It took 3 hours.. but I proved to this child software piracy is theft

[Vesayen]

It took 3 hours to force this obstinant child to accept that software piracy is immorality but with logic and reason as my guide........ I DID IT!

The chat log, for your entertainment(you can imagine how frustrating this was):

If you want, skip to the last 50 lines or so, it starts to get interesting then.



*Ves* piratebay :?
*fluffkins* .org
*Ves* I dont use bit torrent
*Ves* I got a cease and desist letter once so not anymore.
*fluffkins* sucks to live in a dictatorship
*Ves* nah, its stealing
*Ves* I know its wrong.
*fluffkins* That's just bull****
*Ves* what is?
*fluffkins* that it's stealing and wrong
*Ves* it is stealing
*Ves* the developers put their labor to make the game.
*Ves* I am not stealing a thing, I am stealing their labor.
*fluffkins* Are you stealing it if you neither download or buy it too?
*Ves* yes
*Ves* even if you dont plan to buy it, and you download it
*Ves* its still stealing their LABOR.
*fluffkins* So everytime you don't buy anything you steal someone's labour?
*Ves* going to go eat.. brb in 15, we'll talk then
*Ves* bacxk
*Ves* you here?
*fluffkins* yes
*Ves* okay
*Ves* Ask your questions again.
*fluffkins* I have no questions. It's all clear to me
*Ves* Lets say I pay you to pick apples for me.
*Ves* You pick all the apples and we send them off to the apple factory.
*Ves* first(several steps)
*Ves* After you pick the apples, I do not pay you.
*Ves* Have I robbed you?
*fluffkins* Did we agree for you to pay me for the work?
*Ves* yes.
*Ves* I'm going slowly, I know this is not software piracy.
*fluffkins* If we have an agreement and you don't hold it that's a crime. I wouldn't call it theft though
*Ves* I am not talking about legality
*Ves* I am talking about morality.
*fluffkins* lying then
*Ves* If I pay you for something, say... an ACTUAL apple.
*Ves* and you dont give me the apple after I have paid you, have you robbed me?
*fluffkins* Not really
*Ves* If I pay you for something, say... an ACTUAL apple.
*Ves* and you dont give me the apple after I have paid you, have you robbed me?
*fluffkins* Not really
*Ves* so if I pay you for something, and you dont give me, it, you have not robbed me?
*fluffkins* It's not in the definition of theft
*Ves* ....what is the definition of theft, by you?
*fluffkins* Taking something from someone else
*Ves* you took my money.
*fluffkins* without any sort of agreement
*fluffkins* You gave the money to me
*fluffkins* I promised to give you an apple though
*Ves* and you didnt.
*fluffkins* I didn't give it to you. That's what I did wrong
*Ves* and that isnt theft?
*fluffkins* Not doing something you agreed to do isn't theft
*Ves* so if you buy my house.
*Ves* and you give me 200,000 dollars.
*Ves* and I take the money and I run, and I dont give you the keys to the house
*Ves* all I have done is lied?
*fluffkins* Possible it could be seen such as I stole the apple you just bought from me. Then it could be define as theft
*Ves* then if I take your apple and do not give you the promised money, I *HAVE* stolen from you?
*fluffkins* yes
*Ves* and if you pay me for a house, and I take the money and I run, I have stolen from you?
*fluffkins* Depends how you look at it. But it's possible
*Ves* fluffkins, your trying to be stuborn on purpose.
*Ves* theft is defined as taking something which does not belong to you, without the consent of the owner.
*Ves* Do you agree with that defenition?
*fluffkins* Yes, taking is the key word though
*Ves* what problem do you have with taking?
*Ves* in the example, of the apple.
*fluffkins* If you make a copy you do not take something. You just make a copy of it
*Ves* i'm not talking about software yet.
*Ves* am I?
*fluffkins* no
*Ves* we have several steps to go.
*fluffkins* I'm just speeding things up a bit
*Ves* if we speed up we miss important steps
*fluffkins* sure
*Ves* so if I take something, an apple, and I do not pay you, we agree I have robbed you.
*Ves* Correct?
*Ves* And in this instance, it fits the definition: I have taking something which does not belong to me, without consent of the owner.
*fluffkins* Unless I agreed you could have the apple
*Ves* then we agree, I stole your apple.
*Ves* Now... lets not talk about the apple.
*Ves* Lets say I run a fruit farm and I hire you to pick apples
*Ves* I say to you: Pick apples for me(which I own), and I will give $100 a day.
*fluffkins* then we have an agreement
*Ves* correct.
*Ves* now you are going to THINK I am going to say, You spend all day picking the apples, and I do not pay you.
*Ves* but i'm not.
*Ves* FIRST I am going to ask: Why, is theft wrong?
*Ves* Theft is wrong because you are taking something of value from another person. Correct?
