You can not make this shit up...

[Jagos]

Link (http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-await-official-recognition-of-new-religion-110410/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Torrentfreak+(Torrentfreak))

A group of self-confessed radical pirates are pinning their hopes on gaining officiast Jedi, now this?l recognition of their own unique belief system. The founders of the Missionary Church of Kopimism – who hold CTRL+C and CTRL+V as sacred symbols – hope that along with this acceptance will come harmony, not just with each other, but also with the police.

*facepalm*

First Jedi as a religion, now this?

[Kyanbu The Legend]

... WTH?

Really? A file sharing religion...

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Adeptus Mechanicus anyone? All praise the Machine-Spirit! All hail the Omnissiah!

[Amake]

"Are you telling me I can't download Avatar 3? That's oppressing my religion, man!"

[Darth SS]

Adeptus Mechanicus anyone? All praise the Machine-Spirit! All hail the Omnissiah!

Death to the False Emperor!!


But seriously, I thought we had moved past the point where religion was seen as a justifiable way to overrule law. In fact, I thought we'd done that when we separated church and state.

[BitVyper]

First Jedi as a religion, now this?

If we're going to officially recognize any religion at all, we pretty much have to accept that the terms are broad enough that almost anything qualifies. Anything else would be allowing systemic religious prejudice.

It has to be a club anyone can join no matter how silly what they're saying sounds because they are all going to sound pretty darned silly. Although I'm not really sure what official recognition of a religion even garners the group.

[Tev]

Although I'm not really sure what official recognition of a religion even garners the group.
Usually tax-free status.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Also you can run it like a company and limit your liability.
Religion is a pretty sweet deal.

[BitVyper]

I mean, personally, I'd say NONE of them should have any level of officiality.

[Bells]

Best thing? EVEN if this religion was real, if i create a file and i don't belong to this religion, you do, and you copy my file... you are forcing your religion on me!

[Loyal]

That. Isn't. Religion.

[Osterbaum]

Why not?

[bluestarultor]

Why not?

Well, you have a couple categories:
1: "This thing's been around forever or is based on something that's been around forever and shares similarities with other known religious groups."
2: "You've gotta be kidding me. Your 'religion' is based on something created in the last 50 years and is clearly centered around monetary gain."

[Kim]

Well, you have a couple categories:
1: "This thing's been around forever or is based on something that's been around forever and shares similarities with other known religious groups."
2: "You've gotta be kidding me. Your 'religion' is based on something created in the last 50 years and is clearly centered around monetary gain."

Blues, you really aren't making much of an argument for why fake religions are fake, you know. :P

[bluestarultor]

Blues, you really aren't making much of an argument for why fake religions are fake, you know. :P

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory that #2 didn't qualify.

[Kim]

.-----

[head]

[Ryong]

There are, uh, thousands of different "churches" in Brazil that are basically ways to exploit dumb people. They all involve Jesus, yet they're rather different from other religions - I mean, you have to buy your place in heaven, for one.

[Kim]

There are, uh, thousands of different "churches" in Brazil that are basically ways to exploit dumb people. They all involve Jesus, yet they're rather different from other religions - I mean, you have to buy your place in heaven, for one.

Pay your tithing or you're going to hell!

:D :D :D

[Archbio]

Amateurs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences#Abuses)

[Arcanum]

Founded by 19-year-old philosophy student, Isaac Gerson, this brand new church believes that copying and the sharing of information is the most beautiful thing in the world. To have your information copied is a token of appreciation, say the church, a sure sign that people think you have done something good.

The church has its own set of axioms [...]
# Reproduction of information is ethically right.

Bold emphasis is mine. Now I've heard of some pretty stupid excuses for why somebody committed plagiarism, but making your own religion so you can deem copying work is part of your faith? That takes the cake right there.

I mean, this is even dumber than when I made up my own religion based around worshiping sentient stars. (It was an April Fool's joke a few years back. A friend and I started preaching it to everyone we saw.)

[Amake]

Best thing? EVEN if this religion was real, if i create a file and i don't belong to this religion, you do, and you copy my file... you are forcing your religion on me! So it's a little evangelical. Jehova's Witnesses shove their magazine in the face of complete strangers, that's way more obtrusive. Heck, even the ads for Scientology all over the web is more annoying to me. Part of Kopimism is to spread the way and the word of Kopimism, true, but it's done quietly, with simple and small actions, not trying to tell anyone anything or trying to make anyone do anything. The key principle, as we can see in the act of file copying itself, is to not affect things at all: To do no change, to cause no harm, to let things be.

</devilsadvocate>

[bluestarultor]

So it's a little evangelical. Jehova's Witnesses shove their magazine in the face of complete strangers, that's way more obtrusive. Heck, even the ads for Scientology all over the web is more annoying to me. Part of Kopimism is to spread the way and the word of Kopimism, true, but it's done quietly, with simple and small actions, not trying to tell anyone anything or trying to make anyone do anything. The key principle, as we can see in the act of file copying itself, is to not affect things at all: To do no change, to cause no harm, to let things be.

</devilsadvocate>

Or, to justify breaking the law, take data you have no right to, and possibly allow yourself to plagiarize your next paper.

Can I call myself God's advocate now?

[Kim]

I find it somewhat ludicrous that in a forum where religious discussions of a certain variety are a no-no, we're having an argument about why one religion is stupid and fakey-fake and not a real religion. Especially as these arguments generally come from religious people. Were I to make a thread about why I think Catholicism is stupid and fakey-fake, I would rightfully get in trouble, cuz thems the rules, but you guys are validating the (from my perspective) made up bullshit that one group says over the made up bullshit another group says just because the first group was saying made up bullshit a long time ago. Any time is a long time ago given time. There was in-fact a time when Catholicism was a new brand of fakey-fake made up bullshit.

It's just pretty ridic.

[bluestarultor]

I find it somewhat ludicrous that in a forum where religious discussions of a certain variety are a no-no, we're having an argument about why one religion is stupid and fakey-fake and not a real religion. Especially as these arguments generally come from religious people. Were I to make a thread about why I think Catholicism is stupid and fakey-fake, I would rightfully get in trouble, cuz thems the rules, but you guys are validating the (from my perspective) made up bullshit that one group says over the made up bullshit another group says just because the first group was saying made up bullshit a long time ago. Any time is a long time ago given time. There was in-fact a time when Catholicism was a new brand of fakey-fake made up bullshit.

It's just pretty ridic.

Well, this guy can come back when he's got some miracles to his name. Like, really, being brutally honest, I'm not all for Jediism, either, or whatever the people who think Meyer is a literal goddess are called (other than batshit insane). I mean, basing a religion on explicit works of fiction pretty much just strikes me as being the highest kind of retarded. One thing I'll begrudgingly admit about Scientology is at least Hubbard's terrible fiction was dressed up as alleged fact.

In the different vein, this is less a religious movement and more of a protest in the actions they're committing. They're glorifying an act in hopes of sidestepping the law, rather than worshiping any sort of entity. This is an entirely selfish thing with no basis in faith and every basis in trying to validate something they're already doing. That's why it's bullshit. They're looking to establish legal protections against performing illegal acts.



EDIT: Furthermore, their stance on proprietary code makes me sick. It's people like these who make me question just how charitable I really should feel on the whole piracy/DRM/C&D/etc. blanket issue. Frankly, I can feel myself regressing as I read about them.

[Kim]

Well, this guy can come back when he's got some miracles to his name. Like, really, being brutally honest, I'm not all for Jediism, either, or whatever the people who think Meyer is a literal goddess are called (other than batshit insane). I mean, basing a religion on explicit works of fiction pretty much just strikes me as being the highest kind of retarded. One thing I'll begrudgingly admit about Scientology is at least Hubbard's terrible fiction was dressed up as alleged fact.

So, what you're saying is they're not making up enough outright bullshit to be a real religion? If they talk about how Jesus torrent enough fish to feed a host of people would they be more legit?

[bluestarultor]

So, what you're saying is they're not making up enough outright bullshit to be a real religion? If they talk about how Jesus torrent enough fish to feed a host of people would they be more legit?

No, and the relevant part of my post is somehow missing from your response.

