Illegal downloads..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hannah.
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 29
  • Views Views 6K
Lynx, "ownership" is a concept that people have invented out of whole cloth to stop each other from taking and using anything they want at any time. It's necessary for the gears of society to run and to help prevent chaos (or at least as things have turned out to be it is), but it's still just a semantic agreement between people based on their laws and concepts of justice. It's not like it's some objective fact about the universe which would eventually be discovered by academic study even if no one ever thought to implement it. It's something we just made up.
 
Yahya Sulaiman said:
It's not like it's some objective fact about the universe which would eventually be discovered by academic study even if no one ever thought to implement it. It's something we just made up.
Click to expand...

So I'll take that as a yes to what I asked in my previous post about thinking friendship/marriage is an illusion too? That's a peculiar definition of illusion you have there; I think you might be looking for a different word...
 
Marriage is just as much a convention of law and of words, yes; what matters is the relationship and intent behind it, and the commitment. Like ownership, the concept was invented for good reason. As for friendship, it is a form of love, which is objectively real, elusive though it remains.
 
I agree with Lynx that "illusion" is a bad term here. Just because we make something up doesn't mean it doesn't exist in truth. Ownership, and all other property rights are agreements between the state and the people, that the state will prevent all but one person to control or possess an item. This agreement is real and enforced, not illusory, as you will find out if you try to disregard it and take a car that does not belong to you. Ownership is just as real as love.

Also, I will repeat Lynx's question that went unanswered. Why the special pleading for God? Why is God somehow exempt form the claim of ownership being illusory? If the distinction is based on creation, that exists amongst humans. If it is based on an imbalance of power, that also exists amongst humans.
 
As long as u know how to download the right crack for photoshop, and not a virus, then ur good. If u talk about music, then...well... Limewire shut down -- i might die. And bearshare sucks. People say we're stuck with itunes....but i have my ways =))
Games? who still plays computer games? haha
Get an Xbox, get kinect and black ops, and u'll live. =)

Oh yea, and don't listen to anything i say.
 
Yahya Sulaiman said:
There is no good reason for this. However, we are commanded by the Prophet (P) to always follow the laws of the country where we live as long as they don't directly contradict scriptural mandate.
Click to expand...

So you are explicitly placing obedience above reason. Myself, I would have no issue violating a nonsensical law should I have no reason to do so (such as a punishment to avoid). This is why I jaywalk if no cars are around. I suspect that you guys do too.
 
Last edited:
"being between a rock and a hard place"

in asian countries the governments are more concerned on earning money not giving away the money so they say its OK for download but don't sell !!!
 
Pygoscelis said:
I agree with Lynx that "illusion" is a bad term here. Just because we make something up doesn't mean it doesn't exist in truth. Ownership, and all other property rights are agreements between the state and the people, that the state will prevent all but one person to control or possess an item. This agreement is real and enforced, not illusory, as you will find out if you try to disregard it and take a car that does not belong to you. Ownership is just as real as love.
Click to expand...

Love is real whether or not people agree to it, and agree to honor it. It is a plain objective truth with no two ways about it. "Ownership" is a concept invented by the human mind and meaningful only to the human mind, and if we all agreed to stop making these agreements then our very thoughts would cause it to cease to exist, insofar as it really existed before. Not so with love.

Also, I will repeat Lynx's question that went unanswered. Why the special pleading for God? Why is God somehow exempt form the claim of ownership being illusory? If the distinction is based on creation, that exists amongst humans. If it is based on an imbalance of power, that also exists amongst humans.
Click to expand...

When God calls Himself the "Owner of All", He is using the shared illusion of "ownership" we've come up with as a metaphor to forcefully explain the extent of His own authority over everything. I don't think the idea was that He had some property deed floating out there in the cosmos giving Him a legal right of some sort.
 
Last edited:
Pygoscelis said:
So you are explicitly placing obedience above reason. Myself, I would have no issue violating a nonsensical law should I have no reason to do so (such as a punishment to avoid). This is why I jaywalk if no cars are around. I suspect that you guys do too.
Click to expand...

You are, perhaps unintentionally, selectively quoting me again. If you'd read and borne in mind my other posts in this thread then you wouldn't have said that.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top