re: 2019 game streaming advice (non-paid):

quote:

---

If you kill someone it's murder regardless of laws.

---

No, if you kill someone it's homicide. The laws are what may qualify it as murder, manslaughter, or even a justifiable homicide. Not sure how to work this into a good comparable for the streaming situation though, but figured I'd correct the part I could.

quote:

---

because the OP steals from me

---

Who is stealing from you?

quote:

---

No, if you kill someone it's homicide. The laws are what may qualify it as murder, manslaughter, or even a justifiable homicide. Not sure how to work this into a good comparable for the streaming situation though, but figured I'd correct the part I could.

---

If you kill someone and there's no law against it, it's not murder, homicide, or anything. You just killed someone. That's all. There's no vocabulary change or anything, as there was no crime.

If I take your laptop, but there's no law/rule/prohibition against such, then no theft occurred. I only took your laptop.

Theft and murder are crimes. Killing a person and taking a laptop are actions.

quote:

---

How so?

---

Do you think these companies who provide these services exist in a vacuum without owners?

quote:

---

1) Assuming you someone how profit personally from the sale of bundled TV channels (or similar endeavor), do you sell this in Latin America?

2) I have not stolen anything from you. Not one single possession of yours has changed from your hands to mine without your permission, i.e. stealing.

3) At most, I have shared information with others that could theoretically decrease your sales revenue, although the potential loss ought to be minuscule or too small to measure.

4) If my words in this thread have harmed you or decreased your happiness today, that gives me great pleasure, as I do not like you at all. If I can make your life worse in any way, please do not hesitate to let me know.

---

I am a Disney stockholder. Disney owns ABC and ESPN among other things.

ESPN and thus Disney gets a subscription fee for every person who signs up for their service. You are not paying those fees, but you are still viewing the content. Aka, you've stolen the content.

And since you've stolen from ESPN, you've stolen from Disney and since I own stock in Disney, you've stolen from me when it comes dividend time.

I don't really care, but since you seem intent on trying to justify your theft with the bullshite notion that only government can define it, I figured I'd put a "face" to that which you are stealing from.

As for #4. I suspect your general anger issues have very little to do with me and a whole hell of a lot more to do with you.

quote:

---

I am a Disney stockholder. Disney owns ABC and ESPN among other things.

ESPN and thus Disney gets a subscription fee for every person who signs up for their service. You are not paying those fees, but you are still viewing the content. Aka, you've stolen the content.

And since you've stolen from ESPN, you've stolen from Disney and since I own stock in Disney, you've stolen from me when it comes dividend time.

I don't really care, but since you seem intent on trying to justify your theft with the bullshite notion that only government can define it, I figured I'd put a "face" to that which you are stealing from.

---

I totally respect your opinion, and it is valid. I also appreciate you doing it without personally attacking me, which was my problem with you in the first place.

Since you expressed yourself cordially, I will admit that I am sorry that my shared info could have a negative effect on you or your family, however small it may be. Having said that, I honestly do not feel bad for my actions against the likes of Disney, as they have a long track record as a terrible, immoral company. I also see my actions as a small win for the little man against corporate greed. Furthermore, I think that the concept of "stock" and a "stockholder" are 2 of the worst concepts to hit humanity in its existence, and do much more harm than good. I believe those concepts make capitalism much less desirable for humanity, and that's a shame.

I know that the above paragraph doesn't necessarily change things regarding my shared info and your stock, but I thought your previous post, given its civility, deserved civility in return.

I would prefer that we not be adversaries.

quote:

---

No, literally the definition of homicide is one human killing another. It is from 2 Latin words homo, as in man, and cida meaning kill. If there were 0 laws it would still be called homicide. There's no legal ramifications in the word origin.

---

You are correct, thank you.

quote:

---

What I disagree with is the notion that only governments can make these distinctions and that without governments they do not exist. It's just classifications.

If I see you pull out a gun and shoot someone in the head, I am perfectly capable of understanding and classifying that as murder.

If I see you get drunk and kill someone, I'm perfectly capable of seeing that as manslaughter.

If I see you kill someone in self defense, I'm perfectly capable of understanding that.

And even without the labels we can understand the difference in them, the actions, intent and so forth. Oh that guy was trying to kill you, I understand why you had to do that. Or, hey, that guy was just walking, you had no right to do that.

Which is why they eventually end up existing legally - not the other way around, which I 100% reject the idea of.

Regardless of the local laws, these things are still the same acts.

---

I don't entirely disagree, but therein lies the semantic issue, which is why I kept referring to "prohibition" rather than "laws". The laws are simply a prohibition in written form. There can certainly be societal prohibitions, or things society frowns upon, without there being a written law.

My point was that in a hypothetical society without any prohibition against killing a person, meaning no impulse/motivation/pressure in any way, shape, or form against the act of killing a person, then the act of killing a person would not be considered wrong in any way, and therefore this society would never have developed a word that is a cognate of "murder", meaning the unjust killing of another human being - because in that hypothetical society, killing a person is not something to avoid. It would literally be a sanctioned activity like going for a walk.

And if you grew up in this hypothetical society, you would never have had the thought that killing a person was bad or to be avoided, as you would have been a product of the society itself. And you would not have the word "murder", as the concept of "murder" doesn't exist for you and never did.

The law was never important in my point. The law simply represented a type of prohibition.

And I hate to reference it as it has become cliche to do so, but this is the point in Orwell's 1984 regarding the government's purposeful shrinking of the dictionary. Words represent thoughts. And if the government in Orwell's novel controls which words are not permissible, and using those words are punishable by death and the government successfully monitors the populace's every word, then eventually words like "revolt" and "revolution" cease to exist. Concordantly, the concepts of "revolt" and "revolution" cease to exist as well, thereby allowing the government to control the thoughts and wills of the people. It is impossible to have a high-concept thought without language - every high-concept thought you have is expressed in your brain through language.

Well, we have the word murder to represent the concept of "the unlawful killing of another human." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder And so, reverse engineering Orwell's premise, the word murder only came to be due to the necessity of verbally expressing the concept of killing a person in a way that is frowned upon or to be avoided. If this concept never existed in society, i.e. killing a man has no prohibition, isn't unlawful, and is not an activity to be avoided in any way, then the word "murder" would never exist in that society.

You only have your above opinion because you are a product of a society that has prohibitions against killing people under certain circumstances.

EDIT: Similarly, if you travel back in time a few thousand years, the words "airplane" or "refrigerator" would not exist for people in that time, despite the fact that you, the time traveler, would possess the word. Your society had the concept, therefore you developed the word. A society without the concept would not have developed the word, despite the fact that you, the time traveler, have it plain as day.

Really nice SEC Network stream: LINK

quote:

---

are arguing

---

The convo ended long ago.