[Kim]

No, and the relevant part of my post is somehow missing from your response.

"Well, they don't have any miracles..." wasn't relevant?

[Kim]

In the different vein, this is less a religious movement and more of a protest in the actions they're committing. They're glorifying an act in hopes of sidestepping the law, rather than worshiping any sort of entity. This is an entirely selfish thing with no basis in faith and every basis in trying to validate something they're already doing. That's why it's bullshit. They're looking to establish legal protections against performing illegal acts. They're labeling something as inherently, morally good. That's a pretty religious concept. Certainly some, or even most, may be doing it simply as protest, or as a way of justifying their actions, but there are also bound to be some who actually believe the moral teachings of it, even if not the exaggerated faux-spiritualism. They may be looking to defend illegal acts, but their moral code may in fact be that these acts are good and should not be illegal, and in that case I'd say they certainly qualify as as valid a religion as any other.

EDIT: Furthermore, their stance on proprietary code makes me sick. It's people like these who make me question just how charitable I really should feel on the whole piracy/DRM/C&D/etc. blanket issue. Frankly, I can feel myself regressing as I read about themThis has nothing to do with their validity as a religion.

[bluestarultor]

"Well, they don't have any miracles..." wasn't relevant?

That was just arguing over the "fakey-fake" issue, but I'll leave that alone.

No, the relevant part was
In the different vein, this is less a religious movement and more of a protest in the actions they're committing. They're glorifying an act in hopes of sidestepping the law, rather than worshiping any sort of entity. This is an entirely selfish thing with no basis in faith and every basis in trying to validate something they're already doing. That's why it's bullshit. They're looking to establish legal protections against performing illegal acts.



Or, to put it less charitably, replace copying things with, say, torturing animals. Torturing animals becomes a "beautiful thing" and you should do it all the time, blah, blah, blah, just so the law isn't supposed to be able to touch you for it. That doesn't make it any less wrong. Anyone can make up a belief system over anything. Look at NAMBLA or whatever the acronym is for the gay pedophiles. They have their beliefs, but it sure as shit doesn't make them right.


EDIT:
They're labeling something as inherently, morally good. That's a pretty religious concept. Certainly some, or even most, may be doing it simply as protest, or as a way of justifying their actions, but there are also bound to be some who actually believe the moral teachings of it, even if not the exaggerated faux-spiritualism. They may be looking to defend illegal acts, but their moral code may in fact be that these acts are good and should not be illegal, and in that case I'd say they certainly qualify as as valid a religion as any other.
They're labeling something objectively harmful as morally good and right and while the industry makes a bigger deal of it than is probably warranted, when you get down to the nuts and bolts there's good reason to consider it morally wrong. Their views on source code are objectively harmful. There's nothing arguable about this. You can maybe convince yourself that copying things is morally neutral, but to say that copying things is the opposite end of the moral spectrum than is objectively observable until you get your fancy post-monetary Star Trek society is just plain self-servicing no matter how you look at it. Add in IQ's point of subjecting others forcibly to your beliefs and you get something in the same class, although a lower level, as anti-abortion legislation and other things.

[Kim]

Or, to put it less charitably, replace copying things with, say, torturing animals. Torturing animals becomes a "beautiful thing" and you should do it all the time, blah, blah, blah, just so the law isn't supposed to be able to touch you for it. That doesn't make it any less wrong. Anyone can make up a belief system over anything. Look at NAMBLA or whatever the acronym is for the gay pedophiles. They have their beliefs, but it sure as shit doesn't make them right.

The post I originally made that you responded to had nothing to do with whether they were right or wrong. It was entirely about everyone going "Jeez this religion is stupid and fake etc etc," and acting as though other religions were more valid, and in reality they aren't. A religion can be completely fucked up and still a religion. In fact, most are. See most Christian churches and their treatment of gays, for an obvious example. Religion can be fucked up and wrong, and shouldn't be protected just because it's religion, and one religion isn't inherently more "legit" or "valid" just cuz it's old, or has miracles, or what-have-you.

Also: See my double-post.

[akaSM]

Yeah, this religion looks like it's more a protest movement than a religion. OTOH, what are they missing to be on par with other religions? :/

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Buildings with fancy windows. Government lobby groups.

[Kim]

OTOH, what are they missing to be on par with other religions? :/

This is my main point. You can't really invalidate them as a religion. Even if you think it's bullshit, I think most religions are bullshit. Doesn't mean they aren't religions. I dislike the idea that we protect Catholicism and whatnot on these forums from being called fakey-fake bullshit, but with something like this it gets "Well, it's obviously fakey-fake bullshit, so that's different." If you're going to restrict our ability to call Catholicism fakey-fake bullshit, you really ought to do the same for this.

[Archbio]

NonCon,

I agree about "what Blue realizes is fake" being a terrible metric for determining what is or isn't a religion.

However, being created around an illegal act (for the purpose of creating a loophole for it) should probably be a good metric for not recognizing a religion legally.

On a general note, I think plagiarism and information piracy are two distinct types of act.

[Kim]

NonCon,

I agree about "what Blue realizes is fake" being a terrible metric for determining what is or isn't a religion.

However, being created around an illegal act should probably be a good metric for not recognizing a religion legally.

I'd argue that no religion should be recognized legally.

[Archbio]

I find that to be a supremely sensible position*: as well as being a relevant lesson we can learn from this.

*Which has nothing to do with me believing the same thing! Of course.

[Arcanum]

The common "popular" religions like Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc are based on the worship of deities and the virtues they represent. These religions have deep historical roots. They also help alleviate people's fear of insignificance and death. Religions give people meaning, they give people hope, they give them something to believe in.

This Kopimism does none of these things. They are trying to use their "religion" as a shield so that they can copy and steal whatever they want. They are built on selfish gain. As much as they want to be, as much as they pretend to be, they are not a religion. At best, they are a cult.

[Kim]

The common "popular" religions like Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc are based on the worship of deities and the virtues they represent. These religions have deep historical roots. They also help alleviate people's fear of insignificance and death. Religions give people meaning, they give people hope, they give them something to believe in.

This Kopimism does none of these things. They are trying to use their "religion" as a shield so that they can copy and steal whatever they want. They are built on selfish gain. As much as they want to be, as much as they pretend to be, they are not a religion. At best, they are a cult.

Alternate version: Religion is supposed to make you believe in imaginary people and lie to you to make you feel better.

The historical bit is nonsense for reasons I already said.

Kopimism is built on a central moral belief, and that you do not share that belief does not invalidate that fact. I don't even share that belief, but that doesn't make it not a religion just cuz you don't like it. I'm not gonna sit here and argue with a straight face that Catholicism isn't a religion just because people use it as a shield to justify their homophobia and to change the laws to prevent gay rights. It's still a religion, even if it's used for things I don't like. It goes both ways.

[Archbio]

Arcanum,

I think there's a bit of a contradiction in blasting Kopimism as being a hollow religion, and also calling it a cult.

Cults tend to be pretty intense about the whole religion thing.

Presenting this as a wholesale issue of False Religion as opposed to True Religion is a bad idea.

[Arcanum]

Don't get me wrong, I feel the same way towards people using "accepted" religions as a shield for ridiculous beliefs (such as the homophobia example you gave) as I do towards Kopimism. People using religion as a shield are despicable, regardless of what religion they are using. However, Kopimism appears to be built from the ground up as a shield to protect them from the penalties of infringing copyright, trademark, and patent law.

Regardless, in the end they are still not a religion.

In late 2010 the church applied to the authorities to be accepted as an official religion. That application was denied at the end of March on the basis that although the church is indeed a community, its meetings did not constitute ‘worship’

They are just a group of people who believe copying and plagiarism is morally right with religious zeal. That makes them a cult.

[Kim]

That makes them a cult.

You... really don't grasp the concept of a cult very well, do you?

Also, not legally recognized as a religion doesn't really mean it's not a religion. Just wasn't acknowledged as one by the government. Making religion an exclusive club the way you guys are is pretty bad, because most all religions are fucked up in some way, and so your claims about why Kopimism doesn't count can be turned against them.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Also, not legally recognized as a religion doesn't really mean it's not a religion. Just wasn't acknowledged as one by the government.

