DragonMaci

Dry sarcasm often doesn't come across in text.

Now you are misinterpreting me. I never made such a claim, never claimed there was such a need. I said it doesn't compromise his rights if it is something like the example I gave. Sorry I mistyped. I meant to type: "You misunderstand again. She didn't say there is need to do such." I was doing exactly the same. Terry Goodkind's right are not being breached in the example I gave even though it is not the official Teryy Goodkind site. There are two points that need be raised in reply to this. 1. Me and Jenni are not talking about need. Need has nothing to do with our points. 2. They are sharing it when they publish it/record it/etc. That is a part of the point. You don't record an album or publish a book for only you to read/listen to; you do it so others can read/listen to it. That site, reveiwers, and the like are not "disposing of" the works; they are providing a form of free advertisement for the artist. They might even be saying it is good and why. In the case of that Terry Goodkind site they are trying to help spread his philosophical messages. Terry Goodkind says that is his main reason for writing - to spread philosophical messages through fiction. Whether it be advertising, helping spread the author's messages, etc, as long it is only a small extract it is not a breach of copyright - and I mean that in the moral sense not the legal sense. And this in no way detracts from the artist's rights.

The part where it has any connection at all to what I said. As I said before, your post relies of two misinterpretations of what I said. Besides, it is NOT meaningless to separate the guilty and innocent. If it was then the courts would be pointless because there would be no meaning to them separating the guilty from the innocent. Also, it is NOT impossible to separate the guilty form the innocent. Again the courts would be pointless if that was so, this time because they would be unable to separate the guilty from the innocent. Also, Viacom is going to have to do that if they want to make the process as expedient as possible, which they should want to and I am sure they will want to.

That is incorrect since you are working on false interpretations of what I was saying, as I will illustrate. This is false interpretation no. 1: thinking I suggested it can do so. I never suggested it can do so. I said that the courts should only require Google to hand over the tracking details of the guilty not the innocent. False interpretation no. 2: thinking I suggested otherwise. I never suggested otherwise. I was in fact saying something that implicately relies on that happening and being necessary. See false imterpretation no. 1 for what I was saying. I did realise that. I simply addressed a point in your post rather than the tone. But really it doesn't matter whether you like them or not, my point still stands and you have yet to address it. If you don't want to, that is fine by me, but I don't want to discuss opinions of Viacom. I am here to discuss the case. Well, said. The debate is about the case, not opinions of Viacom, Google, or YouTube.

Only the data of the guilty ones, not the innocent ones. Yes, but not blame for copyright infringement. They didn't infringe copyright; the users that breached the Terms of Use did. Are you saying that if an innocent person doesn't want Viacom to know what they do it is okay for their activities to be passed over anyway? If so, I disagree; the innocent should be paid to pay for the actions of the guilty. That is wrong. The government should also restrict it to Viacom only being handed the data of the guilty not the innocent. Then it would be stupid and pointless to bother if that is true. That doesn't matters. It is wrong to charge Google for the actions of those that break their Terms of Use. To charge Google is as bad as what the pirates are doing. They are asking the courts to steal some of Google's property as "damages" for the actions of some of their users who are using YouTube for something other than it was intended and breaching the Terms of Use. You misunderstand. She was arguing for usage in reviews and the like, not ads. As she said reviews are utterly ineffective if they don't use a quote, or mention some of the content. You misunderstand again. She didn't say there need done such. She said it is not a breach of copyright to include a small extract in a review or anything else similar. For example, it would not be a breach of copyright for the website terrygoodkind.net to quote the Wizard's Rules from The Sword of Truthseries and to mention an example of the rules being breached in the books. They do that and it is not a breach of copyright. Nor would it be a breach of copyright for a review to quote the Wizard's Rule from the SOT book being reviewed.

That doesn't make the story unbelievable. I still find it quite believable given the crazy beliefs a lot of people have, especially regarding what constitutes racism

They are contracts regardless of whether the law recognizes them as such. And what is the point in getting people to agree to them if they are not covered by contract laws? Seems pointless and stupid.

Also, the daily Mail is only one of two sources the original poster in the forum provided. The other is NCB. I don't know about them, but they were provided as a source. Furthermore I would not put it past that British government to do such a thing. Edit: Added a comment.

They are a contract and if breached then contract laws could cover them. If they didn't no company would bother creating Terms of Use and EULAs. And if you look at them they are written in legalese just like most contracts. So I'd think they are legally binding. They certainly should be since they are a contract and proof of agreement is easy to supply.

