You can not make this shit up...

[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.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

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.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Mr.Bookworm

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.

[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?