I don't know, a few hundred guys elected mostly on their political skills and economic platforms with no particularal religious authority sounds like a pretty good supreme arbiterer of religion for me.
This is why I disavow Christianity as a religion, when have the Romans led me astray.

Though I'm a little concerned that the US are allowed to decide religious status. I'm throwing my lot in with the Chinese so I'm sorry Jews, you're not a religion anymore.

[Kim]

Christian religions are officially un-legit. They're all to recent for me. Not enough historical basis. You gotta be at least three thousand years old to roll with me.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I only accept religions founded in 1864. Any newer and they way too modern. Can't be any older because historical people are stupid and believe in like gods in rocks and thing.

[Archbio]

like gods in rocks and thing.

Rock God? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAJPGc7sM9s)

[Arcanum]

The line between cult and religion is so fine it's almost non-existent. But yeah, you guys are right, I shouldn't be calling them a cult. Looking back on this, arguing what does and does not make a religion is pointless and can easily go on forever.

Still, (like I said earlier) it looks to me like the whole thing is a scam to avoid the penalties of infringing copyright, trademark, and patent law. That's just my personal view on it. Sure this 19 year old philosophy student might have absolute faith that people should be allowed to copy whatever they want because it's morally right. That doesn't change that he's trying to evade the consequences of breaking the law.

[Kim]

That doesn't change that he's trying to evade the consequences of breaking the law.

That he's trying to avoid getting in trouble with the law doesn't make it not-a-religion either.

[Arcanum]

I'm done arguing that it is or is not a religion. I was done when I wrote the line you quoted too.

[Amake]

Add in IQ's point of subjecting others forcibly to your beliefs and you get something in the same class, although a lower level, as anti-abortion legislation and other things. I was arguing that copying someone's files is a pretty trivial way to force your beliefs on them. It could maybe be an issue if their beliefs specifically included a dogmatic opposition to copying files. . .

Let's say my beliefs encouraged me to, at one point in my life, stand within 20 feet of you and wear a red hat. Would that make you feel my beliefs were forced on you, or oppressing or invading you in some way?

[TDK]

I was arguing that copying someone's files is a pretty trivial way to force your beliefs on them. It could maybe be an issue if their beliefs specifically included a dogmatic opposition to copying files. . .

All in favor of founding Anti-Kopimism and bringing a holy war to the nonbelievers?

[Amake]

I don't know, would I still be allowed to copy my Diablo 2 save files to make a mockery of Hardcore mode?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't care what religion you are, but that is out and out blasphemy right there.

[Mr.Bookworm]

The common "popular" religions like Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc are based on the worship of deities and the virtues they represent.

You don't actually know anything about Buddhism, do you?

That doesn't change that he's trying to evade the consequences of breaking the law.

Alright. I'm a member of the Society of Friends. If the draft gets reinstated, God forbid, I can register as a conscientious objector on religious grounds. Does that mean my religion is "trying to evade the consequences of breaking the law"? In Germany, it's illegal to display a swastika. But Buddhist and Hindi temples can display them, because they're religious icons to them.

Yes, in this case, it's fairly clear cut what he's trying to do, but almost all religions have exemptions built into the law for them.

[Osterbaum]

Forgett religion, I'm way more interested in the arguments about how file copying is inherently wrong.

[Jagos]

EDIT:

They're labeling something objectively harmful as morally good and right and while the industry makes a bigger deal of it than is probably warranted, when you get down to the nuts and bolts there's good reason to consider it morally wrong. Their views on source code are objectively harmful. There's nothing arguable about this. You can maybe convince yourself that copying things is morally neutral, but to say that copying things is the opposite end of the moral spectrum than is objectively observable until you get your fancy post-monetary Star Trek society is just plain self-servicing no matter how you look at it. Add in IQ's point of subjecting others forcibly to your beliefs and you get something in the same class, although a lower level, as anti-abortion legislation and other things.

Blues... That's good, and I'ma let you finish...

But moral rights in a copyright debate really has no place being in there (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/02392213721/if-youre-arguing-that-someone-deserves-copyright-your-argument-is-wrong.shtml).

And I have the greatest interruption of all time!

[Amake]

I always thought there was something strange about the concept of "deserving" things. And now I know what! Boy, I'm learning a lot today.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You don't actually know anything about Buddhism, do you?



Alright. I'm a member of the Society of Friends. If the draft gets reinstated, God forbid, I can register as a conscientious objector on religious grounds. Does that mean my religion is "trying to evade the consequences of breaking the law"? In Germany, it's illegal to display a swastika. But Buddhist and Hindi temples can display them, because they're religious icons to them.

Yes, in this case, it's fairly clear cut what he's trying to do, but almost all religions have exemptions built into the law for them.

Or you know, massive tax exemptions.

[Osterbaum]

Also the right to taxation.

e: Atleast where I'm from.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm not sure whether you want to hear why the "right to taxation" is good/bad, why it is/is not a "right". Also not really a right as much as a responsibility? That statement just bamboozled me.

[bluestarultor]

Alright. I'm a member of the Society of Friends. If the draft gets reinstated, God forbid, I can register as a conscientious objector on religious grounds. Does that mean my religion is "trying to evade the consequences of breaking the law"?

The thing is that's built into the law specifically because pacifism is considered a positive thing. In that case, it's allowing the preservation of life.

In Germany, it's illegal to display a swastika. But Buddhist and Hindi temples can display them, because they're religious icons to them.

The Manji (as the Japanese call it) is a very common shape worldwide, actually. Native Americans also have it in their designs. The Nazis themselves got it from I think the Romans. I think it makes sense not to remove religious iconography in that it's generally not hurting anyone. I'd say the same thing about a pentagram or Star of David or anything else.


Blues... That's good, and I'ma let you finish...

But moral rights in a copyright debate really has no place being in there (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/02392213721/if-youre-arguing-that-someone-deserves-copyright-your-argument-is-wrong.shtml).

And I have the greatest interruption of all time!

Chalk it up to it having been late. I should have known better.

On the other hand, this hits pretty square for me because this stuff is pretty much in direct opposition to my job. I could write them off more easily if it was just copying files and stuff, but the fact they go so far as to say source code is fair game is more extreme than I can comfortably ignore. Source code is an incredibly valuable resource. They may as well say the programming industry shouldn't exist.

Like I said, this would all be more arguable if there wasn't money involved. Unfortunately for them, their stance is pretty much "fuck the industries providing the world with data, I WANT FREE STUFF!"

[stefan]

just an FYI, plagiarism does not mean "copying information" and cult doesn't mean "evil religion." Misusing those words is bad and you should feel bad.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Like I said, this would all be more arguable if there wasn't money involved. Unfortunately for them, their stance is pretty much "fuck the industries providing the world with data, I WANT FREE STUFF!"

Actually their stance is "Copyright hampers productivity and hinders development of society, especially as it is more profitable to not produce than it is to produce". Nice strawman though.

I wish I had copyrights on my research, I would charge everything living creature for unauthorised use of evolutionary reacitons. And everytime someoe wanted to reference my work they would have to pay me a thousand dollars. We would probably enter a dark age pretty quickly but I'd have massive stacks of capital by then so it'd be alright.

[bluestarultor]

Actually their stance is "Copyright hampers productivity and hinders development of society, especially as it is more profitable to not produce than it is to produce". Nice strawman though.

That would be all well and good if they weren't also intent on removing the nuts and bolts from a large industry. Open source projects are a good thing, yes, but in other cases for-profit companies are also a good thing in that they're able to more easily create a cohesive vision for a project and implement it. For example, the AAA games industry will probably never be replaced by open-source developers, nor will developers of specific business applications.

I'm not saying copyright law isn't fucked up, because we all know it is, but these guys are incredibly extreme in what they're asking for.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

So given the option of
A) Continue to work under suboptimal conditions conducive to gigantic waste of resources and lack of innovation but keep a few rich men/companies who have maintained power not by talent but by a ridiculous legal system/haivng lots of lawyers
or
B) Rework the system so that it rewards developers instead of punishing them with admittedly job losses initially but over time a better industry

You would choose A?

