Harmlessness

[SheWolf]

Oh, then I guess people shouldn't watch porn, which will severly affect spud, the Good Rev, Thorgasm, and Danarhea.
After all, don't we all watch porn for lust?

Wake's post severely hurted my brain...

 

[Cephus]

Personally, I believe piracy is still wrong according to the harm principle. While you're not stealing from someone in the traditional sense, it's still theft in the sense that you are depriving someone else of income they have rightfully earned by producing the product that you are consuming.

The problem is, that's just not defensible. There is no demonstrable harm involved. With physical media, if you steal it, you deprive the owner of the ability to sell it to another willing buyer. With electronic media, you cannot do so. It can be replicated infinitely and every copy is identical to every other copy. The artist does no additional work with each copy produced, as would be done with physical media, nor is there any monetary outlay with each copy produced, as there would be with physical media, therefore you have not deprived anyone of anything because they have done nothing additional to necessarily earn revenue. That's where electronic media and intellectual property has a serious disadvantage.

Don't get me wrong, I think artists should be paid for the work they do, but the idea that having your hand out for every Tom, Dick and Harry who hears your music online is absurd. It's a new electronic frontier, our ideas on how things operate within it need to change.

 

[Wake]

:thinking........ OK... now.... :thinking:.... WTF?

What exactly are you trying to say here?

Wake's post severely hurted my brain...

We're not "down below." You know better.

Either discuss this issue or not at all. Don't ignorantly spam without even trying to discuss civilly.

 

[SheWolf]

We're not "down below." You know better.

Either discuss this issue or not at all. Don't ignorantly spam without even trying to discuss civilly.

I really don't understand the basis of your argument.... greed and selfishness, anger, etc. can be harmful and so can incest. I don't find your argument to be very clear

 

[Wake]

I really don't understand the basis of your argument.... greed and selfishness, anger, etc. can be harmful and so can incest. I don't find your argument to be very clear

I want to know why harm is the only deciding factor.

Indeed, greed et al can be harmful if people do harmful things in their greed. However, those sins are all actually quite benign and harmless with most people. If I hate someone, and I do nothing, it is not wrong?

I believe there are many harmless things that are sin. Homosexuality, contention, adultery, fornication, lust, vanity, disrespect, envy, pride... why, the list goes on and on. If people argue that homosexuality is not wrong because it is harmless, than all of these harmless vices must be harmless as well.

 

[atrasicarius]

I want to know why harm is the only deciding factor.

Indeed, greed et al can be harmful if people do harmful things in their greed. However, those sins are all actually quite benign and harmless with most people. If I hate someone, and I do nothing, it is not wrong?

I believe there are many harmless things that are sin. Homosexuality, contention, adultery, fornication, lust, vanity, disrespect, envy, pride... why, the list goes on and on. If people argue that homosexuality is not wrong because it is harmless, than all of these harmless vices must be harmless as well.

Yup, you've got it.

 

[digsbe]

Moderator's Warning:

Knock off the personal attacks

 

[SheWolf]

I want to know why harm is the only deciding factor.

Indeed, greed et al can be harmful if people do harmful things in their greed. However, those sins are all actually quite benign and harmless with most people. If I hate someone, and I do nothing, it is not wrong?

I believe there are many harmless things that are sin. Homosexuality, contention, adultery, fornication, lust, vanity, disrespect, envy, pride... why, the list goes on and on. If people argue that homosexuality is not wrong because it is harmless, than all of these harmless vices must be harmless as well.

A lot of those things are NOT harmless though... it if you cheat on your wife, you hurt her and your family and children. If you are envious of everybody else, you struggle with being happy and content. Letting go of envious feelings and behavior will only benefit you.

Homosexuality is only harmful to homosexual individuals if they struggle with their own identity and feel ashamed of it because of social agents outside of themselves. Both homo and hetro sexuality can lead to adultery, but that doesn't make them harmful in themselves.

 

[Wake]

A lot of those things are NOT harmless though... it if you cheat on your wife, you hurt her and your family and children. If you are envious of everybody else, you struggle with being happy and content. Letting go of envious feelings and behavior will only benefit you.

Homosexuality is only harmful to homosexual individuals if they struggle with their own identity and feel ashamed of it because of social agents outside of themselves. Both homo and hetro sexuality can lead to adultery, but that doesn't make them harmful in themselves.

All of those things are harmless if not acted upon in a harmful way. Emotions aside, I talk of actual physical harm.

Are you confident that just because something is harmless, it cannot be sin?