*fluffkins* There are cases where theft can be considered right
*fluffkins* Robin hood
*fluffkins* It's a matter of opinions though
*Ves* i'll redifine terms.
*fluffkins* Some people see at as wrong and some may not
*Ves* Robbery. Robbery is defined as act of theft, in which, circumstances make it immoral.
*Ves* so we dont have to worry about robin hood.
*fluffkins* But if you take from the rich and give to the poor. Is it still wrong?
*Ves* Stick to one issue.
*Ves* Robbery, defined as taking the things of another person, WITHOUT circumstances to mitigate the immorality of the act.
*fluffkins* I don't think we should be discussing morals since noone can have a final say in what's right or wrong
*Ves* then you don't believe in right and wrong.
*fluffkins* I do. But what I think is right you might think is wrong
*fluffkins* Give me a certain case and I could tell you if I think it's right or wrong
*Ves* If I come to your house and I rape your mother while she sleeps, and I sell you into slavery and I sell you into sexual slavery by large men, have I done something wrong?
*fluffkins* With the facts you gave. Yes, then everything would point to it being morally wrong
*Ves* Then rape is wrong?
*Ves* Is there ever a circumstance which makes rape right?
*fluffkins* From a utilitarian point of view there's no action that's always wrong or right
*Ves* I didn't ask that.
*Ves* I asked you if there is ever a circumstance which makes rape, morally acceptable?
*fluffkins* What if some guy is holding 500 people hostage and will only release them if you rape someone and there's no other way?
*fluffkins* It's silly though
*Ves* Its not, i'm making a point.
*Ves* Even in that instance, is the rape any less wrong?
*Ves* we are almost where I want to be.
*fluffkins* It saves the life of 500 people
*Ves* and the woman is still raped.
*fluffkins* Yes, but she would be dead if she was among the 500 hostages
*Ves* Those are the actions of another individual, not the woman.
*Ves* The woman is still raped. Is her rape wrong?
*fluffkins* You can't just look at an action. You must also see the reasone behind it
*Ves* So the value of any human life, is only worth as much as its utility to others?
*fluffkins* Is it worth sacrificing one to save two?
*Ves* That is a subjective question, and I say no.
*Ves* The question YOU are asking is:
*Ves* Is the value of any human life, is only worth as much as its utility to others?
*Ves* Yes or no.
*Ves* we are *ALMOST* there heh.
*fluffkins* I'd judge that when I see the case
*fluffkins* The question is to general
*Ves* sorry phone, back.
*Ves* You can't judge case to case.
*Ves* Because if you don't have rules, people like Adolf Hitler get to judge.
*Ves* Unfortunatley right and wrong can not be logically proven, therefore societies accept right and wrong for absolute values. However, if you don't accept that right and wrong DO exist as absolutes, you enter a world where *NO* right and wrong exists. A world where I can come to your house, rape your mother and sell you into sexual, sadomy slavery. In such a world, right and wrong are defined by physical strength. Is that the world you prefer?
*fluffkins* There are many ways to look at it
*Ves* Really there isn't.
*Ves* Either right and wrong exist at absolute values, or all morality is equated to physical strength.
*fluffkins* no
*fluffkins* That's not true
*Ves* How so?
*fluffkins* Not from a utilitarian point of view at least
*Ves* a utilitarian view is equated to physical strength.
*Ves* Because it is only "right" if you have the strength to enforce it.
*Ves* Actually all morality, is equated to the physical strength you have to enforce your point of view.
*Ves* Unless you agree, by mutual concent, to not use physical strength.
*Ves* You *THINK* that utilitarianism is something different, but it isn't. Utilitarianism SETS absolute values on right and wrong.
*Ves* And those values of right and wrong, are based on the principal of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. If there is more pleasure then pain, then it is right, and if there is less, then it is wrong.
*fluffkins* I have no absolute values of right and wrong. Call me immoral if you will but that' just how it is
*Ves* Then your morality, is based on your physical strength to enforce your view, is it not?
*fluffkins* It is not based on anything other than what I feel like
*Ves* My question to you:
*fluffkins* It's just not something I'd try to explain with words. It wouldn't be possible
*Ves* Why do you expect others to respect how *YOU* feel?
*Ves* Why should I care, if you think something is right or wrong? What stops me from raping your mother? Because *YOU* don't like it?
*Ves* This is an important question. Why should I care how you feel? Why shouldn't I rape your mother if I want to?