[stefan]

You know the funny thing about copyright law is, I agree it needs to be changed significantly so that people like textbook companies and parmaceutical companies and the like can't just fuck over everyone they want. However, so many of the people arguing for the removal of copyright law are, put bluntly, gigantic self-entitled douchebags who could care less about textbook scams and only want to get rid of copyright so they can pirate vidyagaems for free and not get penalized, and seem hell-bent on arguing that creative people do not deserve any sort of compensation for time and resources spent (cf. that one guy linked who was basically arguing how dare you feel like you deserve to be paid for taking time out of your life to create something)

so, I kind of get left in the position where I don't at all agree with copyright law as it is now, but reading arguments against it make me want to support it more because the people on "my side" seem so utterly deserving of a punch in the dick.

[bluestarultor]

So given the option of
A) Continue to work under suboptimal conditions conducive to gigantic waste of resources and lack of innovation but keep a few rich men/companies who have maintained power not by talent but by a ridiculous legal system/haivng lots of lawyers
or
B) Rework the system so that it rewards developers instead of punishing them with admittedly job losses initially but over time a better industry

You would choose A?

That's a false dichotomy and you know it.

I pick option 243, where copyright law gets reformed, open source gets to stay as it is, and companies get to keep making money and supporting millions of workers.

Say what you will, but data sharing is depriving industries of money that they should be earning as compensation for work performed.


Edit:
You know the funny thing about copyright law is, I agree it needs to be changed significantly so that people like textbook companies and parmaceutical companies and the like can't just fuck over everyone they want. However, so many of the people arguing for the removal of copyright law are, put bluntly, gigantic self-entitled douchebags who could care less about textbook scams and only want to get rid of copyright so they can pirate vidyagaems for free and not get penalized, and seem hell-bent on arguing that creative people do not deserve any sort of compensation for time and resources spent (cf. that one guy linked who was basically arguing how dare you feel like you deserve to be paid for taking time out of your life to create something)

so, I kind of get left in the position where I don't at all agree with copyright law as it is now, but reading arguments against it make me want to support it more because the people on "my side" seem so utterly deserving of a punch in the dick.

Pretty much where I stand right here.

[Kim]

Blues: "I disagree with their beliefs, therefore they aren't a religion."

Sweet!

Now I getta go give every religion ever the finger!

[Osterbaum]

I'm not sure whether you want to hear why the "right to taxation" is good/bad, why it is/is not a "right". Also not really a right as much as a responsibility? That statement just bamboozled me.
Well since the church gets to tax people and gets to keep that money, something no other organizations besides the goverment get to do, I'd call it quite a right.


However, so many of the people arguing for the removal of copyright law are, put bluntly, gigantic self-entitled douchebags who could care less about textbook scams and only want to get rid of copyright so they can pirate vidyagaems for free and not get penalized[...]
Ok, considering that's a pretty big strawman I have to wonder where you got this idea.

e: Not saying these people don't exist at all.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That's a false dichotomy and you know it.

I pick option 243, where copyright law gets reformed, open source gets to stay as it is, and companies get to keep making money and supporting millions of workers.

Say what you will, but data sharing is depriving industries of money that they should be earning as compensation for work performed.


Edit:


Pretty much where I stand right here.


But you are completely, consistently ignoring the faact that copyright promotes waste of resources, stifiles innovation and results in decreased productivity. Your claim that companies should be rewarded for their work is mitigated by the fact that their work is predicated on not being efficient, on being wasteful with resources and I don't why that should be rewarded- surely it should be at least punished.
Your talk about "jobs" is nonsense because we can create more laws once we get rid of the rackets.
What you are promoting is rampant monopolism and inefficient ones with that.

Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't be rewarded for their endeavours, those are ridiculous strawmen and you need to stop using them. Opponents to copyright law believe it harms artists and creators in favours of a few small companies and lawyers. reform of copyright laws will help artists, not harm them and statements contrary to this are misfounded.
Like there may be some people out there who genuinely want copyright laws gone just so they can pirate legally but to focus on those arguments when they are plenty of legitimate arguments for the removal of copyright laws is ridiculous. It's like if I was to argue against religious belief solely by taking the most fundamental terrorists I can find and treating them as representative.

There are no benefits to copyright laws as they are at the moment if you are an artist or a creator, there are only benefits if you are a lawyer or a stockholder in various companies.


Well since the church gets to tax people and gets to keep that money, something no other organizations besides the goverment get to do, I'd call it quite a right.

Oh that one is easy- they spend it on preventing/speeding up the apocalypse.

[Gregness]

But you are completely, consistently ignoring the faact that copyright promotes waste of resources, stifiles innovation and results in decreased productivity. Your claim that companies should be rewarded for their work is mitigated by the fact that their work is predicated on not being efficient, on being wasteful with resources and I don't why that should be rewarded- surely it should be at least punished.
Your talk about "jobs" is nonsense because we can create more laws once we get rid of the rackets.
What you are promoting is rampant monopolism and inefficient ones with that.

Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't be rewarded for their endeavours, those are ridiculous strawmen and you need to stop using them. Opponents to copyright law believe it harms artists and creators in favours of a few small companies and lawyers. reform of copyright laws will help artists, not harm them and statements contrary to this are misfounded.
Like there may be some people out there who genuinely want copyright laws gone just so they can pirate legally but to focus on those arguments when they are plenty of legitimate arguments for the removal of copyright laws is ridiculous. It's like if I was to argue against religious belief solely by taking the most fundamental terrorists I can find and treating them as representative.

There are no benefits to copyright laws as they are at the moment if you are an artist or a creator, there are only benefits if you are a lawyer or a stockholder in various companies.




Oh that one is easy- they spend it on preventing/speeding up the apocalypse.


Okay, humor me on this: How is it that copyright law stifles innovation? The idea is that more people will be incentivised to develop new technologies/properties if they're ensured that they will be compensated for it. I get that a lot of times artists get wrangled into exploitative contracts with distributers, but I'm not seeing how that's a problem with the copyright law itself.

[Fifthfiend]

Blues: "I disagree with their beliefs, therefore they aren't a religion."

As far as I can tell, this is indeed an accurate characterization of Blues's, as well as Arcanum's, views.

ALSO

A particular point that seems to come up is that something is not a "religion" unless it involves the recognition of a particular diety. Uh, I am pretty sure Buddhism, which is considered to be among the world's major religion, recognizes no dieties, and reveres Buddha as a teacher, for the particular wisdom of his philosophy, without making any claim as to his unique divinity (in fact I am pretty sure it is the central tenet of Buddhism that all people are striving toward, and can, with sufficient effort, attain his level of enlightened wisdom).

Okay, humor me on this: How is it that copyright law stifles innovation?

Innovation tends to be built on previous innovation. When immortal business entities are granted an effectively infinite monopoly over particular innovations, this takes away the ability of subsequent innovators to use these former innovations to innovate new innovations.

[rpgdemon]

Smarty: It's cheaper to not produce than to produce. Sure. But once no one's producing because they all want to not produce because it's cheaper, and there's no copyright anymore so why even bother not stealing the other guy's work, hey, no one is producing and things are even worse off.

It's like you were arguing FOR copyright. And don't say, "Well, ideal world...", because we all know that an ideal world WON'T happen. As long as it's possible to do things more cheaply or do less work, people will choose the less work and cheaper option.

I'm not saying that the copyright laws are great, but no copyright would be even worse.

[Fifthfiend]

They're labeling something objectively harmful as morally good and right

I would especially like to know where this, if it were held to invalidate claims to religious status, would not invalidate the religious status of every religion that exists anywhere on Earth.

SUP, religions which have historically labelled slavery, homophobia, racism, child abuse, child molestation, and war as good and right, how you all doin' on this here lovely evenin'.

edit: forgot misogyny.

[Kim]

I would especially like to know where this, if it were held to invalidate claims to religious status, would not invalidate the religious status of every religion that exists anywhere on Earth.

SUP, religions which have historically labelled slavery, homophobia, racism, child abuse, child molestation, and war as good and right, how you all doin' on this here lovely evenin'.

I've been trying to focus on how this would apply to the Catholic church, since IIRC Blues is Catholic, but you put it better than I did.

So, yeah, Blues, how about them crusades?