I don't know about their credibility, but is the UK Telegraph a better source in your opinion? Because K-Mac linked to an article about it by them earlier in chat. What I'd like is for the government not to issue books on such at all, especially not such large ones! You don't need such a large book to address childhood racism.

Actually they are. They are blaming Google for the actions of some of their users; users that have violated the terms of use for YouTube membership. That is bad. Also, what about the innocent users such as myself? Many of them do not consent to having their activities being passed on. I agree that they are right to stop their property rights being breached, but I disagree that they are being justly. it is not just to blame Google for the actions of users that breached their terms of use. The innocent, yes; the guilty, no. I don't know but I hope not since Google is not to blame for the actions of people that breach their terms of use. Those users that break the contract are responsible, but for two crimes: copyright infringement and breach of contract. This means that Viacom should in fact be targeting these people and in fact Google also has a case against those people.

Saying foreign food is "yuck" and seeing people look different isn't racism. It is recognizing reality, which is that the chemicals in the food reacts negatively with your taste buds and the people look different.

These are merely attempts to make you think you are begging the question when it in fact he is the one doing so. He is questioning every you say, even the axioms, which are the lowest level of knowledge there is. Everything else relies on them, they rely on nothing else. They cannot beg the question because there is nothing below them on the hierarchy of knowledge. That os why they have to be explained in a circular form such as "existence exists" and "A is A". There is nothing below them so there is no other way to explain them. For the same reason they cannot beg the question; there is nothing below them. To me that he says they beg the question anyway shows he doesn't want you to know he is begging the question and will keep doing so no matter what you say so he says you are begging the question instead and will find it hard to give a notion of rationality that doesn't beg the question (sic). Now he is mixing up the hierarchy. Ethics comes after epistemology not before. Rationality is not based on egoism and self-interest. Self-interest and egoism are based on rationality. Wrong. It is sometimes in our best interest to help our spouse, children, friends, and even neighbors. One can even donate to charity for selfish reasons. These acts are not altruism and don't look like such if done out of self-interest. If I buy my friend the spark plug he needs to fix his car but cannot afford I will benefit from that in such a way. If I have children and buy them presents for Xmas I will benefit from it by seeing their joy and their gratitude, as well as by seeming them valuing. I could help my neighbor by mowing his lawn one week when I mow mine and him do mine the following week when he does his. Many people without the time to mow their lawns often enough make such arrangements. I have donated to charity to help a value of mine remain in existence. These are all selfish acts that benefit all parties involved not altruistic acts. Not do they look altruistic. Now he is trying to draw you into his error of placing ethics before epistemology. Don't take his bait. No theory of epistemology or ethics will work if you try that. You cannot derive epistemology from ethics and you cannot derive a proper system of ethics if you have no theory of epistemology. I think he subconsciously knows he is on shaky ground and wants to end all debate so he will not have to consciously admit it.

Yes, but requests for our medical records or job histories to be put in a National ID registration is not something that should be done for such. In fact National ID registration shouldn't exist at all. It doesn't fit into the legitimate purpose of government; it isn't the government's job to provide us with ID.

No, it will depend on the individual contract. No, other subjects like English, foreign languages, history, etc would also be focused on. Not necessarily. Secular does not equal laissez faire. The right philosophical attitude is needed for laissez faire. True, but that doesn't mean they will get it right. Secular does not equal Objectivism either. Again these do not follow from secularism, they follow from philosophy. Unless we had laissez faire. Then we would pay no taxes. Instead we would be able to choose whether or not to donate money to the government so it can pay for police, courts, and the military. I hope you are right.

No one lives there; it doesn't exist Which is a good thing really.

Anything that contradicts reality is illogical.

Typical anti-capitalist crap. Everything about it is utter BS.

I am guessing "no". I bet he assumes all classical theories do.

Welcome to the site. It is good to have another person interested in Objectivism join.

This is great news. I have added those essays to my Objectivism folder in my bookmarks.

No, it isn't. He started from a baseless assumption. Baseless assumptions are illogical. That made his beginning illogical, making the whole thing illogical.

I wasn't suggesting that you use it. I am saying I think it would be entertaining to try wriggle his way out of that one.

I think it would be entertaining to say what I said before about how by his argument Man made God disappear in a puff of logic. Here is the post again: I think it would be entertaining to see him reply to being told that by his argument then in some sense that part of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy really happened.

God: "I refuse to prove I exist because proof denies faith and without faith i am nothing." Man: "But, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D." God: "Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that." *God promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.* There, you go, he did recant his own existence... at least in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. And according to Jason each book has its own "reality" so that really happened in a sense according to Jason. EDIT: A small addition.