'I think you have it backwards. The retarded kids are the ones who should be offended by the comparison. They are not the ones who are pushing this non-sense, it is their alleged "betters".'
You neglect to explain why it's nonsense. Personally I apply the same 'non' sense to the pejorative use of other words, some of which I have had to contend with first hand.
I'm offended at the implications of the language, not because anyone suffers any negative consequences (although negative consequences are supported by anecdotal evidence).
You seem to believe that only the subject of a derogation has any right to be offended. To apply your implied principle uniformly would prevent anyone who is not directly a victim from seeking to right a wrong.
You imply that I regard myself as "better", but neglect to explain what you mean or why you would believe that.
"You have now been fully basted with my incisive rebuttal. Care to try again?"
You mean where you counter someone calling out your accusation that all of Islam is evil by providing tenuously related statistics that don't even uniformly approach 50%?
You implied that violence is a product of inbreeding. I might surmise that the fall of the British Empire was due to a decline in royal intermarriages, were your statements not merely concentrated ignorance.
"If I spend time and energy writing or creating something then release it only to have someone steal it from me is a big problem."
How does copyright protect you from having your work stolen? I thought there were different laws for theft.
"If you take away copyright law you could very well have big companies like Walmart grabbing a best seller, scanning it, and selling it for a pittance without giving the author anything."
Wouldn't people learn not to buy from Walmart as soon as they found out that it didn't support the authors? I mean, unless they're not really bothered about investing in culture. in which case they shouldn't care when their favourite author stops writing anyway.
"Well, after reading this blog, I get what the author means. He was able to do half the work writing this, because he copied most of someone else's blog for his. Yes, he quoted and pointed to the original with a link, but still, he didn't have to write much at all: the author wrote 277 words and copied 239 words! Copy & paste is such a wonderful thing in the digital age. Apparently nobody deserves anything!"
Wow. Maybe you're right. You did all that work and I only had to add two words to use it to make my point.
'Then one may argue, "but slavery is in the public good. It hurts a private interest, but it's in a public good"'
While your example is pretty nonsensical, the point is a good one. Many things can be argued to be 'in the public good' depending on your definition of public good. I'm not sure how the point furthers your argument though.
Me too. The point of view put forward in the article seems to be based on the premise that breaking the law is inherently harmful. On the contrary, I would think that relying on the law to make decisions is inherently harmful and that breaking the law when you don't agree with it is the sign of a healthy free thinking society.
That's not to say that you should break the law if you disagree with it, but that actions shouldn't be judged on whether they're lawful or not.
"That's a very dark satire. When I say very dark, we're talking Frankie Boyle meets Glenn Beck dark."
I can't stand Frankie Boyle. His sort of satire is incredibly lazy. One of his most controversial jokes was pretty much 'She looks weird. I guess she's really dirty in bed because she has a good looking boyfriend'. It's basically taking a completely non-ironic joke and calling it satire. The joke isn't satire, the character is satire. Frankie Boyle pokes fun at people being offended by being intentionally offensive. Here's the thing, while some people find that funny (I don't, especially when the comedian makes fun of the mother of a child with Down's syndrome for being upset by his joke about Down's syndrome), it doesn't work if you're not in character. The only difference between an offensive joke and a satire of an offensive joke by Frankie Boyle is that Frankie Boyle is the one saying it.
Sarah Silverman is a much better contemporary dark satirist because her actual jokes are satirical as well as her character. Frankie Boyle is more like Charlie Sheen, an asshole who plays an asshole.
Anyway, I didn't find the joke funny more because it's a lazy pun than offensive in any way. 'So that's what sex with a minor means' wouldn't even make sense let alone be funny.
"What forms of violence (if any) should be allowed in society? For instance, if a white guy calls a black guy the n-word, and the black guy punches the white guy in the mouth, is that justified? Should it be legal? If not, should his assault charges be reduced?"
They key thing many people miss when thinking about whether it is OK to be violent is the bias that creates in society. I'm a young, fit male with years of martial arts training yet I'm still only about 130lbs, which puts me at a natural disadvantage when it comes to violence. The two biggest natural biases when it comes to violence are probably age and gender. If nothing else, when condoning violence, you're marginalising half the population for being female.
So, my opinion is that violence as a reaction to someone being verbally offensive is never justified. (completely off topic, but it looks like I missed the party anyway)
"Whatever those laws are, they must be written to maximize the public good."
There's a phrase to be careful of. If you have a law that is good for the vast majority of the public at the expense of a few then you could still argue that it 'maximises the public good'. That is actually on topic because one thing I consider when thinking about copyright law is that however measurably 'good' something may be, it can still be at the cost of something immeasurable. In terms of copyright, you could have a system set up to measurably increase the amount of creativity at no expense of quality and yet still stop some creativity that would have happened otherwise. By the nature of copyright, it is likely that the increased creativity would be motivated by profit whereas the lost creativity may have been pure artistic whim.
Do we want creativity to just be an economic consideration? Or should it be about freedom for people to express themselves?
If you're going to base things on Locke then I should point out first that much of his work was reliant on his interpretation of the bible and that I'm not religious.
Under the Lockean definition of property I would argue that the rights are already fulfilled by physical property rights. This is backed up by the fact that he did not define anything approaching intellectual property in his treatise. Locke refers to a right to the fruits of one's labour, which is sufficiently afforded by ownership of physical property.
If anything, intellectual property impedes on the Lockean idea of property rights. In his Second Treatise Of Government, Locke states: "every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his". As you copy someone their idea also becomes part of you, no less part of you than if you had come up with an idea yourself. Should you labour to create a physical manifestation of that copy then Locke's philosophy would let you claim that as your property.
"To my knowledge no one has ever made such a claim, so it seems only appropriate that he back it up with at least some modicum of data."
Re-reading what he said, I can see your point. Still, plenty of pro-copyright people have said way crazier stuff so I wouldn't be surprised if he was referring to an actual opinion. You can pretty much pick any Darryl post and interpret it to mean anything.
Uh, they're all alternative media players. That's not a problem. Practically all major Linux media players are better than iTunes. There are even many that support iPods (a feat in itself). None of them can access the iTunes store though.