[Fenris]

How 'bout them dogpiles?

[Kim]

How 'bout them dogpiles?

How about you not jump in to protect conventional religions in a thread that exists for no other reason than to talk shit on a specific religion?

Especially since I don't even know what rule we're supposedly violating here.

I mean, what, are we in trouble for too many people taking one side of the argument?

If more people join in on Blue's side, can we continue on as we were?

[Fifthfiend]

How 'bout them dogpiles?

As far as I can tell there are several active parties involved on either side of this discussion.

[Fenris]

How about you not jump in to protect conventional religions in a thread that exists for no other reason than to talk shit on a specific religion?

Especially since I don't even know what rule we're supposedly violating here.

Please cite your sources for your claims that I am jumping in to protect conventional religion.

I submit that you will not find any.

What I am doing is telling you and fifth to tone down the vitriol because maybe I don't want a needlessly hostile environment in my forums.

Don't tell me how to moderate when you clearly have no clue how I'm moderating.

[Kim]

Don't tell me how to moderate when you clearly have no clue how I'm moderating.

Yeah, you were pretty unclear about that.

Also, not really thinking there's tons of vitriol. I'd argue there's been much, much more vitriol on Blues side of the argument than me and Fifth. We've actually brought up pretty valid points.

As for why I think you're jumping in to defend conventional religions? Calling me and Fifth out on being too mean in a thread where people be mean to another religion, and where Fifth and I haven't been especially mean when compared with the tone the other side of the argument has taken.

[Fenris]

I too, enjoy confirmational bias.

[Kim]

I too, enjoy confirmational bias.

What?

[Fifthfiend]

I too, enjoy confirmational bias.

Not sure if this is massive lack of self awareness or just outright trolling.

Either way your willingness to continue to single out the members of this forum you have previously accused of being sycophants and cliques, among other things, is pretty poor and irresponsible.

Your claim of wanting to reduce hostility on this forum, as defense of your making cryptic, hostile, unsupported statements, is also pretty ridiculous.

[Fenris]

Yeah, you were pretty unclear about that.

Also, not really thinking there's tons of vitriol. I'd argue there's been much, much more vitriol on Blues side of the argument than me and Fifth. We've actually brought up pretty valid points.

Calling me and Fifth out on being too mean in a thread where people be mean to another religion,and where Fifth and I haven't been especially mean when compared with the tone the other side of the argument has taken.

Almost every sentence in that post is claiming your opinions to be indisputable fact, and the ones in bold are particularly so.

[Fenris]

Not sure if this is massive lack of self awareness or just outright trolling.

Either way your willingness to continue to single out the members of this forum you have previously accused of being sycophants and cliques, among other things, is pretty poor and irresponsible.

Your claim of wanting to reduce hostility on this forum, as defense of your making cryptic, hostile, unsupported statements, is also pretty ridiculous.

Sorry to moderate by singling out people I think are doing things they shouldn't be!

How silly of me to not use broad, sweeping, overarching messages in order to fix the few problems in an otherwise working system!

Alternatively: You're not used to being told when you're doing anything wrong, are you?

[Kim]

In turn I throw the confirmation bias claim your way.

You claim my points are opinions.

I claim your points are opinions.

This is certainly going fantastic places, rather than you taking the time to make a legit argument for why you think we're behaving particularly rudely given the subject matter of the thread.

[Fifthfiend]

Sorry to moderate by singling out people I think are doing things they shouldn't be!

How silly of me to not use broad, sweeping, overarching messages in order to fix the few problems in an otherwise working system!

Again, this is really pretty poor, and IIRC you've said at least a couple of times now you were going to stop this sort of thing.

You've accused me of "hostility", on what basis I'm not sure, and of dogpiling, which I really don't think is even possible when my participation in this thread, prior to your intervention, amounted to two entire posts.

[Osterbaum]

Reading the three of you argue is not only boring but also derailing the thread if you ask me. I have nothing against any of you, but I'm just going to ask as a fellow forumite that you take it somewhere else.

e: I also don't care who is in the right here. That is irrelevant to my point.

[bluestarultor]

I've been trying to focus on how this would apply to the Catholic church, since IIRC Blues is Catholic, but you put it better than I did.

So, yeah, Blues, how about them crusades?

You remembered right.

The Crusades? Let's check what Jesus had to say on the matter once. Nothing on war? Okay, then.

The Crusades were pretty much entirely political and a case of

http://www.recoverygraphics.com/albums/Spiritual_2/Stop_Using_Me_To_Justify_Yourself_God.jpg


Or, in my own words, religion is in general a beautiful, pure thing; it's the people who are corrupt and muck it up.


For the topic at hand, making a personal judgment, the 'religion' in question is founded on corrupt ideals. I'll plop myself right here and say I fully recognize it as a system of belief, but I do not recognize it as a religion.


Oh, and on Buddhism, it's less a religion and more a philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism). Just throwing that out there on the worship topic.

[Fenris]

In turn I throw the confirmation bias claim your way.

I did say I enjoy it.

But I mean in particular I just think you two aren't very cognisant of your internet-tones. They come off a lot more harshly than I think you two mean to.

And I'm inclined to agree with Oster on this one.

e: Fifth, you remember incorrectly. I believe I p. much stated that I was going to continue to call people out on an individual basis when they near or cross the line.

[Kim]

Kay, but even were that the case, it really isn't dogpiling, since that's another thing entirely, so accusing me of dogpiling, and then acting like I'm at fault for not knowing what the hell you mean by that is a pretty poor way to handle things.

[Fenris]

Just because my interpretation of "dogpiling" doesn't line up with your interpretation of "dogpiling," that doesn't make me wrong. That means you need to change your interpretation (in regards to this instance) or at least make an effort to understand where I'm coming from.

BUT ANYWAY, get back to the original topic, in a polite manner, if you would.

Off topic posts will be deleted. We're not going to go in circles. If you wish to continue to go in circles, PM/IM me.

[Kim]

You remembered right.

The Crusades? Let's check what Jesus had to say on the matter once. Nothing on war? Okay, then.

The Crusades were pretty much entirely political and a case of

http://www.recoverygraphics.com/albums/Spiritual_2/Stop_Using_Me_To_Justify_Yourself_God.jpg


Or, in my own words, religion is in general a beautiful, pure thing; it's the people who are corrupt and muck it up.

One thing I really can't stand is how whenever a religion does a bad thing, it's the people who are to blame, but whenever it does a good thing, it's because religions are inherently positive movements at heart. That's just... I really can't think of a way to put it, but it's always irritated the hell out of me.


For the topic at hand, making a personal judgment, the 'religion' in question is founded on corrupt ideals. I'll plop myself right here and say I fully recognize it as a system of belief, but I do not recognize it as a religion.

Blues, you are not the supreme arbitor of what is or isn't religion. Coming up with narrow definitions of what is or isn't religion is outside the scope of your education, and when you do it you are definitely doing it as a way to exclude things you don't want to consider religions, rather than defining religion and then holding to that definition when evaluating others. There are plenty of religions I'd argue are corrupt or founded on corrupt ideas. Doesn't mean I don't acknowledge them as religions.

Oh, and on Buddhism, it's less a religion and more a philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism). Just throwing that out there on the worship topic.

I'm not educated enough on Buddhism to really say one way or the other, but I'm sure there are plenty of Buddhists who would disagree with you, and I really wouldn't tell them, "No, you aren't a religion" if they claimed such.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Oh, and on Buddhism, it's less a religion and more a philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism). Just throwing that out there on the worship topic.

what exactly are you basing this on? Wikipedia page you link refers to it as both a philosophy and a religion- it is referred to as religion in many places, so I want more evidence on this- or at least the specific bit of the article that I missed maybe?

Other than that mostly Noncon said. If you want to disparage this as a religion I want a clear definition of what defines a religion.

E: There was some copyright stuff but getting off topic so start a new thread if you reall care. Or read one of the million threads we hav ebeen over it.

[bluestarultor]

One thing I really can't stand is how whenever a religion does a bad thing, it's the people who are to blame, but whenever it does a good thing, it's because religions are inherently positive movements at heart. That's just... I really can't think of a way to put it, but it's always irritated the hell out of me.