In the Bible, there are many sins that are deemed harmless. As an example: What do vanity and worldliness, as well.as materialism, mean to you?

 

[digsbe]

"Harmlessness" is subjective to personal interpretation. Anyone can rationalize how their behavior is "harmless." I don't think harmlessness is the best/only criteria for judging what is moral and what is immoral.

 

[SheWolf]

"Harmlessness" is subjective to personal interpretation. Anyone can rationalize how their behavior is "harmless." I don't think harmlessness is the best/only criteria for judging what is moral and what is immoral.

Exactly... I have seen alcoholics argue they aren't hurting anybody which is BS, they are hurting their families and people they love. They might not be hurting themselves because they don't care about their health or body or dying young, but they don't realize other people do care.

 

[SheWolf]

All of those things are harmless if not acted upon in a harmful way. Emotions aside, I talk of actual physical harm.

Are you confident that just because something is harmless, it cannot be sin?

In the Bible, there are many sins that are deemed harmless. As an example: What do vanity and worldliness, as well.as materialism, mean to you?

Actual physical harm... now you're just moving the goal post.

 

[SheWolf]

bar mitzvahs physically hurt, but those aren't sinful...

 

[Wake]

I know homosexuality is deemed harmless but my adherence to the Word of God and the observance of those filled with the same Spirit as those 2,000 years ago prompt me to believe it a sin.

I should have said "physical" harm from the start; it happens.

Fornication, lust, pride, vanity, and others are still harmless. If we say things that are harmless aren't morally wrong, then those examples musn't be morally wrong in the slightest.

I strongly believe homosexuality is a sin and being harmless or not will not change that. I simply take issue with the premise of: harmless = not morally wrong.

 

[StillBallin75]

I know homosexuality is deemed harmless but my adherence to the Word of God and the observance of those filled with the same Spirit as those 2,000 years ago prompt me to believe it a sin.

I should have said "physical" harm from the start; it happens.

Fornication, lust, pride, vanity, and others are still harmless. If we say things that are harmless aren't morally wrong, then those examples musn't be morally wrong in the slightest.

I strongly believe homosexuality is a sin and being harmless or not will not change that. I simply take issue with the premise of: harmless = not morally wrong.

You believe it is immoral because a book, a product of MAN, no less, told you so (or rather, it told you that God said it was so). Got it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

hate, envy, lust, anger, swearing

It's interesting that you think these things don't actually hurt other people.

 

[atrasicarius]

I know homosexuality is deemed harmless but my adherence to the Word of God and the observance of those filled with the same Spirit as those 2,000 years ago prompt me to believe it a sin.

I should have said "physical" harm from the start; it happens.

Fornication, lust, pride, vanity, and others are still harmless. If we say things that are harmless aren't morally wrong, then those examples musn't be morally wrong in the slightest.

I strongly believe homosexuality is a sin and being harmless or not will not change that. I simply take issue with the premise of: harmless = not morally wrong.

Why did you even start this thread, then?

 

[digsbe]

I think how we define or view "harmless" itself is very subjective. Do we view it physically, emotionally, spiritually, or egocentrically? With most issues people rationalize why something isn't "harmless." Or if they acknowledge that it's harmless to some degree they demising it and say it is still acceptable. Humans are selfish, we always try to rationalize bad behavior and want to warp things to fit perfectly with how we want to view the world and morality.

 

[hallam]

The law is not the arbiter of morality. Stealing is wrong because it denies someone the original. If I steal a CD, the owner can't listen to it anymore. If I make a copy, no one is hurt. You seem to be making the assumption that getting something without somehow working for it is unethical, which I don't agree with. If the law says piracy is wrong, that doesn't mean piracy is wrong. It means the law is wrong.

The law is not the arbiter of morality but it is the arbiter of what is wrong. If you steal a CD you are robbing two people: the person who owned the CD and the artist whom you jilted. If you make a copy, you are still wronging one person even if the person who owns the CD allows you to make a copy. And further, the law saying the piracy is wrong does mean piracy is wrong. That is all it means. But further, piracy is morally evil as well.

 

[Cephus]

The law is not the arbiter of morality but it is the arbiter of what is wrong. If you steal a CD you are robbing two people: the person who owned the CD and the artist whom you jilted. If you make a copy, you are still wronging one person even if the person who owns the CD allows you to make a copy. And further, the law saying the piracy is wrong does mean piracy is wrong. That is all it means. But further, piracy is morally evil as well.

