You can not make this shit up...

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by NonCon

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]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

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]

Originally Posted by NonCon

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]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

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

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

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by NonCon

"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]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

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.

[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.

[Amake]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

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]

Originally Posted by Invisible Queen

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?

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

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.

And I have the greatest interruption of all time!