*fluffkins* I don't expect everyone to care what I think. I expect many to have their own moral values and I expect some to don't give a **** about others
*Ves* So why shouldn't I rape your mother?
*fluffkins* Either because you would feel it was wrong to do so or because you were afraid of the consequenses
*Ves* CORRECT!
*fluffkins* Or because you're not capable of doing so
*Ves* Well if I personally have no problem with it, and I *AM* able to do so.
*Ves* And you can't stop me.
*Ves* Then from my perspective, isn't it okay that I rape your mother?
*Ves* Afterall, I am stronger then you, and your mother, and you are unable to stop me through physical strength.
*fluffkins* From your point of view, yes
*Ves* But from your point of view it is not.
*Ves* And in the end, your mother is raped.
*Ves* Does that make you happy?
*fluffkins* Not likely, no
*Ves* If you do not have superior physical strength, and my morality says it is okay to rape your mother, what possible solution do you have?
*Ves* What solution, to not result in your mother being raped.
*fluffkins* Kill her
*Ves* I meant a result that makes you happy.
*Ves* I will suggest a solution, tell me if you like it: I say to you, even though I am stronger, I won't rape your mother, if you won't rape my mother(even though I know you are unable, because I am stronger)
*Ves* Is that a solution you could agree to?
*fluffkins* why would you say that?
*Ves* Who knows? But if I did, would you accept that solution?
*fluffkins* Why wouldn't I?
*Ves* So you accept that solution, yes?
*fluffkins* sure
*Ves* As a result of this solution, both of our actions have beem hampered, but in exchange for a small bit of freedom, we have gained a small bit of security.
*Ves* Neither of our mothers gets raped, and we both like that, don't we?
*fluffkins* if you say so
*Ves* So it seems, the only choice is: Physical strength, or mutual cooperation.
*Ves* Either, the strongest party has their way, or the all parties come to a compromise.
*fluffkins* no
*Ves* What other alternative is there?
*Ves* If there is i'd love to hear it.
*fluffkins* the one with physical strength could still go raping mothers if he wanted to
*Ves* Ultimatley, yes he could.
*Ves* But that does not mean he WILL, does it?
*fluffkins* If that's what he wanted to do in the first place I see no reason he wouldn't do it now
*Ves* What if he decided, EVEN THOUGH it is unlikley his own mother wouldnt be raped, he valued her saftey, more then his own pleasure?
*Ves* The reason does not matter, as long as he holds up his side of the agreement, does it?
*fluffkins* Assuming he would, and assuming he would agree to it
*Ves* Correct.
*Ves* So, ULTIMATLEY, all human contact does come down to physical strength, but we can decide, to put aside our strength, for various reasons, correct?
*fluffkins* no
*Ves* what other alternative is there?
*fluffkins* Not everyone would agree to it
*Ves* but a majority could, and in the end, your mother dosen't get raped.
*Ves* Is that good?
*fluffkins* I don't think the majority would
*Ves* IF the majority wold not.
*Ves* Is that a good thing?
*fluffkins* I think it would be more likely the strong guy made sure you weren't capable of raping his mother
*Ves* And he can do that in 2 ways?
*Ves* er typo
*Ves* he CAN do it in 2 ways:
*Ves* 1. He can use physical strength and ALWAYS guard his mother
*Ves* 2. He can agree to *NOT* use his strength to impose on others, and in exchange, they do not rape his mother.
*Ves* #1 is a terrible burden on the strong man. #2, though there is a CHANCE the mother will be raped, is not.
*Ves* Which world do you prefer.
*Ves* #1, or #2?
*fluffkins* Strong people can use threat of violence to make people not use violence. That's your point?
*Ves* My point is the only choices we have, are physical strength, or mutual concent, even though physical strength sometimes over-rides physical strength.
*Ves* There are no other choices.
*fluffkins* Unless people have morals
*Ves* actually that falls under #2
*Ves* MORALS my friend, is what we all agree on.
*Ves* Right and wrong, is what we decide they mean. We agree it is wrong to rape each others mothers, so we don't do it.
*fluffkins* No, we agree on rules not morals
*Ves* Morals, are rules.
*fluffkins* no
*Ves* Then morals are an ephemeral(ghostly) thing.
*Ves* With no application in the real world
*fluffkins* yes
*Ves* and you have no reason to expect physical strength won't be used, against your morals, to your disadvantage.
*Ves* what worth does your "right" and "wrong" have, in a world where, by your own admission, they have no value?
*fluffkins* morals is a natural things caused by the natural selection. Individuals that didn't think it was wrong to kill their own kind didn't survive and so on