No, it's the arbiter of what society has deemed illegal, nothing more. Right and wrong are entirely subjective concepts, they have no objective meaning. Secondly, you're simply asserting that piracy is morally evil, but you cannot demonstrate it objectively. Evil, likewise, is a subjective concept. Stop acting like it's universal.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I know homosexuality is deemed harmless but my adherence to the Word of God and the observance of those filled with the same Spirit as those 2,000 years ago prompt me to believe it a sin.

I should have said "physical" harm from the start; it happens.

Fornication, lust, pride, vanity, and others are still harmless. If we say things that are harmless aren't morally wrong, then those examples musn't be morally wrong in the slightest.

I strongly believe homosexuality is a sin and being harmless or not will not change that. I simply take issue with the premise of: harmless = not morally wrong.

And you know what my response to that is?

WHATEVER!

I'm happy for you!

I don't care if you think homosexuality is a sin, keep on thinking it, its no skin off my neck.

Just keep your beliefs and your homophobia outta my laws and my government.

 

[hallam]

No, it's the arbiter of what society has deemed illegal, nothing more. Right and wrong are entirely subjective concepts, they have no objective meaning. Secondly, you're simply asserting that piracy is morally evil, but you cannot demonstrate it objectively. Evil, likewise, is a subjective concept. Stop acting like it's universal.

On this we will have to disagree as I see illegal as wrong. To me these terms are synonyms. And I have already demonstrated objectively that it is directly stealing. No one yet has disproven that entertainment (in any format) is being stolen and that entertainment has value within the society. When you take entertainment without paying for it, you are stealing from the artist and others. The detachment and distance between you and the artist doesn't matter.

 

[atrasicarius]

On this we will have to disagree as I see illegal as wrong. To me these terms are synonyms. And I have already demonstrated objectively that it is directly stealing. No one yet has disproven that entertainment (in any format) is being stolen and that entertainment has value within the society. When you take entertainment without paying for it, you are stealing from the artist and others. The detachment and distance between you and the artist doesn't matter.

You haven't proved anything. You've just declared victory. There's plenty of studies showing that piracy doesn't harm the artists. Take a look at this. Do you also think smoking weed is wrong because the law says so? Being homosexual is illegal in some countries. Does that make it wrong?

 

[hallam]

You haven't proved anything. You've just declared victory. There's plenty of studies showing that piracy doesn't harm the artists. Take a look at this. Do you also think smoking weed is wrong because the law says so? Being homosexual is illegal in some countries. Does that make it wrong?

My last post proved it. I even like Gaiman but he is wrong. A sample of one does not prove a rule where as logic and evidence proves differently especially in the music industry during the early 00s. Sales of music plummeted during this time period because of piracy. Here is one scholarly article for 2001 year that showed an effect. (http://www.serci.org/2004/waelbroeck.pdf). There is an article from 2004 which shows the effects of piracy (PIRACY ON THE HIGH C’s but it is restricted by NBER Issue:10874 Nov 2004). If you have access, one noticeable line is on page: "We document that downloading reduces music purchases, by roughly one fifth of a sale for each recent download and possibly much more." Mind you I am not making the leap that those individuals who pirate would purchase that music if pirating didn't exist. I am only saying that by pirating, they are taking entertainment without paying the value you for it. That is stealing even if it is only bits. I would ask you to talk to your friends. How may of your friends, or yourself, purchase the CD's you pirate? Further, what is the ratio of pirating to purchasing? Gaiman was talking about finding artists. In your in-person social group, how often does this happen? Gaiman is correct that people find new artist by sharing but in most instances the sharing is not duplicated and is either temporary or permanent. But temporary, I mean that you eventually give the book/movie/music back. And by permanent, I mean that the original hold loses the entertainment. Piracy breaks this process.

And to answer your question. Yes to both. Smoking weed is wrong because it, as all drugs including alcohol, can have devastating effects on others. I am for making alcohol illegal too. And yes homosexuality would be wrong in those societies because it is illegal. Mind you I don't say evil here. I don't see evil and wrong as synonyms. We should work with them to update their laws but it is still wrong.

 

[Cephus]

On this we will have to disagree as I see illegal as wrong. To me these terms are synonyms. And I have already demonstrated objectively that it is directly stealing. No one yet has disproven that entertainment (in any format) is being stolen and that entertainment has value within the society. When you take entertainment without paying for it, you are stealing from the artist and others. The detachment and distance between you and the artist doesn't matter.

So you're saying that because slavery was once legal, it was right and then *BECAME* wrong?