Religion is not what performs the actions, good or bad. Religion, at its base, advocates good actions, but is not directly responsible for them. People perform all the actions in the world. If they do good things their religion tells them to, then religion can be seen as at least a reason for it. If people do bad things religion tells them NOT to, then religion has no real bearing on the action, whatever they claim be damned.


Blues, you are not the supreme arbitor of what is or isn't religion. Coming up with narrow definitions of what is or isn't religion is outside the scope of your education, and when you do it you are definitely doing it as a way to exclude things you don't want to consider religions, rather than defining religion and then holding to that definition when evaluating others. There are plenty of religions I'd argue are corrupt or founded on corrupt ideas. Doesn't mean I don't acknowledge them as religions.

Was I claiming to be a theologist? I said as a personal judgment I did not consider them a religion and laid out my reasons throughout the thread. Obviously I can't arbitrarily declare anything for the world, but I can state my own beliefs. The fact that they were denied religious status by an impartial third party indicates that someone agrees with my opinion, if not necessarily my reasons.


I'm not educated enough on Buddhism to really say one way or the other, but I'm sure there are plenty of Buddhists who would disagree with you, and I really wouldn't tell them, "No, you aren't a religion" if they claimed such.

Sample size of one, my dad's new wife was very specific that it wasn't a religion and she's from Vietnam. I'd imagine others believe the same way she does, especially given the classification endowed to it in the first line of the linked article. But then in America, we're very loose on our treatment of it because I'm sure it shares legal status with religions and quite frankly rather ignorant about any religion that's not ours for the most part.

[Kim]

Religion, at its base, advocates good actions

How? How does it do this, Blues? How does it advocate anything? Through what mystical methods does it advocate anything, but through the people who comprise it?


Was I claiming to be a theologist? I said as a personal judgment I did not consider them a religion and laid out my reasons throughout the thread. Obviously I can't arbitrarily declare anything for the world, but I can state my own beliefs. The fact that they were denied religious status by an impartial third party indicates that someone agrees with my opinion, if not necessarily my reasons.

Politicians are not impartial.

Also, I am not a philosopher. I would not start telling people that something isn't a "real philosophy," because I am not educated on the subject. You are not a theologian. You should not be making arguments for why something isn't a religion. Especially as your points haven't been particularly strong.

Also, you never really added the "personal judgment" disclaimer. You just said it wasn't one.

Sample size of one, my dad's new wife was very specific that it wasn't a religion and she's from Vietnam. I'd imagine others believe the same way she does, especially given the classification endowed to it in the first line of the linked article. But then in America, we're very loose on our treatment of it because I'm sure it shares legal status with religions and quite frankly rather ignorant about any religion that's not ours for the most part.

I don't see how an anecdote is at all relevant.


ALSO: Because I said it in a convo with Fenris and he thinks I made my point better I'll post it here.

Nonsy Callahan: My personal view on most religions is that they're thinly veiled attempts to manipulate the masses through unprovable shit that people made up specifically for that purpose.
Nonsy Callahan: And that while there are certainly plenty in this religion that are using it as a shield, conventional religions get used as shields all the time, and that has never invalidated them because people who disagree with the use of them as a shield just say "Well, in this instance it's the people at fault."
Nonsy Callahan: And while they may not believe the "spiritual" aspects of this religion, they may believe the moral ones, which is enough in my eyes to qualify it as a religion, because I'm sure there are people who attend religions because of their moral lessons, rather than about how God got a girl pregnant and stuff.
Nonsy Callahan: And that drawing made up lines as to "this is a religion" and "this isn't a religion" isn't a very good idea and serves no purpose. If people want to claim their beliefs are a religion, more power to them. Catholicism won't suddenly not be a religion just because Scientology exists.
Nonsy Callahan: And I'm not even justifying that they should be able to use their religion as a legal shield, since I think all religions should be taxed and shouldn't get special legal treatment anyways

[TDK]

Let's check what Jesus had to say on the matter once. Nothing on war?
Matthew 10:34

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

And Luke 19:27

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."



Or, in my own words, religion is in general a beautiful, pure thing; it's the people who are corrupt and muck it up.

Okay I can buy that you think wanting to explain the unexplained is a good thing. (Man, if only there was some kind of way to do that in a provable fashion. Perhaps with some kind of empirical method.)

But "Hey this guy created the universe. SUBMIT TO HIS ULTIMATE WHIM AND PROVIDE CONSTANT PRAISE OR YOU WILL BURN FOREVER IN ETERNAL AGONY", this strikes you as "pure and beautiful"? (Using christianity as an example)


For the topic at hand, making a personal judgment, the 'religion' in question is founded on corrupt ideals. I'll plop myself right here and say I fully recognize it as a system of belief, but I do not recognize it as a religion.


Seriously?

Its like

I don't even

"Well they believe different things than I do therefore they are objectively wrong"


And what exactly is the difference between a "system of beliefs" and a religion? Lemme pull up a definition here.

"A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Re: Religion promotes good actions.
Let's take christianity- I'm fairly well versed in the bible, it's various translations, the history behind its composition and it authors and pretty much universally the values it promotes are pretty mixed- they are very much the product of its times and their "goodness" today is highly disputable.
As one example- most scholars read a passive approach to the kingdoms of man as the ideal course of action proscribed by the Bible, which depending on your viewpoint is somewhere between good and ruinously terrible- but other more radical writes read deep subversion in the Bible, promoting revolution. It's a hodgepodge of iron age proto-ideas that could go anyway you want and aren't even all that
relevant.
And this is even being nice and not picking on the clearly outdated ideas of marriage and sex and criminality and other gods that are rampant throughout.

Moving beyond that you can say that religion is codified by the Church these days. But then you have to deal with the Church positions on say condoms or homosexuality which I think most people would say aren't morally good.

It's dart throwing. I really don't know how you came to the conclusion that it is good in general. My personal opinion is that throwing out the radical interpretations of Bloch and Milibank (who see the bible as in many ways deeply subversive) I think it promotes a ruinous passivity, condeming the world and those who live in it to ruinous misery, compounding by a dangerous slavery to an unimpeachable, non-interrogable, non-understandable overlord whose very distance means his name can justify anything and whose lack of clarification only hieghtens the dangerous passivity.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Religion is not what performs the actions, good or bad. Religion, at its base, advocates good actions, but is not directly responsible for them. People perform all the actions in the world. If they do good things their religion tells them to, then religion can be seen as at least a reason for it. If people do bad things religion tells them NOT to, then religion has no real bearing on the action, whatever they claim be damned.
Whether or not they're right in their way to read a specific religious passage doesn't really make the viewpoint that they're using religion to justify their actions any less valid, or by that viewpoint the religion any less at fault.

Jefferson Davis was quoted several times as stating that the Bible fully supported Slavery and that the confederacy was performing God's will.
Was he right? Was he wrong? Neither has much bearing on the fact that he was using religion to make sure he and his country could continue doing horrible things to people without feeling bad about it.


Sample size of one, my dad's new wife was very specific that it wasn't a religion and she's from Vietnam. I'd imagine others believe the same way she does, especially given the classification endowed to it in the first line of the linked article. But then in America, we're very loose on our treatment of it because I'm sure it shares legal status with religions and quite frankly rather ignorant about any religion that's not ours for the most part.

You can practice the tenants of Buddhism without religious structure or worship, but there is a Buddhist religion. It has deities and everything.

Personally my favorite is Bishamonten, and not just because I really like Uesegi Kenshin as a historical figure.

[bluestarultor]

You know what, I'm just going to leave this at this point. Again, being dogpiled, not high on my list.

Honestly, putting the "burden of proof on religion" on me, while I stepped right into it trying to be reasonable, ignores that these people, for all intents and purposes, are trying to form a religion based on file sharing, knowing full well it's against the law predating the formation of it, and are trying to use it to sidestep said law.

That's about as charitable as I feel towards this thread at the moment, so barring me being incredibly bored and impulsive, I'll let you guys flounder without more bait.

[Kim]

You know what, I'm just going to leave this at this point. Again, being dogpiled, not high on my list.

This line bugs me. I'll let someone else address it if they feel like it.