*Ves* individuals who do kill their own kind, do live on.
*fluffkins* morals are individual. rules are set by a number of people
*Ves* as shown by every species on the planet, well almost.
*fluffkins* unltil they attack something that is stronger thna themselves
*Ves* the species as a whole lives.
*Ves* What do you call a "moral" that is held by many people?
*fluffkins* It is more complicated than that and we're not discussing evolution
*Ves* you brought it up, not me.
*Ves* if its more complicated, feel free to explain, I have done most of the talking(not that I mind)
*fluffkins* It doesn't matter
*fluffkins* What matters is that morals isn't the same as rules
*Ves* Why does that matter?
*fluffkins* Rules are usually based on morals though
*Ves* Why does that matter?
*fluffkins* You can discuss what's morally right and wrong but people will always have different oppinions of it
*Ves* But people can agree, somehow, it is wrong to rape each others mothers.
*Ves* For the most part.
*fluffkins* Then it becomes a rule
*Ves* And then, physical strength solves the disagreement.
*Ves* ULTIMATLEY the world is either ruled by physical strength, or mutual concent-EVEN THOUGH mutual concent can be violated.
*Ves* Which world, do you prefer to live in?
*fluffkins* It's ruled by mutual concent, physical strength and morals
*fluffkins* not one, but all three
*Ves* morals do nto enter into the picture.
*fluffkins* They do
*Ves* as we agreed, morals have no value in the real world.
*fluffkins* They still matter
*Ves* because physical strength, gives morals no meaning.
*Ves* You may think so, but your opinion does not matter, without physical strength.
*Ves* Does it?
*fluffkins* If you're in a dark alley alone with someone weaker than you. He has money and you don't. You can take it from him and kill him and there's no chance of you getting caught. If you think it's morally wrong you may still decide not to
*Ves* Correct.
*Ves* You just proved morals have no importance on the world.
*fluffkins* I just proved they did
*Ves* Morals, is nothing but the decisions of individuals.
*Ves* And their impact, is only the impact of the physical strength individuals have.
*fluffkins* They still matter though
*Ves* They are identical to physical strength.
*Ves* In every way that can be measured and in all effects.
*Ves* If something is identical in every measurable and observable way, it *IS* identical.
*Ves* So morals = physical strength.
*Ves* So we have a world with physical strength, and mutual concent, do we not?
*fluffkins* In the alley case, one might decide not to and one might decide to do it. Both are equally strong but their decitions differ
*fluffkins* Because of morals
*Ves* But in the EFFECTS, the morals only matter as much as the strength of the person to impose their will.
*Ves* DO they not?
*fluffkins* sure
*fluffkins* But strength isn't that absolute
*Ves* It isnt?
*fluffkins* Even if someone is stronger you might still be able to poke his eye
*Ves* Thats his strength.
*Ves* That means all conflict is decided by physical strength. Barbarism. Is that acceptable?
*fluffkins* What does that have to do with anything?
*Ves* Its an important question, which you will see shortly.
*Ves* IS the world, divided into barbarism(strength) or mutual concent?
*fluffkins* both, and morals
*Ves* We just showed that morals have no effect.
*Ves* Except that of strength.
*fluffkins* No
*Ves* How do morals have any effect, greater then the physical strength of those who posses them?
*fluffkins* Your actions can be limited by your morals as much as your strength
*fluffkins* both need to work for you to act
*Ves* *YOUR* actions can be limited. But the *EFFECT ON THE WORLD*
*Ves* Is only, as big as your physical strength, correct?
*fluffkins* And rules (mutual concent) is nothing unless you either have the morals to stick to them or the strength to enforce them
*Ves* How are morals any different then the desires of the individual?
*fluffkins* That's what it is
*Ves* Then lets replace the world morality with desires.
*Ves* If you don't object?
*Ves* Its more straight forward.
*fluffkins* sure. not 100% correct but it'll do
*Ves* Then a persons actions are dictated by their desires, and their impact on the world, is only equal to their physical strength.
*Ves* Correct?
*fluffkins* Something in those ways
*Ves* Is it correct, or not? Yes or no.
*Ves* If there is a flaw, I want you to point is out now.
*fluffkins* Desires already modified by morals, then yes, correct
*Ves* I want everything perfectly clear, so we'll back up for one second.
*Ves* Morals, are what a person decides they mean. Desires, are what a person decides he wants. How are desires, different then morals?

