this many times before but the only time this kind of thing is actually bad is when someone who would normally buy the game, chooses instead to download a free copy of it.

I just don't get this one. It's kind of like saying that if you don't plan to BUY a game anyway, then it's okay to walk into a store and steal it off the shelf.

Nope. It's not like that at all. Your analogy is terrible.

Basically what I'm saying is, doing harm to others is bad and not doing harm to others is OK. So whatever the situation may be, if it isn't actually doing harm to anyone, it is OK.

If you describe a situation where harm is actually being done, and use that to help you argue with me, don't bother. If harm is being done, I agree with you that it is bad.

[noiseredux]

Your analogy is terrible.

of course it is. I'm a stupid idiot.

but seriously, by your way of thinking I can pirate every game ever and just say "oh well I wasn't gonna buy them anyway." And somehow that would make it "OK"?

[Limewater]

Basically what I'm saying is, doing harm to others is bad and not doing harm to others is OK.

This is something that you have to accept axiomatically. Not everyone agrees.

So whatever the situation may be, if it isn't actually doing harm to anyone, it is OK.

If you ask a lot of folks who have their IP pirated, many would tell you that they feel harmed by it.

[ZeroAX]

Yeah I have to say that is very questionable logic. In a perfect world yeah people would buy the games they were going to buy, and pirate only the games they were never ever ever ever going to play (which kind of defeats the point), since if you like something enough to play it all the way through, you like it enough to buy it.

@Limewater

Well Alexey Pajitnov says he doesn't mind that he didn't get any of the billions Tetris would have made him if he had the IP rights since day one, so I guess some people really don't mind

[Limewater]

@Limewater

Well Alexey Pajitnov says he doesn't mind that he didn't get any of the billions Tetris would have made him if he had the IP rights since day one, so I guess some people really don't mind

He said he doesn't mind, but does he feel harmed? Regardless, that's why I said "many" and not "all." Yes, some people do not mind.

[Inazuma]

Your analogy is terrible.

of course it is. I'm a stupid idiot.

but seriously, by your way of thinking I can pirate every game ever and just say "oh well I wasn't gonna buy them anyway." And somehow that would make it "OK"?

Nope. That would be a lie, so the reality is you are choosing piracy over buying. In that situation, it would be doing harm to the game creators so it is wrong.

I'll say it again. Come up with any situation where harm is being done and I will think it's bad. You keep trying to put words in my mouth.

If someone truly would have never bought a game, then it does no harm by pirating it. I started boycotting Sony since they shut down Liksang and have never given them any money for any product since. If there was a Sony game I wanted to play, no matter what I do, Sony will not get money for it. No harm would be done if I pirated it. If you change this situation in any way so that it actually does cause Sony to lose money, then it would be wrong.

[Limewater]

I'll say it again. Come up with any situation where harm is being done and I will think it's bad. You keep trying to put words in my mouth.

I already posted this once, but if you ask a lot of folks who have their IP pirated, many would tell you that they feel harmed by it.

[jfrost]

It does work. It's true that you would have stabbed me. It's not true that you should have.

Under what basis do you say that it is not true that I should not have stabbed you? It would have been true and factual that I stabbed you.

Limewater, I realize that you like these discussions but sometimes it seems that you're being purposefully thick.

In any case, what I meant is that in the scenario you proposed, it would be true that you stabbed me. It wouldn't be necessarily true that it would be the morally right thing to do.

I'm not arguing that stabbing persons is always wrong, or even wrong in some circumstances. I'm not here arguing morality at all. I'm just saying that it doesn't follow from what you did that you did something right.

I disagree. I didn't just restate it. I provided the argument in the first part you quoted.

I'm assuming that this is the "first part."

Something is wrong when it is not in conformity with fact or truth. If that is so, there are sensible, rational, arguments against it, otherwise it would be right.

I already mentioned that this does not seem to cover morality, so I would appreciate it if you clarify that.

But why do you say that if something is not in conformity with fact or truth then there will necessarily be a sensible, rational argument against it? How do you reach this conclusion? Again, you're essentially restating what FlamePanther did, just by inserting some new definition of "wrong" in there.

Alright. Let me ask you something, though, if something is wrong and there's no good argument against it, how do you know it's really wrong?

[Limewater]

Limewater, I realize that you like these discussions but sometimes it seems that you're being purposefully thick.

No, I'm not really being purposefully thick. It's a legitimate question. You made a statement, but have not yet revealed the basis for your statement.

In any case, what I meant is that in the scenario you proposed, it would be true that you stabbed me. It wouldn't be necessarily true that it would be the morally right thing to do.

Yes. Why would it not be morally right? What about the definition of "wrong" you gave allows you to proclaim whether it was morally right or wrong to stab you?

I'm not here arguing morality at all. I'm just saying that it doesn't follow from what you did that you did something right.

It certainly appears to have not been wrong, at least from the definition you gave.

But why do you say that if something is not in conformity with fact or truth then there will necessarily be a sensible, rational argument against it? How do you reach this conclusion? Again, you're essentially restating what FlamePanther did, just by inserting some new definition of "wrong" in there.

Alright. Let me ask you something, though, if something is wrong and there's no good argument against it, how do you know it's really wrong?

That's a very good and very important question. I could just as easily ask the same thing of something that does have a good argument against it. How would you know it was wrong in that case? After all, you said previously that something that is not wrong can have a reasonable argument against it.

What you asked is a very good question, but I think you should generalize it a bit further.