Honestly, putting the "burden of proof on religion" on me, while I stepped right into it trying to be reasonable, ignores that these people, for all intents and purposes, are trying to form a religion based on file sharing, knowing full well it's against the law predating the formation of it, and are trying to use it to sidestep said law.It doesn't ignore it. I addressed this. I was very clear on the matter.

Futhermore, you are very clearly ignoring the many valid points made in this thread. I think I'm being more than reasonable by saying that's kinda frustrating.

It is especially annoying see as you're accusing us of ignoring stuff while you ignore us.

That's about as charitable as I feel towards this thread at the moment, so barring me being incredibly bored and impulsive, I'll let you guys flounder without more bait.Well, that's rude.

[Si Civa]

ignores that these people, for all intents and purposes, are trying to form a religion based on file sharing, knowing full well it's against the law predating the formation of it, and are trying to use it to sidestep said law.

Wasn't Jesus crucified for being criminal? (Not that it couldn't be argued he was all about the good old days, but still)

And I think it could be said that Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad all reacted to their own time providing something different to their environment. How does Kopimism differ from this? Nope, this isn't about faith exactly, but it's kinda interesting point anyway.


Also I don't know why some insist that Catholic Church is religion when it's just one branch of Christianity. It's just bothers me a lot.

[Archbio]

Wikipedia page you link refers to it as both a philosophy and a religion-

It says it encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices.

But yes: where Buddhism includes temples, prayers and monks it's a religion.

Since the original point regarded the possibility of religion without a god, then there's also Daoism. There may be more nontheistic religions somewhere that are not coming to mind right now.

[Loyal]

Wasn't Jesus crucified for being criminal? (Not that it couldn't be argued he was all about the good old days, but still)

IIRC, he was crucified for heresy (more specifically, claiming to be the son of God), which was criminal in those days particularly if you didn't repent.

That's all. Carry on, gentlepersons.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You know what, I'm just going to leave this at this point. Again, being dogpiled, not high on my list.

Honestly, putting the "burden of proof on religion" on me, while I stepped right into it trying to be reasonable, ignores that these people, for all intents and purposes, are trying to form a religion based on file sharing, knowing full well it's against the law predating the formation of it, and are trying to use it to sidestep said law.

That's about as charitable as I feel towards this thread at the moment, so barring me being incredibly bored and impulsive, I'll let you guys flounder without more bait.

The burden of proof is not on religion. The burden of proof is that people, including you, are deciding what is and is not religion without telling us about your method beyond "It just is or isn't". We want to know your reasoning that is all and I feel we have been reasonable, you're last post is just needleslly antagonistic.
All I'm trying to understand is your thinking process.
Judging the basis of a religion on the particularly laws of 2011 in the United States is not a very good method of judging.

[rpgdemon]

Can we keep the vitriol at anyone's beliefs down here? I mean, as a Christian as well, it's feeling a bit vitriolic in here, as someone who made one post pages back that was ignored, about copyright laws and such.

Like, here's the thing, while Blues didn't come up with any real sound reasons to discredit the religion of these people (Honestly, I don't think it's anyone's place to discredit someone's religion, since hey: See above. No vitriol at people's beliefs), he at least didn't make his point in a way that was a sweeping attack of, "Hey, we think you guys are dumb."

As for the point about how religion can be good/bad, I've heard an interesting view on the subject, which I've been more and more keen towards accepting as my own. Organized religion is where it ends up breaking down. Whenever you have a group of arbiters of religion, saying that these things are right, and if you don't do them, you're horribly wrong, you're starting to be similar to a political machine, working towards profiting your people and yourself, and drawing lines that make you right, and you have to defend yourself against everyone else who is wrong. I think that religion is a pretty personal thing, and that you shouldn't be pushing your views of stuff, or your interpretations of whatever holy scripture you chose onto anyone. You can share your views, sure, but you shouldn't decide that someone else is WRONG about theirs, and that you need to correct their horrible ways.

[Kim]

Can we keep the vitriol at anyone's beliefs down here? I mean, as a Christian as well, it's feeling a bit vitriolic in here, as someone who made one post pages back that was ignored, about copyright laws and such.

It's a thread about being vitriolic at people's beliefs. I feel a certain level of not-niceness towards Christian beliefs is necessary to make the point.

If members are uncomfortable with Christianity being mocked/attacked, then they ought to make a point of not attacking/mocking this other religion.

Like, here's the thing, while Blues didn't come up with any real sound reasons to discredit the religion of these people (Honestly, I don't think it's anyone's place to discredit someone's religion, since hey: See above. No vitriol at people's beliefs), he at least didn't make his point in a way that was a sweeping attack of, "Hey, we think you guys are dumb."Right, he just called every person who believed these things a bad person, and that their religion was bullshit. So polite. Clearly we can learn from his example.

Smarty: It's cheaper to not produce than to produce. Sure. But once no one's producing because they all want to not produce because it's cheaper, and there's no copyright anymore so why even bother not stealing the other guy's work, hey, no one is producing and things are even worse off.

It's like you were arguing FOR copyright. And don't say, "Well, ideal world...", because we all know that an ideal world WON'T happen. As long as it's possible to do things more cheaply or do less work, people will choose the less work and cheaper option.

I'm not saying that the copyright laws are great, but no copyright would be even worse.

I probably would have responded, but the wording is a mess and it was right before the big argument with Fenny-boy. The argument that without copyright everyone will just make the exact same thing and rake in the moneys ignores how over-saturated markets work even with copyright. If everything is the same, we'll just buy from whatever company did it first, or has the best commercials. Even without copyright, people will still have to innovate and create to convince people to buy their product instead of somebody elses.

[rpgdemon]

It's a thread about being vitriolic at people's beliefs. I feel a certain level of not-niceness towards Christian beliefs is necessary to make the point.

If members are uncomfortable with Christianity being mocked/attacked, then they ought to make a point of not attacking/mocking this other religion.


And do you see me doing that? No. In fact, I said the opposite. You're being needlessly vitriolic at everyone who's Christian, in order to win an argument against one person.

As for people pushing forward without copyright laws, they'll only do so insofar as it'll become profitable. I didn't know that Smarty was a huge propagator of a completely free market.

[Jagos]

I think it's friggin awesome how this changed from a copyright thread to a religious thread .

Anyway, for blues:

Time to rethink piracy (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108982-Canadian-Study-Piracy-Created-by-Greedy-Capitalists)

[Kim]

And do you see me doing that? No. In fact, I said the opposite. You're being needlessly vitriolic at everyone who's Christian, in order to win an argument against one person.

And I haven't been particularly vitriolic towards you, soooo...

I'm being a bit vitriolic towards Christianity to point out that you can't be vitriolic towards one religion without justifying vitriol towards your own. I think that's a pretty valid argument to make, and a legit way of making it.

As for people pushing forward without copyright laws, they'll only do so insofar as it'll become profitable. I didn't know that Smarty was a huge propagator of a completely free market.I might be vitriolic towards this bit though. It's just being straight up ridiculous.

It'll always be profitable, because everybody will always be ripping your shit off and oversaturating the market, or the market will already be oversaturated and you'll have to innovate to make any money. Also, copyright would be wholly non-existent in a communist society, sooooo... yeah. Also, Ayn Rand and other "capitalist heroes" have raging hard-ons for copyright, because copyright is a pretty selfish concept in and of itself. "My idea, all mine, I get all the moneys forever" and the lengthening and worsening of copyright laws is born of that selfishness.

[Kim]

As for people pushing forward without copyright laws, they'll only do so insofar as it'll become profitable. I didn't know that Smarty was a huge propagator of a completely free market.I mean honestly this bit is just childish needling at people trying to get under their skin and you honestly do that and expect me to feel bad about being "vitriolic"? Really?

[Bob The Mercenary]

If members are uncomfortable with Christianity being mocked/attacked, then they ought to make a point of not attacking/mocking this other religion.
I'm being a bit vitriolic towards Christianity to point out that you can't be vitriolic towards one religion without justifying vitriol towards your own. I think that's a pretty valid argument to make, and a legit way of making it.