[Vesayen]

*fluffkins* Desires is what a person wnats. Morals is what he can accept doing to get what he wants
*Ves* Then a person decides his morals
*Ves* And a person decides his desires.
*Ves* Correct?
*fluffkins* A person doesn't decide his morals
*Ves* Oh? This is a revelation.
*Ves* Where do they come from then?
*fluffkins* They grow on you
*Ves* IN THE END, all morals, and all desires, and all decisions, come from inside a person.
*Ves* Correct?
*Ves* They are, an internal thing. They do not exist, as a physical entity, outside of the person.
*fluffkins* yes
*fluffkins* They're affected by things outsite though
*Ves* Irrelevant.
*Ves* If they are *INTERNAL* to a human being then..
*Ves* Their only *EFFECT* on the world, is the sum of the physical strength of the individual who posses them, correct?
*fluffkins* The strength of that person. Not nesecarily physical
*Ves* Lets define strength, then.
*fluffkins* The ability to influence the world around you
*Ves* For this argument strength is: The ability of an individual(s) to effect out outside world and others, through physical means, and intangible ones.
*Ves* Solid definitions are important.
*fluffkins* He can still affect other people through manipulation etc
*fluffkins* You don't want that under strength?
*Ves* That is intangible ones.
*fluffkins* right
*Ves* We'll redifine again then:
*fluffkins* The ability to influence the world around you
*Ves* ABILITY: The degree to which an individual(s) can effect out others and the outside world through physical means, and intangible ones.
*Ves* Ability includes fighting, it includes skill in communication.
*fluffkins* Mine is more simple. Is it wrong?
*Ves* We need to be specific.
*Ves* So we leave no room for error.
*fluffkins* Is it not specific enough?
*Ves* Its not.
*fluffkins* How so?
*Ves* Also I am not defining strength.
*Ves* I am defining ABILITY.
*Ves* That includes all physical manipulation, and skills in communication.
*fluffkins* There's another way?
*Ves* phone brb
*Ves* back
*Ves* sorry, customer was pissed off....
*Ves* So, back to as we were saying:
*fluffkins* right
*Ves* Humans can either rely on ability, or they can rely on mutual concent.
*Ves* ability defined by all physical and intangible skills which effect the outside world, from communication, or fighting.
*fluffkins* Mutual concent is nothing unless enforced
*Ves* Is it?
*Ves* I can agree, without being physically forced, to not harm others.
*Ves* I don't need someone else to use their ability, to force me to.
*Ves* Mutual concent is not perfect, but it can still exist.
*fluffkins* You cna agree to something and then just screw it a day later
*Ves* I didn't say mutual concent was perfect, did I?
*fluffkins* sure
*Ves* But, picking between a world where EVERYTHING is decided by ability(including fighting) and a world of mutual concent
*Ves* which do you pick?
*fluffkins* it's not about picking
*Ves* If *YOU* had to pick.
*fluffkins* But I assume you want me to pick the second. So for the sake of the argument I'll just do that
*Ves* Which would you pick?
*Ves* no, wait, it is about picking.
*Ves* if you pick the first one, you rely *SOLEY* on your own ability. If you pick the second, you are relying on others to keep their promise(and your collective, ability to enforce the concent)
*Ves* do you want to risk your own ability, against all of humanity, and the rest of the universe?
*fluffkins* I'm not part of that?
*Ves* you are.
*Ves* #1 is you against the world(which will almost CERTAINLY fail), #2, is you, cooperating(which MAY fail) against the world.
*Ves* given these choices, and we have come to realize these *ARE* the only choices, which do you choose?
*Ves* granted it took us an hour to get here.. but we have lol
*fluffkins* 2 hours actually
*Ves* if you have the time, i'll sit here for hours.
*fluffkins* I'd like to get to the point of this some day
*Ves* we will eventually
*Ves* given these choices, and we have come to realize these *ARE* the only choices, which do you choose?
*fluffkins* #2 I assume
*Ves* its not a matter of assumption. Which, do you choose?
*Ves* You, as an individual.
*fluffkins* I do not. Since the question isn't there
*Ves* Which question is not there?
*Ves* I'll repeat:
*Ves* #1 is you against the world(which will almost CERTAINLY fail), #2, is you, cooperating(which MAY fail) against the world.
*Ves* Choose the one you prefer.
*fluffkins* #2 for the sake of the argument
*Ves* good.
*Ves* So you agree that the existance of rules, which we all agree to, is a good thing.
*fluffkins* For the argument, yes
*Ves* good.
*Ves* My question(this won't take long: If everyones morals are particular to the individual, and everyone thinks they are right, is everyone, right, and no one is wrong?*
*fluffkins* True right and wrong can never go pat mathematics
*Ves* I didnt ask that did I.
*Ves* I said, in a world where everyones morals are particular to the individual, and everyone thinks they are right, how can anyone ever be wrong?
*fluffkins* Right and wrong in that case is just basefd on the view of people
*Ves* Then no one is ever wrong to themselves, are they?
*Ves* In everyones perspective, they are always right.
*fluffkins* yes, without complicating things even more
*Ves* Then if everyone is always right by their own perspective.....
*Ves* ....and the only effect that individual has on the world is their OWN ability
*Ves* ....against the ability of OTHER PEOPLE who think they are ALSO right.
*Ves* Then ability(strength) decides what is wrong.
*fluffkins* no more than morals
*Ves* morals do not effect the world, any more then the ability of the people who posses them.
*Ves* and EVERYONE thinks their morals are right.
*Ves* So logically, ability, decides what is wrong.
*Ves* Unless I missed a step?
*fluffkins* Again, for the sake of the argument, sure
*Ves* You just agreeds that morality, is strength.
*fluffkins* I don't agree, but I want to get somewhere
*fluffkins* So just pretend I do
*Ves* I don't care if you dont agree as long as you don't have any way to disprove my asertions.
*Ves* So now we live in the world you chose, where we live by mutual consent, which is effect, by morals.
*Ves* And morals, as we proved, is ability, which is strength.
*Ves* So morality, is physical strength.
*fluffkins* No.. but, sure
*Ves* Then might makes right, and morality is decided by might.
*Ves* and... damn this took a long time and it isnt the way I WANTED to go(there are 2 ways) but it will do:
*fluffkins* get to the point
*Ves* Software piracy is wrong, because society says so, and society makes you.
*fluffkins* What is society?
*fluffkins* The people?
*Ves* The sum total of all human lives.
*Ves* and their collective ability.
*fluffkins* Here's a fact for you. Don't know what it's like over there. But here I would be suprised if there's more than 1% who's not somehow involved in any kind of "piracy"
*fluffkins* Does that not make it right?
*Ves* But we proved that morality is physical force!
*Ves* and the cumulative *FORCE* of the society, says its wrong.
*Ves* So its wrong.
*fluffkins* By saying so you also agree you live in a dictatorship
*Ves* dictatorship is hard to define.
*fluffkins* And it's not enforced here. Even if the laws calim it's wrong
*Ves* It does not matter. We agreed that force = morality, and the majority of the force, even if it is not CURRENTLY being
used, is in the hands of those who say it is wrong.
*Ves* So its wrong.
*fluffkins* no
*Ves* Explain.
*Ves* Unless you want to show that morality is not equal to force.
*Ves* we agreed it was, but you can try to disprove it if you want.
*fluffkins* First of all I don't agree with that. Secondly, they don't have enough strength to enfoce it
*Ves* *Ves* So now we live in the world you chose, where we live by mutual consent, which is effect, by morals.
*Ves* *Ves* And morals, as we proved, is ability, which is strength.
*Ves* *Ves* So morality, is physical strength.
*Ves* *fluffkins* No.. but, sure
*Ves* *Ves* Then might makes right, and morality is decided by might.
*Ves* you agreed to it, you can change your mind now, if you wish.
*fluffkins* Their strength comes from the people. And the people do it.
*Ves* "the people" does not exist. All that exists are individuals.
*fluffkins* Who says it's wrong then?
*Ves* force does
*fluffkins* What is force?
*Ves* ability.
*Ves* People with ability use their ability, to augment it with those of others.
*fluffkins* piracy is wrong because ability says so?
*Ves* So a minority, such as law enforcers, have things like guns. And their commanders, controll their loyalty by ability, and so on.
*Ves* it is wrong because those with force, say it is wrong, and we agreed that force dictates morality.
*fluffkins* The law enforcers are on the people's side in this
*fluffkins* They do it too
*Ves* Yet when they are ordered to arrest pirates, they do.
*Ves* So force sides against them.
*fluffkins* They're not
*fluffkins* Not over here
*Ves* When police are ordered to arrest pirates, they are arrested.
*fluffkins* They aren't over here
*Ves* Your either ignorant or lying, since software piracy is a federal matter.
*fluffkins* They deal with crimes. Murdersm theft and stuff
*Ves* and the feds do the arrests, not local officials.
*fluffkins* Not cultural liberation
*Ves* the federal judiaciary(fbi etc) arrests software pirates.