That just sounds like another way of saying all religions are the same and deserve equal vitriol. Or maybe I'm putting words in your mouth.

[Edit] It also completely depends on what the vitriol was brought on by.

[EditEdit] But "Hey this guy created the universe. SUBMIT TO HIS ULTIMATE WHIM AND PROVIDE CONSTANT PRAISE OR YOU WILL BURN FOREVER IN ETERNAL AGONY", this strikes you as "pure and beautiful"? (Using christianity as an example)


That's a simplistic way of putting it, but yes, I find perfect justice beautiful in a way. And even if you were using Christianity as an example, it doesn't demand constant praise, and a perfect creator of the universe's ultimate whim would be by definition the good and right thing to do.

I also take a lot of issue with the burning forever part.

[rpgdemon]

I mean honestly this bit is just childish needling at people trying to get under their skin and you honestly do that and expect me to feel bad about being "vitriolic"? Really?

"[I]'ve actually brought up pretty valid points."

(See, that would be more fairly called out as pointless needling.)

But in all honesty, I was making a point, and I think that it was perfectly legitimate to make the point by demonstration of how unsound the logic sounded.

Edit: Seriously, your arguments are that:

A) The main problem with capitalism is that everyone only cares about profits off their stuff.

and

B) They'll make new ideas because they care about profits off them, and searching for profit will lead to greater innovation.


B is essentially a statement of the ideal capitalist system.

[Kim]

"[I]'ve actually brought up pretty valid points."

(See, that would be more fairly called out as pointless needling.)

Not really.

But in all honesty, I was making a point, and I think that it was perfectly legitimate to make the point by demonstration of how unsound the logic sounded.I pointed out the problem with your logic. It was pretty obvious, what with copyright existing for wholly selfish purposes, which makes it contrary to communist ideals like SMB holds to. I mean, it isn't even that hard to see how "Every idea should belong to every person" (not 100% accurate I don't think but it conveys the point) and copyright are at odds against each other.

A) The main problem with capitalism is that everyone only cares about profits off their stuff.

and

B) They'll make new ideas because they care about profits off them, and searching for profit will lead to greater innovation.

No, you're saying that without copyright, innovation will die, and I'm explaining why capitalism will encourage innovation even without copyrights. Copyright fits capitalism, because capitalism is all about the big guy screwing the little guy over as much and as hard as possible, but that doesn't mean that without copyright capitalism will issue forth its last breath as some great beast in its death throws.

[rpgdemon]

Yeah, every idea should belong to every person and copyright are directly at odds with eachother, that's true.

But then the system that you described as to why people will innovate is essentially what an ideal capitalistic society is modeled as. By following the logic through, you seem to have to believe in a purely capitalistic system as a driving force for innovation, which is where I'm getting confused.

Edit: Considering that I entered into this with a relatively hostile tone, I just want to clarify: I am actually genuinely confused, more than anything at this point. I'm not trying to change your opinion to mine or anything, I honestly don't know what I think about copyright laws. I do believe in supporting the creator of a work, though.

Double edit: Well, I'm bringing it up in terms of people wanting to profit, because honestly, unless you hand picked who was going to build your society (And even then), you'll end up with humans who want to do well for themselves, to varying degrees. People straight out don't like to do more work for less money, or to have other people do less work for more money, regardless of how fair the pay might be to them personally.

[Kim]

But then the system that you described as to why people will innovate is essentially what an ideal capitalistic society is modeled as. By following the logic through, you seem to have to believe in a purely capitalistic system as a driving force for innovation, which is where I'm getting confused.See edit.

Anywho, I believe in sociolism+capitalism mix, leaning towards the socialism, until robots have replaced the vast majority of the manual labor force and the vast majority of the human populace can be slackers without any noticeable effect on productivity. At that point, people will primarily work jobs that interest them, and when you're doing something because you want to do it, rather than just making money, you'll be inclined to innovate because why would you want to rip someone off if there's no incentive to?

I'd go into more detail, but this thread isn't about Robot Communism as mankind's highest ideal.

[rpgdemon]

That's true. I mean, when you've got everyone doing what they like, money does actually become much less of an object. I mean, look at all the indie game companies who started out with people who really wanted to make the game that they're interested in, quitting their day job to continue working on it, in the hopes of making an awesome game.

Edit: If you're interested in continuing the discussion, feel free to shoot me a PM, but yeah, probably should get less not-on-topic. :P

[Kim]

That just sounds like another way of saying all religions are the same and deserve equal vitriol. Or maybe I'm putting words in your mouth.

It also completely depends on what the vitriol was brought on by.

From my perspective, all religions deserve some level of vitriol, because, as far as I know, all have fucked up or are fucked up in some way. That is why saying Kopimism doesn't count as a religion because you think it's inherently wrong in some way is ridiculous, because that's opinion and because from another perspective your religion is inherently wrong in some way as well. I've yet to hear of Kopimism being used to justify wars, genocide, or racial oppression, so I'd say it's doing pretty good so far.

[Bob The Mercenary]

From my perspective, all religions deserve some level of vitriol, because, as far as I know, all have fucked up or are fucked up in some way.

This implies some absolute moral standard by which all behavior should be judged. You are implying there is a way things ought to be. Do you have any arguments for why we should take your opinions as the objective standard over someone of a religious faith?

This is not to say I don't think Christianity or any host of religions haven't fucked up. Like I've heard Snake say before, constant correction is a good thing within different faiths. It keeps doctrine consistant and weeds out false teachers.

That is why saying Kopimism doesn't count as a religion because you think it's inherently wrong in some way is ridiculous, because that's opinion and because from another perspective your religion is inherently wrong in some way as well.

And the entirety of that argument is supported by what? Your opinion.

[synkr0nized]

Did you all just recently learn the word "vitriol" or something?

I'd comment more, but we really didn't need, like, most of this thread.

[rpgdemon]

Did you all just recently learn the word "vitriol" or something?

I'd comment more, but we really didn't need, like, most of this thread.

No way man. I've been using vitriol since, like, 2008. I have always been all aboard the vitrolic train.

[Kim]

This implies some absolute moral standard by which all behavior should be judged. You are implying there is a way things ought to be. Do you have any arguments for why we should take your opinions as the objective standard over someone of a religious faith?

Please explain the crusades as a good thing so I can laugh at you.

And the entirety of that argument is supported by what? Your opinion.As opposed to the opinion of someone who says God talks to them.

Also, I don't see what part of "From another perspective, your religion is just as wrong" is debateable.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Please explain the crusades as a good thing so I can laugh at you.

Please explain them as a bad thing without borrowing from a religion.

As opposed to the opinion of someone who says God talks to them.

Also, I don't see what part of "From another perspective, your religion is just as wrong" is debateable.

Why should I give that perspective any credibility whatsoever? You're not giving reasons or arguments or anything, just your opinions.

[Kim]

Please explain them as a bad thing without borrowing from a religion.

Wars born of greed and lust for power are bad. And before you argue that I just think that because it's a religious idea, my own personal belief is that religion got its ideals from basic human morality.

So pthbbbbt on that.

Why should I give that perspective any credibility whatsoever? You're not giving reasons or arguments or anything, just your opinions.

Why should anyone else give your perspective any credibility? Why is your opinion that kopimism isn't a religion because it's based in selfishness more valid than the opinion that it is a religion because all religions have awful aspects to them?

[Eltargrim]

Please explain them as a bad thing without borrowing from a religion.

Tens of thousands of people died.

[Mr.Bookworm]

As opposed to the opinion of someone who says God talks to them.

Hey, thank you for disparaging my entire religion. That's a great way to foster communication and understanding.

Really, Noncon, I understand your point, but unless you want to turn this into a bigger bitchfest, insulting comments do jack shit.

[Kim]

Hey, thank you for disparaging my entire religion. That's a great way to foster communication and understanding.

Thank Bob for disparaging Kopimism's validity as a religion and my opinion.

[POS Industries]

I pretty much can't see this particular conversational direction going anywhere enjoyable or productive, nor is there a topic for it to get back on to that isn't just going to to eventually go straight on back to this again, so I'm gonna go ahead and close it.

If you gentlemen would like to continue hammering out your particular philosophical disagreements over PM, you can totally do that.