*fluffkins* I don't live in the USA
*Ves* where do you live?
*fluffkins* sweden
*Ves* OOOOH even better!
*Ves* this makes it really easy
*Ves* abstractions make it easier.
*Ves* USA says software piracy is wrong, and the USA has more force then sweden.
*Ves* Sweden refuses, the USA nukes sweden.
*fluffkins* I'd like to see them try
*Ves* The USA wins by virtue of force and thus it is illegal.
*Ves* The point is they can, if they chose to.
*fluffkins* If USA nuked sweden they'd get the rest of the world on their ass
*fluffkins* They're not capable of defeating sweden in a rugular war
*Ves* And i'd just like you to know that since the majority of software world wide is owned by Americans, you've earned my contempt because your not an american stealing from americans, your an ALIEN stealing from americans and you do it without remose.
*Ves* *fluffkins* If USA nuked sweden they'd get the rest of the world on their ass but sweden would be gone.
*Ves* And the USA would not.
*fluffkins* They would be gone when chine nukes them
*Ves* this is a hypothetical, since the USA will likley not nuke sweden over software piracy.
*Ves* china does not have a delivery system, and why would china care if we nuked sweden?
*Ves* *IF* that is the case, then CHINA decides if software piracy is right or wrong, with their force, IF they had superior force(they do not)
*fluffkins* You can't take out just sweden and the entire sweden with nukes
*Ves* IN THE END, force still decides.
*Ves* whoever has it.
*Ves* Does it not?
*fluffkins* no
*Ves* Oh?
*Ves* If the U.S. can not defeat sweden with force, then Sweden posses superior force(and ability)
*Ves* and since FORCE decides morality, sweden has decided.
*Ves* Side note: I'm so glad your proud of your "cultural liberation", i.e. stealing from Americans, do you expect America to be nice to sweden when you **** on us?
*fluffkins* Force isn't absolute, it will always change
*Ves* correct.
*Ves* then morality is not absolute.
*Ves* but force, still always decides it.
*fluffkins* Steal from america?
*Ves* most software, world wide is owned by americans or american companies(by volume, and dollars)
*fluffkins* not true
*Ves* I don't have time to dig it up, but it is.
*fluffkins* especially not if you don't agree that software can be owned
*Ves* force decides.
*Ves* isn't this fun?
*Ves* I know you don't like it, and its taken now, 3 hours, but we've agreed that morality is decided by murder, and you made us decide that.
*fluffkins* And you can't enforce it. Obviously since I do download it
*Ves* America owns the architecture of the internet.
*Ves* the physical server.
*Ves* If we wanted, we could simply, disconect sweden from Internet One.
*fluffkins* It's more than one server
*Ves* all of them are in the U.S.
*Ves* the dialing servers
*fluffkins* You couldn't do that
*Ves* are owned by a handfull of American companies
*fluffkins* Internet is a network. It's everything connected to it
*Ves* ACTUALLY we can, and its a huge point of international anger heh. Even the Federal goverment wants it control, but its owned by private american companies.
*Ves* and *ALL* of the adressing, runs through a bunch of american machines.
*fluffkins* You can't disconnect us without physically being there and pulling the plug out
*Ves* we can isolate you from the rest of the world.
*Ves* its really simple.
*fluffkins* We're still connected to neigbouring countires
*Ves* any signals which request adresses, which have their destination end in sweden, are denied.
*Ves* actually, to get the adress of a website hosted in germany, your asking an American computer.
*Ves* comes here first.
*Ves* Isn't force wonderfull?
*fluffkins* The intenet isn't that simple
*Ves* There are *LOTS* of servers
*Ves* and they all have their own websites
*Ves* but to find out how to CONTACT that server.
*Ves* you need a dialer.
*Ves* and all the dialers, *ALL* of them, are in America
*Ves* in the hands of private companies.
*Ves* You could make a new internet if you wish, even though it would fail because so much capital is in the current one...
*Ves* but, America controls the internet and if it wants to, it can simply stop all software piracy over the internet by swedes.
*Ves* thus force, and ability, dictate the immorality of software piracy.
*fluffkins* yeah, right
*Ves* I'm glad you agree.
*Ves* so we have force, or we have absolute values.
*Ves* which unfortunatley, ends in force too.
*Ves* but we can pretend they dont, and that works, till someone uses force.
*Ves* unless you have anything else to add.....? I declare victory in the name of morality, civilization, hobbs, john locke, the social contract, civilization, copyright laws and AMERICA


Edit: in retrospect I wish I had said...

....and AMERICA, you filthy filthy swede!

[Datajack Franit]

why can´t some people just get drunk and look for sex on the internet instead

[Jon Miller]

because sex on the internet is boring

JM

[Japher]

a/s/l?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

He said "yeah, right".....

He didn't agree with you.

[General Ludd]

Great, he's posting chatlogs now. And I thought the hypotheticals where bad.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Great, he's posting chatlogs now. And I thought the hypotheticals where bad.

[Ninot]

you should rape his mom, Ves

He doesn't seem to mind that idea.

[BeBMan]

"America controls the internet and if it wants to, it can simply stop all software piracy over the internet by swedes."

[Main_Brain]

Those who bring up Nazi's first, loose anyway.

[Atahualpa]

I don't know of which servers you speak, but there are 13 DNS root servers and they are all over the world.

I think you are right though about concent and physical strength. It provides some interesting thought.

[BeBMan]

Where's Benny-Tow in that session btw?

[Q Classic]

tl;dr.

[Blake]

*Ves* What solution, to not result in your mother being raped.
*fluffkins* Kill her

And this guy was worth convincing... why?

*Ves* But people can agree, somehow, it is wrong to rape each others mothers.

*Ves* phone brb
*Ves* back
*Ves* sorry, customer was pissed off....

Yeah, no wonder the customer is pissed, they've been on hold for TWO FREAKING HOURS.